Open Thread
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 17, 2004 7:17 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintThe other thread was getting long and there's plenty to talk about.
209 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Reaction of the A's Players...
Among the many things I don't understand about this deal is the financial end.
I think it's fair to say that with Kendall at the top of the line-up and Harden, Mulder, Zito, Hudson and Blanton in our rotation, contention was a given, right? And if Mulder and Zito have good years, the World Series is a distinct possibility, right?
Instead, the A's are essentially punting on the '05 season. (That's why they play the games, blah, blah, blah, but for now, that's the perception of the players and fans, and that's going to impact ticket sales profoundly until and unless the A's prove us and themselves wrong.)
What does the average family of four spend at an MLB game? Something like $180? If this deal costs the A's, say, 300,000 tickets sold, that's $13.5M.
Wouldn't it be better financially to keep Hudson, compete next year, and see what happens?
You are absolutely right
by A s Avengers Dad on Dec 17, 2004 7:42 AM PST up reply actions
YES!
by IndianaAsfan on Dec 17, 2004 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Stop the whining please
The team had no bullpen, just a bunch of guys who throw soft pitch, and 6 of the 9 hitters who struck out over a 100 times. It never beat a good team in a series all year, Boston skewered them as did the Yankees, they were swept by the Cards, and I think the Cubs also. They beat up on a bunch of poor clubs and got whacked by good clubs. Even if they kept Hudson this year they wouldn't be serious contenders without fixing other parts. Of the group of pitchers they have now, only Harden has a chance of being dominating. They will be fine IF they get a bullpen together, and that is what Billy is doing. Let's be candid, the AL West is not the dominating group it was a few years ago.
by china bob on Dec 17, 2004 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
no it doesn't
The A's panicked that year, Beane doesn't panic.
by china bob on Dec 17, 2004 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
All Three Were Highly Regarded
Stein was a physically huge power righty -- and, if I remember correctly, he was the key player in getting Appier from KC when the Ape was still pretty darn good -- Stein just never panned out;
And Ryan Ludwick was thought to be a masher, and he's still in the minors somewhere
Wrong Ludwick brother
Players' reaction
Speak for yourself, Jeff (not that I have to tell you to do that!). I don't think that's what this means. Is it fun to trade Hudson? No. But Beane stretched the A's budget (and probably his better judgment) committing lots of money to Rhodes and Redman last year, we won 91 games (which we were lucky to do given our runs scored/runs allowed numbers), and missed the playoffs. And if the A's go into denial about the actual potential of the 2005 team, overspend again, and spiral down like the M's last year, then the team will leave Oakland.
Other people have commented in the last day that the A's are the worst team in the AL West this year. Look: if we're really that bad today, then yesterday we were still pretty lousy, even with Hudson. Maybe keeping Hudson will make the fans believe the A's are contenders even when they're not, and the symbolism of the trade will destroy the fan base. I doubt it. If Zito and Mulder bounce back and Harden keeps it up, we'll still contend this year, even without Hudson. If the Remaining 3 fail to produce, Randy Johnson wouldn't be enough to make the A's a contender.
I don't know if the A's will make a playoff run in 2005. But the players whose performance will make the difference there are still on the team. If Crosby, Zito, Mulder, Harden, Kotsay, Kendall, Chavez et al play well, the team will be very good.
And if not having Hudson as a teammate makes those guys play badly this year, then they're just not doing their jobs. We can afford to whine and have a big pity party on AN. The players have to go out and play their best, for the team and themselves. I think they'll take some time to adjust and then hit the ground running when pitchers and catchers report. For my part, I'm not going to sit around persuading myself that the A's have gone from 95 to 80 wins by trading Hudson, because I think that just isn't reality.
Absolutely agree
by Sam Dracula on Dec 17, 2004 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, totally agree...
For us, it is going to be like this for the future, and it only take matures and thoughtful players to understand how this could work.
by monteverdi on Dec 17, 2004 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
Well said
As evidenced by last season.
by baseballgirl on Dec 17, 2004 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
Except for Steroids Bonds
by kaweahkaweah on Dec 17, 2004 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
Redman
by Cutthemullet on Dec 17, 2004 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Billy Beane-Counter
Major mistakes:
Dotel: He is shaky at best. I have watched him for years as an Astros. Many times he doesn't know where he's throwing the ball. When he closes his shoulder it's usually in the strike zone.
Hudson: Solid pitcher. Should have kept him and tradeed Zito or Mulder. Wjy do you think the Braves wanted Hudson. He's now their ace. Enough said.
Zito: Possible head case.
Mulder: I suspect that he has a long-term injury. Remember two years ago when he broke his leg? Not much was said. This year he runs out of gas. Maybe he can't push off on his leg? Reemmber he was loosing velocity on his pitches. He needs an MRI. This could be serious.
Big bats: None. There is no stick. You won't find any power on this team with the expection of Chavez and the DH.
Team speed: Need to get some young outfielders who can run for defensive purposes and steal basses. What is this station-to-station game? This is not the '89 A's with Lansord, McGwire, Parker and Conseco. Is anyone paying attention?
Bullpen: We left the best closer go...Keith Foulke. Young guy with good stuff and plenty of upside. Worse mistake, even worse than trading Hudson.
In short, if the A's continue to be a K-Mart kind of team...they should be sold to an owner who can spend at least a reasonable amount. Even the Astros are willing to spend in the 80's.
If Steve Schott really cares about his product then show it. Put your money where you mouth is.
And he should be the owner pushing for "revenue sharing." How do the Yankees, and now the Red Sox, get away with buying the best talent with no spending restraints?
As for Billy Beane-counter...maybe when you think you are smart, maybe you are not. Perhaps it's a good thing to keep some information to yourself instead of putting it in a book. Right now, the Braves got the better of the deal. My gosh, the Hudson deal was just as bad as when Reggie Jackson was delt to the Orioles. Shades of the ghost of Charles O Finley.
A's fans need to call Beane's office...Schott's too and tell them to produce a quality team or take their act elsewhere.
by vidatrueblue on Dec 17, 2004 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Consistency
Zito: Possible head case.
Mulder: I suspect that he has a long-term injury. Remember two years ago when he broke his leg? Not much was said. This year he runs out of gas. Maybe he can't push off on his leg? Reemmber he was loosing velocity on his pitches. He needs an MRI. This could be serious.
So, you want us to keep our best players but maybe they're really not that good and maybe their careers will be ruined by a chronic injury.
You're calling the A's front office. Are you going to tell them to sign Zito and Mulder or not?
Crazy...
I'm thrilled that they are still in Oakland, thrilled that they are competitive each year, and thrilled that the owner is a sound businessman with a level head on his shoulders who refuses to lose tens of millions of dollars by paying out bad contracts.
What's it like to be a Diamondbacks fan? Talk about a bi-polar team. Spend to the point that your players checks start bouncing, manage to win a series, be forced to strip your team down before you have to file bankruptcy. Field a team 3 years later that loses 111 games, changes ownership, and watches the new ownership's first move be the hiring of a manager with a criminal record that they didn't even bother to check.
I'd absolutely lose my mind if I had to deal with those kinds of ups and downs over a four year period.
All the really old-timers will tell you that losing great players is part of being an A's fan. It has been since Connie Mack had to sell off the first A's championship clubs just before World War I.
Just like the Cubs have endured 95 years of not winning the big one, we are destined to groom great players and watch them leave. I've heard stories that there are loads of BoSox fans who don't quite know how to feel now - so much of what tied them to their team was the fact that they hadn't won in 85 years.
This is how baseball exists for the A's. It has for 90+ years, and probably will continue to do so for decades to come.
Diamondbacks
Please understand the Diamondbacks front office is made up of idiots with $ now and on the brink of bankruptcy tomorrow.
by Morada Mudshark on Dec 17, 2004 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
about the Snakes....
by bakedzito on Dec 17, 2004 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
So misguided
Hudson was great and the Braves did get the netter end of the deal. Today. Tommorow. But we'll have to see what happens in 2005 to really know. If Huddy gets hurt again and Meyer pitches in the rotation all year than, maybe, the scales will tip in Oakland's direction.
Zito's a headcase, but the girls think he's cute.
Mulder does not have a serious injury. He got fatigued and that's why he lost velocity. He says he's fine. The A's have had him checked and concur. Everyone who has actually checked and poked his body have said the same thing: He's healthy.
And the A's didn't "let" Foulke go. Boston had more money to offer and took him. Oakland cannot win a bidding war against a team with a $100 million dollar payroll.
Try $200 million TV contract
I have discovered in life that rich guys are rich because they don't make a habit of losing money. Steinbrenner can have a $200 million payroll and still make millions. Very few other teams can. I am sure we would all be happy if Schott paid $150 million and kept all our players but I for one do not blame him for not liking to lose money. If not for him the A's would now be in DC, or Portland or Vegas, and still have a payroll of $60 million or so. Do you know what the payroll of the '88 A's team was? They won 104 games and the payroll was $16 million, perhaps less. They drew slightly over a million fans. If the A's drew 3 million fans they still could not afford to increase their payroll by a significant amount. The problem is economics, it is a reality, life is not always fair.
by china bob on Dec 17, 2004 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
jilted again!
"Honey, you know I love you and you know I find you exciting and very interesting, but I've met an elderly man with money who cares and will give me stability and security."
by steve g on Dec 17, 2004 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
Let me ask you this
Sure, there's some punting.
In 2006 Crosby, Swish, DJ, Blanton, Harden, and our bullpen babies should all be better. And no one, except Hatty should be appreciably worse.
By punting in 2005, we also set ourselves up to continue to contend in '07 and beyond.
We're also not exactly punting, since this team certainly isn't appreciably worse than last year's and may actually be better. As I showed elsewhere, Mulder and Bazito returning to form and decent but below average performances from the back end of our rotation would save more runs than a quality season from Huddy. There's no way our rotation will be as good as it could have been with Huddy - but it will probably be as good if not better than last year and with an improved offense and bullpen, that should keep us right in the thick of things.
Damn Devo...
by kaweahkaweah on Dec 17, 2004 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks ...
Baby Steps
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 17, 2004 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Punting
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 18, 2004 12:30 AM PST up reply actions
good take
man, I can't wait to be proven wrong about this deal.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 17, 2004 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
BB did his best
Economics
The A's will have the lowest payroll in their division and the lowest attendance. Hully will make more in the first year of his new contract than he make in totsl for the years he pitched for the A's. Can we afford this? No.
Some feel we should have a new owner who would be willing to pay more in payroll. I don't see anyone stepping forward.
Thank God wqe have Billy Beane. If it is hard on us to see player like Huddy go every year, imagine how he feels.
Would the A's have a chance to will it all next year with Huddy? There is always hope but not likely. Why, you ask;
1. Huddy is not the same pitcher he was in prior years. Because of his hip strain he has had to change his pitching style to prevent physical stress. As a result, his strikeout rate has dropped and his era is up... and he still had hip problems this year. He has not been dependable in critical suitations.
2. Even befor the trade of Huddy the A's HAVE BECOME A YOUNG TEAM. For success they are dependent on first year players Blanton, Swisher, Johnsom Street, and Garcia. All appear to be quality players but are inexperienced at the major league level. If they play as well as Crosby did this year, we will be fortunate. They will have to learn and make their rookie mistakes.
3. The A's lost established power. They now have very little established homerun power from the right side. What righthanded hitter will the opposing pitcher have to pitch around?
4. The A's have not greatly improved their ability to drive in runs. With Kendall they have improved their ability to get on base, but who will drive him in?. The most RBI's last year by and A was 88.
5. The A's do not have a dominant closer. Street or Garcia may be our man but I don't see it in 2005.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 17, 2004 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
father of -
by steve g on Dec 18, 2004 5:34 AM PST up reply actions
payroll increasing?
With scheduled raises and Kendall $= $ for Redman+Rhodes+a 1-yr catcher (again, according to Billy), that meant that they had no $$ for a competitive offer to Hudson or to address the bullpen and bench problems (let alone upgrading offensively).
If I had known that the payroll would stay around $59 million instead of rising to $63-65 million I would have argued that a Huddy trade was more than a 50-50 possibility.
A salary dump?
by A s Avengers Dad on Dec 17, 2004 7:35 AM PST reply actions
The reaction, and the future
I understand the arguments for the trade. The A's couldn't afford Hudson after this season, and apparently couldn't even afford his salary in 2005. If Meyer develops into an outstanding starter, that will certainly cushion the blow. If Thomas wasn't a fluke last year, he will help. And, obviously, the A's needed bullpen assistance. But you don't trade away "this generation's Dave Stewart" and make yourself a better team.
We are trading for prospects. Meyer may never pan out. Thomas may have been a half-season wonder (and he looked overmatched in the playoffs). Et cetera. Or none of them, and Meyer is the key to the trade, may turn out to be anything special. We don't really know, and can only hope for the best.
A few other thoughts...
-- There's no reason to keep Hatteberg now. He's playing out the last year of his contract, and will be even older in 2006. If we're rebuilding, we might as well see what Nick Johnson can do. I assume Byrnes gets dealt, too, as it makes little sense to sign him to a long-term contract or offer arbitration. And do the other arbitration-eligible players (especially Dotel and Durazo) want to hang around?
-- The future of the rest of the Big Three seems clear. We'll be trading Zito or Mulder (not both) after the 2005 season for prospects. Beane will probably keep one in 2006. I doubt the A's sign either of them to a long-term deal. If one of the Two Veteran Lefties has a really good season in 2005, he will be as unaffordable as Hudson is now. If one of them struggles again, he will be too risky to sign to a long-term deal, even if it is a relative bargain. (Look at how much money the free-agent pitchers have been getting this year, and none of them has the potential or past performance of Mulder or Zito. The big-money pitchers this year have been one-year wonders, older guys, and career underperformers.)
-- I knew I would hate this trade. And I do, not because we got ripped off (that remains to be seen) but because we're giving up on the upcoming season while Beane makes it clear that contending in a serious way may simply be "unaffordable" for the A's going forward.
Just one thing about Seattle....
They could power the Mariners all the way to the WS. They could both be complete busts.
Isn't that a lot of money to basically roll the dice and see what happens?
Zito and Mulder
The A's will get no sympathy
The players now know, because Beane has basically come out and said it, that the A's aren't really trying to win in 2005.
Now the A's could surprise us all and the various rookies/young players could do really well. But more likely, the team will struggle.
Until the A's prove us and themselves wrong, what reason will fans have for going to the games? "Hey, come back in 2006. We might be good then," isn't a great marketing campaign.
It's easy to forget, because the A's have been serious contenders for the past five years, how Bay Area fans react when the team isn't in the race. They react by staying home. In droves. Sure, they will show up to see the Yankees and Red Sox and fireworks games. But otherwise, people simply won't go.
I'm not talking about myself, or people on this board. We're hopeless, love the team, and will want to see the various young players even if things aren't going well. But we may go less often too. And the casual fan? Forget it. They'll go see the Giants, who are a serious contender.
Giants
You were going along great up until you said the Giants are a "real contenders". That was hilarious. The Giants are no more contenders than we are.
by OaktownTribesman on Dec 17, 2004 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
dude, the got Vizquel!!!!
Never underestimate the desire of people...
Is this a good trade? In the short term, no.
In the long-term? We won't know that until the long-term comes.
The irony is that a friend of mine just gave me my Xmas present - a poster of the Oakland A's "flamethrowers" - all 3 of them.
Time will tell what happens - This could either be one of those trades that is forgotten, or the ones that we see forever on Sportscenter like the Larry Andersen for Jeff Bagwell trade.
by jumperjh on Dec 17, 2004 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Two Veteran Lefties and the Stud...
I think I like Two Veteran Lefties and the Stud better than the Big Three. To me, the Big Three will always be Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. But, then again, I'm a geek.
I got two timbales and some mascarpone ...
Of course, S, R & C only played together that one season for Yalta. And FDR was gimpier than Edgar Martinez (rumor has it Eleanor pinch-ran for him).
Had we managed to keep Huddy (or if Meyer or Blanton develops as high as their ceilings indicate), the appropriate geopolitical-historical (not to mention punk-rock) quadrumvirate would have been the "Gang of Four."
good point
i don't think the historical gang of four or even the punk rock group were quite good enough to be compared to our starting pitchers, even without hudson...
Appropriate analogies
As for Soso Djugashvili, aka "Joe Steel," and FDR, I think it's a matter of degree, much like with Zito and Mulder. Mulder happens to throw with his left hand, while Zito is what everyone would recognize as a "lefty."
That is great! I definitely love you guys!
Let's hope the only thing we ever have to drop is an F-bomb, though...
agreed...
by bakedzito on Dec 17, 2004 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
Except maybe ...
Ban the bomb
Actually, now that I think about it, Truman really does seem like a second-baseman kinda guy, doesn't he? Small, scrappy, decent with the glove, not much of an arm, line-drive hitter who occasioanlly gets lucky and launches into one.
What about other presidents?
Abe Lincoln: starting pitcher. The Big Unit of the Civil War.
Thomas Jefferson: slick-fielding third baseman with doubles power (somewhere between Schmidt -- yeah, the red hair -- and Brett).
Teddy Roosevelt: catcher.
Oooohh....
Washington: crafty staff ace, capable of painting the corners with his changeup, and blowing one by you in the mid-90s.
Andrew Jackson: brawling, heavy drinking 30+ hr designated hitter.
Nixon: Barry Bonds. A lying heat.
by juan on Dec 18, 2004 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
lol
yes, i know. i love mulder. it's true.
by tulanite on Dec 17, 2004 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
2005 and beyond
- We'll miss the competitive fire of Hudson. I'm really glad to see Kendall come on board - his competitive fire is a very welcome addition. It sounds like Harden also has this in his makeup. We need more, not less. Chavez, for all his talent, really lacks this, at least in his public personna.
- The 2004 team was deeply flawed. A makeover was absolutely necessary. 2005 will be a team with a lot of young players, a throw-back to years past. A year of seasoning will help for a 2006 run. I think the 2005 team will be competitive, but not dominant: the team is too young and the AL West is too competitive now.
- I for one am so glad there's something beyond "MoneyBags Ball". Throwing $53 million at a 33-year old pitcher with a 90% labrum tear is sheer lunacy, even if his name is Martinez. Seattle's spending on Sexson may pay off a year or two, but those last two years will be another drag on them. Almost none of these long-term contracts pay off. Only the Yankees can eat this kind of behavior.
- After thirty years in the Bay Area, seeing the glory days, listening to Bill King trying to find something positive to say about Shooty Babbitt or Dave Haverlo, I now find myself in Colorado Springs, where baseball is at 7,000 feet and a medium flyball is a home run. Believe me, life could be worse than four years of playoffs or an exciting second place finish in 2004!
- Billy Beane is an interesting person, having done the impossible not for one year but for many years. He's taken his reality and made it exciting. We've shared in that but it takes a certain mindset to ride this wave - welcome change, have faith in the future, trust in the best. If you want MoneyBags Ball it's the wrong team and you'll be endlessly disappointed.
- Enjoy the ride. Honor the great and interesting players we're priviledged to watch. Look forward to the next chapter in the baseball equivalent of the Perils of Pauline!
by As in ColoradoSprings on Dec 17, 2004 8:28 AM PST reply actions
as a fan of this team...
the chavez signing and the kendall trade increased my unrealistic expectations and somehow the a's were A) keeping their own at contract time by spending big, B) trade bad contracts for other BIG bad contracts-just so long as the player coming back is PERCEIVED as better than what the a's are giving up and C) god forbid, be spenders in the FA market.
three reasons why this is fantasy:
1. ownership. in the last 4 yrs. salaries have doubled. DOUBLED. i don't know of any other mlb team where the salaries have actually doubled and has had the success of the a's.
last year, and i just love this fuckin' phrase from his tele-con, beane states "this team was FLAWED". HOLY FUCK.... FLAWED!!! i take great comfort in knowing that beane and management perceived losing in the last week by 1 game as "FLAWED". i like the a's future with beane. i love that type of attitude!!
2. oakland attendance is pitiful. a disgrace really. 2.2 mil last yr. take out "freebie wednesday" or whatever the fuck it was called or when NY, BOS played and that 2.2 mil shrinks dramatically. the past 5 yrs' alone, the a's attendance numbers were middle of the pack. the oakland attendance MUST be top 4-5 if oakland management is expected to resign their FUTURE stars. this team needs more than 12-14,000 hard-core fans.
furthermore, poor attendance is not a justification for the next point.
3. economical reality. mlb continues to permit an unfair economical balance among teams. this is REAL. i wish mlb was at least like the nfl were EVERY TEAM must make difficult decisions to get under a salary cap. but it's not. therefore, teams like toronto, kc, oak, min, pitts are faced with these challenges while other teams "cherry pick" off their rosters.
finally, NONE of what was written here is new.
i'm only reminding MYSELF of these truths.
if it helps anyone else-fine.
I love your last point..
...and it makes me wonder how good the Raiders could be if Schott owned the club and Beane ran it. With the salary cap and revenue sharing keeping things almost equal between the teams, the best run organizations win. It's just that simple.
I just wish someone would tell Al that talent alone doesn't cut it in the NFL anymore. There's too much money, and not enough desire to win. Guys with a little talent and a lot of heart win today, not the other way around.
</end OT Raiders rant>
What Am I Hearing?
The fact that we at least got something in return is better than what happened with Tejada & Giambi.
Anyone who calls themselves true A's fans that cannot understand the economic position of the organization isn't a real fan IMHO. Sure I would have loved to keep Hudson, but life isn't fair and never will be.
I can think of 162 reasons not to write off next season. Feeling sorry for ourselves or bitching about BB or Schott isn't going to accomplish anything. I am looking forward to future with my glass half-full. Happy Holidays!
Miggy picky
Sick of it all
We didn't even get Giles.
Plus, we traded a HOFer with several good years left, for basically unproven talent. It's a joke. I am sick of banking on our farm team to save us.
I am grumpy today.
by Ryan Hadden on Dec 17, 2004 8:46 AM PST reply actions
We are better..
Reality
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 17, 2004 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
future
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 17, 2004 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
Players come out of nowhere..
I agree
It's a terribly sad day. This is supremely fucked up, and I find all the rationalizations disheartening. Baseball's salary structure is totally out of whack and is killng the small-to-medium teams.
Huddy is repsonsible for this too. What would it matter if he made 4 million of 10 million a year? Really? Not a freaking bit. It's just a number.
Hello? A number you don't need after so many millions are already banked. Does that number equal a team, a town, a stadium, loyalty for legions of fans?
Barf barf barf. I don't know how I'll feel in April, I love baseball and the A's, but I am so down. I miss Tejada. I'll miss Huddy. I don't miss Jason, at least, not after all the big stories lately.
sigh
Sell the team!
Sell the team to an owner who can afford to have a team.
I hate this philosiphy of not having a player to identify with! If there was one player who displayed the nad to how baseball should be played it was Huddy!!
Were just a glorified, successful AAA TEAM that will feed the highest bidders who are more serious about winning a series!!... The only difference is we charge major leauge ticket prices!
by green Suede on Dec 17, 2004 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
The Players Union....
They would have fit him for a pair of cement shoes if he tried to do that.
The Players Union will allow nothing less then each and every player driving the market as high as possible, at any and all costs.
Until the fans are ready to break the Players Union (and that's what it will take) then get used to things always being that way.
Both sides are wrong ...
The problem isn't that top Free Agents demand top dollar. It's that both sides do everything they can to favor the richest (or soon to be) guys.
The answer is revenue sharing. No salary caps - just a salary floor, tied to total revenue. The total MLB payroll would stay the same - it was a little over $2 billion this year - it was just be distributed more equitably among the team ... and more equitably among the players.
Significant revenue sharing, with a salary floor would mean that every team has the money to be competetive for the star players. It would also mean that there would be more money left over for the quality, non-star players. It would probably keep the top FAs at about the same level, lower the salaries of the next tier of star, but not quite so spectacular players, and raise the salaries of everyone else.
It would allow every team to compete, without ridiculously constricting rules that handcuff teams for years if they go after a championship.
This is correct
The league hurts when only a few teams can truly compete year after year. It screws legions of fans attached to the small and mid-market teams.
The players union has zero control over Hudson, other than to make him be in the closed shop. Unions do a hell of a lot of good in this country, and there never would have been a player's union if ownership hadn't been greedy, cruel, parsimonious, racist, stubborn, blind, obnoxious, unjust, and dumbass stupid.
Unfairness isn't the problem
Something like the NFL's setup with some guaranteed money but a large portion not guaranteed would help tremendously. The A's could have just cut T Long and not been forced to trade Ramon Hernandez. Could have released Dye last year and saved a lot of money.
by RichardP on Dec 17, 2004 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely not ....
And its not like the players have guns
We're left with WIngs
I would be feeling much better about this deal if we would have gotten Haracio Ramirez and Giles.
He HATE Me Joey Morgan Fan
by Misfit on Dec 17, 2004 8:50 AM PST reply actions
great analogy
If you really buy this analogy
Isn't it Zito
No, Zito's the one
A working-class hero is something to be
But -- as regards the long-term prospects of the team, if we'd signed Hudson, we would have risked becoming the Traveling Wilburys.
That's presuming Huddy is George Harrison, of course. I don't see him as Lennon.
But Zito and Mulder are definitely Paul and Ringo.
so because of big-league economics....
by bakedzito on Dec 17, 2004 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Hi Everyone
by LowBudget on Dec 17, 2004 8:51 AM PST reply actions
2005
We are what we are. A team with a lot of rookies and ?s.
At least BB isnt trying to spin this as a trade that makes us a better team for '05.
This was damage control.
I wouldve been happier getting the draft picks.
by Surfin in Santa Cruz on Dec 17, 2004 9:03 AM PST reply actions
2005 so far
Catcher: significant upgrade (Miller -> Kendall)
2B: small upgrade (Scutaro/McLemore -> Ellis/Ginter)
RF: neutral (injured Dye -> healthy Swisher)
LF: small upgrade (added Thomas)
Starting Pitching: major downgrade (Hudson/Redman -> Blanton/Meyer)
Relief pitching: unclear(Rhodes/Hammond/Mecir/Lehr -> Cruz/Johnson/Etherton/Harikkala)
For the past few years the A's have had great starting pitching and not much else. So far this offseason they've given up some of the starting pitching to improve in almost every other area.
And I don't believe they're done. I think at least one more trade is coming - my guess is Byrnes (and possibly Hatteberg or Durazo) for a #4 starter, leaving Blanton and Meyer to compete for the #5 spot in Spring Training.
I think the A's will be in the race next September. In spite of the Hudson trade, they may still have the best starting rotation in the AL West when the season begins.
by matthias on Dec 17, 2004 9:12 AM PST reply actions
May?
2B is a significant upgrade. We like Scooter and he had some exciting hits so we miss the fact that he was really quite terrible as a starter last year. I mean, what does it tell you that we brought in an 87 year old Mark McLemore to try to replace him?
In general, though, I agree with your assesment.
Bullpen is better
I heard...
by baseballgirl on Dec 17, 2004 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
I hate repeating myself
I think ...
RF
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 17, 2004 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
Sleeping it off....
BB did the best he could and I put faith in him and his actions. We'll be okay. These feelings of betrayal, angst, and fear happen every offseason. What happens in the spring, the A's are still good. I'm excited and everyone should be. Sulking in the past won't do any good. On to the positive....
Whats the lineup going to be like? Rotation? Bullpen......
by Utah on Dec 17, 2004 9:13 AM PST reply actions
"Best Starting Rotation in AL West"?
Do we get Cy Young Barry, or 2004 Barry?
Do we get first half Mulder, or second-half Mulder?
Do we get Rich Harden as The Stud, or Rich Harden The Inconsistent?
Do Blanton and Meyer contribute, or do what most rookie pitchers do, and struggle?
The range of possibilities, I think, runs from best rotation in the division and a competitive team to Milwaukee Brewers-style suckitude and 65 wins.
I agree
I agree.
Right now we're the true underdogs, and like Jeff says, we can go either way.
Let's root for a sensational rookie year from our new guys, a stellar sophomore season from Crosby, and a throwback season for Zito & Mulder.
As good as Hudson was, losing him or keeping him is certainly not the difference of this A's team. There are quite a few other players that will tip the A's scales.
by baseballgirl on Dec 17, 2004 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Most of you need to wake up
Zito and Mulder has HORRIBLE seasons last year. Oh, and has everyone forgotten about Harden? The improvement of these 3 players ALONE should offset the loss of Hudson.
Our bullpin blew 40% of our save opportunities last year. Guess what, they probably won't this year. We would have won the division last year, actually, we would have demolished the sellout Angels last year and won over 100 games had we had a DECENT bullpin. Our quality relievers to begin last year: Bradford, Duscherer, Rhodes. I don't think Rincon or Mecir deserve to be on the above list. So what happened? Bradford underacheived, so did Rhodes. Hammond and Dush ended up playing well, that is all. We picked up Dotel midway through and he played pretty well too. Overal though, the bullpin was horrible. Now where do we stand going into this year? With a proven closer/setup man (Dotel), a proven setup man (Cruz), and another proven setup man (Dush). Bradford can't do worse than last year, and he will probably regain his previous form, so I think our bullpin is the most improved part of the A's.
Oh, and our offense has improved too. Take away Scoot/Miller and replace them with Grinter/Kendal. What do you get? More SB's, more HR's, better OBP, better OPS, better everything. Combined with the fact that Crosby is 1 year older, Swisher is 1 year older, and everyone else is still around (except for Dye who was Ok last year, and maybe losing Byrnes), you have a pretty good offense.
I am very excited for 2005, and so should the rest of you so called "A's fans".
Hudson was my favorite player. He can't be anymore. That is how it works being an A's fan. Get used to it, quit your bitchin', and learn to have some faith.
by Cy Hudson on Dec 17, 2004 9:19 AM PST reply actions
I love optimism, but...
Basically you're saying: look at all the players who did badly last year, they just have to get better next year. And look at all the players who did well last year, they just have to do even better next year.
Well that's a lot to expect. Some of the players who had off years will bounce back. Some won't. And then there are those (notably Byrnes, Durazo and Hatteberg) would had uncharacteristically good years. Will they all be able to repeat last year's performance? No, not all of them.
As of today I would have to say the team's not quite as good as it was last year. The offense is better, the starting pitching is worse. Again, I think Beane will fix that and we'll start the year with a team comparable to what we had 12 months before.
by matthias on Dec 17, 2004 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
I love optimism too!!
I also agree that it would be unwise to expect too much out of Hatty. He's old and has shown a tendency to performance swings from one year to the next. Hopefully DJ will prove capable of being the primary 1b.
As far as Durazo - his '04 performance was right in line with what he was doing for Arizona until last year. It seems fair to assume that last year was the outlier.
Byrnes probably hit his prime last year and will be around that level for the next year or three. There is no reason to expect and immediate dropoff though and, given the fact that a lot of his shortcomings seem to have been mental, I think there is still some chance at upside.
I think it's pretty clear the offense is better. I think it's also pretty clear that the 'pen is significantly better.
The question is, how much will the rotation suffer?
Mulder should definitely bounce back and post something like a 3.3 era. That will save 28 runs over the course of the season.
Zito is less certain, but I think a safe guess would be something like a 3.7 - of course it could be somewhat higher or much lower. This would save 19 runs over the course of the season.
Now Huddy would probably have produced about a 3.0 era (keep in mind, this should, naturally be lower in the NL - this would compare to about an NL 2.7). We'll say his 230 innings will be replaced by 200 innings of a 4.8 era and 30 innings of a 3.3 era. This will show a dropoff of 41 runs.
Replacing Redman should be at worst a wash (especially when his extra innings are covered by an improved 'pen).
All told, with what I think are fairly conservative (though assuming a generally positive scenerio) numbers, the improvements of Bazito and Muldy would offset the loss of Huddy and the rotation should be slightly better than last year.
We have to assume a generally positive scenerio. Without that, our team won't be able to compete. We walk a tightrope with our payroll - all BB can do is give us a great shot at winning, if things work out as planned.
good evaluation
by Cy Hudson on Dec 17, 2004 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
You Guys are Drinking the Cool Aid
Zito remains a mystery. He has one super pitch -- that beautiful curveball. Everything else is average at best.
To be generous, the advantage we pick up at catcher is negated by the offense we lose in right field. Miller had a much better year offensively than a lot of folks are giving him credit for. We all hope Swisher is going to be great, but noone believes he's going to put up the numbers JD did last year, right?
Kotsay was great, but it was clearly his career year. To expect the same out of him again is a bit too hopeful.
And don't forget that the other three teams in the division are all better than they were last year at this time.
But the bullpen will cetainly be a lot better. And who knows, maybe Dan Meyer and Joe Blanton will surprize us all. But let's not count on it yet.
I'll let you in on a little secret ...
So, yeah, I expect our right fielders this year to produce at least that much.
The only thing out of line with Kotsay's previous numbers was his health. Last year's numbers were very comperable to '01 and '02.
It's pretty much irrelevent how good your team is in December ... Seattle is probably improved - but their pitching is still attrocious and there are huge doubts surrounding the wisdom of their two big signings. Anaheim is pretty much the same. Texas is too and they still don't have any pitching ... and there is a very good chance that what success they did have from the mound last year was an aberration.
Oh, and the point about Mulder is that his overall season will be better, regardless of whether one half is stronger than the other.
yep
The pen meltdowns last year had enormous ripple effects to the rest of the staff.
3B, SS, 2B, C and the bench (awful last year, Kielty never recovered from the Crosby takedown) all should be better offensively. I like Swisher's chances of replacing Dye's production this year, Dye was really brutal after that first month... way way too many outs. Byrnes and Durazo are question marks... probably the same, could be better, could decline. 1B I couldn't tell ya... but Johnson looks good as a caddy at least, negating some of the Karros lost days last year, and if Hatt is still here, he needs a caddy. Kotsay, fingers crossed, the same would be great from him.
The pen is already better, full season of Dotel and not Rhodes with Cruz added, Street/Garcia in the wings, Rule 5 Johnson if he earns it to ease off Rincon a little.
Of course the rest of the division is better too, but the A's will be a very very good team. Plus, the lack of starters beyond Blanton was the scariest part about the A's going forward. They NEEDED to get one more guy who projects as a major league starter. I'm satisfied that Meyer is it, I sure wasn't sold on Knox, Windsor, Sullivan, Bondurant, Rheinecker, et al as being good enough to make me forget Mike Wood or Aaron Harang.
CY Hudson
Question: The only thing i'm concerned with is the power hitting. Just Durazo? Somehow this needs to be addressed.
by Utah on Dec 17, 2004 9:25 AM PST reply actions
Root for the Laundry
I don't like seeing Huddy leave...but I like the way the A's run the organization more than the ridiculous Mets (Pedro) or the Giants (wanting to give 3 years to 40 year old Steve Finley). They'll have the oldest starting 8 in the history of baseball.
Just watch - Seattle will improve but not contend for the division (not enough pitching), Anaheim will be tough but not invincible, and Texas will come back down to earth and Buck Showalter will drive them all nuts. Meanwhile, the A's have 3 excellent proven starters, two young guys on the way up (Blanton and Meyer), Mecir is gone (thank God!), help in the bullpen, and a promising young outfielder in Charles Thomas. Swisher will have a very good rookie season, Crosby will continue to improve, Chavez will be Chavez, Kotsay will excel, we have Jason Kendall now...THERE IS A LOT TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT.
Huddy was always going to get his $$. He's earned it. For Chavez to whine about the A's after he got his $$ is hypocritical. We need to remember these guys are basically kids making huge amounts of $$ and getting whatever they want. They're upset now, but they need to be professionals and do their jobs.
In Billy I trust. Do the entire math on his trades.
We gave up: Redman, Rhodes, Hudson, Lehr
We got: Kendall, Meyer, Cruz, Ginter, Thomas
Not bad.
The A's will compete in 2005 and be fun to watch. We shouldn't be complaining!
I'm with you, j'
Let Seattle and Anaheim throw the big bucks at the big names. Fuck 'em. We don't have the big bucks. We just have to figure out ways to build good clubs without the big bucks, and that's what Billy does.
Of course I'm looking forward to 2005. I always miss A's baseball in the off season. Hell, I'd be a die-hard fan even if Billy had gone to Boston. They're my team, regardless.
right on...
i'm just as sad today as i was yesterday, but all good things must come to an end. the Swingin' A's, the Bash Brothers, and now the Big 3...it was great while it lasted......but billy is trying his best to make do with what little he has to work with, and i'm still behind him.
i wish huddy the best in ATL...
by high street on Dec 17, 2004 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
And that's why I love the green-and-gold....
Sure...in a perfect world, the A's and the other mid-market/small-market teams wouldn't have to auction off their stars to stay financially afloat. But this isn't the NFL, where everybody divides a colossal pot of TV money. BB has had many more hits than misses, and it's great when he outsmarts the Steinbrenners of the world.
by bakedzito on Dec 17, 2004 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
I'm STILL Pissed!
Gammons says we'll be "competitive". I guess that means we'll win games, we'll challenge people, we may even surprise some teams, but were looking at 2nd place IF our pitching holds up.
As and A's fan, of course I GET our fanancial reality and I understand the fact that loosing players, GREAT players is the norm for our team. But this doesn't mean that I can't still be hurt by trades like this, or letting guys like Tejada go. I'm sure most A's fans will pick up the pieces by Spring Training and a more positive outlook will be in place.
For now, I'm in mourning......
Read my posts ....
but I'm also very sad. Huddy was my favorite current A ... I really believe this was a good and smart trade ... but I can't help but sound depressed when I talk about it ...
That is the best perspective on the whole thing...
Byrnes, Hatteberg, Kielty, and Bradford For.......
MAGGLIO ORDONEZ C'mon now. Who wouldn't love that. The fleecing of Kenny Williams AGAIN! You know Billy is cooking something like this up. Let's discuss.
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 10:15 AM PST reply actions
Ordonez
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
That would free up...
If he'd take the 5 mil, it'd be a solid idea. We simply non-tender Byrnes and Chadford - Kielty makes nothing anyway, so he's not really an issue. The problem would be finding someone to take Hatty for nothing except mediocre prospects.
Could just sell them
by RichardP on Dec 17, 2004 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Well ...
You might be able to trade the rights to Byrnes for half a mil or so, though ... that'd help a bit.
Economic Realities
Re: the owners. How many of you understand that if Schott and Hoffman had not bought the A's, they would have been purchased by an out-of-town purchaser who would have moved the team out of the Bay Area. There simply were no other serious buyers...and for this, the A's owners deserve our eternal thanks.
Moreover, S&H said from the beginning that they didn't intend to lose money. Why are some so surprised at this? Are there any other current owners in baseball who have expressed a willingness to engage in deficit spending in order to field a contender?
Yet as bigelephant put it so well, the ownership has been willing to DOUBLE the payroll over the past four years and spend substantial sums on the minor league infrastructure. This despite appalling attendance regardless of low ticket prices. And poor revenues from TV where A's ratings are regularly doubled by those of the Giants' TV audience.
Then there is the predictable negative commentary articulated toward Billy Beane on this site, exemplified by jrbh's absurdity: "Fire Billy Beane." Beane and the ownership, working within economic realities (not losing money), have give us A's fan's playoff teams in four of the past five seasons. To have kept Hudson and his close to $7 mil salary this year would have not afforded Beane the latitude to flesh out the bullpen--a sector of the team which arguably cost the A's the playoffs last year. Nor would it have permitted the A's to tender the likes of Durazo and Dotel.
By adding Myers and Cruz (and possibly Thomas), the A's have given themselves a shot at the playoffs in 2005 and in all likelihood, helped themselves for the future.
Those who place the blame on MLB for the absurd economic imbalances in the league are right on target. Add culpability to the greedy players' union and you have the twin causes of the A's need to trade stars who become too expensive...not the owners nor the brilliant Billy Beane.
by reztips on Dec 17, 2004 10:42 AM PST reply actions
Just one disagreement
Second, and more importantly, the NFL proves that screwing players doesn't do anything except turn the league into a license for the owners to print money. The NFL salary cap, which is the only "hard" cap in the major sporst, increases player movement. Teams are constantly dumping good players to fit under the cap. Christ, look at the 49ers! A hard cap means more Hudson deals, not fewer.
Furthermore, despite screwing the players and having fixed labor costs, the NFL has done nothing to pass savings on to the fans. Think about this the next time you go to the Coliseum. Who extorts tax money to build their stadiums? Who invented Personal Seat Licenses? Who makes season-ticket holders buy 2, full price exhibition games as part of the package (that 20% of the total cost of the deal)? Who charges $30 for parking in the lot that you financed with your taxes? Who tries to stop you from bringing your own food into the stadium you paid for so you'll have to pay the NFL to eat?
Yes, the league with the hard salary cap and massive player turnover. If you think baseball fans root for laundry, go over to the NFL -- the league has turned it into a fine art.
That's not as much as I thought it would be
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 10:45 AM PST reply actions
sell the team?
To whom, exactly, should they sell it?
Why don't you call up Steve Schott and make him an offer, and then show us all how many millions of dollars a year you're willing to lose on it?
by matthias on Dec 17, 2004 10:48 AM PST reply actions
Schott
by Bleed Green on Dec 17, 2004 10:50 AM PST reply actions
There is no way this team improved
by bayfrank on Dec 17, 2004 10:56 AM PST reply actions
There are always "ifs" in baseball.
If they don't or if Harden regresses, it's worse.
And don't forget...
He did not play all nine positions and he certainly couldn't hit for power!
by baseballgirl on Dec 17, 2004 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Hudson
How?
You think Cruz and Thomas are goingto have that big an impact?
I'd take Hudson on the mound every fifth day, thank you.
Cruz could be a great setup man...
This Year
On the other hand if they revert to form Harden improves after another year of seasoning, and the 2 rookies just pitch around the league average 4.5 or so, which I think is all very likely but not garunteed we make the playoffs and have a tough 3 man rotation and a above average well balanced lineup to compete.
Stop Panicking Frank!
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 11:04 AM PST reply actions
The Darkside
Something stirring in the most wretched hive of scum and villiany, waiting to unleash it's evil presence upon the nation.
We and the players must resist the temptations of the darkside, for there is too much positive to look forward to, and we have come too far to look back.
I do not understand Billy Beane Palpantines' strange candidness for the acceptance of failure, but we should not be afraid.
Fear leads to hate, and hate.....
leads to the darkside.
Player's Union Does Share Blame
Yes, the owners are greedy. But they made their millions outside of baseball and are willing to accept the current imbalances so long as they can still make a profit in MLB.
The players don't need to make megabucks for playing a children's game. With the average player's salary already in the millions, do their incomes have to increasingly escalate to the point that a great game is thrown so out of kilter? How much does a baseball player need to earn to live well?
Imagine living without the wisdom and enterprise of Beane and the A's ownership. Do you know what it is like being a fan in Cinnci, Milwaukee, Detriot, Pittsburgh, etc. There are great fans in those longtime MLB cities, among others, and because players' salaries are so high, the likelihood of them enjoying a contender are none-too-high.
As for the NFL screwing its players, I'd be hardpressed to believe that the salaries football players make could be considered "exploitation." Quite the contrary. And sure, the owners make megabucks and some terrific players regularly move elsewhere. But the parity in the league stemming from a salary cap has made it possible for fans in virtually every NFL city to either enjoy a winning team or project the possibility of one in the near future.
Moreover, an astute football GM can use that parity to his team's advantage. Which is what it should be...intelligence reaping rewards. Were Billy Beane a football man and NFL GM, I have no doubt he would consistently produce championship teams.
As for the 49'ers, they reflect the disaster which results from fools in both the ownership and administrative sector. Ditto the Raiders (especially in the realm of ownership).
by reztips on Dec 17, 2004 11:19 AM PST reply actions
Not at all
by RichardP on Dec 17, 2004 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
I'll try to address all these points.
You can say that about anyone. Does Tom Cruise need to make $20 million a movie (no, but the Church of Scientology sure likes that he does!)? Players are paid what they're paid because MLB generates enormous revenue and the players are organized to force their bosses to share the profits with them. It's that simple. And if the players don't get paid that money, it just stays in the owners' pockets. See my earlier comments on how the NFL's salary cap has done nothing to make pro football affordable for fans.
As for the NFL screwing its players, I'd be hardpressed to believe that the salaries football players make could be considered "exploitation." Quite the contrary. And sure, the owners make megabucks and some terrific players regularly move elsewhere. But the parity in the league stemming from a salary cap has made it possible for fans in virtually every NFL city to either enjoy a winning team or project the possibility of one in the near future.
These are two different issues. You don't measure exploitation just by looking at a person's salary. You look at their working conditions as a whole, and you look at how much money their labor generates for their bosses. Pro football is an unbelievably violent and dangerous sport. Most players have gotten to the NFL by essentially playing for free in college while NCAA sleazebags moralize about scholar athletes while they pocket huge salaries. Then they fight like hell to enter a profession where they'll probably suffer injuries that will affect them for the rest of their lives and play for maybe 4 or 5 years. They sign contracts that they need to live up to but can be "restructured" by the boss, or they can be cut. And they get paid far less than other professional athletes, despite the fact that the NFL is incredibly profitable. If the players had any backbone as a group they could take on the boss and win better working conditions and more of the obscene profits of the league. Unfortunately, they scabbed their last strike in large numbers, with stars stabbing their teammates in the back to make a few bucks. Sick and selfish.
Now, on competitiveness, it's true that success is much more randomly distributed in the NFL. But the reason isn't that every team can act like the Yankees. It's because every team gets to be the A's, or even the Royals, unable to resign very many of their own talented players, constantly dumping guys and replacing them with other players. Is that what we want? That is, a salary cap wouldn't reduce transactions like the Huddy trade, it would increase them. It's just that everyone would be in the same boat with us. I guess misery loves company, huh?
And look at the empircal evidence of baseball history. Back when the owners ran the entire show, there was even less competition than now! The Yankees won virtually every year, the Phillies, A's, Browns, Braves, Senators, White Sox, Cubs sucked for decades. Baseball opened up when the players started getting some power.
In addition, the optimism of NFL teams is also due to the larger playoff pool in the NFL, meaning most successful teams get to go. Not the case in baseball.
Lastly, on virtue rewarded: NFL profit-sharing means rewarding owners for being in the club. The Yorks are probably going to make money off the 49ers this year. Does that make sense?
The owners want 2 things. Money and power. To the extent that the success of the game has some impact on that, it interests them. But make no mistake: a salary cap is not about making baseball better for you or me or the average player or anyone else. It's about making it better for the owners. Period.
Huddy's press conference
on the greedy players' union
Don't forget about the enigma that is Adrian Beltre, gets 60-odd mil from the M's after in his contract year he puts up huge numbers which before had him in the low 20s in HRs and 90 RBIs. Overpaid too. Lest we forget in all this melee of FA signings of the agent's cut... Scott Boras doesn't just do this for free you know? So while he sits there counting his share of Beltre's and Beltran's salaries, rest-assured he cares little that him and other like-minded agents make the grand ol' game that much less grand for everyone.
Back to the issue at hand though, someone else said Huddy isn't blameless and indeed this is true. Him and Cohen (his agent, no?) had to have known that when the A's are given an ultimatum like that, they don't react favorably. He might as well have slapped a big "trade me" sign on Billy Beane's office door when he gave that ultimatum. Listening to Hudson's reaction was a little apalling to be honest, for him to be saying it sucks and how he wanted to stay. "Be careful what you wish for" is what I always say.
Also, bottom line is that Tim Hudson cares about winning more than anything else. You could always see it manifested in his competitiveness and fire, and he had to have been tired of seeing us fall short. Now, we may be admitted playoff chokers ourselves, but where's he going again? Oh that's right, Atlanta. 14 straight division titles and one WS to show for it. I, for one, wonder whether he realizes this. Again, "be careful..."
I'm hoping we prove everyone wrong myself, because I'd love to see us be like the 2000 team that no one expected to do well and we won the division on the last day. I can't see Harden going back to wild mode, and regardless, he throws some serious gas (somewhere I read his average pitch speed was an MLB high), and I can't see Mulder sucking like he did again. Mulder thinks too highly of himself to suck. By trading Tim, we can also tender Byrnes, Durazo, and Bradford. Kielty is the odd man out, which is okay by me so Swisher can play. We sitll have a good nucleus, it's just more even rather than focused solely on the big three. Besides, having all them didn't do jack for us last year, so maybe this is an upgrade in disguise.
Cares
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 18, 2004 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
Our power hitting
Kotsay: 15
Kendall: 5
Chavez: 30 (probably would've hit 40 had he not been injured)
Durazo: 20
Crosby: 20
Byrnes: 20
Ginter: 18 (?)
Hattie: 15
Swisher: not many, but he does have power. Let's give him 15 for next year. Or, we plug in Thomas for a full season at 15.
Our HR totals are 158, which is not bad.
Call me crazy
...but I'm looking forward to a team that has great speed and great defense. The OBP will be much higher next year -- and now pitchers will actually have to hold runners.
Look for team batting average to be at least ten points higher than last year. And defense to be best or near best in the league. Which in turn will keep ERAs at a manageable level.
Still psyched for 05. Everything will be fine. And the offense won't be the hellaciously boring "pray for somebody to be on base when Erubiel comes up" that it was most of last year.
by KingOfAmerica on Dec 17, 2004 12:54 PM PST reply actions
i don't know
it's not so much the BA...
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 18, 2004 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
if the A's are around .500 or better in July
our rivals have spent $$ but that doesn't guarantee that they will be injury-free (Sexson), that they will produce like they did last year (Beltre), that they won't finally get old (Finley), or that they will have enough starting pitching to win the division (Angels, Mariners, Rangers).
Kendall and the new position players from Milwaukee and Atlanta are all hard-nosed energetic competitive-type players, which the A's really need.
I mourned Huddy's departure yesterday. Now I'm ready to continue to support this ever-changing but ever competitive A's team.
That a baby!!!!
Here here oaklandsi and kingofamerica and devo
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 1:18 PM PST reply actions
The reason this is such a good deal ...
It makes it less likely that we win this year. But even with a dominating team (which we wouldn't have had), the odds of actually winning it all are only something like 20% (that's after you make the playoffs).
If you put together a consistently good team that will make the playoffs 4 of the next 6 years, it might have, let's say a 10% chance of taking it all each time it makes it ... 4*10 = 40% ... those are about as good of odds as we can hope for ...
more math
By your math, if we go to the playoffs eleven times and have a 10% chance of taking it all each time, it makes 11*10 = 110% chance of winning the World Series at least once. Obviously, that's not right.
In fact, four times to the playoffs with 10% chance each time equals 34.39% chance of winning it all at least once. Still not bad.
My take on Beane's thinking
This makes me think Beane does not intend to trade either Mulder or Zito before his contract is up (whether Beane plans to try to sign one or both to extensions, or let them walk, is anybody's guess), that he hopes to contend in 2005, and that has hopes of peaking in 2006, when he figures...
Harden (3rd full year) will be a Cy-Young-award caliber pitcher and Crosby (3rd full year) will have reached his high potential, Mulder and Zito will still be around, Blanton and Meyer will have had a full year's experience, two of three out of Street, Garcia, Mabeus, along with Swisher, may excel by their second-year, and the A's will still have Kendall, Kotsay, Chavez, et. al. anchoring the lineup.
That makes 2005 anything from, at worst, an exciting rebuilding year to, at best, a contending year--all depending on how many of the young guys are ready to succeed in 2005 vs. how many need a "growing pains" year to thrive in 2006.
And when you look at it from that point of view, it's suddently pretty damn exciting, in my opinion.
I know that once or twice ...
But I thought this might be a good time to mention it again ...
Instead I decided to be humble and not try to steer accolades towards myself.
I loved the '99 club...
The 2005 season is shaping up to be a lot like that one.
If nothing else, I'm excited about that.
Excellent point
Hudson
Could have off set a portion of his 6.5 by doubling the dollardog price.
What's Joe Morgan going to say about this?
by kmonaco on Dec 17, 2004 1:56 PM PST reply actions
Huddy punched his own ticket
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 2:40 PM PST reply actions
It's a good trade
Looked at this way, the trade is a no-brainer.
The A's have had good-to-great pitching the last four years and declining run production. Fielding has improved a lot, but the worst thing has been the run production drop.
The Really Big Question for next year (and 2006) is and was: will Zito and Muldur bounce back? Hudson was good for one year max, 12-6 if injured, 18-4 if not. If Zito and Muldur can't come back, then 2005 is toast, whether Hudson stayed or left.
Face it: the next generation of pitchers is needed, as soon as possible, and before decisions on Mulder and Zito have to be made. Let's get candidates in. If the New Three all show Big Three-like action, the decision on whether to extend Muldur and/or Zito is very different than if the New Three flop.
Either way, more run production is needed -- and I think we're on the way to getting it, at C, at 2B, at SS (2nd year of Crosby.) Now there is LF, RF, 1B and DH to look at. And BB has an extra $6.5M to use here, or with the bullpen. (Where, it seems to me, the middle innings crew has been strengthened, or at least made more resilient.)
Things are coming together.
Dinger
by dingerpower on Dec 17, 2004 3:04 PM PST reply actions
Add more money...
Wow Diskus
by mitche82865 on Dec 17, 2004 4:08 PM PST reply actions
yeah..
The worst for me was Giambi leaving ...
I know, I know, "aren't you glad we didn't re-sign him." Whatever. I just wish we'd won that flippin' ALDS; and that was as close as ANY player has come to being untouchable in the Moneyball era here in Oakland. One MVP season, a follow-up year in which he wins runner-up and the A's win 102 games.
And the A's haven't been the same since. They've gotten AS CLOSE in the postseason, against Boston. And they did kinda sorta win 20 games in a row. But they have never recaptured the offensive dominance of that 2001 team.
What I'm saying is that while realistically, the teams with the deeper pockets or the less-stingy owners spend more, I also think that a team almost has to EARN THE RIGHT TO SPEND BY WINNING. That's what the A's failed to do most dramatically in 2001, and nobody has come as close to Giambi has to the status of untouchable. The Big Three as a group were perhaps untouchable through 2003, but they lost that aura last year, and they were so "touchable" as a group that maybe they had to be broken up.
So I dunno, that's what I get to thinking when I hear so many moans and groans about the A's not spending enough money. I want the A's to sign a big expensive contract--to celebrate having won a playoff series! And if the A's won a playoff series and then went salary-dumping, well THEN I'd be pissed.
And if Steve Schott picked a time to turn all magnanimous and to start handing out $10 million contracts to re-sign everyone, well that would be a bit questionable at this point in time. Last year was "flawed." I like that we're shaking things up. I hope we're not even done yet. Go A's!
Back-of-the-rotation inflation
It's admittedly facile to say that "starting pitching is currently over-valued," but that's really what we're looking at here.
Of course, if it is over-valued, then ... well, we probably should have gotten more than we did for Hudson.
Turn to the left?
The only argument I can see for doing this deal sooner rather than later (in the off-season, that is), is that potential suitors could have simply loaded up their rotations with the remaining FAs. But that still doesn't hold water for me, because Hudson is more valuable and a better bargain than any of the available FAs, signed or unsigned.
selective memory????
personally, i thought it was smart. why let another team set hudson's value? right?
however, it probably diminished beane's trading options and potential return value.
Two sets of values
The other, higher cost, is for 5 fabulous years with little or no money down!
Beane didn't have to let every team interested in Huddy negotiate an extension, only the 2-3 finalists.
Precisely
But as grover points out, the ideal plan would have been to bring in a limited number of folks to negotiate in a 2- or 3-stage process.
Compassion?
But I agree this hand could have been played better.
Welcome to the new world of baseball
As a youth I was a fan of the 70's A's and at age 13 they A's lost Bando, Campy, Baylor...and my number one Fingers. It is a hard thing to learn about at age 13 that Baseball and Free Agents and they players get paid and that maybe they do not want to stay with the A's. The Joy of having your 2nd baseman get traded for 6 minor leaguer (ok some were in the majors, but i am on a roll) The highs and the lows.
What I am trying to say is that this is what you get being a MLB fan. You get the good and the bad. The sooner that you understand that sometime this shit happens in todays baseball the easier it is to get past it. Sorry
We still have Chavie signed
by kaweahkaweah on Dec 18, 2004 8:12 AM PST up reply actions
You're right Rubin
by oaklandjoe on Dec 17, 2004 10:20 PM PST reply actions
aces
Aces
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 18, 2004 12:47 AM PST reply actions
Wasn't the book completed already?
We all know that the "Artists formerly known as the Big 3" or simply "HMZ" are...well, uh...a big part of the book, but I wonder if Beane makes a signifigant contribution?
Diskus..
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 18, 2004 11:35 AM PST reply actions
What If?
by rsquared on Dec 18, 2004 11:48 AM PST reply actions
greenwald for only 20-25?
by redclay22 on Dec 18, 2004 2:29 PM PST reply actions
delay
It's TiVo for cheapskates!
But, yeah, I'm with you on Unkle Hank.
AAAUUGGHH!!!!
The Oakland Athletics continued to wheel and deal Saturday, sending starting pitcher Mark Mulder to the St. Louis Cardinals for pitchers Danny Haren, Kiko Calero and catcher Daric Barton, ESPN's Peter Gammons has learned....
by matthias on Dec 18, 2004 4:38 PM PST reply actions
It's a real *story*
by matthias on Dec 18, 2004 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
I want to hear...
by matthias on Dec 18, 2004 4:43 PM PST reply actions
Not to tear open old wounds
Holy Fuck,
It is real.
Holy fuck.
Yep yep
by matthias on Dec 18, 2004 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
Remember When I Said A Couple of Days Ago...
I'm telling you, I can smell the sausage on the grill.
Before you sausage yourself into oblivion
what the hell is going on here?
The Rat just said, "this is awful...a clear message that the A's are out of the game for awhile."
I need a drink...
by bakedzito on Dec 18, 2004 5:08 PM PST up reply actions
WOW
by Utah on Dec 18, 2004 5:15 PM PST reply actions
Media and Maybe Most Posters...
by rsquared on Dec 18, 2004 5:23 PM PST reply actions
Oh no!
It may be a business, but it's also about heart and chemistry and character. I could live with the Hudson trade, but, somehow, Mulder represented a maturity and class that meant much more than his talent. At a deeper level, there was a glue that held this team together, and the glue has dissolved.
Regardless of what may have been gained, I don't know if the team will have the character that has exemplified it in the past. I don't know how the players are handling it...but they can't be feeling confident in management.
I've always thought that the Giants worked...and the A's played. Kids who had a great time, who loved each other, and whose exuberance for the game and for the team rubbed off on the fans. I just don't know if that exists anymore.
Does anybody know anything to help us feel better (aside from the cold, hard logic of dollars and cents)?
by kimnjerry on Dec 18, 2004 5:33 PM PST reply actions
here's a thought...
Heck, I'll tell you, I would rather deal with the uncertainty of being nervous about how Meyer, Blanton, Haren, etc. will do instead of having to pray that we could salvage a game once our starters left the game.
by Rangla on Dec 19, 2004 9:05 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
