Billy and Hudson Talk

Billy knows baseball cards are the ones to keep

let's see, RH finesse groundball pitcher who has missed the past two seasons with chronic oblique injury on a 180lb frame. Hmm, even Rick Peterson can't conjure up enough preventive medicine to get rid of that.

I love Hudson and all but Beane has to do what's best for the team. He already has one bonafide RH Harden, and maybe a #4 in Blanton. Trade Hudson and bring in some pop please.

by suggy on Dec 7, 2004 8:12 AM PST reply actions

Finesse?

First time I've heard that said about a guy with a 93 MPH sinker.

by grover on Dec 7, 2004 8:27 AM PST up reply actions

finesse

Probably isn't the right word for it. But on the flip side it's hard to call a guy who Ks less than 5 per 9 a "power" pitcher.

B James has always said that strikeout rate is the best predicter of future success for a pitcher and Hudson's has been declining ever since he came into the league. GB/FB ratio is also important, and Huddy has that in spades, but sometimes you need to miss bats and the fact that he can't do that as well as he used to is troubling.

LFB 4 ever

by Tim J on Dec 7, 2004 11:52 AM PST up reply actions

All those points are valid

but his walk rate has decreased every year along with his K rate. He's one of the stingiest pitchers in baeball. His GB/FB ratio is also one of the ebst in baseball and consistently has been throughout his career. By Hudson's age, Greg Maddox wasn't missing too many bats either. I could easily see them following similar career paths.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 7, 2004 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

Missed the past two seasons?

That is probably an overstatement. Yes he has missed crucial games here and there, especially in the playoffs. But when he missed time during the 2004 season, that was the first time he had ever been on the DL.
I'm not saying that his health history is perfectly clean, but it's a helluva lot better than a lot of other pitchers in this league.

by davebenfremont on Dec 7, 2004 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

Agree

Rather deal with an oblique muscle then arm problems, his injury history just does not worry me.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 7, 2004 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

Kielty

The article also said the A's were negotiating with "arbitration eligible" Kielty. Why bother?

Just me...

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 7, 2004 8:29 AM PST reply actions

Hudson was very gracious in his comments.......

....unlike his agent.

I wonder just how much of this is due to Paul Cohen(Huddy's agent) showing his bravado to the press and prospective clients. Surely he must know that Hudson gets more money if he leaves Oakland, so why be an ass about it?

We live in a world where too many negotiations are played out in the media; both in sports and entertainment. The so called "court of public opinion" is still alive and well.

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Dec 7, 2004 8:34 AM PST reply actions

I love huddy

I think they guy has class and charm. And he can bring the heat. I will stnad firm: he is in Oakland next year. I interpret Beane's silence as silence. Nothing more. Thy guy has a hard job, made harder by opening his mouth.

by mikedaviswhereareyou on Dec 7, 2004 8:37 AM PST reply actions

I can't take this!

I am this close to doing something I might regret.

And the weirdest part of the article was Tim going on a hunting trip with Frankie Frank Menechino. Menechino with a gun? HA! I hope he handles a gun better than he does a bat.

by Jennifer on Dec 7, 2004 8:39 AM PST reply actions

frankie

why worry? if he shoots like he bats, he'll never hit anything.

by vk on Dec 7, 2004 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

He's hoping the deer walk him

by monkeyball on Dec 8, 2004 6:26 AM PST up reply actions

Hmmm...

Could someone fill my in on the rumors floating around involving St. Louis and Cleveland, does anyone know what players have been mentioned?

by nhayhoe on Dec 7, 2004 8:42 AM PST reply actions

Cleveland and St. Louis

The Indians are looking for pitching but there have not been any names connected to Hudson. The Cardinals have mentioned Dan Haren in trade talks for Randy Johnson, I'd have to assume he'd be included in any deal for Hudson.

by grover on Dec 7, 2004 8:51 AM PST up reply actions

Sure

Any team that is pursuing starting pitching has Hudson's name linked to them. Cleveland and St. Louis fall into that category.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 7, 2004 8:53 AM PST up reply actions

I saw that, too

I've seen some St Louis-area papers speculating on Hudson -- but the only Hudson-to-Cleveland rumors I'm aware of are the ones that I started!

And I'd still take Vic Martinez over Kendall any day of the week. I suppose it's not entirely inconceivable that Beane could land Martinez and flip Kendall.

by monkeyball on Dec 8, 2004 6:29 AM PST up reply actions

Nooooooooo!

It would be so sad to see a guy like Hudson, who has made it so clear how much he enjoys pitching in Oakland, go via a trade because of the painful business of being a small market team.

It sounds like he was backtracking a little now that he sees his agent's deadline hasn't forced the A's to the table, but instead has increased the trade talk:

"By no means was I trying to pressure them into that,'' he said. "I just wanted to let them know there's a big window to get something done.''

It's not a deadline anymore but a "big window". Uuhhhh.... whoops, eh Tim?

So, this means that if Hudson is gone, we still have a Big Three with two of the best lefties in the game leading off the rotation, and a spitfire young rightie throwing heat in the number three spot. As usual (with the exception of last year), our number four and five starters are question marks at best, but we have enough talent in the minors that I don't think it will be that big a problem. PLUS, with the offense we could get for Hudson, the A's could be a much better team if Beane were to trade him away.

I hate to see him go, but it certainly isn't a foolish move for Oakland.

by juan on Dec 7, 2004 8:59 AM PST reply actions

why use the press

Man, I DIG Hudson, and I don't want to see him go - I would prefer to trade one of the others if someone HAS to go.

That being said, I don't get it; if you're heart is with Oakland, why take the deadline to the press? Does nobody in the A's front office have a phone that he / his agent could call? I don't get it with these guys; the last thing you want to do is call a press conference, and put into place, a deadline.

A deadline isn't so bad, and I can understand the reasons / necessity of it, but not via the press. period. never. Not if you're truly wanting to stay with your current team. STUPID.

by catfish hunter on Dec 7, 2004 9:09 AM PST reply actions

If We're Dealing Hudson...

I really would rather not see Hudson go, but if we are goiong to deal him I say we take everything we want from the Orioles in exchange for him (the O's have the best fits for our needs -- right-handed OF bat, left-handed relief, left-handed starter, multiple 2Bs).

Hudson is SO valuable, we should be able to get EXACTLY what we want and give up players we don't want in this trade -- here's what I'd come with.

A's deal: Hudson, Hatteberg, Scutaro (?), prospect
O's deal: Mora, Bedard, BJ Ryan, Brian Roberts

A's end up with --

LINEUP:
CF Kotsay
C Kendall
3B Chavez
LF Mora
DH Durazo
RF Byrnes
1B Johnson
SS Crosby
2B Roberts

Bench: Melhuse, Ellis, Swisher, Kielty, ???

ROTATION: Mulder, Harden, Zito, Blanton, Bedard
PEN: Dotel, Bradford, Duke, Street, Ryan, Rincon

Obviously, our rotation is more vulnerable; but, adding BY Ryan to our pen essentially allows Rincon to do what he's good at (get one left-handed bat out). Ryan and Bradford pave the way for Dotel. And, our lineup is better with the additions of Mora and Roberts. From spots 1-6 that is a pretty darn good lineup, and Roberts sets the table from the 9-hole on the way back around.

Again, this is pretty much the only way I do this trade. We don't have to deal Hudson; and I'd rather play out the year and take our chances on the playoffs (and losing Hudson after this season) than make our team weaker before this season by dealing him for prospects or some scrub like Dan Haren.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 9:31 AM PST reply actions

No way in hell

do the Orioles do that trade. They're not going to give up one of the best players in the AL, their top prospect, the best left handed setup man in baseball, and a good young 2B for Huddy, an overpaid 35 year old 1B, and a utility infielder. Even if that prospect? was Huston Street, they wouldn't do it. I do agree with you that Dan Haren for Huddy is a friggin joke, but what you're asking for is laughable.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 7, 2004 9:49 AM PST up reply actions

I like your trade

But I dont think we can pull that much for Hudson, i think Brian Roberts would have to be left out. The good thing about that is that Mora can play second, and Swisher can stay in the outfield. Some people still don't realize, unless its one of the elite outfielders like Vlad, Swisher is going to be starting in right field.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 7, 2004 9:57 AM PST up reply actions

Iffy on Mora

He had a great year in 2004, I'm just not sure he can do it again. And you'd probably have to leave either him or Roberts out.

by grover on Dec 7, 2004 10:00 AM PST up reply actions

That one sounds horrible to me ...

Bedard has great stuff, but the guy can't throw strikes and with Zito already in the rotation that's asking way too much from the pen. It's an upgrade with Mora and Ryan, but downgrades everywhere else. Johnson may work out at 1b, but who knows, and you'd have no fallback if he doesn't. As long as we're dreaming, how about this instead, which solve a few problems in the short run, give us some hope for a stud outfielder in the long run, and frees up money for flexibility if things are not workingh out before the trade deadline:

I sort doubt Arizona would go for it (come to think of it, neither would Huddy, as it would surely require his agreement on an extension), but maybe something like it with another club?
How about for Scott Kazmir and Carl Crawford?
Dave Bush and Vernon Wells?
To the Giants for Robb Nen and Pedro Feliz, put Feliz in RF and the Giants pay Nen's whole salary?

by iceplant on Dec 7, 2004 10:01 AM PST up reply actions

... Oops

the Arizona deal was Brandon Webb and Carlos Quentin for Huddy

by iceplant on Dec 7, 2004 10:05 AM PST up reply actions

for a variety of reasons

no
no
no
and oops no

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:07 AM PST up reply actions

Fallback

No fallback if Johnson doesn't work out at first base?? Swisher can play 1b. Durazo can play 1b. Jack Cust can play 1b. Mind you, I'm not saying that any of those are ideal, but it's not like we're suddenly going to find ourselves with no one to play the position. First base is probably the position where we have the MOST fallback possibilities.

by iglew on Dec 8, 2004 2:54 PM PST up reply actions

not a bad idea

there are some questions tied to this though.

i believe mora made around 2.5 ml last yr. what is comin' to him next yr.?
i'm not sold on bedard. he was 6-10 last yr. then was shut down after throwing i think 130 in. in the mlb.
is baltimore willing to give up ryan?

i like the idea of shipping hatteberg out- at 2.5 mil he needs to go.

trading hudson is now tied to the budget. if beane can get something servicable then great but i think he is looking for mlb ready prospects.

phils howard for an example.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:03 AM PST up reply actions

In defense of Bedard

He missed the 2003 season following TJ surgery. He should have spent last year in AAA getting innings.

by grover on Dec 7, 2004 10:17 AM PST up reply actions

this is true

bedard had ligament replacement. i'd stay away.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

Mora no, 2B yes

Mora seems unlikely but a second baseman (either Brian Roberts or Jerry Hairston Jr) seems very likely to be involved in any trade, because they can't play the same position, and apparently the Orioles have a 2b prospect in AAA that will be ready shortly.

by jumperjh on Dec 7, 2004 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

Mora will be 33 Years Old by Spring Training

Why would we want Mora again? He had 1 good year, but he's going to be remembered as that guy who had 1 good year. I would do the deal with Orioles if it included Riley, Bedard, and Roberts, but I'd rather do the Atlanta deal. Either way, Hudson should command a King's ransom and if we wait until after johnson goes to NY and Pavano ends up in Detroit, other teams will overpay.

by jubjub on Dec 7, 2004 2:48 PM PST up reply actions

Mora

At this point it is safe to say he has had 2 good years. Both 2003 and 2004 he had over .400 OBA. Which I think to the A's maybe the most important offensive stat. Plus the guy can play all over the place, 3b, ss rf-lf, I would assume 1b possibly 2b.

I think just about any team would want him.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 7, 2004 3:09 PM PST up reply actions

I'll give you 2 years

But either way, he's on the downside of his career and I just smell "rapid downfall" all over the place. I think the A's might want him, but I don't think we want to get older to trade Huddy. He spent like 10 years in the minors before he got a shot in the majors and spent 4 years in the majors before putting together a decent season. Red flags all over the place.

by jubjub on Dec 7, 2004 5:41 PM PST up reply actions

Mora

I don't think that he would be the main guy in a trade for Hudson, the stories keep mentioning Bedard, I really have not heard much about him. And you maybe right that Mora is due for a fall off, but I still say he would be nice piece to have as part of a package of players.

His versatility alone would improve our bench, give us another top of the order hitter and the bottom line is that he is signed for 2 years (at a great price) and I don't think that his age would have anything to do with the fall off in the next 2 years. He seems to be a hard worker and it is not like other guys have not become better or good hitters after the reached 30 look at Ozzie or Vizquel.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 8, 2004 7:40 AM PST up reply actions

Nothinlikethetown

Note:
My point was that I would not trade Hudson unless I believed that it was going to make our team significantly better. We DO NOT have to trade Hudson. I'm perfectly willing to play out the season with our rotation intact and the offense we have right now, see if we can advance to the playoffs and let Hudson walk at the end of the year if that's what he wants. We have pitchers in our system and we can re-stock with the draft picks we'd get from Hudson.

So, if some team wants Hudson (and the right to try to negotiate a long-term deal with him THIS YEAR, before he becomes a free agent), then they are going to have to give up an arm and a leg to get him. You guys are proposing deals that are reasonable talent swaps. Fock that noise!!! -- if we are dealing one of the best starters in the game and giving a team the opportunity to negotiate a contract with Timothy Adam Hudson, they are going to have to give us everything we want. Otherwise, we'll play out the season and everyone can bid on Hudson when he becomes a free-agent.

We can't be allow our fear of losing Hudson to push us into a deal that's bad for this team. Again, the team we have right now can compete for a playoff spot; why screw with that unless this team is going to get better.

I'd do something for Vernon Wells, but I don't think the Jays would. First of all, Wells is locked up through 2007 and only making about $4M a year. Second of all, Hudson is unlikely to re-sign in Toronto, meaning he'd be a one-year rental. Riccardi's not going to give up his best young hitting OF for a one-year rental of Tim Hudson; especially not when he's losing Delgado in the same offseason.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 10:15 AM PST reply actions

i guess i disagree with most

...when you say trading hudson is not tied to salary/budget. therefore, i think beane MUST trade hudson. it's not a question of IF but rather WHEN.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

Of course there are ties to the budget ...

But there is no way we are currently over budget w/ Huddy in the mix. It just wouldn't make any sense for BB to essentially trade Huddy for Kendall, which is what it would amount to.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Dec 7, 2004 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

unless

beane knew all along he was trading hudson. then he could make the kendall trade work.

anyway, the only people who know are beane and his staff.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

I agree...

with you completely. We don't have to trade Hudson this year, so any trade we do make is going to be stellar. Any of the teams that have been talked about would greatly benefit from a strong starting pitcher (being that they don't have much, if any), and if we are giving up the right to use Huddy to make our WS run in 2005, then we better get compensation for that.

I've already said this elsewhere, but I disagree with you Bigelephant that we have to trade Huddy just 'cuz we picked up Kendall. That would be stupid, and Beane isn't stupid.

by LD on Dec 7, 2004 10:50 AM PST up reply actions

we can agree to disagree...

but we can agree that billy isn't stupid.

i also think he isn't afraid to gamble either. he's playing poker with about 60 mil chips. any way you look at it kendall takes up 10.5 mil of those poker chips...to big of a chunk for my liking.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

Fair Enough :)

by LD on Dec 7, 2004 11:00 AM PST up reply actions

O's

Mora made about $2.3M last year. He signed a $10.5M, 3-yr deal before 2004; so, he's got $8.2M coming to him over the next two years. Not expensive for a great hitter.

Bedard was shut down last year because he was coming off Tommy John surgery in 2003. The fact that he pitched 133 IP last year is pretty phenominal given that he had surgery in July 2003. The O's shut him down early to preserve his arm. Good for us if he's on our team next year.

The O's probably don't want to give up Ryan, which is exactly why we DEMAND Ryan. If they want Hudson, we get Ryan. Otherwise, the O's can stick with their horse manure rotation of Rodrigo Lopez, Sidney "The Hamburglar" Ponson, and three scrubs.

AGAIN, we are in the position of power -- we don't have to give up Hudson, so we tell the Orioles that if they want to really improve their rotation (and I'm not talking about adding some half-assed wannabe "ace" like Carl Pavano or Jaret Wright, I'm talking about adding the pitcher with the best winning percentage of any active pitcher other the Pedro), then they are going to have to part with the guys we want.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 10:23 AM PST reply actions

That's SIR Ponson!

That's SIR Hamburgler =) (Knighted in his home country - Aruba I think)

by jumperjh on Dec 7, 2004 10:37 AM PST up reply actions

Sir Ponson

He is from Aruba, but was knighted by the Queen of the Netherlands, Beatrix, since Aruba is a Dutch possession.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 7, 2004 10:47 AM PST up reply actions

Hmmm... Hudson in Baltimore

If Hudson has to go, anything that makes the Orioles more likely to beat the Yankees and Red Sox would be far preferable to, say, Hudson playing for the (insert name of hated rival here). Every game the O's take away from Boston and New York is a victory for Truth and Goodness.

by AlamedaAphid on Dec 7, 2004 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

Huddy and Miggy in Baltimore...

...Kinda reminds me of watching the Washington Warriors err. I mean Wizards of the NBA

by Gerard on Dec 7, 2004 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

well you're talking to bal

i'd be talking with phil: hudson for howard, wolf and cash.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 10:27 AM PST reply actions

To Hell with Howard

He dominated AA while Johnson was dominating AAA. They're both 1B/DH types who hit LH and they're the same age.

by grover on Dec 7, 2004 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

you're right

i forgot about johnson. howard did have 60-70 at bats last yr. in philly though. but bottomline is you're right.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 7, 2004 11:27 AM PST up reply actions

That's right

Ponson is from Aruba and he is Sir Sidney Ponson.

Maybe he can teach Hudson how to fold a napkin and Hudson can teach Ponson how to pitch something besides an 88-mph straightball.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 10:43 AM PST reply actions

Think like Billy

What about a 3-way or even 4-way trade? What can we get for Hudson that another team would want? He's not a trading card, he's a traveler's check.

kkd in napa

by kkdaz on Dec 7, 2004 10:51 AM PST reply actions

Yeah

I can't bend my mind around a 3- or 4-team deal. I'll leave that kind of complex dealing to Billy The Beane Counter.

Still, even in a 3- or 4-team deal, the only way Beane does this is if we come out of it with upgrades at 2-3 positions. We need to get 2-3 of the following if we are going to deal Hudson:

(1) a dominant left-handed reliever;
(2) a good 2B;
(3) a right-handed power bat in the OF; and/or,
(4) a decent #3-4 starter.

Unless we get 2-3 of those chips back, we SHOULD not (and WILL not) deal Hudson. Why would we? Beane has always taken a "win now" approach while building for the future. He will not sacrifice this season for fear of losing Hudson at the end of the season.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 11:32 AM PST reply actions

Beane will not deal Huddy

or Mulder or Zito for anything less than a proven starter and a big bat. anything less would weaken the A's chances to win the division and go beyond.

by OaklandSi on Dec 7, 2004 12:24 PM PST up reply actions

A good 2b?

Am I the only one out there still high on Ellis? I think we really missed him this last season. Is the concern just his ability to recover from the injury?

by ArakSOT on Dec 7, 2004 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

Ellis

I agree - I'd put "a good 2B" at the bottom of our list of priorities. Ellis is solid. The problem is, Ellis' recovery from his shoulder injury is going slowly. I'm pretty sure we can't count on Ellis to be healthy until May, and even that might be a stretch.

Priorities (if we lose Hudson):

Back-end starter
Bullpen strength / depth
Bench speed
Power bat in OF
2B

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 7, 2004 3:21 PM PST up reply actions

Hmmm

BP differs to beg... they've just posted their triple play on the A's, dealing with this very question:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3658

A quote:

"Swapping one of the Big Three for a healthy Giles could net the AÂ's about 35-40 runs at second base, an offensive gain of two to three wins over Ellis."

by ArakSOT on Dec 7, 2004 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

the article also says

that losing one of the Big 3 could cost the A's 10-50 runs over the season. sounds to me like the a's need Huddy (and Mulder and Zito) more than they need Marcus Giles.

by OaklandSi on Dec 7, 2004 4:27 PM PST up reply actions

Clev, Balt etc.

I agree that those 2 clubs have the prospects to make an interesting offer and one that could potentially improve our team.

I just have a hard time believing that they could sign Hudson long term. I think Hudson has had a taste of October and that playing for a contending team will be a priority. Balt. with Boston and Ny in their division would have to improve a ton to ever be an odds on favorite to be in the playoffs. Right now they have money to spend but really have not shown the ability to spend it wisely.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 7, 2004 2:14 PM PST reply actions

Agree

why are the A's negotiating with Kielty? Talk about disappointing. I didn't see much there,offensively or defensively. Is this a "stick with the blunder " deal.

by sommers on Dec 7, 2004 7:30 PM PST reply actions

Cy Young

Hmm...picture this:

A's don't sign Huddy by deadline, and he goes out and wins the Cy Young in '05. If anybody in baseball could do it, he could.

If the A's are really looking at the next 2 years as seasons where they will make a serious run at the title, it may just be that Beane is planning to get the best out of Huddy for the first of those 2 seasons. I'd hate to see him go, I was at his 1st game in the majors and we share the same birthday, but if it meant I'd get to see him win the Cy Young on the way to a WS Title in Oakland, I would be allright if he left.

However, if he had another injury and no run-support in his final year in Green and Gold, the taste and smell of "unfinished businnes" may grow strong enough to kill me.

by Force on Dec 7, 2004 7:48 PM PST reply actions

Huddy

It's good to see you back Force.

The A's will not trade Hudson to save money but to improve the team and save money.

Hudson will make six million $ this coming year.

The following year is in question. After Blanton, the next best starter the A's have in the pipeline is probably Windsor since Sullivan did not have it last year. If Hudson gets traded this year, they need another quality starter. A young offensive player won't make up for Huddy.

Save Huddy until the trade deadline or even sign him to a contract. You can still move him at the trade deadline if the A's our out of it, signed or not. If signed and they still can't afford him, trade him next winter or trade one of the other big three.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 7, 2004 9:32 PM PST reply actions

if the a's are contending at the deadline

...which they probably will be, why trade any pitcher who's doing well? this includes huddy, even if he wasn't signed to an extension and is playing out his walk year.

makes no sense if the a's seriously want to get to and win in the postseason.

by OaklandSi on Dec 8, 2004 4:19 AM PST up reply actions

The A's are over budget

And Hudson will be making $7.5 million this season.

by grover on Dec 8, 2004 7:55 AM PST up reply actions

Stop Dreaming

It is a 99% certainty that Hudson will be traded. I'm not sure a lot of the posters understand the financial constraints of the organization. Maybe we all want the owner to put lots of his own money into the team, but he doesn't have to.

by rsquared on Dec 8, 2004 5:55 AM PST reply actions

I think most posters ARE aware of $$

How can we not be, since the A's constantly stress their limited budget (which has, by the way, risen every year)?

If we believe Beane when he says that the A's plan to get to and through the postseason in 2005, then they must field the strongest team possible. Fielding 4 strong starters is more cost effective than weakening their rotation by trading away their #1 starter. Even if they get a big bat for Huddy that by itself would not be enough to contend with the big boppers, since they definitely don't have the $$ to buy enough firepower. Plus, doing so would weaken them in the one area where they DO have an edge: starting pitching.

Unless Beane can get a proven successful starter PLUS a big bat that also addresses a fielding concern, I don't see him trading away Huddy, but can see him letting our #1 ace play out his contract...that is, unless he's not serious about contending for 2005.

by OaklandSi on Dec 8, 2004 8:16 AM PST up reply actions

Trade Zito

Personally, I think Zito leaves the team either way (Trade or Free Agency). This guy has Hollywood and/or New York, aka Artsy-Big Market Cities, written all over him and Zito will definitely test free agent waters in 2007. Plus, Zito is a bullpen killer. He pitches a solid 5-Innnings, then he's very, very vulnerable. If we trade Huddy this offseason and Zito leaves via FA, then we will be left with Mulder, Harden, Blanton, 4th Starter, 5th Starter in 2007. Not good enough.

Trade Zito this offseason to save some money. Don't trade Huddy.

By the way, how does Radke and Wright's deals affect Huddy and the A's? Radke just signed a 2-Year/18 Million deal to come back to Minnesota. Looks like Wright will be signing a 3-Year/20-21 Million Deal with Yankees...Wright and Huddy had pretty similar years last year, and they are both 28/29 years of age...

A 4-Year/40-44 Million might work with Huddy.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Dec 8, 2004 9:43 AM PST reply actions

If you know you can'r re-sign Huddy

Do you still trade Zito and let Hudson walk after 2005?

by grover on Dec 8, 2004 9:49 AM PST up reply actions

Good Question...

Personally, I think the A's can, and should sign Huddy. So, until that doensn't happen, I would say no. Zito will get 8-9 Million per year, Huddy will get 10-11 million per year. Not a huge difference in salary, but I think you get a better "hometown" deal with Huddy than you would get with Zito.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Dec 8, 2004 10:08 AM PST reply actions

I'm all for keeping Huddy

I'm sure I've made it clear in past posts that I have no problem with trading Zito for whatever reason you want to come up with. There is no comparison in terms of ability and production (in my mind) between Hudson and Zito... Hudson is the better pitcher. But I would rather have two seasons of Mulder or Zito over one season of Hudson.

by grover on Dec 8, 2004 10:44 AM PST up reply actions