Some of you read my email to Ratto on Friday; he wrote back last night. I know salb918 also wrote an awesome email and got a response; Sal, can you add yours to this thread?

My original email:

Ray,

Just read your article "It's now official: Hudson trade just a big bust", and while I commend you on your artful negotiation of the facts, I felt compelled to add a little more explanation.

First off, any trade that was touted as a "trade for the future" cannot be evaluated within the first year. Tim Hudson is an established starter in the big leagues; his replacements are for the future of the A's. Why not wait at least until next season to start looking at the trade fairly? And while we're at it, you labeled Cruz as the "showcase" of the trade. Let's not rewrite history here. Meyer is and always was the key to the deal.

Second, it is hard to take your point of view seriously when damning proof refuting your claim is included in said article; granted, as a throwaway parenthetical afterthought, but it might as well be highlighted and circled. I'll quote it for you: (except for the fact that he just went on the disabled list with a recurrence of his oblique muscle strain).

At first glance at this article, I thought that your column might be all about how the trade was a bust for the Atlanta Braves, considering Hudson came with an advertised injury and guess what? He's on the DL again. Anyone in Oakland surprised? Not one bit. When you have a limited payroll, you can't afford to keep players, no matter how good they are, when they are regularly going to miss large portions of the season. Considering the state of the A's finances and Hudson's impending salary, Beane might have traded Hudson straight-up for one single prospect and he still would have come out ahead financially. Instead, he got three, and while Cruz has struggled, please keep in mind that it is June. We will see him again. And if not? Don't worry; Meyer is an excellent prospect delayed by a minor injury. That's not enough? You may have missed Charles Thomas tearing up AAA this week with some regular ABs, something he didn't get a lot of with Oakland's less-than-inspiring offense early in the season.

Bottom line: Billy Beane dumped Hudson's salary and got rid of a high-injury player; yes, a very, very good one, but one that only a more expensive team could afford to keep taking chances with. I know you've read Moneyball; you certainly take every opportunity to try and disprove it, so you should know very well that the A's would make this trade again. It was always a crapshoot; so is every trade. Unfortunately for the A's, Meyer was unexpectedly injured, Thomas is still finding his swing, and Cruz is currently a headcase. If the A's were rolling dice, snake-eyes has prevailed so far. However, the luck is bound to turn; that's why this trade is being so unfairly evaluated in its current state. As far as you know, Meyer will start next year on fire, Cruz will rebound in AAA and come up as the A's #5 starter this year, and "Two Buck Chuck" could be back up in the Oakland outfield in a month, hitting .290. And Hudson? How many times is the oblique going to flare up before his career is finished? You don't know.

So you can pat yourself on the back for taking another cheap shot at the Oakland Athletics. But don't expect Oakland fans to read the Chronicle when their favorite team is consistently landblasted during a rebuilding year, especially for decisions that were correct for the team. Doesn't Oakland have enough trouble without its own Bay Area sportswriters creatively twisting facts to "prove" their interesting, if not seriously misguided, vendetta? That's the kind of behavior I would expect in New York.  

Here's an article piece for you. Why don't you write the piece where Tim Hudson stays with the A's through 2005, is currently 3-7 due to the A's dormant early-season offense, and is now on the DL for an undetermined length of time. The A's have the same record, maybe a game or so better, but no future, not with Hudson as an Athletic, and with no one to replace him.

Sincerely,

Christy Hofmann
baseballgirl1976@hotmail.com

His reponse:

Okay, let me try to go through this again. Hudson was one of their most important assets, either on the team or as trade bait. What they have, so far, is two minor leaguers and a guy with a bad arm that is not getting better.

First, the argument that the a's would be financially hamstrung by Hudson is nonsense, given that both the new and old owners have more than enough money to spend what they wish on players. You are basically declaring that their budget is inviolable, and more important in any event than the production of a good baseball team; if that is the case, they should have just opened a bank. In other words, they don't have a limited bankroll at all; they simply choose not to spend money, or to make decisions based first on money, then on baseball, and that is how you end up being the Kansas city royals.

Secondly, you have to get legitimate long-term assets back when you trade a player like Hudson. I mean, they did it with mulder, didn't they? So why couldn't they manage it with Hudson?

And thirdly, what the hell good does it do if Thomas is ripping up AAA? Unless you are a river cats fan, that does you no good at all. Their value to the a's is as a's, period.

Could all this change? Yes, though I doubt it. This is cruz' third organization already, and meyer's arm problem is not improving, no matter what the public posture may be. In any eventm, how do you know meyer will never be right, or that Thomas will end up as some sort of glorified curtis pride? We don't know the future, only what has already occurred. Thus, as of Friday morning, when the story appeared, this trade can only be evaluated as a poor one, and yes, that means billy beane is not necessarily infallible. To say this was a correct trade simply defies all the evidence and logic available to us.

He doesn't sign the email

I am working on a response. Hopefully an eloquent one that politely points out (a) an injury to Hudson pretty much negates his claim of the trade being "poor", (b) he has a serious problem with Billy Beane, whom I never once said was infallible, (c) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AAA just a step before the bigs, where it would help the team eventually for a player to do really well there? and (d) as a Bay Area sports writer, his crusade against the A's is just really sad.

Wanted you guys to see it.

I just wrote him back Ray, Thank you for writing back. After reading your response, I can?t help but feel that I would like your writing a whole lot more if you would just come out and say what you really think about baseball, its finances, small vs. large markets, and the real financial interest of the Oakland Athletics franchise. Instead, you limit yourself to writing pithy columns scorning anything involving Billy Beane, the Athletics, their stadium, and their fans, without even ready giving more than a cursory glance at the situation in question. Let?s be honest; you never thought the A?s had a chance this season, so you blamed the Hudson trade. Trade away your ace pitcher and you?ll be lucky to win 60 games, you said. And sure enough, as the A?s struggled mightily through April and May, you triumphantly proclaimed: I told you it was a bad trade! What you fail to even acknowledge is why the A?s have struggled. Teams don?t play very well when their closer, shortstop, right fielder, designated hitter, setup man, and arguably their ace pitcher are all on the DL at the same time. Add to that a slow start by their power hitter and an abysmal start by the rest of the offense and the A?s were lucky to win 20 games at the onset. Would you have bothered to write about the Hudson trade if the A?s were leading the AL West right now? I?m going to say ?no?. They?re an easy target right now, in the cellar. Think outside the box, Ray. Right now, no one who was involved in the Hudson trade is playing major league baseball, including Hudson himself. So what we are now playing with is the future. Hudson?s future seems pretty clear to me; he is an excellent pitcher who will never again pitch a full season. The three or four months he will pitch will be stellar; you just hope that his oblique injury doesn?t sideline him more than once a season, and certainly not during a crucial run. Just so you have an idea, Oakland fans are not lamenting the loss of Hudson as much as you think, both due to the high-injury risk factor and the dollars saved. Your argument that teams can spend whatever they want is interesting, to say the least; baseball is a business first, and a game second. Do you think A?s fans enjoy the financial constraints of the franchise? Of course not. But whether or not you think they can spend more money, they don?t. So as a result, Beane has a dollar amount to work with, and whether it should or could be higher is really irrelevant to this argument. In your response, you addressed Hudson?s value to the Oakland A?s as ?either on the team or as trade bait?. I?m going to go all in here and claim that Hudson?s value so far to the Oakland Athletics of 2005 if he still played on the team, as of last Friday when your column was written, is zero. Take a moment. With the injuries and the non-existent offense up through April and May, Hudson would be lucky to have 3 wins, and now he is not even playing. Our number 5 starter could manage to scratch out 3 wins, so Hudson really would have been a non-factor this year so far. So, by deductive reasoning, you certainly can?t be talking about Hudson?s actual value to the Oakland A?s; you must be talking about his trade bait value. ?Secondly, you have to get legitimate long-term assets back when you trade a player like Hudson. I mean, they did it with mulder, didn't they? So why couldn't they manage it with Hudson? Wait, I?m confused. Was the Hudson trade for right-now-this-minute or was it for the future? I claimed it was for the future. You called it a bad trade without even being able to look into the future. Yet you wanted the A?s to get legitimate long-term assets out of this trade. Meyer isn?t long-term? Thomas isn?t long-term? You can?t know. Hence my entire point: It is impossible to evaluate a trade like this when you haven?t seen what these long-term assets can do. And as for Hudson vs. Mulder? Everyone, including people who don?t watch baseball, knew that Beane was looking to unload Hudson before the last year of his contract. What does that do for his trade bait value? If you knew a better deal that Beane should have made, I wish you?d share. Mulder was a much better trade chip, since the A?s did not have to trade him, nor did they advertise their intention, so it logically follows that Mulder was able to draw a much better deal. ?We don't know the future, only what has already occurred.? I couldn?t have said it better myself. We know about a reoccurring oblique muscle injury that is never going to get better. We don?t yet know about three prospects in the A?s organization, and their future value to the franchise. What we do know is that even if you haven?t noticed yet, the A?s are putting together the pieces of a fine young team built to play contending baseball. Rags to riches stories sell newspapers, Mr. Ratto. Why not be the Bay Area sportswriter who sees a bright future in the only Bay Area team that will see the playoffs in the next five years? Sell the Marco Scutaro story. Sell the Huston Street story. Sell the Mark Ellis story. Sell the Rich Harden story. But stop selling the Oakland Athletics short. Stop making up facts to prove your point (i.e. Thomas started for the Braves last year; Cruz was the centerpiece for the Hudson trade). It?s insulting, annoying and quite frankly, irresponsible journalism. You have a crucial position in a Bay Area newspaper, and tremendous credibility as a sportswriter. You could do much good for this team, but you choose not to. And yet, despite it all, I want to believe you are better than that. Sincerely, Christy Hofmann