He has got to be the lamest writer of all-time. I hate the guys writing.

Preparing for 06?!?!? Does 4 1/2 out of the WC and 7 1/2 behind ANA (With 13 games remaining against them) mean anything to this absolute idiot?

And how does the Giants losing 2-3 at HOME to the Cards compare to the A's going INTO Chicago and sweeping the team with the best record in the AL?

Answer - IT DOESN'T NUMBNUTS!!!

I open the Sac Bee this morning, and surprise, surprise, the A's are buried on Page 5 as usual.  The front page has the Giants.  I even got to read what JT Snow thinks about Barry Bonds' return, or lack thereof.  Very nice.  

OTOH, the A's sweep the best team in baseball (record wise), in a thrilling game, and this was all the coverage that game got:

CHICAGO - With the next three days off, the A's could reflect on their recent accomplishments that have put them back in the playoff mix entering the All-Star break.
They'd probably rather relax, particularly after a draining 9-8 victory in 11 innings over the Chicago White Sox Sunday afternoon that lasted 3 hours and 47 minutes.

  The A's won all three games against the White Sox, who have the major league's best record. It was the A's first road sweep since last August. The A's (44-43) have won 17 of 21 games and are above .500 for the first time since May 1.
Nick Swisher's RBI double in the 11th provided the game's final run. Huston Street allowed a leadoff single in the bottom of the inning before retiring the final three hitters.

Swisher's two-out, ninth-inning solo homer put the A's ahead 8-6. But the White Sox scored twice in the bottom half off Street, who blew his fourth save and set career-highs in innings (3 1/3) and pitches (43).

"Our goal was to get to .500," Swisher said. "Now we're one game above. It doesn't get any better than that."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/baseball/oak_athletics/story/13214191p-14057161c.html

Have I mention it was on Page 5?

Maybe the game coverage was so measly because the Bee also ran a short article on Lewis Wolff.  Yep, the A's got enough coverage for a week.

You are supposed to be a reporter but you came off as a know nothing dimwit.

1) You say that the A's should package Barry Zito for a Mulderlike package and then say that a Foppert, minor league catcher or 2B would work.

Hmmmmmm??? Haren is better and less injury prone than Foppert.

Calero is batter than any reliever the Giants have to deal.

Barton is a better hitting prospect than anyone thier organization.

By the way, barry Zito is back to his Cy Young level. If you think I am a homer for saying this, just ask Frank Thomas and his knees how Barry's curve looks right now.

2) Then you talk about moving Kendall this winter.

Have you not noticed that the guy is getting on base at a near .450 clip of late, has raised his average to .281, and has handled a young pitching staff that has a 2.47 ERA for the last month!?!?

Also, have you not ever showed up for any A's press conferences, including the one where Beane said in response to the money Kendall was making that he would like to see play out his contract and perhaps stay longer?

3. You compare the Giants losing 2 of 3 to the Cardinals, AT HOME, to the A's sweeping the team with the best record in the AL ON THE ROAD!
4. You say that the A's should build for 2006 then mention trading Zito in the same breath. Yet, the Ginats should hold onto Schmidt?!?!? That is so laughable. Just how would you replace Barry Zito?

Juan Cruz - 4 starts in AAA, 2.05 ERA, 32 Ks in 22 innings only 8 walks and an opposing teams BA of .187 ish.

Dallas Braden - 7-3 for Midland with an ERA around 3.00. Beane is high on him.

Jason Windsor - ERA around 2.5, with a 32-8 K to BB rate. You may remember him from his college WS play, yet I doubt that because you seem to think that we need a young catcher although Kurt Suzuki is one of the best in the minors. And Suzuki caught Windsor at Fullerton that year.

Dan Meyer - A supposed can't miss prospect, much like the guys you would want in the Zito deal. he is getting ripped this year in AAA.

I could go on and on, but it is just a waste of my own brainspace. Just let me say that your article today should have been about the resurgent A's who have the same record as in 2001 when they won over 100 games and that there is excitement brewing in Oakland that seems to happen every year about this time.

If you'd like I can ghost write your articles for you. That way you won't come off as such a dumb ass.

Thank You,

SaintOakland

please see the note BELOW your e-mail.

We'd like to run your letter (or at least some highlights from it), but we
need your city and your OK ... and you might want to send a shorter version.

thanks.

Writing off the A's seems pretty standard for most sports journalists.  I mean, its a young team that will go through its ups and downs blah blah blah.  What I find most confusing about this article is how he says the Giants could be contenders next season.  I think that possibillity hinges on a lot of big ifs.

IF #1 - Bonds
  Well obviously they need Bonds be healthy for at least a big chunk of 2006 to be in contention.  His injury this season is crippling the whole team.  Considering how slow his rehab has been already, should we really assume his body will hold up for a majority of next year, especially considering DHing is not an option?

#2 - Starting Pitching
  Uh... who are these starting pitchers that will enable the giants to contend.  If schmidt, who has had his own ups and downs, stays on the team (which i think is likely) then you have 1 solid top of the rotation guy.  But reuter, tomko, fassero, lowry have all had major struggles this year.  With the exception of lowry, you shouldn't assume those guys will make great improvements next year?  Maybe the thought is that with bonds around, run support will skyrocket... see #1.

#3 - Relief Pitching
  Before the giants aquired Armando Benitez, I recall a lot injury possibility in his scouting report.  And then he's out for multiple months right after the season starts.  Why should I believe he'll be healthy for most of next year.  And if Armando is not healthy, then Latroy Hawkins will again be a waste unless you find another closer so you can use him as the solid setup man he is.

So, the Giant could have a shot next year with a lot of good luck.  On the other hand, the A's will in all likelyhood have a more matured version of this year's team next year.  And I don't mean mature in the same way you would describe Bonds, Grissom, Fassero, Snow, Visquel, Matheny, Alou, Rueter, Christiansen.

The A's are quite a ways back from going to the playoffs. It would be a stretch for them to make it this year. As such, they shouldn't sacrifice their future (ie: trading Daric Barton) to get a solid bat for a run at this year's playoffs. We should be positioning ourselves to contend in 2006 and beyond. In other words, lets not throw away our future for a slim chance at winning this year.

Which is exactly what Beane has done.

If we can make a trade that had results like our Mulder trade, go for it. Dave is saying try not to make a trade like the one we did for Hudson.

We need to be realistic about the A's. Sometimes that means having to hear truths that are hard to take. But ignoring those doesn't mean those truths don't exist.

What I do take issue with is the fact that they are somehow high on the Giants.  Did we not own their asses 16-0?  Did we not win the season series and close them out with a sweep?  Did we not just batter the best team in baseball, while they're still floundering?

And that Zito trade is straight up laughable.  Jesse Foppert?  Lessee... Jerome Williams... Kurt Ainsworth... somehow I don't have much faith in their pitching "prospects".  I'm half expecting Matt Cain and Merkin Valdes to burn out and be out of the game by 2008.

When the A's were down in the dumps in May and there was all this ignorant critique that "Chavez was no good," "Zito will never return to his early pitching abilities," "the BB trades of Mulder and Hudson were a disaster," "Haren and Blanton don't have MLB stuff," that "acquiring Kendall was a disaster," etc., I supported Chavez and Zito, saying they would come around, I reminded posters that new players like Haren, Blanton, and Swisher had learning curves to make the jump to the Bigs and they would show their skills as they acquired experience, that Kendall was a lifetime .300 hitter and-like Kotsay last year-needed to adjust to AL pitching, and that BB's trades would have to be examined over the long haul.

Saint, I remember that in May, while I was defending the new A's, Chavvy, Zito, and BB's trades, you were one of those belly-aching. So who really is the true Oakland Athletic fan here?

But you don't have to be a fan of the city to be a fan of the team and clearly, I am not a supporter of that financially ailing-burg. Or, check that: those who really care for Oakland don't want to see the city expend its deficit revenues on anything for a new stadium. Shit, Oakland just closed its sole city jail due to lack of funds and, as everyone with any neurons functioning knows, the city has a high crime rate. If you wish to see the city spend a penny it doesn't really have for a stadium for a team owned by millionaires, you are just plain selfish and don't give a sou for Oakland.

A true Athletic fan who wants to see the A's stay in the Bay Area realizes that because Oakland will never provide a new stadium, the only way
to keep the A's in the region is for the team to move to either San Jose, Fremont or Sacto. Moreover,  a move out of Oakland to one of the above venues is the sole way for the team to increase the player payroll and not always lose its stars when they approach free-agency.

Finally, you don't have to be a journalist (which I am) to know that the Oakland Tribune is a piss-poor publication. When Bob Maynard was publisher, he tried to put out a paper which reflected news of interest to people in the poorer areas (a majority of the town's citizenry) and they didn't buy the paper. Now the publication is largely directed to the yuppie hills and by anyone's yardstick is outright appalling.

BTW, in Monday's edition of USA Today, a feature on Miguel Tejada has him saying that while, Baltimore has great fans who come out to the stadium to support the team, Oakland also has good fans who DON'T come out to support the team. Although I am hardly partial to Miguel, I guess that sums up my perspective conclusively...

Let me ask you, McFood: Did you support the A's in May, or like Saint, did you level unmitigated criticism toward the young team and BB's moves? I don't remember your posts, so I won't tar you with lambasting the team when it was down. But those who tendered relentless attacks on the young, injury-riddled team and BB in the early season are questionable as to whether they are true fans. These are the real whiners, not moi...

McFood, many OAFC members read this site and their queen regularly bullies her way into the media as the standard-bearer of THE OAKLAND A'S TRUE FAN PERSPECTIVES. They are thus a public organization, routinely shoving their noses into the media and, are thus, worthy of criticism. Moreover, I take seriously those who boast that they have burned books and even if they are posting on a baseball site, I will call attention to actions that smack of the worst of the Third Reich or Stalinism. If you want to know why the Queen bans those who disagree with her, it shouldn't take Einsteinian thinking to divine the mindset at work.

McFood, if you read my rejoinders to you and saint, they delineate clearly that I am not the whiner here. As I noted, I was one of the few who supported the team when it was going poorly.

And yes, I don't see Oakland as a MLB venue and even the venerated Miguel Tejada--as I noted--was discreetly critical of the lack of support by the citizenry for the team. The Trib is indeed a lousy paper by any journalistic yardstick and its sports columnists certified idiots. The city is broke, crime-ridden, and run by the most inept politicians this side of Washington, DC. Unemployment was high there even during the dot-com boom times and the schools remain grossly underfunded. As for the downtown, with the exception of Jack London Sq. and Chinatown, it is a ghost town in the evenings--one of the few cities where restaurants open for lunch close when darkness falls.

As for attendance, the A's are middle of the pack over the past five years despite some of the lowest prices in MLB and being a contender for the post-season each of those five years. The stadium, like the city, is decaying and even your pals at OAFC no longer think it's viable.

In sum, I want the A's to stay in the Bay Area. And I believe that since they will NOT get a new stadium in Oakland, the only thing that will keep the team in the region is either a move south or north to Sacto. If you would rather the A's move out of the Bay Area if they can't stay in Oakland, then--as with the OAFC'ers who also believe this--I have little more to discuss with you on this issue...

I can't believe McFood, saint, or anyone who believes Oakland should ante up public revenues or land for the A's millionaire owners really gives two shits about Oakland. With that city's manifest problems, the last thing they need to do is provide a subsidy for the rich. But of course, you guys must have your own little source of entertainment close at hand and so what if it doesn't go for education, employment, housing, police protection, etc. You won't have to go far for your little ballgame.

Now San Jose and Sacto are in a far better economic situation and yes, to keep the team in the Bay Area, I won't mind driving a bit further to see the team I favor. I am based in Berkeley.

Unfortunately, any move South or North would make it more difficult for the OAFC queen (who lives in lilly-white Marin) and her drones to get to the game. And it give the OAFC'ers press hero, Ray Fatso, lots to bitch and moan about. So an A's move to another part of the Bay would even work out well for those who live to hate...

Final question to McFood, saint and others who feel so strongly about the A's not moving from Oakland to either San Jose, Fremont or Sacto: if the A's move from Oakland, would you prefer that they leave the region? Because anyone with neurons functioning knows that the A's future is either in the southbay, Sacto or out of the Bay Area. There simply ain't gonna be any new stadium in Oakland. Deal with it!

Saint, I went to university in Ann Arbor and thus know Detriot all too well. Alas, there is nothing approaching a true renaissance in Detriot. Unemployment and crime continue to devastate the lower economic stratum, just devastating poor people.

Ditto the situation in Oakland. Those condos to which you refer aren't likely to help many of the economic lower income groups--far and away the majority of Oakland's residents.

Where I agree with you: Fisher and Wolfe bloody well should use their mind-boggling economic surplus to fund their own stadium. But as we have seen, MLB millionaires can usually snare foolish city pols into have the good citizenry pay for new stadiums.

'Course, this will not happen in Oakland and I'm pleased to see that you would rather have the team subsequently relocate elsewhere in the Bay Area than move out of the region--for that is definitively what will ultimately transpire...

Well, anyone who believes Oakland is remotely comparable to SF is deluded. There was tremendous affluence in the new Gnat owners and a civic sensibility which applied it to SBC (or whatever it is now termed) Park. From the time McGowen & Co. bought the Gnats, it was apparent that they were going to finance a stadium. On the other hand, Wolfe is not an E. Bay resident and has never shown any financial commitment whatsoever to Oakland. He has, on the other hand, invested a goodly amount in San Jose.

If you believe Wolfe and Fischer (who lives in Sonoma County and has despoiled his huge homestead environmentally, according to the Sierra Club and other conservationists) are going to provide their own finances in Oakland when they can get urban support elsewhere, hee hee--I've got a bridge to see ya...

Hey saint, win, lose or draw, I've been quite consistent over the years in saying that Oakland is not a viable MLB venue and is not a place most visitors to the Bay Area are drawn--and for good reason. Did you ever hear a tourist to SF say, "Hey, I'm going to make a visit to beautiful, picturesque downtown Oakland?" ;-)>