a little ESPN love (sorta)
According to Stark, the A's are the American League's third most improved team.
Number two under the Best Free Agents, 2 Million and under, Stark writes:
"2. A's guarantee $500,000 to Frank Thomas, a guy who got just 101 at-bats last year -- and still hit as many homers (11) as all the Oakland DHs combined."
He then rips us for signing Loaiza for three years, citing his .306 opponents batting average on the road.
Then there's this:
3. Mac Suzuki (A's): Not to suggest it's been a while since Suzuki won a game in the big leagues. But his last win was so long ago (Aug. 23, 2001), he gave up a home run to Delino DeShields in it.
Then Jerry "one of the few guys you can read for free" Crasnick redeems everything and picks the A's to win the West.
But then soils it with, "Ellis, who signed a two-year, $6 million contract two weeks ago, needs five homers to reach 33 for his career and break the record for a native South Dakotan."
Much love.
Links:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2330477
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2331387
0 recs |
16 comments
Comments
Mac Suzuki (A's)?
by Colorado Fan on Feb 15, 2006 5:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
thanks..
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2005/12/14/43250/385
by ConditionOakland on Feb 15, 2006 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i also must say
I was a little overzealous at first of his signing at first, I must admit, but that came be blamed on the departure of Yabby.
by ConditionOakland on Feb 15, 2006 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My Bad
by Colorado Fan on Feb 16, 2006 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's all good
I was hoping he would come to the A's-- he's an effecive closer, and would be an effecive set up man for that matter, and we coulda probably got him pretty cheaply after his semi-ok 2005 season.
by ConditionOakland on Feb 16, 2006 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yikes...
by pickinmachine on Feb 15, 2006 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Typical Oakland move.
I like the move. Probably won't pan out, but if it does, it's genius.
by Ozzz on Feb 16, 2006 2:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This, I don't get ...
1. Keith Foulke-Curt Schilling tag team (Red Sox)
2. Jim Thome (White Sox)
3. Frank Thomas (A's)
Is the Big Hurt's health that important to our team's overall well-being? Umm...I don't think so, and I suspect you guys feel the same way. Many of us, while holding out hope for FT in OAK, were content with the squad we'd assembled to be Angel-killers (and hopefully more). Not that we wouldn't love for him to come back from his injuries and be 100% healthy, but his comeback and its significance to the A's success just doesn't seem to warrant being called one of the "most important," IMHO.
But maybe that's just me...
by rungood on Feb 16, 2006 4:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
A Healthy FT
Could you imagine getting the following from FT:
550 AB's
.400 OBP
.300 AVG
35 HR's
110 RBI's
That would be an important ingredient to winning the entire thing this season.
However, No FT doesn't keep us from winning the entire thing, either.
by Colorado Fan on Feb 16, 2006 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree/disagree
But, I'm in the small-but-vocal contingent of folks who think our '06 offense won't be appreciably above league-average.
by monkeyball on Feb 16, 2006 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
disagree
I don't think the A's offense will rank in the top three (unless Frank has a monster year). I do however think the A's will be in the top half of the AL in scoring runs.
by skwid on Feb 16, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree
I just don't know that it's improved as much as most other folks think. I also don't know whether we should be counting on appreciable improvements at the plate from Johnson and Swisher.
(I also think that the A's are skating on thin ice with the fragility of many of their key offensive contributors, and that there's a small but not insignificant chance that the offense could end up underperforming the '05 squad. Which is sort of a separate question, I guess.)
by monkeyball on Feb 16, 2006 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree
MB (monkeyball, not Milton Bradley)- i think you're right to temper your expectations. Guys get hurt, underperform, whatever. I think what we've done, though, is put ourselves in position for success, and that's all we can ask for at this point. On paper we look great, and we're all assuming we'll look great on the field and the results will follow. Now it's just a wait and see type thing, and to assume the very very best is just unrealistic. Similarly, to assume the very worst is foolish, so somewhere in the middle seems good to me...</captain obvious>
i'll be an optimist though and hope for good luck/mojo/whatever with injuries. I think this team truly could be great if we can stay healthy. but that's a big if...
by rungood on Feb 16, 2006 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All True
(sound of crickets chirping)
by peanut gallery on Feb 17, 2006 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not FT dependant
by Furious George on Feb 16, 2006 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















