There Should Be An “A”-Rod in Oakland
by oaklandfan40 on Oct 11, 2007 10:23 AM PDT
28 comments
It will never happen, but after reading yesterday's defenses of A-Rod, I thought it’d be good to finally throw out a crazy idea that AN might actually help make an argument for, you know, even if it will NEVER happen.
Here’s my reasons why it’d be worth it (and by it, I mean 10 years @ $30M with an Ichiro-type pay out) for Wolff and co to give the baseball world a heart attack and sign one of baseball's all time best.
1) No line up in baseball NEEDS A-Rod more than the Oakland A’s
Chavez and Swisher have had 30/100 seasons and Cust is capable. All are lefties and with the exception of Cust, all had career seasons with a right-handed power bat aiding or protecting them.
By inserting A-Rod into the three hole, you instantly make Barton in the two slot ROY and Cust in the four spot a major league level legend. Add Swisher at five and Chavez at six and you have the potential of your 3-6 hitters to average .270/30/100 seasons among them with Barton and Buck at the top of the order, both capable of 400 OBP type of seasons.
Hunter, Jones or Rowand can’t do that. They’re upgrades of current players, but in themselves do not upgrade the team the way A-Rod would. No one’s going to pitch around Hunter to get to Cust, throw fastballs to Barton because Jones is on deck or fear a line up where Rowand bats third.
A-Rod’s presence also makes a Kotsay/Denorfia CF easier to take in the eight hole, allows Billy to find a way to keep Ellis or transfer Crosby to 2B and places Suzuki in a position (9th) where he can focus on the pitching staff first and foremost.
2) No Market NEEDS A-Rod more than the Oakland A’s
Barry is bye-bye and San Fran doesn’t have anyone capable of filling his shoes. A-Rod is a superstar among superstars in the Canseco-McGwire-Henderson tradition who will transform the morally questionable Bonds followers and resurrect the fabled Bash Brothers followers into Oaktown fans.
Rodriguez’s arrival will do for Oakland (and f*cking Fremont) what Bonds arrival did for SF and with the length he’s looking for, will give the Oakland fans and franchise the All Time HR King (sticking it yet again to SF!) The only difference, really, would be with us A-Rod would win a championship where Bonds and the ‘Aints didn’t.
I can see the green and gold foam "A"-Rods being waved around now as A-Rod steps up and hits a walk off K-Rod to win the division.
3) A-Rod NEEDS no team more than the Oakland A’s
With the exception of the Tigers, no team is ready to turn there season around quicker than the 2008 Athletics. One true superstar player (there’s only about eight in the league) could come in and right this ship all the way to a World Series Title.
The major markets will always hound A-Rod. Oakland won’t. Oakland can’t. Bay Area press can and will only make A-Rod a West Coast god ala Bonds, Giambi, Tejada (none of whom could capture that glory in bigger markets)
An A-Rod lead A’s team, with stronger seasons from Chavez, Cust, Swisher, Buck and a pitching staff of Haren, Harden and Blanton could easily go into NY, Boston, Cleveland, Los Angeles or Detroit and win it all, giving A-Rod his Elway championships.
4) No Team can AFFORD A-Rod more than the Oakland A’s
Crazy talk? Even at $30M a season A-Rod would keep us under the $100M mark (behind Seattle and Los Angeles). We’ve already started creeping up the list (Colorado, Arizona, Cleveland, San Diego, Milwaukee and Minnesota are already doing more with less) and by 2010 over half the league will be at the century mark. We get there a little sooner and reap the rewards now.
The three to four year run we could put together with A-Rod starting next year (4/5ths of the pitching staff, Street, Buck, Swisher, Cust, Chavez, Barton and Suzuki are all under club control until 2010) could be one for the books.
5) Boras vs. Beane
Need I say more?
6) Karma
Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Damon, Dye. We’ve lost our share of MVPs and superstars. Karma would demand that we go out and get one!
In closing, yes we could get a few good players for the cost of A-Rod and it is easy to spend someone else's money. I happen to like and think we've got a lot of good player we're paying $60M for and of course it's easy to spend someone else's money--that's what America is build on. So bring me some new arguements why this is a bad idea or tell Wolff and co some more reasons why signing Alex would be a win-win situation for us all.
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
A-Rod at SS?
probably not at this stage of his career
by athleticsBB4life on Oct 11, 2007 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Only Way...
Is if Wolfe / Fisher / Beane submit a Business Plan to Boras & A-Rod. This Business Plan/Contract will be directly connected to a new A's Television Network / Advertising.
10-Years / $500-Million
Think David Beckham. Not sure MLB will go for something like this, but you have to think outside the box w/ this upcoming A-Rod Contract.
by Colorado Fan on Oct 11, 2007 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hard to build a profitable network
when you're the second team in a region
by jubjub on Oct 11, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and even that's debatable
I'd say it's a four-way tie between the Red Sox, Yankees, Giants, and A's.
by jubjub on Oct 11, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it's not ...
you just have to build the network ... and then convince the Warriors and some college teams to come along ...
It's not like the Giants have a stranglehold on the region. In the late 80s and early 90s, the A's were more popular than the Giants. In 5 years, when the A's have a new state of the art ballpark and the Giants have been kicking around the bottom of the NL West without Bonds for several years, the A's will be in a great position to put a stranglehold on the region. A-Rod and A'sNet (Athletics Sports Network) could play a big role in that.
by devo on Oct 11, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
insert miracle here
by jubjub on Oct 11, 2007 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's entirely possible ...
The biggest problem that I see is that I don't think the current ownership group cares about the 2020 A's. I doubt they plan to own the team for more than 5 years after they get the new park built, so they don't have any great need to invest in the long term strength of the team.
by devo on Oct 11, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They would if they want to make money off it
Adding a TV network & an extremely successful club would greatly boost the value of the team as a whole.
by DMOAS on Oct 11, 2007 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They would add greatly to the value of the club .
but they would also be very costly.
by devo on Oct 11, 2007 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thought this was funny...and kind of true
From Bill Simmons' (ESPN) mailbag:
Q: Are you as unimpressed by Vladimir Guerrero as I am? He whines anytime someone throws inside, whines anytime a strike is called and swings at some of the worst pitches ever. I ache when I watch him walk, but between injuries and age, he's really a shell of what he used to be. He's kinda like the hot girl who you really wanted to get with in middle school, but by 12th grade, you were glad you didn't. Congrats Vlad, you're the girl who peaked in eighth grade.
Simmons:
It's a great point. I remember being
scared of him during the 2004 playoffs and decidedly unscared of him by the time the 2007 playoffs rolled around, even though his regular-season stats were as good as they always were. If he were playing in a big-market city that gave a crap about sports, Vlad's postseason failures (.183 BA, 1 HR, 7 RBI, .491 OPS) would be a much bigger deal. That's why I think A-Rod is destined to end up on the Angels: sell-out crowds, no pressure, warm weather, a superstar teammate who's even worse in the postseason than him. ... It's the perfect place for him. He can sign for $300 million, break Bonds' HR record, make a run at 4,000 hits, hang out with the Beckhams, live by the ocean, wear expensive clothes and maybe even make a few movie cameos and get a Disney ride named after him. Nobody will ever bother him again.
So...could we be that "perfect place" for him instead?
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 11, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure about the rest of you...
but I don't think a ride at DisneyLand called "A-Rod" would work out so well. I sure as hell wouldn't want to ride "A-Rod".
by DMOAS on Oct 11, 2007 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
<after getting off the ride>
'my goodness, i am sore from that ride'
by ak_A on Oct 11, 2007 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember...
the ride is only open between April and September
(and no, those are not names of strippers)
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 11, 2007 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I have to say
that this argument came up quite awhile back and I still say that where there is a will there is a way. Lew Wollf is a business man and you have to look at this sort of thing as an investment and even at 32 A-Rod would still be a great investment. Ticket sales, marketing, merchandisng, not to mention the instant credibility it gives the A's ownership nationally. And of of course the very real possibility of an A's televison network with all of this is and would be essential.
Even if he were to take up potentially a quarter of the payroll initially, remember the A's with a much lower payroll 6 years ago were prepared to offer Jason Giambi 15 million per year, which I think amounted to a signifgant amount more percentage wise of the payroll. I really can't imagine Billy Beane not at least entertaining the thought of trying to pull something like this off. It makes great business sense even more than it does baseball sense. And it "would" be a tremendous baseball move!
Anyone remember when A-Rod played for Texas and he quietly mused, "Man, I would love to play for the A's with Hudson, Zito, and Mulder backing me up".?????? Well, it's not exactly The Big Three anymore but a potential starting three of Haren, Harden, and Blanton with Guadin and (fifth starter) filling the backend of the rotation isn't looking too shabby my friends.
by mrod on Oct 11, 2007 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fifth starter: Jose Garcia?
[ducks the rocks thrown by the rest of AN]
Alright, alright, I'll shut up about that already...
by PaulThomas on Oct 11, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be a little bit of a step up.
The A's in '02 had a $40m payroll. If they had resigned Giambi, they probably wouldn't have re-upped Dye, which would have left the payroll at $48m.
15/48 = 31%
(If they had still re-upped Dye, it would have been 27%)
If the A's signed A-Rod at $32m, that would take the payroll to right around $90m.
32/90 = 36%
by devo on Oct 11, 2007 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod
I don't really mind the $30 million or so a year it would take to sign A-Rod, but Boras is talking a 10 year deal. Me no likey that many years.
by grover on Oct 12, 2007 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take on it is
that anything over a 5-year deal, you assume the player will be worthless and prorate that money over a 5-year span. Thus: Zito, $25M a year (not 18).
That would put A-Rod at a cool $60M a year.
Perhaps fortunately for the A's, it's not even legal under CA state law to make a personal services contract for more than seven years. Or at least, it's not enforceable.
by PaulThomas on Oct 12, 2007 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not going to get 10 years ...
He'll turned A-Rod's current 3 years guaranteed into 6 No one is going to give him a contract that runs through his age 43 season ... although there would be some value in locking in the plurality of his Cooperstown bound career.
by devo on Oct 12, 2007 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't think he'd get 10 years 7 years ago
The market is cash flush... all it takes is one idiot (See: Hicks, Tom) to get to 10. I agree A-Rod shouldn't get a deal that long but Boras tends to get his way more often than not.
Short story, if A-Rod is willing to "settle" for a 6 year deal than I'm all for the A's pursuing him.
by grover on Oct 12, 2007 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said it before and I'll say it again
$1 billion dollars for 40 years.
by billyball1981 on Oct 11, 2007 6:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree entirely
That comment about being the second team in the market... That's the whole point! A superstar like A-Rod will draw all the fairweather fans away from a Bonds-less, Win-less san francisco. Now, we may not be happy with a bunch of hangers-on rooting for our beloved athletics, but lets face facts, drawing the San Francisco crowds conceivable could re-create the competitiveness of the Bash Brothers era without the massive unprofitability.
As for a sports network, I don't think it would have been possible earlier on, but with the resurgent Warriors, and JESUS CHRIST the fans in last years NBA playoffs!!! could be the bump we need. Also, with our move south, The Sharks could certainly come along with.
Pac-bell (or whatever it is) park really will be remembered as the house that barry built... I, for one, would be ecstatic if we could say that about Fremont and A-Rod, especially considering that, unlike the giants, we would actually (ty Billy Beane) be WINNING in said park.
Now, I feel the same as all of you, A-Rod is unlikeable, but time and time again we've seen the magic that a clubhouse like Oakland's can work (see Milton Bradley and Nick Swisher... Great while he was here, immediately goes back to being "cancer" when he leaves). This will still be the team we know and love, but will add sooooo much protection to our players. Barton and Swisher can be superstar caliber players with A-Rod providing the spark / protection
Yeah, this will never happen, but a man has a right to dream!!
by LWilliams on Oct 12, 2007 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed on just about all points!
Man, the ownership has enough money to re-start a soccer team that went defunct for crying out loud! And they want to build a new stadium for the team on top of that? C'mon, the pockets are there and it just takes the will and cooperation to get a deal done for A-Rod. I also am of the mindset that the A's should not do anything beyond a five year deal, by the way!
by mrod on Oct 12, 2007 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It didn't go defunct, it was moved.
It wasn't moved because it wasn't supported, it was moved because they couldn't get a park built for it.
Wolfeco wouldn't resurrect the Quakes if they didn't have a park deal in place.
by devo on Oct 12, 2007 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pretty much the same thing Devo
All I'm saying is the ownerhip has the "business sense and the money" to get something done. C'mon, you know it's not just Wolff and Beane and the rest of the brass going, "Oh my god! Soccer is like the best thing since sliced bread!" I don't think so man....
by mrod on Oct 13, 2007 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be in favor of it.
Who wouldn't want A-Rod on their team, really?
I think the only way to approach it would be a one-time exception to the payroll structure. In other words, Lew Wolff would have to pay for it out of his own pocket. That's asking an awful lot of him, and is highly unrealistic, though.
Within the existing payroll structure, it's just too difficult to justify. It's not so much the money, as it is the years. Someone's going to give him way too many of them.
by jeepers on Oct 13, 2007 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As I noted,
it may actually be impossible for a California team to win the bidding for him, because they won't be able to match the years that a Boston or a Chicago could offer him.
I would actually think Boston would be the most logical candidate, given Lowell's own impending free agency.
by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2007 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
