More Trade Noise
The media just won't stop pounding this drum. Going back to last season, we've seen reports concerning prospective trades involving A's starter Joe Blanton. But now Dan Haren's name has continued to surface in a number of potential trade scenarios.
The latest is from Ken Rosenthal:
A's GM Billy Beane says he is undecided about the team's direction, but he could take a step back in order to go forward in preparation for the opening of the franchise's new ballpark in 2011.
Beane, always looking to exploit market inefficiencies, could take advantage of the weak crop of free-agent starting pitchers by trading one or both of his top right-handers, Dan Haren and Joe Blanton.
Blanton has gone 42-34 with a 4.09 ERA and averaged 208 innings in his first three full seasons — numbers that compare favorably with John Lackey's first three full seasons for the Angels.
Haren, meanwhile, started the All-Star Game in July and outpitched Santana over the full season. Unlike Santana, who is a year away from free agency, and Orioles left-hander Erik Bedard, who is two years away, Haren is under contract for three more seasons — and his salaries of $4 million, $5.5 million and $6.75 million (on a club option) make him highly affordable.
I understand that such a trade may yield a front-line bat that the A's sorely need, but I just can't see parting with Haren. In Haren, the A's have what I consider to be one of the elite starters in baseball, and he's under contract for the next three years. I suppose that Blanton - a work-horse who just wins - could fetch something on the open market, but I would hope that it's more than the preverbial "Lastings Milledge"; a guy who's becoming an alleged BB fantasy that rivals prior obsessions (see Erubial "the holy grail" Durazo, Kevin "the god of walks" Youkulis, heck, even Jack Cust).
I know that this has been discussed in the last few weeks, but I'd love to hear what AN has to say about the possibility/benefit/genious/stupidity of such a trade. Would anyone be willing to trade Haren? Blanton? Both? If so, to who and for what return?
0 recs |
62 comments
Comments
Not for a bat
Neither one of those pitchers would be traded for a bat. They would be traded for prospects because if those pitchers were traded, ir would mean we are rebuilding.
by easyraider on Nov 11, 2007 7:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He'll only trade Haren and Blanton if he rebuilds
Beane said he would only trade players like Haren and Blanton if he decides we are going to rebuild. I imagine he would only do it if he is offered three top prospects in return, including a picture for each one. That is what he wanted from the Dodgers and what he will settle for now.
I can see us getting a lot more out of these two right now that at any other time, especially with the limits in free agency and with the fact they are both under contract or control for 3 years.
by Eastbayjim on Nov 11, 2007 7:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A pitcher is worth a thousands words
by iglew on Nov 13, 2007 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Psh
This story does not say that Beane is shopping either Haren or Blanton, just Rosenthal's opinion that were Beane to rebuild he would offer up these two. I do not see Haren being traded while he wears an A's uniform unless we tank and lose 100 games next year.
by Helloooo 1st on Nov 11, 2007 7:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I take Beane at his word:
He won't know whether he feels the A's can compete in 2008 until he sees how the injured are faring. If Harden and Chavez were healthy in 2008, the A's would compete, period. If both are not healthy, the A's won't compete, period. And on November 11th, there's certainly no way to know about Chavez, and only history to offer guesses about Harden.
by Nico on Nov 11, 2007 9:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
+1
well said, nico.
by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2007 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Harden does not exist
You have to build the roster without him in mind. If you can build a contender and then somehow find a Rich Harden then you've got a sweet shot at a title.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 7:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With Haren or Blanton gone,
and Harden a non-entity, it probably wouldn't matter how big a bat we got for whichever of Haren or Blanton was traded. We'd have very little pitching.
by Poppy on Nov 12, 2007 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree, er "plus one" and
all the usual "word!" statements.
I think, IMO, Beane let loose the "clear house" comment just to generate interest, the better to gauge the cumulative value of the team. He would stand to get offers on just about every established player, maybe, so....
One needs as many valuation inputs as possible when trying to build a roster.
by One won lost won on Nov 12, 2007 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not he believes it...
(or can pull it off), I agree with Beane's comment that they have to either take a serious shot at competing or blow the team up. The team could potentially be competetive in 08-09 as it stands, but needs a few more (or 1 big) piece(s). The playoffs are attainable the next 2 years, but... not very likely.
If he is going to trade Haren or Blanton, I would very much prefer that he trade both or neither. Losing one of those starters will all but cripple the A's' already tenuous chances the next couple years.
However, Haren and Blanton are both great trade bait (Haren is objectively much better trade bait than either Hudson or Mulder were when they were traded), and that could give us a fantastic team for 2010-14. Barton, Buck, and Suzuki in their primes plus Cust (or some trade for Cust)is a solid offensive core, plus (hopefully) Cahill and Simmons in the rotation, plus the 2-6 excellent players we could yield through those trades would leave a pretty good team.
Bottom line is: If the A's are going to hover around 80 wins the next few years, it is a waste to use Haren and Blanton to get us up to those 80 wins, instead of using them to invest in the future.
by mikeA on Nov 11, 2007 10:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well said.
Either all in or all out. Trading just one of them would only serve to cripple the team for the short term duration. I think we can be competitive as constituted and I sincerely hope Beane keeps the team together and makes a run.
by alox on Nov 11, 2007 10:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you hope for more than Lastings Milledge
for Blanton, then, continue hoping.
Blanton alone, probably isn't enough for Milledge.
by rfloh on Nov 11, 2007 11:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
Is Blanton a legit #2 SP? Maybe more importantly, how is he perceived by the baseball muckity-mucks?
If he is than he's more than enough to land Milledge. Milledge has some serious warts, not the least of which is he can't stay healthy.
Now if you think of Blanton as a back of the rotation guy than he's not enough to land Milledge because the young guy has some serious tools.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 7:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you trade Chris Young
for Blanton? Adam Jones? Would the Mariners trade AJ for Blanton?
Milledge is as good or better than either of those two.
by rfloh on Nov 12, 2007 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On pure talent, they're all real good
And I'm not sure who is better among the 3. I'd prefer Young to Milledge because of his CF skills. And his health.
Would I trade Blanton for Milledge, straight up? No. I think Milledge is over-rated. For Young? Yes. For Jones? I've spent a lot of time thinking about the other two, I haven't really thought about Jones so I'm going to have to take a pass on answering that.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And why is Milledge overrated
while Young is not?
Just because the Mets have Carlos Beltran means that Milledge's CF skills are deficient?
Young's numbers in the minors are better than Milledge, but once you take into account age and park, they are fairly similar.
Young's OPS in MLB: 694 aged 22, 762 aged 23. Milledge: 690 aged 21, 787 aged 22. This is without park adjustment.
by rfloh on Nov 12, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon
Young has almost twice the number of big league at bats as Milledge, why not take that into account before comparing the two.
Scouts say Milledge has the tools to play CF. Scouts call Yound an exceptional CF.
I like Young's bat, I like how he draws more walks, I like how he can steal a base without getting caught every other time.
I like how Young plays more games.
Why is Milledge over-rated? Because I think ultimately Young will be everything people expect him to be and Milledge will not.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Young draws walks?
Young of the career 298 OBP in a HITTER's park?
Yeah, Young has almost twice the number of MLB at bats. And Milledge is one year younger and has hit better despite playing in a pitcher's park while Young is one year older playing in a hitter's park.
by rfloh on Nov 12, 2007 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let's be fair
About 60 points of that OBP is due to walks. That's not great, but it's about average.
Young's problem is that only 230 points of that OBP is due to his batting average, which has been an atrocity.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. But he K's
at a ridiculous rate, relative to his walks.
49 walks balanced with 153 Ks, is hardly a strength. So if you ignore the Ks, yeah he draws walks.
by rfloh on Nov 13, 2007 7:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well you were arguing agains the statement ...
"I like how he draws more walks"
So, yes, as you mentioned, Young draws walks.
by devo on Nov 13, 2007 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And he had an 83 point gap in the minors ...
He's in the Mike Cameron mold, great D, great athleticism, good power, good eye, terrible contact.
He doesn't have quite the upside because of that last point, but that's still the making of a very good player.
by devo on Nov 12, 2007 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While there's some possibility Young may become
a better player, Blanton right now is about twice as good. Young's average and OBP make me wince.
I, at least, would not deal Blanton for Young. Nor for Milledge, who's injury prone. Adam Jones is a different story; I'd make that trade except for the fact that he's a Mariner. I'd have to think about the implications of that for a bit.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blanton for Adam Jones straight up
Yeah, I'd do that. I think it's close, but I think Jones is worth more to the A's than Blanton is. Strangely enough, I think it's quite conceivable that the Mariners ownership would consider Blanton more valuable to their team than Jones. Unfortunately, I also think Bavasi is one of the GMs who simply won't trade with Beane under any circumstances.
Too bad. If nothing else, the trade would be worth it just to see them shit bricks at Lookout Landing. Their favorite Mariner traded for the AL West player they hate the most. It would be worse than Snelling-for-Vidro.
by iglew on Nov 13, 2007 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Milledge alone isn't enough for Blanton.
by OldhamA on Nov 12, 2007 7:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does Beane agree with you?
Did he not try to trade for Milledge at the start of the year?
Also, would you consider either Chris Young (DBacks) or Adam Jones as enough for Blanton?
by rfloh on Nov 12, 2007 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He tried trading Harden for Milledge
Joe Blanton is a better pitcher than Rich Harden. Why?
Because he actually pitches.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So the rumours of Blanton for Milledge
were untrue?
by rfloh on Nov 12, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mets wanted Haren 1st, Blanton 2nd
I don't think Beane was willing to part with either arm for Milledge straight up. If the Mets had been willing to include Pelfrey or Humber instead, then maybe a deal happens.
by grover on Nov 12, 2007 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I gotta say
It is very hard for me to believe that trading Haren would be a good idea unless we the A's get A LOT in return. Haren is on of the top 10-15 starting pitchers in baseball, and the A's have him signed for the next 3 years, for very cheap. Unless Beane gets A LOT for him, he should still be a part of the A's next championship-competing team. The same is true for Blanton, to a lesser extent. These are the type of players around which you build a team; and, these two players are going to be around, at a low price, for at least the next 3 years. The A's are not that far from competing; I think, with the right moves, they could compete again in 2009. Trading away such huge assets would be a mistake, in my opinion, i.e. you can attempt to attain good value for a Blanton or a Haren, but they are known quantities; anything you get in return is an unknown. Why not hang onto what works, especially if that known quantity lasts til 2010?
In summary, I just think that unless the A's OBVIOUSLY get more in return for a Haren or Blanton, we might as well hang onto the guys that could help us win a division/pennant/championship in a few years.
by Philip Christy on Nov 11, 2007 11:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Disagree ...
as currently assembled, without drastic changes, the A's are going to get worse before they get better. The team isn't that young and the young guys aren't generally considered to have much upside (Which isn't a knock on them, they're good players -- Gaudin aside, they just don't project to be much better than they already are), while there's nothing of any consequence that's going to arrive in the next two years from the minors.
We're either going for it in 2008 or we're tearing it down and building for 2011.
Moving Blanton and Haren would be a huge part of building for the future.
by devo on Nov 12, 2007 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
The problem with trading for prospects is that they are unknowns. And most of the time, there is a reason why teams are letting go of their prospects in a trade. No team is going to trade young pitching. Which is exactly why we need to desperately hang onto ours. The As can, and should be competitive next year. Buck, Gaudin, Swisher, Chavez, Suzuki (more on the play calling side), and Barton should have better years. I think Philip nailed it on the head when discussing known quantities and that Haren and Blanton can help us compete within their current contacts. You never should make a trade unless you have to and hanging onto what works is always IMO the better option.
by AsWin on Nov 12, 2007 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I take issue with one part:
"And most of the time, there is a reason why teams are letting go of their prospects in a trade." That reason can be that you need to give value to get value, so it will cost you a good potential player to get a good established player. It can also be that a prospect is blocked by an established player at the same position. In the case of Daric Barton, I think both were true: The Cards wanted an established starting pitcher, plus they had Pujols at 1B.
by Nico on Nov 12, 2007 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you should never make a trade unless you have to?
Bill Stoneman in the house here...you should never make a trade when you think you have to, because that's when you get ripped off. You either settle for a less-than-optimal void to fill a pressing need that should've been addressed pre-emptively, or you get lowballed by other teams who are aware that you're in need. Or both.
by Cutthemullet on Nov 13, 2007 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Beane is sitting on where A-Rod
goes. If LAAAAAAA land him then I'd imagine we'd be all in on these trade scenarios.
by OldhamA on Nov 12, 2007 7:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
outside bet...
what are the odds that Arod cannot come up with a deal, and sits through 2008??
by One won lost won on Nov 12, 2007 11:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Zero
if the market is dead, he'll take arbitration from the Yankees and get a one year, $35 million dollar contract.
by devo on Nov 12, 2007 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and if the market is that "dead" ...
... then we'll see the MLBPA file a credible collusion charge, and win.
by monkeyball on Nov 12, 2007 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, that's not possible
His contract forbids the Yankees' offering him arbitration.
[/pedantic]
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cashman said that he is going to offer arbi ...
no offense, but I think he knows the situation better than either of us.
by devo on Nov 12, 2007 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info
by One won lost won on Nov 13, 2007 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Based on Billy's normal clear-eyed detachment ...
... and high value for demonstrated performance, I don't understand his continuing infatuation with Harden. I sincerely hope to eat my words, but we need to find a starry-eyed dreamer on whom to foist the fantasy of Harden-in-good-health.
Every year that passes with Rich once again on the shelf makes that fantasy is more difficult to sustain and sell.
The Wanks come to mind as a team that seems to enjoy having disabled pitchers around, and who can afford his high-upside, discounted by its long odds of fruition. Maybe we could package him with DJ for, I dunno, who? I'm leery of the hype around their young guns, he said, as his post petered-out.
by The Dogfather on Nov 12, 2007 11:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's a continuing infatuation
so much as it is a desire not to give up on him while he's at zero value. He's under contract anyway-- why deal him for a bag of baseballs when he might make a comeback and either a. command a bigger trade package, or b. carry the team to the playoffs?
I do think the A's will decline his option if he doesn't pitch most of the 2008 season, though. I'm not sure if they can decline the option and still offer him mandatory arbitration, but even if they can, they might non-tender him if he doesn't show any signs of improving health.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree he should have zero value, but ...
... with pitching talent in such demand, I suspect that a prospect-rich team might be willing to roll those bones precisely because, if health can be achieved, he is relatively cheap.
Somebody out there must be willing to buy the rather damp dream of a healthy Harden's contribution. I'd rather invest my fantasy life in the new prospect his trade might command.
by The Dogfather on Nov 12, 2007 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Harden *has* demonstrated high performance.
His durability is a fantasy, but hey, he performs great when he plays!
by Poppy on Nov 12, 2007 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeremy Giambi demonstrated high performance, too
by monkeyball on Nov 12, 2007 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Godfather of High Performance.

by The Dogfather on Nov 12, 2007 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Based on Billy's normal clear-eyed detachment ...
... and high value for demonstrated performance, I don't understand his continuing infatuation with Kotsay and Larry Davis.
I'm among the crowd that prizes Beane highly as an asset to the franchise, but thinks that his paradigm-smashing, number-crunching, fellow-GM-bamboozling, chair-throwing persona has a lot in common with, say, Buckaroo Banzai ...
by monkeyball on Nov 12, 2007 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a whole crowd of you
who've drawn the Buckaroo Banzai comparison?
by mikeA on Nov 12, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember...
wherever you go, there you are
by ChickenStanley on Nov 12, 2007 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Infatuation with Kotsay?
The dude was shut down for the season two months early. I have to think that if he was hitting .300 and making all the plays in center, that would not have happened.
Again, it's not an "infatuation" to hold onto a guy with an impossible contract. It's just reality. The choices with regards to Kotsay are simple: either release him if you need the roster space and eat his salary, or keep him. Ditto Crosby, although in his case he could probably be outrighted to AAA without much trouble if the need arose.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The trouble would be
that Croz has enough big league time to refuse the assignment, I believe. It would be a gamble on his part, but Crosby for nothing would have to be an attractive proposition to the hapless teams of the baseball world.
by jeepers on Nov 13, 2007 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
You need 5 years in the bigs to refuse an outright and still keep your salary, I think. He might be able to refuse the assignment, but he'd lose $8 million in guaranteed money. My spider sense tells me that's not likely to happen.
by PaulThomas on Nov 13, 2007 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with a lot of what has been said..
so I'll not to repeat too much in length. A lot of the so called talk is pure speculation without any logic of fact supporting it or extremes to sell newspapers. Since the FA class is so weak, everyone is trying to make the trade market a source of entertainment. Even going so far as to say that top tier pitchers can be available for other team's castaways. Unfortunately, since BB has a reputation for listening to offers, we've become a bit of entertainment for NY and BOS newspapers especially. Sometimes I wonder if they believe what they are speculating, but if it sells newspapers... I mean if I had a newspaper, I'd write that I would love A-Rod and Santana and trade for Utley. However, as we all know that isn't going to happen. They are also forgetting that we don't have a surplus in the SP rotation right now, we are bare bones as it is.
Here is what I think will happen this offseason:
- The A's will field a competitive team in 2008. I just think there is too much to work with.
- No one person guarantees a team will enter the playoffs.
- The A's will make a few minor moves, not including Bonds (and of course, not A-Rod). Basically, I think they will remain pat with a few clever additions.
- I don't see a trade of Kotsay, DJ, or Marco as "rebuilding" but as clearing room for people who have passed them or can surpass them in the very near future.
What "the sky is falling" reporters seem to forget is that BB does not have to trade anyone in the SP rotation. Everyone is under contact/club control. As I said before, I do expect the A's to remain pat but looking at it from every angle, Blanton is arby eligible. Now, I don't know how much he'll make but paired up with a thought that Blanton might (as reported previously) be overweight and have a bad attitude, it could be framing for a justification for a deal.
I also think moving Haren this offseason is a foolish, incorrect, and disastrous move. And the basis for that thought goes beyond the stats and more towards the clubhouse/PR. Now granted, I am not going to deny that Haren has trade value but his value to us right now outweighs that. Even if we are in a rebuilding stage Danny is absolutely vital to our team. I have to agree with Urban in his latest writing on the As site that Swisher and Haren (with Barton getting a lot of consideration) should be the only untouchables.
Even in the most bleak of situations, the A's need to sell seats. Swisher and Danny are two of their biggest draws. With Danny being our lone All-Star rep and having Cy Young talk earlier in the season, I think there is a lot of expectations (and I'll include myself in this situation) to see Danny in the green and gold to see if he can repeat the same results. Getting rid of Danny now is just bad business and creates a horrible precedent. When Zito left, Danny (for better or worse) stepped up and wanted to be a staff leader and an example to the younger guys. Paired up with his great work ethic, I think removing someone like that will create bad vibes in the clubhouse and especially throughout the staff. I think it will destroy any winning clubhouse atmosphere and have individual As counting down the days until they can bolt.
When Huddy and Mulder left, they still had Zito for the guys to rally around and talk to. The problem is Danny is in the vital Zito role and we have less of a surplus right now than then. Reading between the lines, I think it smacks (and this is more of a personal feeling) of heartlessness to move someone who signed for very cheap, wants to be a member of the As, lives year round in the area and is always available for PR events, and according to USA Today's All Star article has a pregnant wife. To me that suggests an expectation to be an A for the duration of the contract (if not longer). I realize that it is a business, but at some point humanity has to come in place.
I guess the bottom line is that I expect the As, to remain competitive and I will be very disappointed especially if Danny is moved because of the clubhouse energy and he is exactly the type of person we should be celebrating, not sending off. You don't trade an established, cheap ace. They are the rarest of commodities.
by AsWin on Nov 12, 2007 8:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree, except your part about writing
in not too much length. :-)
The only reason to trade Haren that I can see is if the A's feel that their "workhorse" is in fact a big risk to get injured. Which brings up my secret nightmare - the fact that about 10-12 times last season, an A's pitcher's foot/ankle/hip gave way during the follow-through, and that all 10-12 times it was Haren.
But assuming that Haren is as heathy and durable as he appears to be (KNOCK WOOD, SPIT OVER SHOULDER - oops, sorry alaskaA - ), trading him won't help the A's now or later. If there's going to be a surprise/big trade of an A's starter, it should be Blanton (because someone will overpay and return us a young starter a la Mulder deal) or Harden (aka "Fool's Gold).
by Nico on Nov 12, 2007 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Nico...
It was shorter when I was thinking of what I was going to write. (Maybe my semi-essay posts should come with a warning.. lol).
You brought up a good point in that in the worst of cases, Blanton or Harden make the most sense to move. Actually, Urban made an interesting point in moving Harden and Crosby for Miggy. I don't know how realistic that is, but I thought it was interesting none the less. And yeah, I'll join you on the knock on woodness...
by AsWin on Nov 12, 2007 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually think Crosby and Harden
for Miggy could help both teams. The O's may as well take a chance on Harden, as they could find themselves with an instant ace to augment the considerable surrounding young talent of Bedard, Loewen, and Cabrera, and they would land a younger, cheaper SS whose defense is proven.
For the A's, in replacing Crosby's bat with Tejada's you might be able to make a rotation of Haren, Blanton, Gaudin, Duke, and DiNardo (or someone else) work - and you may be stuck with that anyway, since Harden is the ultimate question mark.
And the changes of scenery could help all three.
by Nico on Nov 12, 2007 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bedard is already being shopped
by the Orioles. They're not even attempting to compete in the short run, and frankly there's no reason for them to think that they can. Bedard is under control for 2 more years-- the same length of time as Crosby and Harden.
Given that, the trade would essentially be a salary dump on their part, and not even much of a dump in the second year assuming they pick up Harden's option. Doesn't seem terribly likely to me unless they think that they can somehow turn around and resell Harden at midseason.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2007 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I agree that trading Haren is the A's last resort, as Haren is the A's most untradeable player. However, it would be foolish of Beane not to at least listen to what teams might offer. Suppose the Dodgers go hard after Santana and don't get him. In their self-created frenzy to "improve" their team, they appear to have convinced themselves that their young players are not the answer to their problems. In this state of frenzy and disappointment, they could turn to Haren as a target. If the Dodgers offered Kershaw, Kemp, and Hu for Haren + ____ would Beane be acting in the A's best interests in declaring Haren untouchable? Beane needs to consider all options in adding talent to the A's organization. Failure to do so is nothing short of mismanagement.
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 12, 2007 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
NO! He shouldn't even LISTEN!
Beane should go, "La la la la la - I can't hear you! La la la la la!"
Not only is this an effective interpersonal skill, it's lots of fun!
by Nico on Nov 12, 2007 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd want the Earth for Haren, and someone
willing to take on Kotsay's contract in it's entirety. Anything less and I'd put the phone down.
by OldhamA on Nov 13, 2007 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


























