Apocalypse-Rod?
by monkeyball on Nov 3, 2007 11:56 AM PDT
in News
40 comments
In Blez' bullish-on-the-'08-A's story the other day, PaulThomas nailed it with this comment:
if the Angels sign A-Rod, all bets are off. If that apocalypse happens, the A's need to sell off everybody getting paid more than the league minimum except for Haren and Swisher. Street, Blanton, Embree, Duke, even Gaudin. By the time the team will be competitive again, they'll all have hit free agency.
We can quibble with the particulars of which individual A's might be worth retaining in that scenario, but I think it's hard to argue against the fundamental thesis: that if the Angels sign A-Rod this offseason (and, even worse, if they sign Bonds, as I think they will), the A's simply will be unable to compete in the division for the next 3-4 years.
Given the Angels' quality pitching, young hitters, and Vlad -- adding A-Rod to the equation would render them prohibitive favorites to take the AL West and to be set up to do very well in the playoffs. And if they add Bonds as well ... imagine facing the sequence of A-Rod-Bonds-Vlad 4-5 times a game!
Despite Arte's halfhearted previous protestations, every pundit has assigned the Angels as the likeliest destination for A-Rod -- and for good reason. They have the most clear mixture of need, opportunity, and resources. Sure, it's possible that some other likely (or unlikely) team may step up to be bamborasoozled with a preposterous offer, but I personally will be shocked if A-Rod ends up anywhere other than Anaheim.
Under that scenario, yes, it would still be possible for the A's to compete for the Wild Card -- especially since the Yankees appear to be on the verge of another 40-year trek through the wilderness, with the Little Steins carrying on their paterfamilias' familiar pique, and the AL Central looking to be competitive enough in the coming years to engage in enough unbalanced-schedule internecine warfare.
But it's far easier to build a team to compete directly for a division title than it is to count on the broader variables that need to fall into place for a WC slot. And the A's, even without A-Rod returning to the AL West, would be operating on a slim competitive margin anwyay.
So: what's the solution? Should the A's jump in to the A-Rod sweepstakes, if only to drive the price up beyond Arte's reach (or high enough to actually damage the Angels' competitive finances in '10-beyond)? Or should they just pray to Ba'al that A-Rod lands elsewhere? And when he does sign with Anaheim -- should Beane engage in a graduated sell-off?
0 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
There are more than 2 teams in the bidding
It's not just the A's and the Angels. Do you want to end up beating out say, the Cubs to ARod?
Furthermore, how would you know at what point the Angels decide to stop bidding? How do you know that they won't stop before it reaches a point that you can damage their finances? And what happens when you end up paying more than you want for ARod?
by rfloh on Nov 3, 2007 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
tough call
I am not sure that we can assume that acquiring A-Rod will make the Angels uncatchable.
The Yankees of the last four years had a grand total of one more win than the previous four seasons, and three less World Series appearances.
Now granted there was a team (Boston) in the same division who had the resources to keep up and ultimately pass the Yankees. The Angels appear not to have that concern.
I'm just saying that on paper, it looks like the rich getting richer, but we've been here before (when A-Rod landed in NY), and it didn't pan out as planned (if you can call 387 wins in four seasons not panning out).
While I hope it doesn't happen, I don't think there's a need to click the panic button if it does. There's enough already to keep Beane and Co. busy this winter.
by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 3, 2007 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod vs. Figgins/Isturis
Last year, A-Rod was about a 40 run upgrade over Figgins/Izturis, and although A-Rod had a career year, so did Figgins (he won't hit .330 next season).
If you take the heavy favorite in the AL West, and add 40 runs, that's a prohibitive favorite.
by MrIncognito on Nov 4, 2007 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming all else remains equal
Like, say, pitching.
by JediLeroy on Nov 4, 2007 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or the flip side
They bury the corpse of Garret Anderson and play Figgins instead, netting them 20 more runs, or Adenhart turns out to be really good.
by MrIncognito on Nov 4, 2007 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a's
the a's don't need to jump in the a-rod sweepstakes because other teams will. at least a few teams out of the dodgers, cubs, red sox, phillies, mets, tigers. plus i bet there are some teams no one expects, like maybe the brewers.
also, if the angels just get bonds, that's 1-2 years, not 3-5.
"...it would still be possible for the A's to compete for the Wild Card -- especially since the Yankees appear to be on the verge of another 40-year trek through the wilderness..."
really? something tells me with a 200+ million payroll, the yankees will manage to stay quite competitive even without torre and a-rod.
with two dominant teams in the east and two good teams in the central, the a's will pretty much need to win the west to make the playoffs in most years.
by xbhaskarx on Nov 3, 2007 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
but if the angels do get a-rod
the a's can forget about the next few years. of course some (like BP) argue beane should blow up the current team and start over anyways.
by xbhaskarx on Nov 3, 2007 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you spend $350million
on five excellent players, you still have 4 excellent players when one gets injured. If you spend $350million on one player, he could still get hurt and then you're in a bit of pickle.
A-Rod has not been injury prone, but he also hasn't been 33, 34, 35...Plus there are "freak injuries," like when a freak dives into third instead of just tagging you or the bag, and removes your shoulder.
So 162 games, 25 players...A lot can happen.
by Nico on Nov 3, 2007 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
350 million
162 games, 25 playes, but there's still only ONE ocTOber.
by xbhaskarx on Nov 3, 2007 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
COLE HAMELS
TWENTY THREE! YES! HE IS TWENTY THREE YEARS OLD, HOW REMARKABLE THAT A PITCHER CAN BE SO YOUNG
by flipgatey3 on Nov 3, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injury
Calling the A's out for the next four years just because the Angels might add A-rod to the roster seems more like hysteria than reasoned thought, given our own experience with injuries. Sure he's a superstar. But it takes a whole team to win a pennant. And the Angels have to keep everyone healthy for that to happen.
So I have a solution -- work out a trade with them whereby they acquire Larry Davis. Problem solved!
by atomopawn on Nov 3, 2007 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what about the Barry Bonds situation
Didn't we see a similary scenario in the NL West the past few years, when Bonds was simply head and shoulders above everyone else, and the Giants STILL weren't that great (or couldn't make the playoffs for that matter). You could argue that their pitching wasn't as solid as the Angels, but the Angles have issues in Colon (injury risk/not always consistent), Kelvim Escobar (injury risk), and their 5th slot. So its not a lock that they will be as good the next year as this year. So I think that even with A Rod, the Angels can't be considered a lock, becuase as others said before, it takes 25 players, and just one doesn't severely alter the teams future, unlike other professional sports. If they get A rod and Bonds, then they will probably dominate next year, assuming the pitching holds up, but once bonds leaves, all bets are off. That team is aging, what with Garret Anderson not being healthy, and Vlad is getting older. Plus A rod isn't a spring chicken either. The A's have too much talent to just blow it up right now. If they can somehow get a little more pitching in the rotation, they could be one of the best teams in the league.
by maffew on Nov 3, 2007 1:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
I don't see any logical reason that the As would blow up the team this offseason because, as stated before, we just have too much to work with. I don't think that A-Rod (or any player for that matter) makes a team a lock to reach the playoffs. To hit the panic button would be a rather off response. BB and Co had to plan that everyone in the AL West would improve. The opener in Japan, re-emphasis on health of players, the need for a new stadium somwhere, a feeling of unfinished business, a slew of new coaches, the front office's emphasis on remaining competitive, and the minor feeling that BB and Co owe Oakland and its fans one last run before thinking forward all seem to indicate that they are looking at the present not 2012.
If LAA does acquire A-Rod, I see the opposite happening than scenerio in the OP. I think it will force the As to go all in with regards to the 2008 season. I don't think that the As will enter the A-Rod hunt, but instead make a series of smaller wave moves to improve (for example):
Taking Blanton off the block and placing him behind Danny. Interestingly enough, there is talk of in the NY Mets realm Harden being on the block and Beane being reluctant suddendly to trade Joe. (Maybe he realized the same as most of us here that we need both Danny and Joe). Of course, these could also be the same people who mixed up Haren and Harden... I wonder what's next for them mixing up Barton and Blanton maybe?
Bringing back Stewart to help provide OF depth.
Trading Kotsay to TEX (apparently a Wash favorite) or another team (ATL maybe??) who is looking for a CF and who might not exactly want to get into the bidding war for a Rowand, etc. This would free up some coin to go after a FA CF.
Trading our bullpen surplus/Lenny/Meyer/Braden for a back end of the SP rotation pitcher.
Centering a deal around DJ plus prospects to Minn for one of their young arms (not Santana).
Inquiring about Sexson from SEA or Edmonds from STL. This could make Cust expendable in a trade.
Moving Street to NYY (if Mariano bolts) or MIL (if Cordero bolts). Move Harden or Embree to closer.
If BB were to follow this path, we'd gain an upgrade in CF, keep our 1-2 SP punch, add organizational depth, strengthen our SP rotation, and keep our young hitting core. We'd lose Street but I think we could fill the void internally. Especially since it doesn't look like, at this point, a long term deal is going to be an option.
by AsWin on Nov 4, 2007 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Other than a little addition by subtraction ...
through moving Kotsay, it's unclear to me what at all you did to improve our team.
- Bring back Stewart -- pretty much a wash
- Trade Kotsay to free FA coin -- we'd still be paying at least 3/4 of Kotsay's contract. It wouldn't do much of anything
- Trade bullpen surplus/Lenny/Meyer/Braden for #5 -- we don't actually have a surplus in the bullpen, especially if you're trading Street and if that's all you're trying to give, you're not going to get anything better than Dinardo back.
- DJ for Minny arm -- it's hard to imagine us getting anything decent and ML ready unless those prospects are worth much more than your typical anonymous prospect.
- Make Cust expendable -- neither of these guys are likely to be better than Cust next year -- why would we want a downgrade in talent with an upgrade in salary?
- Move Street -- for what? this is beginning to sound like a fire sale ...
As best I can tell, you've added a crappy #5 starter who probably has a contract that doesn't involve paying him in Monopoly money and committed to a longterm contract for a overpriced/rated center fielder, while destroying our bullpen (it wasn't deep -- at least with talented pitchers -- to begin with. Now we're left with only Duke and Embree who we can expect to rely on and Duke is inevitably going to miss at least a month). I'd say you've probably made the team worse, while making it older and putting it in a worse financial position.
by devo on Nov 5, 2007 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Angels may roll to the West title
with A-Rod, but to say they'd "be set up to do very well in the playoffs" is a reach.
A-Rod in the playoffs just means "black hole," "easy out," "head case," "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn," pick your description. A-Rod in October is the Invisible Man.
by Vacafan on Nov 3, 2007 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Like Captain Clutch?
CC: 309-377-469, OPS 846. Choke-Rod: 279-361-483, OPS 844.
by rfloh on Nov 4, 2007 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember vividly that when
the Yankees acquired A-Rod the pundits unanimously anointed the Yankees the World Series Champs for the next 5 years. Those were the same pundits who assured us that when Randy Johnson, A-Rod and Griffey left the Mariners they were doomed for last place, as I recall the Mariners won 100 plus games the next year.
The reality is that a player doesn't make that much difference, pitching does. The Angels win because of their pitching, not because of Vlad. The Yankees routinely lead the league in scoring, it doesn't hurt that they get to play TB and Baltimore 38 games a year, but in the playoffs guess where the good hitting goes.
I think A-Rod wants to go to the NL which is clearly inferior, and build on his stats. I would think that Wrigley would be a good choice, nice park to hit in, a lot of protection in the lineup, and Lou Pinella is the manager. If Moreno gets A-Rod what does he tell Vlad who is making a lot less money.
by china bob on Nov 3, 2007 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
I was writing my post (below) just as you were writing yours.
by ptbarnum on Nov 3, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't discount Vlad's ego
Suppose the Angels do sign Arod for $250-300 million. If you are Vlad Guerrero, what will you think? You're probably going to feel a tad underpaid and under-appreciated. "Market timing is one thing," Vlad might think, "but that chump isn't worth twice as much as I am."
Who knows what effect ARod would have on psyches and performances in Angel Land?
by ptbarnum on Nov 3, 2007 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the A's were to enter the bidding for Arod...
wouldn't that make it MORE likely that the Angel's would definitely try to sign him? Let's don't do anything to PUSH the Halos towards Arod.
As for the Angel's beating the A's year after if they sign Arod..yes I agree that could happen. The A's would have to work a lot harder to get competitive. But as for the playoffs? Arod has so far been a bust... so he is no guarantee of playoff success for any team.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 3, 2007 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The notion that the A's would enter
a bidding sweepstakes for the highest priced free agent in history is...uh...inconsistent with patterns of the past? That's the nice way of putting it. C'mon, folks - the bidders for A-Rod will strictly be the teams who spend lots and lots of money. The A's aren't bidding on A-Rod to drive his price up, to get him, anything.
by Nico on Nov 3, 2007 3:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh I agree with you, Nico.
No way...no how will the A's try for Arod. They have consistently refused to pay our best players (like Tejada) the big bucks. They aren't going to all of a sudden change from Moneyball to Money. Crazy. My post was in answer to the theme of Monkey's post.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 3, 2007 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah - my reply wasn't specifically to you
It was more generally to say that the conversation about "where will he go?" makes more sense than the one about "will the A's be involved?"
by Nico on Nov 3, 2007 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with what most have already said here- no
way do I see the A's getting involved in this.
Anyway, Crosby and Chavez have virtually no trade value right now, so if we get a guy who can play 3B or perhaps still manage SS adequately, what would we do then anyway, really? It ends up being a waste of some sort, especially now that we also have Hannahan, Murphy, and perhaps have Scutaro back next year as well. That's just the argument from the "hey, we don't even have anywhere to put him anyway" side of things.
And I don't see the A's organization as tending to be deliberately wasteful when it comes to players.. oh wait, they kinda did that a lot this past year didn't they? (Piazza lingering an extra month in the minors, DFAs and then lopsided trades or outright releases of players, etc- the A's paid Kielty how much to go play for Boston and end up hitting the World Series winning home run as it turned out?)
So maybe I'm wrong on that and our A's will be in the bidding after all...
As for blowing up what's left of the team if the Angels acquire A-Rod long-term and Bonds too for the year, this kind of forces one to step back for a minute and think about what the team currently is and where it's headed.
And it makes me uncomfortable to say this or realize it, but I don't really like this team the way it is right now. I like parts of it, but the sum total doesn't feel, well, like a solid or cohesive or competitive club...
So I guess I'd almost be in "tear it down and build it back up again around different cornerstone players" mode, whether they get A-Rod to wear those ugly Angel uniforms or not, at this point.
By different cornerstone players, I don't exclude some of the guys they have now. But I'd be ready to get over the idea, which seems to have failed, of building around Chavez, Crosby, Kotsay, Harden, etc and maybe look towards building around Swisher, Haren, Blanton, Buck, Barton, Suzuki... undecided still on Cust, and on others including Street (might be worth more in trade value right now than in long-term value as a team asset, despite how much I like having him on the team and hope he stays.)
Anyway, I guess I'm more in the "maybe it's really time to reorganize and make some big moves, regardless of what the Angels do" camp.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 3, 2007 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can think of a whole lot of reasons
why the A's aren't going to sign A-Rod
.... but "but-what-would-we-do-with-Bobby-Crosby?" sure as hell isn't one of them.
Are you kidding me?? A-Rod is like, a thousand times better than Crosby. Bench him already.
by iglew on Nov 4, 2007 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
obviously you read everything I was musing over
though I admit it was too much musing on my part in general... or you'd know that wasn't really what I was saying at all.
My point wasn't that Crosby is a better option than A-Rod (who the heck would believe that?!) although I could add that defensively he probably has more range at this point- it was that the A's would basically have to dump somebody they couldn't get much of anything for in trade value in order to make room for A-Rod, while also taking on a huge salary to boot just to get him.
What part of that would make sense for the organization from a "bang for your buck" and "responsible allocation of resources" viewpoint?
And to cap this somewhat minor point, it's worth remembering that what you and I think about Bobby Crosby's viability as the A's starting shortstop really doesn't mean anything compared to what Beane and Co. think- and they apparently still think he's got it in him. Ditto with Chavez, who they don't seem to have given up on either.
So yeah, in a real sense, I guess Crosby and Chavez really are blocking a potential A-Rod acquisition... as sadly humorous as you and I both might find that scenario...
by still bills kingdom on Nov 4, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why they play the games...
...because what looks so dominating on paper turns out to be crap so often.
Giving up on the next 3-4 years is a loser's mentality. Not only is there no guarantee that the Angels would be unstoppable, but there's also more than one way to make the post-season... and as we've seen with that great Yankee team WITH A-rod, anything can happen in the post-season.
by UncleLeo on Nov 3, 2007 6:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Kansas City should sign A-Rod
Imagine a team signing Colby Lewis and A-Rod in the same off-season.
by Nico on Nov 3, 2007 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They probably need A-Rod
to fill the year long void that losing Donnie Murphy created.
by AsFanInLA on Nov 3, 2007 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally think he winds up with the Dodgers
But then again, I'm going with past history with the Angels and the Angels weren't often the top bidder with Bill Stoneman. Maybe that's why he's unemployed?
Regardless, I think A-Rod will be a great fit with the Dodgers and TRUE LA teams love stars. Kobe, Gretzky...that's when those teams sell out on a nightly basis.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 3, 2007 9:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Works for me -
in fact I'll even put in $25.00 to help pay for it. Look at me! I'm helping to keep A-Rod away from the Angels! Wheeeeee!!!!
by Nico on Nov 3, 2007 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way,
The last time A-Rod played in the AL West, the A's went to the playoffs four seasons in a row.
Since A-Rod moved the the AL East, the A's have missed the playoffs three seasons out of four.
Just sayin'.
by iglew on Nov 4, 2007 1:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
More or less what I came to post.
If A-Rod would make the Angels a confirmed juggernaut, why didn't he make any of the other teams for which he's played such a juggernaut?
If Vlad's bad back finally breaks, all they have is an enhanced version of Guerrero that they can't protect in the middle of the lineup.
by jeepers on Nov 4, 2007 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We do much better with a Democratic president
Just citing an equally truthy fact.
by MrIncognito on Nov 4, 2007 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you talking about the A's or the US?
Eh, doesn't matter does it?
by Nico on Nov 4, 2007 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the A's ...
since the A's came to Oakland
1968 Johnson -- 0 PO
1969-1976 Nixon/Ford -- 5 PO, 3 WS
1977-1980 Carter -- 0 PO
1981-1988 Reagan -- 2 PO
1989-1992 Bush I -- 3 PO, 1 WS
1993-2000 Clinton -- 1 PO
2001-Present Bush II -- 4 PO
Democrats:
13 seasons, 1 playoff trip, 0 championships
Republicans:
27 seasons, 14 playoff trips, 4 championships
by devo on Nov 5, 2007 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
when he played with Seattle
that didn't keep the Mariners from getting into the post-season.
Texas' main problem was -- and continues to be -- not enough pitching.
by OaklandSi on Nov 4, 2007 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It really is a Nation
Amazing that a little ol' question like "should the A's give up on the next five years if the Angels sign A-Rod" manages to garner 35 comments within 24 hours of this post. Checking the other team blog sites, most were lucky to get 35 comments in the past month. Even the Rockies site is just barely alive. Just goes to show how dedicated and entertaining A's fans can be! Go A's!
by groversson on Nov 4, 2007 10:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
this is the premier A's blog ...
most other teams have other, non-SN blogs that predated the SN blog and are more popular.
Not to take anything away from this blog, it's arguably the best sports blog in the country, but it's not as drastic as it may seem.
by devo on Nov 5, 2007 9:47 AM PST 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.
