An open letter to Lew Wolff & Billy Beane
by McFood on Jul 18, 2007 8:56 AM PDT
54 comments
Disgusting.
Screw you Joe Kennedy and Bobby Crosby, I hope you're both DFA'd today.
Kennedy is consistent in that when he enters the game, you KNOW the other team will keep scoring until he's taken out. I will turn off the game whenever he's used from now on.
Enough has been barfed about Crosby already, there are no new words.
I just hope that Lew and Billy learn that it isn't enough to take chances on oft injured players and marginal offensive ability guys who take a lot of pitches and draw walks, you need some damn HITTERS in the lineup who can drive the ball. What a difference a Thomas makes, eh? So, guys, if you're as committed as you say you are, then it's time to loosen up the purse strings and PAY for some talent. Being clever is great, but sometimes you need to do the obvious things, too.
GO GET US A HEALTHY MASHER, or I'll not be renewing my season tickets next year, along with probably thousands of other people.
I've had it. Pony up or piss off.
0 recs |
54 comments
Email
Print
Comments
But...
They're so clean and nice!
by Poppy on Jul 18, 2007 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would recommend sealing this letter
and then just sending it by standard US mail.
by mikeA on Jul 18, 2007 9:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
venting is good-
but its not about the money spent on players. you know this, but you're pissed. rightly so. changes are needed and i know of no one else but the a's current GM to dig the team out of this pit of shit.
by bigelephant on Jul 18, 2007 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you might want to add a salutation
by ArakSOT on Jul 18, 2007 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He did.
"Disgusting."
by Poppy on Jul 18, 2007 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Screw you" could also qualify.
by Poppy on Jul 18, 2007 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is not a question of loosening
up the purse strings, Piazza cost $8, Bradley was $4, Kendall some ridiculous amount, Kotsay $7. The A's payroll is somewhere in the middle of all major league teams. Money is not the answer, wise spending is and to a certain degree BB deserves a little criticism for paying some guys too much money. But if you go back and look on this site 3 or 4 years ago we were elated when he signed Kotsay, resigned Chavez and made other bold moves. By the same token we were luke warm when he spent a lot of money for Thomas last year only to be proven to be a genius signing. We are not a major market, a terrible TV and radio contract, a low fan base so BB has to spend wisely, he doesn't always do that but overall we have nothing to complain about. I look forward to BB rebuilding this team, and I have no doubt he will make a bold move on an impact player, a lot of money is getting freed up this off season. I think Kennedy makes $4 which is absurd but not a BB signing. Harden costs us a lot with no return. I don't know if he is bold enough to trade Chavez, or Crosby but I hope he does, this team needs a makeover.
I do agree with you on the patience part, I am so sick of seeing the A's wait around until there are two strikes, then flail away or worse yet, sit there and watch the 3rd strike go by, reminds me of Little League when most of the kids go to the plate hoping for a walk.
by china bob on Jul 18, 2007 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
...
I just hope that Lew and Billy learn that it isn't enough to take chances on oft injured players...
What a difference a Thomas makes, eh?
by mikeA on Jul 18, 2007 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
See below, you weebalow.
by McFood on Jul 18, 2007 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
McFood needs a McMaalox!
Frank Thomas this season is not the same as last years FT. His numbers are comparable to Swisher’s. He is not the key. Also I don’t think the prospect of decreased revenue is going to sway BB. In fact it will just make him tighten the purse strings. I have to ask you this, do you only follow a team when it wins? There is allot to be said about losing with grace. That is what made other blogs most notably Lookout Landing so classy and respected.
by Athletics Fan In London on Jul 18, 2007 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The A's aren't losing with grace,
Mark or otherwise. They're losing with dullth.
by Nico on Jul 18, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is not that we should have signed FT
We got lucky with him last season, and we took the same chance on Piazza this season and got burned. My point is that if you kep making risky chances on players like that you're just as likely to get burned. What's wrong with signing a healthy productive player for 5 years? So it costs a lot, but when he produces and your team wins, you get higher attendence/more fan interest/more money.
You don't think the prospect of decreased revenue is going to sway BB? Ok, so the team gets worse, and less fans show up, so he spends less, and the team gets worse, and less fans show up, so he spends less, and then we're KC or Pittsburgh. Versus he spends more, the team wins, more fans show up, so he can afford to spend more, like, I don't know, let's see, how about the Angels? Did they wait for more fans to show up before they spent more? Of course not, the cycle doesn't start with more fans showing up for a crappy, horrible, impotent team, it starts with the owners spending more for REALLY GOOD players and making the team better so THEY WIN!
Look, this is half rant anyway, I know you can logically find holes in my argument, but I don't care about logic and balance sheets, I want the team to entertain me with a hope of winning. I've followed the team since '68 through some worse times than this, but I sure as hell am not going to pay for this dreck next year. If they don't pony up, why should I?
by McFood on Jul 18, 2007 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I don't care about logic and balance sheets"
that just saved me fifteen minutes of hole-shooting.
by xbhaskarx on Jul 18, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just a quick observation
Piazza wasn't a fragile petal when he was signed. It was a freak injury at third base and he was hardly a 'risky' player to sign, injury-wise.
His productivity in the period prior is a valid subject for debate, I'll grant you that. I would have preferred someone younger with more playing time ahead, but that's just me.
by coffee roaster on Jul 18, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
piazza not fragile, unlike frank thomas
by xbhaskarx on Jul 18, 2007 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As fans we know BB
When has he increased revenue just to get fans to show up? Never is the correct answer. He will try to make the team better with what he has. The A's aren't the Angels and BB is not going to spend money for good PR. BB worries about staying on budget first, winning second. I am not saying that in the off season they won't spend a little. But they are not making a Andruw Jones or A-Rod type signings either. Reading the article in the Tribune about BB it sounds like he is looking towards pitching still. The future is bright for the A's. I have seen them go into bad times before and it was always led by shitty pitching not a shitty offence. The offence can easily be fixed.
by Athletics Fan In London on Jul 18, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there was an 80's movie
...never mind (american werewolf in london)
by ak_A on Jul 18, 2007 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beane and Wolff should be alarmed
I know a lot of the comments on this site are the result of venting and have to be taken with a grain of salt, but I do believe that more and more fans are becoming increasingly disinterested in the current brand of dull, lifeless, and unsuccessful baseball.
Heck, I write on the front page and I'm not even planning to listen to today's game. You have to give your fans a reason to stay involved, or even the most dedicated and loyal fans will go on with their lives. Sadly, the status quo is just not capturing my interest.
by Nico on Jul 18, 2007 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very well put..
it's not fun to watch this team in 2007.
by SwisherSweet33 on Jul 18, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why should they be alarmed?
The franchise has, since the days of Schott and Hoffman, and through Wolff and Fisher, been actively interested in disengaging the current fanbase. If you have been and continue to be a fan, unless you make $150K+/yr and/or work for a company interested in buying luxury boxes, you. Simply. Don't. Matter.
Which is fine and Wolff's prerogative. I have no problem with it, actually.
by monkeyball on Jul 18, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't you have a problem with it?
It's a terrible way to run a baseball team and a terrible way to run a country. I have a problem with it.
by Nico on Jul 18, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
define "terrible"
I'm an LCJian -- I don't see any overriding civic imperative for Lew to give his product away, or to forgo profits by reserving class-based below-market seats.
Now, sure, I'd prefer that there be cheaper options available, because I'm a cheap bastard. And I'm sure that after the Great Leap Fremont, there will still be gray-market cheap-bastard solutions to see the games without taking out a second mortgage on Castle Monkeyball.
And, yeah, within 5-10 years, Bay Area baseball fandom will have roughly the same limited appeal as Tolstoy-reading or Bouvier des Flandres-breeding.
But the Athletics will remain highly profitable and, likely, highly competitive.
by monkeyball on Jul 18, 2007 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean terrible in an ethics sense,
not in the sense of what's best for the 1% of the population to which Wolff and Beane belong.
by Nico on Jul 18, 2007 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not good business sense either
In the long run there is a price for MLB to pay for distancing themselves from the ticket buying rank-and-file. This isn't unique to Wolffish, whose methods stand out more because they're new to us in Oakland, not so much because they're new (though the park financing pyramid is clever).
Since owners make a tinier than ever chunk of their profits off of raw ticket sales, they're gaze focuses elsewhere, on TV and especially on franchise valuation. Which, if you're only in it for 10 years and a massive ROI, is smart business. But there is a price for the league to pay...there has to be...for writing off what has historically been their fan base. Demographics alone (see: looming worker shortage), multiplied by youth going to fewer games, will surely hit the TV/radio/internet markets upon which franchise value was built, in another generation or two.
To any one team or owner, such populist concerns are foolish next to the money to be made. For the league as a whole, though...trouble ahead.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 18, 2007 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't necessarily agree
It's generally a move toward the NFL/NBA business model which works pretty well, and I'm not sure that it hurts too much in the long term. Anecdotally speaking (myself as the anecdote), I was a huge 49er fan when I was 8-16, and I attended all of 1 game (I have since realized that football is a terrible sport.) I have been a big Warriors fan for 15 years and have seen 5-10 games live over that span, and I didn't personally pay for a single one of those tickets. The NFL and NBA nevertheless remain profitable.
I don't mean to paint a rosy picture of the NBA or NFL. I think that's what MLB is becoming, but that that scenario is dystopic. I loved the '9ers and I love the Warriors, but the amount of money they demand that you spend to see a game that is televised is absurd.
Baseball has been (unintentionally) able to accommodate low/middle income fans for a long time because of the 81-game format. As things stand now, there is sufficient demand in most markets to prevent the likes of you and I (and more germanely various families) from walking up as we please and having a great $10 experience.
To boil it down: I don't think effectively preventing a large segment of the population from coming to the park (at least more than once in a long while) will hurt long term profitability very much, but the Oakland A's are one of the last bastions of the "Pastime" being at all "National" in the egalitarian sense.
by mikeA on Jul 18, 2007 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A very interesting question
To me you throw the NFL out of the discussion, with its 8 home dates and collectivist TV Contract of the Gods. Even its ticket sales are in part driven by being part of the whole spectacle package (as Nick opined as great length last weekend).
The NBA is the key model, make or break, with a hefty home schedule. But even there, with half as many home dates and half the capacity per game, and a genuine national in-season TV audience that MLB can only lust for, I have a hard time believing baseball can make that approach work. Add to that success in marketing appeal to legions of young, non-ticket buying fans, and the NBA at least is demographically replacing its audience, widely defined. So baseball, with twice the dates and twice the seats per date, and...what, maybe a third or fewer...of the younger generation fans, it better do some fine tuning of the model quick, because I just don't see it working the way it does for the NBA.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 18, 2007 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruthless and efficient
analysis....and worst of all, truthful. You really do work in advertising, don't you?
by alox on Jul 18, 2007 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Great Leap Fremont"
Sweet.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 18, 2007 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I thought you'd like that
by monkeyball on Jul 19, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true.
I'm EXACTLY the kind of fan they're after. I'm the kind with a family that used to buy walk up tickets, and occasionally, advance tickets, the kind with enough extra money to buy season tickets if I make a bit of a sacrifice in other areas, the kind they're trying so hard to convert to a season ticket holder, the kind that will upgrade to better seats in future seasons if the product is good enough, and the kind they will lose if they trot out crap performers like they have this season.
by McFood on Jul 18, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you have to sacrifice in other areas ...
... then you won't buy ALL the extras at the park, you won't up your package with all the premium options, you won't pay the PSL, you won't pay the increased parking/access/"convenience" fees -- face it, McFood, you're doing well, but not well enough. Better hit the books and take that nights/weekends exec MBA class and step it up to the next level.
You're also, frankly, too knowledgeable about, and concerned with, what it takes to field a competitive team (slavering desire for a meaningless expensive name FA acquisition aside).
The ideal fan: rich, dumb, and acquiescent. Three strikes, McFood -- you're out, along with most of the rest of us.
by monkeyball on Jul 18, 2007 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh, errrh....suppose, well I
got this friend see, who happens to be a real good A's fan....and ahh, he has no life to go on with...so to speak.
by ak_A on Jul 18, 2007 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is tiresome. And we're spoilt.
Maybe we should take a dose-or-two of the fortitude we presume to prescribe?
by The Dogfather on Jul 18, 2007 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lew Wolff & Billy Beane Respond
Could you guys stop giving advice and just show up. The Warriors draw more fans on a Tuesday or Wednesday night than the A's.
I am guilty as charged I go to only a few games a year. But this version of the A's isn't motivating me to get on BART and go to the Coliseum anytime soon. I am hopeful because I think Billy Bean learns from his mistakes and takes corrective action, i.e., he is not Brian Sabean.
by NoeValley on Jul 18, 2007 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused.
You tell us to quit bitchin and show up to the games anyway, yet you say you aren't motivated to go for the same reasons others have expressed.
by Helloooo 1st on Jul 18, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
Paragraph 1 was me posturing as Lew and Billy. Then I was speaking for myself.
Here's radical and I expect unpopular suggestion. Forget the Fremont plan or any new stadium plan. Abandon the Coliseum and become tenants of the Giants. If both NY identified football teams can play in NJ, the Oakland Athletics of the Bay Area or Golden State Athletics or ... can be accepted after initial repulsion. The Giants might resist, however, the A's would be a better tenant than the random events they fill the calendar with. Taxpayers in Alameda County don't get stuck building paying for infrastructure that supports wealthy team ownership. I admit as I am biased as a San Francisco resident.
by NoeValley on Jul 19, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Glenn Dickey plan
I actually LOVE that idea myself, both from a civic asset-management standpoint and from a cheap-bastard-A's-fan-living-in-SF standpoint.
But the ONLY motivation for Lew to move the franchise's home field from the Coli is so Lew can make a boatload of long-term cash on the RE dev scheme.
Under Schott and Hoffman, that idea might have worked.
Under Lew ... he'd just laaaaaaaaaaaugh and laaaaaaaaaaaaugh.
by monkeyball on Jul 19, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh No
I am on the same page as Glenn Dickey. What next a cheap toupee and the Everett Koop beard.
I see the Lew's motivation as well. At point does he run out patience with the planning and approval process. Billy is going to make enough money on NetSuite IPO to bet set for life. Perhaps he and his new buddy Ellison will buy out everyone else.
by NoeValley on Jul 19, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
uh, actually ...
... not going is the most direct action fans can take when an inferior product is being presented.
by monkeyball on Jul 18, 2007 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Direct action?
Picket the stadium? Hold a sit-in?
Man, that would be funny if tons of pissed-off Pittsburgh fans sat in on the field in protest. Frankly, if I was a Pirates fan, I'd seriously consider it.
by PaulThomas on Jul 18, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Understand the Frustration
And think that you are 100% right on target. It's great to be clever, and the past several years have definitely taught us that the A's front office is incredibly clever, but it seems to me that they have lost their edge this year and let the talent stretch out too thin. In restrospect, the A's should have kept Tejada and let Chavez walk if they could only keep one of the two and never let Kennedy anywhere near a green and gold uniform.
by may7 on Jul 18, 2007 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
oh dear god we're doing this again.
by DMOAS on Jul 18, 2007 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's look forward, not back.
by McFood on Jul 18, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the right attitude!!
The glass is literally half full. The A's pitching is the best! It will be very good next year too.
by Athletics Fan In London on Jul 18, 2007 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Letting Tejada walk
Don't forget they had Bobby Crosby--cough--
waiting in the wings...
by SanJoseRon on Jul 18, 2007 11:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's Assume...
That our beloved muppets stink up the rest of the 2nd half to the tune of the 1979 team. Out of that team came Rickey "I am the Greatest" Henderson.
With great expectation can come great disappointment. I am more interested in seeing health eturn to players such as Street and the development of Buck, Suzuki and Gaudin. I've kind of given up on Crosby, Harden and some others. In the big picture, that's alright so we can rebuild the team and improve upon what we have. The Panic button doesn't necessarily have to be pushed. Beane I think gets excited about these kinds of opportunities and so should we.
by Gerard on Jul 18, 2007 11:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why do you call them muppets...
yet another thing (see magical unicorn) that I just don't get or care to get.
by SwisherSweet33 on Jul 18, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Guess You Don't See The World Through
Frankly, I'd probably insert Kermit at SS and be just as entertained.
by Gerard on Jul 18, 2007 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you dont care to get....
Then why ask?
by OaktownPower on Jul 18, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1979
Yes that was a dreadful year, but they actually played a much better second half than the current squad. Henderson came up, Armas came off of the DL, Murphy began to hit, and Langford pitched great. But I digress, people who complain about the current ownership did not live through the Finley fire sale years, nothing they have done can compare to that. The attendance that year was just over 300,000! (55 of that number was me). However, I do see similes between BB and Charlie O'. That is what gives me flashbacks.
by billyball1981 on Jul 18, 2007 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I've thought all along that, while the A's aren't breaking the payroll bank, their plan has been to keep a reasonably competitive product out there in the last Oakland years. Because they've been the good cop of relocatees...committed to staying local, run by local owners, not going the Loria route of slashed payroll and angry threats. They genuinely, I have thought, want to retain local fan goodwill (to the extent they can while doing the in-park bad cop shtick now).
I still think that...that they didn't expect this team to be this bad. But it doesn't feel far from the other...and ticket buyers absolutely ought to hold them accountable if the plan is four more years of green and gold Rivercats.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jul 18, 2007 7:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The answer to all this is really simple.
Either:
- Sell Eric Chavez to the Yankees/Red Sox and make a freaking killing the other way in prospects by the bucketload, thus freeing up a bunch of money for bringing in someone who can actually hit a ball when the game is on the line.
- Sit Eric Chavez for a week. No injury BS, no spin, just sit him. Make him the backup third baseman for a few days. Then bring him back and watch his balls grow.
I kinda like the second option best. But you could follow it with the first if he didn't start to mash.
by Ozzz on Jul 19, 2007 12:57 AM PDT 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.
