…there’s your problem.

Backing up Chavez, who we might not get 55 games out of? No.

Hannahan is a suitable late-innings defensive sub, but I’d rather NOT see him getting starts.

than most think, but losing Teixeira would impact that greatly. Unfortunately, I also think their rotation is a better bet – though I hope for major regression from Saunders and Santana.

And lets be honest, Nico is too lazy for three letter words.

Hey, here’s an idea: Maybe he decided to give away some assets for crap-all just to send the message that it’s possible to trade with him and not lose your shirt. Anyone? Anyone?

I’ll need a LOT more alcohol/other substances to possibly digest that idea.

But after the Holliday trade, they still didn’t know whether or not they’d be able to upgrade SS, or the rotation if they choose, or whether the Angels would be with or without Teixeira, which is big. But in making the Holliday trade, at least now they’re close enough that a Furcal pursuit makes sense, that looking at Randy Johnson or Penny makes sense. In other words, you have to get from “about 82 wins” to “about 86 wins” before you can get to “about 90 wins”.

There are other reasons besides thinking you can attempt a serious divisional or world championship run in 2009 to consider it worthwhile to improve your team’s performance after two pretty miserable losing seasons in a row.

For example, look at the surge in excitement level around here the second the Holliday trade was rumored/whispered, and the even greater surge of enthusiasm that occurred after the trade was made.

What did the average A’s fan immediately think, or want to believe?

 “My God, they’re going for it in 2009! We’re going to contend! This is probably just the start- maybe they can even sign Holliday to an extension? Get ’er done, Billy!” etc.

What is the fundamental thing that Beane and ownership reportedly insist upon when it comes to running the organization? That they won’t run it at a loss, and everything has to pay for itself. It’s a business, after all, and the team needs to be run like any successful business would be run.

What has happened the past couple years as the team has gone downhill and then been subjected to a publicly stated rebuilding effort? What has happened as the players the fans knew and liked were traded away for largely unknown younger players?

Loss of public interest, that’s what. Even amongst formerly devoted and interested fans.

And that translates into lost revenues.

It translates into lost merchandise sales, lost season ticket sales, lost single-game ticket sales, lost media licensing money and lost ability to negotiate better television and radio deals, lost advertising revenue, the whole bit.

And that’s a real business problem, and needs to be addressed. And if you can trade some of your business assets in terms of players you don’t consider necessary to your team’s future in return for a genuinely known and respected player who will generate excitement and interest in your team again and thus increase revenue, then that’s not moronic. It’s actually a smart business decision.

Yes, Paul, I understand that you do not value all wins equally. From your perspective, increasing the W-L record of the team in a winning season has value but decreasing the W-L in a season where the team is much below 500 makes no difference. That’s your preference and you’re welcome to it, but it does not follow that it is the only rational preference one might have.

Suppose we’re given a choice: three seasons of 84-78, or two seasons of 74-88 with one of 104-58. I’m sure you’d choose the latter. I probably would, too, but I wouldn’t claim that there’s no possible reason why someone wouldn’t prefer three winning season, nor would I characterize it as moronic.

Beane and Wolff have their own preferences. In addition, they are considering attendance and other marketing and how it affects the financial health of the company.

There is a real difference between a mediocre season and a really bad one. In a year where the team finishes 84-78, it’s usually possible to imagine we’re still in the pennant race as late as September. In a year where the team finishes 74-88 we probably know by the All-Star Break that we really don’t have a shot. That’s the difference between a full season and a half season of excitement over imagined contention. (And don’t forget that 99% of the fan base is far less sophisticated than you in recognizing the team’s real chances beyond just the W-L record.)

Do you have any good data on exactly how team record affects attendance in Oakland? I don’t. I do know that a few years ago Beane acknowledged that this team is unusually vulnerable to having more than a couple of bad seasons in a row. Perhaps the front office has concluded that preventing another miserable season in 2009 is more important than a better chance at a championship in 2010 or 2011.

Do I think that’s what’s going on? I don’t know. It’s plausible. It’s also plausible that they really are "going for it" in 2009.

But when you go around asserting in every thread that the only possible reason for the Holliday trade is that we’re trying to win it all in 2009, and that therefore the only sensible course is to spend everything we’ve got to load up, and that if Beane doesn’t proceed accordingly he’s a dunce and a moron, I think you’re presuming much more information than you really have.

It’s not very scientific of you.

I happen to think signing Giambi does not enhance the team’s marketability on the whole, but to whatever extent having the familiar name makes fans more interested in seeing games, it’s not “fucking stupid” to consider that as a factor.

whether or not they LAND Furcal is another matter, and somewhat beyond their control.