Sums up my thoughts beautifully.

Historically the A’s have- to borrow a line from Ebby Calvin LaLoosh- “announced their presence with authority” one season before “the special years”. OK, maybe not always with authority, but stay with me.

1970: Oakland won 89 games, nine behind Minnesota. The A’s won the AL West the next five seasons, and three World Series.

1987: Though they finished “only” 81-81, the pieces were falling in place for a championship revival. Over the next five years Oakland won four division titles, three pennants, and one World Series.

1999: The A’s went 87-75 before ringing in the next century with four straight playoff appearances (and five in seven years).

In the case of the 1987 and 1999 teams, those “pre-special” seasons followed a string of at least five consecutive losing campaigns (1982-86 and 1993-98).

So this is nothing new for Oakland, although let’s credit current management for getting the team ready for special-ness without making its fan base suffer through too many lean years.

So it’s sort of a deposit of spare prospects now for new prospects later, with a year of veteran help in between.

Though you can still argue that giving up Carlos was a mistake.

Low risk trade because of depth at SP and bullpen. I don’t really think the A’s have a lot of quality depth in the OF. Sweeney, Buck, Cunningham – none of them project as stars. So this only looks bad longterm if Gonzalez becomes a star and the draft choices are horrible. It does still kind of stick in my craw that they could have dealt Street independently for quality and that Smith and Gonzalez should have been enough for a one year rental – but apparently that’s not the case. At the very least, I wish they’d gotten another player coming back in the trade.

I just woke up from a dream of the A’s playing on Opening Day this coming season. Holliday took a first pitch strike, someone yelled something at him and he proceeded to turn around and hit lefty… against a lefty pitcher. Of course he hit a 2-run bomb right there so looks like the trades already paying off.

year, but he’s not going to be an adequate CF for very long defensively. Maybe with a groundballing staff it won’t matter much, but I’d still like to address it somehow. The next CF prospect may be Weeks and he’s a ways away, and a 2B. I don’t really believe in Brown.

I was really getting tired of that guy.

It seems like lately AN has been dominated with the view that we gave away the farm for one year of Holliday, who is worthless unless we re-sign him or we’re “going for it” in 2009. I’m glad to see an opposing view on the front page.

It’s nice to be reminded that, although they’re good players, Street, Smith and Gonzalez aren’t really essential to our success in 2010. More important, I’m tired of the sentiment that it means nothing to be better in 2009 than we would have been. It means a lot. For starters, it means we get to stop sucking a year sooner. That counts for something.

I’m certainly not arguing for ignoring future investment for the sake of winning now, but some people go way too far in the other direction. You can’t always be comparing one year of X right now against two years of Y down the road without considering any discount for delayed gratification. Winning in 2011 is not exactly equal to winning in 2009, because 2009 is now and 2011 is not.

If I was the A’s owner Lew I would just say F it, spend $200 million on Mark Texeria. He is as good of a bet as there is. Young, great defender, switch hitter. Then sit back wait for the young pitching to come through the system and fill any holes with the surplus in young talent as it matures. This will never happen for various reasons, most importantly I’m sure the owner wants to run a profit. But every once and a while a solid gamble comes around. Or alteratively if Holliday does well in Oakland, spend the money on him.

However, I think it’s unlikely that it will be on the coattails of Anderson/Cahill. They could contribute, sure. But it’s unlikely to be on their backs.

Those guys will be 22 that year. The list of AL starters who have been dominant at age 22 in the last decade is a very short list.

Hudson broke out at age 24, and Mulder got hit hard his first year before breaking out at 23/24. Sure, Zito did well at 22, but since the league was seeing his unique curve ball for the first time, I’d call his success an outlier. His K-to-walk was unimpressive, and the league hit only .195 off him.

I could see Anderson/Cahill getting time in the league in 2010, sure. But a more realistic timeline for “fronting a rotation” and coat tail-riding is 2011, at earliest, when both guys are 23.

impedes the A’s ability to compete past 2009 in the slightest. 2010 was going to be Huston’s last year in Oakland anyway (unless his elbow blew out and we could have kept him for cheap). if you can’t find a pitcher as good as Greg Smith for your rotation, you’re not trying very hard.

Gonzalez would probably be very nice to have on the 2010 squad, but as always, what will make the A’s tick that year is pitching, and nothing of significance long-term was lost in that deal on the pitching front.

Do you want to continue on the never-ending quest for the best “hot prospects”, or do you wanna take a shot at getting to f*ck the prom queen come October?

That or this is a question of semantics, ’cause in my lingo “compromised” is merely a polite way to say “well and truly screwed”. Which is actually the PG version of what I typically say in that situation.

Acquiring Holliday does not screw the A’s in 2010 and beyond even if they don’t sign him to an extension. The trade does hamper the A’s ability to add talent during those years, to say nothing of the lost production from not having Gonzalez/Street/Smith on the roster. How great of a loss that will be shall be largely determined by the event of the 2009 season. If Chavez comes back healthy and Furcal is signed and produces and Ellis is healthy and Barton quits moshing against the concrete and the hot prospects continue to develope then not having the departed 3 won’t be too bad.

If Chavez isn’t healthy or Furcal doesn’t sign or Barton continues to be a fool or some prospects flame out (or any combination therein) then not having Gonzalez/Smith/Street available as trade chips is a problem. Possibly a very serious problem. Which is why the potential reward for trading those 3 for 1 guaranteed year of Holliday needs to be maximized. A non-sub-.500 season does not qualify. Make the trade, sign Furcal and pull off one more move and go for it. You may not win a WS title, but taking the shot beats half-assing it and playing the middle ground.