Staturday: Its not ranting if the facts back me up.
by grover on Dec 12, 2008 11:59 PM PST
Email
Print
I am not a patient muppet. Nor am I renowned for my optimism. So the last time I wrote something that wasn’t, at best, a summary of the work of others I took a small leap of faith to include Rafael Furcal as one of the assets on the A’s 2009 roster. At the time, I didn’t think there was any way for Billy Beane to screw up the deal. The A’s were the only team pursuing Furcal as the Giants and the Cardinals had dropped out of the race and acquired new shortstops. I thought, there was no way that the A’s were heading to
I was wrong.
As I said at the top, this isn’t another rant about Rafael Furcal. However, we can’t get down to brass tacks without addressing the epic failure that was the A’s not signing him prior to the Winter Meetings. So a quick summary is in order. We know that Furcal was the A’s #1 free agent priority prior to the Winter Meetings, we also know that priority didn’t change much during the Winter Meetings. We know that Furcal rejected a 4 year offer worth between $35 and $40 million. We have reasonably speculated that the A’s offered 4 years/$36 million with $4 million in incentives. It makes sense that 4/36 was guaranteed, because that is the floor for any reasonable offer to the premier free agent SS on the 2009 market. Any lesser offer based on those figures (say, the 4th year not guaranteed) represents a waste of the A’s time and bargaining position and makes my condemnation of Beane’s actions thus far even more justified.
At this point someone probably wants to jump in and say: “Grover, it would have been foolish for Beane to bid against himself” after Team Furcal said no. I get it, Beane was trying to save a couple bucks.
Get this, the A’s aren’t the only team bidding for Furcal now. And has anyone noticed the market trend this offseason? A lot of good players are getting less then they thought they would, but the premier guys are getting their money. Furcal is a premier guy because of the position he plays, his age (3 years younger than Renteria and Cabrera) and the fact he doesn’t cost his new team a draft pick. If it wasn’t for a back injury that he recovered from in time to play in the postseason he’d get every cent his agent asked for. The A’s missed on their best shot at signing Furcal. They have gained nothing by dragging out the negotiations.
“But Beane was trying to save money.”
Let’s step back for a moment and take a big picture view of this. The specific number varies, but the general rule of thumb is that 1 Win Above Replacement (WAR) will cost a team $4 million via free agency. That’s considered a fair deal, no one side taking advantage of the other. Therefore, if I told you the A’s were going to spend $16 million in free agency to field a 4 WAR middle infield you would have to conclude that it was a fair deal all around. Now, at that point does it matter if both players made $8 million or if one guy made more than the other? Not really, not as it affects the 2009 season anyways. Furcal is projected to be a 2 WAR player in 2009 and I’ve argued that it’s going to take $10 million guaranteed, annual to sign him. Earlier in the offseason the A’s re-signed free agent to be Mark Ellis to a deal that guaranteed him an average of $5.5 million. Ellis is projected to be at least a 2 WAR player. So there’s your 4 WAR infield for $16 million, all fair and equitable! Folks, Beane saved money when he re-signed Ellis to that ridiculously team friendly deal. Deals like Ellis’ don’t come around that often, it behooves a team to take advantage when it does.
“But… but… that still doesn’t justify over-bidding on Furcal!”
Let’s get something straight. The A’s are more of a contender with Furcal on their roster then they are when Bobby Crosby is penciled in at SS. Trading for Holliday and signing Furcal goes a long way in convincing other people that the 2009 Oakland Athletics will be better than their 75-86 record from 2008. People like, SP Randy Johnson. The Big Unit is another free agent the A’s are interested in wooing, in large part because he can still deal AND he’s looking for a 1 year contract. He is, in essence, another unexpected bargain in that normally a pitcher of his age and skill level would be seeking a multi-year deal. The A’s have little incentive to sign any veteran SP to a long term deal because they have about 73 SP prospects in the upper minors and they don’t want to jam their big league rotation with expensive players.
Thing is, Johnson knows he’s coming as a bargain and he can therefore be extremely picky about which team he chooses. He even has a list of requirements for his new team. He wants to play on the West Coast, he wants to go to Spring Training in
Oh, but the consequences of not signing Furcal before the Winter Meetings could stretch well beyond 2009. It’s nice that the talking heads still consider the A’s to be the front runners in landing Furcal, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking the A’s have a better chance of signing him now then when they were the only team making him an offer. And if the A’s don’t sign Furcal then they’re going to be looking for alternatives that they already decided were less valuable than what Furcal could add to the team. There’s even a chance the A’s forgo adding a new SS and stick with a homegrown option, be it
Don’t you think Matt Holliday might like to play for a contender in 2010 and that the quality of the team might have some sway on his decision to sign a new contract? If the A’s don’t contend in 2009 it severely diminishes their ability to re-sign Holliday without having to be the highest bidder. C.C. Sabathia was willing to give the Brewers a hometown discount after playing in Milwaukee for half a season, in large part because he liked the clubhouse atmosphere and was playing for a contender! He waited weeks for the Brewers to up their initial offer, and even then it wasn’t until the Yankees bumped their $140 million offer to $161 million that he agreed to play for NY. I’m not saying the A’s aren’t going to have to shell out a ton of money to keep Holliday but I’m figuring the clubhouse atmosphere won’t be a problem, therefore the quality of the roster and the team’s ability to contend will be deciding factors in Holliday’s willingness to offer the A’s a hometown discount.
You want to talk about saving money? Spending an extra $1 million a year on Furcal now could save you $5 million a year on Holliday a year from now.
“But…”
Enough with the “buts”, if there’s one thing the A’s have right now is the financial flexibility to spend a little more on Furcal if they have to. If there’s one thing the A’s don’t have is a quality SS, or even anyone who projects to be an average SS in the next few years. Don’t blame me for that, blame the guy who traded Haren, Blanton, Harden and Gaudin and didn’t get one damn SS prospect back in the exchange. Quite simply, the A’s need Rafael Furcal because he’s the best free agent SS on the market this year and next and the A’s are in a position to add talent through monetary means and not lose talent via trade. The quicker the A’s sign Furcal the better their chance to sign Randy Johnson. If Beane can add those two talents to his roster it could mean 4-5 extra wins for
I get it. Beane’s trying to save a couple bucks on Furcal.
234 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What if Furcal is signed?
It seems a bit early to heap on the doom and gloom. The A’s still have a very good shot of getting him and look to be willing to spend the money. Yea, I would be upset if the A’s don’t get Furcal, but can we expect an equally passionate piece extolling Beane’s virtues if he does get Furcal signed to a much more favorable deal than what we thought?
How good of a shot did the A's have when they were the only team courting Furcal?
Do you think those odds were better then the current odds?
And what is “a much more favorable deal than what we thought” supposed to be? The annual figure isn’t going to go below $9 million, the Dodgers’ 2/25 offer guarantees that. Are you talking fewer years? That means a higher annual amount than $9 million, which was always an option.
This is pretty straight forward.
Furcal wants $12 million annual. He wants 4 years guaranteed.
He’s not getting both. If the higher annual salary matters most he’ll have to take fewer years. If the 4 years is key then he’ll have to accept fewer annual dollars. This is a given.
At the same time, the market has shown that 4/36 is a low-ball offer and one that is doubtful to land Furcal unless the A’s manage to wait out every other suitor. That would take time. Meanwhile, Randy Johnson is slipping further out of the A’s reach.
The monster at the end of this blog.
So, now it's Furcal AND Johnson who the Athletics NEED?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
The A's have identified them as the best values to be found on the open market
So… yeah.
Course they could always go for lesser options if they want to save a few bucks.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Like developing their current SP options?
Like watching another replay of a ‘Big Three’ and/or Danny Haren. Naw, can’t let that happen as 2009 might actually be a time to compete. And surely a team cannot simulataneously compete as players are being developed. [/sarc]
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
You want to go there? Fine.
The A’s broke out the Big 3 in 2000.
They had Appier and Heredia in the rotation and Hudson had come up in the middle of 1999. Mulder was in the rotation most of the season and Zito came up at mid-season. The offense featured a line-up of Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Ben Grieve and Matt Staris. They scored 947 runs that year.
If you think the current crop of young arms has anywhere near that level of support you’re in deep denial.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I have no idea
whether the odds of him signing with the A’s before the winter meetings were better than the odds are now. Maybe Furcal had no intention of signing when the A’s were the only team courting him, maybe he always intended to try to get other teams interested at the winter and any offer the A’s made would only be used as a number for negotiations with other teams.
I think at this point, the odds of another team making an offer that the A’s are unwilling to match or beat would be pretty low. If Furcal does sign some where else I think it will most likely be because he didn’t really want to play in Oakland any way.
Right
I don’t accept the premise that there was ever a time that the A’s truly were the only team persuing Furcal. Just because they may have been the only team to offer him a contract does not make it so. Other teams, specifically the Dodgers, could have just chosen to play things a little differently waiting for someone else to make the first offer. In fact, Coletti has publicly stated that resigning Furcal is a top priority of the Dodgers. I don’t think that this just came to pass in the last week.
I also think that even if the A’s had offered 4/48 that Kinzer would still have waited to see if someone else would top it.
Maybe 4/48 would have sold Furcal,
as he appears to be holding out for about 12mil/year and 4 years is the best he could hope to get. But 4/44? He might just have used that to up his deal with LAD.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Maybe
I think that whatever the A’s would have offered a couple of weeks ago that that would have only established a floor. Perhaps it would have also been the ceiling but regardless I don’t think that Kinzer was just going to sign that quickly. Now he may not have waited this long but my main point is that the A’s and KInzer/Furcal were never really exclusive.
Looks like Furcal really wants to stay with the Dodgers
From Ken Rosenthal @ http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8938060/Yanks-shedding-salaries-to-go-after-more-players
The A’s are again offering Furcal a four-year deal
One agent says it is obvious that Furcal wants to remain with the Dodgers; otherwise, he already would have accepted the A’s offer.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Yup - the main reason the A's can't sign Furcal
is that he doesn’t actually want to sign with Oakland.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
What are you talking about grover?
As far as I know, we’re still the frontrunners for Furcal. Wait and see…?
Never, Never, NEVER give up
What if Furcal actually DOES still have back issues?
Don’t get me wrong, I want him signed, I’m just wondering — there were reports that some of the posturing/negotiating was actually in order to heal up his back more or something like that.
I still think a 4/44 deal gets it done.
Right. He's a 2 WAR player if healthy. He's a 0 WAR player if not healthy.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
How much healing time does 2 weeks buy him?
The A’s have been over his medical report and he’d need to pass a physical before the contract is binding. To me, this is something we shouldn’t be concerned about. The A’s wouldn’t have offered Furcal a 4 year deal if they truly feared he wasn’t healthy. C’mon now, no way do the A’s think 4/36 is an acceptable risk while 4/40 is a bridge too far.
The monster at the end of this blog.
even 4 years 36 million -- of four years of any amount
would be crazy if it looked like Furcal would have continuing back issues.
Helath shmealth.
What’s another $4 million over four more years? Hell, Beane should just get this thing done and do the 4/48. I mean really, if four more can be done why not just go twelve more. Except that would be four (or twelve) less to spend over the four years — opportunity costs, ya know.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
Opportunity costs?
$1 million buys you very little in FA. It would make some head way in the amateur market but the A’s are so far under the number they spent in 2008 that it is silly to worry about that now. The A’s have been saving up for this offseason and even if they don’t have quite the nest egg they thought they’d have they don’t trade for Holliday and pursue Furcal and Johnson if they were worried about cutting into their amateur budget.
In short, the A’s actions have already belayed your concerns.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Why not?
From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, Beane has always set a limit on what he will offer (and the odd time when he has been too weak to adhere to his limit he has regretted it). It is certainly possible that the limit this time is 4/38.
What if he doesn't want to play in Oakland?
I just don’t think we’re privy to enough information to criticize Beane or the negotiations.
I think the question above bears some serious thought. Let’s say Furcal has made it abundantly clear to his agent, or even to Beane, that Oakland isn’t his first choice, or even his second (Braves, Dodgers).
Honest question, because I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk answer: Do you want to do whatever it takes to sign a player in that situation?
If you sign a guy who’s clearly on a money grab, who’s moving to an unfamiliar area he’s decided he doesn’t like…is he less likely to succeed? Will he be less happy? Is he less likely to work hard? Would it make Furcal more likely to drink excessively, which he’s had a bit of a problem with in the past?
All meant as honest questions, not rhetorical. I’m curious what AN thinks. If Furcal has made it clear to the team that he doesn’t prefer Oakland, should the team still want him, knowing that it probably raises Furcal’s asking price for Oakland specifically?
"I'll make a list for the record. These people should be trusted: Sal, andeux, rfloh, danny...and no one else. Certainly not me. And even extra super-certainly not NSJ."
by notsellingjeans on Dec 13, 2008 1:02 AM PST reply actions
Sure. If they really want him. But I don't.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
I agree Oakland isn't his first choice.
That’s not the same thing as saying he doesn’t want to play in Oakland.
Beane met with Furcal. The A’s wined him and dined him and based on that offered him a contract. Beane has to have some feel for how much Furcal wants to play in Oakland. I would hope that Beane isn’t a sadist who’d pursue a player who expressed a negative interest in playing for the A’s. What a waste of time that would be.
I think Furcal has zero personal fondness towards playing in Oakland, I think playing for the A’s would be a purely business decision. I’m cool with that, he doesn’t know the team yet. And since this is a business decision the A’s need to make a better offer.
The monster at the end of this blog.
If they NEED to then why doesn't it happen, grover?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions
Two options
Team Furcal is playing Beane or Beane is being stubborn.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Clearly, then, Billy is not a NEEDy for a NEEDed...
…SS as you might wish to believe he is.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
That makes no sense
If we defined need as “what someone thinks they need,” every four-year-old would be suing their parents for child neglect because they didn’t get the latest Tickle Me Elmo for Christmas.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT TICKLE ME ELMO, ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!
{SOB}
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's upsetting that the A's couldn't make ...
the Furcal thing happen but such is life. Furcal is naturally going to want to return to a team where he knows everybody and was considered a successful player. That team is the Dodgers and we can’t change the fact that we aren’t going to be his first choice. To suggest overpaying for a player with such a tricky injury history is one thing. But I am glad that they didn’t decide to try to sign him at any cost. He’s not at that level as a player. ..and it would be a stupid thing to do IMO.
That's the thing
Signing Furcal at “any cost” means (IMO) 4/40 guaranteed. You may have to kick in some performance based incentives on top of that to push the total figure up to $44 million.
4/36 was a low ball offer and the market has shown it’s not one Furcal has to accept. There are better deals out there and the A’s need to make a better offer.
The monster at the end of this blog.
See I don't buy that assumption
There is absolutely zero factual basis for thinking 4/40 guaranteed gets it done. Not any for thinking 4/44 gets it done either. These numbers have not been mentioned by anyone involved in this situation except AN posters. The only numbers we’ve heard out of Furcal’s mouth are 4/48 which he didn’t even suggest he would sign and 4/52 wich is what his agent stated as a starting point. What if "at any cost meant 4/52? Should Beane still have done it then?
I might be more convinced if you made the case that giving Furcal $52M over four years would be worth avoiding this bidding war, but saying Beane was stubbornly holding out over $1M is disingenuous at best.
Well, going 4 years at under $9 million annual ain't going to get it done
There’s no one out there who’s going to offer 4/52. That time has come and gone, if it ever existed. 4/48 is the realistic high end for Team Furcal. KC, who has dabbled in the Furcal sweepstakes, is talking about 4/44 being the final number.
However, the A’s are the only team willing to go 4 years thus far.
The Dodgers have offered 2/25. If they go 3 years guaranteed 1of 2 things will happen: They will lower the annual number or they will hold at $12.5 million. 3 years at 12.5 million annual is already more money then what we think the A’s guaranteed.
Let me ask you this Diego, would you rather I give you $36 million over 3 years or $36 million over 4 years?
I I believe Furcal is willing to give the Dodgers a discount. That means the A’s are going to have to offer a clearly superior contract. 4/36 is low ball, 4/40 plus incentives should be enough green for Furcal to turn away from what the Dodgers are currently willing to offer. I do not see time as being on the A’s side in this, as the Dodgers have more money to play with. The A’s are as strong as they’re going to get, they cannot win a war of attrition with the big spenders.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know
It’s not that I don’t think 4/40 plus incentives is enough to get Furcal signed, it’s that I think the odds of him accepting that offer before the winter meetings were pretty much nil. I know that there is no one who is going to offer 4/52, but a week ago I think that’s what it would have cost to keep Furcal and his agent from talking to other teams.
If the argument is that Beane blew it by not locking up the deal before the winter meetings you have to make an argument for more than 4/40 because that does not get the deal done last week. Furcal might accept it now if he is convinced that the Dodgers or KC won’t give him what he wants, and if that’s the case then I would say the Beane has played this just about right.
Hey, no talking about the odds for you!
Earlier you said you didn’t know what the odds were when I asked my question and I didn’t challenge you, so no arguing odds on this one.
If the press got things right and the max number offered last week was 4/40, I say it right now I do not believe for even 1 second that those numbers were guaranteed. I think the ambiguity behind the dollar figure was do to incentive bonuses or vesting options and I’m saying 4/40 guaranteed is necessary to close a deal. That guaranteed figure was not offered a week ago.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Is that your number?
If you’re saying we should offer 4/$44m, I agree with you. If you’re saying Furcal would have accepted a 4/$44m offer before Winter Meetings (or even right now), I’m not convinced.
But at least we have something solid to agree or disagree about. My problem is when you say the “facts” back you up, but you’re vague about what actual number you’re talking about. Is 4/$44 what you’re saying then?
By the way, my theory — as speculative as anyone else’s, of course — is that Furcal hasn’t yet decided what he wants, and he refuses to be rushed to a decision.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I see 4/40 guaranteed as being the deciding number
I can see the case for performance based bonus money though, thus pushing the total to $44 million.
And if the final deal ends up being $42.75 million I hope people cut me a little slack.
The monster at the end of this blog.
PS If the A's can't land Furcal...
I would much rather watch Gregorio Pettit than watch Crosby again. To Hell with experience. I’d rather watch a different player suck than watch the same guy suck year after year.
If you're going to play a SS that can't hit
you may as well play the one that has the best glove. Crosby’s defense took a serious nosedive last year.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
this
i very much agree with
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on Dec 13, 2008 2:35 AM PST up reply actions
I wrote the same thing below
And I imagine you might not be far off the mark. Now if he signs with the Royals or something, that then seems to validate a lot of what grover is arguing here. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t ultimately want to stay with LA and was using the A’s to try and squeeze a better deal out of the McCourts.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2008 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
Possible
And all the more damning of Beane then.
Because Beane is still pursuing Furcal, which would mean Kinzer is still playing Beane.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wait
Beane is at fault because he’s believing that he has a realistic shot as signing a free agent by offering the most money over the most years? Is that what you’re saying? That’s seems like a reach.
I mean who knows what has been said behind closed doors. Furcal and his agent can say that they’re very excited about coming to the A’s and don’t you have to believe them if you’re Beane? I mean, maybe that’s why he cut off the negotiations initially because he felt like he was getting played. There are too many variables here that we just don’t know.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2008 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
you didn't get the memo that here at AN we know everything
That was sarcasm by the way. Either way, it’s not about “playing” someone or not playing them. No free agent takes the first deal they’re offered early on, especially if they’re a quality player and seem to have only one suitor (Which I don’t believe – he might have had only one offer at that point and been waiting on others, which is not the same thing. Then the A’s offer comes in and establishes a floor and the bidding actually starts.).
These negotiations remind me to some degree of the Giambi negotiations in 2001, where the player obviously wants to go to Team B (we’ll call the A’s Team A) but is using Team A as a leveraging chip to try and drag the most out of Team B as possible. The difference in this case is that the A’s just might end up ponying up the most money in the end and forcing his hand. I don’t think it’s a huge chance, but it’s possible.
Gee... Mark Ellis was a free agent and he signed with the 1st team to make him an offer
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think we can all agree that Mark Ellis is a special case
The exception that proves the rule, as they say. For reasons too numerous and obvious to list.
He signed before he became an unrestricted free agent
He signed before he even had a chance to taste the market, and he did so by choice. Lucky us.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's not what I said
If Furcal has no intention of signing with the A’s and Kinzer was merely playing Beane prior to the Winter Meetings to get an offer out of the Dodgers then Beane’s continued pursuit of Furcal is foolish.
I don’t think that is happening here, I may criticize the man but I hope he’s smart enough to see if he’s being played.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Only chorizo leaves that lingering taste in your mouth.
by Svidrigailov on Dec 13, 2008 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
less about the spice, and more about the salivary origins
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
Very nice post
Well orchestrated and laid out. The only thing I saw that was off was where you talked about Randy Johnson. You said pitchers of his age and skill normally are looking for a 1 year deal, but really the whole reason he’s looking for a 1 year deal is because of his age. From what I’ve read, he intends on hanging it up after this year when he reaches a couple milestones. Of course, this is just picking nits.
I completely agree that getting Furcal signed now is extremeley advantageous to our future plans of signing Holliday among other things and subsequently contending over the next several years. I guess all we can do is just hope that Billy’s doing his thing and that by mid-week we’ll have a shiny new Furcal under our tree.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
Here's the thing with Johnson
If he didn’t want to hang them up after next season his 2008 performance was certainly good enough to springboard him to a new multi-year deal. If Johnson’s agents had come out to Vegas and said their client was looking for a 2 year deal would you have objected to the notion?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yes
I think Johnson becomes a LOT less desirable if he’s looking for a 2 year deal. His back could decide to break down again, which is very likely considering he’s going to be 45 and 46 during that contract.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 13, 2008 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
Alright, I have two issues to raise with this post
1) This is logical fallacy central. Your entire arguement, that you state as FACT, is entirely made up of conditional statements that you have no way of factually proving correct or incorrect. Your arguments smack of slippery slope logic, when many other things need to be considered. A wonderful example is what NSJ brought up – what if Furcal doesn’t want to be here? Your main supposition is that Beane tried to shortchange Furcal because of known injury tendencies, which, given public information is a fairly solid assumption. Once again, there are multiple factors that can potentially be in play that we aren’t privvy to, wrt all the names mentioned in your post – Rafa, Unit and Holliday.
Granted, it is understood that this is the offseason “hot stove” BS we go through every year which is mad speculation between fanatics, and therefore everything discussed is mainly what we can read from the Rosenthal’s of the world. Nevertheless, your basis for argument seems myopic and just stumbles from there.
2) (rather nitpicky but) Aren’t “staturday” posts generally reserved for…statistical analyses of some sorts? Outside of a quick analysis of WAR, this seems to be more of a rant than anything.
Now, let me say that I did appreciate this post, and I think it’s a hot button topic for a lot of people. It’s certainly interesting to think about future ramifications, but I feel like this is a tad too apocalyptic.
Come on...
but I feel like this is a tad too apocalyptic.
…you do know that we’re all gonna die, don’t you? Just acknowledge it and be at peace with it.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 5:24 AM PST up reply actions
As I said in my reply to NSJ
I don’t think Furcal wants to be in Oakland. I doubt he has any emotional attachment to the Oakland area and that this would be strictly a business decision. I think it’s pure assumption to think he hates Oakland and would drink himself to a stupor if he had to play in Oakland.
Here are the facts we know.
The Giants signed Renteria to 2/18.5 guaranteed. There’s you’re floor for how low Furcal’s contract could go. Any dollar figure below that is pure cut throat negotiating.
The A’s have pursued Furcal. They also have expressed interest in Johnson.
OK, this isn’t a fact but it just makes a lot of sense: The A’s should want to keep Holliday beyond 2009. They may not have a chance in Hell of doing that, but that’s another issue.
Fact: Beane prefers winning baseball games to losing baseball games.
Fact: Adding Furcal, Johnson and Holliday should help the A’s win more baseball games in 2009. Of course, you’ve still got to play the games so we won’t know for certain for another year.
That’s the logic my argument is based on. Please point out specifically where I went wrong.
As for the Staturday’s intent, we lost all hope of staying on the pure path when devo published a mid-week Staturday article.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I should add though, Staturday was intended to spur discussion
In that regard I’ve stayed true to that intent.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Hmm
Quite simply, the A’s need Rafael Furcal because he’s the best free agent SS on the market this year and next and the A’s are in a position to add talent through monetary means and not lose talent via trade.
The A’s do not need Furcal. They also do not need to keep Holiday. Players’ WAR values are only best guesses; no one can accurately predict future events and outcomes. But, hey, when it’s not your money and not your decision to make, go ahead and mock spend it any way you like and make GM-like decisions in the blogosphere.
I like the post but disagree that things are as dire as you make them if we don’t sign certain people. Veterans with track records do have bad years. Young players with moderate ceilings do break out and smash ceilings. High-flying players sometimes have their waxy wings melt. Sometimes things seemigly crop up out of nowhere [or is it because the hype machine is slow to recognize performance rises and even slower to acknowledge declines?].
I, for one, am confident that a SS solution will emerge if the A’s do not sign Furcal. It may not be this year but it will probably be by next year. If Beane is willing to let Furcal sulk around for a better deal, I’m fine with that. I trust the guy [Beane] to do what he feels is best for the club and I have never really felt let down by any decsion he has made.
Sure, the A's don't need Furcal or Holliday or even to win baseball games
The world won’t end if the Oakland A’s go 0-162.
I almost admire your ability to dismiss veteran track records while suggesting that the answer to the A’s SS woes could rise up from the mists.
I will say this though. If the outcome of the Hudson and Kendall trades did not make you feel let down then you are in one Hell of a happy place. I tip my cap to you.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Zero wins?! Ha!
I beg you, grover, to go back and look at the record of this team for the last 10 years and tell me that you’ve seen a roster — going into a season - that looked as though it could achieve on paper what it ended up achieving on paper [in other words, looked as though it could win as many games as it did]. That’s because, taken on the whole, Beane makes many more correct decsions than incorrect ones. I am in a happy place and trust Beane’s judgement based on his track record - he is a veteran GM, is he not? Haven’t other players arisin from the midst during Beane’s tenure? A group of closers, DH-types, OFs, and starting pitchers. So what that, given hindsight, some things haven’t panned out (the Hudson trade)?
But what of Kendall? What was it exactly that caused you to feel as though Beane got fleeced in the Kendall deal? Was it the loss of Redman or Rhodes that did it for you? Or was it both? Or was it that Kendall hogged so much of the A’s payroll…because that’s the only legitimate gripe their.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Don't know why the strikethrough. It was not intended.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Isn't 0-162 the ultimate Worse case scenario? Didn't I say the world wouldn't end even if that happened?
The way you’ve been emphasizing NEED I thought I should make all that clear to you.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Putting your thumbs in your ears and humming loudly
will not cause Cliff Pennington to become an acceptable option at shortstop. It will not cause Bobby Crosby to stop being bad at baseball.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
(puts thumbs in ears and hums loudly)
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Let's wait for the signing
It is always difficult to criticize decisions that have not yet born fruit.
Like most people on this site I’d like to see Furcal and then R. Johnson drop into the A’s lap.
But grover, you’ve left out one of the consequences of Beane’s actions. Essentially, he won the guaranteed money over four years contest. Now the A’s are playing apparently only with the Dodgers and their two year deal ante. I have to believe that if the A’s really want Furcal, the opportunity is still there to get him. So we have to wait to see how strong Beane’s desire really is.
chronic
Of course he won the 4 year contest
The A’s were the only one competing in that bracket. The team that offers the most years isn’t necessarily the team that’s going to land Furcal, if that were the case we’d be able to buy Oakland jersey’s with Furcal’s name on it for Christmas.
It’s going to come down to the best combination of years and dollars.
The monster at the end of this blog.
grover is back, baby!
I was critical of your mini-burst after falling for Foolsh’s foolshishness…I enjoy posts like thes and I emphatically and unequivacally agree with everything you wrote.
well done, sir!
The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.
The basic issue I have with this argument
is something that a few folks have already argued. You’re relying on the media to be accurately presenting things. And shockingly, that isn’t always the case. Not by a long shot.
We don’t really know what has gone on behind the scenes despite some of the public reporting out there. For example, we don’t know if Wolff has changed his mind in terms of spending money given the almost daily reports on the poor shape of the economy. Maybe the ownership doesn’t want to spend the cash anymore and that was part of the reason for taking the offer off the table.
That’s not to say what really happened, but there are a myriad of things we don’t know about this. Perhaps Furcal never really wanted to sign in Oakland and has just been using the A’s to try and squeeze a better deal out of the Dodgers because he doesn’t REALLY want to uproot his family from Los Angeles. There is probably a reason that this process has taken so long. Even if you do want to rely on the reports, it doesn’t sound like there is a bigger offer out there for Furcal, so maybe that’s your real indication of his intentions.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2008 7:47 AM PST reply actions
you people and your "logic".
How do I know that you’re not actually Bobby Crosby’s mom? [braces for instant ban]
Save Rajai Davis
of course, we fans don't have that inside information
but Grover is doing what fans do — using the information (some of which may be inaccurate) that is available to questioin the wisdom of not siging Furcal at this time…and he did so with style.
And I blame you for us not knowing exactly what happened behind closed doors!
AN should have had a representative present in those negotiations. Or at the very least we should have figured out a way to bug his office.
We know Team Furcal wanted 4/52. We know that the Giants signed Renteria (a less valuable SS) to 2/18.5. We know the market for Furcal has been slower than Kinzer expected. We know the A’s made an offer and had it rejected. We know the A’s have continued to pursue Furcal and they have been joined by the sans Burnett Blue Jays, Royals and Dodgers. Based on simple supply and demand it is extremely unlikely that the A’s pursuit of Furcal has consisted of nothing more than repeatedly offering the same terms as before to Kinzer. That’s not pursuing negotiations, that’s badgering!
If the budget suddenly shrunk, why are the A’s still pursuing Furcal. Why are they still talking to Johnson? I think it’s safe to say that AN’s early fantasy of Furcal+Johnson+Dunn won’t happen, but it seems the A’s should have the cash for 2 of the 3.
And as I said before, I don’t think Furcal has any emotional desire to play in Oakland. His willingness to don the green and gold would simply be a business decision. I’m fine with that as long as he’s willing to be a professional. Make him a legit business offer and don’t try to cut his throat.
The monster at the end of this blog.
signing another broken down hoss whose best races are well behind him
This is a well written piece giving effective testament to the thesis that the easiest activity in the world is spending someone else’s money.
In the realm of sports fantasy, it is rumored that the best practioners are those worthys who are (due solely to cruel fate), both lazy and broke.
In the cold, real world politicians are in a league of their own.
You got me there, I'm married and therefore have no money of my own
The monster at the end of this blog.
how serious is LA?
that’s the other uncertain part. i’ve heard they’re revisiting signing manny, either re-extending the 2 year offer, or maybe adding a 3rd year. considering his impact on the team last year, i’ve got to imagine that’s their #1 priority, and wonder if they’re really going to go after furcal until after that is resolved.
grover makes a good argument here, but it is ALL SPECULATION. as is anything any of us are writing about this situation right now. my thought is, beane was almost certain he could get furcal to do a 2 or 3 year deal, with more annual money. in that sense, it wasn’t just saving a few bucks, it was saving a year or two on a contract for a player whose back he may not have been certain about. that’s a big deal. anyway, who knows what’s actually going on. i do think its highly unlikely that anyone offers furcal 4 years, and am suspicious of LA offering him 3 anytime soon (unless the manny situation gets resolved quickly).
I agree Manny is probably a bigger priority for LA than Furcal
although if I were them I’d also be concerned about their starting rotation.
Justin Smoak
This reminds me so much of the argument about when we drafted Smoak out of high school in 2005. “If only we had offered him X more dollars, he would have signed with us,” everyone likes to say. But in fact, we know no such thing. With Smoak, there are strong indications that he just plain wanted to go to college and would have said no to any offer. No matter what X we offered to pay, he would ask for X+1.
With Furcal, your entire argument relies on the assumption that if only we offered X more dollars than we did, that would have gotten the deal done. Do you actually know that? You criticize Beane & Co for “dragging out the negotiations”, but it seems clear to me that it’s Furcal who is dragging it out. How many times have they said they were about to make a choice, only to put it off another week?
Has Furcal or his agent ever said, “if Oakland offers this much, I would say yes to that”? If so, I haven’t seen it. Is there a specific dollar figure that you, grover, believe would get the deal done? If so, tell us what it is.
I just don’t think you can argue “we should have offered more” without a clear specification of how much more and evidence that it would have sufficed. Otherwise you’re just whining, not making a real argument.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
but it wouldn't have hurt to offer just a little bit more
and reach the $1 million that Smoak reportedly was seeking, on the off chance that he could be persuaded. If after offering it he still decided to go to college, then fine…
although in an interview Beane did tell Blez
that the A’s never made an offer to Smoak…so the mythical $950,000 offer apparently never happened…
that whole 950,000 thing was patently insane
So they decide he’s worth the huge $950,000 but not the comparatively extremely little extra that would make it happen? Blow up the deal for a blue-chipper over $50,000? Sure.
Although in retrospect, if it was indeed a million he was asking for, I wish …
Move over Kinzer
Grover would make a better agent for Furcal.
Unfortunately I don’t agree with your comments. I would not be worried about signing Furcal but I don’t trust his back being good for another 4 years. Us A’s fans had to live through the Chavez/Kotsay bad back years and is just plain tired of all the injuries. I would not mind Beane giving Furcal a 2/24 year deal with vesting options on the 3rd and 4th years just like the dodgers have done. If he said no to the dodgers on that he will say no to us.
A back is one of the most tricky part of your body since it can go out on a check swing. I say lets up the 2 year deal amount to maybe 2/26 so he gets the pay he wants and incentives on a 3rd and 4th. If he says no move on.
You know what, I'm not going to argue with you here
If you’re that worried about his back I’m not going to try and persuade you. I think your worry is perfectly legit.
All I’m saying is that there is every reason to believe the A’s did their due diligence regarding Furcal’s medical situation and have obviously decided they were comfortable enough to make an offer.
The monster at the end of this blog.
RJ
I’ve read that Johnson believes the Giants are current contenders. So it’s to say if he believes the A’s are contenders now, or if adding furcal would change his mind.
A's lose to giants on that
you know that the giants will out spend the A’s for RJ. I can tell you now he will get that 10 million deal from the giants. His agent did say that RJ wants to stay in the NL.
I believe that Johnson should stay in the NL
Just my opinion.
And on the subject of speculation and only a theory on my part, Johnson wants to play for a contender but at the same time, he wants to remain in the confort zone of the NL West.
If the A’s could get him cheap, then fine but I wouldn’t be paying someone 10 million to have an ERA well over 4.00 (And I mean well over 4) but that again is my opinion. I don’t see an ERA under 4.50 for him if he plays for us.
As far as Furcal goes, I think he will take the Dodgers in they give him 3 years because of the familiarity factor. If he comes to the A’s then it will be a business decision. I hope we get him because I cannot stomach Crosby for one more game.
I think Johnson wants to stay in the NL
Because he knows he’ll have a tough time in the AL with the DH/without the pitcher. He doesn’t think the Giants are contenders. But in the end I think he’ll end up with them. He wants to win his 300, have a respectable final year, and be done.
And if Johnson insists on staying in the NL then that is that
I like to think he’d be willing to switch leagues if he was going to a strong contender.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think the Giants have made some decent moves this offseason
And if you believe that pitching wins ball games, then the Giants’ rotation looks a lot better than ours. I think that as the rosters stand now you could make an argument that the Giants and A’s are comparable in terms of contending, especially with the NL West not having a dominant looking team.
The monster at the end of this blog.
particular since probably all the NL west teams
could claim to be contenders in their division (except San Diego)
kajlkjfkaldsjkalkdfjl
you would think that stupid meme pitching wins ballgames would die when you see who won the world series this year (not even that that’s a sound argument in the first place).
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Dec 13, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Phillies could never have won without Blanton
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
What other motives do the Dodgers have for
only offering Fucal 2 years? If they have an heir apparent (and I think they do) to the position, they are not going to budge. Perhaps Beane is counting on that fact and on Fucal’s greed to drive him into accepting a slightly discounted three year deal with the A’s. Nobody else has serious interest in Fucal besides the Dodgers and A’s. It will make Fucal feel better about the deal if he thinks he got the best deal possible. Perhaps this is all Beane is doing…..reassuring Kinzer’s client that this is as good as it gets.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Flier on Nomar
If Furcal doesn’t work out, perhaps they should bring in Nomar as a backup all around the infield and to push Crosby. He can still hit, and as long as he’s not asked to play too often, could be excellent insurance for Chavez, Barton(?), Ellis and Crosby. I bet he wouldn’t cost much either.
Kind of like sending gaudin as
insurance for Harden :)
not really
Gaudin only had that injury that he pitched with during the second half of 2007. I’m not aware of his having injury issues during other seasons.
By contrast, Harden had injury issues nearly every single year.
Beane's operating as though he has his usual maneuvering room
i.e. if the guy won’t sign, there’s someone else who isn’t much worse, etc etc.
The problem is, that’s not the case here. He backed himself into a corner by overpaying for one season of Matt Holliday. There isn’t any alternative to Furcal who is even close to as good as he is, injury concerns be damned.
I know this is politically impossible, but if the A’s do not land Furcal, the correct move is to turn around and try to deal Holliday and get back a part of the cost that they paid for him. They won’t get all of it back, because it was a bad decision and an overpay, but there’s no point in throwing good money after bad.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
And overpay how?
The cost in talent traded or the 2009 salary?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
The talent, obv
The salary is fairly meaningless.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I've used the phrase "cents on the dollar" four times
One of those times was a reference to Holliday fetching maybe 80 cents on the dollar at the trade deadline.
The rest had nothing to do with him.
In short, I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
not overpay
Holiday is worth the same as in July because that is when you are more likely to get top prospects for Holiday. Look at the redsox/yanks/rays they will all be fighting for a playoff spot and Holiday ciuld be enough to put 1 to the top. Just think the sox and rays have very good prospects. Just like how a mets/cub/ stlouis return could be a good haul.
which part of the cost should they try to get back?
The good reliever, the blah starting pitcher, or the fading prospect? As individual pieces I don’t think any of those guys have a ton of value (and not a ton combined, either). While we’re at it, I’m not convinced that Street would turn into picks for the same reason that a lot of premier free agents aren’t turning into picks for their old teams this offseason.
"Fading"? He's f***ing 23!
It really is amusing how Carlos Gonzalez turned overnight from a future star to utter crap at this site as soon as he got traded. Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
yeah, it's pretty amazing
8 years’ worth of scouts and minor league execs have attested to his talent and potential. All we really know from 2008 is that he wasn’t ready for the big show.
by the way, Daric Barton is two months older than CarGon
based on the assessments of both over the years, plus their performance thus far in the big show, it seems reasonable to suggest that rather than saying either or both are “faded” or “crap”, etc., perhaps either or both were simply not ready. They’re certainly young enough to perhaps benefit from some more work at the AAA level.
I still think that it’s not necessary to think that Gonzalez is “crap” in order to support the trade for Holliday. In order to get quality you need to give up quality most of the time…and it doesn’t surprise me that the Rockies would demand a top outfield prospect (in addition to two not top tier pitchers) in return for their star.
IMO, in order to rationally support the Holliday trade
you either need to a. think that he (alone) represents the difference between a playoff berth and no playoff berth, or b. think that Carlos Gonzalez is utter crap. If your rationale is something else, you’re kidding yourself.
The reason why Furcal is so key is that he makes scenario A a lot more likely to come about.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Those aren't the only two possibilities, though
There’s:
c) You believe you’ll have a legitimate shot at extending Holliday’s contract.
d) You think you can build a great team in 2010-14 without either Holliday or Gonzalez and want to be as good as you can be in 2009 in case you see opportunity with Tex leaving or Furcal signing with you, etc.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Extending Holliday
Which team has the better shot at extending Holliday?
A) The team with a sub-.500 record
B) The team with a 2009 Division crown
The monster at the end of this blog.
Forgetting Boras
the team with the most money to give him.
I don't believe either of those is a rational argument.
c relies on a Candide-like misreading of Holliday’s psyche. d simply misevaluates the extent of the A’s farm system talent. It’s deep, but it’s not THAT deep.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't believe the Holliday deal was seen alone
I think the A’s looked at it as part of a number of moves to take advantage of a possible window of contention in 2009, while not crippling the long term goal of making the A’s competitive for years to come….and then, if things didn’t work, Holliday could fetch a nice haul come mid-season.
I don’t buy the "utter crap’ theory for CarGon because it flies in the face of years of evidence of his talent and potential, simply because he was (as many had argued) not ready to be on a major league club yet. While it’s true that we never know about prospects (many of whom never pan out despite all the potential in the world), I just think that is too extreme.
Or do you also think that Barton is crap, since he is a bit older and has had far more major league at-bats than Gonzalez?
No, I don't think either Gonzalez or Barton is "crap"...
I think the Holliday trade was a bad idea. I don’t think Beane really thought through all of the ramifications of it. Maybe he felt he was under time pressure to make a deal immediately, but other than empty threats from the Rockies I don’t really see why that would have been the case.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
interesting
other than when he traded Hudson I’ve never gotten the sense that Beane felt he was under pressure to make a quick deal, but then you never know.
Billy Beane does not walk around in a cape and tights
with “Rational Man” stenciled on his chest. He’s made errors of judgment in the past.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
He's made moves that didn't pan out, sure
But errors in judgement ? Errors in judgement in how he’s managing the Athletics as an organization and as a business? How are you to know what an error is in these regards? Have you ever run a business and if so, has it or did it ever feature a product whose inputs varied so greatly?
Your response to the well-reasoned, non absolute statement above is anything but rational in its own right.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
I would also add that the notion of Beane being stubborn
at the expense of the team’s best interests may be an overblown idea. As a GM he’s been daring and creative, and of course he has made mistakes, but I can’t think of scenarios where his personal stubbornness caused him to make a move or non-move against the team’s best interests.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
disagree: failure to land a decent 3b backup
and refusal to allow for the fact that Chavez might be through has been a killer to the 25 man roster
They're called RUNS for a reason.
If you cannot even conceive of the possibility that Beane's made errors, there's no point in discussing the issue
and if your point is solely the solipsistic observation that we never “know” anything to be true about the world with 100% certainty, well, I really don’t give a damn.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'm not sure that it's true that NO ONE is close to Furcal
I’d argue that Orlando Cabrera could be within spitting distance of Furcal next year. Of course, Furcal is the superior option, but I still think that if we’re going to hold onto Holliday, and we’re not getting Furcal, we should push for O Cab. Isn’t he theoretically like one less win that Furcal per season? I know he’s getting older, but shoot, if we can’t trade Holliday back then we might as well.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 13, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
More like 2 wins worse, once you factor in the added cost of the draft pick
and he’s not likely to be much cheaper money-wise. Not close to as good of an option.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
O Cab? i think he wants 2ish years...
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 13, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
aw darn logical arguments, always getting in the way of my fun!
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 13, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
I've heard whispers that O-Cab wants/expects around $9 million a year
Something to consider.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I would never give that to him
You sign Cabrera because he’s a bargain, not because he’s great. 2/12 would be about my max.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Because that's what a team is willing to pay for his services
I don’t go for the whole “X set the market” argument. If the Giants overpaid for Renteria, that’s just says something about the Giants. Plus Renteria was signed at a different point in the overall process.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You can't make market forces disappear
If you believe that the lower cost for non-superstars like Ibanez is a result of the overall slowing down of the economy then I don’t understand why you think the signing of comparable players would not affect O-Cab’s contract. Renteria got $9 million annual, Furcal’s going to get at least that much. It makes no sense that O-Cab (whom I don’t even like) is going to get drastically less than those two.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Grover, I think you're concluding with the wrong argument
The best argument you can make, IMO, is that when he made the 4/35-40 offer to Furcal, the offer he should have made was 2/25 (or both – “4/35-40 or 2/25, your choice.” I don’t think Beane is trying to be cheap, I just think he feels that risking 4 years and 44-52 million dollars is too much risk. If Furcal signs for that and worst-case scenario emerges – back problems resurface – the team that signs him will be hamstrung for four years.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
One of these days, I'll close the parentheses
I’m not ready yet.
)
There.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yep
4 years and 44-52 may be too much to risk in Beane’s mind. I think Beane has his parameters which remain constant regardless of cash flexibility.
I think he says to himself that he really wants Furcal but like you say Nico, he doesn’t want to be hamstrung and have another Chavy/Kotsay situation. I think he’s tired of the bad back syndrome but is or was willing to go to close to $40 mil
Posting that on the internet
is just spineless.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not sure why Beane didn't go for a shorter deal and people already think I'm speculating as is
Just to make a guess, I think one consideration to going 4 years has to do with the lack of ready SS prospects in the system. I think Christian could be ready in 2.5 years but that’s, again, pure speculation. Coleman and/or Leyja would take longer than that.
I don’t think 4/52 comes into play. I doubt 4/48 comes into play.
The difference between 4/36 and 4/44 in FA dollars is negligible. That’s $2 million a year, and $2 million a year in FA doesn’t even buy you half a season of Kyle Farnsworth. I think Beane was interested in going 4 years because in the absence of suitors it would help him lower the annual figure he had to shell out. (Don’t misunderstand, I think he went too low.)
Put another way, there is very little relief to be found if Furcal signed at 4/36 vs. 4/44 and ends up crippled for the next 4 years.
The monster at the end of this blog.
What I think is going on
Beane thought with the back trouble that Furcal would jump at the 4 year deal since no other team is going there. He is now waiting to see what other deals may pop up for Furcal. We all know that Furcal 1st choice is to stay in LA. Sounds to me his wife loves the glamor of LA. LA is not going to make a move until Manny situation is cleared up. The A’s are a fall back on LA. Beane realize this so he is waiting it out. Even though Kinzer says it will be sorted out next week I bet more into January. Meantime Beane is not going to make a move because his fall back plan is Cabrera.
Like I said, my problem with the waiting game is
I can see how Furcal begets Johnson and Johnson begets the AL West crown which begets Holliday in 2010.
In theory. The longer it takes to start that process the less likely it is to happen.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I basically agree -
What gave the A’s an edge with Furcal was the willingness to put a 4-year deal on the table. But there has to be SOME point at which the risks outweigh the possible benefits and I think the A’s put it at 9-10mil (grover seems to put it at 11). It doesn’t matter that it’s “only 1-2 million more” – there has to be SOME cutoff.
Let’s face it – if the Dodgers offer 2/25 and Furcal takes it, it means he was always going to see if the Dodgers would make a really sweet offer of more than the A’s could match or exceed. The franchise will not be crippled if Furcal moves on – whereas if he signed for 4/44 and got hurt, declined, etc.? That’s actually the bigger problem.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
i think Beane should have made a guaranteed offer of 4/40, not 4/36 plus incentives.
thats 10mil/year, which is one mil more than Renteria got per year. That’s a solid offer in this market, and if Furcal didn’t like that, then ok maybe you part ways. but 4/36 does seem a bit low for a ‘real’ offer.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 13, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
Though the "lower" offer is the same offer if Furcal is healthy
And if he’s not healthy, the team offering a 4-year deal is proven foolish to have done so at either price.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Why low ball Furcal when the market says $9 million for Renteria?
Let’s just assume that all this has been a ploy to get a 3rd year guaranteed out of the Dodgers. They’ve offered 2/25, a 3rd year could push that to 3/36ish. That blows 4/36 out of the water. It’s not even a tough decision.
4/40 with incentives to 4/44 forces Furcal to make a decision.
Now let me push you into an answer. Do you believe the A’s failed to do their due diligence in checking out Furcal’s medical history? Do you honestly believe they’d offer him 4 years if they were afraid that he wouldn’t make it through the end of the contract? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the A’s weighed the plusses and minuses of going to 4 years with Furcal and their decision to make that offer indicates that they consider the risk acceptable?
OK, so I’m going for more than 1 answer.
The monster at the end of this blog.
IT'S NOT LOWBALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s why.
And yes, I think they’re STILL afraid he won’t make it through the end of a four-year contract – that’s the RISK part and why maybe you don’t go into 10…11..territory on a four-year deal. You just see 11 million about the way Beane sees 9 million. The only difference is only he truly knows the market and the A’s budget now and later.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It's the bare minimum, and a step away from cut throat for the A's
Nico, there is no way the A’s could sign Furcal to 4/36, have him get hurt, and declare it a good deal. Investing that kind of money on a total bust is a dagger to the heart. It’s game over.
Going 4/40 is just a slighty bigger dagger. YOU’RE STILL DEAD!
The A’s aren’t really adding risk if they go 4/40, hesitating between 4/36 and 4/40 is preventing them from adding reward.
If you want to make an argument that the A’s shouldn’t be making a play on Furcal for 4 year AT ALL then that’s another discussion. But you aren’t doing that, you’re just worried about leaving a better looking corpse if things go bad.
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, I'm just saying that at some point
you can’t add “another 4mil just to be sure he accepts” – there has to be some maximum figure you’re willing to put out there (at first, or ever). If it’s 36mil, fine. If it’s 40mil, fine. If it’s 44 or 48mil, fine. But whatever it is, you can’t say, “Well you could have offered a couple million more while you were at it.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
If it's 4/36 max then why are the A's still pursuing Furcal?
And unless the Chronicle is making up quotes from Beane and Frost, that is exactly what the A’s are doing.
Therefore it stands to reason that the original offer wasn’t the max offer possible and for whatever reason (and yes, I think suspicion falls on Beane) that didn’t get discussed a week ago.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think it was the max offer for four years
and I don’t think it was 4/36, I think it was probably 4/36-40 with some basic PA incentives.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Then they shouldn't pursue Furcal anymore
He shouldn’t have been their priority during the Winter Meetings. Instead the A’s should have focused on adding other players. I don’t see how they could have done that if Beane is saying Furcal was priority 1.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I imagine the A's feel a reasonable risk
is around 4/36-40, 3/33, or 2/24. When they had Furcal alone and thought the key to the deal was four years, they made an offer. They can still offer the other two possibilities.
But if the Dodgers are going to offer the same as (or more than) any of those, it looks like Furcal will go with LAD – which has been his first choice all along. The A’s are second choice and Beane isn’t willing to go higher than he thinks he should just out of desperation.
But I’m pretty sure that each time the A’s make an offer for a given number of years, it will be their maximum and final offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I see it as necessity, not desperation
If Beane is not willing to accept the cost of doing business in the free agent market then that is his choice, but that doesn’t mean wherever he draws his arbitrary line in the sand is either practical or right.
We’re agreed that signing Furcal improves the A’s on paper. Not signing Furcal makes it tougher for Beane to convince Johnson to leave the NL and join the A’s, it makes it that much more urgent for the young talent on the roster to blossom if the A’s hope to win the AL West in 2009; all of which makes it tougher to envision Holliday being interested in staying with the A’s beyond 2009.
We are talking a difference of maybe $4 million, up to half of which would be recovered if Beane could trade Crosby once he had Furcal in hand. This should be a slam dunk.
The reasonable risk argument rings hollow, Nico. The A’s can no more eat a $9 million annual loss any better then they can an $11 million one. The downside of a total bust is the same. The only difference is $9 million won’t net you a reward while a larger figure could.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You know, when I debate with you,
I don’t come away feeling like Billy Beane is stubborn, but anyhoo…I’d say the notion that the A’s “can no more eat a $9 million annual loss any better then they can an $11 million one” is…well…new math?
Beane just isn’t willing to overpay to get Furcal to the same tune you want him to be, but really you both want Furcal and are prepared to offer a lot but not an unlimited amount. You just don’t happen to agree on the exact numbers.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It's not new math, it's being practical about the matter
Let me try to portray this more graphically. Investing $9 million a year for 4 years on a total bust cuts the A’s leg off above the knee. Going 11 million annual cuts the A’s leg off higher above the knee but below the hips.
Either way your missing a leg.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Can we at least agree that:
1) Beane possibly does not value Furcal as much as you would if it was your money to spend.
2) That Beane has other plans for the one or two million more per year that you want him to spend.
3) Perhaps he is being stubborn and just want to drive a hard bargain.
4) That even if he does not land Furcal with the 10-12 that you want him to spend, that he does not view a non-signing of Furcal as something all that critical…that maybe there’s an alternative use for the money on possibly another player (or a less competitive season)
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 14, 2008 8:05 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know
1) Can we agree that if Beane is actually pursuing Furcal AND Johnson that he then most certainly has the cash to sign either one?
2) That if Beane is being stubborn he might not be doing the A’s any favors.
3) That if Beane does not see improving SS as a benefit to the Oakland A’s he’s an idiot? To suggest that finding a new SS isn’t critical is absurd. There isn’t a more critical need in the organization.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Then why didn't the A's get a SS,
or a major-league ready SS prospect, out of Haren, Swisher, Harden, Gaudin, and Blanton? I’m more critical of that than anything.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 14, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If I knew the answer to that
I’d really have the power to make Sara Gilbert monkeyball’s love toy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
To me that's the point of criticism,
not should they overpay for a big health risk who would rather play for the Dodgers if possible. Take care of SS with one of the many opportunities you had in trades and the urgency/desperation is not there now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That's always been a point of criticism
And as I recall you were always the voice saying “give Beane time”. Have you changed your ways this Holliday season?
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, I've been concerned all along
about not getting a SS in any of these trades. You and I have been on the same page on that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
i don't know about the Blanton Trade
but Haren and Swish were traded before Crosby had this sucky ass season. I think the general consensus last year was that we still had hope for Bobby simply because this was going to be the season that he was finally healthy.
So now that we know that even when healthy, Crotchby sucks, SS has now become an immediate concern. I’m not sure why Beane didn’t go for an SS using Blanton, but maybe he couldn’t pry donaldson away? I don’t know, but that’s the best I can come up with.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 14, 2008 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
I have believed Crosby sucked
and wouldn’t much improve for several years, so I can’t accept the “we didn’t know” argument. What I can accept is that the teams Oakland traded with didn’t have great SS prospects to work with (other than Cardenas who probably won’t be a SS).
I wouldn’t have wanted Beane to mess with the Haren deal in any way, and the White Sox/Cubs/Phillies didn’t have someone who was a natural fit, unless I’m overlooking someone.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
ok so you believed Crosby sucked
would you say that the majority of the A’s brass (or at least Billy) believed so as well? If so, then yes it is quite excusable for Beane not to have tried to hook up with someone that could have gotten us a SS prospect who could at least be slightly better than Crosby (not a lot to ask).
I really think Crosby’s uber propsect status/contract kept us playing/hoping for him for far longer than it should have.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 14, 2008 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
uhhh....INexcusable
just like my typos…
but, as always, I fully agree Bobby needs to go
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 14, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just frustrated that it took the A's
so much longer to see Crosby for what he is than it took me – I want my team to scout better than I can scout! I’m not one to give up on a player that quickly, either.
From the beginning, Crosby has shown very poor pitch recognition and very poor ability to adjust/listen/learn.
The team could have focused more (and more successfully; see Pennington) on SS in the draft or trades even if they still hoped Crosby would improve. He’s gone no later than 2009 anyway and it’s never a bad idea to have guys coming up through the pipeline at a key position.
For a position of such weakness for so long, the A’s have done awfully little to address SS in general in trades and drafts combined.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
"It's not new math, it's being practical about the matter"
Ya know, I once met a German man and his son, both musicians, while camping at the Russian River and they claimed to have invented “Za new metal, ya!”
If they aren't desperate, they should be
There are times when desperation is called for— when taking a bad risk is your only way out of a blind alley. This is one of those times.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Let's say the A's throw 4/46 at Furcal
because that’s what it takes to land him. Then maybe his four seasons go like “good, so-so, bad, bad” due to injury/decline issues – basically his back doesn’t come around to pre-injury levels. There could be regret that reverberates through other moves (i.e. non-moves) for several years.
I’d rather see the A’s go hard after Furcal on a 2/25 or so basis – since no one else is offering more years anyway, it seems, why not make the “too good to pass up” bid on a two-year deal? The A’s could do that right now, take it or leave it, before the Dodgers make an offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The A's wouldn't be any worse off than they've been with Chavez for the last few years
and, while irritating, that money has hardly crippled the franchise.
Even if he replicates Nomar’s contract (and performance) with the Dodgers, which was one of the worse moves of recent vintage, I don’t see it getting in the way of the team being potentially competitive in 2010-2012.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If nothing else, it could directly impact
the A’s ability to be competitive in the effort to re-sign Holliday. You may think it’s not even possible, but if Holliday’s price tag is around 6/120, the A’s might have a shot if they can keep payroll from ballooning.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Grover's already done the math on that; I see no reason to repeat it
I can’t figure out how the A’s keep him on without either not signing anyone else at all (including Furcal), or undergoing a bunch of destructive, Marlins-esque gyrations attempting to keep 20 players a season under the 3-year mark. Maybe they could have prior to their latest round of self-imposed payroll caps, but not afterward.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Is this based on a $65M payroll budget?
I thought in Grover’s calculations Furcal and Holliday could co-exist but it would hamper arbitration player retention. I don’t really have a problem with the latter.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 5:45 AM PST up reply actions
Hang on
The A’s went after Furcal with a 4 year deal, I’ve been arguing what dollar amount needs to go with those for years. I have not been discussing my personal preference on the matter… which was don’t even bid on the guy in the pre-Holliday days.
If I got to play GM and Fortune had me bid on Furcal, I go 3 years with a team 4th option and I pay the cash to make it work. My guess is 3/36 with a 3 million kicker on a 12 million option.
The monster at the end of this blog.
that's no way to earn...
…the cape, tights, and stenciled lettering on the chest.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2008 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
Billy Beane in tights?
Billy Bean is intrigued!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
pretty amusing
Beane has come from plenty of criticism for his player moves over the years, even on this site.
Nice Article grover!
I really don’t think Furcal wants to play for anyone other than the Dodgers. His agent seems to have been playing the other teams to get the price up but I think that is as far as it goes. Furcal will sign with the Dodgers.
I wonder, can we be competitive with either Pennington or Pettt at SS ? I would like to see that. I enjoy watching the younger guys come along.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
they'll need to upgrade the offense somewhere else
if they put Petit/Pennington or Crosby at SS. I know they’ve upgraded LF and are counting on a healthy Chavez, but the latter doesn’t seem to be something you want to depend on.
I think if the A's decide to roll with P/P or Crosby,
they need to take the money saved and go for it with another slugger at another position – which may mean taking a defensive hit with Giambi or Dunn or whatever.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Paycut
Wouldn’t all of the offers so far have represented a paycut or at least no real increase in pay for Furcal? One reason he may not have signed with anyone yet is that nobody likes to take a paycut unless they have no other choice. So far it may not be evident to him he has no other choice.
It's just evident to everybody else
If he’s offered more than two years it WILL be for a pay cut (and if it’s for two years, it SHOULD be for a pay cut).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Hmmm....lemme think about it for a while...
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 13, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
NO! I need answers NOW!!!!!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
So
if we get Furcal, we don’t hafta have BC no more?
…………is there a petition to sign or something?
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
We don't need no stinkin' Furcal
I hope we never see Furcal in green n gold –
I cannot wait for the season to start – a combination of Crosby, Petit, Pennington will be just fine provided everyone else plays up to their abilities. !&@# Furcal. Enough. We gave him an offer – he refused. Walk away. Don’t look back. All of this Furcal will save the world and make us contenders is crap. He played well for what – 20 games at the end of the season. I still stand by my post in earlier conversation about this: you take Furcal’s stats and Crosby’s over the next 4 years, and I’ll be the works that Bobby’s come out on top.
"He's pretty nasty," Gardenhire said. "The last pitch to Harris, we went and watched it, it's on the black. It cut the outside corner of the plate, the tip of it, and that's pretty nasty."
(Ron Gardenhire on Brad Ziegler)
I hope we never see Furcal in green n gold
we can just agree to disagree on this one
Save Rajai Davis
Who knows
Bobby might stand on home plate instead of 4 miles away from it and forget to move when a 98 mph fastball comes.
Doubt that would happen though as he has no idea where home plate is.
I hope Crosby is on another team by April. The Angels would be nice (LOL)
Hah
How much you want to bet?
I’m serious, I could use the money.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hypothetical question
if you are the permier SS on the FA market, and you get offered a deal of 4/36 (9m/year) when a lesser shortstop (Renteria) just got 2/18 (9/year), wouldn’t you be looking for a little more? Especially if Oakland isn’t your favoritest place in the world?
I don’t think you just give him one offer and then walk away. I can’t fault him for turning down that offer when he has a 2/25 in his lap from the Dodgers just waiting for his OK. I think if it was a 4/44 offer, then yes he’s an a#$hole and he can play wherever else he wants, but let’s not forget that baseball is actually just a business nowadays and Furcal is looking for the best thing he can get.
Right now, I’m not sure an extra 2 years and 11m is really going to excite Furcal all that much. If he can even sort of stay productive over the next two years playing on the Dodger’s deal, he’ll at least get another 5.5m/season, which would make up for his rejection of the A’s offer.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 14, 2008 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
It's just that he said the biggest factor was the four years,
and that he was looking for 4/40. But when an offer of around 4/40 came along from the only team willing to go four years…He suddenly wanted 2/25 more than he wanted 4/40? Hmm…
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
maybe he likes to surf?
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 14, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
let's do 50k
haha – kidding.
but seriously, if 50k was something i had to bet, i would bet it and sleep soundly, knowing that it would soon be worth 100k (and even at 4 years, that isn’t too bad a return)
"He's pretty nasty," Gardenhire said. "The last pitch to Harris, we went and watched it, it's on the black. It cut the outside corner of the plate, the tip of it, and that's pretty nasty."
(Ron Gardenhire on Brad Ziegler)
by catfish hunter on Dec 14, 2008 11:27 AM PST reply actions
Furcal is just a B level player
He was injured last year . He may not be up to speed this year. He is not going to make a revolutionary difference to the A’s even if he is. So why not just wait for a better deal or a better player?
I'd call him an A- level player who was injured last year
Before back troubles: A good defensive SS with great speed and some power – that’s not easy to find. With the health risk attached, though, I’d agree he’s a B level player.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Because there are no better deals, and to all practical purposes for the A's, there are no better players.
Not in free agency, anyway.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Giambi for 3b!
Hey, he did it in 1995 and 1996! Lol. Seriously though, I’m ready for Beane to be done with whatever he’s going to do this offseason with Furcal. It’s getting old debating whether or not Furcal will sign, and who’s being the jerk and who’s getting lowballed.
Here’s the deal. Beane, go sign Furcal for 4 years at 40-44 mil, and Randy Johnson by demonstrating that the Giants are probably not a contender for the upcoming season, and (wouldn’t ya know it?) we’re in the bay area too! Should you falter and your plans run amiss, trade Holiday now or at the break, whichever gives you the best deal, and plan for the 2010+ seasons that your fanbase was already counting on.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds…
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
Holliday for Hardy!
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball." -- Connie Mack
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
