Should We Care What the Angels Do This Off-season?

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 10:15 AM PST Comment 232 comments

As I was driving down the 57 freeway on Friday through Los Angeles of Anaheim, I gazed to my right and observed Slegna Stadium in it's most radiant state: completely empty of rally monkey-ing, stat-hating, water bottle-launching, belligerent and foul-mouthed Angel fans.

My first thought was: "God, I hate that place with every fiber of my being." My second thought was, "But it's sure going to be nice to go there next season and NOT see K-Rod throw a single pitch." My third thought was, "But I'm a little scared that Reagins and Moneybags Moreno will re-sign Teixera and/or trade for Jake Peavy and/or sign Manny Ramirez and/or Brian Fuentes and completely nullify the positive vibes I developed about the A's 2009 chances after the Holliday trade." My fourth thought was, "Should I even really care about what the Angels do with their roster this off-season?"

That fourth thought was the one that stuck in my head as I progressed deeper and deeper into the congested and smoggifed heart of the OC. As monkeyball pointed out yesterday, it's now known that the Angels have upped their offer to Mark Teixera into the 8-year, $160 million range and have at times been described as "desperate" to re-sign the slugger this off-season. While the Angels have to compete with a couple East Coast teams that are (probably) closer to Teixera's heart, there's no question that the Halos have the resources and willingness to over-pay for Mark's services. Given how much his presence improved and solidified the 2008 Angel offensive attack, the thought of seeing him in drab Angel red for the better part of the next decade should be of concern to us A's fans, right?

Beyond the Teixera front, there are rumblings that the Halos could make a play for Jake Peavy if Kevin Towers opens up negotiations with other teams (and Peavy's agent, Barry Axelrod, recently indicated that Jake would probably lift his no-trade clause to go to Anaheim). The Angels have also expressed interest in Brian Fuentes to fill the void that K-Rod's departure left in their bullpen and have even kicked around the idea of signing Manny if the Teixera negotiations fall through. With plenty of cash to spend and at least a few prospects that might pique the interest of the Padres (Brandon Wood, Nick Adenhart, Jordan Walden, Peter Bourjos) it's entirely possible that the Halos re-sign Teixera AND trade for Peavy, and maybe even add Fuentes for good measure. Those moves would fortify pretty much every perceived weakness of the Angel team and would presumable make them very tough to beat in 2009.

My question is: should the A's base any of their moves on what the Angels do? I mean, say the Angels end up making all of the above moves and look unbeatable in 2009...should the A's forget about Rafael Furcal and/or Giambi/Dunn/Burrell, play Crosby's contract out at short, roll with Barton at 1st and invest their current budget surplus into the 2009 draft/overseas signings? Should they even consider trading Holliday or Duke before or during the 2009 season?

Personally, while it may seem I'm like concerned about what the Angels do, I'm really not. The stated goal for the A's front office this off-season was to improve the A's offense for the benefit and development of the team's young pitchers. Those young pitchers are going to need run-support no matter what the division standings look like...and to that end, I would hope that the A's front office continues to focus on adding offense without overpaying and also continues to see if a veteran starter might be available on a short-term deal to improve the 2009 rotation and provide even more breathing room to the young starters.

While baseball rosterbations don't occur in a vacuum, A's brass has never really yielded to the temptation to make reactionary-based decisions, and I think that's a good thing. The A's will live and/or die in the coming years depending on the development of their young pitching and every reasonable effort should be made to support the efforts of that young pitching, regardless of what the competition may or may not do with their own roster.

0 recs | Comment 232 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You know what would help support the young pitching?

A halfway decent offense.

Abso-freakin-lutely do you care about what the Angels do with their roster. The Angels have been a pretty good team and if the A’s can build a team that can beat them then chances are they’d have a good enough team to beat a bunch of other teams.

Which is sorta the point.

Here’s the thing that pisses me off about the idea of settling with Holliday. It’s a middle ground option, the very ground Beane has repeatedly (and accurately) said is death to the A’s. Oakland has to be a contender or they have to be building a contender, they lose if they’re average.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Half-measures

I agree with you there.

I’m pretty ambivalent about Furcal, as I’m concerned that the A’s would be signing an above-average player with an aching back. He’s sort of like Kotsay – good baseball player, history of back trouble. Maybe the back injury was a one-time thing, but if so, why is everyone shying away from him?

That said, if the A’s don’t sign Furcal and a lot of other players to help them compete next year, I don’t see the point of the Holliday deal.

And if the Angels fill a lot of their holes, I think Beane should flip Holliway now.

by bear88 on Dec 14, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

this FTW

"I'm going to take a camera crew and march into Billy Beane's office and demand to know why instituting his newfangled cost-saving measures means that the run manufacturing plant had to get shut down." FJM

by Elvez on Dec 14, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes and flip him for something better than what he gave up

The A’s have surplus outfield prospects (Cunningham/Sweeney/Buck alone is probably enough OF prospects).

If he could flip Holliday for another guy like Gallagher, like Phil Hughes or something like that. A B+/A- starting pitching prospect would be nice. Essentially it degenerates into a Gonzalez-for a pitching prospect deal.

by halflink123 on Dec 14, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, let's flip Holliday for a few more SP prospects

Heaven knows we need more young arms.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They are the most valuable commodity in baseball, IMO

Use them as starters, use them as closers, use them as relievers, trade them…

You can never have enough starting pitching. Just look at the Braves’ 10 division titles…look at the Braves now. Look at the A’s when they had the big 3…look at the A’s now.

by halflink123 on Dec 14, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, we could put a SP at 1B, another at SS...

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't put Holliday there either now can you, buddy?

by halflink123 on Dec 14, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, you probably could put him at 1B

It would be a waste but that option is open.

And as bad an idea as it is to put Holliday at 1B, it pales in comparison to the blatant foolishness of once again trading an important piece to add to a team strength and not improve a team weakness.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

point taken

I never understood the Holliday deal anyway. It seemed like a short term solution, a rent-a-player. He will be a free agent. So trade him or not, the A’s will have a chance to sign him in the offseason as I don’t think he would agree to an extension. The A’s chances of resigning him don’t appear to be good, based on their history of retaining FA’s. Dye maybe being the exception, but Dye wasn’t the sort of premier FA Holliday will be.

I consider the A’s to be pretty strong at 1B, but I’m betting that Barton will improve. As for SS, I don’t think there’s a lot out there that’s tremendously better than Crosby, as mediocre as he is. I mean people in this board are talking about Furcal as if he’s a 1.000 OPS guy; that is how bad of a hitter most SSs are.

Outfield is a relative strength; Chavez is playing third; Suzuki at catcher. That’s why I was leaning toward more SP…especially because none of those guys is a “sure thing”, and if they don’t pan out, it’s always good, IMO to have insurance. Plus I would think that they’re generally easier to trade because while offensive positions get “blocked” teams are always trying to fill out their rotation. Also, for example, Mark Mulder and Dan Haren brought more to the A’s than any trade of any offensive player.

But like I said I see your point especially because the other positions are so shaky.

by halflink123 on Dec 14, 2008 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Groovy

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And another thing...

You want to avoid making reactionary-based decisions?

Take the freakin’ initiative. Make a power play, set the market, don’t let up until you’ve accomplished what you wanted to accomplish. Then look back and flip the stragglers off. Sometimes it will blow up in your face. Other times you’ll bask in the glory.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that.

It seemed like Beane starting the off-season with that mentality with the Holliday trade, but where does he go from here? Seal the deal with Furcal, get Dunn and the Big Unit?

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd just be speculating

I will say this, since a brilliantly bold move to seize Holliday, Beane and Co. have been spinning their wheels.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I suspect that the economy and the effect on the FA market

had something to do with that. At the time of the deal they had their budget near $70/80 million. Since then, they’ve had to re-evaluate that number which effects what they can afford to spend on someone like Furcal. With less wiggle room to work with, suddenly the risk of signing him becomes bigger.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a cop-out

The economy has not turned so badly that the A’s can only afford Furcal at $9 million. I’ll admit that it may have turned to the point where they can’t afford Furcal AND Johnson but even that seems a bit of a stretch.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not what I meant.

What I’m saying is that before the risk of Furcal being injured at, say $12 million a year, with a budget of $70/80 is worth the risk. But the same $12 million a year with a budget of $50/60 isn’t. CAN they afford Furcal at $12 million a year, absolutely. But the cost analysis of that decision may have changed making the team feel less willing to take that risk.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

If you’ve got a $9 million bust on an $80 million budget, you’re going to feel it. Look, if Furcal (or any player making that kind of money) busts then its going to hamstring what the A’s can do.

If you are truly worried about Furcal not holding up, you push for a shorter term contract NOT a lower annual amount. Let’s use your numbers as an example.

$9 million over 4 years cripples the budget for 4 years.

$12 million over 3 years cripples the budget over 3 years.

You’ve spent the same amount of cash on a total bust but you shake yourself free from the burden 1 year sooner. You are then free to try and correct the mistake.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, you're not getting what I meant

Any contract will hurt if the player gets injured. And yes, a $9 million contract even on a $80 million budget will hurt. But a $12 million contract on a $60 million budget hurts MORE. The shift in budget may (and I stress the may) impact how much money the team is willing to put on the line. A $9 million bust hurts bad. But comparably a $12 million bust on a smaller budget hurts a whole hell of a lot more and may have impacted how much the A’s were willing to risk on a 4 year deal.

At no time have i seen any indication that Furcal would be willing to take a 2/3 year deal with the A’s. In fact, every indication suggests that if we’re talking 2/3 year deal, we’d have to pay more than $12 million for him to even think about picking us over L.A. The only thing setting us apart is the 4 year offer and there’s no reason to over pay for a “want” player, Furcal isn’t a “need” player.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

g-spot, if the argument is "the A's should spend 12mil because they can"

or “9 and 12 are the same because they fall into the same category of ‘will it hurt but can we?’” then…then I disagree with the argument.

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 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What is there to disagree with?

The A’s are just as dead if Furcal busts at $9 million instead of (now) $12 million. The difference is not enough to really influence another major transaction as there are other places to find $3 million if necessary.

Dead is dead. Why give a damn about how pretty the corpse is?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Necrophiliacs

And Rupert Murdoch. Just a hunch.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I get exactly what you mean

Let me make this perfectly clear to you.

That $3 million a year difference buys you nothing on the FA market. It doesn’t buy you 1 year of Kyle Farnsworth.

9 million or 12 million, that money is invested and the difference is not enough to make an impact on another significant purchase. That 3 million isn’t going to keep Beane from extending Holliday or signing another FA. The A’s will either have the funds to make another move or they won’t, regardless of that $3 million.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Total BS

You know what that 3 million a year buys you? Arbitration and flexibility to add on later when taking on other big contracts. Let’s say we go after a guy making $10 a year in a year or two from now. Or say, at the deadline. The team has 7 to spare in wiggle room by signing him to 9 million instead of 12. The other team is willing to pay $3 million but not $6 without asking for a lot more from us in terms of prospects, that additional $3 million comes into play. Say we pick up an arby eligible player, that $3 million comes into play by making first or second year players (assuming this is actually a good player) just that much more affordable (not even getting into our own players). Does it make a difference on the FA market? Probably not. But it most definitely has value.

It’s seems to me you’re arguing a completely different points here. Furcal is NOT the only option out there. Is he one of the best option, probably. But overspending for it or for anything has never really been the A’s MO nor should it. But that appears to be what you’re really arguing here and if so, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please, stop with the melodramatics

That’s so much more my thing.

The point is, if Beane truly needs to find $3 million to make some kind of move he has several options available to him to free up the cash. It’s a lot tougher coming up with $10 million on the fly.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The point is

you seem to really be putting all your hopes in this one move and quite probably overestimating the Holiday move. At what point did the A’s becoming the major FA market players? They’re playing in the market, but we aren’t the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels or Mets here. Have you forgotten that we’re the A’s?

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, we are not NYY, Mets, Bo-sox etc...

but the A’s have a revitalized farm system and cash to spend and I think it would behoove the FO to realize that they are, for the first time in years, dealing from a position of strentgh.

So, I guess what I’m saying is, they should go for it! Now! And still be able to be good for years to come.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have time for this

Oakland A’s reality 101.

At some point within the next 12 months the A’s will acquire a new SS. Why? Because Bobby Crosby sucks and his contract expires in 2009.

There does not appear to be an in-house solution to the bloody, gaping hole at SS for the A’s.

Rafael Furcal is the best SS scheduled to hit the FA market this offseason and next offseason. And before you say “back injury” please remember the A’s already offered him a 4 year contract.

The A’s can afford Furcal at $12 million a year. Signing a lesser player at a lower cost is more about saving dollars instead of adding wins.

If the A’s do not have a home grown solution for SS, and they are not willing to pay the market rate for a FA SS, then the only way to acquire a new SS is to trade for one.

We have a unique situation here where the A’s have the means and need to add talent to the organization strictly through monetary means. Why would you prefer them to save cash and trade away talent instead?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

and I’m saying that if they don’t sign Furcal for whatever reason, then they should explore a trade to acquire one. Wasn’t sure if you were posting in response to me or not. Just wanted to make sure my position was understood. Yes, Furcal first. Second, no Furcal, you explore a trade possibility.

Peace…

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't "prefer" to save cash and trade away talent.

I “prefer” not to overspend on an injury risk shortstop. As far as Furcal goes, my position is you make your “fair” offer, which the A’s did. If he accepts, great, problem solved. If he rejects and get outbid on a shorter contract, move on.

Yes, the A’s have money to spend. But money not spent now, will be there later. Just because you have it is no reason to spend it. You need to re-evaluate your $85 million estimate and knock it down $20 million (as that’s the last I’ve heard based on market adjustments). But let’s say we can afford to overspend, while it makes sense on a spend just money instead of trade away talent, it doesn’t in the over scheme of things.

I’d much rather that money go to someone like Holiday next year, than overspent now. Is later guaranteed, nope. That’s why you try to get Furcal on your terms, but know that there are other options. I don’t prefer a couple of stopgap solutions until one of our kids show up a few years from now, but that thought doesn’t scare me into overpaying someone else.

Reality check, if we don’t spend that money this year, this “unique” position of extra cash will still be there mid-season for trades, still be there next offseason. As long as we don’t take on a huge contract, we remain firmly in our rebuilding, money available position we’re currently in. That money doesn’t just vanish unless we spend it. And if we spend it on someone else, odds are it’s going to be someone worth it. We absolutely should take advantage of having the money. And I have no doubt we will. It’s just a matter of who that money goes to (and it may very well go to Furcal and hopefully awesome if it does) OR it could go to someone else (and hopefully awesome when it does).

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

At some point, if you don't spend the cash, you miss the opportunity

I don’t like Rafael Furcal. There is only 1 reason why I argue the A’s should sign him.

Matt Holliday.

Beane acquired one of the best hitters in baseball for one year, this year, and to not maximize the opportunity presented by his arrival is down right stupid. Furcal represents the best way to upgrade another hole in the line-up without sacrificing via trade the young talent Beane has acquired.

I’ve said it before and have no problem saying it again. The 4/36 guaranteed plus incentives we think the A’s offered was low ball. I’m an A’s fan, not Furcal’s agent, and I sat there saying to myself it was a low ball contract offer. The market says Furcal should make more money annually than that.

Listen to yourself. You say Furcal should sign on the A’s terms. How is that “fair”? Fair implies compromise, it suggests negotiation. You don’t want that, you want Furcal to sign on Beane’s terms. Well that’s all well and good but Furcal has other suitors and if the A’s truly want him to be their SS in 2009 then they are going to have to compromise.

That means give him more money, unless you’d rather the A’s tack on a 5th year to their offer.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 6:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If anything, not signing Furcal

puts us at a bigger advantage to resigning Holiday since we have more money. At least arguably. Spend this year proving that the product coming our way is going to be a contender and soon in order to convince him that we’re legit. Assuming that we only have this one year with Holiday suggests we should be pushing big 1/2 year contracts (at which point I’m less concerned about overpaying Furcal for 2/28, 2/30 doesn’t actually bother me much).

As for the forcing Furcal to sign only on our terms? Come on. I’m not saying that at all. Let him go to the Dodgers if he wants. Let him come back and say “Give me 4/40 and I’ll sign” if that’s what he wants. I don’t think the A’s need nor should simply up their offer out of fear of losing him. If they up their offer it should be part of a dialog with Furcal, not out of a jump up eagerly yelling “pick me, pick me!”

BTW, IF you’re going to overpay for someone, I’d support overpaying for Holiday, someone young, healthy, and who can lead the offensive. Furcal, not so much.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of hoarding cash for midseason

better than signing Furcal. He may seem like the best SS option now, but that’s likely to change by midseason.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well put, DMOAS

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 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

were not re-signing holliday

He’s a Boras client, Hellloooooooo

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 14, 2008 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello.

Boras clients usually go for the most money and Oakland usually can’t make the best offer. Usually and usually, not always and always.

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 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The A's can absolutely afford

to re-sign Holliday. It’s been covered before x 10,000!

Scott Boars or not, if the A’s want to pony up the cash, why wouldn’t he stay?

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

just cause they can...

There’s no use to thinking We would pull a 2000 Texas Rangers and hinder our future by having one guy eating 30-40% of the payroll

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 14, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's not Blanton

and % of payroll is irrelevant.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen to that brother!

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean that Beane is going to

waste money on Park Chan Ho then?

No, we should not pull a Texas Rangers 2000. We should not overpay for mediocre crap like Park Chan Ho. The Rangers have sucked, NOT because of the ARod contract.

It is far better to have a great player eating 30-40% of the payroll, instead of 3 mediocre players eating 30-40% of the payroll.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Dec 15, 2008 1:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What about Chan Ho Park, though?

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is sad

Not only are you advocating trading for a SS, you want to waste half the season to do so.

The A’s supposedly offered 4/36 and said take-it-or-leave-it. Now you want Furcal to come back and ask for 4/40. That would require negotiation and/or compromise on the A’s part. So thank you for agreeing with me.

And for what I’m sure is not the last time, paying Furcal an actual market rate does not qualify as overpaying the man.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is this directed to me?

I’m only advocating a trade if Furcal does not sign with the A’s. And I certainly am not advocating trading half of a season to do so.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That was to DMOAS

If in doubt as to whom a comment is directed, click on the Up link and it will scroll to the intended target.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I just tried doing that but nothing happened. Thanks for the heads up, though.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They have to afford both. They NEED both, remember?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 14, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They do need both.

Even I accept that there are circumstances beyond Beane’s control that could prevent their signings from happening. If Johnson absolutely refuses to leave the NL then that’s the way things go.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or if the most talented FA SS says no to Beane's offer...

…then that’s the way things go.

Listen to yourself. You say Furcal should sign on the A’s terms.

No, I actually want the Athletics to sign Furcal on Furcal’s terms. My loyalty is with Furcal, not the direction of the FO of the Athletics’ organization which has not done anything for Furcal [or any other non-A’s-signed FA] since Beane’s tenure.

How is that "fair"?

It is not fair. Furcal deserves a fair shake — ~~4/48~~ ~~4/50~~ 6/78

Fair implies compromise, it suggests negotiation.

Fair implies capitulation to whatever Furcal wants. Nothing less than that is fair.

You don’t want that, you want Furcal to sign on Beane’s terms.

No, Beane is an asshole. He’s the enemy, the ‘man’ that’s keeing my boy Furcal down.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 14, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you're willing to pay 6/78,

then you should be willing to pay 6/96. How can you let 3million/year stop you from signing Rafael Furcal? What is WITH you people?

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 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Now you're talkin'

And then after that, we’ll have to pay Johnson whatever he is going to want; we may just have to go up by 3 million dollar annual increments there, too. F#ck it, it’s not my money to spend, nor are there other active-roster players that need to get paid.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 14, 2008 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Once you trade for Matt Holliday,

you MUST do EVERYTHING as if the trade will be your biggest failure ever if you don’t win the World Series in 2009.

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 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or you could trade Holliday for players you like better than the

ones you traded to get him

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, if you want to waste another season that's your prerogative

I’m not going to apologize for wanting the A’s to finish over .500 in 2009.

Trading for Holliday and then doing nothing else to improve the roster is stupid.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's pathetic

Whatever Beane offers a FA is fair and proper and any player who doesn’t immediately sign is scum and garbage. You know what LCJ, when other non-regulars visit AN and go away thinking the site is full of ass kissing homers its crap like what you just spouted that gives them that impression.

4/36 was/is a low ball offer. Anything lower then that was cut throat. An actual fair deal is going to cost more then that and it is sad that normally intelligent posters are getting sucked up into the Beane-can-do-no-wrong routine.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think if Beane makes it 3 years for 36 mill

it would be a slam dunk.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There are a few months left to this off-season

The A’s have time to make some more moves. Until Opening Day arrives and proves otherwise, I’ll give BB credit that he’s continuing to build a 2009 contender.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not getting the concept of striking first, are you?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

my sentiments exactly below mate

v
v
v

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you really believe that the A's can make a significant difference in what the Angels do, bully for you

I, for one, don’t buy it. I was more taking issue with your assertion about the front office spinning its wheels.

And could you please condescend a little less? It’s one of my pet-peeves.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Who me?

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I could

And I will as soon as you list the roster moves the A’s have made since trading for Holliday.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Joey C:

PLEASE list the roster moves the A’s have made since trading for Holliday. According to his comment, even if your answer is “none,” grover promises to condescend a little less!

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 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That promise was to Joey C.

The rest of AN is fair game.

And if his answer is “none” then I can go straight from condescending to smug.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW

How dare you suggest Ben Copeland is unworthy of mention.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also Chen and Bowen

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please don't mention Bowen

It doesn’t help my cause.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not one for internet pissing contests

I’ve been playing NCAA 2009 all day and I just got done watching Yojimbo, so I don’t need to add a flamewar to my list of nerding activities. But I’ll say this: your comment implies the FO hasn’t done anything of use. I contend that “doing something of use” does not exclusively mean “making roster moves.” Laying the foundation for such moves is an important process.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll prepare myself for the below-mentioned smug.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or above-mentioned, as it turns out

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And I contend that not improving the roster does little to nothing in terms of winning more baseball games

And since you refused to list any roster moves I am free and clear to be both condescending AND smug!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Condescmugging?

by mikev on Dec 14, 2008 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or hopefully in Chavy's case:

Mending.

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 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

George Clooney would be proud

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And even if he's not, I'm still right

So I got that going for me, which is nice.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ducats for the Caddyshack reference

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But the A’s can’t afford to have it blow up in their face anymore than they can settle for the middle ground. The A’s most definitely need to act, but I also think they have a Plan B (i.e. trading Holiday mid-season or re-signing him) if they’re unable to build the contender they were hoping to build this offseason. Being stupid with the money they do have free to spend is not an option for the A’s.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A Holliday extension should be Plan A, not Plan B, regardless of contention status.

Even though its not that likely, its still the ideal scenario, that Matty stays with the A’s for the next few years or so.

If the A’s aren’t contending mid-season, then trading Holliday mid-season should be Plan B.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm strictly talking this offseason

Right now their focus is on building a contender for this year. If that plan (A) falls off a cliff because of lack of FA interest or poor nation economy, plan B for this offseason would be to focus on getting the most out of the Holiday deal by either trading him for prospects to continue the rebuild or re-signing him now (of which, I’d agree with you that the latter should be the #1 focus of the two).

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Right now, the A's are focused on SS for obvious reasons

But if they can’t upgrade SS this year, they still have a chance to upgrade power/offense and starting pitching and build a contender despite Crosby et al. It happened in 2006 when the A’s lacked an adequate SS throughout the season.

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 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Furcal thing is much ado about nothing really

If we sign him for the right price, awesome albeit risky upgrade. If we don’t sign him, there are other places where we can upgrade our lineup/rotation that can make next year’s team a contender. Would a nice new shortstop be nice, sure. Absolutely, end of the world necessary, no. Beane needs to continue building for the future and we passed the point of playing for “just” one year with last year’s rebuilding trades.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ideal scenario is the A's trade Holliday at the deadline, then sign him as a FA

by halflink123 on Dec 14, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And what happens if the young arms we're banking on turn to slag?

The only way to avoid risk is to not do anything.

You make the best choice, then you pays your dues and takes your chances.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

grover, I could not agree with you more, sir

As the old saying goes, “If you ain’t the lead dog, the view never changes…”

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I care what the Angels do,

because the A’s can still build a team expected to win around 90 games but they’re not going to get up to 95. If the Angels were to re-sign Tex and add Fuentes, they’d be pretty darn solid. Hopefully they won’t.

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 10:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

In that worse case scenario, I'd guess that Beane would entertain offers for Holliday & Duke.

That would be frustrating.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A team should never make reactionary moves

What the Angels do really shouldn’t matter.

by thejd44 on Dec 14, 2008 10:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

How about... make the Angels react to the A's moves.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would what the Angels do not matter?

What win total do the A’s need to beat if not the Angels’?

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 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying the same thing as you, just in a different manner

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We'd likely lose that escalation of arms since they have the money and we don't.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 14, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Could not disagree more

There’s nothing worse than wasting a bunch of resources on a rental in a situation where it’s not going to help at all.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This times infinity.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, LA is full of pricks. And I don't even live close to LA, and I can tell you that.

# The reason Rafael Furcal rejected the A’s offer was that he wants to stay with the Dodgers, so says “one agent.” Meanwhile the Dodgers appear to be daring Furcal to leave for a lesser club before making an offer.

Rosenthal…

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

If Furcal takes less guaranteed money and less years to remain in LA because he...

doesn’t want to go to a “lesser club” like the A’s, then he belongs with the rest of the pricks down here (myself not included).

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You can be an exception to the prick rule.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You obviously haven't spoken to my ex-girlfriends in recent years...

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My feeling about Furcal is so dichotomous right now

I really want the A’s to sign him and if they do I’ll be stoked – and if he signs elsewhere he will become one of my least favorite players, the guy I go “heh – karma’s a you-know-what” when bad things happen. Or I might love him!

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 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Same here

If he’s a Dodger (or even a Royal—-those MF bastards owned us last year), I want him to end up on the DL within the first week of the season.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What? They all said you were a lesser prick.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not as pricky as the rest of the LA people though.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if beane was aware of this

why even waste another week waiting fir this guy to decide…looks like they were the agents puppet. meanwhile 6 or 7 infielders went off the market, though we dont know for sure A’s were interested in any of them

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 14, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No good infielders went off the market though.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

neither is crosby

and his 09 contract was more than most of them that signed other than renteria

i might have taken a chance on felipe lopex at 3.5mill

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 14, 2008 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Felipe Lopez is not an improvement over Crosby

His late-2008 numbers were very flukish. He’s horrible.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's worse defensively, better offensively

Takey your pickey.

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 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, he really isn't better offensively

“Horrible” is about right.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i also hope

if they miss out of furcal/rj will they even spend this 40-50mill on other players or pass and go cheap for lesser FA’s as always

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 14, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless they are the NL East Annapollis Angels...

Then of course we care what they do, but even with Tex they were like 11th in the AL in offense (maybe 11th in mlb, i know there’s kinda a big difference) and Texiera has been in the AL west his whole career so the A’s are used to facing him…

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 14, 2008 11:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Peavy & Angels

Didn’t really touch on this in the main post, but might there be some benefit, at least long-term, to the A’s if the Angels trade for Peavy. Obviously, Peavy would really help the Angels in 2009 when they still have Lackey under contract, but after that, Jake starts to get expensive, Lackey might be gone in 2010 and there is no guarantee that Teixera will be around to supplant Vlad.

In exchange, the Angels will take on Peavy’s hefty contract and will surrender whatever decent prospects they have left in their already-thin farm system. So from 2010-2012, right when the A’s would seem to be emerging with their young pitching core, the Angels might be hamstrung without Vlad, Lackey and/or Teixera and will be stuck with Hunter and GMJ as the core of their offense without any impact help from the farm system.

Of course, I wouldn’t openly hope that the Angels get Peavy, but in case they did, it might not work out all that badly for the A’s in the long run.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would openly hope that the Angels get Peavy.

They have cash to burn, and they have some prospects that they can trade. If they trade for Peavy and then sign a lesser bat/Brian Fuentes/etc., that will really help the A’s in the long run.

A good farm system, IMO, is key to any sustained glory run.

The Angels aren’t the Yankees, they don’t have the cash to buy a championship to the levels that the Yanks can.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but do they have the cash

to buy a division?

BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.

by alea iacta est on Dec 14, 2008 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If those divisions are the AL, NL, and NFC West, the answer is "yes"

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Dec 14, 2008 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Now that Raul Ibanez is gone.

I hope the Angels sign Fuentes and Garret Anderson.

Although it probably won’t happen.

And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...

by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

To the main question: Why the Angels matter

The Angels matter because they’re the team to beat in our division.

The Angels matter because it’s unlikely the A’s will be a Wild Card team. It’s not impossible, but winning the AL West is the much easier path.

If the Angels aren’t realistically catchable, that matters to how the A’s should plan.

by bear88 on Dec 14, 2008 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good point

If the Angels had signed Sabs, Tex and Burnett I think the A’s would have been wise to trade Holliday.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My main point.

Basically what I was trying to get to in the post above was to hope the A’s would concentrate on their own internal runs scored/runs allowed projections and act accordingly to improve each side of the ledger in order to put together a team that can as many games as possible.

Even if the Angels re-sign Tex and maybe add Fuentes and project to 93 wins, if the A’s make a few moves (Furcal, RJ) and project for 90 wins, I don’t think the A’s should throw in the towel just because “on paper” it doesn’t look like the A’s will win the division – there are too many variables involved to really count the A’s out at that point…namely injuries and/or possible break out performances from young players or regressions from guys who got lucky (see Saunders, Joe).

I’m hoping the A’s can put together a competitive team while holding true to their long-term goals.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 14, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And I think that's precisely why the Holliday trade occurred

At the time of the trade, the statuses of Teixeira, Furcal, and many others, were unknown. You can’t always wait to see if a Tex is re-signed or if you land a Furcal. If you look 8 games worse on paper and can get to 4 games worse, you have less work to do if things start rolling right. If they get Tex and you lose out on Furcal, well…But if they lose Tex and you land Furcal, then…

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 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Understood

My problem is that I don’t see any realistic combination of free agent signings that projects the A’s to 90 wins. Holliday and Furcal and some improvement by the current players doesn’t transform dormant offense into a decent one. And all of that presumes that A’s pitching is going to be good. There isn’t a whole lot of reason to believe that, even if the team signs one good free agent starter.

by bear88 on Dec 14, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Holliday and Furcal and some improvement by the current players doesn’t transform dormant offense into a decent one.

Yes it does…

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Dec 14, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It does if Chavez is reasonably healthy and productive

Last year’s very good portion of the lineup was Cust (while Suzuki and Sweeney were good). Make it Holliday, Cust, Chavez, Furcal (and Suzuki, etc.) and it’s way way way better.

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 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To add on, I understand the skepticism over Chavez' health

but I am convinced Oakland’s optimism about it was the #1 reason the Holliday trade was made. Adding Holliday and Chavez (and ideally one more piece) transforms the A’s offense, whereas just adding Holliday and another nice piece, but still being stuck with Baisley/Hannahan, doesn’t.

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 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You know my skepticism about Chavez's health

I would love to be proven wrong.

by bear88 on Dec 14, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My point isn't a prediction, but more of an estimation

of the A’s prediction – which means more than mine anyway.

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 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but we have to balance the A's optimism with their track record of poor health projections and lying to the press

I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

chavez hasn't even started throwing yet

per a recent interview, Geren said Chavy hasn’t even started a throwing program yet. So I fail to understand how the FO could have been so optimistic that this year would be any different from the previous 2 for Eric. And from this, why they thought Holliday would cement their “status” as a legit. contender? Perhaps I’m just dumb somehow, but I didn’t catch the logic in the Holliday trade being based on Chavy’s playable health status.

by rollierollieOxenfree on Dec 14, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And just imagine if

Buck bounces back like he did in September for those last couple of weeks. He was hitting the living piss out of the ball and he was finally healthy…..just saying.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That

Would be nice. Ditto for Barton, his September was very good too. Those two maturing and being reliable offensive performers would be very nice to see.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Dec 14, 2008 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If everyone hits the same as last year

except, say, average offense between Buck/Cunningham instead of Brown/Buck, and average offense from a healthy Furcal, the offense would be average. A productive Chavez would push it easily above average.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Dec 14, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmm

Adding Holliday and Furcal would drastically improve our offense. Even if we don’t sign a Giambi-type for assurance, there would be strong reason to believe that we would increase in offensive production at nearly every position. As for the pitching, there are a lot of quality arms ready and almost ready, if we can add RJ, selecting the best five from our depth chart can probably be better than league average. Is that good enough? Well our bullpen should be solid, lets look at the hitting. Position by position, I think it is reasonable to expect at least marginal offensive improvement from every position, except Cust at DH, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he improved either.

C – Suzuki had a solid year for us last year, but he is very young and while much improvement shouldn’t be expected it is more likely for him to improve than regress. Of course, injuries could always occur so I’m not holding my breath for much growth from the catcher spot in 09.

1B – Even if it is Barton, he won’t be as bad as he was last year. There are a ton of viable arguments that support his projectability, most importantly his extreme youth. Also, he did finish strong. Besides there is a good chance we sign Giambi anyway, massive improvement over last year even if he declines a good bit.

2B – Ellis struggled a lot last year, he is more likely to rebound a bit closer to his average performance levels.

SS – Assuming Furcal. Massive improvement.

3B – Even 30 games of a hobbled Chavez here would increase the annual production up from last year. I think we can expect at least 1-2 months out of Chavez at 3B.

OF – Last year, our 3 OFers with the most ABs (while playing in the OF) were Brown, Sweeney, and CarGon. From an offensive perspective, Sweeney was easily the most productive with his .733 OPS. This year the majority of ABs will go to Holliday, probably Sweeney, and the best of Buck/Cunningham. Im not ruling out Denorfia supplanting Sweeney in CF either. Either way, it is quite likely that Sweeney improves next year offensively (power stroke please!), and even so he will probably be our least productive OFer. One has to believe in the enormous potential from that 3rd spot position battle. Buck’s to lose to Cunningham the way I see it. Huge offensive improvement from the OF.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1-2 months of Chavez and the A's will not contend in 2009, IMO

I also don’t think the A’s will land R. Johnson – I think he wants to play in the NL and that the Giants will likely sign him. But the A’s can add some decent veteran starter if they want – there are enough options out there. Still, I do think Chavez needs to play 100 games for the A’s to have any shot at competing with the Angels.

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 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he needs to play 100 games at 3b for them to have a GOOD shot.

They always have a shot. Buck And Sweeney could each hit .300 with 20 HRs next year for all we know.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hopefully they platoon when they do that

by rollierollieOxenfree on Dec 14, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know they always have a shot -

Vlad could crash into Lackey, LAA’s plane could crash into Texas’, Gallagher could win the Cy Young.

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 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The plane crash bit was a little too far

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yet possible

I’m not rooting for it, just saying it’s possible.

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 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and everyone survives the crash anyway

Lackey just comes out of it a little uglier, if that’s possible.

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 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He renounces baseball forever to pursue his one true passion

Setting up trip-wires in crowded areas and then setting up camp and laughing with his ex-frat buddies when they stumble.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It depends on how you phrase the question.

Should we make reactionary moves based on what another team does? No.

Should we “care” what other teams do? Sure, we should “care”, because how good they are does affect our chances. However, we should keep in mind that we cannot control what they do, and all we can do is field the best team possible. Partly because they are a direct opponent during the season, but also because there are other teams and scenarios to contend with, i.e. wildcard, post-season, etc… the better the team overall, the better to deal with all competitors.

"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds

by UncleLeo on Dec 14, 2008 12:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Actually, in this economy, time of war, global warming, etc.,

should I care how the A’s play baseball? Probably not. Do I care deeply, and consider their performance a reflection on me personally? Why yes.

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 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

au contraire!

yes we should adjust to the moves other teams make. example: if the 3 other teams in our division for some reason yielded all righty lineups, then we’d look around for some lefty hitters to pad to our bench for PH duties. or if they had a higher proportion of righty hitters, we’d look at adding some lefty pitchers wherever they could be found (callup, minor leage contract, rule 5, etc.). granted, this isn’t going to get you 10+ wins or so, but it’s a component of the chess match called “playing most of your games against just 3 other teams”.

by rollierollieOxenfree on Dec 14, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mark my words: Ben Copeland will carry this team into the playoffs

He’s a triple crown threat for next year

by stranahanahan on Dec 14, 2008 1:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

His MVP season will be the first step in his Campaign for President in 2020.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with stranahanahan

Copeland’s a horse, right?

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 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

by mikev on Dec 14, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

my friend Kevin runs a minor league blog for the Giants and he told me that A’s fans will be pleasantly surprised by Ben Copeland. Also, he apparently does have a good arm…..“a cannon, actually. He once caught a ball at the warning track and threw out the runner tagging from 3rd on one bounce to home plate. Definitely could be a solid big league 4th outfielder”

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Depends who the runner was...

by OldhamA on Dec 14, 2008 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In my opinion,

you should never build your team based on what the opposition is doing. It might be in your best interests to “react” to a particular move, but overall, you should work at putting together the best team possible. A baseball season is a long tedious grind. The Angels will inevitably suffer setbacks, as will the A’s. For all we know, they may sign Tex and then end up seeing Vlad go on the DL for an extended amount of time. Tex alone in the lineup isn’t that fearsome a proposition for the A’s.

I don’t get the negativity because we signed Holiday. Yeah, we gave up a few pieces. On the other hand, flipping him at the trade deadline may well yield us more than we gave up to get him if we fall out of contention.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 14, 2008 3:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The A's didn't sign Holliday, though.

I’m sure that you meant “traded for Holliday”.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course you're correct.

I just don’t see it as being a foolish move under any circumstances (save Holiday being on the DL). Should we be ten games back in June, he’ll probably net a significant return at the deadline.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 14, 2008 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Randy Johnson signs with the Giants;

should we go after Mulder? His agent says he is healthy and ready to go…

I wonder if the recession has affected BBeane’s plan to sign other bats???

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 3:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he's the best gamble

Definitely Johnson, maybe Smoltz, possibly Penny, maaaaaybe Mulder.

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 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've liked the Smoltz idea

Apart from Johnson, I’d say he’s the best option all things considered.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Dec 14, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Smoltz....

What’s his status? He is done as a starter, that is for sure.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just seems from the reports that RJ is leaning towards SF

and that makes me ask "Who’s next if any?

What about the recession????

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If the A's end up signing Giambi, Mulder, and for some crazy reason

trade for Tejada for this year it will be like Back To The Future…..

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

in a good way...

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is there any way

back to the future is a bad thing? unless it’s back to the future III, obviously. that was a load of old bobbins

BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.

by alea iacta est on Dec 14, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

to sign at least 1 player

in the 5-10 mill range should be too difficult w/ this payroll

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 14, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A player's agent...

…is the last person anyone should listen to.

"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds

by UncleLeo on Dec 15, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides Cabrera and Furcal, who else does BB have on the radar?

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 3:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Devo... I think

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone think that trading for Escobar or Hardy

might still be options? I mean if push comes to shove and Furcal is not an Athletic after all this nonsense, then does Billy look to make another trade? I personally would love to have either of those guys. If not, Crosby for one more year, and sign Giambi-Dunn-Burrell (in some combo_ and one vet SP in RJ, Smoltz, or Penny. Hell, I’d even be willing to forget and forgive Derek Lowe for his dickweed move in the playoffs when he was a Red Sock.
Sign him to a 2 year deal with a few more bats in the lineup and I think the A’s are in good shape.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 4:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Painful options, yes.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you had to give up either Brett Anderson or Trevor Cahill

to get one of Hardy or Escobar back…………….I know I would do it in a heartbeat!

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't make the angina any less painful

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Stephen Drew?

Again, not for a low cost but we know the D-Backs need to rebuild their farm system…

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 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or my pet three-way deal

that sends Reid Brignac to Oakland, Street to Tampa Bay, and Mazzaro to Colorado.

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 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I guess since we're used to non-hitting SS...

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess my point is

If you’re gonna dream, dream big! As much as I love the idea of having a rotation that included both Cahill and Anderson, I also am realistic in the fact that you need to give to get.

Yes it would hurt to part with one our prized possesions but if it brings back a Hardy or an Escobar to play SS for yeras to come, then that’s what I’m prepared to deal with.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or you know, the team could just sign Furcal

I’d argue vehemently that signing Furcal (even overpaying) and keeping Anderson/Cahill is preferable to trading one of them + others for Escobar/Hardy.

"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Dec 14, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

but if Furcal ends up somewhere else then you have to have a plan B.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So I just read this tidbit from Buster Olney

in regards to what we’re talking about in getting a SS for years to come, they are almost certain now to re-build after losing Sheets, Sabathia, and now probably Cameron.

I say if you can’t get Furcal to sign, go after Hardy fast and furious!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3761935&name=olney_buster

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, it would be painful

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know it would

but you have to be prepared to do something in the event Beane does not budge in negotiations with Furcal’s camp. Believe me, I don’t want to see either Cahill or Anderson anywhere except in GnG but if the A’s don’t have new shortstop after 2009 then you are still back at square 1.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True dat!

Danny Haren, I loved………but man did they pay throght the nose to get him!

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but billy says

anderson and cahill are untouchable- while i know no one is untouchable in this organization, if billy says they are, it bears some weight

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 14, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Never for a minute

believe anything Billy Beane says. I personally have grown to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Milton?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chavy's dog?

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 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, almost everything....

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

crucify Lower for his dickweed move! ya!!!!…oh wait, “forgive”? What is this human concept?

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Vote for Pedro...

J/K… I want Oakland to pursue Penny and Giambi…

I wouldn’t mind having Bonds and Milton either…

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bonds in Left, Cust in Right, Holliday in Center

Giambi at 1st. Wigginton at 3B. Move Ellis to Short, Chavez to 2B, and put BoCro at DH

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 14, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd put Swooney at DH with his massive slugging power

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 14, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Then realize your out of dope and call your dealer immediately!

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 4:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Down with dope...

up with hope.

99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod

by Scottbass on Dec 14, 2008 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like the Yank are in on the Tex sweepstakes

Also, Angels are Fuentes’ first choice to sign with.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081214&content_id=3716994&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

But the Angels don't seem all that interested in Fuentes

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting that Doug Melvin makes a reference

to his SS’s in Milwaukee’s system and referring to them as being “a premium position.”

I still think he’d be wiliing to let Hardy go for a good package of pitching/prospects etc…

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 10:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think the Brewers are a contender even without Sabathia, if they sign another starter.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They need at least 2 starters mate.

And, they are gonna have to probably trade Fielder unless they are serious about extending him when he becomes a FA.

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 11:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gallardo, New Guy, Parra, Suppan, Villanueva

That’s not bad. They can trade Fielder after they’re convinced they’re not contenders, or Gamel’s ready. Also if they trade Fielder, they’ll get something back.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 15, 2008 1:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh for sure they'll get something back for Fielder!

by mrod on Dec 15, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Half their post game buffet?

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Dec 15, 2008 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

wouldn't shock me if Fielder were traded

I don’t think its likely though. He had sort of a down year. The position players are all coming back with the possible exception of 3rd base and CF now that I think about it, so the offense is there.

Melvin is one of those guys who will trade anyone at anytime. I’ve heard him say as much. Of course the price for Braun or Gallardo is so high that they contradict the statement. One example of a recent rumor was Corey Hart for someone in Atlanta. When asked about it, his response was that he had been asked about it and his answer was that he wasn’t motivated. I think every GM in baseball knows that Hardy and Fielder are available for a price – DM uses the phrase “substantial package.”

But as for starting pitching: they have Gallardo, Parra, Suppan and Bush. After that there are a handful of possibilities. I’ve heard a SABR guy suggest Mark DiFelice, a career minor leaguer who puts up good numbers but is unspectacular. Seth McClung simplified his delivery and had a good year including some great performances in high pressure situations. There is an outside shot of Capuano being able to get people out after his second TJ. There is an outside shot of Sheets coming back for a year if nobody gives him a contract he likes. On the free agent market after the big four are a bunch of fours and fives.

I guess I can’t see them selling low. Is someone going to offer a #2 starter for Fielder? Right now it doesnt’ seem so.

by Lovejoy on Dec 15, 2008 6:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take a 128 OPS+ and 34 homers in a "down" year

And the thing is, the Giants would probably give up Matt Cain for him.

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They'd be fools to do so

Since Sabean is a fool, they might well. But really— fools. Fielder is a miserably bad 1B. He’s barely above average once you account for that and positional adjustment. Cain is definitely the better player.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree that he's "miserably bad"

by Lovejoy on Dec 15, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes we should care.

When Beane signed Holiday I thought it was an indication that our A’s plan to put a competitve team onto the field. If the Angel’s improve their team it impacts our record.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2008 10:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Beane traded for Holliday

Simple mistake, thought I should point it out before someone mean and nasty did.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh true.

I did write that wrong and there is a big difference … so ty for the correction. But same point to be made. If he traded some good pieces to get Holliday then he must have done that with an end in mind. That end being to make us more competitve in our division. So we need to sweat it when the Angel’s improve too.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2008 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Holliday is fine even if he can be traded for a premium SS prospect

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 14, 2008 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like that as much as ...

I like thinking that Beane planned to make the A’s competitive THIS coming year. Dang…the Furcal pursuit did have me hoping.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It could still happen.

But trading Street, Carlos and Smith for a premium SS prospect plus other sundries wouldn’t be a terrible thing.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 15, 2008 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think the Holliday trade was the correct move???

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 15, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As opposed to what? Trading for an elite SS or something instead?

If the goal is to keep the long term in mind in addition to making a run at 2009, and assuming that Furcal doesn’t sign in Oakland, I’d probably say that the only thing that could have been done differently would be keeping Street out of the Holliday trade (perhaps substituting Casilla?) if possible and using him in a separate deal to go after a shortstop (Street for Asdrubal Cabrera perhaps?)

Granted, Cleveland signed Kerry Wood so it’s a moot point now, but there are too many variables to really say whether or not it was a “correct” move. You could very well argue that trading CarGo was a big mistake.

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd have preferred to solve the SS problem, but I wouldn't mind a trade of

Gonzalez for a SS. Who that SS is I’ve no idea. The A’s considered Holliday a slower depreciating asset than Street or Gonzalez though.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 15, 2008 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're welcome

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 10:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Meant as a reply to IM4Oakgal

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

People see that I said TY.

They can figure out that you were addressing moi. :-)

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2008 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

damn I thought he was telling me I'm welcome to join this thread.

[ sets mode back to ‘lurking’ ]

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 15, 2008 5:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Naw stick around.

Any A’s fan in Boston needs an outlet to express themselves. It can’t be easy.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 15, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And any Red Sox fan in Boston

needs an outlet to ~~express~~ electrocute themselves.

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 15, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

judging by what Beane said in his interview with Urban

I’m positive the man has several different scenarios working to continue to field a competitive team on the field for 2009. He did say that FA’s and “trades” were discussed at the winter meetings.
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081211&content_id=3713353&vkey=news_oak&fext=.jsp&c_id=oak

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 11:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good link...

but when it’s from the A’s site…ya gotta think it’s rah rah stuff for Beane.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2008 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

{sigh}

Just when you think its safe to read a story without having to worry about a Las Vegas crack…

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 14, 2008 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not neccessarily

Remember, Urban isn’t an A’s employee and he has criticized/questioned some of Beane’s moves in the past. So, it’s not like he’s sucking Beane…..

by mrod on Dec 14, 2008 11:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I wonder how much the A's raised their offer to Furcal???

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 15, 2008 7:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

there is some news... update pending

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 15, 2008 7:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

wat?

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

apologies, misread. no update, carry on.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 15, 2008 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn you for getting me all excited like that on a Monday.

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

[opens mouth, inserts foot]

mmm. zegna.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 15, 2008 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM.

by mikev on Dec 15, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Beane should pony up the dough

and make Holliday the face of the Athletics franchise!!

The team should assure Holliday this is going to be his new home and that a deal to keep him here in Oakland is the clear cut goal for the long run and we will pay fair market value comparable to what Mark Teixeira is going to get…

Any comments…

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Dec 15, 2008 8:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes plz. Yes plz. Yes plz.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 15, 2008 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the entire question is sort of a red herring

Because the choice is basically false.

We always need to “care” about what our toughest division rival does— if the goal of the A’s franchise is to succeed on the field, and success is ultimately defined by making the postseason and then winning there— well, the Angels stand in the way.

OTOH, Wolff and Beane cannot totally upend the team’s guiding philosophy in a short term reaction to something the Halos may have done or not done.

In short there is a balance between not caring at all and caring very much— and so far I’d say Beane is doing a pretty good job at striking that balance.

by windyfelix on Dec 15, 2008 9:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

the groundwork has been laid

this will be a busy…make it or break it week….this time last yr, we heard haren rumors and he was traded on dec 17th

as far as the new furcal offer…he really is no position to be demanding so much…A’s still have the highest offer and most yrs.

would A’s up their offer from 36-44 when they are bidding against themselves? i would demand incentives or an opt out after yr 2

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 15, 2008 9:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Here we go again

I hear that whitesnake song going on and on. Furcal has made a point that the A’s is not the team he wants to sign with. Beane should give him a 24 hour notice and move on. Hopefully Beane is saying to Furcal sign or we are moving it.

by Arcman on Dec 15, 2008 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs