Conspiracy 101: Who Played Who
by AEP2007 on Dec 17, 2008 7:20 AM PST
90 comments
Good morning AN. I was sitting at work a few hours ago when I had a revelation. Now I'm going to attempt to explain my thoughts as clearly as possible. This will be deep with conspiracy but not at all impossible.
When the A's selected Ben Copeland in the rule 5 draft, there was quite a few people on this site that suggested it could be preceding a trade of another outfielder. Now everyone assumed it was Cunningham or Buck, or one of those guys, but maybe it's Holliday. At first glance this seems like an outlandish idea, but please let me explain before you disregard this theory.
I thouroughly believe that the 4/36 offer BB made to Furcal was legit. If my memory serves, this offer was made at approximately the time that the 'Peavy to Braves talk' was on life support. The Braves have said that they would like to shore up the starting rotation and add an outfield power bat this offseason. When the Peavy trade talks died, that effectively took the best starting pitcher available (-CC who is was extremely expensive) off their list of options. If the Braves were going to have to settle for a lesser pitcher, is it possible that they could attempt to make up for that loss of production somewhere else?
Well, if there is only one other position that they are actively looking to upgrade at, wouldn't it make sense to try to make up the loss of production there? But who's available? Dunn, Burrell, Ibanez(at the time)? Well they would definitely help the offense, but would hurt the defense at the same time. So where can they get an elite outfielder? It would have to be via trade. When the A's traded for Holliday, it was popular opinion that he would most likely only be here until the trade deadline. So who would be one of the first people for Frank Wren to call? I would have to think that BB would be one of the first on his list.
Keep in mind that the A's were the frontrunners for Furcal for most of the offseason up to this point. There were also reports that Furcal "was excited" when the possibility of a return to Atlanta was brought up. At this point BB had to know that the likelihood of signing Furcal was slim. So, this is my scenario:
Frank Wren decides he wants to trade for Matt Holliday. When he approaches BB, he is told that it will take Y. Escobar. Fair enough. But then what do the Braves do for a shortstop? They just traded Lillibridge so they have no viable options at short. That leaves the Braves looking at the free agent market. And who will they see? None other than Rafael Furcal, who as already shown interest in a return to Atlanta.
Now, at this point, the Braves could have been putting together an offer for Furcal's services. Why BB had the second offer isn't quite as clear. Maybe they were concerned that he was going to accept LA's offer, squashing any possible Escobar for Holliday trade. Maybe it was a stall tactic to allow Atlanta the time to put together an offer. If I remember correctly, it wasn't long after the 4/40 offer that Atlanta jumped in from 'out of nowhere' to make an offer. So the timeline does seem to make sense.
What's the worst thing that could have happened? Furcal accepted Oakland's offer? Fine. Then send Furcal and Holliday to Atlanta for Escobar and someone else. Beane and company have been saying that they want to get younger and more healthy, so Furcal never really made much sense other than the fact that we desperately needed some kind of upgrade at short.
Again, this all conspiracy, but it does make just enough sense that it is worth considering. Maybe Beane could see the 'writing on the wall' while Furcal was dragging his feet. It is widely assumed that Furcal and his agent played the A's to get better offers elsewhere, but maybe he was the one being played for the last few weeks. Just maybe, Beane is smarter than even we give him credit for.
0 recs |
90 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
tinfoil hats can be fun
although the A’s first offer to Furcal was 4 years, not three years, and for a total of $35 million. Now we earn from Susan Slusser that the final offer was 4 years $38 million — still quite a bit less than Furcal was repportedly seeking — and the number may have been inflated by his agent in order to get the Braves to up their offer and move quickly. That they have offered 3 years $30 with a vesting fourth year to make it $40 million, potentially makes the offer more than the A’s best offer. Once the Braves did so Furcal’s agent went back to the Dodgers to see if they would improve on their 2 year $25 million offer. This result seems to have achieved what Furcal has wanted all along: to return to one of the two teams that he has already played for, and where he already owns homes.
Your right
And this is the most likely scenario. All i was attempting to say is that BB has ‘pulled the rabbit out of the hat’ before. There’s no reason to assume that he can’t do it again.
There is one fatal flaw in your theory.
Matt Holliday’s production will be replaced by…. selecting a 9th outfielder in the Rule 5 draft?
Yes, with no dropoff
Since Holliday has not batted for the A’s yet putting Copeland in his place will have to be better than Holliday has been for us so far.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
No.
He only serves as depth for when 2/3 of the outfield inevitably goes down with injuries. Look at this way, without Holliday, what the starting outfield most likely look like? Buck, Sweeney, and Cunningham. I like that outfield, but both Buck and Sweeney were injured for parts of last season while Cunningham is still largely unproven at the MLB level. Who do we have as backups? Davis? Great defense but leaves a lot to be desired offensively. Denorfia? Well there’s another injury risk. Not to say Copeland is good or Beane wants to see him on the field consistently, but he does provide depth.
Again, I’m not saying this is what I think happened. I’m just saying that it is a possibility that can’t be easily discounted. You can’t always take things at face value, especially when trying to figure out Billy Beane.
It is always safe to say that BB is up to something.
I do believe when Furcal did not accept the first offer that Beane had a feeling he wouldn’t be able to up his price enough. He also talked about possible trades discussions that were begun in the Winter meetings. He is probably weighing everything and will come up with a good deal or no deal and wait till 2010. In that case Holliday is definately trade bait.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Sure, but there are far ways to fill a roster spot than picking a guy who is probably worse than 8 other OFs in the system
Even without Holliday, do you think Copeland is a better option than
Sweeney
Buck
Cunningham
Cust (if he doesn’t DH)
Davis
Denorfia
Murton
Patterson
I doubt it.
Nope
I think they are more than loaded with outfield types myself. Subtracting Holliday and adding Copeland still leaves us with the same amount of outfielders. Essentially, all it does is slide everyone up a spot on the depth chart. Not a bad option if it solves the shortstop problem.
Okay, but I would contend that adding Copeland is not necessary
Whether or not Holliday is subtracted.
I would too.
I still think Skelton would have been a better pick. However, I’m not Billy Beane.
Beane was played
I am a Beane fan but it looks like he was used like a ugly girl getting dished at the prom. Beane should have bailed first sign that Furcal says he didn’t want to play in oakland instead of upping the bid. Beane should come out and leak info the A’s are offering 4/60 when Furcal bites say it was just a rumor. Furcal and his agent are greedy little liars but that is not unsual in the agent world. Don’t worry karma will come back to Furcal and his back will go out losing his 4th year.
I know I'm in the minority here, but
I really think that Beane wants to keep Holliday. Players with such a broad base of skills aren’t easily available, and tend to be the best long term signings.
"Wants to" and "can" are two utterly different concepts when it comes to free agents
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Right, but
“wants to” implies that Beane will do what he can to keep him.
by Josh Deletchi on Dec 17, 2008 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
When has Beane ever signed a big-money free agent
who didn’t have a year left on his contract?
Maybe I’m forgetting someone, but I think the answer is never.
Beane and Wolff may want, in theory, to sign Holliday to a long-term deal. But he’s not going to sign now, and Holliday is going to wait until the offseason and go to the highest bidder. That’s what always happens with Boras clients. That’s what will happen this time.
My assumption is that Beane knows he is almost certainly not signing Holliday to a long-term deal, but wants to bump up the offense from pathetic to mediocre without killing his long-term plans.
Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't preclude it happening now
We never spent millions on FA pitchers – until Loaiza. We never offered a long-term deal to a closer – until Foulke. We never traded for a star hitter in the off-season – until Holliday.
And I would argue that the A’s tried to sign a big money FA at the end of his contract way back in 2001; it’s just that Giambi declined.
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
Jesus Christ
We have to stop this. There are not 10,000 angles to every move Billy Beane makes. He is not 12 steps ahead of everyone else all of the time.
He wanted Rafael Furcal, made multiple competitive offers, and lost out. It seems pretty simple to me.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
they're dirty and not particularly bright
but cute, which seems to trump all in this world.
next you’ll claim the moon landing wasn’t faked
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
And that Santa Claus is a fabrication.
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
Thank you
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
seriously dude.
Relax. Would you rather talk about the A’s prospects again? Great! I love talking about prospects. Lets do another prospect ranking. Nevermind there Zonis is already doing one. What’s your top 10?
WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!1!
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 17, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Anybody want a hat?
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Dec 17, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
+1
I think Billy Beane is a very smart general manager, but I get so tired of reading about his master plan about everything, how he will figure things out, et cetera.
Beane is smarter than you or me, but he’s not head and shoulders above everyone else. To the extent he had an advantage, most other GMs have caught up. In a position of weakness (shortstop), he made a reasonable (but not high) offer to the best free-agent shortstop on the market. Does that take genius? Would none of us have thought of that? I personally didn’t think it was a great idea, but it might have worked out – had Furcal wanted to play here.
Look, for all of Beane’s much-touted genius, how many pennants has the team won under his leadership? None. Brian Sabean’s team has won more. So has Kenny Williams. So have the Tampa Bay Rays and the Florida Marlins. Shoot, until 2006, a Beane-constucted team hadn’t even won a playoff series.
Beane’s overall results have been quite good, given the limitations he has faced. But the truth of it is that most of his success was built on successful drafts in the late 1990s. There’s nothing extraordinary since then. He’s had more hits than misses, certainly, but nothing awe-inspiring.
Sorry for the rant. I just think too many people put Beane on a pedestal.
by bear88 on Dec 17, 2008 9:42 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'll be the first to admit when Beane screws
up. The Tim Hudson trade. Definitely a bad trade for Beane. I’m just saying that every year we try to figure out what BB is doing in the offseason, and everyyear he does something totally unexpected. Although highly unlikely, is it not possible that this could end up being more than what it looks like? That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to convince everyone that this ‘conspiracy theory’ is correct. Honestly, I doubt it is too. I simply put a different scenario out there for people to contimplate. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to get people thinking early in the morning.
I would say the Hudson trade was bad, but only in retrospect.
Just like the Mulder deal, he got a top prospect (Meyer/Barton) and a couple of ML ready players (Calero/Haren, Cruz/Thomas)
It’s not his fault that all 3 of the guys from the Hudson deal flamed out miserably.
I would say that the Arthur Rhodes experiment, the Esteban Loaiza signing, and Lilly for Kielty were worse deals at the time they were made.
He seems to have a well thought out reason for the things he does
Which is enough for me. Baseball players are a largely unreliable commodity so what can you do. Lilly for Kielty I think is probably the worst when it comes to the thought out quotient. Lilly hadn’t had a phenomenal year but Kielty was hyped by 300 or so at bats he’d had with the Twins. There was kind of an assumption in the saber community that those 300 at bats represented who Kielty was, which turned out not to be true. The whole Rhodes-Redman-Kendall experiment was a debacle but I don’t think the reasoning was hugely unsound. Rhodes had been good (then turned out not to be), Redman had been blah (and turned out largely to be blah), and Kendall was coming off two straight years of .400 OBAs as a full-time catcher (and still put up decent OBA’s on the A’s, but lost his ability to do anything else well). Loaiza was a funny situation because when he was signed it seemed totally unreasonable, but that turned out to be the offseason when the market for starting pitching went insane and by the end of winter Loazia’s deal looked pretty sweet in comparison. The problem of course is that he got hurt/was hurt … how much of that is Beane’s/the A’s fault because they didn’t know/should have known is a question that’s tough to answer.
That being said, I think the information advantage he had over other GMs has been largely lessened, and that being in Oakland helps him as much as it hurts him. Because he never has any money to spend he has to constantly flip performing players for prospects, and when some of those prospects pan out he’s a genius all over again when he trades them for more prospects. Where I really think he and his team excel is in identifying young players in other organizations who are worth something and identifying which teams are willing to move those players. They’re so-so on drafting their own players but it seems like they’re fantastic at evaluating guys who have been in the minors for a year or two and snatching up those.
The Hudson trade wasn't a bad trade
He got one of the best pitching prospects in the game in Dan Meyer plus a couple of other guys for a half season of Hudson (if I’m not mistaken). It was a good trade by Beane, followed by poor decisions from Dan Meyer.
Bear88 you are a breath of fresh air
on this site. Everyone is so busy sniffing Billy’s jock that they have lost sight to the fact that he has not won anything. He has spent way too many draft picks on players with very limited upside. Pennington for instance.
That's BS, IMO
Those who claim AN is a “Beane can do no wrong” site clearly don’t actually read AN. That’s not aimed at you, bear88, but rather at pedoman and others who make this extreme claim in the face of, y’know, reality. To me, one of the things that distinguishes AN from other sites is that it is not partisan or biased – there is a huge range of opinions on this board and they all come through.
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
as a fellow conspiracy-monger, I appreciate the creativity and internal logic of this
That said, after reading Slusser’s update, I’m leaning toward the Grover Theorem (and that gets capped because it’s part of a proper compound noun): that Beane simply didn’t offer enough cash from the get-go, whether out of unwillingness or inability to “read” Furcal and Kinzer.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
I don't even think it's that.
I think Furcal told Kinzer that he wanted to play in LA or Atlanta first. Obviously he met with Oakland and listened to what Beane and Co had to say, but it’s clear that playing here wasn’t his first choice.
If either LA or Atlanta got “in the ballpark” and even if Oakland’s offer was higher or for another year, he was staying with the NL team.
If Oakland had actually offered 4/48 or 4/52 like Furcal was reportedly wanting at the beginning of the offseason, I’m sure he’d have signed here. It would be downright stupid to leave that much money on the table when the other offers were shorter AND for far less money.
I don't think there was "enough cash" to offer
Unless it was a ridiculous overpay, Furcal had no intention of signing with Oakland.
And for the record, had Beane offered Furcal 4/52
and gotten him, I think Billy would be fair game for a ton of criticism.
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 agree. The market shifted, and frankly 11M per year was probably a ceiling.
Guaranteed 4 years, just as much.
Yeah, after finally getting some solid info, per Susan Slusser's article, I'm convinced
that the A’s really didn’t go far enough with their contract offers if they seriously wanted to land Furcal.
They should’ve known from the get-go that he wasn’t going to sign with Oakland out of some deep love or affinity for the team or city, and should have been willing to pay a little more if they really wanted to sign him. Think of it as the “KC curse” of late- they have to overpay to get free agents to sign, especially if those free agents have played in the NL their whole career thus far and have no real firsthand knowledge of the A’s franchise.
I’m disappointed that 4/35 was the initial offer, and that it was only raised to 4/38; that’s simply not enough to persuade somebody they should forego other, more comfortable options to come and play for you. Even 4/40 guaranteed with an additional $1MM per year in incentives or something (total potential contract value of 4/44) would be better, and 4/44 guaranteed would probably have been enough, if offered up front, to make Furcal feel like he couldn’t pass that up and leave that money on the table.
That’s all speculative, and maybe it wouldn’t have been enough in the end- but it sure doesn’t feel like Beane and Co. seriously tried to make him “an offer he couldn’t refuse” by subscribing to the theory that, at least in business, “every man has his price.”
by still bills kingdom on Dec 17, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
I don't even think a guaranteed 4/44 would do it.
If he’s willing to take $10M per from Atlanta or LA, offering $11M per isn’t going to be enough to sway him, even for a guaranteed 4th year.
i think the low-ish offer says it all
it was kind of a take it or leave it for beane. if he could have gotten furcal for a reasonable/bargain price, he’d have been happy. if not, he’ll just spend the $ elsewhere. in addition to the $ still available for a 1-year power bat, he keeps a little more flexibility if there is a chance for Holliday beyond 2009.
so say he sticks with crosby for 2009 and he has a great year hitting for power and average, fielding well, maybe comes close to or makes the all-star team. as i said in another thread, say he progresses like a good player would and gets back his rookie year power. i would assume beane would re-sign him, but given furcal’s contract, where does that put crosby’s as-of-now-fictitious contract? the same as oakland’s first offer to furcal?
say he progresses like a good player would and gets back his rookie year power
I don’t think there’s any risk of Crosby progressing like a good player would, because he’s not a good player.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
it wasn't
he hit .239, that’s about right for him. the power was flukey.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
conventional wisdom about pitching to rooks: throw 'em the heat
As soon as the league got an inkling Cros would chase that slider away, the number of driveable pitches he got plummeted.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
good point
true, once you see a guy play for a year you find his weaknesses and drill them.
however, for all the 2010/11/12 rosturbation that goes on on this site based on the assumptions that
1) oakland will keep the players
2) the players continuing develop without hitting a wall at some level
and
3) the players won’t suffer career-ending injuries before getting to MLB
i don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to consider the possibility of crosby having a good year. especially on a thread in the off-season, where pretty much everything posted is complete speculation/fantasy.
just so long as we're clear that the idea of Crosby having a good year is indeed complete speculation/fantasy
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
right
you can speculate either way: that he’ll bomb or that he’ll play. i just think it’s unfair and imprudent to completely close the book on a guy who only has 2 full mlb seasons under his belt. i’m not trying to guarantee that he’ll have a good year, i’m disagreeing with everybody who has a crystal ball that says he will definitely suck in 2009.
i think everybody who is in the “FU Bobby Crosby” camp should come up with some season stat totals that would constitute a “good year” and agree to either eat their hats or beg him for his autograph if he breaks the thresholds. any takers?
uh, no
You can speculate/fantasize that he’ll have an anomalous breakout season.
You can very reliably predict, based on his established performance level, that he’ll continue to suck at the plate. (His defense is another matter; looking at established perf level, and considering that you need a multiyear sample to establish a trend, he should remain at least average defensively.)
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
I don't think Crosby is quite as bad as we all think.
I would put him in the ‘in desperate need of a change of scenery’ category. At this point, he and the A’s would be best served if he was able to start over somewhere else. That is assuming that the A’s have someone to take his place. If they can’t trade for someone else, I think Petit could pretty much equal Crosby’s production next year.
I agree with that,
but would say that means he IS as bad as we think – we just mean “Crosby as a member of the A’s.”
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
except now
it looks as though he’s going to LA, afterall
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-furcaldodgers121708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
my friend who is a dodger fan says
‘IF this goes through the best news for me from the Dodgers angle is
not just what he represents - when healthy, which is still a concern but what he PREVENTS Colletti from otehrwise doing instead, signing
-
Cabrera or something that Beane is less likely to do.’
let’s hope he’s right on that second bit…
BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.
by alea iacta est on Dec 17, 2008 10:02 AM PST reply actions
not sure why there is a strickthrough on my previous there
but yeah. he’s either the worst decision maker ever, or likes the drama a lot
BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.
by alea iacta est on Dec 17, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
I'm getting the feeling he likes the drama
Which is understandable. He’s had a lot of ups and downs in his career and he’s getting treated like an absolute prince by a bunch of teams this offseason. Since the offers are all for more or less the same money, he’s going to with whatever team makes him feel the most wanted.
so basically
he’s holding out for better christmas presents?
BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.
by alea iacta est on Dec 17, 2008 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Sweet
If he goes to LA, I wonder what it would take to get Hu.
Who made who?
Who made who, who made you?
Who made who, ain’t nobody told you?
Who made who, who made you?
If you made them and they made you
Who picked up the bill, and who made who?
Hu's on short.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 17, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
to break out the persnickety grammar Nazi in me ...
Hu Played Hume?
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
“Eeez zat yoah minkey, m’sieur?” 
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 17, 2008 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
ugh
hopefully too much so we don’t get him
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
-1 for killing the mood
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are not necessarily those of the California Golden Blogs or any of its authors. However, they are just as important as the opinions of any of the authors. And doubly so as compared to TwistNHook!
MLBTradeRumors says the Dodgers matched the 3/30MM offer the Braves gave.
Seriously? He wanted a 4 year deal, we gave him one worth $38MM. Then he went back on the “gentleman’s agreement” with the Braves. Anybody think Furcal would see a little chin action when he plays the Braves this year?
Didn't his agent say
that there never actually was a ’gentlemen’s agreement’? Then again, I guess he would be stupid to say anything different.
His agent also said that he was going to make a decision at least three times
and definitely that he would sign yesterday.
Yet… here we are.
now that he's signed with the Dodgers for less than the A's offered
I think we can definitively say he was never going to sign with the A’s regardless.
I agree.
Although most people are upset we didn’t get him, I have a feeling we will be grateful he didn’t sign the A’s contract sometime in the next couple of years.
Ah, I love those "revelation" moments.
In many ways, it is these moments that make us die-hard A’s fans. Great conspiracy theory, I wish it were true.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Just needs an A’s logo.
"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08
Holliday+Furcal
for Yunel escobar???? unless BB would get Tommy Hanson and Jason Heyward, that aint a good deal
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
I thought it was "Whom played Who"
Or is it Hu?
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
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
