I Know, I Know, No More Furcal...But...

This quote by him is actually more reason why him and his agent are douchebags… they were clearly the ones leaking the high/bs “offers” that the A’s supposedly offered furcal to try to get the braves and dodgers to up their offers… this is more evidence Kinzer/Furcal were lying through their teeth… furcal needs to keep his mouth shut

I believe the correct term is “bitch-hole!”

:)

and hurts his foot, thereby allowing the dodgers to recoup money. then again, maybe i should be thanking them for taking this fool off of the table for us.

all he did was choose the best offer AND the best fit for himself.

Which would you rather have:
4/35 from a team you don’t have much affiliation with
                   OR
3/33 with your top choice?

Kinda a no-brainer. He gets basically the same amount of money with one less year. Even if he does battle injuries during his three years, he could definitely get a contract worth more than two mil after.

for the most part, but I also don’t really find it THAT objectionable when people do otherwise.

As for the sentiment that the A’s should have offered 4/44 and given Furcal and his representatives an offer they’d have a really hard time walking away from, I’m still in that camp. I think if the A’s really wanted him, then they should’ve known they’d have to make it worth his while to choose the A’s over the Dodgers and Braves, and should’ve been prepared to venture into “overpaying” territory to get the deal done.

If the reported contract offers are true, and the best offer the A’s gave him was 4/35, then it seems to me that the A’s were only interested in signing him at what they considered a “bargain” price or at a price that fit explicitly with other roster considerations they have in mind, and were not concerned about losing him to another team if their offer wasn’t enough.

That’s all fine and well, as others have mentioned, in the absence of the Holliday trade- but in the context of that previous move this offseason, it seems very puzzling that they would pursue a long-term solution at shortstop and attempt to sign him but only offer less per year than Renteria, who is older and less valuable in general as a player, just received a couple weeks prior from another team.

In other words, as I believe PT put it previously in another thread, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to trade young players for 1 year of Holliday and then suddenly get all cheap (not frugal- cheap) when pursuing Furcal… unless there’s something we (not the A’s and us, just “we” the fans of the team) don’t know and there’s some other plan they’re confident in following to achieve a comparable upgrade at the shortstop position for 2009 and possibly beyond.

You can say all you want about “don’t overpay for free agents! good job, Billy- stick to your guns!” as many on here have… but at the end of the day, who’s playing shortstop for the A’s in 2009 now? And in 2010? 2011?

I, myself, use the term when talking about the hybrid team/community. Though I do try very hard to use “Athletics” when being a critic or a supporter [and many of you know the kind of homer I am so you know that I frequently am in support] of front office moves. Any member that is familiar with my posts can tell you that I frequently avoid the use of "we’ in these instances.

However, when reading from others discussing finances about the team and what the team should be offering for a player’s services, I get peeved when seeing the word “we”. I mean really peeved. I cannot stop ya’ll from doing [writing] it but I am going to point out just how ridiculous it sounds to me. Am I making too big a deal about it? For many of you; probably. But until the day I see your name as one of the members of the ownership, the whole ’we" bit when discusing front office moves is going to draw my ire.

The people who say “we” — of which I am one of them — or the people who go on some sort of tirade against it.

…the ones who have to pay the guy directly.

“We” also aren’t the ones who have to factor in his health, the length of the contract, etc.

For all we know, the A’s didn’t want to be stuck with someone who’s a risk. That doesn’t mean they’re planning to go with Crosby for the long term, either. It just means Furcal isn’t the guy for them at the price he wants.

numbers from, anyway?

believed?