Advantage: Beane
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 10:20 AM PST
568 comments
The only person who believes there is a big market for Rafael Furcal appears to be Furcal. When seemingly every team was looking for a SS, no team wanted to risk a four-year deal. Then team after team settled its SS situation and word began to spread around the Hot Stove that the market for a 40HR guy like Dunn, and an established slugger like Burrell, was far softer than initially believed.
So at a time when few teams, instead of many, were vying for Furcal, and when Dunn's estimated FA value had been downgraded to about 50% of the first figures we heard, Billy Beane made an offer. And it really wasn't a lowball offer - it was a four-year deal for a 31-year old coming off of back surgery and it was for $9-10million/year. That's not low; maybe it's not what Furcal was hoping for but maybe Furcal's hopes are out of line with the actual market.
Because now Furcal is almost guaranteed to have to settle for fewer years or less total money - and possibly both. If no team was willing to offer him four years before, who will offer it now and for more money than Oakland has offered? Nobody has to. Even Oakland isn't committed to its offer any more, so there is no market for four years of Furcal's services. Someone might offer him 2-3 years at 10-11 million or someone might lowball him with a 4-year offer for 7-8 million. Heck, Oakland might make either offer at some point and come out better than it would have had Furcal accepted yesterday's offer.
So as usual, when the dust clears and you stand outside the cloud of disappointment over not having Furcal right now, and you see that lots of teams have settled for their second and third choices and you see that one player is still unemployed and seeing his stock fall daily...one man and one man only is holding all the right cards: Billy Beane. Sometimes it's better to have a vacancy instead of a solution, when you have money, supply and demand, and market trend squarely on your side.
0 recs |
568 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
so if crosby is back...
where would you spend thid furcal $$?
pitching…
rj?
penny?
mulder?
one of the 1b/dh types…
burrell
dunn
giambi
johnson
would you still add another infielder…
blake
punto
everett
lopez
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 6, 2008 10:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe sign Dunn for similar money you were offering Furcal,
thereby adding 40HRs to the lineup. You have two choices with Dunn: Play him at 1B and eat the defense there, or DH him and put Cust in the OF (and eat defense there along with blocking Buck/Cunningham). Then piece SS together from among Crosby, Izturis, Cabrera, etc. – whatever’s available and affordable.
It’s not ideal, position-wise, but if Dunn’s value really is as low as rumored can the A’s afford to pass it up?
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 6, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only issue I have with this idea, and really it's because we just don't know at this point,
is that we really don’t know what the market is for Dunn. I personally think we’d be assuming too much and taking all these sports columnists too much at face-value if we really bought into the notion that Dunn is only going to get a 3/36 or 4/40 sort of deal, tops.
Plus, now that signing him no longer means giving up a draft pick his value has increased and he’s a lot younger (ergo a better bet for a long-term deal) than Burrell or Giambi or Abreu, and has as much if not more potential power production to offer relative to other hitters on the market.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 6, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no to penny
and definitely no to Mulder since this is implying we actually spend ANYTHING on him. Yes to any of the 1b/DH and no to the infielders except possibly Lopez depending on the cost. We really need another SS option.
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 6, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do people think Punto is someone the A's should get?
He is barely worth a backup infield spot.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Dec 6, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
Hes got a great glove, and an Ellis and Punto combo up the middle is very good defensively.
by pbra17 on Dec 6, 2008 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No better than Petit / Ellis
And significantly more expensive.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
This looks like a power play to me. Give him a fair, albeit low, offer knowing full well he’ll decline. By declining this time-limited offer, it temporarily takes the A’s out of the market for him. There are already 2/3 teams fewer in the running for him then when the off-season started, now one less with possibly no strong alternatives left. Now Beane can let Furcal explore the Winter Meetings in a vulnerable, significantly weaker position and see exactly how poor the market for him really is. At that point Beane can reapproach Furcal and either drop the extra year, accept the offer that was on the table, or potentially settle for even less for per year. I seriously doubt the A’s are really out of the running and I seriously doubt this is over.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 10:34 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
It's not a power play -
it’s a market that’s recalibrating. Have you tried to buy or sell a house lately? It doesn’t matter that your pad was worth 200k more in 2007 if you’re trying to sell it today, and since that’s hard for sellers to accept, the pace of deals slows down. Seems like these guys are groping around to find market value in our bailout economy, and in this case the seller is not willing to cut loose of his 2007 valuation.
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Dec 6, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly - it's Furcal (or his agent) who have drastically
misread the current market. No one was offering anywhere close to what he wanted before and now most teams have moved on. Other than Oakland, no one ever entertained four years and including Oakland no one ever entertained 12million/year. That’s all in Furcal’s head.
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 6, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this needs the disclaimer "as far as we know" on the offers he may or may not
have received from other teams, or discussions his agent may or may not have had with them.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 6, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was always implied on a blog
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 6, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, no worries- just reminding myself, and all of us, that there's plenty we
might not be aware of and could not possibly know at this point.
It’s all fine and well for us to act like this is the only offer Furcal has gotten and he’s being stubborn bordering on idiotic not to take it, but there is also the possibility that he and his agent have genuine reason to believe that they can get a better offer based on discussions they’ve had with other teams up ’til now.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 6, 2008 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the point of publically rejecting an offer if another team has offered exactly what you want?
If Boston has offered 4/48, why not just sign that. Or use the media to help those negotiations. What’s the end game of saying Oakland’s offer wasn’t good enough?
by thejd44 on Dec 7, 2008 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the endgame of publicly letting it be known the A's offered 4 years
but not enough money, from the agent’s point of view, would be to set a public baseline for offers from any other team that might be interested and to also make it known that a team had been willing to offer 4 guaranteed years (something nobody was confident would happen in the first place.)
I find it interesting that practically in the same breath, when going public, Kinzer indicated that a 3 year deal at the right contract amount would be of interest- he clearly wanted to get that out there and encourage teams that aren’t willing to offer 4 years to consider bidding.
It may be, in fact I’d think it’s likely now, that Kinzer feels the best option for Furcal is to sign a 3 year deal, or even a 2 year deal, at higher annual salary and then re-enter the free agent market in a couple years when things might be better economically.
As for the hypotheses on other teams’ interest- I didn’t mean other teams have necessarily made concrete offers yet (I doubt it) but I find it highly unlikely that other teams haven’t expressed interest and had initial discussions with Kinzer regarding what they’d be willing to do in terms of contract length, and even parameters of contract value.
Put it this way- there’s a reason that Kinzer/Furcal said no to the A’s offer, and that reason most logically is that they believe he can get a better deal, whatever the parameters and context of said deal would be- and it may even involve playing for a team he’d rather play for in a place he likes better, at comparable years/dollars.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 7, 2008 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
That’s why Beane’s stand here IS a power play. He’s in a position to say take it or leave it. Do WE want a new shortstop, yes. Does Beane NEED a new shortstop? Not necessarily. This very well could just be a wish list signee for him. If it fails, so be it. He’s seeing the market crumble, he takes a hard line stand on price in a take it or leave it fashion, knowing full well that if it turns out his price was reasonable, great, he eventually gets the “house” he wants. If some idiot steps in and pays more for the house than it’s worth, oh well, he’s not married to the house yet.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the A's NEED a new SS
If not now then certainly by 2010. This year’s FA SS crop is better than next year’s so something has got to give.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually don't see it as a power play,
in that the A’s said from the git-go that they would not get into a bidding war. Meaning they were going to make an offer at some point hoping Furcal would accept, and if Furcal said no Oakland would move on (what else can a team do?).
Maybe Beane is also trying to establish the market for Furcal, but more likely he’s just making a fair “high on years, not so much on money” offer based on the 2008 market while Furcal is living in 2007.
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 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that really depends on how you're defining a power play
I see it as move that exploits your position of strength. A take it or leave it offer that lowers the players current value in a weak market to me is exploiting the position. Is it some uber play, not really. It’s not like trying to sell water in the middle of a dessert and you’re the only one with the h2o, but it’s still a play.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, except the "take it or leave it" aspect was understood from the start
It’s not something Beane did out of the blue to exploit the current situation. Maybe the timing, but not the “doing it at all.”
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 6, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See and I view the timing of
coming just off the Giant’s. Braves’ & Cards’ moves as why NOW being the moment to make his move is brilliant. He does this before Thanksgiving and it’s a stupid move that has no potential for being successful. He does it now when the Braves are likely out of it, the Giants & Cards are definitely out of it.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree the timing is strategic
It’s a power-play in that regard – but I think the A’s were up front that they were going to pick a strategic time to make a take it or leave it offer, and that’s exactly what they did. So maybe it’s an “above board power play.”
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 6, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is pretty much all I meant by it
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All that could be true
But lets not forget the risk here for the A’s. Another team could move in and land Furcal, leaving the A’s with a lousy SS. That’s still a viable scenario. The A’s are moving on Dunn because he’s suddenly looking like a bargain. Why couldn’t some other team, a team that didn’t have previous interest in Furcal (White Sox maybe?) at 4 years/mucho millions, suddenly decide that Furcal’s price has suddenly dropped to acceptable levels?
Let’s say that Furcal’s price drops to 3 years/$30 million. Would you really be comforted by the knowledge that the A’s didn’t sign him at 4/44 while he’s playing for another team?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Furcal's price drops to 3/30,
Oakland can offer 3/32. Better for Furcal, and maybe better for Oakland than 4/36 would have been.
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 6, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the bottom line is Furcal
does not want to play in Oakland no matter what the cost. That is apparent. I am concerned that other free agents do not want to come play for a perceived loser organization.
by pedoman on Dec 6, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Possible... but I think there was a definite misread of the market by his agent
For now I think it was the market bit that plays the more prominent role.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A player rejects an obvious lowball offer
and suddenly he “does not want to play in Oakland no matter what the cost”?
You’ve managed to insult the intelligence of both Beane and Furcal simultaneously.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Though I do think Furcal has a pretty lousy agent
At every turn, I think he has not really helped his client.
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 6, 2008 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "obvious lowball" is strong
Furcal is coming off back surgery, his stats are all NL, with the risk that entails, and – most important – the economy of the united states of america is…shall we generously say “unsettled?” I continue to be struck by the A’s willingness to throw around some money in this market and genuinely doubt there are more than a handful of other teams who aren;t planning to cut payroll in the face of what seems like an inevitable decline in both revenue and team valuations. Put me down for a bet that Furcal ends up getting less money than this.
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Dec 6, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the Sox have the money though
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 6, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's offer was 4/36 then yeah, that was a lowball offer
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's that low
Furcal stated initially that he wanted 4/40. Nobody was willing to offer 4, period. Then the market has proven way softer financially than we thought. 4/36 seems fair to me for an injury-recovered 31-year old getting a 4-year commitment in a super-soft market.
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 6, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its low
b/c Renteria is getting 9million per year albeit for 2 shorter years. Renterial set the market.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Renteria could very well have hurt Furcal's value
simply by signing and taking a suitor out of the picture. If there’s truly only the A’s left, then Furcal may not get more than Renteria’s 9mil
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
two shorter years is significant
Renteria has been healthy pretty much throughout his career, though that didn’t stop him from sucking the last two times he spent years in the AL. I would much rather have a two year commitment and pay more per year. Renteria screwed Furcal by taking the most irrational bidder (Sabean) out of the market.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Dec 6, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Although I happen to think Renteria is done
If he performs like he did in Atlanta, he’s a better player than Furcal.
by thejd44 on Dec 7, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what he ends up actually signing for.
If he gets similar or less, and the market will only do what it can bear, then no it wasn’t.
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
by UncleLeo on Dec 6, 2008 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
an organization that has been in the postseason
(or came very close) more often than not in the past 10 years can hardly be perceived as a loser organization. According to many players Oakland has a reputation for having a congenial clubhouse, if not sold out houses (although not as bad as some other clubs that do have the “loser” label).
My feeling is that Furcal was disappointed to get an offer that represented a pay cut from his previous annual salary. His agent should, among other things, advise his client well and take into account market trends.
by OaklandSi on Dec 6, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly - Furcal thinks he's worth 13mil/year,
the A’s think he’s worth about 9mil/year, and the market thinks he’s worth about 9mil/year.
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 6, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody who preceives Oakland as a "loser organization" when its one of the winningest
this decade should be chopped in the throat repeatedly.
by thejd44 on Dec 7, 2008 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The two sides have already said No to a deal
Yes, they could change there minds but this is a business negotiation. This is a sales pitch. And the 1st rule of sales is to have breath mints handy.
After that, don’t let the mark walk away if you’ve got a chance to close the deal. Because once the mark leaves he might never walk back in. (Course, we could really have fun arguing over who the “mark” is in this scenario!)
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That, of course, assumes that the mark has other options
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
IF... Furcal and his agent come back and ask the A's to match or beat the offer.
What if he has other places he’d rather play, and one of those teams now decides he’s a bargain and that they’ll sort out the roster complications as they go along and that they want to sign him now?
It’s a risk that the A’s are taking, if they genuinely wanted him to begin with.
Is it a smart risk? Depends on your perspective, and it will very much depend on what happens from here.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 6, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like when we drafted Justin Smoak
and then we didn’t pony up, something like 100,000 grand to sign him. Saving pennies, losing dimes.
by pedoman on Dec 6, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, Smoak's number was $1 million IIRC
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just amused by the fact that he said "100,000 grand"
which really would be too much for a draft prospect…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
That’s like a lot of money
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Strasbourg shrugs
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not much for an entire Alsatian city
Or is it Lorrainean— I can never keep my oft-fought-over French borderlands straight.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah yeah, spelling error.
nevermoor shrugs
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alsatian
Alsace is on the Rhine, Lorraine is not. Alsace is the real border state. Lorraine is larger and Frencher; the Prussians only annexed about a quarter of it, the northern part.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Dec 7, 2008 12:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me guess....
the part with non renewable energy resources. Clever fellows those Germans.
"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 7, 2008 8:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe you're describing the Saarland.
Germans aren’t the only clever ones.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Dec 7, 2008 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Was it really only 1 million for Smoak?
I wanna know who was keeping the A’s draft stategy cheap all these years. Was Beane following Selig, or Lew Following Selig, or just the A’s setting a (foolish) budgetary choice. Smoak for Brett Hunter money sounds great to me.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was $1 million
I lived in SC at the time and Smoak was a local kid from Goose Creek — I lived in a town just 3 miles across I-26. The Athletics offered him $950,000. I think that Smoak was always intent on playing college baseball for the USC (University of South carolina) Gamecocks and never had any real intentions of beginning his professional career at that time.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 6, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I heard
Smoak had zero intention of signing. Smart move; he made himself a bunch more money.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Dec 6, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We have a shortstop
His he crap? More or less yes. BUT it’s a filled position. I’d rather Beane be in a position to be under cut by a mystery leave that decides to jump in and outbid him, but like on eBay, you set your max and stick to it, that’s the value you place on that item. You don’t just suddenly throw more at it OVER the value you’ve placed it on it just because someone else holds the item at higher value. If you do you’re going to get taken time and again.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, grover, your reaction is my "gut reaction,"
which is “Oh my God, what if we don’t end up with an acceptable solution at SS?” But a GM can’t operate that way. There are more acceptable solutions out there for the A’s than there are suitors out there for Furcal, and way overpaying for Furcal is a panic move. Examples of solutions:
Sign Dunn for offense and you can add Izturis for defense. The two combined should come in at less than Furcal is asking.
Offer enough to pry Tejada away from Houston – a decent prospect and Crosby to replace him might do it.
Sign Cabrera shorter-term (2 years?) as a guy who might give you equal defense to Crosby and hit for more average, and figure that Furcal’s back gives out you might be glad you lost out on him.
Etc.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i still like the cabrera idea
and tejada wouldn’t hurt if he wasn’t expensive in a trade
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 6, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what's worth hating about Cabrera more
He’s a complete tool or he’s not very good at baseball. I’d be shocked if he’s a win better than Crosby.
by thejd44 on Dec 7, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See an attitude "oh no, we're stuck with Crosby"
is NOT one I want to see from our GM because that just breeds panic moves. I want one that says, well, there goes plan A, let’s upgrade elsewhere and not overpay for something we, while technically we may need it in a we need to do better there way, we don’t necessarily HAVE to because there are other upgrade possibilities out there.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, there are other solutions
But most of them carry an additional burden besides cash loss.
Cabrera costs a draft pick and it’s more likely that you’d have to over-spend on him than Furcal because there are a few teams who weren’t interested in Furcal that were interested in Cabrera.
I’ve championed Izturis enough that I don’t need to go there again.
Tejada/Escobar/Hardy all cost you talent in a trade.
And for the record, I wouldn’t consider 4/44 an overpay, especially if the 4th year was optional. If Furcal had signed at 4/40 I’d have considered it a good deal for the A’s. You (and Beane, it seems) are gambling that the market will drop a great deal lower on Furcal.
Maybe it will.
Maybe it won’t. And if it doesn’t, it means the A’s will have missed their best shot at signing Furcal. They had him in their sights and passed up the opportunity. There is always the chance that opportunity won’t come again.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I see Furcal's "market value"
as being 3 years and as being, maybe, 10.5 mil/year: In other words, an offer of 3/31.5 might be a true “market value” offer. So an offer of 4/36 – more in years, but less per year – and an offer of 2/23 – fewer in years, but more per year, is also a fair market offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, Nico you're worth $10.5 million on the open market
I want you to sign this 4 year contract that will pay you 10% less than what you’re worth.
4/36 is lowball.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're ignoring the importance of # of years
My value for a four-year commitment is NOT 10.5mil/year because when my back hurts my counseling sucks and in four years I’ll be well past my prime.
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 6, 2008 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I'm not
I’m playing using your numbers. You think his market value is 3 years/$10.5 annual. OK, fine. Now lets negotiate.
Furcal wants more money and more years.
Oakland wants less money and (maybe) fewer years.
4/40 gives him the extra year he wants at a small cost in cash (which the A’s want).
So using your numbers, 4/40 is a “fair” deal.
Asking Furcal to go 4/36 (and the article gave the range as $35-40 million) represents a lowball figure. It is below fair market value as YOU defined the parameters.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with you, but
the real question is, is there a market for furcal? i don’t think so. i don’t think we should abuse that to try to really shaft him, but i think its totally fair to get a good deal out of it. my guess is, he goes to the winter meetings, finds out the a’s had the best offer, comes back to us, and finds out we’ll either give him that offer, or slightly more money but fewer years – and this will still be the best offer for him. if he gets something better (which i don’t think will happen), go after a dunn/izturis combo.
by guy incognito on Dec 6, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then he better hurry up
and realize what the market currently dictates he’s worth. Beane has a history of saying what he means in negotiations. I imagine him and Forst are well on their way to plan “B”. If Furcal makes a move before the A’s initiate other plans, I’m sure they’ll entertain his offer. Otherwise, by the time Furcal realizes the A’s were offering the most, the ship will have already sailed.
"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 6, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't know what the market is for Furcal
I don’t know what the market is for Furcal. Why is Kenny Williams doing what he’s doing to the White Sox roster? What happens if the Braves renew their plan to trade 2B Kelly Johnson for an OFer, would they turn to Furcal to plug the hole? Seattle might/should be second guessing Betancourt, what if they can trade him? If the price keeps becomes 3 years for Furcal, could they get interested? Baltimore is shopping for a SS, they were going after Izturis but isn’t the whole arguement for not signing Furcal is his price keeps dropping? What to say the price doesn’t drop to a point the Orioles like?
There’s plenty of uncertainty in the market to say the A’s are Furcal’s only option.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking that Beane
wanted Fucal’s answer before the winter meetings. Hence the deadline. I imagine he’s going to pursue another option via trade. Probably something he considered second best, but still viable.
"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 6, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The timeline still allows Furcal to come back
Winter Meetings tend to lay the groundwork for deals two-three weeks later. Furcal can probably come back looking for a deal with Oakland throughout December.
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 6, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I think Winter Meetings are mostly overrated
Given modern technology. I don’t think there would be much of an effect (if any) if they stopped happening.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're not in the hotel business I take it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2008 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
right
this is all just speculation at this point. educated, and possibly accurate, but still speculation. somebody certainly could give him 4 years and more money. i think its not that likely, but who knows.
by guy incognito on Dec 6, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't the whole 4/36 figure even speculation?
All I’ve seen is “35-40” – maybe it was for 4/36 with playing time incentives that would kick it up to 4/40 if he stayed healthy.
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 6, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
this whole topic is based on speculation. maybe furcal has potential offers. maybe he doesn’t. maybe he asked for 4/48 and wouldn’t budge. maybe beane has no intention of not coming back with a counter-offer in a few weeks after the winter meetings. personally, i think its unlikely that he’s getting 4 years from anyone, and since the years may be more important, we’re still the best offer around. unless we move on someone real quickly, i really don’t think this is the end of the discussion between us and furcal.
by guy incognito on Dec 6, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on all that
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he was really worth what you think he is,
He’d be getting offered contract for what you think he should and/or there’d be significant grumblings about strong interest in him. So, when it [a deal] happens, you can say he was worth it. If it does not happen, or rather, until it does happen, it may not be an accurate claim.
I’m always amazed that those without this kind of money and not in the position to offer players contracts, seem to claim they know so much about who is worth what.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 6, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I think a good teacher is worth more than Furcal is worth,
but I submitted a 4 year/$36million proposal to my school two weeks ago, and have yet to hear back.
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 6, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you ask for "Goat Allowance" in your proposal?
by Trainman on Dec 6, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. I think that's why they rejected it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
few of us can hit a lick either,
but it doesn’t stop us from critiquing the best in the world…
by skutch on Dec 6, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Grover's position makes sense to me
The A’s are gambling- but the gamble is not to make Furcal possible (the A’s can afford to pay 4/44 and still sleep well at night)…the gamble is to save an extra 7 million. That’s fine, but the potential 7 million savings have to be weighed against potential costs (stuck with Crosby, trading Prospects, or a pick). 7 Million doesn’t seem worth it.
On the other hand, Nico’s position is that the A’s can just up the offer later. I think that might work, but I see scenarios where that fails: The most likely outcome of all this is that Furcal has to choose between two identical offers- one from the A’s, and one from another team. It’s rare one team outbids another by a small increment such as 2M. Usually, two offers are identical, or one team outbids significantly (as in, one extra year, or 5M total extra). I’m betting there’s at least 1 team out there that will take Furcal at the current price. With two identical offers, there are three reasons Furcal says no to the A’s.
1. Players want to feel wanted. Like it or not, lowball offers cause insecurity…they make him question himself. In a tie, the A’s might lose because he feels like the org didn’t value him enough to make their real final offer upfront.
2. The A’s are not a desirable destination. Players routinely get traded, and even though they’re professionals, being traded sucks (for Family, stability, etc.). We haven’t won for some time, have poor fan attendance, a shitty stadium, and make batters look bad in the coliseum (killing Furcal’s next, final, contract). Plus, we’re in the AL, and its possible he’d prefer NL.
3. He might have an interest in some other team for personal reasons. (we don’t know- it could be anything) The patient approach might be because his heart is set on a team that he hopes will offer. E.G. Boston, perennial AL contender, LA, for continuity. or some other team.
So, I thing Grover’s right- Now was the time to be decisive, and not let the buyer out without a deal. Remember, being decisive doesn’t mean being desperate- 4/42 probably gets it done, and only represents a 5-6M investment over 4 years.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It must have been, for you
to overlook the misuse of a capital “G”!
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 6, 2008 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Too busy telling you how wrong you are to bother with mango
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think you and Furcal are overestimating his value
The A’s might have made him the best offer he’s going to get – which means the A’s will remain in the running as others offer less (in money and/or years).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference, which you are ignoring
is that if you’re right, our approach costs us 7M (at most)
If we’re right, your approach leaves us with Crosby, and then no better than Khalil Green etc. in 2009. OR we have to pay top prospects for performance no better than Furcal. OR we give up a pick AND pay money for Cabrera.
You (and, it seems, Beane) are betting much more on your hunch than we are.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But maybe Beane thought Furcal would accept
Why offer 4/44 “just to make sure he accepts” if he’s likely to accept 4/36? There’s a decent chance that at no point will anyone offer 4 years OR 36million. Not only could Furcal have accepted this offer, arguable he SHOULD have.
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 6, 2008 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because making sure he accepts
is more important than saving 7M, given the lack of alternatives.
You just restated the choice (7M vs. risk of not having SS options) rather than arguing why one side of the choice is right.
You position is tenable if you think the alternatives to furcal are not bad, or if you think that it is very very likely no-one else will bid. I think #2 is probably your position, but you should defend it.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 6, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
#2 is almost my position -
I do think other teams will bid, but not for four years and not for 36 million. The A’s have, IMO, made the top offer in years AND the top offer in dollars. So they didn’t bid as low as it seems.
My position is that Furcal will end up taking as many or fewer years AND as little or fewer total dollars in the end. In which case, the A’s have not lowballed at all. They’ve been the highest bidder and can still be the next highest bidder in everything but “annual salary” (in years and in total dollars).
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 6, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there have been numerous potential bidders mentioned
Boston, LA (who haven’t said no, but are just waiting for other priorities-Manny- to pan out)
Hell even the Blue Jays could jump back in. They have a payroll freeze, but its possible that a bargain Furcal unfreezes them.
I see no reason why another team can’t match the A’s 4/36 offer, or top it w/ 4/40 or 3/32. That’s a bargain for a lot of teams (all of whom can bid), and I’ve argued that the A’s would be losers in that scenario.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They could, but it appears Beane
believes these offers won’t happen – and he’s the only one of the three of us who’s in a position to make that assessment. (And as for 3/32, the A’s can still bid that.)
Boston has a SS and hasn’t actually been linked to Furcal. LAD lowballed Furcal with the offer of “You know what, forget it.” That’s the kind of interest we’ve seen so far. NO ONE wants to offer him four years except Oakland. Oakland’s offer wasn’t that low.
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 6, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what I think it is?
I think you’re being swayed by “straw men” – figures like 4/48 and 4/60 (remember NSJ’s post?) that make it appear as if those are the numbers in play.
In fact, it appears that the market for Furcal is more like 3/30 at best, which makes 4/36 more than fair – especially when that fourth year is such a risk.
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 6, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, can you name any team
that it appears has ever even considered offering Furcal 12million a year for any length of time? How about 11? Those figures come from our assumptions only – and I suspect our assumptions have been wrong.
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 6, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you trying to convince here?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, we can probably agree this is a good end point
you are sure the market is so bad that no one will offer 4/40 or 3/32, and are willing to bet a year of Crosby + a poor signing in 2009 on it.
I am less sure about the market, and spend the 6 MIllion extra (4/42 offer) to try and avoid risking the poor alternatives to Furcal.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Replace "you are sure"
with “Beane appears to be confident” and that first paragraph puts us in agreement. (I’m not sure about anything, except that Bobby Crosby sucks.)
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 6, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, that's fine
although your opinion article seemed to agree with Beane (as opposed to merely describing his actions), so I don’t feel too bad characterizing this gamble as being your position.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop saying that
Stop assuming the A’s are going to get a chance to bid at 3/32. They told Furcal that they were out and they were going to pursue other options. That doesn’t mean the A’s can’t come back around and make another offer, but it does mean that if another team comes in and makes a 3/32 offer Team Furcal is under no obligation to call up Beane and give him a chance to counter.
If Kenny Williams (for example) calls up and says “Hey, I’m interested in Furcal for 3 years, what kind of $$$ we talking about?” and the answer is $32 million then the deal could go down real quick if that figure is within what Williams was willing to spend.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right - if another team
offers 3/32. I have a feeling the A’s don’t believe that market exists for Furcal or that if it does it’s Oakland that will offer it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's believe $9 million a year (min) is necessary
Renteria got $9 million annual and a healthy Furcal (which the A’s obviously believe in) has to be worth at least $1 million more a year. All the offensive and defensive numbers say that very thing.
So $10 million a year is probable. 3/32 is less than $11 million a pop. The A’s could re-coup that much cash by trading Crosby after signing Furcal!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Market wise
I don’t see Furcal necessarily is $1 million more a year than Renteria. True value, yes, but not necessarily market value. Renteria took out a suitor (of whom there have been a limited amount) and what looks to be a buyer’s market, that means Furcal’s value which (should be at least $1 million more than Renteria BEFORE he signed) is now less than than that. Furcal’s market value may now be equal to Renteria simply because there are now fewer interested teams. Now, I’m not saying that’s the case. Odds are he could and should get more. But assuming he would, isn’t necessarily true. It’s like the Mulder deal after the Hudson deal. Take one player off the market and the prices/values shift.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This goes right back to
how many teams are going to be interested in Furcal at 3 years. If the market size doesn’t change then you’re probably right. If it grows, you’re wrong.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Furcal should fire his agent
If Furcal’s agent snaps up a 3/32 deal and doesn’t even try to start a bidding war or even check to see if he can use as leverage against the A’s or any other team he is probably the stupidest agent out there.
by DiegoAsFan on Dec 6, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Flip that around
If the A’s offered 4/36 and Furcal said no, how about 4/40 then the A’s should have closed the deal. It doesn’t matter if there wasn’t another team willing to go 4/36 or 4/40… the SS in question wasn’t going to sign the deal. Maybe he’s willing to take fewer years at a higher annual salary.
Maybe 3/33 sounds sexier than 4/36.
And if the numbers were 4/40 vs 4/44, then the A’s still could have found a way to make that deal work.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
This is what I said below. If Furcal said 4/40 gets it done, that’s a reason Beane should have done it.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think Furcal was ready to sign
a 4/40 deal with Oakland – but when offered 4/36 said “No” instead of “make it 4/40 and we have a deal”? C’mon.
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 6, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's were lowballing Furcal
He could have said exactly that and the deal wouldn’t have gotten done because the A’s said no.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is,
you might be right- he may have said 4/40 gets it done. If he did, Beane said no. you agree with this decision.
I disagree. That’s the argument. Whether or not Furcal said it is irrelevant.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Furcal won't say 4/40 gets it done
he won’t cap himself there. He wants A’s to offer 4/40.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Furcal say
he doesn’t want a paycut. he made 13 million a year. He is asking for 4/48 from what I read. The A’s upped to 4 years but not the amount.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
makes sense he'd demand that
I think we all agree we’re not going to bid that, in light of the market right now.
I lean towards offering 4/42 now, to see if he’ll settle (to avoid a disaster) preemptively.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't see anywhere where Furcal made a counter-offer
In fact, all that’s been said is that he turned down the offer but still remains interested in the A’s (or thereabouts). Now, if he countered with 4/44 (while willing to take 4/40) and the A’s don’t countered back with somewhere in the neighborhood of 4/40, then I absolutely agree with you that would be a bad move. But I suspect no counter was made by Furcal.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly - and I suspect that either
Furcal wants 4/48 (and isn’t going to get it from anybody) or never really intended to sign with Oakland (in which case, so be it, good that the A’s are moving on now).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me see if I get this straight
Furcal’s agent walks in, looks at 4/36 and says no…
and then doesn’t make a counter?
That’s just stupid on the agent’s part. So barring stupidity, we’re left with 2 options.
#1: The A’s said take-it-or-leave it. Which would certainly support the lowball plan.
#2: Furcal’s agent made a counter that the A’s refused.
It’s possible, I suppose, to think that Furcal’s agent still believes he can find a 4/48 deal out there somewhere but then we’re venturing back to the realm of stupidity.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What I've seen so far supports
that Furcal’s agent is stupid/out of touch. I think he’s holding out for an offer that isn’t there and will have to settle for worse than what the A’s put on the table.
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 6, 2008 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's stupid and out of touch
and then there’s the argument that the agent wouldn’t counter the A’s proposal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
strannahan has a nice chronicling below
of some of the counter-productive moves Mr. Agent has made. I still say he wants 12mil for 4 years in a market that values Furcal at 9 for four years and maybe 10 for 3.
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 6, 2008 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Either no counter offer or a non-serious one
Like 4/48.
I think grover’s approach here is too much like the “negotiating against yourself” that led to the first A-Rod contract and the Zito debacle.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Furcal starts looking for a 3 year deal
He’ll get more interest from teams other than the A’s. In which case the A’s would be bidding against other teams.
Clear enough?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 7, 2008 12:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then beat them by adding a year
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 7, 2008 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Prezactly
Beane’s betting a lot to gain very little. Those bets usually seem like good odds, but sometimes they lead to you losing your hair in a game of Mario Kart.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is the last time that you will suggest that betting on Mario Kart gains one very little
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Dec 6, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm speaking from personal experience here
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You have nowhere near enough information to make this determination
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yo, PT
You embroiled in finals right now? I’m re-teaching myself the nontestamentary nature of revocable inter vivos trusts when dealing with nonprobate property and I want to punch the kid sitting next to me in the library right in the neck.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Dec 7, 2008 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
My incomprehensible Civil Procedure exam is on Wednesday. Or at least, it projects to be incomprehensible, based on the professor’s previous exams. No reason to expect differently this time.
Ironically, I think finals is actually increasing the amount of time I’m wasting here… partly because of escapism, but mostly because I don’t want to actually get embroiled in anything that’s going to take significant time…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 7, 2008 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
7 million dollars is about 1 year of Johnson, its not peanuts
plus the 4/44 deal that you suggest is still a pay cut for furcal who made 13 m last year. Furcal probably wanted a deal like 4/52 or at least the deal that we were rumored to offer him at 4/50. If thats where he sees his market value im sure 4/44 is just as insulting as 4/36-40
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Dec 6, 2008 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mince words:
Those solutions suck.
And Dunn/Izturis most certainly does not look cheaper than Furcal. Nor is it anywhere near as good. It’s probably 2 wins worse, for more money.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Dunn's HR numbers
But how would he do in the American League? Some that cross over to the AL from the NL don’t do well. Maybe Im soured on the whole Kendall thing, but the NL is more of a fastball league. I’m just not sold on it, yet.
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on Dec 6, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he'd do fine
40HR hitters will hit 40HRs. And guys who walk will walk. He’s a very good Jack Cust and Cust has done fine in the AL.
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 6, 2008 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Izturis trying to hit in the AL would be painfully comical
Would he OPS+ higher than 50? 45? Has a hitter ever had a sub-.500 OPS for an entire season?
Wouldn’t Izturis have to be a plus defender at short AND third at the same time to be valuable?
Has an AL team ever DHd for a position player, and is this even allowed? Because I’m not kidding when I say I have no doubt at least one of the A’s starters would be more worthy of a spot in the lineup than Izturis.
by thejd44 on Dec 7, 2008 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beane isn't a fool, I think we're agreed on that
But in a negotiation you don’t open with the max your willing to spend. The A’s waited to give their offer until after the Giants and Cards dropped out. They judged what they thought the market would allow them to offer and have a chance at success.
The A’s haven’t maxed out on what they’d ultimately be willing to spend on Furcal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And we're definitely agreed on that too
I don’t think the A’s are done with Furcal at all. I think Beane set his max price and made his “first” move. Yes it’s a take it or leave NOW, but once Furcal has a chance to actually see how bad the market really is, then the A’s can make offer number two OR simply throw offer number one back at Furcal and re-open talks. Right now, Beane is betting that after the meetings, Furcal’s position will be at it’s weakest. He says take it or leave NOW, because he knows Furcal still hasn’t reached bottom yet. He’s like a cat stalking prey, he’s chosen his victim, now’s he’s herding it into a dead-end canyon where the prey has fewer ways out.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beane isn't the only cat on the block
And if he plays too long another cat might come in and steal his prize.
If Furcal signs elsewhere the A’s will have lost an opportunity to replace Crosby. I for one would prefer that to happen in 2009 but it will happen in 2010 when Crosby’s contract ends. It is fairly certain that the A’s don’t consider either Petit or Pennington legitimate options as starting SS, otherwise they could have traded Crosby already to someone like the Cardinals and still be fine if they missed on Furcal.
The first post-Crosby SS is going to have to come from outside the organization. It would be better for the A’s if they could just spend money on a FA rather than trade talent to acquire talent.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't mean they have to overpay,
if the market for their first choice is WORSE than we all thought. I bet Furcal ends up signing for either about 3/30 or 2/23 – and I hope it’s with Oakland. He’s not getting four years, and he’s not getting 12 million, from anybody. Except Oakland if he’s jiggy with 9mil/year.
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 6, 2008 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Furcal is the one that is sweating it out
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you graphed his value as a "stock"
it would look like:
—-\
\
———\
\
———————\
\
\
—-
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 6, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except the formatting would be 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 6, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this some sort of metacomment
on that olympic high diving dream you had last month?
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Dec 6, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico's gonna do the Triple Lindy
"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 6, 2008 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico, if you're saying 4/40 is "fair"
(Which is a simple move from your 3/31.5 argument) then your exaggerating to call 4/44 an overpay.
4/48 would appear to be an overpay in this market.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say it's a contextual overpay
assuming there’s no market for him, paying more than 4/40 fair market value is an overpay because with no market, no one would beat our 4/40 offer (we’d be competing only with ourselves). If there is a market for him and we’re in competition, 4/44 is most definitely a good deal and not an overpay.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a market for Furcal
How strong it is depends on several things. The whole world knows that there isn’t a 4 year deal on the table for Furcal. Team Furcal was pushing hard for that 4th year, if they bend on that than he becomes much more attractive to those teams who were only interested in going up to 3 years on him.
You know how AN is always talking about “it only takes 1 idiot GM” to throw out an unreasonable offer that drives up the price of a FA? In this case, Beane was that idiot GM by offering up 4 years! He crowded out the market, not by throwing a ton of money at Furcal but by agreeing to go 4 years. If Furcal can’t get 4 years, the means he’ll get 2-3 years and that is a price tag that had many suitors.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair
The only thing I’d throw in is that based on the market (non-baseball), I’d be far less inclined to believe that a GM would go the idiot route this year. Even the Yankees seem to have limits on offers made this year. That’s NOT to say one can’t or won’t, I’d just estimate less likely. But all things considered, I still agree with your assessment.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's weren't and aren't competing with anyone
for a four-year deal. They can still make whatever competitive three-year offer they want, after exploring whether they could land Furcal for four years on the relatively cheap.
Why bid against yourself for a four-year deal? The A’s can still offer Furcal 3/30 or 3/32 or whatever is reasonable for a three-year deal and maybe still be the highest three-year offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico... the A's could lose in a race to sign Furcal for 3 years
The A’s have stepped away from the table, they are focusing on other targets for now. If another team comes in and offers 3/33 or 3/36 then A’s might not even get a chance to make a counter-offer.
That is the risk the A’s are taking. You’re assuming the A’s will get a chance to counter.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they've stepped away from the table forever
If and when Furcal says “I’m open to a three-year deal,” either he’ll allow the A’s to make a new three-year bid or else he just doesn’t want to come to Oakland (and is trying to use the A’s for leverage) – in which case the A’s had better be exploring other options.
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 6, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
false dichotomy
option 3: Furcal is not all that exciting about the A’s, but if offered 4/42 now, would sign anyway, to be safe.
Also, this approach might make your option 1 (Furcal allowing another bid from the A’s) converge to option 3 (Furcal may NOW not want to come to the A’s, and will now just use the A’s to get equal offer from another team).
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In your scenario, though,
why couldn’t Furcal, if he chose to, come back and say “No to 4/36, but if you up it to 4/42 I’ll sign”? He didn’t – which might mean he’s simply not interested. Why wouldn’t he do that instead of just saying “Nope.”
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 6, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because Beane framed it as a
one-time offer, w/ no bidding against self.
Also, he might have said that, and Beane might not have accepted.
My argument is that if he did say that, we should agree.
He didn’t – which might mean he’s simply not interested. Why wouldn’t he do that instead of just saying "Nope."
We don’t know that this is true. It’s possible that Beane said no, or that he didn’t, but only because Beane Guaranteed he would negotiate the offer.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone who has ever negotiated anything
knows that the receiving party can always say, “No, but this’ll get it done.”
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 6, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes,
and my position is that the A’s should offer 4/42 in a preemptive strike.
Why are we arguing what furcal said? It’s irrelevant. He said one of three things in response to the offer:
1. No
—> A’s either offer 4/42 to try to close the deal (my position)
—>or they wait and see (your position).
2. 4/42 will get it done.
—>A’s say “deal” (my position)
—>A’s say “no”, stick to original offer (your position)
3. 4/48 will get it done (I think this is probably what he said)
—> A’s counteroffer w/ 4/42 (my position)
—> A’s say no, stick to original offer (your position)
The disagreement is over whether the A’s should make the 4/42 offer, NOT over what Furcal said. I’m trying be really clear here, since “everyone who has ever negotiated anything” knows furcal has options.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Furcal had accepted the 4/36 offer,
which he probably should have and the A’s may have thought he would, your pre-emptive strike offer would cost 6million dollars unnecessarily and hamstring them to the tune of 6million going forward. The A’s, contrary to what it may appear right now, do NOT have 6million to throw around carelessly.
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 6, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, I'm fine w/ starting w/ the 4/36 offer
but I wouldn’t stop there.
Plus, the A’s DO have 6M over the next 4 years to make a SS solution happen.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless you're getting a counter
you’re basically negotiating against yourself WITHOUT another suitor which is bad dealing. You put a number on the table and they sniff it and turn away, then so be it. If the other party is actually interested in making a deal with you, they will make a counter offer. It would be a dumb move to negotiate under the premise that if you fail there aren’t any alternatives because you WILL make a very bad deal.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I think I’d back down in Scenario 1 and wait. But #1 is exactly the scenario Nico ridiculed as unlikely.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't ridiculed anything
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But they've stepped away for now!
If Furcal accepts defeat and starts looking for 3 year deals then there’s a good chance he’ll find more teams willing to invest more cash annually to get a 3 year deal done.
There might be a team willing to go 3/36 and they could get a deal done before Beane ever got a phone call in.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That could happen, but it's among
many, many possible outcomes – including that the A’s are willing to make the most attractive three-year offer and it’s less than 12mil annually.
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 6, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then why didn't they do that when they had him in the room
The A’s were the only team willing to go 4 years on Furcal. Once they pulled their offer it became a 3 year package.
They had Furcal in the room… and they let him walk. That leaves Bobby Crosby as the SS and that is not a realistic move for a team with designs to contend.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be pretty bad negotiating by his Agent
If he received a good deal at 3/36 and didn’t come back to another possible suitor and kick the tires on their interest in matching or bettering. At worst, he waits a few hours to respond to the offer, at best he gets a better offer from someone else and suddenly fines himself in a bidding war. And that’s when you throw down the 4/40 or 4/44.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the agent suggests 3/36 and the other guy says OK...
Well, it doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for the agent.
Earlier it was suggested that Furcal’s agent didn’t make a counter to the A’s offer, whatever it exactly was. Which only makes sense if the A’s muscled him into silence.
So why can’t this new team do the same thing? Here’s 3/36… take it or leave it.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They can.
At which point Mr. Agent says, let me talk this over with my client and get back to you. Pick up the phone, call the A’s or other suitors to determine their interest in matching/exceeding said offer. Will there be a time limit on this sort of muscling, yes. Will they say they have to have an answer on the spot while the player may not be in the room OR without allowing the agent or player to convince the other it’s a good deal, not likely.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be shocked and stunned
if anyone offers 3/36. I’m expecting Furcal to sign for about 3/30 in the end.
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 6, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What the actual offer is matters less
than the fact that whatever it is, Furcal better fire his agent if he doesn’t at least probe for better offers from competitors and/or completely avoids the A’s.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that if Furcal is going to get offered
3/36 then it makes sense for him to turn down 4/36. If he’s going to get offered 3/28, then not so much.
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 6, 2008 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would he only get 3/28?
He’s better than Renteria and that’s Renteria money. The back injury only goes so far, in fact, it shouldn’t really come into play that much in the annual salary.
You’re worried about Furcal’s back, do you:
A) Seek to cut his annual salary from $11 million to $9 million
OR
B) Cut the length of the contract from 4 years to 3 years?
4 years at $9 million annual = 36 million
3 years at $11 million annual = 33 million
Any concerns regarding his back should be felt in the length of the contract, not the annual salary.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd see it showing in both
He could be out the entire length of the contract for all anyone knows. The risk is just as much there in year #1 as it is in year #3 or 4.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's like Kotsay,
performance will be affected in year 1. Then health itself is a big issue in years 3-4, as he gets to his mid 30s. Year 2 is probably the best bet of all.
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 6, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not in this market
Dollars are already shrunk, but Renteria set the floor.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I've stated above
I’m not convinced that Renteria’s contract is even relevant because of how he effected the market as a whole. It would have been one thing if Furcal signed first. As top dog, he sets the ceiling for those under him. Someone under him can’t set the floor, especially when the market dries up around him.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza
last time the A’s upped their offer because they were out bidded. What did it get us? a injury.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
but Furcal’s seriously the only good option.
Also, he’s a huge upgrade. Injury DISCOUNT is the only reason Furcal’s not getting 4/50 or even more.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
But say there is another cat on prowl. This would be a pretty good way to both flush it out of hiding and avoid over paying for the prey if there isn’t one. Two scenarios.
#1). We’re the only suitor left. We come back to Furcal after the Winter Meetings (or during) and offer a 3 year deal or a little more on the 4th, but never having to hit our max. He sees we’re it, so he signs.
OR
- there is another suitor left and that suitor exposes itself. If it jumps our max, we walk away and look for other prey. If it doesn’t jump our max, we throw down with the other suitor until we’ve either signed Furcal OR the other team bids over our max. But by “walking away” now, we don’t offer Furcal higher leverage with this mystery suitor driving the cost up exponentially and we can sit back and play it on our own terms.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I can tell you for sure:
There is no “mystery team” – that’s just bullshit put out by a lame agent acting like nine teams would identify themselves along the way as interested but one team would be highly and deeply interested but insist on remaining completely anonymous. Sure, buddy; there’s a “mystery team”.
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 6, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agree with that one
Nor do I ever think he got a 4/48 offer on the table.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Graphic representation of this negotiation:
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WIN
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 6, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since I don't see an image
I’m imagining a graphic representation of what we actually know about the negotiation (scaled down to adequately compare to the amount of hand wringing we’re doing about it)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here
Link.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny too
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think the A's lose a bidding war of any type
even if its a passive, both teams offer 4/42 type. See my post above.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
actually they've won bidding wars in recent years
although sometimes we might wish they hadn’t.
Free agent bidding wars: Loaiza with SF, Piazza with Texas
Prospects: Michel Inoa (Texas)
by OaklandSi on Dec 6, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
don’t overpay unless your the giants
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We can beat SF or Texas
I think if Furcal gets bid, its from sexier teams. Boston, LA, White Sox, Jays.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jays not likely
the falling value of the canadian dollar means that the economy crashing is hurting toronto far more that any of the other non canadian teams.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Dec 6, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers don't have the cash for Furcal.
Especially if they target Manny, which they should. If anything to get him out of the AL.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 6, 2008 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whitesox not likely
They have a very good secondbaseman and a top SS prospect in minors unless they give Furcal a 2 year deal but no way a 4 year deal.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beckham isn't going to be ready in 2 years
At least, the Sox shouldn’t be expecting that to happen. With the A’s out of play there are no 4 year deals out there for Furcal. That means 3 year deals come into play and the White Sox could definitely play in that range. Worst case scenario (in terms of the White Sox signing Furcal for 3 years) is that Beckham is ready in 2 years and someone has to play 3B for a season.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whitesox going for starters
After trading a starter and losing another last year their starting staff is thin. They would be better off using the money to sign a starter but you never know.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The White Sox appear to be slashing payroll, though
I’m not sure they’re really in play for anything at this point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Williams doesn't need to slash payroll for the sake of saving money
At least, I haven’t read anything to suggest he’s facing a mandate to cut his payroll. He’s moving contracts to free up cash for… something.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't assume that the White Sox
have a plan at this point. If they do, with the amount of cash they’ve freed up, I would think they’d be going after Tex or Sabathia, not Furcal.
by Josh Deletchi on Dec 6, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Williams has a plan
What it is or if it will work is TBD.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's kind of scary in that regard.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is Sabathia.
I’ve heard reports that Poreda might be better suited for the pen, which means that they don’t have any good pitching prospects on the horizon. Getting CC would be good for the Sox.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
by Blicks on Dec 6, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The bottom line is Bobby Crosby is still going to be the starting SS in 2009.
Unless Furcal comes groveling back or Billy makes some sort of Fuckin-A trade to land, say, one of the Escobars or even JJ Hardy or something.
I dunno, I’m just really really hoping that plan B isn’t “Keep Crosby”
by mikev on Dec 6, 2008 10:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Different numbers
4/36 is a low-ball offer
4/40 is what the team wants
4/48 is what the player wants
To me, that says 4/44 gets the deal done and the A’s get a massive upgrade at SS. The A’s believe that Furcal is healthy or they’d never have negotiated with him in the first place. Maybe they’re wrong, but they were willing to bet 4 years on him staying healthy. 4 years/$44 million would be a fair deal all around.
Beane does not
hold all the right cards
here. You’re right Nico, no other team needs to come in and offer a 4 year deal to Furcal. But if there’s still a team that’s willing to go 3 years and up the annual amount to $12 million a pop then the A’s don’t get Furcal.
That means the A’s #1 SS is still Bobby Crosby.
Beane can’t hold all the cards if THAT is still a possibility!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why can't that team be the A's?
If Oakland and Furcal are still looking later, come back and offer three years, $34-36million – done.
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 6, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're not taking ego into play here
What if it’s another team that offers the 3 year/$36 million deal? Sure, Furcal’s agent could go back to the A’s to see if they’d match it (or better it I suppose) but the two sides have already said no to each other on a previous proposal. Maybe I’m reading too much into the pride angle, but the A’s had an exclusive shot to land Furcal and it didn’t happen. Now we’re talking about a situation were the A’s would be competing against another team to land Furcal… which is exactly what his agent wants.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only if
Furcal could change back to second and look for a deal like that with a team that loses out of Hudson but its a big if. All big money teams have a establish SS except the cubs who is out of money room. All other teams are not going to pay.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Nico, you’re assuming Furcal is a money calculator, nothing else. And, I think most FA’s have 2 equal offers, or one team who makes large commitment by bidding 5M above the competitors. If Furcal gets two offers, and the A’s don’t outbid substantially, I think he goes elsewhere.
by ohmangoAs on Dec 6, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's not going for the most money, period,
then either he thinks someone else will offer what he wants (more years? the A’s already did that anyway) – which is very likely untrue – or he simply doesn’t wish to sign with Oakland, in which case the A’s just aren’t going to get 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 6, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And how are you defining the most money?
A’s offered, 4/36?
Someone else offers 3/33.
$33 million over 3 years, then getting to play the FA market again might be worth more than the extra $3 million the A’s offered. He only needs a $4 million offer in 2012 to earn more than the would guarantee in the same time frame. If Furcal stays healthy that’s probably a lock.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A guy with a back history
should be smart and take the guaranteed upfront money and not gamble that it will improve in 4 years. Backs are notoriously fragile things.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A guy with a back history, yet got healthy and played at the end of last year
It would be a gamble, but the pay-off exceeds the risk.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure.
Really only Furcal can answer that question, but it’s definitely a factor. Who knows what the market will be for him in 3/4 years or whether he’d be healthy. There’s no certainty in it paying off in the end, he could very well find himself completely out of baseball at the end of the 3 year deal.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he was healthy enough to come back and play
Then I’m guessing he’s willing to bet on being healthy enough to pursue FA in 3 years vs. the extra $3 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
36+ games?
Play a full season healthy before getting overconfident about your health.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
supposedly the A's examined his medical records
and were satisfied that he was healthy…
by OaklandSi on Dec 6, 2008 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But there's still risk -
no one, including doctors and Furcal, know how he’ll feel in a year.
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 6, 2008 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said above
That risk, and the mitigation of that risk, should be felt in the length of the contract and not the annual figure.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe what the A's should have offered
was something like 3/32 instead of 4/36. But Furcal emphasized the years and the A’s were clearly the only team willing to look at 4 years, so maybe that’s why Oakland went with a 4-year offer. But there’s no reason they can’t be the team to offer 3/32 next time Furcal gets an offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 6, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If another team offers 3/36
And Furcal’s agent comes back to the A’s and they counter with 4/44, which do you think he’d take?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I didn't realize the block quote would looks so ungainly
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your comments 100%.
I would even submit that a 2 year $30 million contract could do it.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Dec 6, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't have said it better
You are right on to the Furcal gate. Some a’s fans are to scared to think of another year of Crosby but I rather have another year of him(gulp) then to over pay a player with injury issues. Kotsay comes to mind. I rather pay the money to a healthy player. Maybe there will be a renegotiate of the contract later but it should be with less years. A 2 year 24 million deal.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 10:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The only sense in which Crosby does not have "injury issues"
is the sense in which he’s so close to replacement level that him getting injured barely makes a difference to the outcome of his team’s season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His staying healthy killed us in 2008, though
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 6, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
do we even know in 09
that crosby would be healthy…it could end up like 05/06/07 all over
with either penny/petit filling that scutaro role
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 6, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
backup plan
No way A’s go into spring training with crosby as SS unless they have a backup plan. Look for Izturis or Eckstien as backup plan in case the A’s don’t a SS.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Beane goes with Eckstien over Petit...
I’ll eat my A’s hat and quit being a fan.
"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 6, 2008 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you like fries with that?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 6, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's appear to hate Petit
judging by how they’ve handled him through his career (leaving him open to Rule 5 twice, bringing him up to Oakland only to sit on the bench every day for a month, not calling him up last September and wasting ABs on Pennington instead).
I’d be surprised, at this point, if he’s ever an everyday player for the team.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 6, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just like poker
Agents are like poker players always bluffing and trying to win the most money but sometimes they over value their cards and lose.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 11:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i'm more concerned
that already 2 sources rosenthal/olney says that they are ok with crosby
looks like the best route is trade or the 2010 fa market
next yr SS Fa’s
Shortstops
Bobby Crosby
Khalil Greene
Miguel Tejada
Jack Wilson
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 6, 2008 11:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i would not spend a dime on any of those names...
by stranahanahan on Dec 6, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because the A's party line HAS to be
“We’re ok with Crosby” – why would you want to say, “We HAVE to make a move!!!!” if you can say, “Fine, we’ll improve at other positions and be ok with what we have”?
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 6, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
And saying you’re okay with Crosby makes him seem more valuable for the purposes of a future trade. Which hopefully is the end result.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Dec 6, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ding Ding Ding
I’m really surprised by how seriously people are taking the “we’re ok with Crosby” thing. Not only does Beane have to say that, he should say it. The fact that two sources report he has said it doesn’t make the underlying idea any more true, only the fact that Beane said the right thing.
Similarly, if 300 reporters report that a player says he doesn’t care about winning the MVP I don’t believe he actually doesn’t care.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know most people hate Crosby on this team
and I agree his stats are very, very bad. But for some reason I’m kind of comfortable (not happy, just comfortable) with him on the team in 2009. I’m not sure why? maybe I don’t like change.
I think it could be because the rest of the team isn’t that great. If they didn’t have so many holes to fill maybe I would be more concerned.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
by micdog2001 on Dec 6, 2008 11:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's because we talk about him like he's the anti-Christ...
… when he’s really closer to a mildly objectionable dictator. Or the bully who beat you up in 4th grade.
He ain’t good. But he also ain’t gonna single-handedly hold the A’s back from competing. So it’s okay to feel okay about this.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Dec 6, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When the bully in 4th grade swung at me, he didn't miss
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 6, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did you try
going outside and in the dirt on him?
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Dec 6, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 billion
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Dec 6, 2008 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No. He's a highly objectionable dictator. Josef Stalin not Lee Kwan Yew.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2008 12:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do any of these make sense?
Billy Beane gave a deadline for several reasons.
1) He has other options in mind which still mean getting rid of Crosby and that he wanted a solution with Furcal so he could pursue other FA’s at other needed positions and;
2) He is tired of Furcal’s agent who appears wishy washy to say the least.
3) He knows he can still get Furcal in a week or two as the market is not a good as Furcal and his agent thought, or
4) Bobby Crosby has leverage on Billy and is blackmailing him (LOL)
by Trainman on Dec 6, 2008 11:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd say it's
mostly 3, a little bit 1, and not at all 2 – it’s business and you don’t make decisions based on being frustrated with an agent. 4? Don’t know.
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 6, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
one thing needs to be made clear that many don't realize
The A’s WILL NOT sign Dunn or Burrell. Folks, it’s not gonna happen. If the A’s are going to acquire a position player of upper-tier value, it is going to be Furcal, or they will be had via trade.
Why?
Because we cannot compete dollar for dollar with the teams who will put money into these guys if their first option doesn’t pan out.
If the Angels don’t get Tex or Sabathia, they will throw money at these two. Even Baltimore and Washington could put plenty more into these guys.
Beane is not going to get into a bidding war, that was made clear with Furcal. Maybe Furcal doesn’t come back to the A’s and does get a better offer, but still it won’t change anything in regards to Dunn or Burrell, they won’t be wearing Green and Gold next year, you can count on that.
by stranahanahan on Dec 6, 2008 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Problem with your theory re: Dunn & Burrell
Neither Tex or Sabs have signed. Meaning if the A’s come in hard and fast after Dunn or Burrell early in the game then they could sign either bat before the Angels are done fighting the Yankees over Tex/Sabs.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 6, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
all forgetting Blake
casey Blake plays 3 positions. 1b,3b, and OF. He is looking for a 3 year deal. His stats are similar to Furcal and he could be had maybe a 3/24 contract. If Chavez is not ready then he is your third or first if Barton is not ready. Sign Eckstien who is a upgrade over crosby and cheap. Then you have the money to sign a starter.
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
eckstien is not an upgrade over Crosby
In fact, Crosby is a significantly better player than Eckstein by about any rational measure. He’s better defensively, and outhit Eckstein by a decent margin last year.
by MrIncognito on Dec 6, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 OPS+
Crosby — 76
Eckstein — 84
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 6, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wOBA*:
Crosby – .299
Eckstein – .291
There isn’t much of a difference on offense, it’s suck or suck. At least Crosby is capable of playing the position.
by MrIncognito on Dec 6, 2008 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You completely removed Eckstein’s Toronto performance.
Regardless, signing Eckstein would be a step backward, since i don’t think it’s a good idea to have two poor hit, poor field SS on one’s roster.
Adopted Giant: Aaron King
Wearing the crown by 2011. Or at least the LOOGY hat
by baetown415 on Dec 6, 2008 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
crosby can field. That’s the difference.
by MrIncognito on Dec 7, 2008 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just got to see the UZR’s from fangraphs, which say you’re right. +/- says he’s been bad overall the past 3. I think the former is more correct in this regard. 1/2 point for you
Adopted Giant: Aaron King
Wearing the crown by 2011. Or at least the LOOGY hat
by baetown415 on Dec 7, 2008 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what stats are those?
eckstein 265/343 combined w/jays and dbacks
by Arcman on Dec 6, 2008 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 wOBA* I thought that was pretty clear at least
by MrIncognito on Dec 7, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but i think this Furca situatin shows that won't happen
the A’s won’t go in hard and fast to sign these bats.
by stranahanahan on Dec 6, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then this offseson
suddenly went from optimistic to just okay
i’m not too thrilled about the idea of just holliday and a bunch of maybe’s
then after 09 its back to normal
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 6, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm pretty sure haikus
are supposed to be 5/7/5
"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
by flipgatey3 on Dec 6, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico, while I appreciate and more or less agree with your sentiment,
I can’t help but feel that inherently there is a lot of risk on the GM’s side when he makes a move like this.
While we at AN can perform a decent market assessment going team by team and deciding that nobody out there wants Furcal as much as the A’s, anecdotally I feel like the market for free agent baseball players is too unpredictable for this sort of exercise to be conclusive.
What sane person among us can say we truly understand what is going through Brian Sabean’s head when he makes a move? Do any of us really have an in-depth knowledge of the short- and long-term strategies of every major league team and what their organization looks like top to bottom? I mean, it takes our collective knowledge just to attempt understanding Oakland in these ways. And I’m sure we all take our musings with a grain of salt, as accurate as they may be.
I guess the point I’d hoped to arrive at is this (re-post from old thread):
If the Furcal acquisition is as key to the A’s current strategy as we all think it is, why take the chance? I can come up with these possibilities:
1) we dont understand the A’s current strategy very well
2) we are not correct in how we are assessing Furcal as part of that strategy (including things like: the possibility that the A’s are really worried about giving to much money for a guy with health concerns)
3) the A’s truly believe they are not taking a big risk by letting talks fall apart at this point in the game.
I am more inclined to believe 2 than I am 3.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Dec 6, 2008 12:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd vote a combination of 2 & 3
But, I’d also suggest that I’d trust Beane/Forst’s judgment of the market. They’ve likely kicked the tires of some/most of the teams looking for a shortstop by dangling Crosby or attempting to check out other non-FA shortstops that could be on the market. I’d bet that they’ve come to conclusion that this is the right and smart move to make.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Dec 6, 2008 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't want Burrell or Dunn.
Go after Teixeira if you really want an offensive upgrade. Otherwise, live with waiting for the prospects.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Dec 6, 2008 12:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs