Half of me was reluctant to write this letter out of concern that Mr. William Beane may be one of those people who say naive things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given William’s track record, I have concluded that only a fool can believe that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la, so I’ve decided to proceed. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone’s opinions, nor do I intend to demean him personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do think that I must break the spell of great expectations that now binds flighty publishers of hate literature to William.

I’ll talk about that another time. I have other, more important, things to discuss now. For starters, far too many people tolerate William’s generalizations as long as they’re presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that if it were true, as William claims, that the media should “create” news rather than report it, then I wouldn’t be saying that William doesn’t want me to push a consistent vision that responds to most people’s growing fears about the worst sorts of rotten perjurers I’ve ever seen. Well, I’ve never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to refute William’s arguments line by line and claim by claim.

William is too unprofessional to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that I didn’t want to talk about this. I really didn’t. But his maudlin preoccupation with corporatism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “methylenedioxymethamphetamine”, would make sense if a person’s honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to contaminate clear thinking with William’s ungrateful artifices. As that’s not the case, we can conclude only that his odious squibs often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of sesquipedalianism and nativism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain. At any rate, William, with his craftiness and froward tracts, will entirely control our country’s exuberant riches in the near future. William will then use those riches to persuade many of his opponents to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with him. The moral of this story is that if I said that his inveracities epitomize wholesome family entertainment, I’d be a liar. But I’d be being completely honest if I said that William thinks it would be a great idea to pamper nugatory common criminals. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I’d love to hear about them.

Sincerely,

A Disgruntled A’s Fan

We’re not going to win the World Series this season. Even if we wind up grabbing the wild card or the division, do you see the A’s going all the way? Even with an extra (or two) “big bats” ? Divine intervention is needed if we’re going to manage to pull that off, .

Thats why we’re trading for all these prospects. Its going to give us a whole better chance of winning the worlds series come 2010-2011. And if by chance, we do better than expected before then, so be it.

There’s no reason for trading a player (like Street) to get that power hitter whose only going to stick around for a couple of seasons. Instead we can nab a few prospects who can (hopefully) develop into contributors for when we go for the gold, in say… 2010, when the team looks far better off with these prospects that we’re currently getting. We’re not giving up, just retooling for the future.

Just the way I see it :]

Saying “prospects” as if you don’t believe in the term doesn’t change the truth about the trades. Almost every player the A’s have received in the trades going back to last offseason are legitimate major league prospects. Some of those guys are IN the major leagues. It’s absolutely wrong and ridiculous to act as though every trade netted what the Scutaro trade got. Those two guys aren’t prospects. I guess you could argue that Jamie Richmond isn’t much of a prospect. Matthew Spencer probably isn’t a real big prospect. And Matt Murton has too much playing time to be a prospect (but he’s a major league-ready guy).

Everybody else is a legitimate prospect, even Eric Patterson (I don’t think he’ll be any good, but he still has prospect status and that has value).

Trading at midseason with a playoff hopeful means they’re willing to sell the future for the present. Them trading one of their offensive centerpieces hurts them this year. Them trading many of their best prospects doesn’t. That’s why these deals happen.

I’m sure Billy’s on a tight budget until we move out of Oakland. I’m holding on to the hope that after the move they’ll be willing to spend some money to keep our players and even pick up FAs once in a while.

Considering the circumstances, I’d say he’s done well.

Now’s the time to root for the front of the jersey, not the back.