First of all, the South is less dirty than the streets of LA, Oakland, SF or anywhere else.

Second, it doesn’t matter how you paint, the barn, the stalls are still full of cowsh*t, Beane got fleeced on the Hudson deal. I don’t care if he parked Huddy away in the National League or not, the fact is we gave away possibly our best pitcher in many many years and got nothing in return. I know Beane is no Merlin, but he needs a new hat in my opinion.

It is not a term of disrepect. Atlanta is the Rap version of Motown. Dirty South (deep south) is a style of rap. It is not a term for unclean. Thanks for your input!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Rap

I’d have rather had the loss of free agent bonus pick than the awful “prospects” Billy got in that trade. They either didn’t do their homework or really didn’t care who they got (either scenario represents a big failure for the organization).

And given the success the A’s have had against their ex-pitchers, I wouldn’t mind facing Huddy a couple times a year.

I think you just have to say “you can’t win ‘em all” to that one.

Sure, this is the one deal that stands out as a loser for the A’s, but Beane usually comes out on top. I suppose you’re re-hashing this old news because of the recent trades. Clearly it will take a couple years to see how those deals pan out.

Still, Meyer might get another chance with the A’s as the current staff is disassembled. It might be time for hjim to develop a knuckle ball.

I’m not sure any of us could have predicted that trade going so badly – or the Mulder deal working out so well. But when you have to invoke Brad Halsey to try and eke out value, well, ‘nuff said.

jooking= joking

To me, that implies that Beane and Co. had critically flawed judgment in their evaluation of the trade at the time it was being made.
The centerpiece, however, was Meyer, and I am one to believe that he could have very easily lived up to expectations if he hadn’t gotten injured.

In my mind, there are two ways to fault Beane for this, neither of which I really agree with:
1) he should have known Meyer’s risk of injury
2) he should have hedged more by getting better/more surrounding players in the trade

debating #1 is pointless, as we don’t know much about the process the A’s use in deciding the risk of injury for a player they are scouting, plus we are talking about something that at the end of the day is, beyond using your best risk assessment, up to fate/the gods/monkeyball/whomever you attribute these things to. obviously, we hope that the A’s have a good evaluation system in place.

As for #2, I personally see that since the bust of the Hudson trade (and i DO agree with calling it a bust), there has been a shift in philosophy towards mitigating injury risks by getting more depth in these big trades. And that is a shift that I agree with.

But to say Beane was fleeced bothers me. I do not hold this trade against him as much as others do. I still contend that at the time of the trade, it was a decent one for the A’s to make. The Braves gave up prospects for a guy who would have been a free agent anyway in 2005 (noted that they had an advantage to sign him because of the trade). The A’s got the potential of a great starting pitcher, and two possible major leaguers in CT and Cruz, instead of draft picks. The fact that Meyer got derailed is not something I hold against Beane’s record as GM. That is the nature of baseball. With every player comes a risk of injury, and the earlier they are in their career, the more time they have to get injured before the bigs. Yes, Beane could have done a better job of decreasing his exposure to this risk, but to say he was fleeced is unfair.

(im guessing you got this from Urban’s mailbag?)

Weak trade? Yes. Worst deal in his tenure? Probably. The real problem was Thomas. Beane thought he was getting a starting caliber outfielder when the numbers showed the holes that said otherwise.

Meyer getting hurt was bad luck. Cruz, as a 3rd piece was a bit if a gamble but one with pretty good upside.

is alive(as of 4/08). He’s unemployed and still not throwing off the mound. His rehab has not been successful.

He does still have that pending grievance against the A’s.

Meyer and Haren were interchangeable in terms of projected success and timeline – one went on to exceed expectations and stay healthy, one got injured and has yet to succeed at all. But that’s why you acquire multiple good prospects – because invariably some will work out and others won’t and you need “three to make two”.

I also think Juan Cruz and Charles Thomas were irrelevant pieces – that the deal was basically Hudson for Meyer and that Cruz was a known head case with a good arm (worth a shot) while Thomas was a “filler player” (you need some of those at AAA and his upside was Rajai Davis).

So really what Beane was aiming to do was to trade Hudson for “Haren”. And given the fact that Hudson was gone after 2005 anyway, a known injury risk, and a lot more expensive, I think a trade of Hudson for “Haren” was outstanding.

In fact, had it worked out as scouts projected, we would have the team we have now, plus “Haren” – and might still be in the playoff race for 2008 while rebuilding.

the #1 pitching prospect, and 2 possible average big leaugers for a good pitcher. Noone knew Meyer was going to try to prove himself, and injure himself. He had no prior injury history, and admitted himself, he didn’t tell anyone he was hurt, but threw through it. It was a trade that maybe favored Atlanta in the immediate, but should have given the A’s the momentum for the future. It didn’t work that way, Stuff Happens.

Hudson has by far had the best post “Big 3” career yet the A’s basically could have traded a case of dollar hot dogs and it would have been a better deal. At least what they got for the “Big 3” turned out well. Even if who ever they picked for Zito’s draft pick never turns out. They made it to the ALCS by keeping Zito.

I keep hearing that Beane got fleeced, but I don’t think he did. In hindsight it wasn’t a great trade, but it worked out for Huddy. He is playing for his home team and the A’s. Well they only have to face him once every two years.

it is easy to say that Beane was fleeced. But at the time Meyer was projected to better than or at least the equivalent of Dan Haren. But along the way he got hurt. At the time of the trade the A’s thought they were getting a the second SP that was to be part of the next big 3 in Oakland. Its hardly Beane’s fault that Meyer was injured after he got to Oakland and has not been able to right the ship as of yet. But back when the deal went down it looked great and eveyone thought the A’s were getting a good bunch a talent in return for a guy they were going to lose in no time at all.

-hudson was almost certainly gone at the end of 2005
-meyer was probably a better pitching prospect than haren
-the 2005 rotation of zito-harden-haren-blanton-saarloos performed as well as anyone could hope for

-

1. Never Start a Land War in Asia
2. Never Go Against a Sicilian When Death is On the Line
3. Never Trade Pitchers with the Atlanta Braves

The guys we got for Huddy aren’t good. That makes it a poor deal. How could it be a good one?