I think you may be on to something there. What I would like to see the A’s do with their new young talent is to keep them around longer than 5-6 years. I’m not saying you overpay for all of them, especially pitchers, but at some point there has to be something that your team builds around. I understand the frustration of many A’a fans and I am optimistic about the future.

However, at what point does the future begin to become the present with sustainability? I sincerely hope the A’s brass is getting the new ballpark deal done sooner than later because otherwise we’re all gonna be looking at the same thing 5 to 6 years down the road.

Specifically, on your pitcher’s salary/future buying/selling…...I don’t think the “big spending teams” will ever truly stop spending so some club is always likely to overpay for a prime free agent pitcher. You would think, though, that in Tim Lincecum’s case, the Giants woukd do everything they could do in their power to lock that kid up for many tears to come.

You’re right, though: If he were to head into his last year before free agency without a new contract/extension then it would make more sense for the Giants to trade him for a megahaul of prospects.

Cheers mate! -M-Rod

One of the best (maybe even the best) FA pitcher signings in recent was…. Tim Hudson. He’s been great, and the contract is not that huge at all, but I guess that’s your point: recent developments indicate that his two-years-younger clone who did the same thing could have made twice as much this past offseason.

In general, though, I agree with you. Hitters are a much better bet in terms of FA signings than pitchers. Pitchers are a lot more injury prone and even starting at a very young age their stuff tends to deteriorate over time, whereas hitters tend to improve up to to their (earlier (I think)) primes and lose value much more slowly.

I would imagine, though, that pitchers of a certain type or types (I don’t know what those would be) could be considered good bets for a big-money FA signing.

To conclude: Gallagher’s Watermelons, you are an excellent addition to AN, and those don’t come along too often!

I don’t know that I’ll ever get over losing Tim Hudson for fertilizer…....

Man, I’m still fucking pissed about that trade! That is one guy the A’s should have held onto but penny-pincher dirtbag Schott knew he was gonna have to pony up some cash to keep Huddy around.

Huddy said something about that in “Aces” at the end of the year (or sometime during his last season) alluding to “They’re gonna have to open their fucking wallets!” .....or something to taht effect.

We miss you Huddy and love ya even more!!!!

Huddy had grit…............

:(

It does happen somewhat frequently (the “hometown discount”). In that case players are giving up $$$ for the value of staying in the place they fell comfortable.

Absent some kind of return, however, I doubt you’ll see many voluntary pay cuts. Arenas certainly isn’t an example, as he’s doing a hometown discount in a capped league (so lowering his salary increases the odds he’ll have a semi-competent supporting cast). Also, I doubt there are many of us in the habit of taking less salary than is offered.

Otherwise, I think you’re absolutely right in your main point – especially for the A’s – that it is rarely (if ever) worth paying real money for pitching. The Coliseum, after all, makes average pitchers look good and good pitchers look great.

Yes, big-money pitcher FAs are often - almost always - a bad deal under the current market conditions.

But … you seem to feel that … some superstar pitcher … should voluntarily take less money than everyone is offering him. Because … why?

You also seem to feel that these current market conditions will always obtain. I would seriously doubt that Lincecum (or any other pitcher) is going to get an 8-year deal at the end of his initial team’s control under the current regime. The. Market. Will. Correct. Itself. (Or. Bud. Will. Collude. With. The. Other. Owners. To. Correct. It.)

And, yeah, {gasp!} pitcher salaries keep going up! {gasp!!!!!} (Mysteriously, so do revenues. And franchise values.) So does the price of a loaf of bread. I don’t think Sara Lee is going to voluntarily, with no economic incentive, going to tell me she’ll take less of my money next year. (Hm. Perhaps I’ll make my own loaf of bread with some expensive red wheat berries I had grown in the Caribbean. And then sell my own loaves. Which seems to sort of be another of your points, but I’m not sure what it has to do with the loaf that I’ve baked and sold to someone else suggesting a discount price for itself when, sure, it’s about to get stale and moldy—but no other loaves are pricing themselves like that and no buyers are insisting on discount pricing like that.)

unlike my post last night. Seven years in baseball is a lifetime. How many 7-year dynasties have you ever seen in baseball. I guess the Yanks come the closest in my lifetime, but pitching comes and goes.

Yes, you might get an ungodly freak, once out of 10 times, who is worth it, but the 3 that fall off a cliff, the 2 that are barely passable, the 3 most fans are happy with… and the Zito… ummm… yes, signing pitchers to big, long-term contracts is a bad idea.

But, I think that’s true of most baseball players. Of course, Giambi was doing okay for the Yanks this year.

But, anyway, this is exactly why I don’t expect Beane to sign Duke or Ellis to an extension. They’re aging, they’re expensive… they’re replaceable.

Also Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, John Smoltz, Andy Pettitte, Mike Mussina… Not all changed teams, but all cost FA rates. As with position players it’s usually a good idea to spend FA dollars on HOFs or near HOFs, and usually a bad idea otherwise.

The Red Sox have a perpetual $4M team option. For as long as they need Wakefield, they just keep paying him the same rate. And they can just stop anytime they feel like it. That’s a pretty good way to add a league-average starter to the back of your rotation.