Confusing Offseason All Beane's Doing?

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 1:43 PM PDT

That's what Yahoo!'s Tim Brown is saying.

While many here on AN speculated that the abandoning of the "rebuilding process" may have been the result of Wolff putting pressure on Beane, Brown's article quotes Wolff as saying, "I literally never said a word."

It just seems so confusing. I made FanPost the other day regarding how I thought Beane had to abandon his original offseason plan, and how it could have been so much better, but I deleted it when I read it over again and saw how disjointed it was--it was about five in the morning. I still stand by my stance that the offseason doesn't make much sense.

And after this, it makes even less. I can understand that Beane saw the Angels treading water thiss offseason, and seizing the oppurtunity to be competitive, but then you have to ask: Why did he only build half a team?

Giambi is capable of twenty or more homeruns and a high OBP, as is Cust. Holliday is capable of carrying a team for more than a week at a time. Cabrera is a hell of a lot better than Crosby. Buck is back. The rest of the infield is oft-injured, but they now have capable backups. Sweeney is still mostly potential, but a platoon with Rajai (that they didn't use last night) will get the job done.

But the pitching staff is in shambles. I don't know how many times I can to listen to Ravech and his merry team of ignorant-about-everything-baseball analysts talk about how young the A's pitching staff is.

If Beane wasn't facing pressure from Wolff then nobody can convince me that the offseason made sense. If it was Beane's idea, then it seems like he was drastically underprepared for what he did. This notion that Beane improved the offense with the plan to rely on Anderson and Cahill. I understand that Duke is injured and Gallagher appeared complacent, but there's still no excuse as to why Beane didn't get any backups. You need talent and depth to win.

Is anybody else as confused as I am after reading this? I figured maybe Beane was given some spending money from ownership and told, "Hey, get us some guys to make us better this year." Then the whole economy thing happened and ownership pulled the leftover money off the table.

But according to Wolff: "I'd love to feel like I was directing those decisions. I wasn't."

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Wouldn't it be a little more ignorant, if Ravech said the A's pitching staff

was old and over the hill?

by theblackpearl on Apr 7, 2009 1:48 PM PDT reply actions

On a slightly related note

Was anybody else really really really really annoyed with the ESPN announcers last night and their effusive praise of Jeff Mathis. The guy throws out Ellis and gets a single and they’re calling him “the resurgent Jeff Mathis.” They even started talking about how great of a year he’s going to have, which is possible but they had exactly zero evidence that it will happen. With SportsCenter coming west expect the Dodgers and Angels to have a lot of lipstick on their behinds.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Apr 7, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Do you expect anything else?

I’ve come to realize that anything anybody on ESPN says is probably pointless and wrong. But that’s why I watch it.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the missing piece is that

fans are equating the Holliday trade to “going for it in 2009 at the expense of 2010” – in other words, the A’s will not be as good in 2010 because they will lose their best hitter.

My guess? Beane feels the team will be excellent in 2010, due to the anchoring of Cahill, Anderson, Gallagher, Gio, Mazzaro – insert Braden or Eveland or Simmons for any piece that falters – and that he can replace Holliday with a good hitter, albeit not a great one and still have a strong offense/defense.

Maybe he takes a real shot at JJ Hardy, who will be in the last year of his contract and might be available for a reasonable price. He’ll find a good hitter to go with Sweeney, Buck, Suzuki, Chavez, Cust, Barton, etc. And the pitching staff, especially thanks to the acceleration of C & A, could be in full dominant stride come April, 2010.

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 Apr 7, 2009 2:01 PM PDT reply actions

To this I would say that

The A’s didn’t completely screw themselves for 2010 and beyond, but they certainly risked it—and definitely stunted the development. Aaron Cunningham and Daric Barton were both ready for the majors, but will have to wait another year in AAA. And bringing up Cahill and Anderson is incredibly risky. Immature players trying and failing can literally ruin a prospect.

And I don’t think the A’s are going to be truly dominant next year, maybe even the year after that. They have good players but I think they’ll be like the Diamondbacks, with a bunch of above average players, but no real stars, that all grow together. And it will take a year or two of lumps from guys like Cardenas, Carter, Weeks, Doolittle, and the big glut of pitching prospects before they’re really dominant.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think Cunningham is ready, actually.

I think he needs a 1/2 season at AAA to learn how to make more consistent contact. I really don’t see Cahill or Anderson being ruined if they struggle, either – and if they were, they weren’t the prospects we thought they were.

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 Apr 7, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Whether or not Cahill/Anderson are ready was discussed over at MinorLeaguebBall.com

And here are some examples people gave has pitchers who were prematurely thrust onto the mound against big league hitters.

Matt Riley – Made the Orioles in 1999 at age 19. Ranked 20th and 15th overall by BA in 1999 and 2000. After that he lost his control and waffled around a LOT, being inconsistent wherever he goes.

Hayden Penn – Ranked in the Top 100 by BA in 05 and 06, called up at age 20. Same story, inconsistent, no control, bounced around since then.

Daniel Cabrera – This is the scariest one, especially dealing with a guy like Cahill. Full season at A ball, couple of innings at AA, but his stuff was so good that they called him up at age 23. He has never been able to harness his immense talent, and it’s unlikely that he ever will.

All Oriole’s players, though. Just some food for thought.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I just don't see Cahill and Cabrera being similar

Cabrera has always had no idea whatsoever where the ball is going. Cahill’s command is more like Gallagher’s or Eveland’s, not Cabrera’s.

As for Riley, well, 19 and 21 are pretty different and as a counter-example I could cite King Felix.

Penn is a perfectly decent concern-comp, but I just happen to think Cahill can handle it and that it’s part of why he’s such a good prospect. I don’t know anything about Penn in that regard so I can’t really compare.

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 Apr 7, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I went to high school with Riley.

Not sure how that’s relevant, but…

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Apr 7, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm always reticent to rely on anecdotal evidence,

and realize that every situation is unique, but I can’t help but think that having been an Orioles fan for many years (grew up in Annapolis) and watching the organization make horrendous decisions such as the ones listed above has made me incredibly uneasy about the decision to rush C+A this season.

by CapgrasDelusion on Apr 8, 2009 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions

a year without a Holliday

cunningham + 1 more year of development for Buck + 1 more year of development for Sweeney (note; we no longer have any other Sweeney on the team, so we don’t need to designate him the “R.Sweeney”) will hopefully equal a lost Holliday. I think the 2nd year Cahill + 2nd year Anderson will more than make up for a lost Holliday.

…no stats, just hunches. as we all can do this time of the year.

by rollierollieOxenfree on Apr 7, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions

and don't forget that the A's still hold an option on Giambi for next year as well.

Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox

by mrod on Apr 7, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Maybe he saw an opportunity to draw people to the Coliseum

If Beane believed they could recoup their costs for the additional salary, and if they didn’t believe that Greg Smith and Carlos Gonzalez were an integral part of their future success, this makes perfect sense.

Bob Geren and Ken Macha both enjoy jai lai.

by CarGon's Jock on Apr 7, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions

Basically, if Ryan Sweeney and Travis Buck

turn out both to be better than Carlos Gonzalez, I don’t see a lot of reason to blame Billy for this as a “better now, better later” series of moves.

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 Apr 7, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think you can assume "better now, better later"

CarGon was a stud CF prospect who need more time to develop. What we saw last year was immaturity, and there were still flashes. He’s quick, plays excellent defense, and had enormous raw potential with the bat—and we had control over him for five more years. I think we gave up on him early.

Smith eats innings, and it’s possible he could have put up some similar numbers with another year under his belt working at the Coliseum. Street definitely looks like somebody that would be good to have right now. And all we’re getting is one year of Holliday.

If we had signed Giambi and Nomar and Cabrera and NOT made the Holliday trade, would we really have been that worse off? We could have signed an Abreu or a Burrell or a Dunn—then we would still have a proven starter and a proven bullpen arm.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions

That's why I say if R. Sweeney and Buck TURN OUT to be better

It appears Beane is convinced this is the case. If he’s wrong, oops, but if he’s right, good deal – he has accelerated the A’s window of contention by a year, by allowing it to (hopefully) start in 2009 and continue in 2010 instead of waiting for 2010.

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 Apr 7, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree that the bet is that Sweeny or Cunningham can play CF > or = Cargon

If that is the case than the trade is a good one. This was a slow market for closers so getting value for Street and a highly likely to regress Smith was good. I worry about Gonzalez’s plate discipline keeping him as an average player with the bat and his OF D regressing to where scouting reports had it pegged before 2008. I wouldn’t have traded for Holliday myself but if you have the message from ownership that you need to contend I think Beane did well.

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 Apr 7, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Defensively, I think that's very unrealistic.

CarGo was a fantastic defensive CF last year already, but he couldn’t figure out his plate discipline.

Even if he’s just an average hitter, he’s good enough to be a net plus player because of his defense.

Cunningham/Sweeney basically have no hope of being his equal in CF.

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Apr 8, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh I didn't mean defensively

I meant that the bet is that either Cunningham or Sweeney would be a better overall player at the centerfield position. Cargon wasn’t really hitting in AAA last year either and if he doesn’t harness his talents he could be like another highly thought of toolsy player to go to Colorado for a big outfield bat, Jose Ortiz.

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 Apr 8, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

whats confusing?

This had become a stale and boring team the last 2 yrs, with a declining farm system. The only confusing part is the injuries still have continued w/ duke/devine and the’yve had to shift plans with 1-2 weeks left in spring training. We look at the inexperienced pitching, but there is some upside but maybe a bit rushed, we’ll see.

2005: haren/blanton were in 1st full yr/rookie season, harden was limited to 130in/had a nice find in saarloos in the harville trade

2006: wasnt their best overall sp stats wise, but they made the playoffs. zito was lowest at 3.83, haren 4.12, blanton 4.8, loaiza 4.89

2007: gaudin almost had 200in, dinardo/kennedy decent stretches…all 3 were league avg or below it.

2008: smith had limited experience above AA, A’s scouted him in AFL.. eveland was considered filler for 2 teams, he impressed A’s in the mexican winter leagues

if this current group can eat up innings and hover at or just below league avg, then that will be tolerable.

by Asfan4ever723 on Apr 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions

No no no

The confusing part is what point you’re trying to make.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, I'm not really sure what's going on up there, either.

by Rocktopus on Apr 7, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions

You mean a meddling owner would deny meddling to the press?

Shocker.

I agree that the off season doesn’t make sense without a win now imperative from Lew. That article does nothing to convince me otherwise.

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 Apr 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions

He also doesn't deny figuratively saying a word

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 Apr 7, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions

maybe he sent an e-mail ; -)

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Apr 7, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Text message

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids. Add on me on Twitter: ScottASpecht

by TexasAsfan on Apr 8, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't know why we're still criticizing Beane's plan

The division was laughable this year, and Beane found a way to field a competitive team without hugely sacrificing the future — sort of how he traded Hudson and Mulder for the future without hugely sacrificing the present (well…now the past). If the A’s aren’t in condition, they’ll probably trade Holliday and get back just as much as we gave up in november. If the A’s weren’t three-hit last night I wonder if we’d even be having this discussion.

And I hardly see why people still see Gonzalez as a stud. He’s four months older than Daric Barton, hasn’t hit well — minors or majors — since 2006, and never looked like anything special (to me) in CF. I’m not a scout and admit he looks like a ballplayer, but looking purely at the numbers it’s hard to see this guy as a future stud.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gonzal004car

by swatnick on Apr 7, 2009 5:16 PM PDT reply actions

one thing

even if gonzalez really isn’t a stud and smith turns out to be sub-par, they had value. The fact that those 2 (along with street) netted a year of matt holliday shows they were valued by other organizations. BB probably could have gotten something more future oriented in return from some team. Street was another piece of that deal, and I have no doubt he could have netted a solid return as well.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 7, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions

True

But lets allow ourselves to dream of Holliday being signed to a contract extension by Beane this winter…

Okay, back to reality.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Apr 7, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions

well, they had value then, yes

But Smith, I believe, was lucky last year, Gonzalez was still fairly hyped up – perhaps a case of selling high on both of these? Their value might well have dropped, given another year in the A’s system.

Street is very good, granted, and coming off a poor year would probably have bounced back for Oakland this year.

And remember, Beane can still get something future orientated for Holiday, should it come down to that…

what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/

by alea iacta est on Apr 7, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions

And remember, the market for Street was a bit soft

following his latest injury and the Brewers scouts’ reports. He still had value, but I think Beane got a lot, in Holliday-2009, for an oft-injured closer, a marginal starting pitcher, and a hyped prospect the A’s didn’t feel was going to be among their best 3 OFers going forward.

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 Apr 7, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Right

I think this theory only makes sense if the A’s are planning on dumping Holliday in July (trade faster depreciating assets for slower depreciating assets untill they can be cashed in) or if the Holliday is the last piece for the A’s as division contender.

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 Apr 7, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions

A year of matt holliday

has value, too, especially for a team that projects to be contenders. Hell, July-October Matt Holliday has value too, and some team might be willing to pony up a package better than Street+Smith+CarGo to get it.

by swatnick on Apr 7, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions

absolutely

but 6 years of cargon, 2 of street, and however many of smith are worth more than 1 year of holliday+ the draft picks (assuming he stays with us). if we get a better return than the value of smith/street/gonzalez, ill be thrilled but i don’t see it happening

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 7, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions

He was very good defensively, worth about 9.5 runs last year in CF, way more in RF

And a fantastic arm. As for his offense, he was raw, but he had tools galore.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions

That was actually my biggest concern about the trade overall -

that Sweeney would have to play CF where Gonzalez was the “true CFer” of the two.

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 Apr 7, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Carlos would probably have been best served in AAA this year

So Sweeney (or Denorfia) would have been the CF anyway, if things went they way they should.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 7, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I mean long-term, going forward

I’m still hesitant about Sweeney in CF.

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 Apr 7, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not really sure CarGo was a true CF

He certainly looked the part and had the stats to back it up in 2008. But scouts in the past had seen CarGo more like what Sweeney is now: he can pass off as a CF but he probably would be better suited in a corner. Perhaps they had envisioned CarGo filling out and losing range. And defensive stats are known to have a large margin of error not really settling to true talent level until about three years of opportunities (and by then true talent could have changed). If CarGo was not a true CF his value goes down considerably. Corner OFers have to really mash to be valuable.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Apr 7, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions

I would say that he was very good at CF

But could have looked more like a RF because his arm was so good. Probably not quite Ankiel/Ichiro status, but not very far behind. He was quick and athletic, too. He was extremely capable of playing CF.

by NateHST on Apr 7, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah I read that they figured him to gain muscle and move to RF.

by OldhamA on Apr 8, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions

CarGon didn't Beane's most important tool: OBP

When scouts make mistakes regarding tools, it’s usually in the OBP category. Plate discipline isn’t typically one of the five tools. I googled “tools prospect baseball” and this list was one of the first I found:

I’ve excluded players who have seen any time in the big leagues, which eliminates some outstanding young players, including Dermal Brown, Michael Coleman, Chad Hermansen, D’Angelo Jimenez, George Lombard, Ruben Mateo, Ben Petrick, Julio Ramirez, Alfonso Soriano, and Vernon Wells.

8 of those 10 toolsy hot prospects are now considered busts. Give me Buck and Sweeney over the potential of a guy who put up a .273 OBP and similarly unimpressive minor league numbers. I think Beane traded him while he was still a “prospect” and had the most value.

And aren’t we likely to get 2 draft picks for Holliday if we aren’t able to retain him?

by BillyWannabeane on Apr 7, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions

his value was/is more than just his on field skill set

a lot of his value lies in the fact that he’s cost controlled for 6 years. i really don’t think gonzalez will turn into anything special. but i’m sure there are lots of gm’s who are gaga over his skillset and his contract.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 7, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions

cost-controlled bust?

so you’re saying there’s value in having a cost-controlled bust?

by rollierollieOxenfree on Apr 7, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions

you're ready to call cargon a bust after one year?

personally, i don’t think he’ll amount to anything. but it’s way too early to call him a bust. He was clearly highly sought after by many (including billy beane). and even if he is a bust, he clearly has value based on the deals he’s been in.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 7, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know if you remember..

But Beane did trade for the guy, it’s not as if his plate discipline issues just appeared out of nowhere.

That said, the A’s aren’t a team that can afford to watch the value of a prospect simply dissipate without receiving anything in return (Crosby), and given the uncertainty of a prospect like Cargon, it makes sense that he was the outfielder who was moved in the trade.

by joeiz on Apr 8, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

If he figures out where the strikezone is he's Beltran.

Whether one can learn where the strikezone is though is another matter.

by OldhamA on Apr 8, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I never thought Beane's offseason moves were because of Wolff

I think he saw an opportunity to contend in 2009 without seriously damaging the long term strategy.

Carlos Gonzalez has been projected more as a right fielder, but he did look much more comfortable in Centerfield than Sweeney has so far.

I also think Gonzalez is still seen as a very good prospect. He clearly was not ready for the major leagues last year, but that does not make him a bust. I think that Beane had to offer a quality young outfiedl prospect as part of the Holliday deal.

by OaklandSi on Apr 8, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions

The only problem is he did damage the long-term strategy

for a desperate grasp at making the playoffs.

by joeiz on Apr 8, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not sure he did that

but I’m also not sure he did enough to contend — another trade using prospects, this time for a good starter close to his walk year, would have done the trick.

Beane didn’t do this probably for a number of reasons, such as:
1) he didn’t want to damage the long term strategy by trading away more prospects/young players
2) he wasn’t ablel to get agreement on such a deal
3) he thought at least one of the young pitching phenooms would be ready

by OaklandSi on Apr 8, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Not only are there not enough pieces to contend,

but the promotions of Cahill/Anderson as a consequence of this misguided hope at contending is a decision I think the front office will regret several years down the road. Seriously, even more than just forfeiting an extra year of control of these guys, judging by yesterday’s start I’m concerned with how this could potentially impair their development.

by joeiz on Apr 8, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions

I share your concern

I hope we’re wrong

by OaklandSi on Apr 8, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't agree that the promotion of C/A are

“as a consequence of this misguided hope at contending.” I think Anderson has been promoted because he is fully ready to succeed at the major league level, and I think Cahill has been promoted because Duchscherer and Gio and Gallagher all proved unfit to start the season in the rotation. I fully support the Anderson promotion and don’t like the Cahill one, personally.

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 Apr 8, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

I hope Anderson is ready

but we won’t know that yet til the second time opposing teams see him, I think.

by OaklandSi on Apr 8, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions

I will say that Anderson is certainly more likely to succeed

this year than Cahill is, but that still doesn’t justify the decision to break spring training with him instead of going the Price/Weiters route and stashing him the minors for a month to delay the accumulation of service time.

The A’s are essentially willing to exchange a year of age 21 Anderson/Cahill for a year of age 28 Anderson/Cahill because they feel that the extra month or so in the beginning of the year will ultimately be crucial in winning the division.This is something I just don’t agree with, especially when the organization has viable stopgap options like Edgar Gonzalez. Not every prospect can pitch like Verlander did in his rookie year, and that’s basically what the A’s are pinning their shot at the division on.

by joeiz on Apr 8, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions