of Chavez playing a solid defensive 3B and hitting, say, .250/.350 with 20+ HRs, which is about what the A’s seemed to be hoping for in 2009.

I may turn out to look dumb on this, but I still think Gonzalez has a chance to end up being an impact player, quite possibly in CF, and I still think Sweeney will wind up being a 4th OFer — basically a guy that if he’s an every day starter for you, that’s one way you know your team isn’t very good.

I don’t think a bunch of people would’ve been that upset if the A’s lost because of youth and inexperience. Enough people would have understood that this really was a rebuilding year, something geared to improve the team in the near future. What we got was a mediocre team not really helped all that much by a rent-a-player and aging vets past their prime, false expectations built up that have failed, and more injuries.

I think the best scenarios from ownership’s perspective, in order of preference, would be…

1) Win with rent-a-year veterans
2) Win with young players out of the A’s’ system
3) Play badly with young players out of the A’s’ system
4) Play badly with rent-a-year veterans

I know people on AN would have been okay with outcome 3, although given the Angels’ injuries and struggles I’m sure a bunch of people here would have said, “We should have gone for it! Why didn’t we sign Branyan!” But on balance folks here would be happier watching Buck, Cunningham, Barton, and Moneypetit than the current crew. Still, it’s possible that losing just looks like losing to the average fan — they’ll show up when the young guys are developed, not when they’re developing.

Now, here’s are those scenarios in order of likelihood once you pick your approach:

1) Play badly with young players from the A’s’ system
2) Play badly with rent-a-year veterans
3) Play well with rent-a-year veterans
4) Play well with young players from the A’s’ system

I think ownership really wanted to win, in order to make money, and in order to build up support for whatever stadium deal they thought they were likely to get. And I think they saw an opportunity in the AL West, and wanted to go for it. So they figured that the most likely way to get, say, 88 wins would be to sign a bunch of veterans, even if it was also a likely way to get 70 wins, and to retard the development of the young players.

Even if he were hitting moderately well now, which he’s not, it was still a bad move.

I thought acquiring Holliday was a reasonable gamble, and I still do. But now that it didn’t pan out so well, I’m ready to cash him in for as much as we can get for him.

Getting Cabrera was pointless. Nobody expected him to actually be good, just better than Crosby, which is a low standard. I’d love to see him traded, too, even though I don’t expect him to net more than a low-grade prospect or two.

I was OK with Nomar as a bench player. I don’t think his presence on the roster this year has been too much of an impediment. Any Nomar-related complaints I have are against Geren’s lineup decisions, not against signing him in the first place.

and that it would also be nice to have a solid solution to the shortstop quandary for the next couple years after this (as opposed to having no current solution for that position next year and possibly beyond?)

As for this year in and of itself, Furcal is still outperforming O-Cab (not that this is saying a tremendous amount, naturally) and is likely to only do better as the season progresses- remember he missed much of last year due to injury, and he has probably needed some time to get back into the swing of things (while also being a bit cautious to be sure he stays fully healthy.)

Furcal: http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=279577

O-Cab: http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=111851

Add to this that Cabrera is a one year stopgap measure for a team that has no clear solution (heck, Green hasn’t even signed yet and even if he does he’s a couple years away most likely) at the shortstop position, and yes I would say I’m still disappointed that the A’s didn’t sign Furcal, even at $11MM per- I’m sick of the front office being penny-wise and pound foolish, or just plain cheap in other words.

I want to hear what Lew has to say about Billy Beane and if he stands behind Geren as the 2010 manager or not?

but now think the A’s should stay clear. They need to stay away from known injury risks until the current pattern changes within the organization.

Let Braden, Cahill, Anderson, Mazzaro, Outman (now someone else), and Gio make about 25 starts each, keeping their total innings down without having to keep their IP/start down too much (which would help the bullpen).

just to see what Spartacust could do in a home run derby. Man, that could be fun to watch.

In any park, some well-hit balls come up a little short and end up being warning-track outs. In that respect, the Coliseum just sets the bar a little higher than most. (And even that varies considerably according to the time of day and weather.)

But the foul territory punishes a certain style of hitting. A player who relies on making a lot of contact and fouling off a lot of pitches is going to be hurt worse, because some of those fouls turn into outs in the Coliseum. In contrast, someone like Jack Cust, who typically takes a lot of pitches but smacks it hard when he does make contact, is not much affected by the foul territory at all.

It makes you wonder how much the supposed A’s style of hitting is a function of the ballpark.