Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: AEG To Purchase Spurs?

Billy Beane Visits Athletics Nation: New Season Edition 2010 Part 1

I've interviewed Billy Beane many times now and for me, it never gets old.  I think this might be the first time that I've ever interviewed him within a week of a new season starting and that was intentional.  Course the problem is that so much has changed in the one week since I did this that some of these answers may seem a little dated.  I did get the chance to ask him about the Cust DFA and here is what he had to say about that:

It was really going to hamstring Bob's (Geren) flexibility with two left-handed DH's and no true utility player. We need Jack (Cust) to get some AB's to get him back to where he's capable and Eric (Chavez) deserves some AB's in order to shake off the rust from all his time off.

We didn't want to go through half the year going back and forth; that would do neither the players nor the team any good. Obviously Jack would need to clear waivers and accept assignment for this to all happen.

So without further ado, here is the AN beginning of the 2010 season exclusive interview with A's General Manager Billy Beane.

Star-divide

Tyler Bleszinski (Blez): We haven't spoken for a while, so before we get into the upcoming season and spring training, I want to discuss the offseason.  Tell me what you think about your offseason and how you went about constructing this 2010 version of the Oakland Athletics.

Billy Beane: It was probably our longest offseason in the sense that since the day the season ended up until almost the last week, we were pretty active.  We put together a wish list of needs that needed to be attended to.  We jumped out of the gate trying a couple of things and we actually had some money.  So what we wanted to do was pursue free agents because we didn't want to have to give up young players. At this point, we wanted to hold onto our young players and we looked at the free agent market as a way to fill those needs as it related to third base, adding an outfielder.  We got out of the gate quickly in terms of acquiring Jake Fox.  When free agency hit we were pretty aggressive on a number of guys and we weren't able to bring them here, not by virtue of having no finances.  In a couple of cases, in fact, we outbid other teams and still couldn't get them to come play for us. 

Blez:  Why do you think that was when you were offering the most money? I know each case Is probably different, but what were some overarching themes?

Beane: We're in a rebuilding situation and a lot of people at that point in their career are looking for more establishing situations and looking to win immediately.

Blez:  Can you talk about who it was that you were trying to bring in?

Beane:  You can figure it out pretty easily I think. (Editor's Note: I took this to mean Adrian Beltre and possibly Marco Scutaro.) We were very aggressive on Adolis Chapman and wound up the runners up there. Ultimately I think we got slightly outbid on that one, but we were very aggressive there. It was told to us that we were the runners up in that sweepstakes.

Blez:  What do you think of what the competitors in the AL West did and do you think this is the four-team race most are claiming it will be? What do you think of the other teams?

Beane: I would say it's probably the most closely bunched division.  Realistically, I think we've got a long way to go in terms of having room for error when it comes to health.  We have the longest road to go given where we were last year.  Overall, Texas has a good group of young players and made some key additions so I think they are a team on the rise.  I expect them to be certainly as good if not better than last year.  The Angels certainly lost some players from last year but I think they're coming up with a pretty good core group of players that are going to return.  They also made some pretty good moves, particular with Pineiro at the end, that puts them in a position that they historically have been over the last 10 years, which is going in as an early season favorite.  That being said, they did take some losses.  I was happy that they lost (Chone) Figgins but I wasn't necessarily happy that he just switched divisional rivals because I think he's going to have a big impact for Seattle.  I also think Cliff Lee will when he gets back on the mound and Milton (Bradley) should help them offensively.  Seattle and Texas have improved themselves.  I think we've improved ourselves but as I said, we've got a long hill to climb with the least amount of margin for error due to the health issues.  I still think it's a more closely packed division than the last couple of years and last year the Angels were clearly the superior team and were able to weather the injuries early in the season to still run away with the division. That will be difficult for anyone to do this year and I think health will determine where teams finish this year more so than any other recent season.

Blez:  For the A's, is health the big question with the starting pitching more than anything, or do you need to be healthy everywhere to compete?

Beane: You expect some nicks here and there and everyone goes through the major league season like that, but there are very few areas where we could get away with injuries that last too long.  If you look at us historically, the years that we won the division happen to be the years when we've had very healthy seasons.  We had very talented teams, but we had very healthy teams. With small market teams, the injuries have an exponential impact on how they finish. We've felt that the last couple years as much as anybody. The higher the payroll, the deeper the roster and deeper the organization may become to be able to go out and replace guys.  The lower the payroll, the lesser the room there is for the guys you have to get hurt.

Blez:  What made Coco Crisp appealing to you given that he seems like such a similar player to Rajai Davis?

Beane: He's a good player and he wanted to be a part of our rebuilding.  He's coming off an injury. For us, despite coming off the injury, he seemed like a good value relative to the cost.  There just wasn't a huge universe of players out there who were going to be available to us.

Blez:  Was there any thought given to selling high on Rajai after such a remarkable year last season, especially after signing Coco?

Beane: One of the things we wanted to try and achieve this year was some sense of continuity.  You look at Raj's minor league history, I think was a career .300 minor league hitter and was always labeled as a speed guy who wasn't going to hit.  We had to trust that he would and he did.  Selling high is all certainly relative in terms of what you were going to get for him.  There certainly was some interest but we thought the continuity and building up with what Raj did was more a benefit to us than shopping around to replace him with someone else.  The guy was a pretty dynamic offensive player for us and we wanted to trust that going forward.

Blez:  Was there any thought to trying to sign Ben Sheets to a longer term deal rather than just a one-year deal to try and take advantage of him coming off the injury?  Or was it mutually beneficial to just go short term, just in case the team doesn't perform well and he'd be easier to move at the deadline?

Beane: You hit the nail on the head.  It was mutually beneficial for both sides in terms of length.  Ben made it clear over the winter that they wanted to sign a one-year deal.  And let's face it, there's risk associated with a guy who has missed a year in terms of injuries. I don't think we were in a position to be able to go further than one year based on the risk and the history.  It was something we were both comfortable with.  Ultimately what we're trying to do with Ben and Coco is to give some stability to the young guys.  You want the club to be organic as possible and hope that having Ben around will allow the younger guys to develop and that they'll prepared to step in his place going forward. It was pretty clear that we were only interested in a one-year deal and they were only interested in doing a one-year deal. Our commitments going forward until things change (with the stadium situation) are going to be limited. So we want to reserve our flexibility for some of these young guys that turn into good major league players and bring some cost with that success.  We're a little bit in flux until we get a new venue in some way, shape or form.  If we don't get a new venue, we're going to stuck in the same cycle that we've been in for the last 10-15 years.

Blez: So your thinking is, you sign a Ben Sheets with the thought that if the team doesn't compete, then you can trade him to a contender for more young players around July.  Then if it does compete and you do well, then down the road you have the money freed up to re-sign a Brett Anderson or Ryan Sweeney. Is that what you're saying?

Beane: Exactly right.  To paint any other scenario would be disingenuous.  If we're having a good year and we're competing, we'll do everything within our power to allow it to continue during the season. We've always shown that if we're in it, we'll take advantage of the opportunity and trade for players if it improves us and gives us a chance to finish in the division. If not, then we follow the cycle.  To say anything else would just be disingenuous.  You have to keep your options open in this situation. If I were to say otherwise, it just wouldn't be being truthful to everyone.

Blez:  Is that the similar thinking behind bringing Justin Duchscherer back for that one-year deal despite the history he has with this organization?

Beane: From an over standpoint, we threw those kid pitchers out there (last year) and they were forced to either sink or swim.  It's not an ideal situation or environment for them.  With Justin, I don't think anyone could argue that when he's out there, he's very, very good. The risk of the cost of signing him versus the reward was worth it.  No matter where you are in the development of a team, having too much starting pitching is never a bad thing.  We felt confident that this is the best use of the $2 million we had at the time.  Finding a starting pitcher with that kind of success is difficult, despite the health risk we have with him. I don't think any of us are signed up to think he's going to throw 220 innings this year.  Although we think the innings and the time he's going to be out there will be beneficial to the team and also to many of the younger players on the team.  It gives us a lot more depth and allows us to not have to force feed guys who might need more time in the minor leagues.

Blez:  You mentioned guys that might be thrown in to sink or swim.  Do you think Trevor Cahill was thrown in that exact situation last year and what do you think it's done to him in terms of his ability to become the pitcher that most think he can become?

Beane: Yeah he's a kid who had spent the majority of the year in A ball the previous year and some at double A.  He had to skip a level.  I think he showed times when he showed significant improvement.  He won double digit games at his age which is pretty remarkable.  But he did lose some development time, there's no question.

Blez: Do you think that will harm him moving forward or do you think he'll be all right?

Beane: Not with Trevor.  He's a really solid make-up kid.  But it's not ideal the way we did it last year.  He's shown significant improvement this spring just by virtue of that experience.

Blez:  You traded away Brett Wallace.  Was it because you felt like he wasn't going to stick as a third baseman because with the ongoing concerns over Eric Chavez's health, the organization had a big-time need for someone to man that position?

Beane: We didn't think Brett would stay at third and we have a plethora of young guys at first base. We took from a position of strength and tried to address an area of need. Between Carter, Daric Barton, (Sean) Doolittle and then Brett, there was only one spot for four guys. It just seemed like a better utilization of our assets given our need for a player like Taylor in the corner outfield spot.

Blez:  You did get Michael Taylor back in that deal.  What did you like about Taylor in order to make that deal?

Beane: The right-handed power.  For his size, he's a very athletic kid. He'll be a good defender on the corner. For a guy who has hit for average up until this point, he's continued to develop power.  I just thought he was a unique talent in a position of need.

Blez:  A position of need for the A's was third base.  Then you went out and got Kevin Kouzmanoff. Do you feel like third base is finally taken care of for the first time in several years?

Beane: Yeah I do.  There was a certain amount of comfort in knowing that we have a guy who was proven but there is a certain amount of urgency in the organization to find that young guy, that next Eric Chavez.  That means developing him or drafting him, but it certainly buys us some time in a position of need since 2006 when Eric started to come up with some of his injuries.

Blez: Do you think Kouzmanoff will experience much of an improvement going from Petco to the Coliseum?

Beane: The Coliseum isn't...

Blez: Let me clarify, I know it isn't hitter friendly in terms of the foul territory, but you can get good power during the day specifically.

Beane: I know your point and it is certainly something that we looked at.  It's not the greatest hitting park in the world and there is a lot of foul territory.  It's much better to hit during the day.  It's certainly something we looked at.  I think with Kevin, he got off to such a miserable start and really had to catch up.  But if you look at some of his road production it stands to reason that he should see even more improved production after hitting in, arguably, the toughest hitting park in the game. It's something we looked at and I think we're thinking we'll get improved numbers from last season.  The other thing is that defensively he only made three errors last season and set a record for the fewest number of errors for the position.  Being able to nail it down defensively will be as big a help as anything.

Blez:  Do you feel OK with the A's shortstop situation right now?

Beane: I don't put a huge amount of stock into spring training, but leaving Cliff Pennington alone last year and letting him play certainly did wonders for his confidence coming into spring this year.  Between Daric Barton and Pennington, they've been our two best players down here (in Phoenix). Cliff has taken the bull by the horns.  We feel a lot better about it now than we did before we came into spring training.  He's looked fantastic down here.  We think he has the ability to be a very good everyday major league shortstop and he's certainly shown it this spring.  Adam Rosales has certainly shown himself to be very good as well.  We have more depth there than we did coming into this winter.  I think with Rosales and Cliff and now we have Grant Green down the road, we feel much better about it now than we did a year ago, that's for sure.

Blez:  Did you expect Adam Rosales to be pushing for a job this spring?

Beane:  Yeah, we were quietly very enthusiastic about being able to acquire him.  The other thing with him is that he's so versatile. He also brings a great energy to the game that I think is unique.  He's a lot like (Eric Byrnes) Byrnsie in that he always has that motor running.  That has a positive impact on everyone. We played him at short simply because it was an area of need for us.  But he's also played second and third.  At some point in the future, if need be, you can put him the outfield.  He's pleasantly been a surprise, but privately coming in, we were very excited to get him so it's not a total shock to us.

Blez:  It's coming close to decision time for guys. You have a week left. How much does having options left factor into decisions during the spring?

Beane: They do come into play. The other thing, particularly in our situation, people put such a huge emphasis on the club you break with, but you aren't going to only use 25 guys during the season. Sometimes you leave spring training trying to create the deepest roster by virtue of keeping the guys who are out of options and sending guys down. If you get rid of a guy who is out of options, then that gets rid of that option permanently.  That player is no longer available to you two weeks into the season.  Sometimes you break with the team that will afford you the deepest roster going into the season.

Blez: Then you can fill in as needed.

Beane: Right, exactly.

Blez:  Where does Travis Buck fit on the 2010 A's?

Beane: He's certainly a guy that we still think very highly of and the best answer to that is that it is still to be determined.

Blez:  You clearly went after pitching and defense this offseason.  It's clearly something that you value very highly.

Beane: Actually I would've liked to have gotten two 40 homer guys but they weren't available (laughs). When you're in our market, you go after what is available to you for the best value.  Baseball is a zero sum game.  Power is a very expensive commodity these days. Ultimately we're trying to go for the best available players for the cost. Sometimes they're guys with speed and defense.  This year the power bats certainly weren't going to be available to us.

Blez:  If those power bats aren't available to you, is it a situation where you have to look to load up in other areas like pitching and defense?

Beane: It's really simple.  It's who are the best players available and what we can afford.  It doesn't really matter what specific skill set they have. And in some cases, like someone like Coco, if he's not coming off an injury he's probably someone we won't be able to afford.  We have to take risk on the injury and him coming back healthy. Just understand that if Coco Crisp has a completely healthy year, we probably can't afford him either.

Blez:  Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power. 

Beane: They believe it because it's true.

Blez:  So does that affect the decision if you only have one spot left between say Eric Patterson and Jake Fox? If the team seems to be starved of power, maybe you keep one player over the other because of that weakness. If you feel the team needs more power, maybe you go with a Jake Fox because of his track record.

Beane: No, I think it's who is going to help you win the most games.  It's really that simple. If a guy has power and another guy doesn't have power but is a better player, you keep the better player. It's really that simple.  Power is just one part of the game.  Ultimately we're going to keep the guy who is going to help the team win as many games as possible.

Blez:  A couple of the big potential power threats for the A's are Taylor and Chris Carter.  I know it's tough to predict when these guys will make the team, but are they a part of the plan for 2010?  Who do you think is on the faster track now that you've seen them a bunch close up?

Beane: Ideally they push themselves into 2010.  But that ultimately depends on their own performance and the performance of the guys who are ahead of them right now. Given that they're at the Triple-A level and both of them handled themselves pretty well last season, but they could certainly use some more time at that level.  It's really going to come down to how they perform and develop and ultimately how the guys up here are performing at that point.  It wouldn't surprise me to see them up here at some point given that they're at Triple-A but we're hoping it's a situation where they force themselves into the picture.

 

Coming tomorrow morning: What benchmarks does Beane set for 2010, what it's been like to have Rickey around again and some outdated conversations about Jack Cust.   

Comment 284 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

[[lights candle that Cust isn't claimed]]

I like that Les Initials B.B. promises that if we’re in it, he’ll make the moves to try and win it, or at least take it as far as it could go towards that (miraculous) end.

[[stays tuned in his sleep…. just you all wait until later on ;)]]

Hey, I just bought the team from Lew Wolff... who wants to play third?

by emperor nobody on Apr 5, 2010 8:16 AM PDT reply actions  

yeah like 2008 when we were in it

and he traded away Harden and Blanton. That would have been the time to get Holiday, but whatever.

"I get nervous every fifth day," Braden said. "I figure the day that goes away is the day I saddle up behind the 7-Eleven desk."

by Jessse on Apr 5, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Considering how much the A's got out of those trades,

and how far behind the A’s finished up that season, NOT doing those trades would have been an unbelievable disaster.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

How much did the A's really get out of those trades?

Sean Gallagher
Josh Donaldson
Eric Patterson
Matt Murton
(-Chad Gaudin)
Adrian Cardenas
Josh Outman
Matt Spencer

Sure, a lot of players, but none that have made an impact. And we only can really hope that Cardenas and Donaldson are good and maybe that Outman will recover from TJ surgery.

by faninphilly on Apr 5, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Gallagher, in a way, turned into Kouzmanoff (by way of Scott Hairston)

I don’t care for Kouz, but you’ve gotta include that in the equation.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, it would help if you didn't manipulate the situation by refusing to consider players partially or fully acquired for those players

viz. Kouzmanoff, Wimberly and Fox.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

I didn't intentionally manipulate the situation

It just gets very confusing because each of those who have been flipped have only been part of trades (for example, gallagher +italiano +Webb leading to Hairston, then Hairston + Cunningham leading to Kouz +Sogard)

the fact is that harden and blanton were two impact players under control for at least 1 more year each who have not netted any impact players yet

by faninphilly on Apr 5, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Blanton was not an impact layer while he was with the A's

He was durable and put together solid outings, but he was not special and really pitched like a 3 or 4 pitcher.

"Life is tough .... It's even tougher if you're stupid." - John Wayne

by 94065 on Apr 5, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Which is still extremely valuable

I actually liked the return on the Blanton deal (and still do) but guys like Blanton are valuable commodities. The Harden deal on the other hand I wasn’t a fan of – he was a 4.4 WAR pitcher that year and the return we got on that was pretty poor, especially if you are going to give up on the main piece a year later.

by DeJay on Apr 5, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

You have got to be high to not like the return on the Blanton deal

If you want to get finnicky about the Harden trade, I won’t interrupt. But the Blanton deal is looking pretty sweet. Also, I echo sentiments regarding their performances (or lack thereof) since the deals went down.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Teach me

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

First we sow the seed, then, nature grows the seed, then...

we eat smoke the seed weed, then… we sow the seed…

Oh shut up, Neil! Shut up!

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I find the description of Joe Blanton as an "impact player"... strange

As for Harden… I mean, bottom line, most of his career homie’s been either injured or not very good. I wasn’t a fan of that trade at the time it was made, but more because I thought they could have done better for him than because I wanted him to remain in an A’s uniform (I didn’t).

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not very good?

Homie’s got a lifetime 3.39 era dude. Injured, yes, but what’s your argument for not very good?

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I'm specifically thinking of 2009 there...

Basically, Harden’s had 3 very good seasons and 4 seasons in which he was below-average in value.

Hanging on to him instead of taking the Cubs offer wouldn’t have been the monsterpiece of stupidity that not taking the Blanton offer would have, but given everything we’ll never know about the trade negotiations (such as whether Philly’s offer even comes onto the table if the Harden trade doesn’t happen first), the deal is well within the bounds of reason.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Below average in value?

Dude, come on. Yes he wasn’t too good in ‘09, although 7Mil for 141 innings of 4.09 era (along with a 10.9 so/9) isn’t necessarily below average in value. Couple that with his ’08 (2.07 era, 181so in 148 innings for 4.75Mil) and you lost me.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Average players are about 2 WAR

He has 4 seasons below 2 WAR. Really it’s 3 and 3, I guess, since he was a midseason callup in 2003.

The problem is that the 3 bad seasons are a. 3 of the last 4, and b. following a shit-ton of injuries.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

But the injuries would have an effect on that, wouldn't they?

Without the injuries…well, completely different story.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

They had an effect on his trade value, too...

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, yeah

Pretty sure he’s either still here now if healthy, or making a bunch of money somewhere else as it is.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

6.2 WAR over the last two years, I'm just sayin...

The problem is clearly injuries, not that he’s “not very good” when healthy. Even if you consider ‘07 he’s had a 6.6 WAR over 3 years, or 2.2WAR average.
By the way, his “value” was roughly 8.2 MIL last year or 1.2MIL over what he got paid.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Huh?

When he hasn’t been injured he’s been a very good pitcher.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

And the 1.6 WAR for Outman already

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Loved these answers:
Blez: You clearly went after pitching and defense this offseason. It’s clearly something that you value very highly.

Beane: Actually I would’ve liked to have gotten two 40 homer guys but they weren’t available (laughs).

Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A’s will be the lack of any power.

Beane: They believe it because it’s true.

"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez

by baseballgirl on Apr 5, 2010 8:30 AM PDT reply actions  

So, what we'll do is, we'll get rid of our best power guy.

I AM VERY MUCH ENJOYING THE HITTING OF BASEBALLS AND SCORING OF RUNS. -mikev
only an ZOMG CENSORED WORD FAMILY SITE quotes himself. -mikev

by mikev on Apr 5, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I think the real money quote is this one
If a guy has power and another guy doesn’t have power but is a better player, you keep the better player. It’s really that simple. Power is just one part of the game. Ultimately we’re going to keep the guy who is going to help the team win as many games as possible.

,Clearly, he thought Cust was not ‘the better player’, as much as you or I might disagree…

I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.

The ninth fastest thirty year old in San Francisco

by bobnothing on Apr 5, 2010 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

*maybe* he believes that about cust vs chavez

but that answer was in response to a fox vs patterson question….

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ya...

you’ve got to believe that Fox has the greater potential to be a more impacting player for this team than Patterson.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with that one

I still haven’t seen any evidence over the past three years that would suggest Chavez is a better overall player than Cust. A decent-fielding first baseman (which he can’t even be because 1Bs DO throw occasionally) is not that much more valuable than a DH, and there’s just no comparing the offense.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

More to the point,

neither one of them can play first base usefully because another player is usefully playing it at a higher skill level and is already in the lineup.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Of course

But the justification of Chavez over Cust for some is that Chavez can adequately handle first base. And that SEEMS to be Beane’s implication, too, since there’s no argument that Chavez is a better offensive player.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Chavez would NEVER accept a minor league assignment...

…whereas Cust is just desperate enough or lacking in self confidence that he would. It seems that Beane wants to keep both, and thus feels he has to gamble that Cust will clear waivers because, other than outright releasing, Chavez wasn’t an option.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right, but they should've just released Chavez

I don’t understand this new idea that keeping below-replacement guys around just because they’re warm bodies is a good thing.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

If people are upset at potentially losing about $2.5 million on Cust...

…how upset would they be over the money they’d lose on releasing Chavez?

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Difference: Cust is still good, Chavez really isn't anymore.

I AM VERY MUCH ENJOYING THE HITTING OF BASEBALLS AND SCORING OF RUNS. -mikev
only an ZOMG CENSORED WORD FAMILY SITE quotes himself. -mikev

by mikev on Apr 5, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ack

What you lose by releasing a player is not money (that’s going to be paid out; it’s already “lost”), it’s talent. In Chavez’s case, his talent appears to no longer be good enough to have value to a major league baseball team, hence, losing it is not anything of concern.

If Cust elected free agency, or was claimed on waivers (admittedly somewhat unlikely, but then again the White Sox appear to be expecting Mark Kotsay to DH sometimes for them…), they would lose his talent, which unlike Chavez’s, is considerably in excess of replacement level.

Although in that case they would, in some sense, gain $2.8M (as an unexpected windfall). Personally, though, I find the exact size of the team bank account to be of far less concern than the talent level of the roster.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure, but for a team that's already operating on a low payroll as it is...

…you can bet they’re going to be very reluctant to just release someone making as much money as Chavez is without putting him out there first to see if he sinks or swims.

Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can eat $10 million or so just to get rid of a player. The A’s? Doubt you’ll see that any time soon.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Am I just not making myself clear?

He’s worthless. The amount of money he’s being paid is irrelevant to how good he is and has no relationship to his talent level. What you are describing is an economically irrational thought process.

If there’s one thing teams on low payrolls can’t afford, it’s to pointlessly give away wins because their accounting department is stuck in the Middle Ages.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, you're making yourself clear

But what’s also clear is the A’s don’t agree with you.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, it's surprising that the A's, of all teams, don't seem to understand sunk cost dilemma.

But hey it’s Billy Beane and Eric Chavez…

"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Apr 5, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't figure out how this post adds anything to the discussion

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess it's my way of saying you can complain about the choice the A's have made all you want...

…but what’s done is done and now all we can do is wait and see what happens.

There’s not much of a discussion to really continue.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, you're free to ask Blez or whomever to shut off comments to this thread, then

I think that would be ludicrous, and I doubt you’d make much headway, but whatever.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tell me how I'm wrong on this

Billy was saying he cut Cust for flexibility purposes. Okay. But if you lack flexibility because you’re carrying 2 lefty DHs, why do you cut the one who is more likely to succeed? So far I haven’t said anything new.

But here’s the thing: if you wanted to make sure that you kept both players, wouldn’t Chavez be the one to cut? He’d be considered radioactive by other teams while he’s on waivers, meaning he’d absolutely clear. Then the A’s could offer him the minor league assignment long enough for him to get his swing back/die on the field. As for people who say he’d never accept such an assignment— what are his alternatives? If he doesn’t accept the assignment, he doesn’t get the big money, right? What’s he gonna do, test free agency? And would it be so bad to recoup a big chunk of change if Chavvy says “no?”

On the flip side, with Cust you have a decent chance at somebody being willing to kick the tires. So if you really want to keep both players, why not DFA Chavez? And I say this as a ridiculous Chavez supporter.

As for how I’m wrong, my guess is I’m somehow misstating Chavez’s contract situation and the A’s in fact can’t end up dodging paying his salary if he doesn’t re-up on a minor league assignment. ’Cuz otherwise it just seems to make too much sense.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Chavez's salary is locked in no matter what

because he has enough MLB service time to have that privilege.

Cust doesn’t, hence has to take the minor league assignment if he wants to keep his pay.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gotcha

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cust is making 2.65 million dollars

…which is forfeits if he asks for his release. That’s one hell of a crapshoot.

by richwol1 on Apr 5, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

He would get the full contract money...

…if he did clear waivers and did accept assignment… which he has pretty much said he’d do if given no other reasonable alternative. It seems Cust will get his money one way or another.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jack Cust says "Jack Cust is gonna get paid."

He should talk about himself in the third person more…

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

And, it's not like teams lined up for his services in FA.

Beane wants to trot Chavez out there until he breaks and then pull Cust back up to fill the void. I was as shocked as anybody but at this point I like the idea. I think Cust will clear waivers and then sit in Sacramento until it is time to fill in. Having Cust in Sacramento buys a little more time for Carter and Taylor while providing them with a professional mentor/minor league expert. Taylor, Carter, Cust sounds a lot better than whatever 3,4,5 the parent club is going to throw on the field tonight. I think I will be sitting at Raley field a few times this season.

The Sacramento Convergence concept offers Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the State a solution to feasibly construct a new multi-use Entertainment and Sports Complex.

by jjham15 on Apr 5, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right, I realise it's in response to a different question, but it's the philosophy he's espousing

TBH, I reckon it’s a mistake, and I’m not trying to actually justify it, but it does seem consistent, in a way, with what he says

I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.

The ninth fastest thirty year old in San Francisco

by bobnothing on Apr 5, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

It sounds to me like they want Cust to go down to Sac and work on his swing

When he gets it worked out they will bring him up. If that happens to be the same day Chavez goes on the DL so be it. I hope he clears and accepts the assignment to Sac as I would hate to lose him.

It was particularly funny to hear Bailey asking the director, "You want me to say ‘nipple clipper’ as a question?" Susan Slusser via The Drumbeat 03/20/2010

by adragon on Apr 5, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

it seems like a big risk

Billy sounds confident that Cust will make it to the Rivercats roster, but I think that’s far from a given.

by colin on Apr 5, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe not a given but...

Any other team out there could have signed him this winter if they thought he was worth the money. Given his spring, I doubt any team has suddenly changed their mind and now values his skill set more than Billy. Add in the availability of DH types that are still unsigned and I think it’s a fair assumption that he makes it to Sac.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Like I said, it’s a calculated risk but one that stands a good chance of happening, as far as ending up in Sacramento goes.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

It is possible, maybe even probable.

But team situations have changed since a couple months ago, and there just night be a team willing to claim now that didn’t show interest before.

I still hold the view that, if he goes unclaimed (again, in a sense), that this would indicate that his baseball value is not nearly as high as some here seem to think.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd agree with that

And I don’t think it’d be a case of all those teams being wrong while a few people here are right, either.

That’s all I’ll say on it.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Looking at rosters

And it looks to me like very few teams have room for a DH/poor corner outfielder. Dye could be had for a similar price and offers substantial upside as his OPS has consistently surpassed that of Custy.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seeing as he signed back with Oakland

It’s certainly a fair assumption that Billy and the brain trust value his skills above that of other teams, no?

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Then vs now. Times... and needs... may have changed for other teams.

We shall see.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, you can basically eliminate all NL teams from the equation.

I don’t think there are that many teams out there that would run Cust out there in the OF full-time…I could be wrong, but he just seems like a really poor fit for an NL team.

That leaves AL teams.

It seems to me that Cust’s situation is very much like Hank Blalock’s…except that in Cust’s case, he may find it even tougher to find a taker because he’s got a guaranteed big league deal worth several million and he doesn’t even have Blalock’s modest level of fielding capability.

Seeing as how Blalock is going to be in the minors for the “foreseeable future”, it doesn’t seem far-fetched that Cust could be retained…

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I posted elsewhere...

…that another team may claim him because their cost would be minimal. Meaning that they’d only have to pay ML min, with the A’s picking up the rest. I have since read that that is not the case here. Whoever claims him would have to pay his full contract… though I am not clear why the difference. I can see where that would scare some teams away.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think the ML minimum would only come into play...

if Cust is eventually released by the A’s.

That is what happened with Willy Taveras. A’s DFA’d him, 3 days passed, nobody picked him up on waiver and he was eventually released.

At the point of release, the releasing team assumes responsibility for whatever salary the player was signed-for, minus whatever a new team decides to pay for the player’s services (usually the ML minimum).

In Cust’s case, if someone picks up him right now off waivers, they will be responsible for his current salary…but if they waited till he was released, they could get him for much cheaper…but it seems like if he passes through waivers unclaimed, the A’s won’t release him.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does he have the ability to refuse the assignment???

He was pretty angry (as anyone would have been). I guess if it’s the matter of a job – you take the one you don’t want over none!

by Berry Jo on Apr 5, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

He can but he would forfiet the $2.65m

which would be a dumbass thing to do

"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Apr 5, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

He already stated he would accept assignment if it came to that.

The Sacramento Convergence concept offers Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the State a solution to feasibly construct a new multi-use Entertainment and Sports Complex.

by jjham15 on Apr 5, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

He also said in the same sentence he wouldn't let the A's walk all over him

Doesn’t sound like a happy camper…

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure

I just don’t want that to happen.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I interpreted his statement as... "I'm gonna cash that check!".

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

How's that work again?

Do other teams only have to pay league minimum if they sign Cust after he clears waivers?

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope

If Cust clears waivers and then the A’s release him than anyone who signed Cust at that point would only be obligated to pay him the big league minimum. The A’s would be on the hook for the $2.5 million minus the salary Cust’s new team is paying.

If Cust clears waivers and then refuses the minor league assignment then he becomes a FA and the A’s owe him nothing.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Apr 5, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Makes sense, thank you

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm, is it actually nothing?

Wouldn’t he get 45 days pay, or is that just for guys on one-year tender offers?

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Guys who get signed via arbitration have some kind of buy-out

I’m not sure exactly what the numbers are. The A’s refused to offer Cust arbitration… they essentially signed him as a straight FA so he doesn’t get any kind of buy-out.

And obviously he’s made whatever portion of his 2010 salary the A’s have already paid him, so if he did refuse the assignment the A’s would be out that money.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Apr 5, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess this is confusing because it really doesn't happen often

Either a FA signing stays on the team, is traded, or is released. Rarely do they get designated for assignment, but kept in the organization.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why so?

They’re running Hafner out there. The only team I can think of is the ChiSox but they could bring back Dye for a similar price…

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

And Ozzie wants Kotsay/Jones

Kenny Williams was ready to bring back Thome, but Ozzie didn’t want it. And Kenny looks to be setting up a justifiable Ozzie firing because of all the tension they have, so he’s letting Ozzie do things his way this year.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good point, I forgot about Thome.

He signed for 1.5M I think with 750K in incentives. He also OPS’d .847 last year with 23 HRs in 362 ABs. Cust was at .773 with 25HRs in about 150 more ABs.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL Kotsay at DH.

Every time I see or hear that mentioned, I smile knowing at least someone out there has it worse than us.

"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Apr 5, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

You have to believe that the team

is magnifying his struggles publicly so they can depress interest in him.

If I were Beane it’s what I would do if I really wanted to keep Jack around.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Apr 5, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Talk Smack?

I mean, everyone already knows what he has to offer right? Shotty D, descent pop, walks and Ks. The thing is he actually seems to enjoy Oakland and probably understands that they’re one of the few teams that value his skill set. He CAN refuse the assignment so let’s not piss him off too much.

by Sacred#24 on Apr 5, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, we'll see how Geron manages the DH early on.

But if we see a Chavez/Fox platoon vs. right/left handed pitchers, I think we’ll see better overall numbers than we would with Cust. Beyond that, I just don’t like Cust’s attitude. He was to me the only unlikable guy on the team.

"Life is tough .... It's even tougher if you're stupid." - John Wayne

by 94065 on Apr 5, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't like players who suck

Which, for this team, leaves lots of likability to be desired.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

that second answer was shocking for it's bluntness

Not all that often folks come straight out and say it like that.

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

I like those quotes.

They made me laugh through the sobbing.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Apr 5, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thank you Blez, and Billy!

It is amazing that AN has such access to interviews like this one!!!

"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez

by baseballgirl on Apr 5, 2010 8:42 AM PDT reply actions  

It's clear...

that Beane is begrudgingly going the “speed and defense” route with the offense.

However, that certainly doesn’t jive with his dismissal of Cust from the 25-man roster.

It always interests me whenever I hear him mention things about the personality or makeup of players. Beane’s public perception is that he’s just this soulless, number-crunching, pseudo-corporate, ruthless executive that puts no stock into makeup, personality, character or chemistry issues.

In this interview, he specifically mentions the fact that he thinks Trevor CAhill will be fine, even after all the numbers showed he didn’t do too well last season despite the wins and artificially-low ERA – basically because he has “great makeup”.

He also likens Rosales to Byrnesie and how his enthusiastic style of play would rub off on other players and benefit the team.

Those types of statements fascinate me…are they just human-interest, PR-lip service, or does he actually believe that makeup, character and even “flair” can have an impact in player and team performance?

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 8:46 AM PDT reply actions  

If I remember correctly

Lewis made it fairly clear in Moneyball that Beane does put huge stock into player makeup, since that’s essentially one of the reasons Billy himself flamed out.

by rrryanc on Apr 5, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think you're partially right there.

I think that especially in terms of the amateur draft – where the team presumably has more choice in the players selected – Beane has put some stock in character and makeup…

However, the choices of Corey Brown and Ian Krol in recent years kind of refute that…even though both of those guys seem fine now, they certainly had some makeup and character questions surrounding them during the draft.

I don’t know…I think it’s just a case-by-case basis. Obviously, I think (I hope) that Beane and Company saw a lot more than just “instant energy” in Adam Rosales’s game that made them want to acquire him.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

Im going to disagree with that assesment of both

Both were involved in incidents where they themselves were not the instigator. Krol was a nondriving party in a car with alcohol in it. Brown was not the person that was of age in his incident, which was three years of straight sailing before he was drafted. Now, I wouldn’t put either on their resume but I think the level of makeup questions is overblown when compared to Krol’s I didn’t play my senior year of HS, how is that going to affect my development question, or Browns, curveballs? are you sure I have to stop swinging through them to be a major leaguer questions.

"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Apr 5, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, just because YOU don't see those incidnets as indicative of makeup issues...

doesn’t mean that a lot of evaluators out there agree(d) with you.

I agree with you that both “trangressions” were very minor in the grand scheme of things, but I’m fairly certain that during draft time, there were definitely whispers that certain teams were shying away from both players due to questions about these incidents.

Beane and the A’s were clearly not one of the teams acting that way…

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Krol is baffling

if the stories that we read are what was going on, it seems like that is true for every teenager.

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps the most annoying thing in the world is when people use "Every" to refer to teenagers doing stupid and illegal things

As a point of fact, I never did what Krol did. I know others who didn’t.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Irony or hyperbole aside

point taken

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Honestly, I wasn't being hyperbolic.

I am very proud of certain decisions I’ve made in my life and in my lifestyle choices, and very few things bother me more (and nothing that immediately comes to mind) than when people assume I’m just like everybody else in certain ways. I realize it wasn’t intentional on your part, since the comment does apply to most people. This is the one think I’m especially sensitive about, so I apologize for making a thing of it.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Corey Brown is a good example

of “moneyball” applied to player makeup. In terms of player makeup he looked much worse than he was. The short recap of his story made him look very very bad, and a lot of teams never looked beyond that. The result is that Brown was undervalued makeup-wise and thus fell lower in the draft than he would have otherwise. Beane looked deeper and determined that Brown’s makeup wasn’t nearly as bad as it was generally perceived to be. Corey Brown is the player-makeup version of the fat catcher.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

by iglew on Apr 7, 2010 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

As in:

He usually give the pretty obvious answer – even when it’s clear that sometimes there’s more going on.

by sleepingcobra on Apr 5, 2010 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

Re: "…are they just human-interest, PR-lip service, or does he actually believe that makeup, character and even "flair" can have an impact in player and team performance?"

For me, it has been clear since Little League, just by virtue of being on a lot of teams up through varsity HS ball with a lot of different types of players—no matter how high the level of competition—that makeup, character and even "flair" actually do have an impact on team performance, whether detrimental or positive.

I have had a lot of teammates that outperform more skilled players due to hustle and heart, and a lot of less skilled players stick around because of attitude and “compete” level over the guys who were handed everything since being dubbed a better player at a young age.

Obviously, my observations don’t reach a big league clubhouse, but human nature tells me that sometimes players make those adjustments, sometimes they don’t. Maybe those “intangibles” such as makeup and character don’t have as big of an impact at the major league level as say a bunch of 10 year old’s playing the game, but IMO, they don’t become a moot point, either.

I think it is awesome to read Beane actually address some of those things in his players for a change, and I think that it is something he truly believes, rather than just lip-service. Afterall, he himself was quite the blue-chipper at one point, but it is safe to say his “makeup” lacked much to be desired at the time.

But who knows?

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Apr 5, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

I think if you read the first couple questions of the Ziegler interview...

…it seems clear that there is something to character and such when it comes to the makeup of a clubhouse. I figure the more comfortable people are around each other, the more normal everything feels and the easier it is for them to go out and focus on the games instead of each other.

It’s easy to forget sometimes that these teams are made up of a bunch of different personalities and sometimes there can be clashes.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly.

Plus, how could Beane discount that, especially when through the ‘00 decade the A’s had always been known to have a great clubhouse atmosphere?

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Apr 5, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

btw great Ziegler interview :)

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Apr 5, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Having good makeup means that a player is more likely to put a lot of work into improving his game

That means it’s more likely, ceteris paribus etc etc, that he will actually improve his game, and thus more likely that he will become a quality player, which will be reflected in his tangible performance.

This is uncontroversial. What is controversial is assertions that players’ makeup has an impact on OTHER players’ performance.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

You've never been in a work or classroom situation...

…or any group setting or activity, for that matter… where one person’s attitude or “make-up” affected the tone of the environment?

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, the power of common sense.

"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me

by padmadfan on Apr 5, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

So many ways I could go with this.

On the one hand, I could point out how you’re confusing evidence with proof… again.

or

I could point out that the corrected unspoken completion of your statement would read “…absolutely no evidence that I accept…”… again… which is really the crux of your statement, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

or

We could discuss… again… that not all evidence is automatically correct, and that sometimes it is surely circumstantial, but until the sought after definitive proof is provided it is still evidence. Even in the post above where it states it is controversial suggests that evidence does indeed exist, and that it has not been definitively proven either way.

This is deserving of a facepalm, really, but I’ll ask a question instead…

…Why do you (seem to) believe that baseball players operate in a vacuum… individual and independent vacuums, no less… apart from the rest of the human species?

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Then where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that players perform worse because of another guy being a jerk (or whatever)

I don’t think baseball players are different. I’ve worked at plenty of places with complete morons, but unless their moronic actions directly affected my own work, it had absolutely NO EFFECT on my performance.

Just like I don’t think Milton Bradley being an asswipe made Derrek Lee strike out last year (and, for what it’s worth, Lee had one of his best seasons ever).

Baseball is, primarily, an individual sport. The only times Bradley being an idiot mattered were when he was getting kicked out of games or being suspended (and a worse player had to play) or throwing the ball into the stands with less than 3 outs. But that’s absolutely not what you’re talking about.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

You want a makeup metric?

Of course there’s no evidence. Some things are more difficult to quantify than a hit or strikeout. But, as PT points out, it’s uncontroversial that a players makeup CAN affect his peformance because it’s more LIKELY (not definitely) that he will work hard and improve. That’s two signifigant qualifiers right there.

Uncle Leo then expressed a simple truth that we’ve all experienced where the negative makeup of an individual adversely affected morale or productivity of a group. Conversely, I think we’ve all been part of a group or team where the positive attitude and professional conduct inspired us to do our best.

So, IF the other individual can be affected by the performance of others, which is dependent on the individuals own psychology, then POSSIBLY other people on the team could be affected in a positive or negative manner. Again, more qualifiers, so you can see the difficulty in determining for sure if it has an effect as its entirely context dependent.

This is the main problem with arguments against “lucky streaks” and “clubhouse chemistry”. It seems the main argument against them is the objection to the idea that performance is somehow improved magically during the above examples. That’s not really the case. The truth is it’s very easy to do less than your best. You can always do a lot worse. In positive professional environments it’s more likely you will do your best. Just as in negative environments you could be tempted to just get by. If you think baseball players don’t fall into this discussion just like we do, think again.

Not trying to start a flame-war or even an argument. I’m too excited about opeing day. Which is now! Good Luck A’s, see you out there.

"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me

by padmadfan on Apr 5, 2010 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't accept the premise. Sorry.

Also, you’re totally confusing my point. I agree with PT. A player’s individual makeup matters for that player. I wouldn’t want a guy who doesn’t work hard (especially a young player), or a guy who might get arrested any day now, etc. But it’s not because of an affect on teammates. It’s because I could probably find a better, more reliable player to fill that same role.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno if I can find the study

But I read where it turns out that a negative influence in a group actually leads to more productive work, even though the members of the group think they’re being less productive, and vice versa.

So maybe the right thing to do is get one clubhouse cancer to motivate everyone else to work harder to separate themselves from his actions and views?

by rrryanc on Apr 5, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

There are certain situations in which emotions have an impact on productivity

In law, it is probably the case that a happy lawyer will write more coherent briefs than an angry, tilting lawyer.

In poker, it’s quite well known to be the case that a happy poker player will play better than an angry, tilting poker player.

There is absolutely bupkis to go on to believe that a happy baseball player will play better than an angry, tilting baseball player. Baseball is not a thought-sport.
The reaction time required to hit a major league baseball pitch is almost completely unique in the context of modern employment. No one else does that. Comparisons to other work environments are completely off base.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I know that in restaurants, emotions can have a huge effect on productivity.

Working in a large restaurant is kinda like working in a zoo or in a real life soap opera.

However, I think you’re right in stating the uniqueness of hitting a baseball in the context of employment. It’s the hardest thing to do in sports, and it is silly to compare hitting to most any other task.

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Completely off base?

That’s a very strong statement. As in there is absolutely no way attitude can matter.

I can think of a number of ways attitude might have an effect.

1) if you don’t give a shit, you’re less likely to tolerate short term pain for the sake of the team.
2) IYDGAS, some may be prone to going out & getting smashed & having an hangover.
3) IYDGAS, you may worry more about the stats that give you a better contract next year, rather than what helps win.

Sure, it won’t turn the Yankees into the Royals, but there could be a win or two in flux.

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Some players play better when they don't give a shit, because they don't obsess over irrelevant details

Others play worse, perhaps for the reasons you’ve outlined. There is no way to predict which category a given player will fall into.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

The work that I do/have done bears utterly no relationship to professional baseball

The notion that you can compare the two is ludicrous. The only thing that I and Eric Chavez have in common is that we sometimes get a paycheck from someone else.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see.

How long does your battery last?

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I should start keeping a running tally of every time someone is unable to come up with anything better than a juvenile insult as a response to an argument I make

I think it’d be pretty satisfying, actually.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Statistically satisfying, no less.

But seriously, is this so-called “juvenile response” any worse or less substantive than your usual self-righteous arrogance when you don’t have anything more to contribute other than surface indignation? “The notion that you can compare the two is ludicrous.” Ummm, yeah, that was informative.

I’ll let you in on a little hint… Those who constantly feel picked on the most are usually picked on precisely because they make themselves the easiest targets… and are completely unaware of the part they play in the whole social dynamic.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 6, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I realize this is a direct reply to a question regarding you're own experience

working in groups, but I think the response gets away from the main point we’re all throwing darts at, which is, does an individual’s behavior or “make-up” have an impact on (a) that individual’s performance, and (b) the group’s overall performance?

I think we agree that individually, yes, it does. As for the team aspect, it is certainly a more grey area. It is not quantifiable. But I think it does have an impact, regardless of what field of expertise said group is in. Baseball players are human. Lawyers are human. Humans are very emotional creatures (well, most of them). That is really all I can say to try and convince somebody, it really is that simple to me.

My best example would be the reaction to the Sheets signing this offseason with regards to Ben Sheets and Dallas Braden.

Upon hearing of the signing, Dallas Braden took the time to actively seek out Ben Sheets’ cell phone number and send him a “Welcome to Oakland!” text message.

Ben Sheets replied with something along the lines of “Hey thanks man! Excited to be here, be ready to work hard and have fun!”

This type of thing is totally human, nothing remotely exclusive to baseball or toilet scrubbing, or flipping burgers, or whatever. Human.

I think it’s safe to say that their relationship is more positive than if that little exchange didn’t occur. I think it’s also safe to say that with their work relationship starting off on the “right foot” (luckily since Braden can’t feel his left), that is is probable that they are more willing to work for each other and help each other out.

Who knows, Sheets could be just as willing to be a great mentor, even if he was never officially welcomed to Oakland by a teammate. It is something that can’t be measured, won’t show up on the score sheet, can’t be accounted for, isn’t quantifiable, isn’t admissible in court, whatever. It still exists. It still has an affect.

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Apr 7, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

I love the intangibles.....people are people....even athletes!!

This is the stuff that makes a team – that no one thinks will do anything – surprise us all!

by Berry Jo on Apr 5, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with you 100%, dtownmbrown

I think the worst scouts and GMs are the ones who DON’T understand this.

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 5, 2010 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Stick a Milo on him".

I think that answers the question.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Apr 5, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

how to quantify it, though

Even if you believe that flair / grit / great makeup have an effect, how can you quantify it?
How many wins does a clubhouse cancer cost you? Think of it in terms of where you work – it’s not always obvious from the interview who is good at working, and who is good at making a first impression only. Or folks ala Board Game who can be a sort of see saw, making the UP times more up, and the DOWN times worse.

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think it's more like

all else being equal, the A’s will draft and sign players whom they believe have a “good makeup”, whatever that may be. Also, the team does have a chance to learn a lot about players whom they do sign. If he has a good makeup, they’re more likely to know it now rather than when they saw the player work out only a couple times.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Solid work as usual

The yearly Beane interview is one to look forward to, whether or not people agree with or like his decisions. It can’t be said he’s not as open and honest with us as reasonably possible, though.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 8:50 AM PDT reply actions  

I disagree.

He could openly talk about how he and his staff actually evaluate talent. Maybe not every specific number, but he seems to put on his RBI Face™ whenever talking about the A’s publicly.

by sleepingcobra on Apr 5, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't know that something like that would be the best way to go

I’m sure there’s still an element of secrecy to how each team evaluates talent, especially prior to a draft. After the first dozen or two players go, often where they’re expected to, it becomes a game of playing your cards close to the vest in hoping the things that make one player appeal to you don’t get around so someone else takes him first.

I wouldn’t expect him to go into the talent evaluation side for something that’s going to be read by a lot of people, including people from other teams.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed

I suppose I just mean I’d like it if he gave slightly more insight into what he’s really thinking. To me most of his answers just sound like what Gary Radnich would say or something. It just seems sugar-coated and watered down, and I think we all know Beane is not a sugar coated or watered down guy.

by sleepingcobra on Apr 5, 2010 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Especially with the draft

hell there was a yahoo article about how the Braves would send their top talent evaluator into the woods behind Hayward’s HS baseball field so other teams wouldn’t know how much they liked the kid.

"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Apr 5, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

And now teams will be checking out the woods in the future

Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."

by DMOAS on Apr 5, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good interview, thanks

The A’s have the lowest payroll in the American League this year. It’ll be interesting to see how many wins Billy can get for the buck.

by coffee roaster on Apr 5, 2010 8:53 AM PDT reply actions  

I wish that Beane was less guarded and more human(e).

I wished that he speak more openly and specifically about players when he didn’t care for them or even when his confidence in them was lost; this I think would show his committment to being genuine (like he’s being in the case of Sheets). I also wish that he be more transparent about his thinking that went into building a team — specifically through trades. I hope that he tips his hand more now (and in the future) so that other GMs in the league can better fleece him.

Finally, I wish that he would just spend money on players, no matter the costs, and stop being so concerned with this econometrics bullshit where win likihood is all boiled down to money — it’s so impersonal.

In all seriousness, Blez, thank you for the interview. We appreciate the access you have and that you share it with us.

by LowcountryJoe on Apr 5, 2010 9:39 AM PDT reply actions   3 recs

I thought this was one of most blunt interviews of him I've read

without him going too deep into the nuts-and-bolts of the A’s decision-making process.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree.

And, truthfully, without sarcasm added, I am happy to read whatever Beane provides by way of an interview. He doesn’t need to do this. We’re not entitled to this kind of access he allows.

by LowcountryJoe on Apr 5, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Indubitably

But it’s perfectly ok to daydream out loud about what I or anyone else wished the interviews were like.

by sleepingcobra on Apr 5, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was just writing something to this effect

You did it better.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

What an awesome series of posts to kick off the season.

Great stuff as always, Blez. Others have said the same thing but this was probably my favorite answer:

Beane: No, I think it’s who is going to help you win the most games. It’s really that simple. If a guy has power and another guy doesn’t have power but is a better player, you keep the better player. It’s really that simple. Power is just one part of the game. Ultimately we’re going to keep the guy who is going to help the team win as many games as possible.

This never happened, but I saw you leave
and crawl into a bed of broken windows.

by danmerqury on Apr 5, 2010 10:13 AM PDT reply actions  

Forget I said anything.

This never happened, but I saw you leave
and crawl into a bed of broken windows.

by danmerqury on Apr 5, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

YOU ARE TOO LATE

YOU HAVE ALREADY RELEASED THE KRAKEN.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love that meme, and I'm not sure why.

Although the vertical comic strips people have been making out of it aren’t exactly subtle.

This never happened, but I saw you leave
and crawl into a bed of broken windows.

by danmerqury on Apr 5, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't know why I find it so funny

It must have to do with a more or less legitimate actor like Liam Neeson saying something so ridiculous so convincingly.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

another comment to unrec and turn shit brown.

"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT

There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"

by designatedforassignment on Apr 5, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions   3 recs

Rec'd :p

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

eh

wasn’t meant as troll or anything.
Just reacting to the AB’s I saw of Cust’s in Spring Training.

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

or his eye for the strike zone is diminished.

But you are correct – it does not stand as an argument unless I have stats saying that K’s looking have changed by a meaningful ratio. I didn’t do that – it was an off the cuff gut reaction.

A man less congenitally lazy than I would have done the research :-(

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Players generally have an improved eye for the strike zone as they move into their 30s

Unless there’s actually something wrong with his vision, but I don’t think that’s what you were saying.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

and is K rate this spring

is not different from last year, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before…

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

3 k's and trying to run someone over in the field

probably did not help his cause according to SS

Chavez is not only the A’s longest-tenured and highest-paid player, he’s also a real favorite of GM Billy Beane; they have as good a relationship as any GM and player in the game. The fact Chavez hadn’t been informed about this makes me think it was a decision made very recently – perhaps even during the day yesterday. Was it Cust’s three strikeouts, none very pretty, or him nearly running over a teammate in the outfield?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/athletics/detail?&entry_id=60569#ixzz0kGNpWhqh

by Trainman on Apr 5, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Where's clockwerks and the gang when you really need 'em?

Leopold Bloom on why he loves Mr. Peter Gammons, his best buddy:
"Peter Gammons systematically ignored and/or ran down the A’s in the pages of Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News for a good ten year stretch in the late seventies and early to mid-eighties. Trust me, the c**ksucker hates our team."

by DMOAS on Apr 5, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm only halfway through the interview right now, but this quote bothers me
Sometimes you leave spring training trying to create the deepest roster by virtue of keeping the guys who are out of options and sending guys down. If you get rid of a guy who is out of options, then that gets rid of that option permanently. That player is no longer available to you two weeks into the season. Sometimes you break with the team that will afford you the deepest roster going into the season.

Now, I agree with that with respect to Fox, who I think is not very good but still useful. I’m okay with Fox over Powell. But that’s the justification for keeping Patterson, and it just pisses me off. I just don’t understand why it’s a GOOD THING to have him in your organization. It’s baffling, really.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 10:19 AM PDT reply actions  

'tis a difficult thing to understand

Why on a team with an obvious lack of power do you DFA Cust and keep Patterson on the bench? Why not option Buck to AAA if you’re so intent on keeping Patterson? Of course… what do you do once Crisp comes off the DL?

I think the A’s think that Cust needs consistent at bats and with Chavez being somewhat healthy and Fox being out of options that simply wasn’t going to happen. Perhaps Cust is a much better starter than Patterson but a worse bench player.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Apr 5, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think Patterson is absolute total baseball garbage. He's not worth a roster spot under any circumstances in my eyes

While I think it’s dumb, I do understand some of the Chavez over Cust arguments. I don’t understand ANY argument that includes Eric Patterson on a Major League roster. If the A’s had no other viable options (and clearly they do) for that 25th spot, I still wouldn’t want Eric Patterson to fill it. I’d expect them to scour the waiver wire to find someone who isn’t entirely useless.

Any team that considers Patterson for their team just isn’t interested in winning baseball games.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Patterson = Fail?

So far, he is losing the battle eh?

by MMunoz33 on Apr 5, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't understand the level of Patterson hate

In the case of Nico and baseballgirl, I expect them to be down on him due to things like failed bunt attempts, baserunning errors, or taking bad routes to fly balls.

But I generally consider you to be in the more statistically-oriented camp and I’m struggling to understand that argument against Patterson. From what I see, he hasn’t hit well in the majors, but its only 267 PA, less than half a season. That’s an even smaller sample size to get UZR numbers for the four positions he has played, but we can probably all agree that he’s below average in the field. But, on the other hand, he has hit consistently well in the minors and can steal a base or two. Certainly not a prospect, but he could cut it in a utility role. Maybe the argument is that real utility players need to be able to handle 3B and/or SS?

by colin on Apr 5, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, for one thing, he can't play adequate defense anywhere.

So all of his value has to be in his ability to hit (and base running, which seems to be kinda meh even though he’s fast).

I’ve seen probably 200 of those 267 PAs, and while it’s not a very large sample, he looked completely incapable of being a productive major league hitter. Of course the numbers, with the exception of when he had a .484 BABIP over the last four weeks of the 2009 season, back that up.

I know he’s had some really nice AAA numbers, but he’s 27 years old (as of this coming Thursday) and has never shown anything that makes me believe he can actually play in the majors. He can’t hit, can’t field, he can run (but can’t run the bases well), and also seems to be poor at the little things (and usually guys who are bad at the big things are good at the little things).

He bats lefty so he can’t platoon with anybody. He can’t be used as a defensive replacement. He can’t be used as a pinch runner for anybody who plays the field (because you don’t want him in the field). I just don’t see what use he has.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Please don't put me into the camp of "non-stat" because

in fact I think stats are valuable and important, just not “all-telling.” Patterson’s inability to add anything on defense is a big part of why I think he’s useless.

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 5, 2010 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see no reason for Patterson to be on the roster

Then again, I don’t get why Ross is in Oakland either!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Apr 5, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't decide whether I'm excited or not with the Ross thing

I guess it comes down to this, really, that the A’s do have a good number of bullpen options, so the pitching coaches and upper management must have been pretty darn impressed with what they saw in his pitching

I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.

The ninth fastest thirty year old in San Francisco

by bobnothing on Apr 5, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Ross thing was a really curious move.

I really don’t think it’s all that great of a move. Jane Lee seems to indicate that the team still views him as a starter in their long term plans. I guess they want to do the Earl Weaver thing and break him into the majors as a reliever then stretch him back out later in the year?

I think that’s foolish…Andrew Bailey worked out great going in the other direction from starter to reliever, but I don’t think it’ll work out great for Ross going in the opposite way. Especially considering his mechanics…you don’t want that guy getting up and throwing every day or two on short rest in a bullpen setting…

I’d much rather have him start the year in extended Spring, if they are really concerned about minimizing his innings totals.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 5, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm hoping this is just extremely short term to get Ross some work with Curt Young

If they still see him as a starter then I would hope by the end of the month he is back starting in the minors when the bullpen is a little healthier. Last year was Ross’s first full year in the minors and he through about a 130 innings. Seems to me that if you still want him to be a starter you got to let him build up his arm strength before you try to go the Johan Santana route with him.

by OkayJay81 on Apr 5, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agree about Patterson...

…and that’s the aspect that bothers me the most. Fox has potential (at least I think so), but Patterson has been with the organization long enough to pretty clearly indicate it ain’t gonna happen.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. This is why I hate the options system. It literally removes baseball needs from the decision making process far too often.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not the option system's fault.

Most teams, you know, get rid of bad players when they’re out of options.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Teams do have that option...

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Apr 5, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

They do, but...

…most teams, if not all, make the same types of decisions for the same reasons at some time or another. Y’all act as if the A’s are the only team that doesn’t just release players who won’t serve them as well on the field.

Pitching and defense wins pennants, but offense sells tickets.

by UncleLeo on Apr 5, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I suppose one could replace options with a rule

that players who are “optioned” in years 4+ will be paid MLB minimum and accrue MLB service time.

Problem is, the owners probably wouldn’t go for it because it would result in them paying out more dollars in salary— even though it would incrementally increase the quality of the on-field product.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Apr 5, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

I like this idea.

Veteran minor league players often play for jackshit salaries. Making sure that certain quad-A guys get paid the minimum while allowing club retention is good for their wallets and good for the big club rosters.

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

So are the A's going to play baseball Angels style

IE first to third stealing lots of bases etc?

Bad pick Peyton "Regular Season" Manning!!!

by Athletic on Apr 5, 2010 10:20 AM PDT reply actions  

We're going to play whatever style of baseball fits our team

Currently, that is a lot of emphasis on baserunning and defense. Let’s just not call it the style of baseball of an unmentionable team ;-)

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Geren will be exposed this year!

Yankees and Sox last night, anybody could have managed that game for the either team. It was just whoever score last wins. But Geren has to actually manage a team with good pitching and defense and utilizing team speed. Will he exposed as a good or bad manager, or hide behind injuries?

"I get nervous every fifth day," Braden said. "I figure the day that goes away is the day I saddle up behind the 7-Eleven desk."

by Jessse on Apr 5, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

This year?

Geren’s been exposed in each of the past three seasons. He’s had a tough draw with all the injuries, but he’s pretty much failed every test of baseball managing there is.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Listening to Beane

  If I was betting on Cust rejoining the A’s I would say it is about a 80% he will be back by June 1st most likely sooner. Sounds like Beane is saying he is giving Buck, Patterson, and Chavez a chance to prove they deserve to be in Oakland. Cust is the fall back plan since he must report to the river cats with only a very slight chance of being picked up on waivers. If buck fails his test he will be traded to the Yanks. Patterson through waivers and Chavez on the DL.

by Arcman on Apr 5, 2010 10:38 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Hey I love it! Buck needs the chance and lol Chavy on the DL

Sadly we all know Chavy is going on the DL and I think he is done as a player
Urban was talking about how he thinks Chavy has lost his bat speed so what use does Chavy have other than his terrible contract

Bad pick Peyton "Regular Season" Manning!!!

by Athletic on Apr 5, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

For what it's worth

That’s how I interpreted it as well.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 5, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks, Blez

Always a great interview with Billy Beane… and
It is OPENING DAY!
See you all at the ballpark!

by LongTimeFan on Apr 5, 2010 10:40 AM PDT reply actions  

First thing that struck me is how old Beane looks

He’s getting close to a point where he should drop Billy and go as Bill or even William.

by Manstein on Apr 5, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

He's starting to look like John Davidson

except he’s got normal human-sized teeth, unlike John Davidson.

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks Blez!

Great interview, as always. Looking forward to the Rickey bits. :)

I’m pretty sure the only question I’d be able to ask BB would be some sort of frothing-mouthed equivalent of “CHAVY. WHY. CUST. BUT. WHY. NO. WHY.” Possibly with my head spinning around afterward as I levitate off the ground.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Apr 5, 2010 10:51 AM PDT reply actions  

O/T: For those who live out of area MLB Extra Innings is offering a free preview

as they usually do. I have Time Warner Cable in Southern Cal but I would think no matter what part of the country you are, your cable company should carry MLB etc.

Just trying to give those an opportunity to hopefully watch Felix Implode (Not very likely)

by Trainman on Apr 5, 2010 12:00 PM PDT reply actions  

Sweet, thanks for letting us know TM.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

three 11 run games so far today

that is awful for opening day

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am excited that all our rosterbation back in 06 and 07 is coming to fruition:

Buck and Barton both starting on Opening Day..

From Jane Lee’s mlb.com story:

“They said they’re going to give me a chance to get out there and play, which is obviously something that you want to hear as a player,” (Buck) said. “I told them no matter if I was sent down or made the team, my attitude wasn’t going to change. Obviously I’ve been through a lot the past couple of years and I’ve grown because of it.”

Sounds like he’s got his head on pretty straight. Hopefully he takes this opportunity and runs with it, and hopefully Barton’s spring is no fluke.

"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons

by dtownmbrown on Apr 5, 2010 12:08 PM PDT reply actions  

he'd better not, and if he does, he'd better not

"Cheese is the fruit juice nature intended."- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 5, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

I figure he'll go 0 for 2 and then ask out of the game over a hangnail.

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 5, 2010 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here's a funny tidbit (not meant to be political, only funny)
“I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago,” the president said in the Nationals’ television booth. “I was growing up in Hawaii, so I actually ended up an Oakland A’s fan. When I moved to Chicago, I was living close to Comiskey Park, went to a couple games and fell in love. The nice thing about the Sox, it’s real blue-collar baseball. We always tease about the Cubs … day games … having a good time.”

(emphasis added by me)

From http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100405&content_id=9080192&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 12:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Psssh.

We’re the real green-collar baseball.

(And that’ll be the last time I ever use that phrase.)

This never happened, but I saw you leave
and crawl into a bed of broken windows.

by danmerqury on Apr 5, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I still wonder how someone came up with green collar baseball

it makes you wonder how awful the 2nd place choice was. Oh and I always look forward to these interviews with Beane by Blez and once again Blez did a great job.

by sirbed on Apr 5, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

gold-collar baseball?

Perhaps the alternative was “No injuries FTW”

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

We could do better if only we had Felix Pie.

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 5, 2010 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

why do people hate green collar baseball?

i’m not saying i like it, but everyone is complaining when the last few have been no better.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

you are 100% baseball right

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Rajai does everything fast; that's why he's still single."

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 5, 2010 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

lol

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Apr 5, 2010 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I concur with this statement!

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Apr 5, 2010 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

FYI, impossible play

this will almost certainly be the play of the month:

the ball is hit off buehrle’s leg, it rolls foul down the first base line, buehrle runs after it with his back to first base, scoops the ball up with his glove, and in one motion flings the ball to the first baseman between his legs, konerko bare hands it and just barely gets the runner.

i don’t even know how it was possible to beat the runner, the ball hit off buehrle and then rolled into foul territory, yet he still chased it down and got the out. he sure wants that second consecutive gold glove…

the highlight is up on mlb.tv under the white sox – indians game, WATCH IT.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 12:44 PM PDT reply actions  

that's pretty sick

I’ve seen acrobatic catches by pitches before, but getting to the ball AND then flipping it is insanity.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

it’s up on youtube

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love Buehrle. I always hope the A's don't have to face him because I really don't like rooting against the guy

He’s been in the league almost 10 years now, and while people know he’s good, he’s still tremendously underrated.

That play was just incredible.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was a great, great play

Could be the play of the year already. Certainly the play of the month. I just don’t see how anything could beat it.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good god.

That was insane.

This never happened, but I saw you leave
and crawl into a bed of broken windows.

by danmerqury on Apr 5, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

yeah good play

but kenerko did not have to barehand.

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Eh

It was such an unexpected play I don’t know if he was even ready for the ball actually coming his way.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Apr 5, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nitpick

The play was awesome, whether or not barehand was “necessary”

by Billy Frijoles on Apr 5, 2010 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

he was on the foul side of the bag

the glove hand was farther to the foul side, and the ball was coming closer to the bag. (see 9-10 seconds into the you-tube bit)

He even had his glove hand out, but put it down when he saw the ball coming to the other side.
Would have been a bit awkward to reach across with the glove.

by MobiusKlein on Apr 5, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he was more surprised

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

i like BB and i wanted to read this real bad...

but i couldn’t get past his first answer.

We jumped out of the gate trying a couple of things and we actually had some money. So what we wanted to do was pursue free agents…

doesn’t sound at all like what he said at the time, that thing about not pursuing free agents that seemed to make sense, but got us all riled up and searching for a grip on reality as soon as he signed one. and one of the AN theories at the time was that BB wanted to say no, but that opportunities opened up and he had to say yes. now he says it was actually a priority all along…

does that signal to anybody else that BB, for whatever reason—strategy against other teams included, will say anything? and i want to make it clear, it is totally fine with me that he does. but if he does, then i have no compelling reason to hear him. keep doing what you do BB. i trust you blindly. and now deafly.

ok, i’m not actually that upset. and maybe later on i’ll read the full interview. but right now i’m just looking forward to an actual game tonight. because actions speak louder than words.

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 12:48 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

It was pretty obvious that he was pursuing Beltre, Scutaro, and Chapman. He was throwing big money at all three of them. I don’t think there’s anything false or contradictory in what he said. (Also, he ended up signing Sheets, Duke, and Cust as FAs)

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Apr 5, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

i wish i had time go look for the links, figure out if i dreamed this up (entirely possible!) or if it really happened, but…

when the season was barely over he flat out said he wasn’t interested in pursuing free agents, purportedly to develop talent from within. this seemed like glad news for a team that was focusing on rebuilding, especially after the holliday year. then winter meetings came and he showed himself to be pursuing free agents (the ones you mentioned). this caused a little bit of confusion here in AN, IIRC. we lived through it though, debating the worth of the FAs more than the words of the GM. and now he says his intent at the time and all along was the opposite of what he said. so either he made up what he meant then, or he made up what he meant now, or he makes it as he goes along. in any of those cases, i’m left wondering why worry about what he says at all. especially if the pattern shows that what he says now is going to be revised later. and my conclusion is that i’m fine not knowing what he says, but i also wonder if anybody else noticed this shift. or, again, if i made it up.

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think the answer is

DOn’t believe a thing people say with their mouths.

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

word!

i mean… actions!

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

That and...

The big market owners who were complaining about subsidizing the small market teams changed the landscape.

by AgitationStation on Apr 5, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

They said they were done persuing aging/declining free agents

Like Thomas, Piazza, Giambi, Nomar etc.

They have always been on the lookout for guys under 35 that can still be useful and have never said otherwise.

by DrDoom on Apr 5, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

found it

urban article from 11/18/009

If those players we’d like to acquire aren’t obtainable, we’ll consider bringing in guys who can hold the positions down. We’re going to stay disciplined and try to do everything we can to fill those spots with young players.

So the next step is to continue to bring guys like Andrew up here. That’s our responsibility, and I know the deal. To sign a couple free agents and have three or four press conferences during the winter doesn’t get it done. We’re going to be disciplined.

but please read the whole article

i know it’s all about inference and generalities, but in this article he doesn’t sound at all like the same guy who above said: “we jumped out the gate […] what we wanted to do […] pursue free agents.”

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

crap. i started the quote too soon and it can be misinterpreted. when he says “those players,” it’s not free agents but players he wanted to bring via trade. yes?

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't care if the "need new venue or cycle continues" stuff is bullshit or not

I just want a new effing venue already. You win, ownership group. I buy your story.

Just please, no more rosters like this one.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 1:44 PM PDT reply actions  

That was a BOMB he hit

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

8 runs in 1 1/3, home runs to heyward and mccann

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

maybe he should think about wearing a real uniform

instead of the infernal alternate tops.

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

alright, but you better get the president on the line.

or you’re gonna have to answer to the coca-cola company.

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for that

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Apr 5, 2010 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

i did think of you while typing it!

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Apr 5, 2010 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just saw that

the crowd and announcer sounding like they had just won the WS when he hit it.

Pujols already has 2 HR also, it has been an exciting opening day so far; keep it up A’s!

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

by micdog2001 on Apr 5, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

san diego guy Jeff Moore (owner?)

just said “bub black said I don’t think even with unlimited resources we would have the same roster this year.”

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

meanwhile Jon Galrand gets opening day start

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Home Runs

Speaking of which, Yuniesky Betancourt hit a home run in his first at-bat and Stephen Drew just hit an inside-the-park home run.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Apr 5, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

second?

wasn’t haren on first?

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Second

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Son of a...

Texas comes from behind to beat toronto…bleah.

Don't fear the reaper

by Oaktownflav on Apr 5, 2010 1:58 PM PDT reply actions  

Greinke is going to win 2 games this year.

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury

by Future Ed on Apr 5, 2010 3:17 PM PDT reply actions  

As my parents always said

“Life isn’t fair, especially when your organization is run by idiots. But what a pretty ballpark with the fountains and all.”

by stormtown on Apr 5, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Carlos Gonzalez 4-5

Sigh…

"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Apr 5, 2010 4:36 PM PDT reply actions  

Just say "small sample size

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

... " over and over as you gently rock yourself back and forth

Stupid stubby fingers.

"Smokey, this be not the foul jungles of the darkest East Orient. This be ninepins. We are bound by laws."

by Joey C. on Apr 5, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

The 34 man roster thing

I think, at the very least, we know the A’s are taking this concept very seriously. The one decision that makes that obvious is keeping Eric Patterson instead of Landon Powell. Putting aside whether or not any of us think Patterson is any good, clearly the A’s believe he has value and specifically don’t want to lose him, because as of now he has almost zero place on the roster even though he’s making the team. He’s the third string second baseman and the fifth outfielder. He’ll be lucky to get 30 at-bats a month. He particularly makes little sense from a traditional roster composition paradigm because the backup C is most likely to get his at-bats playing DH. Also, the team is full of young pitching who you’d presumably would want to throw to an experienced catcher. Another backup C has real value to this team.

I think we need to factor in a little bit of gamesmanship here as well. The A’s might feel it’s easier to get Fox and or Patterson past waivers in two-six weeks. As for Cust, clearly the only two teams who could claim him are the Yankees and White Sox, and both seem unlikely. But with Fox and Patterson, almost every team could conceivably claim them, and exposing them at a time when rosters around the league are in such a state of flux might make them more vulnerable. I mean, it’s just speculation, but I could see the A’s thinking that way.

I hate the Chavez over Cust decision, and it’ll be a real gutter if the A’s lose the division by one or two games and Chavez doesn’t hit the first two months, but, that’s probably an unlikely scenario. So, I’m just going to calm down about it, stop with the Chavy conspiracy theories (re: insurance), and just try to enjoy Chavy’s last couple months as an A. Not saying anybody else should, but that’s what I’m going to do.

by AgitationStation on Apr 5, 2010 4:47 PM PDT reply actions  

Inspiration

It is nice that ANeratti can almost agree that both stats and human factors contribute to a team’s success over 7 months. I mean the newest cliché is …“Yeah, I’m around the veteran guys all the time watching how they go about their business.” So when the leadership of the team is willing to work harder and smarter, that rubs off. So PT, DJ, the players are talking about how the veterans influence them both physically and mentally. Billy just said it in so many words about Rosales playing like Byrnes. Case closed. Both stats and character issues matter.

by greenpaddedgloves on Apr 5, 2010 5:15 PM PDT reply actions  

wtf LL has an open thread where is our thread?!!?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Apr 5, 2010 5:20 PM PDT reply actions  

seriously, I'm about to join them over there. I am coming out of my shoes for the first pitch!

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

Everything is better with bacon.

by cuppingmaster on Apr 5, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cust blah blah...

I’m sick of hearing about Cust and why the A’s should of kept him. He’ll isn’t a great baseball player but will be backup in short time, don’t fret. Obviously roster control was a huge factor but like Beane said, having two lefty DH’s is kind of pointless. Apparently Chavy didn’t impress on the field so far, even then a Zombie Chavez is a better defender than Cust if they need to put one in the field.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Apr 5, 2010 5:44 PM PDT reply actions  

Aight, opening day. Let’s have a good season boys!!

Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.

by Brownie's Year on Apr 5, 2010 6:15 PM PDT reply actions  

Could you have asked Beane?

What the heck was he thinking in keeping Geren has manager?

by Rocky632156 on Apr 5, 2010 7:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4

Recent FanPosts

Small
Comcast needs two Hotstove shows!
Small
Moneyball Part II: Billy Beane Shocks the World. Again.
Hahaha_small
Let's Make Some Nicknames!
Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late