I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I only just started posting here, so I am not that familiar with past discussions.
It is definitely a moot point, but I've been wondering more and more lately: is Eric Chavez what derailed us from our winning ways? Continued after the jump.It's often an under-emphasized point that, even with creative front office management ("Moneyball"), low-budget teams have a razor-thin margin of error. And for the past 3 seasons, we've had a major handicap in having a large part of our payroll tied up in Eric Chavez who's been almost worthless during that time. The sad part is, the contract was actually entirely defensible at the time of signing. There was nothing to suggest Chavy would fall off the earth the way he did.
Imagine, though, that we did not have Chavy or his contract in 2008 and 2009. If we had been able to use that money, would we have continued our winning ways? What do you guys think?
In many ways, Chavez's poor health is just a bad break. Such risks are present with any player, and just because we got burned here doesn't mean it will always happen. With the amount of payroll flexibility we'll have this upcoming off-season, I hope this experience does not lead Billy to become gun-shy in pursuing free agents. Come on Billy, work your magic!
Would the A's have kept winning without Eric Chavez's contract on the books?
Yes (50 votes)
No (43 votes)
Who really knows (51 votes)
144 total votes