SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Dedicated to Winning or Merely Existing:
by brewitt on Sep 30, 2010 10:00 AM PDT
Email
Print67MARQUEZ is away from his desk right now, but if you'd like to leave a message, please do so at the beep. In the meantime, enjoy this first post by brewitt. P.S. Marquez will be back this evening for the A's-Mariner game thread.
A note on Lew Wolff and the current state of the Oakland Athletics Baseball Franchise
As a disclaimer, my comments about the Mr. Wolff do not reflect those boys in green and gold whom I know are out there day in and day out playing to the best of their ability.
I’m really unsure and skeptical about what the future holds for this team with Lew Wolff as the owner. Let me tell you why.
Is Mr. Wolff somehow making the team tank in order to get low attendance? You’ve heard this before. By tanking Mr. Wolff will make a better argument to MLB to move to San Jose where territorial rights are an issue. Personally, I don’t find any merit in such notions.
Nonetheless, I remain curious where Wolff is taking this team. By way of analogy, I don’t tell my wife how it would be so much better if I could only could be with the younger, hotter, thinner, more curvy, more attractive girl. Yet Mr. Wolff always is talking about how great it would be if the Athletics where in a new park. Ok fine, but why not tell us about it when it happens? Sure you can tell your wife that she’s fat, old, flabby, and saggy and that you are eyeing the new hot girl, but it’s not going to work out too nicely. Mr. Wolff, please tell us when you have a done deal and otherwise shut-up about it.
I read articles, comments, and blog posts about how the fans in Oakland and the surrounding areas do not support the team. That if ownership did have support of the fans at the Coliseum the Athletics would be able to sign players to supplement the internally developed players.
I agree that fans should support the team a little better, but to lay it all on the fans is like putting the cart before the horse. I might be old fashioned, but I thought that winning brings fans out to the ball park. If ownership doesn’t put a quality team out there they are not going to get the attendance. Shouldn’t this be especially true about the Coliseum? Nowadays, people aren’t going to the games because of the Coliseum they go for the green and gold. Shouldn’t this mean that fans have to have even more of a reason to attend games especially if the stadium itself is not a draw?
I'm shocked at some of the quotes and comments from Mr. Wolff in a 9/28/10 SF Chronicle Article by Susan Slusser. Here’s what Mr. Wolff is saying about the current state of the A’s:
"The fans feel we have all this money, but it's for one year," he said. "We've tried that before.
This statement raises so many questions it is difficult to know where to begin. The way I see it, is that Ben Sheets and Eric Chavez K’s come off the books, but also Justin Duchsherer and possibly Coco Crisp and Mark Ellis. (There may be a few more). Say we have a conservative estimate as stated in the Chronicle at $22 million. Maybe Mr. Wolff’s playing a bit of poker by not showing his hand? Huh? So the Athletics are not going to be in the hunt for a power bat? Also: “We’ve tried that before.” I'm not sure if Mr. Wolf was taking about Sheets or Duke or Chavez?
"We do need some hitting. But we have some hitters maturing just like the pitchers have matured the past year. I don't see a lot of moves. I don't see the necessity of going out and getting someone for one year."
Ok fine good some sense. We do need some hitting. I completely agree. He says, but, but? Huh? Who’s maturing? Jack Cust? Okay maybe Daric Barton. Is Kevin Kouzmanoff maturing? The most troubling statement, “I don’t see a lot of moves.” Ich. This should give every fan a lot of confidence of where this franchise is headed.
"We want to be careful with (a multi-year deal) "I like the fact we've tied up Suzuki and Brett Anderson, but you have to be careful you don't risk the team on one person."
Okay so we shouldn’t lock up Trevor Cahill or Gio Gonzalez, Andrew Bailey? I understand cringing at the thought of any multiyear deal with the ghost of Eric Chavez still looming, but c’mon, risking the team on one person is a little dramatic. Don’t you think?
I suppose that Mr. Wolff would argue that he’s not risk adverse since the A’s signed both Sheets and Duke. However, Mr. Wolff needs to go out and get a bat. These comments are puzzling and I hope they are not true otherwise the apathy will continue. He needs to be dedicated to winning and not merely ensuring the continual existence of our beloved Oakland Athletics.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/27/SP621FKFK2.DTL#ixzz10tIJTjcS
529 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well written and thought provoking
I don’t have much to say, I’ll wait until some more warm bodies comment, but great 1st post!
AN: Where you will be an A's fan or Dallas Braden will show you the repercussions of your actions.
A couple things I disagree with
I don’t want to start a San Jose vs Oakland debate but the fact is that winning draws better crowds but it still isn’t enough at the Coliseum. Call it a chicken-egg problem, but fans don’t go to the ballpark because the A’s can’t spend money and the A’s don’t spend money because people don’t come. And winning hasn’t changed that enough to break the cycle (even in the early 2000s).
You interpreted the last paragraph differently from me. I think Wolff means the team must be careful signing a FA to a big deal. Signing young players is different even if Suzuki and Anderson are mentioned directly afterwards.
And, I assume you were trying to make a joke with the poll, but you can’t add an option about bringing the tarps to the new park without a bias in the poll.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Sep 29, 2010 12:22 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Right
If you need to sell $5M worth of extra tickets to make a signing worthwhile, and it’s only going to produce $4M worth, then the signing does not make economic sense (despite it clearly having a significant positive impact on attendance).
I’m afraid just about every free agent falls into that category at this point. Why would the A’s ever sign one? All of them are money-losers. Yeah, it means the team will never reach the playoffs again in Oakland barring some miraculous combination of great prospects reaching the majors all at once— tough luck.
We don’t have to be happy about this, but facts is facts.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I think you hit the nail on the head
It will take a miracle to win while in Oakland.
Couple that with Geren and Beane and you might win the lottery before the team wins.
Let's just make it clear that I utterly disagree with the second part of this comment
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
So luxury tax money just doesn't exist?
The team was spending $50-60 million a year on payroll. Now, with $22 million coming off, they can’t afford to spend that same $22 million without selling $22 million in tickets?
Our payroll’s going to be at zero pretty soon, if that’s the economic reality.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Luxury tax money puts an effective floor on payroll if the union enforces it as they did against the Marlins
but that floor is like $40M or so. The A’s can sign a couple of mediocre veteran backups, or just keep Mark Ellis, and about hit that figure next season.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I wasn't quite driving at that so much.
More what I take issue with is the idea that if the A’s want to sign Carl Crawford and pay him $15 million next year, they have to sell $15 million worth of tickets to make it worthwhile. I can’t see how that’s true, given that this year, they spent approximately $60 million, and more than $20 million of that is coming of the books.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
You do realize that it's not "worthwhile" to take an action just because you have a pile of money lying around to spend on it, right?
I have $60 in my wallet right now. That doesn’t mean it’s a fiscally good idea for me to just randomly wander over to Fogo de Chao and plunk it down for lunch just because, what the hell, it’s burning a hole in my pocket.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
The A's have $22 million coming off the payroll.
Is it a better idea to pay that money, and maybe even a little bit extra on top of it, to Carl Crawford and Adrian Beltre in the hope that they lead the team to the playoffs, or is it a better idea to not spend that money?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I have been arguing all over this thread that, taking as a postulate that the team wants to maximize income,
it is a better idea not to spend that money.
[Also, for what it’s worth, that won’t get you anywhere close to signing both of those guys.]
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I'm talking about for one year.
And I know neither one of them would sign a one-year deal, it’s just a hypothetical designed to try and put what I’m saying into the simplest terms possible. (Not that I think you’re simple; I just think we have trouble communicating sometimes.)
But you don’t think that $30 million/year buys Crawford and Beltre? I feel like two $150/6 deals could land us both of them. Commits $50M/year to two players, so it’s risky, and it absolutely does drive up payroll quite a bit. You’re probably looking at spending $80-$90M/year for three or four years while the window of contention stays open, but if it gets you to the postseason three or four times, I think it’s worth it.
Obviously it’s not worth it if maximizing income is the single highest priority of owning a baseball team, but if that is the case, then I think maybe I can’t be a baseball fan anymore. If I wanted to be a fan of a well-run, profitable business, I’d just watch video footage of Goldman Sachs executives.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
You're insane
$50M/year on two guys?!?!?! I’m glad you’re not the A’s owner.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Wouldn't want to run the risk of the team winning...
So make it $150/7 ($43M/year on two guys for seven years) or $130/6 ($43M/year on two guys for six years) or give Crawford a $150/8 and Beltre a $100/4 (43M/year on two guys for four years, followed by $19M/year for one guy for the next four.)
Point is, it’s doable if you’re willing to look at a $80-90M payroll for four to six years.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is that people don't show up in Oakland
Not a lot of people show up for winners, and even less for losers. If $60M worth of people showed up in addition to the gate revenue they already get, then we can talk.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The A's are spending below their revenue, though.
They’re not breaking even, they’re well in the black. They’ve got room to spend before it actually becomes a problem of losing money.
In the meantime, postseason time is a huge revenue booster. You get national exposure, you get bandwagoners buying merch, you get wacky-expensive ticket sales, you get more endorsements from more companies, both local and national…
It’s important to note that this wasn’t the case as much when the Haas family owned the team. The postseason was a boost, but not like it has become now. The Haas model of spending money to win would have been more financially sustainable today, especially if you’re only talking about an $80-90M payroll. $80-90M is still middle of the pack.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
My earlier analysis already established that postseason appearances
are an insufficient windfall to justify those signings. I accounted for that stuff.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I must have missed it.
Where was it?
Also, does your analysis take into account the increased long-term exposure that several consecutive years of postseason play brings to a team? (And then the possibility of that exposure helping to generate further revenues to the point at which contention can become a regular enough occurrence to consistently justify an $80-90M payroll?)
Do we really not believe that consistent postseason exposure has helped the Angels as a franchise?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
We already had several consecutive playoff appearances
And a national bestseller written about our team that no one else had. The effects of this have turned out to linger for far less time than one might have imagined.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Earlier thread
and yes.
I should add that I rely heavily in that analysis on Baseball Between the Numbers’s study on the value of postseason appearances. So read that, too.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
It's unwise to claim to know how much a team is or is not making
But if I had to guess, I would say that the Haas family lost alot of money running this team. Afterall, If they were anywhere close to breaking even, they probably wouldn’t have sold it.
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 30, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Forbes makes that claim every year.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Forbes has access to a whole lot more informaiton than you do
and even then, they still don’t “know”. They only speculate
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 30, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Next year's analyses will be much better
now that several teams’ financial statements have been leaked.
I never got around to studying them in detail, but as I heard it Forbes wasn’t too far off.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I thought no one was going to ever mention this
There’s a reason why the Haas family are former owners. The Haas family was begging Oak/Alameda Co to rewrite the Coliseum deal because it was so onerous for them. They were begging for a new stadium.
They up front said (or Sandy Alderson did?) that because the A’s made the WS three years running, all the agents jerked them around for lots more money at contract time, and arbitration was killing them.
Revenue from the playoffs/WS increases team income, but players demand, and get, in the future a significant chunk of that revenue- even if the team puts butts in the seats.
There was a reason why the A’s traded Rickey, and it wasn’t because he wasn’t still great- they needed to stock up on young, cost-controlled players…
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
It's amazing how many smart people fail to draw the conclusions from historical evidence
The experiment has already been tested: spend money, make the playoffs, win a world series, see if the fans come out enough to at least break even. The hypothesis failed. I’m sorry but it did, and it would be foolish to test it again under the current conditions.
You don’t need to open up the books to see this. The fact that they sold the team says it all.
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 30, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
On a scale of one to horrible fking idea that is a 447
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
No kidding.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 30, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
It depends on what game you're playing
If your game is “I want to win the world series,” you’ll act one way.
If your game is “I want a higher profit margin than any other owner,” you’ll act another way.
Both of those are games which I can see an owner enjoying the play of.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
The second game could kill professional sports in this country.
Fans won’t wait forever.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Some will. It's not like Pittsburgh has zero attendance.
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
People go see the Washington Generals play basketball.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Attendance at the Rays game averaged 52.6% of seating capacity for a playoff clinched team..Oakland tied for 2nd to last place with a 40.1%
Founder of team Omté Caspeen
In all fairness,
The Coliseum is not only a much nicer place to see a game, it is also significantly less expensive.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, now you've confused me with your hippie logic.
My brain’s kerfuffled. Nice revenge, Ed.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, that's moronic
sorry but I don’t agree. I don’t want us becoming the Montreal Expos where the owner has to trade his star players in order to shed payroll. Instead of locking up Suzuki, Anderson, etc.. we’re going to have to part ways with our future to-be FAs because we don’t have enough cash to re-sign them.
Plus, it’s no guarantee signing 2 quality FAs will put us in the playoffs. It didn’t work for the Rdsux this year: they signed Beltre and Lackey. I could go on and on with examples, but having a bigger payroll doens’t equal playoffs. Besides, we can’t even stay healthy enough to contend so why pour millions into the FA market…
by sf drift king on Oct 1, 2010 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions
same here
I took his words to mean: that we can’t lock up $15/16M annually for the next 6/7 years on 1 FA player when we have other home grown talents maturing who will need to get paid as well. Cahill, Gio, Carter, et al come to mind..
by sf drift king on Oct 1, 2010 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't forget to take that Large grain of salt!
As Slusser mentions, “Telegraphing offseason spending plans might not do the team much good.”
Wait til next season starts. If there haven’t been some positive moves, then I think you can catastrophize.
But until then, don’t worry about what anyone says.
Thank you
I can continue hoping again
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
-
Athletics Nation: Refuse to learn from history.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
You realize his quote about one year is correct
they tried Holliday and it sucked (not that Holliday was bad, it was just a bad deal).
And he said they want to be careful with the long term free agent, which is also good. DOn’t spend money on Jose Guillen for 5 years.
It seems like you are trying to shoe horn your own conclusions about Wolff into his quotes.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Shoehorning?
Ok maybe a little bit. I’m a fan and I think Lew has to kiss my butt a little bit. We have a near .500 team and his tone is a little grim. I don’t know if Slusser put him on the spot, but I’d like to hear something different. I’d like to hear things like, “We will do whatever it takes to see this team a contender.” We are surely not hearing that or anything more moderate.
Communication
This is an important part of being an owner. If Wolff is an effective communicator maybe he should get someone else do it.
I do find merit in such notions...
Is Mr. Wolff somehow making the team tank in order to get low attendance? You’ve heard this before. By tanking Mr. Wolff will make a better argument to MLB to move to San Jose where territorial rights are an issue. Personally, I don’t find any merit in such notions.
…not the “tanking” part specifically, but I am convinced that he is passively encouraging low attendance in order to show how non-viable Oakland is in order to get an easier approval for San Jose. The evidence is circumstantial, but in my opinion crystal clear and overwhelming.
Moving on… I was troubled by Lew’s comments as well. On the one hand he says, “We tried that once and it failed, so it would obviously fail again.” . (Not necessarily)
On the other hand, he says, “We don’t want to do that, either.”. (Sign long-term FAs)
He finished with, “We’re going to just keep what we’ve been doing. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”.
When I read that I wanted to grab him and say, “Lew… shit or get off the pot!”.
Forgive me if I am less than inspired. This is just another piece of evidence regarding his passive destruction of Oakland as an MLB city.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Passive Destruction?
I agree that low attendance is an indirect consequence of Lew’s business strategy. I don’t think it’s intentional, but a natural consequence of his actions. Maybe this is splitting hairs here.
Actions or inactions? Actually, I think we're pretty close in our conclusions.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
encouraging low attendance
Lew knew that Car Gon was going to be a stud, Holliday was going to be a bust, so he made sure Billy made the swap to prevent us from actually having an MVP caliber player.
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 30, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Lew is smart.
Imagine how good it will be for us when he uses his excellent prognosticating power to try to win.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
That's why he pretends to be dimwitted when interviewed
He doesn’t want everyone to know that he’s actually a master evaluator of talent, thus forcing his hand to be more active in on field decisions. But his time will come…it’s all a part of the plan
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 30, 2010 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
It is intentional
in that Lew and Billy see it happening, know it is happening, allow it to happen, and have no intention of stopping it.
by robertmelvin on Sep 29, 2010 8:10 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm sure glad I don't have a business.
I’d hate to have everyone tell me how to run it.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 8:20 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I have issues with responses like this one ...
I’m not trying to argue with you personally, Lone Stranger, but again, this kind of response bugs the crap out of me.
I watched that 30/30 on George Steinbrenner … man, afterwards I had so much more respect for him than I ever had before. The best thing he said? “An owner has no business owning a team unless his number one priority is winning.” (I don’t think those were his exact words, but it was close.) And I agree with this 100%. Now please understand, I agree that an owner has the right to do whatever the heck he wants to do. If he buys the team, then that gives him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. But it doesn’t make it ok. Not for a second.
In my opinion, if Lew Wolff (or whatever owner you want to mention) isn’t more concerned with winning baseball games than anything else — INCLUDING making money – than he shouldn’t own the team, in my opinion.
Please don’t try and tell me that because Joe Smith owns a baseball team, that means it’s ok to do whatever the hell he wants with it. It may be his right, but it doesn’t make it ok.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Come on now, communication 101
I am Lew Wolff, Principal Owner of the Oakland Athletics. Winning is my number one priority. Period.
Is that so hard?
I must have missed the part where owners are required to put out mission statements.
Pam liked my old sig better.
Again, it's not about "requirements"
it’s about doing what’s right. Why are we confusing “what someone has the right to do” with “doing the right thing.”? They are often very, very different.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
So you've taken it upon yourself to determine what is and isn't the right thing for Wolff to do?
I mean, I just wish that people would get over trying to make it sound like they want to have actual arguments about this stuff, and instead admit that they don’t want the A’s to leave Oakland and are directing their hate toward Wolff because he’s probably the owner that will be in place when a move from Oakland happens.
Pam liked my old sig better.
by mikev on Sep 29, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, yes, "I've taken it upon myself to determine what is and isn't right"
I mean, we all have opinions, correct? You obviously have the opinion it isn’t right for me to do this. There’s no way to avoid that.
Sure, I’d like to see the A’s stay in Oakland. What I’d like better is to see them make the playoffs and win the World Series. Not sure they have a better chance of doing that in San Jose … because if Wolff doesn’t want to spend money now, he won’t later. It’s a mindset. Wolff and Mr. Gap have more money than they know what to do with — they won’t go broke — ever. The question is, are they willing to spend some of their great-great-great-great-great grandson’s college money on helping the A’s win now? I don’t think they are.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
And its not about his descendants
The A’s are profitable now. They receive a great deal of revenue sharing. The Yankees are uber profitiable, because they are in New York, but they do better than the Mets because they are Winners. Lew Wolff can lie, and say winning is his number one priority. There is no incentive for him to win now. Zero.
It always comes back to asking for a handout from ownership, doesn't it?
I’ll repeat my question from the last time this came up: if Lew Wolff is going to just give a bunch of money away, aren’t there a lot of better causes that he could give that money to than baseball players? Spend it to help prevent childhood diseases in Africa or something.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Which begs the question... Why buy a team to begin with?
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
No, it really doesn't
He bought the team to make money, because he enjoys making money.
Is this unusual? Hard to grasp? What exactly is the issue here?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
*facepalm*
Never mind.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
No owner buys a team *solely* to make money.
There are a lot of different things a zillionaire can invest his money in, and a ball team is just one of them. A ball team will still be profitable, but on average it will be marginally less profitable than other investment opportunities. You don’t need to know about baseball operations to see this; it is a function of the fact that owning a baseball team is popular. A run-of-the-mill boring business will be valued for its money-making potential only. A ball team will be valued largely for that but also given a little extra value because a lot of zillionaires think it’s fun to own a ball team. This makes them slightly more expensive to acquire and thus slightly less valuable as a purely economic investment.
Smart zillionaires know this, so if one has no interest in baseball, he doesn’t buy a team. If he does buy a team, he has at least some interest in baseball, and unless he’s perverse, that includes wanting the team to win. But he still wants the team to be profitable, too. Every owner has some balance between wanting to win and wanting to make money. Some tilt far in one direction and others tilt far in the other, but none are 100% in either.
The people complaining about Wolff here are wishing he tilted a little more in the direction of preferring wins to money. (This is not unusual. Fans always wish this about pretty much any owner.)
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
This does not follow from an economic standpoint
Baseball teams are not out there on the market for people to buy. They are not an “available investment” for most zillionaires. MLB owners are picked by other MLB owners for reasons having to do with benefitting those other MLB owners.
And simply as an empirical matter, you would have a devil of a difficult time figuring out another business which has posted the rates of return that MLB ownership has in the last 20 years.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Yes, that's exactly where this goes.
So what is the next question then?
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
He can do both.
He’s got that kind of money.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I can't tell if this is disingenuous or just delusional
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I can buy both a big mac and a 7 layer burrito
I have got that kind of money
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Cuz you can never have too much good stuff.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
AM/PM is owned by British Petroleum.
True fact.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Technically there's a subsidiary in between.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I don't think it has to be either one of those.
When that op/ed blasting Fischer for buying art came out, the reason I didn’t agree with it (aside from the strident, bombastic tone and obvious anti-intellectualism) was that there’s no reason a guy with seventy zillion dollars can’t be an art collector AND a Steinbrenner-style owner, or at least a Moreno-style owner. Likewise, there’s no reason that an owner couldn’t make serious charitable donations and also spend some real money on his baseball team. And if he doesn’t feel like he can do both, but wants to be a philanthropist, then maybe he should sell the baseball team and just be a philanthropist.
And there’s no reason that this strumpet can go out and owe money all over town and these Chinamen come in, and they pee on your rug.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
He likes the art
I suppose he could take out a loan against his art and spend Red Sox/Yankees money, but then instead of having a gazillionaire owner, we’d have the financial love child of Frank McCourt and Tom Hicks as our owner. Don’t really want that, either.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm all for him having the art.
But it’s not like he spent all his money on it. Not even close. Dude’s on the Forbes 400, isn’t he?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably. But rich guys don't like losing money in any form.
(which may contribute to their largesse)
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, but as you said, he likes the art, so he spent money on it.
If he doesn’t like the A’s, it’s very inappropriate to me that he owns the team. I’d really appreciate it if Selig and MLB made more of an effort to get owners involved who, in addition to being businessmen, are also legitimate baseball fans who want to field a winning product.
Nolan Ryan being an owner is good for baseball. Lew Wolff and John Fischer being owners doesn’t seem to be so good for baseball.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
It wasn't clear how much he spent on the art
So I don’t know if it’s more than or less than the A’s worth. Really, though, we’re comparing apples to oranges. Art is sort of a one-time thing: you buy it, and store it in your gallery and pay a fixed cost for its upkeep. Baseball teams have variable costs.
I’ll say it again: the owners that are “good for baseball” are basically the ones who own championship teams. If the Reds win the WS this year, their ownership group will be the cool guys. If not, then Cincinatti-ians will revile them.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
-
What fans of a given team think of the team’s ownership isn’t important to me unless they can talk at length about what makes them feel that way. What I think of the team’s ownership is, obviously. If an ownership group isn’t consistently making an effort to be in the middle third of payroll rankings, I don’t think they’re good for baseball.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Why does the position relative to others in payroll matter?
I care more about what you do with what you spend, not how much you spend.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Happily,
all these hypothetical teams are above-average.
Of course.
I don’t have to worry about that because it will never come to pass that very many owners make that effort.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 1, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Do we know how much Nolan Ryan owns?
I was under the impression he was a minority owner and the bulk of the investment comes from Greenberg. Ryan was already team president under Hicks, he’s just investing in a piece of the ownership group, but he’s not the main owner.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Indeed
Rich people tend to get that way because they don’t like losing money. People who waste money can do it very quickly. I mean, look at Frank Thomas.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
That's not fair.
He had a crooked accountant who ripped him off.
And by the way, most rich people inherited their money.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
It might be the case that most people who were once rich inherited their money
but I’m pretty sure that’s not true of most people who are currently rich.
I find it odd that I am citing this statistic, but sometimes threads make for strange bedfellows.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I don't know about that, but
John Fisher, who owns most of the A’s, inherited his wealth.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Well, maybe that's why he's going out and spending a bunch on artwork...
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
For those of us who will remain fans regardless where they reside...
…we are less than impressed with the current state of the team on the field and we do not feel it unreasonable that better efforts can be made to improve the team and win.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
by UncleLeo on Sep 29, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If George thought that winning wasn't a guarantee of positive net income
then he likely would have not made the statement. But GS knew that winning was a means to his net income ends. Would GS have been able to say the same thing had he owned the Oakland Athletics?
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 29, 2010 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
At one time, the Yankees were not considered a guarantee of that either.
Steinbrenner made them what they are. I’ve seen quite a few people arguing that, had he been able to buy the Indians (his first choice), he would have turned them into the perennial superpower of MLB as he eventually did with the Yankees.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Ridiculous
Utterly ridiculous. Would they have made money, sure. But Cleveland is not New York.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
New York wasn't always New York, though.
There were a few decades in which that town had developed a certain reputation for itself.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
New Yourk has not not been new york since the 1600s
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Huh?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
New york has been the financial center of the US
before there was a US. Just because there was some scary criminals there in the 70s doesn’t mean the media market was not the biggest in the country.
The Yankees are the “Yankees” because of the media market. The media is there because the peolpe are there. the people are there because jobs are there.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
I would disagree with that.
New York did not emerge as the financial capital of the United States until after the completion of the Erie Canal, which was about 20 years after there was a United States.
Before that, New York was behind Philadelphia, Boston, and arguably even Charleston.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I've got a mule, and her name is Sal...
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I defer to you on this
Didn’t Hamilton want NY as the Capital because of wall street?
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
New York was the capital of the United States
Let us see if I remember this correctly without googling it.
The debt from fighting the Revolutionary War was carried by the individual states. New York carried far more debt than any other state, and it was crippling. Hamilton reached a deal with Jefferson to move the capital from New York to DC in exchange for the Federal Government assuming the debt.
I would characterize it more as a deal
between north and south, than New York specifically.
Also, calling New York the “capital” is misleading. It was the main meeting site of Congress during the Articles of Confederation period, but that Congress didn’t do a whole lot, and it met in various places, including times in MD and NJ. It didn’t really have a permanent presence anywhere.
The first Congress under the Constitution met in New York, and it was there that the Bill of Rights were passed. After the 1790 compromise, the capital went back to Philadelphia for another 10 years while DC was being built.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
much like the Japanese Imperial court
preceding the Nara period
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
I was address "financial center of the US".
New York was certainly a regional financial center, and I think it became the most populous city in America some time around 1790, but before the Erie Canal it was one among several and not yet a national center.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
AW SNAP!
I love you so hard, Iglew
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
He's talking about population density
For the foreseeable future, the NYC metro area will be the largest urban concentration of people in the US. Cleveland has 2.25M in its metro area. NYC laughs at that.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
But what Steinbrenner did was build a national brand.
The number of Yankees fans that don’t live in New York, I would guess, is larger than the number that do, especially given that there is a pretty strong Mets fanbase there.
He did this by spending a lot of money, by being a hell of an entrepreneur, NOT focusing just on the city in which his team was located, etc., etc., etc., and there’s definitely an argument to be made that he could have done the same thing with the Indians. He could have done it with the A’s, for that matter. Any of the original 16 franchises, especially those that have kept their original names (and even more especially those that have never moved, such as the Indians) have a huge built-in history and mystique and exploitable quality to them.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Except the Yankees have 29 WS titles
If they were the same team as they were in 1991-1995, no one outside of NYC would care about the Yankees today.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
But they were able to become the team they are right now because of what Steinbrenner did.
They didn’t always have such a ludicrously outsized payroll. They were wealthy, sure, and they spent money, sure, but the proportions have grown with time, and the team has been able to do that because of the groundwork Steinbrenner spent years building.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
or because they're in NYC and won beforehand
You act as if Steinbrenner bought the mid 70s equivalent of the Royals of 1992-present.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Steinbrenner resurrected the Yankee-brand, he didn't build it.
He merely caught them at a rare downtime because of their then-current apathetic ownership. The brand was already there from the 1920s through the mid 1960s.
Talk about being in the right place at the right time.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
If you are saying he could have done with the Indians
what the braves did, maybe, probably not though because it was the mid 70s and not the mid 80s.
But that “america’s team” thing kinda died in the 90s.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
They're not, but actions speak louder than words.
His actions are less than inspiring, and he knows people are criticizing him, and his silence in the face of such criticisms is deafening.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
dude,
he’s an A’s fan, of course he wants the team to win.
by sf drift king on Oct 1, 2010 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Lew is? Is there any indication that he was an A's fan before he became involved with the team?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 1, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
He attends a lot of games, both home and away
You think he doesn’t care about how the team performs?
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
I don't question that Lew wants to win...
…even Bill Bidwell of the Arizona Cardinals wants to win. What I am wondering more and more is about his commitment to do what it takes to win.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Has every owner said it?
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
I'm not sure how to answer that ...
You’re correct if you’re implying that I don’t know him personally and can’t speak in absolutes because of that … however, he doesn’t strike me as someone who makes that (winning) his number one focus.
Do you think he does? I’d be interested in hearing why you think my comments may be inaccurate. (Seriously, no harshness intended there.)
What makes me think Mark Cuban wants to win above all else? I can’t really put my finger on anything specifically … I just get the impression he does. George Steinbrenner realized that if you want to make money, you need to spend money in order to put the best team possible on the field. Some owners like Wolff (it seems to me) don’t understand that. If Lew Wolff wants to make more money, then he should spend as much as he can on bringing talent to Oakland in order to make them playoff contenders every year. Spend wisely, no doubt. I’m not advocating just throwing a bunch of money at every free agent. But expand the payroll greatly — by a lot — the team will get better and ownership will make more money.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
That's the thing.
I don’t know if your comments are inaccurate. For all I know, Wolff could close the door to his private office every night after the team loses and cackle to himself because he is 1 loss closer to moving the team. Maybe he IS Rachel Phelps. I kinda doubt it though.
What makes me think Mark Cuban wants to win above all else? I can’t really put my finger on anything specifically … I just get the impression he does.
Probably because he is an attention whore who loves to be in the spotlight. He gets a lot of face time and he does stupid things like yell at referees from his seat.
George Steinbrenner realized that if you want to make money, you need to spend money in order to put the best team possible on the field. Some owners like Wolff (it seems to me) don’t understand that. If Lew Wolff wants to make more money, then he should spend as much as he can on bringing talent to Oakland in order to make them playoff contenders every year.
Furcal. Beltre. Scutaro. Aroldis Chapman. Not like they didn’t try.
Spend wisely, no doubt. I’m not advocating just throwing a bunch of money at every free agent. But expand the payroll greatly — by a lot — the team will get better and ownership will make more money.
In 2007 Wolff spent $80M on payroll, the highest figure in the history of the Athletics franchise.
Pam liked my old sig better.
Good points ... I think the "highest figure in the history" comment
is shaky. It wouldn’t matter one bit if the A’s payroll were the highest ever while/if everyone else’s dwarfed it. You’ve got to spend whatever you need to spend in order to keep up with the Jones’. But you’re right … they went after Furcal and the others — that can’t be denied.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
They were in the middle of MLB.
I don’t have any idea of their revenue, but Wolff did say last night that all their revenue goes back into the team. I’m not sure what else can be asked of an owner, but I’m not going to sit and demand that an owner spend anything over and above that on the team.
The Steinbrenner bit is interesting. I would guess that the Steinbrenner family does not spend a dime of “their” money on the Yankees, but with $500M in revenue every year, they don’t need to.
Pam liked my old sig better.
And you know what built the yankee brand?
Jeter, posada, williams, pettit. All cheap through the 90s.
Just like the Twins hit the jackpot with Mauer and mourneau and Sabean.
Just like the Cardinals hit the jackpot with Pujols.
Just like the rays sucked for a long time to develop their cheap talent core.
Good teams need some great cheap players in their system before they can spend their way to winning.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Bring on the new stadium and the higher payroll!
We’ll build a contender yet!
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
we do
so lets go out and sign Paul ONeil and Tino Martinez!
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Re-sign Brosius!
Take your silver mod tubescreamer, your dr. z, your nocaster, put them in a pile and burn them. if god gave you a thousand years, you still couldn't touch this. you can't f***ing keep time to this.
we really don't tho. 1 Barton and 1 Gio don't count as good and cheap players.
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Sep 29, 2010 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions
cust isn't that cheap
and I don’t think that Pennington is over three WAR moving forward.
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Sep 29, 2010 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
but it didn't put the A's in the top tier of club payrolls in2007
the figure itself may not be as significant as how it compares with the rest of MLB.
Under Haas the A’s were frequently near or at the top in payroll.
Of course, we’re talking about a business where payrolls have ballooned – but then, so have the owners’ profits.
You're talking about wildly different eras.
but yes, the figure is hugely significant, because it directly refutes the claim that Wolff doesn’t want to spend money.
The team went to the ALCS in 2006 with a $47M payroll. The next year it was increased by over $30M.
Pam liked my old sig better.
there's no argument about 2007, they clearly were in "win now mode"
with essentially the same team as 2006.
At the time it appeared all but certain that the the Fremont plan would fly…in fact the A’s were selling Charter Licenses for season ticket seats at the proposed new ballpark.
Apparently, for the A’s ownership 2010-11 is not 2006-07.
Right, the raw number of $80m isn't telling enough to be relevant.
Too many other factors and variables.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
It was 16th in baseball
so, essentially, average.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Not really... your statement was deceiving because of what it left out.
A brand new Cadillac started $2,761 in 1950. It was a higher-end vehicle for the day. Brand new Kia’s start at about $13,000 in 2010. Kia’s are lower-end vehicles currently. The way you phrased it would be like saying a 2010 Kia is a better vehicle relative to other vehicles of today than a 1950 Cadillac was compared to other vehicles of 1950, simply based on raw numbers. The missing context of time and era was misleading.
Also, what they spent in 2007 doesn’t have alot of relevance to how much they purposely cut their salary afterward. If anything, it’s clear evidence that they do not want to spend money. At least for the foreseeable future.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
perhaps it is clear evidence that spending 80M per year on salary isn't sustainable
or that spending 80M per year on a team that wins 75 games is pointless.
Besides, the point was a rebuttal to the statement that all they had to do was expand payroll greatly and the team would get better.
They did. By a TON. They jumped from 47M to 80M, and the team didn’t get better, it got worse.
Pam liked my old sig better.
part of the reason the payroll jumped for 2007
was the big increases they had to pay for players who were not “low paid rookies”. Then, some of the highest paid players were injured and could not contribute. I would argue that injuries were the main factor in the A’s not being able to contend in 2007.
Contrast this with the prospects for 2011. Some of the biggest drags on the payroll will no longer be on the team. Most of the key players for a successful season in 2011 will not require huge salary increases. If it is true that the team is only a couple of good bats away from contention, that should be doable with a combination of free agent signings and trading for players whose contracts their teams may be trying to shed.
I have no problem with Wolff not laying out in detail a plan to improve the A’s in the off-season. A good owner does not hamper his GM’s ability to negotiate by saying too much publicly. But damn, with or without a move to San Jose or a new ballpark in the near future, I don’t see how being less than enthusiastic about talking about improving the team for 2011 makes good business sense.
Fair enough, but it also prompted a rebuild, which tends to mean low payroll figures.
and it DOES show that Wolff has in fact been willing to spend money. Whether or not that means he’ll be willing to in the future, I don’t pretend to know, but I’m also not going to jump at every possible chance to vilify him like so many others tend to do.
Pam liked my old sig better.
another reason it ballooned is Barry Zito signed that $125 M extension in 2007
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
The A's saved a lot of money by switching to GAUDIN.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
...only took 15 minutes.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Why do they need to regress all the way back to $47m-ish?
I understand the rebuilding, and the short-term resulting drop in salary, but the rebuilding is making progress and they’re on the verge of winning again. Yet they are reluctant to spend. It seems there would be a happy-medium somewhere. It seems they’re wanting a filet mignon on a hamburger budget… not likely to happen.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Perhaps they'll be sensible and go with a nicely grilled top sirloin, then.
Pam liked my old sig better.
why are you eating our LFer?
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Sep 29, 2010 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
That would cost $62m.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Ribeye! FTW
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Sep 29, 2010 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't seem them as reluctant to spend.
I see them as trying to spend in a smarter fashion.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Money isn't really the issue
its opportunity to spend the right money. I would love the A’s dropping Carl Crawford on us for $18M a year, but if he or werth is not available, then please don’t spend $8M a year on Juan Uribe.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
by Future Ed on Sep 29, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because he always says he can't do what it takes to win due to cost?
And let’s be clear, it’s like if he and Fischer went out and signed Carl Crawford to a 10-year, $200 million deal, they’d be broke. Even if it did put them somewhat in the red for those ten years, they’d still have a boatload of money.
So it follows that money is a higher priority than winning for this ownership group. You can say that’s not a problem, but you can’t say that it isn’t true.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Wolff didn't buy the team to watch them win.
He bought them because he’s a property developer. He just wanted that 1000+ acre development in Fremont so he could sell all the business/condo space. Since that’s fallen through his only fall back is San Jose. If San Jose doesn’t work out, my guess is he sells his stake in the team.
by afreshboy on Sep 30, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's the best argument against the team moving to San Jose that I've heard yet.
Please, God, let the team not move to San Jose so Larry Ellison can buy the team and give a damn about it.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
and why would Larry Ellison not want to move to san jose, again?
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Maybe he would.
It might even be probable that he would, I don’t know the guy. But I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that the East Bay’s going to lose this battle, so at least let’s get an owner who cares about the team.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
The sooner this team gets a stadium and maximizes it's value
The sooner it gets sold. If SJ fails, he just tries again outside the bay area.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
yeah, I don't see a sell off if there is no stadium
that just about guarantees this ownership group will stay on.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Winner Winner Processed Poultry Dinner!
In the words of Ned McGreevey,
’nuff said.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
have you rubbed the head (or any other body part)
of the RRBL lately and seen if his prediction of world dominance for the green and gold still holds true for 2011?
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I pretty much agree with this.
- An owner has the right to do whatever they want. Absolutely.
- Pretty much all owners SAY they want to win… relative few actually follow it up with actions that say they want to win.
- There are multitudes of ways to make money, but when you buy a sports team, if there’s not an honest inner desire and drive to win… all the time(1)… then I just don’t see the point on buying the team to begin with.
(1) Temporary re-building sometimes understandable.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I actually think that if you have the money,
a small-market MLB team is a great investment (profit-wise). Guaranteed profits, almost zero risk. All you have to do is be disciplined enough to not spend money on free agents even when you get pilloried in the media.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If this is true, then this is an investment opportunity.
Start up an investment company, gather up capital from small investors, buy a baseball team and provide your investors with better return than other investments can. Same idea as any other profitable opportunity with a high up-front cost.
The first problem I see with this scheme is that MLB has a lot of control over who it allows to buy a team, and they might not let you in. Not coincidentally, this is also a problem with your premise.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Steinbrenner
It’s alot easier for him to tout the whole “winning is everything” mantra when he’s made more money than every other team in the business. Winning was a big part of what he was after, but in the end he just wanted to be an industry leader with the most powerful brand in the business.
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 29, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
My point is that there are many people who have an idea of how things should be and aren't abashed to tell others.
They aren’t the ones in the position with the money or the complete knowledge of the situation nor the assumption of risk, yet they (meaning one person or another) will crap on the person no matter what they choose to do.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
So what has Tampa been doing if not trying to win?
They now face a situation where the economics are forcing them to cut payroll. Should they damn the torpedos and keep the payroll up beyond their means? Then they could tens of millions of dollars and eventually be unable to afford to own the team… ’causing them to sale it before they declare bankruptcy.
Point is, it can’t just be about winning. It’s got to be about winning in a sustainable way. For a long time King George thought that winning meant trading every decent prospect the Yankees had for veteran talent and that didn’t do so well for stocking the trophy room.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 29, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Steinbrenner brought you the Bob Geren era yankees
His suspension brought you the Jeter Yankees
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
This is disingenous
Sports teams are much more part of the fabric of society and emotional connections than other businesses. Also it isn’t like someone could just start another team in Oakland and sign away all the A’s players (unlike any other business).
Normally in business, the market makes the decisions for the business. You will naturally do things that maximize profit, or your will be out of business. Here, because there is a monopoly, the market is out of the picture, there is no profit motivation to run the business to win games, but really, the only reason sports teams exist are to win games. If you don’t want fans and media telling you what to do, find another business and do whatever the hell you want with it.
It’s clear winning is not the main priority because you and everyone else on this site knows damn well with the lineup the A’s trotted out day in and day out there was no chance of winning anything.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Yet, save for crapping the bed the past 5 days, the A's have been around .500 the whole year
And it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. This is a .500 team, even if we finish 2-3 games under on Sunday. A couple good hitters, and we’d be right there with Texas.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly.
It is a .500 team. Not a terrible team. Not a winning team. Definitely not a playoff team.
I enjoyed the season, no doubt, but the A’s did not try to field a winning team.
If they do so next year, that would be great. If they really believe that Carter is going to explode, they are much better talent evaluators than me and I will trust them on that. However, if they really believe the A’s need another bat to win, and they don’t go out and get that bat, that is actively not trying to win. And that mentality does not suit the owner of a sports franchise.
Nobody can guarantee a winning season, or a playoff season. But doing whatever is in your power to try should happen often.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So you wanted them to give up some young pitching on a rent-a-player for this year,
when this year wasn’t even the ‘go for it’ year that they have been working towards?
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
They wouldn't have had to do give up young pitching.
Trying to win every year does not equal mortgaging long-term for short-term interests via player personnel. It means making a lower profit or taking financial losses in the short term in order to build goodwill and long term gains, and grow the company to a point where you will be able to consistently compete in the future. The only reason the A’s have any attendance at all is because of the goodwill created in their 40 years in Oakland, that developed lifelong fans like you and me. This goodwill is being frittered away by negative comments and failure to put together winning teams year after year. It is not easy to build that back up.
I am not saying that Wolff’s comments are the end all and I hope that it is not as bleak as he paints it.
Still, he comes off as a whirlwind of excuses and doesn’t really address what the fans are interested in – winning games. The new stadium is also something fans are interested in, but vacillations of cities and counties are much less concrete than wins and losses.
In a regular business without antitrust exemptions and revenue sharing, Wolff would have been out of business by now. People don’t keep eating at restaurants that serve bad meals over and over again. But there is enough remaining goodwill that he will still get a low baseline attendance, regardless of wins and losses, and with revenue sharing he will always make a profit.
Thus financially in the short term he is not motivated to spend money to pursue more wins. This puts him at odds with the fans, who want to see a winning team. Unless he is actually motivated by some other reason to pursue wins (like pride, competitiveness, rewarding the fan base, or whatever) then he shouldn’t be in the sports ownership business.
The only real solution is to force owners have to sell their teams after some number of losing seasons in a row. Then there is a real financial motivation to win, as well as the other non-financial motivations.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
This is exactly what he did in 2007.
Thus financially in the short term he is not motivated to spend money to pursue more wins.
Pam liked my old sig better.
So he did it once
Most business owners would say you don’t build market share by trying for a very short time.
He has not done so in 2008-2010, which is more indicative of his philosophy than the one year anomaly.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
There's significantly more involved than just the MLB team's payroll
and, again, this argument ignores the fact that free agents were pursued by the team, or that they went over slot on a large number of draft picks, etc
Pam liked my old sig better.
fair enough
And I will ecstatically eat my crow if we field a winning team going forward (or whatever the vegetarian version of eating crow is. Shit?)
If the baseball people think that they are doing everything they can to make that a reality, then I don’t really have a problem with how they go about it, whether it’s splashy free agents or overlooked draft pick signings. I understand that in a 30 team league not everyone can win every year.
Just that Wolff’s comments generally don’t seem to indicate that they are really trying to win, and that he is incentivized not to make winning as big a priority.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Winning has not proven to be profitable in Oakland
Period. In my own “business” of life, I don’t do things that are unprofitable unless I’m fairly certain that there is some kind of measurable payoff in the end. I don’t expect others to do that. Given the attendance history of the last 20 years, it is understandable why predicting higher attendance in 2011 might be hard to do.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
This is my point
In the real business world, winning would be more profitable than losing. And you also sacrifice short term profits to gain long-term market share.
In MLB, losing is far more profitable than trying to win. Sit back and collect the revenue sharing. Don’t have to worry about competition. This is why Lew’s interests and the fans’ interests are not aligned. And I think that’s a bad thing for a sports team.
I don’t do things that are unprofitable unless I’m fairly certain that there is some kind of measurable payoff in the end.
There are a lot of people who do a lot of things even if there is no measurable financial payoff.
Things like the excitement of playoff baseball, winning a championship, being loved by the community, your players, and employees, building long term relationships, helping others, and plain old having fun are all motivations that we have that are not aligned with a profit motive. If he doesn’t have any motive other than profit, or if larger profits overwhelms all other motivations, then sports ownership is the wrong business to be in.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
No it's not
You said:
In MLB, losing is far more profitable than trying to win. Sit back and collect the revenue sharing. Don’t have to worry about competition. This is why Lew’s interests and the fans’ interests are not aligned. And I think that’s a bad thing for a sports team.
If no one attends games, then yes, when you don’t win you ought to lose badly. If you have robust attendance, then winning is indeed the way to go.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
right
He is fortunate that there will be at least a baseline attendance because of 1) visiting teams’ fans, 2) goodwill built up by the A’s previous 40 years in Oakland, and 3) baseball being part of American culture, and especially 4) Very little competition.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
None of those things, however, are Lew Wolff's problem so much as a systemic problem
If you want square some blame, then throw it at Selig et al for letting this system to perpetuate.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
If no one attends games, then yes, when you don’t win you ought to lose badly
The Pirates and Royals sure have that taken care of.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Also Lew Wolff's fault, IMO.
Pam liked my old sig better.
by mikev on Sep 29, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Toronto and Florida are both around .500 and Florida especially has a crappy stadium
There’s no real excuse for Tampa Bay having 12,000 and 17,000 like they did the last two nights. The team is GIVING AWAY 20,000 tickets tonight.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
No
In the real business world, trying to field a major league baseball team in Oakland would be a ludicrously silly business strategy and would rapidly result in the team moving or entering bankruptcy. There’s a reason why Taunton does not have an English Premier League soccer team.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
OK - you are right, that is an overexaggeration
But the point is that as an owner in MLB, there is no fear of competition and there is no realistic possibility the A’s remaining fans will all walk away next year. There will always be some who attend, just as there are with the Royals and Pirates and Orioles.
You are right that is not Wolff’s fault that the team is in Oakland now. If he could move to SJ w/o MLB stopping him, he probably would have done so already. But that is not the main point.
On the whole, MLB’s structure encourages owners’ interests to be misaligned with the fans’ interests, because you can often make a greater profit by not investing in your team. But great owners want to win, not just for profits but for many other reasons. And fans place winning as a much higher priority than where it seems Wolff places it (judging from his comments). I see this as a problem.
This is not to say there is never any room for long-term strategy. As Daniel Snyder has shown, just plowing cash into free agents is no guarantee of winning. But I just want to know that they are doing everything they can to win. And it seems to me they are not.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure anyone in Oakland aside from the people who already attend
Are placing any priority on the A’s anyways.
Someone said above “Schott just didn’t want to lose money.” I’m not sure how anything Wolff has done suggests a different strategy.
Also, “great owners” are basically defined as those who own winning teams.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree that incentives are misaligned
I’ve advocated an MLB tax on large markets to be used to produce “bounties” for regular season wins. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to be implemented.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
But it's not just MLB's structure
that misaligns owners’ interests with fans’ interests. Sure, there are plenty of market perversities due to MLB’s peculiar organization, but that’s not the crux of the matter.
The real point, and the reason your market comparisons all fall apart, is that the product baseball clubs sell to the public is not wins. If it were, it would be a stupid business, since wins and losses are a zero sum game across the leagues.
What ball clubs sell to the public is entertainment, and entertainment is a function of competition. Just because any team’s fan gets more satisfaction from each additional win doesn’t mean you can extrapolate it to the whole system and say more wins equals more success and thus “ought to” be rewarded financially. If the Yankees went 162-0 every year and the Orioles went 0-162 every year, the loss in value to Orioles fans would not be matched by a corresponding gain in value to Yankees fans. Ultimately it would be a loss to both, because the competition would be stupid and pointless.
Yes, fans want to win all the time, but ultimately wins are not what the ball club is created to provide. Any economic analysis based on the assumption that it is is going run into all sorts of paradoxes.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
by iglew on Sep 29, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
yes, wins do not automatically equal entertainment
and they definitely correlates to entertainment value up to a certain point (maybe not to 0-162 but at least, say to 110 wins).
You can derive entertainment otherwise (which is why every team has fans coming to games), but wins are a major factor.
And I am basically saying the structure leads an owner to value wins less, and unless the owner has a personality that values winning more, then the fans are generally screwed because the owner won’t try as hard as possible to win.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
But you don't buy a ticket for a win
You buy a ticket for a chance at a win.
And a lot of revenue comes from people rooting for the other side.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Actually, locating a Bay Area team in Oakland makes sense
When you consider Oakland’s central location and importance as a transportation hub.
by OaklandSi on Sep 30, 2010 6:16 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
True. Unless there's already a team in SF
drawing away business. In which case you’d do better to find a different hub further from SF. Like maybe San Jose.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Business owners are surely subject to criticism
If the grocery store stops carrying your favor cereal you might criticize them. How long has Wolff owned the A’s? I’ve had a vested interest in the A’s for 20+ years. Ok, he might have a greater interest that I have ever had, but what about my emotional investment as a paying customer. That counts for something right. I might not have a say on the board of directors but I can vote with my wallet or make public statements.
Your emotional investment does count for something.
Except that it doesn’t put any of the risk on yourself.
by LoneStranger on Sep 30, 2010 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Risk? No. But they're still wanting something from the fans...
,,,they want the fans to hand over their money and time to follow the team over other potential entertainment options. But the fan’s “investment” pretty much ends there, while the team’s ownership risks (unlikely, but still possible) ultimate financial failure.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Unlikely?
How about the Rangers going Bankrupt? It’s a very real risk.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
TBH, I'm a lot more worred at the $150M per year they'll be getting from Fox Southwest.
Christ, even if HALF of that goes to revenue sharing, that’s going to make a $125M (or more) payroll a very simple thing for Texas to do if desired.
Pam liked my old sig better.
I am dubious of the price
here is the Biz of baseball being dubious, although not well sourced.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Yes.
It was risky for Hicks & Co. Maybe not for the team as a whole. But who’s the one who lost the team and who’s the one getting the big bucks on that deal? They aren’t the same people. The team will always survive sure, but the owner taking the risks not so much.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
The team vs Hicks.
The team was declared bankrupt as a legal maneuver. In the practical sense of being broke as we know it, it was never in any real danger — as evidenced by the fact that a new owner was willing to pay plenty to take it over.
Hicks, on the other hand, really is truly bankrupt. He borrowed too much to buy the team.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Right
Which was the point I was making. When we push for a team to spend their own money on the team as an owner, that’s the risk we’re asking that individual to take. We assume the money is there to spend and not in a constant state of flux within the market or that he’s not taking a big risk in doing so. The team will survive just fine because the team isn’t the entity at risk, the individual involved in it always is.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
What's your definition of 'unlikely"?
You seem to think it’s a synonym for “impossible”.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Well, I mean right now this season there are at least two teams that are struggling with financial risks
albeit for very different reasons. The Rangers with bankruptcy and the Dodgers because of their divorce. There’s a financial risk involved and a liability that’s being taken. That’s not affecting the team at all, but it is affecting the outcome of the owner’s financial status. Yeah, semantically you didn’t say impossible, but without looking it up, there are been a number of teams (while a low percentage of the whole) in the last decade alone who have lost their team and struggled with the financial risk and burden of owning a MLB team.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
They do want customers to hand over money
That’s why they want a new store, so more customers show up. Which brings it back to the stadium debate.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Of course, you probably wouldn't take every opportunity to shit all over your consumer base.
And you wouldn’t be blaming your poor performance on venue and trying to pretend that if some other location let you build a new building there (all with your money, you’d assure them half-truthfully), your business would thrive.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Poor performance is on players
Inability to attract star players because of venue/payroll constraints is a different thing. The team sucked in 2007 because of its players.
Wolff has said he will build a stadium in SJ with his own money, and SJ will pay for local improvements. He can’t really go back on that now.
The A’s aren’t like Disneyland. You can’t knock over some orange groves and build a stadium in the middle of nowhere and people come. If nothing else, there are more people in the immediate vicinity of a proposed SJ stadium than in Oakland.
Our of curiosity, what do you think about Tampa Bay giving away 20,000 tickets last night?
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I like it
I wish the A’s would pick some Wednesday and do that.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
any Monday night
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I like what it says about the ownership.
Our of curiosity, what do you think about Tampa Bay giving away 20,000 tickets last night?
That tells fans that the ownership seriously wants them to come see the team play. It says, “We don’t know why you’re not coming. OK, maybe we do, but there isn’t much we can do about that right now, but please come and see this incredible team we built FOR YOU, and maybe think about showing us some appreciation in the form of money, but of course we’re not tacky enough to come out and say that.”
Wolff has said he will build a stadium in SJ with his own money, and SJ will pay for local improvements. He can’t really go back on that now.
We’ll see.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure given a choice, all owners would prefer more paying customers
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Lew has a weird way of expressing that wish.
He routinely, as in almost every chance he gets, takes a dump on his immediate consumer base. He’s been doing it since he got involved with the ownership.
Now I’m not saying it would be easy to get Oakland to come out and support the A’s. He’d have to go out and work. And maybe, if he had really put out that effort and it was for naught, I’d be content to say, “OK, buddy. You’re right. Turns out Oakland isn’t a baseball town. Do what you have to.”
But he didn’t make that effort. Not even close.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Basically any comment he makes in regard to a new stadium
Some people interpret it as shitting on the customers. Facts are facts. Maybe they don’t reflect well on the customers sometimes, but it does not take away from their validity.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I bet you that
less than 1% of the potential A’s customers know who lew WOlff is Of that less than 1% less than 1% have ever heard or read Lew Wolff say something bad about the colleseum.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Less than 1% of Bay Area baseball fans know who the owner of the Oakland A's is?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 1, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it was a move by ownership to repair the bad PR of people like Longoria and Price being critical of the tiny crowds...
…the last series of the regular season as they play to clinch a playoff spot.
The ownership doesn’t do that if the players don’t say something and fans rip them for being millionaires who dare to complain about something.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Are you confident that Lew Wolff will bring glory to the Oakland Athletics?
First of all, in his mind they are no longer the Oakland Athletics. He was in the booth for the telecast of last night’s game, and I had to turn the channel when he said: “The A’s have a rich history in Oakland, but I see them as the Bay Area’s team.” Give Ray Fosse credit, he did try to pump up the 40 plus years in Oakland, remarking on the fans, the players, 4 WS victories and 6 WS trips.
I agree, he is taking a passive approach until San Jose. The big offseason signing will be Mark Ellis at a reduced rate. Mainly for PR reasons (See we did sign a free agent!). We might sign a washed up old player like Hideki Matsui.
This team will suck until San Jose. I gaurantee it.
I can’t stand Wolf or the ornership. I miss Walter Haas. It’s nearly unberable. Billy Beane is operating with one hand behind his back and don’t forget people: HE IS A MINORITY OWNER!
To be honest wtih you, If I didn’t have such a visceral affection for the team itself, and the Oakland A’s identity that stems from my childhood, I would no longer be a fan. But of course, that is what Wolf and his multimillionare cronies (including Beane, part owner I remind you) are banking on.
Wolff makes me miss Schott/Hoffman.
How many owners has the team had in Oakland? Four.
(in order of ownership, not rank)
- Finley
- Haas
- Schott/Hoffman
- Wolff
Currently, Wolff ranks last on my list. I reserve the right to change my order in the future, but that’s how it stands right now.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
It's not like Schott/Hoffman opened up the wallets
IIRC, they didn’t offer Tejada a contract and used a BS excuse like “Oh, we didn’t want to disrespect him.”
The only reason people rank Finley and Haas higher than the other guys is because the team won the WS during each’s regime. It’s just like managers – you suck when the team loses, and you’re awesome when the team wins. If anything, the team fell this year not based on the ownership but on the roster construction. Which, then, should be placed on BB’s shoulders, not Wolff’s.
I hate losing too, man, but we’re not losing because of Lew Wolff.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Several points...
- No, Schott/Hoffman didn’t open their wallets, but their edict was deceptively straight forward and simple… don’t lose money. They didn’t expect to make money (in the short term), just didn’t want to lose money. I suspect this was actually more freeing to Beane than the current situation.
- No, they didn’t offer Tejada a contract for the reason you state. However, Tejada was asking for Giambi-like money, which they weren’t willing to do. Not unreasonably so. That would have been a bad contract. Tejada wasn’t the leader that Giambi was at the time. Anyway, Tejada ended up signing with the Orioles for less. A lot less. Beane said afterward that had they known his eventual contract would have been for that amount, that they would have had a different mindset and would have offered him a contract to stay.
Announcing it so early was still a boneheaded PR move, though.
- They did offer Giambi everything he wanted that was on the table at the time, only to have Giambi add more as he was using the A’s as a tool to get a better offer from the Yankees. They also offered Chavez and Dye very nice contracts to keep them here. So, it’s not like they were never willing to spend. Giambi was dishonest in his dealings and the Chavez and Dye injuries were unfortunate.
- Finley wasn’t really willing to spend, but it was a different era and he did work within the framework of the era as needed. Unfortunately, as times changed, he wasn’t willing to go along.
- Haas was willing to spend, and IIRC the A’s had the highest payroll in 1990.
Maybe it’s semantics, but while I might agree we’re not losing because of Wolff, I would say we’re not winning because of him.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
one could argue that Tejada's asking price was merely the start point for negotiations
he said repeatedly that off-season and even in the season that he would consider a hometown discount, and he pleaded publicly for a chance to negotiate.
I understand that at the time the A’s felt they could afford only one long term contract to their pending star players: either Miggy or Chavvy (who would be up for free agency one year after Tejada). The A’s have stated that they felt they had a replacement for Tejada in Bobby Crosby, but not one for Chavez at 3B.
they were right on one of those replacement assessments.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
He did, yes...
…but he was asking $96m-ish and eventually ended up signing for $72m-ish. That’s a hell of a “home discount”. I can see why the team would not have any reasonable expectation that they could meet in the middle as they were so far apart to begin with.
If I have $30K to spend on a car I’m not going to even look at or consider a new Ferrari because I know the gap is too much to overcome, even if the dealer is my brother and will give me a great deal.
Also, was that even what he was thinking when he said “home discount”? He might have been thinking $90m as a discount, which is still far away from what he eventually signed for.
(My numbers here are from memory. They are close, if not exact.)
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
we'll never know what he meant by "hometown discount"
since the A’s never tried to negotiate with him.
No, we won't, but I seriously doubt he meant a 30%+/- discount.
Would the union even let him do that much if there were another team willing to pay close to full asking price?
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
evidently the union had no problem with him signing for 6 yrs/$72 million
it’s a bit disheartening to think that the A’s would have considered signing him for that amount. Had they at least tried to negotiate they might have found that out – or at least settled the “what if” argument.
also, the union weighs in on severe cuts to the previous year's salary
but I’ve never seen them weigh in on opening statements about goals for the next contract, versus what the player actually signs for.
That wasn't my point, though.
My point was… Would the union approve of signing a contract for 6/$72m if another team was offering 6/$90m?
I don’t know. I do not recall an instance where the gap was so big and the player wanted the drastically lesser figure.
They had no problem with 6/$72m because that was the only and/or highest offer (presumably).
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I don't remember the union weighing in on Beltre signing for one year $10 million
when he had two offers for three-year contracts for $24 million (Philly and Oakland).
I believe they only weigh in on salary cuts.
This is true, but...
…he had a clearly stated purpose in doing so. A shorter contract to extract a future bigger contract has some logic (and risk) to it. Same years and drastically different money does not.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
in Mark's case he wouldn't be a free agent signing
the A’s have a player option for 2011 on him. What they may be doing is renegotiating that contract.
I don't see this as a "dead horse" at all
We just had the owner basically come out and say that the team would not make any improvements going into next season. That’s as good as giving up on any hope of making the postseason except through incredible luck.
You don’t think that’s kind of an important discussion topic?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Sep 29, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because I can see how the thread is going to end up already.
75% “omg wolff suxx he hates oakland” while not actually reading into what was said.
25% decent discussion.
IIRC, I didn’t get that implication at all from his comments. I took it to mean that they won’t try for a big 1 year deal, which is fine, and they won’t give out a huge long term deal to just anybody, either.
So we don’t have to worry about an Aaron Rowand type signing. I’m cool with that.
Pam liked my old sig better.
by mikev on Sep 29, 2010 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
If he meant "not just anybody" I agree with that also.
But, it could be taken either way and it would be nice if he had been more clear.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I think people are going to read into it the same way they they already feel about Lew.
i.e. It doesn’t matter what he said, it isn’t going to change opinions.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
No doubt correct.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I read it as "we are not going to spend money on anyone because anyone we'd spend it on is a money-loser"
Which is probably correct.
But I’d rather my team’s owner had delusions of grandeur than be a rational skinflint.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Sep 29, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
How do you read it that way?
I don’t see the necessity of going out and getting someone for one year.
We want to be careful with (a multi-year deal) “I like the fact we’ve tied up Suzuki and Brett Anderson, but you have to be careful you don’t risk the team on one person.”
Neither of those statements say “we’re not going to spend money”
it tells me that they’re not looking to get a 1 year contract guy again, like Sheets or Piazza or Nomar or whoever. It also tells me they’re not going to just throw out a 6 year deal on whoever, which again I also don’t mind one bit.
Pam liked my old sig better.
by mikev on Sep 29, 2010 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Coco Crisp
Was the perfect signing for the A’s, and by “A’s” I mean the A’s management / ownership. A good player with flaws who doesn’t require a long term deal. Forget Crawford, Werth, Dunn, or Konerko. Think Matsui, Dye, Glaus, Nady, Eckstein, etc
by GusanoQuemador on Sep 29, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Jermaine Dye will retire sometime in the offseason
book it. And I don’t want his old ass anyways.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
ECKSTEIN?!? ECKSTEIN?!?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh boy…
AN: Where you will be an A's fan or Dallas Braden will show you the repercussions of your actions.
by stranahanahan on Sep 29, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd take Matsui.
I think if we could get one from column A, one from column B, and Cust from Column C, we’d do alright next year.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
And guess what....
Slusser has a mention about Matsui possibly being targeted by the A’s.
Matsui told The Chronicle through an interpreter on Tuesday that he’d consider the A’s if they called, “the same as I would for every team.”
Matsui said he likes the Bay Area and he noted that it has a “decent-sized Asian community.” He also said that the vast Coliseum wouldn’t be any deterrent as far as he is concerned.
“You could say it’s definitely a big ballpark. There’s a huge amount of foul ground,” Matsui said. “But I’ve always had a positive experience there. I’ve hit pretty well there.”
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd have no problem with Gojira playing his twilight years here
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Sep 29, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Hell and No.
Cust > Matsui all day.
If we are going to get rid of Cust, its because Carter will be taking over at DH and no other reason.
I saw the Matsui thing the other day and for a moment, was pretty interested in the idea.
And then I thought about him having to be a DH at this point. Is he really completely dead as an OF? Or just like Carter/Cust bad?
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
On second thought, even Carter/Cust bad isn't acceptable.
An OF/DH situation of Carter/Cust/Crisp/Matsui isn’t a good idea.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
He was worse than Cust this year, why would I want to spend 2X what Cust made for a worse player?
Pam liked my old sig better.
I agree
with the caveat that I acknowledge that CUsts BABIP has been crazy high this year.
I still think I prefer Cust.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Could put Cust in the outfield
I know, I know. But it is an option. He’s certainly the best current A’s corner outfielder. (It’s just that he’s also the best current A’s DH.)
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
That's not a "mention"
That’s being asked if you like puppies and chocolate. Everybody likes puppies and chocolate.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Chocolate puppies: Yum.
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
We can also rule out Crawford and anyone else who wants 4-6 years.
At the end of the day, though, if BB has the deal in place and makes a compelling argument, I bet Wolff is likely to sign off on it
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps not.
But then, I don’t read “We want to be careful with a multi year deal” as “We will not give out a multi year deal”
I mean, if I am going to spend a hundred million dollars over a certain number of years on a player, you can be damn sure I’ll be careful about which player it is.
Pam liked my old sig better.
I have no problem with being careful
clearly some of the A’s multi-year deals did not work out so well.
Of course you'd be careful
But I don’t see $70M+ going out the door on one guy, which seems to be what he’s getting at. Risking the team = putting all that surplus payroll budget into one guy. There’s clearly a point at which he’s going to say to BB “that’s too much/too many years”
To some extent, some of these statements have me believe that he’s planning on keeping the A’s long-term. Otherwise he wouldn’t give a crap and leave the mess for the next guy.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I see that as a good thing, though.
Granted, I don’t think Billy would offer a long term big money deal to someone who doesn’t deserve it, like GMJ or Aaron Rowand or something.
I also think that it’ll get to a point where, say there is a bidding war for Crawford, it will be decided that OK, we just can’t spend $21M per year on ONE guy.
Pam liked my old sig better.
Doesn't Beane like to play his cards close to the vest so as to not lose any leverage against other GMs?
If he says “Hey, we are totally going to go for a bat, no matter what it costs!” the other GMs/FAs are going to try to squeeze something more out of him in any deal. If you tell people you are reluctant, the other GMs might throw something in or ask for less to sweeten the deal if they really want what you are offering.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure everyone knows we need a bat
But, we have some rich pitching to deal if we want it. So, I think it’s about even in terms of leverage.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm talking about individual deals.
If I want your watch, and you want my shoes, and you are really vocal about how much you want my shoes, I’ll be more inclined to ask for your cuff links as well.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough
I just think in practice, we get the deal that makes sense for both teams, whether we say outright we need a bat or not.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to agree with LS there.
If I have a bunch of widget X, and you have widget Y, but I’ve publicly stated that I really want to get widget Y, when I ask you for it you are going to ask me to also give you widget Z because you know I’m already willing to give you widget X.
Pam liked my old sig better.
But we have pitching widgets ABCD
That a lot of teams might want.
Either way, I sort of assume we will overpay either in money for an FA or for a bat with some cost-control because of the nature of our need. Like I said, it’s no secret the A’s need a hitter.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't rule out Crawford necessarily - at least an attempt
if the A’s are careful, trying to sign him might still look like a good idea. Of course they’ll have alot of competition.
So, you're not signing anyone for one year, and you're not signing anyone for multiple years
Oh, and the team apparently will cut payroll next year.
Am I missing something here?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
How do you equate "being careful" to "we're not going to sign anyone"
Maybe being careful means they offer Crawford or Werth a 4-5 year deal, but not Paul Konerko or JJ Hardy.
Pam liked my old sig better.
The point, apparently
Maybe ‘cause you’re too bust making up shit about how Wolff was saying the A’s are going to cut payroll next year.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Come on
Were you born yesterday?
“The fans feel we have all this money, but it’s for one year,” he said. “We’ve tried that before.”
Let’s try this: What does this quote mean to you? To me it says “we have money in the short run, but it’s not replenishable.”
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
It means the A's have a bunch of money coming off the books this offseason
But as the youthful core of the team gets signed to extensions or reaches their arbitration years that amount of “free” cash is going to shrink.
Or have you forgotten that good, young baseball players turn into millionaires by the start of their 4th season?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 29, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, but it's factually wrong as applied to at least 2012 unless my math is very wrong
2013 is a different story, admittedly. However, I expect a number of players entering that season to be nontendered or traded away (particularly among the bullpen arms).
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
By 2012
Braden, Suzuki and Anderson will have been millionaires for a whole year. Cahill, Gio, Bailey and Barton will join them in 2012.
Plus you could be factoring Kouz, Cust, Breslow and Sweeney.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I would be shocked if any of those last 4 are still with the team in 2112.
Maybe Kouz. Maybe.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Yeah, the Rush fan in me came out... I meant 2012, of course.
If Sabean is still GM, they’ll be on the Giants in 2112.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
2112 is the worst Rush album.
unless they put out something worse in the 2000’s that I haven’t heard.
The lyrics stink on that album… worse than Rush’s lyrics usually stink.
On a related note: I hate Ayn Rand.
That is all.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 29, 2010 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not in my top list of Rush albums, either.
I don’t think it’s the worst, but it’s certainly not the best, either. A lot of people seem to like it, though.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
The A side is pretty great, but the B side is pretty consistently awful.
That format was way better done on Hemispheres.
It's all about
Hemispheres – Permanent Waves – Moving Pictures – Signals
The one after Signals was the beginning of the decline, and Neil Peart’s horrible rap on the title track from “Roll The Bones” was the official shark jumping point.
I have to admit, though, that Alex Lifeson was funny as fu@k playing himself on “Trailer Park Boys”
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
For me...
…Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were their peak. Both Top 10 worthy, especially MP. I did not care for Signals at all, though I did like Power Windows some.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I also likes their debut and Fly By Night.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Fly By Night was quality.
I like the one before that, too, with “Bastille Day,” but I can’t remember the name of it.
Anyway, Rush was pretty much my junior high school soundtrack. After that, I got really into Sonic Youth, and everything just got weird from there.
Lately, I’m obsessed with the first couple of Public Image LTD albums. “It’s cold and I’m losing my body heat… the cassette played… POPTONES!”
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Oct 1, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
What's the greatest ever Canadian band?
Rush, The Arcade Fire, or Nomeansno?
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Victoria, BC, baby.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
DOA
Smugglers, Chixdiggit, Huevos Rancheros, Art Bergman et al,
But if you are a fogey BTfuckingO
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
We get up every morning and have back bacon and a Molson?
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
They're all "better" but not "greater"
Greatest" means "best of the popular
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah... i forgot them...
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Paul Anka!
Gordon Lightfoot. Anne Murray.
Oscar Peterson.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I like Oscar Peterson.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Nick Gilder?
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
The only cool thing Ayn Rand ever did
was have an affair with Frank Llyod Wright. That’s all.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
Did she really??
I knew they corresponded and met, but I didn’t know there was an affair. He was about 40 years older than her (though she didn’t mind being 25 years older when it went the other direction).
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Being pro-individual and pro-liberty is definitely not cool.
That is all.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 2, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
espousing a worldview
that completely ignores the critical role the social contract plays in the existence of civilization is one of the most retarded things that could ever be conceived.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
Bravo
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Oct 3, 2010 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
She didn't ignore it
She knew there was a place for voluntary associations amongst free people. You got this one wrong.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 4, 2010 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions
She wasn't really pro-individual at all
I think her writings were some kind of Freudian reaction to her own personality. She was extremely dictatorial and created essentially a cult of personality among her followers.
Lots of irony there.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If what you wrote were true...
…I think you’d actually respect her.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 4, 2010 2:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Look, I just went over to Cot's and did the math
8.5 committed
7 Kouzmanoff
3 Davis
1 Devine
2 Bailey
2 Breslow
4.5 Braden
3 Sweeney
3 Barton
Nontender Buck
2.5 Cahill
1.5 Outman
1.5 Rosales
1 Ziegler
That’s ~40.5M committed, as compared to somewhere around 38M this upcoming year. It’s only a slight difference. I’m having trouble seeing Cust still being worth it in 2012 as compared to other DH options, but I suppose I could be wrong.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
You're missing some numbers
Gio (3.0) Super 2
Blevins (1.0)??? Super 2
Plus, based on the names you’ve currently listed, another 11 roster spots at a minimum of $400K.
Round numbers, that’s approximately $50 million for the 25 man roster in 2012.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Hm
Their bad, I guess.
I don’t think Gio’s likely to get $3M unless he’s like Top 5 for the Cy Young next year or something, but I suppose quibbling over exact figures isn’t the point.
With that in mind, the team probably has about $7M more to spend in 2011 than in 2012 if we assume a constant payroll. Obviously that doesn’t work if we go with my flexible-payroll notion. :p
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
In Jeff's defense...
Since Super 2 isn’t a set timeframe qualified individuals won’t be announced until after the 2011 season. Jeff waits until those kind of calls become official before marking them in the spreadsheets.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You don't want to risk the team on one person.
That means, “you don’t want to spend a lot of money on Carl Crawford.”
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
For the most part, aren't all "big-name" FAs money-losers?
Whether you’re the A’s or the Yankees? It’s just that the Yankees don’t care if they lose money because they have a lot of it.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
It's easier to miss or lose money on a big FA when you have 400M in revenue instead of 100M.
Pam liked my old sig better.
Nah
The Yankees probably turn a $5M profit on every win. The A’s would be lucky to take in a third of that.
The bigger your market, the more a win is worth to you, and thus (all else being equal) the more you are willing to spend to get one.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I'm happy to see you say that.
But I’d rather my team’s owner had delusions of grandeur than be a rational skinflint.
I feel the exact same way.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 30, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to see this turned green
But I doubt it’s going to happen, my friend.
(Although I might disagree with the “big 1 year deal” POV.)
The monster at the end of this blog.
now I feel like I've "made it" on AN.
g-man recommended one of my posts.
I promise not to become complacent and let this get to my head now. I’ll remember all the little people when I make it big!
Pam liked my old sig better.
Pretty sure he was getting snobby
Rec him, don’t cover for him.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Whenever your head gets too big,
you can put on your “Cupholder” T-shirt.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 29, 2010 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what I'm here for...
I’ve turned heel in this curent stint on AN.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
So you grew stubble and filled it in with spraypaint?
by LoneStranger on Sep 30, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
No, he's got a foreign object hidden in his shorts.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
That just means
He loses at the PPV.
Nobody expects some kind of obscure Monty Python allusion.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on Sep 30, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Only if he gets caught.
And if he doesn’t get caught, they’ll just replay the video on Monday and the commissioner will set up a rematch.
by LoneStranger on Sep 30, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Also:
They might just be blowing smoke in order to keep hype down on players they actually are targeting. Wolff can be as flippant and vague as he wants to be during the season, and its actually against the rules to even talk about other teams players right now. What’s he supposed to say “We are looking to upgrade LF with a player with excellent defense and solid hitting who steals a lot of bases who has the initials C.C.”???
Perhaps he is just going to wait off to see who the Angels and Rangers get, we actually do have plenty of pieces to trade for a superstar hitter or maybe the A’s will be the “mystery team” you always hear about this offseason.
My point is: during the regular season, take everything said by ownership with a grain of salt.
Clutching at straws
He could have chosen to say nothing. There is a reason why he said what he did.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
He could also change his mind
For example, if something gets resolved with the stadium issue in the offseason.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Or, he could change his mind because of market fluctuations
Say if for some dumb reason Beltre’s best offer is 4/$50MM, surely he’d say “oh word?” and get him for 4/52?
I doubt that
(But I’d love it!)
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Only if you read his comments in the most evil, dark light possible
Let’s put the spin this way… Wolff said the A’s wouldn’t make another bone-head Holliday trade. A trade where the addition of a star player was undercut by the lack of a quality team to surround him with. You’ve decried the Holliday trade from Day 1 and the owner just came out and said (well, implied) that they wouldn’t make that mistake again and here you are criticizing him for it!
The monster at the end of this blog.
It was only a mistake in hindsight.
It could have worked. It didn’t, for a variety of reason I think, but it could have. We don’t have foresight to help us in that regard.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Nope
It was a high risk play from the get go that depended on too many long shots working out to get the A’s back to the post-season. PT thought that from Day 1 and I agreed with him then.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm not convinced their goal was the post-season in 2009...
…but rather a building block to 2010 and beyond.
Of course it was risky. High risk, high reward. Low risk, low reward. Now everybody has been spooked by the ghost of Matt Holliday and is afraid to do any risk at all. Fine, enjoy your indefinite mediocrity.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
You don't trade CarGon for a 1 year rental if the goal is to build in 2010
You don’t understand what people are spooked about. It’s not that the A’s traded for Matt Holliday in 2009. It’s that they traded for a 1 year rental when the rest of that team was made up of so many question marks. They didn’t have a 1B, SS, CF or much certainty in the rotation… but here comes Holliday as the obvious “all in” chip for the post-season.
The monster at the end of this blog.
which might have worked out better
had Giambi not been pressed into service as the everyday first baseman. Giambi himself has said as much.
Barton?
actually, there was a chain reaction series of events that I believe help cause problems for both the Giambi and Nomar signings. Neither player was supposed to be playing every day, particularly not in the field. Cust was ticketed to start in the outfield and Giambi was going to DH more often than not. But the fact that Chavez couldn’t be the everyday 3rd baseman pushed Nomar to play third base more than he should have (and first base as well depending on the lineup). Neither Normar nor Giambi was physically capable of playing every day in the field.
Why would you trade for a one-year rental if you wanted a building block to 2010 and beyond?
That’s not just illogical, it’s actually perverse.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Who said "evil"?
I think it’s totally logical. I think that signing free agents is, for the A’s, fiscal insanity. There’s almost 100% probability that they will be money-losers even if you have a Candide-like optimism about the players’ skills.
I’m not happy about it because, as I said, I’d much rather have a delusionally optimistic owner than a realistic one. But, not to sound like a broken record here, facts is facts.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
We have different definitions of fiscal insanity
Spending the money you have isn’t insane… spending the money you don’t have is insane.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Spending $5 to make $4 is irrational
If you don’t agree with that, I’ve got four pennies I’d like to trade you. And all I want back is one nickel!
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Spending $5 on a $5 product might not be a steal of a deal
But it’s hardly irrational or insane.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's not a $5 product!
I did some calculations on Crawford and Werth earlier this season and no matter how optimistically I squinted at the numbers, I could not see any way to make them add up to the projected contracts actually being a financial winner for the team.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I thought it was understood that in order to land Crawford (or perhaps Werth)
that it would take an overpayment.
Pam liked my old sig better.
I must be missing the part where doing a known overpayment ever makes economic sense
Keep in mind that my calculation INCLUDED as a line-item the increased chances of making the playoffs/winning the world series.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If the franchise value bubble is still years away from deflating,
then short-term losses from the occasional overpaid contract can bring returns in added sale value if the club is to be sold in the near future, or emotional returns for the owner in the form of added victories during the life of the premium player’s contract, if the club is to be kept as a long term toy/investment.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 29, 2010 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Because you're looking at the contract in a vacuum
Becoming a desirable location to play may allow for players to want to stay and for future players to be underpaid. Having a super star and a good team might make TV/radio/advertisement/etc. contracts more valuable. On a one-to-one ratio of that player only, yeah, the overpayment will inevitably be a loss. But if you take the loss now, you may be able to make it up in other avenues that are currently valued lowed because your product is lacking. On top of which, for a revenue gaining team, we’re likely making that million dollars back from the other clubs anyway whether we lose that money via a lack of attendance or lose it by giving it to a player.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
Uh,
a team that increases revenue while also increasing costs will do much WORSE under revenue sharing. That actually increases the effective cost of a Crawford or a Werth.
I know people are always making that “spillover effects” argument, but first, where is the evidence that it actually exists, and second, even if you make optimistic assumptions about it, it’s really hard to see how it makes up the gaps we’re talking about here.
Signing Jayson Werth will not suddenly cause everyone to think of Oakland as a prestige locale. Ask Gil Meche if you don’t believe me about this.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
A single signing no
That makes no difference whatsoever. But if that signing leads to winning, it does. Players want to play for a winner. If the signing is enough to bring a WS title, while the money gained wouldn’t be enough to offset the costs singlehandedly, it’s that sort of spillover that we’re looking for that would have an effect. How much net gained is entirely arguable.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
As I recall, you shorted Crawford from the get go
But… you’re larger point could be valid. Still, you can’t just look at this as an abstract. Yes, it is unlikely Crawford would be able to maintain the same level of production through the life of his contract but how well will he produce in years 4-6? Will that production, while diminished, still be viable if the average cost of a Win increases over time?
Does the shortfall become marginalized if at the tail end of the deal the payroll bumps from $60 million to $80 million?
Is Crawford still producing enough to justify a starting gig? If he’s producing a 4 WAR season in year 6 (at 4.25 a Win) then even at $20 million annual it’s only a small net loss; one that would be more than covered by the absolute bargain priced production the A’s would be getting from their younger players.
Look. Teams get the best value out of a player during the first 6 years of their career. That doesn’t mean the player quits producing once they become eligible for FA. Signing a player who you don’t think will be worth the money by the end of the contract… but should be over the first 4-5 years… is simply the business of baseball.
Facts are facts. To get good value and production during the window the A’s have around their current pitching staff means risking a financial burden after the window closes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
My calculation did not assume a fixed payroll
but rather a floating payroll in which any move that was profitable would be taken and any unprofitable move not taken. I did not account for any liquidity issues that the team might have, but rather assumed that any profitable move would be available to be made. I also did not account for moving to San Jose, because of the speculative timeframe there. IIRC I did not assume that the free-agent-market cost of a win would change substantially, given the ongoing and seemingly never-ending fiscal crisis that the country and state are mired in.
[Side note: I know teams always talk about having x number of dollars in their payroll, but I’m unconvinced that that’s how things actually work. I think it might just be an oversimplification for the mass media. In any case, it’s not how a smartly run business should work them.]
With regard to the move, it has to be said that even assuming (I think safely) that San Jose provides much better value for team wins than the team can currently scrounge up in Oakland, the impact on total increased revenue produced by a Crawford or (especially) Werth contract is minimal, given that about the earliest a move could ever happen is 2013.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I'm with you on the flexible payroll scheme.
I feel similarly about government budgets. Either it’s worth the money or it’s not. I realize that there is a certain logistical aspect to actually funding a project, but even so: If an infrastructure investment is worth it, it’s still worth it even if you’ve got a budget deficit; and if a program is a stupid porkbarrel boondoggle, it’s still a waste of money even if you’ve got extra tax dollars to burn. Looking at everything as “we can afford it” or “we can’t afford it” is the wrong approach.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
by iglew on Sep 30, 2010 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So assuming your flexible payroll...
What would be the cap for 2011?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Is this a trick question?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
No
I just figure you’ve got to start somewhere and realistically there is a point where the coffers are empty. I’m assuming that you’d run out of cash before you ran out of roster space and/or profitable opportunities.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by flexible payroll. I just see a point where the team doesn’t have the funds (start up money, if you will) to make a move, no matter how profitable it might be down the road.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm assuming that they can get an unlimited-for-practical-purposes short term credit line based on team equity
That may be a flawed assumption in the particular current circumstances (see link to new ballpark blog, below), but I don’t think the team is very close to running into any kind of credit cap, especially since the owners can loan their own money to the team.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I have read this before
a serious question, are there any teams that it is a financial winner for? the Yankees angels red sox cubs dodgers won’t “make” $18M a year due solely to Carl Crawford will they?
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
I've got a strong hunch that the Yankees would make that back on regular-season wins alone
The other big players would probably lose money on him in the regular season, but make up for it with increased chances of winning the World Series and making the playoffs.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
it is irrational
unless you have other reasons to sign a player, as in, you are willing to lose money on that deal if it brings you playoff baseball and a chance for a title.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 29, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
In which case it doesn't matter if our 1st round draft pick is unprotected!
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I perceived much of Lew's interview last night as trying to walk back what he said to Slusser
Not that he didn’t mean what he said, but that he spoke too much in terms of “We’re not going to do this” and “We want to be careful about that” instead of leading with something positive like “We have a great young pitching staff and some very talented young players, and Billy and his guys will look very carefully at who we can add to make this team stronger in the offseason blah blah blah” and then qualify it with “of course, we don’t have unlimited resources and we don’t want to throw a lot of money at a rent-a-player”. I think Billy and/or the other partners read the story and told him to try to be a little more positive.
But the problem is that Lew is a lousy interview — if he’s ever had any media training, it didn’t take. He projects zero energy, he doesn’t know how to look at the camera, he doesn’t speak in soundbites. I’m not saying that those skills are desirable or ultimately determine whether the ownership is good, I’m just saying he doesn’t know how to convey his ideas via the media in the way that a Steinbrenner or Cuban could.
I don’t think Wolff is ever going to inspire the fanbase or anyone else with his dedication or baseball acumen. If you like the idea of moving to San Jose you’ll see him as an amiable old guy who doesn’t know much about baseball but wants to maximize his return on investment (and whose interests may therefore coincide with that of the fans). If you don’t like the idea of moving to San Jose, you’ll see him as an amiable old guy who doesn’t know much about baseball but wants to maximize his return on investment (and who doesn’t appreciate the team history and the existing fanbase for a variety of speculative reasons).
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Sep 29, 2010 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Very well stated
During his ST telecast with Fosse and Kuip he sounded so out of touch. Stumbling on players names, exuded zero insight on the game the team. You articulate his owner status perfectly. During Braden’s perfect game, leaving the luxury box at the 7th inning zipping up his SJ Clash windbreaker, its very visible he is a casual owner.
Can we stop with the "he left the suite during the 7th inning of the perfect game" bullshit?
He usually leaves the suite when he has guests. He goes and watches the game from other places in the park, leaving his guests to party it up.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
From everything I read, it was a San Jose Earthquakes jacket.
Which also happens to be another team he owns. Why is that a problem?
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
This is generally why most owners don't do interviews
Because they suck at it. With a few exceptions (Marge Schott, Steinbrenner, Cuban) most guys are content to sit back and watch and be sent the bills.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I see Cuban as less of an owner and more of a fanatic with lots of money.
by LoneStranger on Sep 29, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Why can't the A's have an owner like Paul Allen
who buys elections to have the public pay hundreds of millions of dollars to his own construction company to build a new stadium when the county is still paying the debt on the one they blew up?
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
You can a lot of Lew Wolff
But one thing you cannot say is that he’s swindling taxpayers. I think billionaires doing that is the height of disrespect.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 29, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Your point about him not being savvy at public speaking is well taken.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I think you make some real good points
However, I take issue with one thing:
I don’t think Wolff is ever going to inspire the fanbase or anyone else with his dedication or baseball acumen.
That’s not the owner’s job. That’s the team’s job. And this team seems headed for its 4th consecutive losing season.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I like this post
Fans are frustrated that we are eyeballing our 4th losing season in a row and need to play the blame game + Lew not being a very good interview = easy target.
The buck stops here.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
LW
also lied to Travis? :X
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
by ST on Sep 29, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the smartest comment in this thread.
If Lew did have the media savvy to say all the right things, we would instead have a whole bunch of people on here talking about how it’s all just sound bite bullshit that doesn’t matter. And they’d be right. Lew’s irrelevant feel-bad comments are just as meaningless as irrelevant feel-good comments would be.
The only significant comment by Lew in the Slusser article is where he says, “I’m sure Billy will come up with something.” Lew can blather all he wants about whether he thinks we should buy a guy or whatever, but ultimately he has the good sense to delegate those decisions to the guy he hired to make them. This is a good thing. Even if you think Beane isn’t as good as he used to be, he’s still a lot better than having Lew make the decisions.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
by iglew on Sep 29, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
If that was the smartest comment in the thread...
Than this is just a ridiculously good comment. Especially the delegation bit. I think I just might… yeah, I think I will…
Rec’d.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Uh, just to clarify,
By “this”, I meant EM’s comment, not my own. I’m not that vain.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I knew you meant EM's comment
I thought your comment was rec worthy.
Sheesh, next time I won’t bother! ;-)
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm just trying to push down my recs
so that I can justify moving to a different user name.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
You guys are bored and waiting for the game thread, huh?
Don Pardo, tell me what I’ve won.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought I was quitting for good,
then you quit
then Bed quit
then you came back
then Bed came back
then Bed quit again
then Bed came back again
then I came back…
but I didn’t come back as a full timer. So there you have it.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Oct 1, 2010 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Hmm...We're not really looking for part-time help right now
Maybe call back in a month?
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
Turn this
ishhh green!
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
by ST on Sep 29, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I perceived much of Lew’s interview last night as trying to walk back what he said to Slusser
I’ll agree with you that Lew’s interview the other night was to walk back what he said, but not for the same reasons. He might be a bad communicator. However, sometimes bad communicators disclose too much because they were not prepared and do not understand the consequences of what they say. I took Lew’s interview with Sluss to be more raw and less coached than the interview with Foss and Kuip. To me, may be a clear indication of how he truly feels about specificially signing a player that can take us from .500 to glory once again.
So which is the truth? I’m not really sure, but I’m not going to give Lew the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.
You really think
that we can sign one FA player that can take us from .500 and improve to a WS win? Name that player please.
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
Free Agent
is the operative word….
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
by ST on Sep 30, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
pujols in 2011
but you think cliff lee alone is going to get us from .500 to a ws title?!
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
by ST on Sep 30, 2010 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
no it was a gag
name one. i just mashed two toether.
Thought Pujols was this year though, my apologies
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
King Kelly.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
Kelly now catching for Oakland!
(then Kerwin Danley yells)
“Get back in the dugout, Kelly! That sh!t hasn’t worked in a hundred and eight years and you know it!
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not going to lose much sleep
over these statements by Wolff. The way I look at this is, they tried to add to the team last year by putting out top bids on Beltre and Scoot, so why wouldn’t they try to add to the team this offseason with the team looking much better going into next year then they did this last? I don’t expect a huge splurge on a guy like Crawford, I mean, I at least expect them to get into talks but someone will give him 6 years and 100+ million and that wont be the A’s. I think interest in Werth should be kept to a minimum because I don’t like that he’s coming from a great hitters park in the NL to the coliseum. He will probably get 4-5 years and $15 million or more per, and IMHO I just don’t think he would be worth that to the A’s. Other then the fact that he plays at a position where we could use a clear upgrade, he’s probably not much of a match at that price. He needs to play in a hitters park, I think that’s pretty clear. I think we will see them make a run at a guy like Beltre (again), and/or maybe Adam Dunn or Manny. I also expect Beane to explore some trades for a younger cost-controlled outfielder. It’s obvious that aside from Carter, and possibly Taylor, were really not looking at a whole lot as far as young talented OF’s in this system who are ready to make an impact. As far as adding hitters, this is about it. We could add two bats if we can get a FA to bite on Oakland (at the right price) and add one via trade, but I see it far more likely that we only see one solid upgrade offensively, and the team looks to add another solid starter in the Kuroda/Lilly/De La Rosa mold, or possibly someone coming off an injury like Brandon Webb. Either way, I fully expect Wolff/Beane to try and put a better offense, and a better team in general on the field next season. Even if they are trying to get the hell out of Oakland, it would be a foolish business decision to not improve the team if the opportunity is there. It’s pretty obvious to most in the baseball world that the A’s are not far off from being a solid contender so I just don’t see how it would benefit ownership to punt the 2011 season before it even starts, stadium issues or not.
_
Hi my name is Lou Wolf
My mission statement is to build a baseball stadium with adjoining residential and commercial usage and flip said property and team for a profit. I will let Billy Beane do his thing in the mean time as long as it doesn’t cut into my revenue sharing money.
by gambler on Sep 29, 2010 12:05 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
It's Lew Wolff, btw.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
No different than many other business owners
I’ve worked in manufacturing type businesses for decades and I’ve seen this happen over and over again- fat cat rich dude comes in and buys business, then stops buying new machinery because he wants to save money, stops the office free coffee (ie: fan fest) because he’s too cheap to dole out ten bucks a week, hires his son/cousin/nephew as the new manager because they work cheap- and then starts complaining the moment business declines. Wolff is no different than a million others, all out for the bottom line without much thought for the long term.
The greenmachine
The post
is a good read, but prefacing it with the Oakland low attendance argument, even if you don’t buy it, distracts from the rest of the content. As Iglew stated, this is just Lew’s opinion and I am glad he is delegating the decisions to BB. I think for the most part, his views reflects that of AN, with going out and acquiring 1 year rentals on aging players, but also against long term commitments that would handicap the whole organization for years to come. I read his opinions as being more sensible and conservative as opposed to being cheap and worrying about revenues.
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
First, you think that Lew’s opinion is being more sensible and conservative as opposed to being cheap and worrying about revenues. I agree with the latter except for the sensible part. Lew in my opinion is being too conservative. It may be a failure to communicate, but I think his statements boil down to his business philosophy. I think he’s preparing us fans for another ho-hum season. I agree to the extent that he attempted to be sensible, but failed in the execution. I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt as you do.
All I’m asking is a little perspective from him. He seems out of touch with what the A’s have been involved in and that’s a race for the division. That’s over now, but you would not know this. I’m not saying tell us what we want to hear. I am saying throw us a bone for pete’s sake.
Really?
I hate to break it to people, but when you never get closer than 6 games back and finish (likely) 10 or more back, that’s not a race for the division, it’s a foregone conclusion.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
At what point in the season are you talking about?
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
valid question
Because we were in first for a while, and we fell back after interleague play, but were still within striking distance, esp if we improved the team. The Rangers gave every chance to catch up.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 30, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Hardly
Our chances may have been slim, but we were definitely still in a couple of weeks ago, the team just wasn’t good enough to make anything of it. But not having been eliminated that late into September is most definitely being in contention for the division race.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Conservative
= rationale = sensible. Given that he is essentially CEO of the A’s, did you expect anything less? He’s not going to rock the boat to have people call him out on it later on. He is entitled to his opinion just like you are, but again the key is that he is wise enough to delegate this to his general in command: BB. If you were to attack BB’s MO the past few years with the FA signings and such, then i can see a point. But, your last comment sort of sums up your whole attitude, " throw us a bone for pete’s sake." Unless they go out and blatantly say they’ll sign Crawford in the offseason, I don’t think you’ll be satisfied. Sorry, but as Lew once said, “Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us.”
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
Also..
a nice tidbit on www.newballpark.org on MLB mandated “Debt Service Rules”. It is completely applicable to the questions at hand and adds another dimensions to the argument of better revenue generation before signing big impact players (i’m not endorsing it, i’m just saying that this may be another parameter the a’s have to be cognizant of).
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
"Just play for the name in front of the uniform.." - Dallas Braden
"Oakland is the emotional choice, and could still work, but San Jose really is the best choice." - UncleLeo
Great link, ST. Thanks.
Maybe this is what Lew meant by his “but it’s for one year” comment.
One more year before the stadium deal is close enough that the commissioner wants to see sufficient annual cash flow to support the proposed debt?
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
HELP! Someone please rescue me!
I am at work (in Oakland mind you) SURROUNDED by Gnats fans, all giddy with excitement about the Padres series and on stubhub.com trying to score $$$ tix for the games
i’m in the twighlight zone
damn, OAH. that sucks.
so far, my giants co-workers have been really quiet.
As one of the rare people around these parts who actually likes the Giants,
I have to admit, I’m getting considerable schadenfreude from seeing some of the Oakland-yay-chest-thumper types around here have to swallow this outcome.
That probably has something to do with the fact that those same people seem to constantly be the ones complaining about strickouts and Bob Geren.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Wouldn't have thought you liked the Giants
You’re always poking fun at Sabean like the rest of us. I think it was you who said Konerko was being fitted for his Giants uniform at $30M above the nearest offer.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
The reason that I dislike Sabean so much is precisely BECAUSE I like the Giants
I’d love it if he was GMing the Angels… I mean sure there’d be some mocking here and there, but he’d be a Bill Bavasi-like gift to the A’s… as it is he’s doing his best to screw up my second-favorite team.
This year the team has somehow managed to be good in spite of the usual idiotic moves, thanks to a combination of the farm system spitting out a couple of top talents and some miraculous turnarounds by seemingly washed-up veterans. Of course that’ll probably just sell Sabean (and worse yet, the ownership) on the notion that a lineup full of beached thirtysomethings really is still a viable strategy in MLB.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Posey, IMO, is why they're in the playoffs
Burrell and the other crap-tastic guys haven’t been as crap-tastic as expected, but Posey more than made up for it.
I don’t think Reagins is going anywhere. Although the firing of their scouting director might foreshadow major change…
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Burrell's been incredible for the Giants
2.4 WAR in less than half a season of PA? That’s spectacular.
It’s hilarious how inversely proportional the performance of Giants hitters is to the amount they’re getting paid by the team. Their three top-paid hitters are Aaron Rowand, Edgar Renteria and Mark DeRosa (combined WAR: 1.3; combined salary: $27M).
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Burrell has been great for the Giants.
I was really hoping for the A’s to pick him up when he got released.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 30, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
me too, but oh well.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Lincecum/Cain/Sanchez are okay
But who would ever build a team around starting pitching?
Nobody expects some kind of obscure Monty Python allusion.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on Sep 30, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait. I'm confused.
Are you saying your schadenfreude is your happiness at seeing the A’s fans’ unhappiness at Giants fans’ happiness?
That’s like third level schadenfreude.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Paul's a master at reveling in others misery.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
That was unnecessary
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I was merely joking, my good PT.
You know I’m never serious. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 30, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
No sweat
Tone is hard to grasp over the internet.
Irrelevant linguistic side note: this is the rare situation where the construction “I apologize if x” actually makes sense. Now that I know what LB intended, my feelings aren’t hurt anyway and no apology is needed.
Politicians, take note.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
You have bested me again
This will be in my head for three days. Well played
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Is that like third-order pythag?
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
Yes, except much more asinine.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I kinda like the Giants too, at least the current roster and coaches and non-arrogant fans
Their owners and GM and the smuggest 15,000 or so of their fans can go take a long walk off a short pier.
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
They have non-arrogant fans?
Oh yeah, I think I met that guy once.
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
I've been friends with a couple
But they’re a very, very rare breed.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
No.
Definitely not like that rat bastard Dave. He needs to go. And go now.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
luckily, here in LA, there are actually people who hate the Giants more than me
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
now i want to cry, someone said the A's are a bunch of losers
of course i had to say back so how many world series have the giants won?
tell 'em OAH!
Just walk around holding up four fingers.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps you can take consolation in the fact that
poor Giants fans have to wear ugly orange and black, while we get to wear attractive green and gold.
I mean, come on. Orange? How awful.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
At least he won't freeze
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't vote
because there was no button that said, “are you confident that the Oakland A’s will bring glory to Lew Wolff?”
"stick it, a-rod" - dallas braden's grandmother
What happened to Ryan Church??
he’s batting .203 for Arizona? he was so money most of season for in a fantasy league 3 years ago…until the concussion, that is.
It's probably difficult for him to pick among the three or so baseballs he sees coming at him.
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Lew sounds sort of depressing, doesn't he? Why shouldn't he?
I’ve read through this whole thread (earlier- so I may have missed something in back-and-forth more recently added above) but no one has broadened their picture of Lew’s positions to consider why the team would spend roughly $80 mill on payroll in 2007, and is not ready to throw the difference between that and the paltry amount the A’s have committed for next year of $27 million at trying to win the division. I know it’s supposed to be all about them trying to keep the fanbase small so they can cry to Selig, and that’s certainly possible, but there are other considerations, too.
I think it’s likely if you widen the picture, that Lew simply can’t afford to lose money on the A’s. He’s a real estate developer, after all, and last I heard that’s not a money-maker these days.
( I think he dodged a major bullet when his ‘baseball village’ idea crashed and burned with the real estate crash. It was, and remains, an idiotic idea- every other new ballpark is either right downtown or across the street from the park it replaced. Building a new park in the suburbs, inaccessible to mass transit, would certainly have gone against the grain- could even have failed to boost attendance. Add the massive debt burden of the stadium and he might well have gone under.)
Back to Lew’s net worth and his willingness to gamble on the A’s. It’s quite possible none of his other money is working as well for him as it did before the crash. For an example outside baseball, see the sad state of the Chronicle these days. when Hearst was making money no matter what he did, he could afford to blow $50-80 million a year on his hobby paper. When all his other investments were crashing, he was forced to make the Chronicle pay its own way.
I know, Lew’s not the majority owner, but he’s certainly not alone among the owners of the A’s in having investment losses recently (it’s pretty widespread, whether your business is real estate or selling widgets), and that sort of reins in the gambling spirit…
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 4:12 PM PDT reply actions
Midgets, silly! I told you to invest in midgets!
"Burt Reynolds witnessed the conception of his own dad, and frankly, that's what's wrong with him."- TPDMTD!
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 30, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
(sighs)...I really need to start listening to other people besides my imaginary friend, Tom
But seriously,folks....
by Bed on Sep 30, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thumb?
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I checked and you have deknighted yourself. I suppose it's a story you'd rather not tell...
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not legal to sell midgets!
Actually it seems barely legal to use the word. Apparently less-well-liked amongst the vertically challenged (izzat right?) even than dwarf. What, residual good feelings about Snow White, or something? And then there’s the whole dwarf tossing thing…
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Sep 30, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Look
what Wolff is saying is it’s probably not wise for a team like ours to sink $15/20M a year on 1 player for 6/8yrs when we still have unresolved stadium issues, not to mention the inelasticity of our attendance market.
However, I do believe if we are healthy and in 1st place contending for a championship next season, management won’t hesisitate to pull the trigger on a trade that’ll bring in a big bat. That’s where the surplus money will come in handy. I do believe this team will spend money when the time is right to spend it.
But... what are the chances of us being "in 1st place and contending" if we don't do something pro-active to make it happen?
Does it all fall on our younger players to get better? Will the other teams wait for us to catch up?
I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen.
~Bob Lemon, 1981
We were (comparatively) healthy and contending this year
and did absolutely nothing, unless you consider Conor Jackson something (he isn’t). I guess we have to be in first place.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
