So, I Take It Santa is not Visiting the A's This Year?
by baseballgirl on Nov 2, 2011 7:01 AM PDT
Email
PrintIt's never a good sign to see the A's in a MLB story. Other teams get headlines like, "The Cardinals Win The World Series! Go Crazy, People, Go Crazy!" and the A's get headlines like, "Free-agent spending on hold for Beane, A's". I'm guessing that the A's aren't signing Albert Pujols in the off-season, then.
The low-lights from Jane Lee last week:
In the event a stadium is approved for the A's, the team would immediately begin pouring money into player development and scouting in order to build a contending team that would be ready to christen its new home in three or four years.
For now, though, spending isn't much of an option for the A's, who will simply be forced to continue playing the waiting game despite hopes of improving upon a disappointing 2011 season that brought about a meek offensive showing.
Silver lining, anyone?
Oh, and to add insult to injury, I logged into Facebook yesterday and 95.7 The Game had this to say:
Does Josh Willingham have a future with the A's? "My best guess is he will probably sign a three-year deal, and probably not with Oakland," agent Matt Sosnick said.
So, there's that.
Is there anything the A's can do this off-season? Do you think there's a chance the A's will sign Willingham anyway? How about any of the other free agents (Coco Crisp, David DeJesus, Rich Harden, and Hideki Matsui)? Do we want any of them? Is there anything that can break right for the A's to have a watchable season in 2012? If the pitching can stay healthy and the pitchers actually pitch well, is it possible to win 90 games 1-0?
Make me feel better.
300 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Speaking of Willingham, he's going to be on 95.7 in a few min
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
hey Bloom
It was a good interview
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions
A 29-HR hitter who wants to play in Oakland?
Eeww.
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
Would this be called an "outlier"?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Better than an "out-and-out liar"
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 smell a "Beltre" in there somewhere...
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Crack a window.
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
No way! It's going to be down into the 30s tonight.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
And that's just our runs/month average!
{rimshot}
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
All we need is perfect pitching!
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Sign an opera singer!
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
don't go into the light (of Miami)!
I JUST WANNA USE YOUR LOVE TONIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
I DON’T WANNA LOSE YOUR LOVE TONIIIIIIIIGHT.
I don’t really enjoy the idea of a Willinghamless world. I got kinda used to that whole ‘hey look, one of these fuckers can hit a ball over the fence, IT IS AN OAKLAND MIRACLE’ thing. The future with Kurt Suzuki as our home run bat is just a little more than my blood pressure can reasonably deal with.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
or Chris Carter. or Michael Taylor. or Brandon Allen.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
You're telling me one of those guys is absolutely guaranteed to hit 29 jacks next year?
I kinda would put my money more on the ’they’re going to be an Oakland A’ option, which means either A) slumping or B) a wacky and bizarre injury involving normal household products.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Note: I do actually have high hopes for Taylor, but if I think too much about it, I'm probably going to jinx him and he'll end up with leprosy or something.
WHY DO THINGS I LOVE ALWAYS GET MAIMED.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
I don't
He’s destined to be the next Adam Piatt.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Who cares if they're guaranteed to or not?
Willingham hit 29 last year and the A’s won 74 games.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I just want one guy in the lineup who can hit something past the warning track on a regular basis.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Not at all.
Here you go. (no pams)
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
And how'd the rest of the season turn out for him?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Maybe we should see what happens when he gets a full season of playing time
since he’s only 25.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
If you want some long ball, tune in to some Sizemore ABs next year
I’m really hoping Sizemore can stick at 3B. He showed some pretty good flashes of power after coming here from Detroit. No Allen moon shots, but Sizemore can clear a few warning tracks.
Well, it is hard to argue the guy only has warning track power
If Allen, Taylor & Carter all get regular AB’s, I think all three could hit 20+, with Carter or Allen reaching the magical 29 mark. That said, even with the power, the trio could easily combine into a line something like this next year: .225/.310/.430.
But I think since we are almost certainly going to be pretty horrible next year, it seems a suitable time to test if any of these guys has a significant future as a regular.
"As a rule we disbelieve all the facts and theories for which we have no use."
-Gustave Flaubert
by thinwhiteduke on Nov 2, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
It is going to suck not hearing that walk-up music anymore.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
It was that perfect combination of ridiculous and awesome.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Sucks To Hear About Willingham
Since he specified that he wanted to remain in Oakland. That’s what’s so frustrating here. I get the ownerships’ reservations but has the stadium been the excuse for the last 10 to 15 years? It just seems now they have a reason to be thrifty.
"You play to win the game."
Is CoCo coming back?
Is Grady Sizemore a worthwhile gamble?
I’ve been overwhelmed and I’ve been underwhelmed. Can I ever just be whelmed?
Absolutely not.
We have enough injury concerns we don’t need brittle as all “brittlty” Sizemore
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
I think his knees are shot.
Or someone shot his knees. That would explain a lot.
"When you find your way. Then you see it disappear."
If anyone needs me, I'm going to be sobbing in a corner while clutching bacon.
Would it be so hard for ownership to just once — just once! — throw us a fucking bone?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
They did get us Holliday a while back. ;-)
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 2, 2011 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
OK, that's just wrong
You’re evil.
"A great catch is like watching girls go by, the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson
by Tess D'Emeryville on Nov 2, 2011 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if I were Willingham's agent
I’d call up the Dodgers and try to negotiate a deal including a huge Gold Glove bonus.
Andre Ethier? Seriously?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I'm pretty sure every year is required to have one 'joke' recipient.
Just to keep everyone on their toes.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Isn't that Jeter's job (yes, he won a GG again...)?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I'm pretty sure that's just straight-up brainwashing.
(seriously baseball, HE’S NOT EVEN THE BEST DEFENSIVE SS ON HIS OWN DAMN TEAM)
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
I'm sorry Baseballgirl
I wish I could make you feel better, but I’m getting the feeling we will be in much stronger contention for the top draft pick than we will be for 90 wins :(
cries in the corner with Kyli
Have to hand it to the management
They managed, in under a decade, to turn a contender playing in a not ideal stadium, but a not by any means untenable one, into, literally, the least attractive place to play in all of Major League Baseball. All in the name of a public relations campaign to get approval on a move to San Jose.
I hope it works. I hope it was worth it.
the oakland athletics: hittin' ain't easy
by walk off bunt on Nov 2, 2011 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 13 recs
Well if you wanna play Keeping Up With The Jonses
You have to keep up with the jonses. Every other team has built a new venue or improved classic ones (Fenway, Wrigley). The problem comes when you whine about not having the resources to get it done.
It’s like complaining to all your friends you cant afford a new car when everyone bought one. The more you bitch about wanting a new car and talking about how beat your is, nobody is going to want to ride with you. If you threw some huge spinners on that scraper however, maybe we have a different story.
"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse
A jalopy is still a jalopy, though
Even if you throw spinners and a spoiler on it. That just means the pig has got some new lipstick on it.
Maybe,
but, if you put a souped-up engine under the hood, you can win a lot of races. Winning teams fill stadiums. Losing teams, not so much.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Winning teams fill stadiums.
Not in Oakland they don’t.
That rug really tied the room together...
by Streams Of Whiskey on Nov 2, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
When we have winning teams, we average anywhere from 2-2.9M,
when we lose, we are well under 2M. Yes winning does draw, even in Oakland.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
by Tutu-late on Nov 2, 2011 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Attendance numbers have declined each year since 2003.
2004-2006, the team won 91, 88 and 93 games, obviously with the 2006 team making it to the ALCS.
It’s not just all about putting a competitive team on the field, especially at baseball games where a lot of the crowd goes just to hang out. You’ve got to give the casual fans (who far outnumber diehards and who everything is marketed to) a reason beyond the on-field product to come to games. Winning helps but it’s not going to fill a decrepit stadium like it used to. Just ask the folks in Tampa who have one of the more exciting teams in all of baseball to watch. It also doesn’t help when the shitbags across the Bay have one of the nicer stadiums in baseball just a short commute away.
All the bells and whistles that come with a new stadium make a huge difference to the casual masses, and it’s them who steer the ship. Winning used to fill The Coliseum. On its own it won’t anymore.
That rug really tied the room together...
by Streams Of Whiskey on Nov 3, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Idea:
Hire the jalopnik folks to remodel the Coli.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Not that it would work in any event since the Coliseum is a compromised design even pre-Mt Davis
But as long as the hated Raiders are still sticking around there’s no chance the Coliseum can be made passable as an MLB venue. So hopefully the Raiders piss off sooner rather than later.
And how many other teams got better ballparks and facilities over that timeframe?
You could look it up.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Nov 2, 2011 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I once worked for someone who whenever they said "and you could look it up"
It nearly universally was something that had never been said/written etc…
I’m not saying that is true of you. Haha.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
In this case you could, because it's very easy to see how many new ballparks there have been in the past decade
Last of the Ninth - Photography
True..
And in the last 20-30 years the worst ballparks have all been replaced so the Coliseum naturally moves towards the bottom of the likeable parks….Nevermind the fact that we got Mt. Davis as a ‘retrofit/renovation’. Pre Mt. Davis the Coliseum was just fine….
So, consider
While other teams got new ballparks, not only did the A’s NOT get one, the one they’re in got WORSE.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Mt. Davis or not, this is true
Pre Mt. Davis the Coliseum was just fine….
Maybe the pre-Mt. Davis Coliseum was fine in the early 90’s, but even if we still had that ballpark today, it still would be the worst ballpark in the majors.
I can't see, now I have to pee, and I can't count to three, but I can count to JAEGERMEISTER!
Pre Mt. Davis Coliseum
Was fine for the times it lived in, but even today it would be in the bottom 3 of ballparks with Skydome and Tropicana Field. Mt. Davis just gives it enough suck to put it dead last. But it would be an obsolete concrete donut with or without Mt. Davis. There’s just nothing that can overcome the compromised circular design, shitty location, and too small everything (concourses, bathrooms, etc…).
Don't bother
The answer is ALL of them. Every team in MLB, now that Miami has their new ballpark, has a better venue than the A’s. Even Skydome and Tropicana with their fake grass and in the Trop’s case roof are nicer overall ballparks.
It looks worse in relation to basically every other stadium now
In this case, I think it is worth it to jump up and down until you turn blue in the face for the stadium
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Which is why the ownership really, really wants that new car
"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse
Umm, what's wrong with pouring money into scouting and player development right now?
by Jeff in Seattle on Nov 2, 2011 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
The only consolation, if you can call it that...
Besides the top three of Pujols, Fielder & Reyes this isn’t a very sexy free agent class. Obviously none of those guys would even venture a second thought on coming to Oakland nor will any offers be forthcoming. Darvish could be interesting, I suppose, but someone is almost surely going to overpay big get him to come over. It would be nice to bring Willingham back, but I think he gets a favorable deal somewhere else b/c of the lack of RH power options this winter. A costly three year deal would certainly be a pretty high risk play, considering his health issues and declining defense. The only FA coming off the books that I’d even strongly consider bringing back would be Coco, mostly because of the lack of another suitable option at CF. But if the cost proves prohibitive there, I’d let him go elsewhere, too. It isn’t as if a hole at CF is all that is keeping this team from contention next season. It looks like a flat out rebuilding year to me. And if there aren’t any significant pieces to be added for the future in this FA class, then I guess we’ll just have to sit it out. Hopefully the team will be ready to really open up the books for 2013…
"As a rule we disbelieve all the facts and theories for which we have no use."
-Gustave Flaubert
Okay.
Make me feel better.
in 2011, Willingham’s wOBA was .350. His wRC+ was 123. He was only worth 2.1 WAR. He’s a subpar defensive outfielder and will be 33 next season.
Paying him $10M or more for his age 33, 34, and 35 seasons? No thanks. If he was the one player who would put the team over the top and make a World Series contender, sure — but he was the “key cog” in an offense that was not good last year.
It should be time for guys to get extended looks at the big league level. Chris Carter should DH every day. Michael Taylor should play RF every day. Brandon Allen should get significant time. Daric Barton should get a chance to prove he is healthy again.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
by mikev on Nov 2, 2011 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Playing devil's advocate here
Jim Bowden just interviewed on 95.7 and he says, “Josh Willingham is probably going to get a two year deal for 7 million a year, with maybe a third year vesting option. 14 million guaranteed and maybe 21 million if it all pans out”.
So, in theory, at that price would you still be interested depending on what else the team decides to do?
I miss all of ya and already thinking about spring training! Go A’s!
"You're early, but hang around; we'll have a fight for you sooner or later."
-John "Blue Moon" Odom
I would rather have the two draft picks.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
by mikev on Nov 2, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
in an all out rebuilding movement
yes, definitely. but what if not?
"You're early, but hang around; we'll have a fight for you sooner or later."
-John "Blue Moon" Odom
$7M puts him well below Lance Berkman
just for comparison.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
He's already Lance Berkman
But younger and with a less-inspiring career. And his original hair color.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, but Berkman didn't want to play here...
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Agreed.
I want to see Carter, Taylor, Allen, and Barton on a consistent basis. Might as well use next year to find out which, if any, have a future with the team.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Agreed, I just do not get the Willingham love.
Even if he were open to a 2/$14 offer, and even if draft picks were not in play, I’d still probably want to play the young guys.
At three years, and with the alternative of getting draft picks, there’s just no way it makes sense for this team to sign him.
by thelincolndude on Nov 3, 2011 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I just hope the A's let the "kids" (sic) play
please Billy, do not sign an Emil Brown-type of veteran (i.e., one who is, specifically, not good) to take playing time away from the younger guys. Let’s see if Taylor, Carter, Barton, Allen, Donalson, et. al. can be MLB players…THAT’S ALL I ASK OF 2012
by my_cat_max on Nov 2, 2011 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Playing the kids
I’m with you on that.
The year after the Holliday debacle we really had a shit team and I wasn’t excited about any of our young players (especially hitters). This year, for some reason, I actually want to see our young players. Maybe it’s the fact that Weeks and Sizemore impressed, and Taylor and Allen showed flashes of brilliance. Maybe it’s also the fact that watching the likes of Kouz, Barton (2011 version), Sweeney, and DDJ make me not want to bring in more of those types.
Take the draft picks for Willingham, let the kids play, and, while we probably can’t unseat the Rangers, we could make some solid strides in the right direction.
I also hold out hope that we have an outside chance of seeing Choice next year. If he is crushing the ball in Spring, that could be great.
Other things I look forward to:
Cahill learning from his up-and-down season and refining his game to his true potential.
Gio continuing his ascent
Braden and Anderson hopefully coming back.
And hopefully TJS putting Anderson’s injury woes behind him once and for all.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
You're not excited about McCarthy FIPing us to the top of the standings
and then following it up with a hilarious tweet?
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
I can't believe I forgot McCarthy there.
Yes the point is that while this team is also bereft of star power, unlike 2009 and 2010 this is actually a fun, interesting team to watch.
Weeks alone is more exciting than most of the Bob Geren teams.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
exactly, move them all up
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Nov 2, 2011 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Mostly Hopeless
Move to San Jose? Spend in three years.
New Stadium in Oakland? Ditto.
No move, no stadium? No spending, no moves at all.
Welcome to the world of the Kansas City Athletics, Oakland Royals, uh, San Jose Athletics.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. Billy Martin
If that's the world we're forced to live in
can they at least bring back Farmer’s Day? Who wouldn’t want to see McCarthy do this?
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 2, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think I'll pass
I can just see it: “McCarthy to go on DL with a sprained ankle sustained when participating in a sack race at Farmer’s Day festivities at the Coliseum”
by Brian in 317 on Nov 2, 2011 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I would pay nine bazillion dollars to see that.
And then Lew can buy a new stadium on the moon.
DONE.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
nice
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Nov 2, 2011 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you’re deluding yourself.
First of all, what exactly is your complaint? That the A’s won’t be in the mix for one of the top-of-the-line big-money free agents this year? Or that we won’t even be signing the usual crop of ordinary free agents this year?
Because if it’s the former, then news flash: The A’s never get the top free agents. We just don’t play in that market, and on the rare occasions when we actually try (eg, Beltre) we always get outbid.
If your complaint is that we won’t even be signing ordinary free agents this time, then I say: so what? Seriously, does that ever actually work for us? Your headline compares free agents to Santa Claus, as if we actually get a bunch of awesome presents every year. But in reality, every year we get a big pile of crap that just fills up roster space and only rarely is there something that’s actually useful hidden in the mix.
The veterans we remember who were actually decent (eg, Willingham, Holliday) come in trade, or occasionally as waiver claims (eg, 2007 DiNardo). Let’s take a look at who the A’s signed as a free agent over the past five years. Heck, I’ll even expand it to six years so that no one can accuse me of cutting off the sample to exclude the one and only big FA score of the decade.
*I didn’t find a list of these. I’m just looking at rosters and trying to remember who was FA, so someone please correct me if I miss any.
2011: Hideki Matsui, Brian Fuentes, Grant Balfour, Rich Harden, Brandon McCarthy
2010: Ben Sheets, Coco Crisp, Justin Duchscherer, Gabe Gross, Akinori Iwamura, Boof Bonser
2009: Jason Giambi, Nomar Garciaparra, Orlando Cabrera, Russ Springer, Brett Tomko
2008: Mike Sweeney, Keith Foulke, Emil Brown, Kirk Saarloos,
2007: Mike Piazza, Alan Embree
2006: Esteban Loaiza, Frank Thomas! Jay Witasick, Scott Sauerbeck
How would you rate these guys? Maybe something like:
Big disappointment: Matsui, Giambi (09), Garciaparra, Loaiza, Sheets, Cabrera, Fuentes, M Sweeney, Piazza, Foulke (08)
Crappy nobody that we never expected much from anyway: Gross, Saarloos (08), Witasick (06), Bonser, Brown, Iwamura, Sauerbeck
Mediocre meh: Balfour, Embree, Duchscherer (10), Springer, Harden (11), Tomko
Actually turned out good: Crisp, McCarthy
Pure awesomeness: Thomas (06)
So in 26 tries, we got two hits plus one home run. That’s not a good record.
If this is what it means to sign free agents next season, I say Santa can take his bag o’ crap back to the North Pole and leave us out of it this year.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
by iglew on Nov 2, 2011 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
this this THIS
I can't see, now I have to pee, and I can't count to three, but I can count to JAEGERMEISTER!
Balfour is on the bubble.
Like McCarthy, he’s another guy with a big fWAR-rWAR split. Baseball Reference shows him at 2.2 WAR for the year, but Fangraphs says only 0.4.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Draft pick for a relief pitcher? No, bad idea.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
started as a bad idea
he may be a useful pitcher, but the transaction was a loser
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
It's not so cut and clear I think.
He cost a mid 2nd round draft pick, which certainly does have value, but not nearly the amount that 1st round draft picks. I think a lot is going to depend on the new CBA and how free agent compensation shapes up. We can’t offer him arbitration after his contract expires, but I believe we’d still get a supplementary draft pick if another team signs him. Believe it or not Balfour is actually ranker higher than Andrew Bailey in the reverse engineered Elias Rankings. That’s kind of like trading a 2nd round draft pick for a supplemental draft pick in the future and employing the services of Grant Balfour.
But the CBA could change that, and then in case oh well.
He wasn't worth the pick
I mean, it’s funny to see him cuss and stuff… but that’s about it. I hope he gets traded for some decent MiLB talent, actually.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
turn this green
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I see your point.
I just keep magically hoping that SOMETHING will be better than the craptastic lineup we are slated for for 2012. Tell me it will be better than 2011.
"Oh who am I kidding? The A's and Giants could stage a pillow fight, and I'd still care who wins." -67Marquez
It will be better than 2011. :)
(not really, but I wanted to cheer you up)
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
"But I was sure Santa would bring me a pony this year!"
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Best I can do is a petite lap giraffe.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
None of ours has sucked the way Crawford did, per $ invested.
I don’t know how we compare to other teams. Perhaps if we compared them based upon average FA salaries for that year, we could get a better view as to who is a success, and who isn’t. We usually sign the cheap leftovers, as opposed to top FAs.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
The Gints signing of Zito is another example of an expensive FUBAR, as opposed to one of our FAs
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Rowand, too.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Would you agree, that there is a greater chance of average to below average FA players failing,
as compared to better players failing? If all we buy are “on the cheap”, of course we will have a high failure rate.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
In the most basic sense, sure.
It was a lot easier to predict that Hideki Matsui wouldn’t be very good compared to Carl Crawford or Adam Dunn, if that’s what you are getting at. Same with Giambi a few years back, and all the other guys that iglew noted above.
Signing scrap heap guys is going to lead to having scrap heap guys, and every now and then you get a Brandon McCarthy.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Wow, Crawford had the same WAR( 0.2) in 130 games,
as Kouz did in 73 games. That is just UGLY!
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
3 for 26...
Sounds like a slump that most of the A’s lineup went through at one point or another this year! LOL
Byron
Hmm, has anyone does a study on whether free agency is ever a good bet?
Just saw this post on Beyond the Boxscore. Don’t quite follow the math in the post, but the result was that overall free agents as a whole were a bad investment.
I’m curious to see what other studies have been done looking at historical free agent production. It seems like every year there are more bad signings than good ones. The rich teams gain an advantage by eating the bad contracts and only putting on the field the good contracts (basically rolling the dice more times).
Has any team shown a demostrable ability to sign productive free agents or is it more of a crap shoot?
Free agent = everyone who isn't cost-controlled
It goes without saying that players who are cost-controlled are going to give you more value for the money than those who are not. The problem is that cost-controlled players are limited to what you can raise on your farm or trade for. If you come up short there, there’s nothing else to do but go buying them. But yeah, when you pay free agents, it’s not cost-effective.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
So then how can one fairly judge free-agent acquisitions?
When you point out the Beane only had 3 good signings in 26 tries, just how bad a record is that. I’m not saying you’re wrong, it seems preety lousy. But what’s the usual success rate. Surely less than 50% on good free agent signings. How much better should we expect from Beane?
I don't think Beane is particularly bad at FA signings.
I think FA signings suck in general, and the less you rely on them the better.
I’d rather roll the dice with junky little waiver-wire pickups and low-profile trades.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Seems reasonable
I’ve been thinking along the same lines, and it’s led me to an interesting conclusion.
Maybe the A’s should break the whole piggy bank and attempt to sign Pujols. I’m serious. If we’re stuck throwing $5 million a head at relievers and injury-prone vets, it’s already a lost investment. You get maybe a few WAR a year out of it? Pujols on the other hand will almost certainly give you that same amount of WAR. He’s one of the surest bets out there. Even if it’s 4-5 WAR a year (I’m not expecting 7 WAR seasons) that’s about what you’re expecting from the F.A. flyer bets anyway.
Stupidly risky? Yep. Is there a better way to spend the money? Maybe, just maybe there isn’t.
This just shows that he wants to return to Oakland.
See? FAs DO want to coming here!
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
JAKE Q. FOX!
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Rangers outright Beltre
(don’t get too excited)
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
I just hope they get strangled by Adrian's contract, as he ages.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I say...
it’s time to officially give the young guys a chance.
If you play Taylor, Carter, Barton, and Allen consistently one if not two of them will reap the benefits of every day at bats. People like Jai Miller also could battle for playing time. There is no point of re-signing Matsui, Willignham, DeJesus, or Crisp if we are going with the youth movement.
I think the timing is right to stockpile draft picks. We can get a few sandwich picks and grab a few position players. With Choice and Green waiting in the wings, 2013 could be a decent team if they have the same kind of impact Weeks did this year. We should keep the pitching staff intact minus Moscoso. Hopefully Braden can replace Moscoso in the rotation and Moscoso can be moved?
The other thing to point out is Beane is going to bring in competition at 3B and probably a few other positions. I don’t think he can resist getting players on the cheap! LOL
Our lineup would be interesting and at least there would be a threat of power! LOL!
Byron
just move Barton to third already.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Not a bad idea
He fit’s in great with the other non-HR hitting non-power hitters on the infield…
Byron
{channel nevermoor's past meme, insert repetitive 'good hitters not power hitters' comment here}
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
ANd Sizemore can fill the utility role left by the departure of Rosales.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
You can thank one of the mods for the inspiration.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I am not convinced he's better than Sizemore.
I will grant you that his 2010 was nice. But his career numbers are not good.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
If the plan is to stockpile draft picks and play the kids, why keep the rotation in tact?
Why not sell off Gio and McCarthy and any pitcher that won’t be around for the 2014 season in San Jose?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
I think it is impossible to replace that level of talent and would be easier to re-sign them with the added revenue stream of new stadium coming down the road.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Except what are the odds of actually re-signing them?
I mean, without an idea for the timeline of the new stadium, we could be looking at more 2014 or 2015, not 2013.
And ‘added revenue stream’ is a bit of a question, isn’t it? Plenty of new ballparks don’t result in a long-term increase in payroll. Not to mention that with the justification of, “We’re poor because we just spent money on a new ballpark!”, there’s no definitive reason for us to believe that we’ll see a payroll increase that would allow re-signing premium pitching.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
You are right, but the new ballpark effect lasts about 10 years
Basically, by the time Gio is no longer under team control, the bet is that a new stadium will be being built, so they can afford to spend then. Kind of like the Marlins re-signing Hanley Ramirez, banking on the fact that their new stadium was coming down the line.
If the stadium limbo actually continues through the end of Gio’s team control, then Lew Wolff is probably in the process of selling the team.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
But would they spend?
I just haven’t seen any indication from this ownership that new stadium = a huge bump in payroll. I haven’t seen Lew give any sort of concrete idea of what kind of increase would be expected, so I’m just not expecting it. There’s plenty of reasons for him to play poor, and if they’re going to spend the next X years rebuilding, there’s no reason to believe that they’d want to pay for premium pitching rather than just raise up some kids in the system. We’ve had far better luck with pitchers coming through the system than hitters, why not sell off our strength and keep a $30 mill team in the new stadium?
When Lew Wolff says, “I expect payroll to be over $XX million if we can get the new stadium built in San Jose, and I’m willing to commit financially to winning,” then I’ll believe it. Until then, I see no reason for him to not make the business decision of pocketing the cash and the luxury tax and letting a coke bottle slide and wine lists get people to show up rather than a contender on the field.
Plus, given we’re in the same market as that thing across the Bay, I’m not sure we’d get as long of a shine on the new ballpark as some other teams have.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
If I could summarize your point...
Basically – a new ballpark will bring in higher revenues, but…no guarantee that the revenues will be used to improve the product on the field.
I guess that’s true, there’s no guarantee, but the stated goal of “being a contender when we open the new stadium” makes you think that they wouldn’t open the new stadium without a strong pitching staff. And future top line starting pitchers are hard to find, even if you’re dangling Gio Gonzalez in a trade.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean, we don't know how much of the stadium will be publicly funded.
If a notable portion is privately funded, then increased revenue may go to that.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Luxury tax
Luxury tax money is not paid to individual owners. You’re confusing it with the revenue sharing plan.
Luxury tax money all goes into MLB’s “Industry Growth Fund”, which is used for league-wide things like promotional, international development, investment in technology, etc.
Technically, the revenue sharing can’t be “pocketed” either. It has to be spent on “improving the product on the field” which basically means payroll. But if you were going to spend X on payroll anyway, the revenue sharing can cover that, letting you keep more of your own money.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
I wouldn't be surprised to see either of those two things, honestly
McCarthy may be at his peak value (although that itself may be limited), and the same with Gio + he’s durable. They’d have to get an impressive haul for a Gio trade to be worth it, though.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I think they will let McCarthy walk after a stellar 2012 and collect draft picks
I agree, you cannot bank on adequately compensating for Gio in a trade.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
McCarthy is a perfect extension candidate actually.
Young, pitches well, and seems to have figured out how to manage his injury.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
yup
I think he would be fairly cheap too
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
But they're not not going to pay him a whole lot anyway
If they’re really all-in on getting younger, it might behoove them to try and see what they can get for McCarthy and extract top talent from someone. He still pitched 162+ innings and led the AL in FIP. That’s got to count for something, shoulder or not.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
its not just about being younger
there i no pitching depth and McCarthy is a good bet to be good when healthy. So lock him in for 2012 and 2013 with any sort of option (team. team/player, or vesting) for 2014 and there is no way he doesn’t sign
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
I'd offer him 3-4 years without batting an eye.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Why would you extend him for 3+years, and not Willingham for 2?
I just want to understand where you are coming from, mikev.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I would give McCarthy the money
over Willingham because I think McCarthy is better and younger, and would probably be just as cheap if not cheaper per year, especially since the team has the leverage of the 1st year being an arb year.
Yes, but $7M would only be a $1M raise for Josh.
Why not sign him, then trade him if the youngsters come around? If one or more fails, we still have a relatively cheap LFer.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I'm not necessarily against the concept
Just against it if we have to choose one player or the other, especially when we KNOW that Willingham will net 2 draft picks in the 2013 draft.
We don't know that.
The compensation draft pick scheme expires with this year’s CBA. It is generally believed some version of it will at least be grandfathered in for 2012, though even that has not been officially agreed to. For 2013 it is even less certain.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
one guy is a 27 year old pitcher who will probably be pretty cheap
the other is a 32 year old who is a bad outfielder and will have to DH only
One can be replaced a little easier than the other, too.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I dunno, given our history of shitty-DHs-when-not-named-Frank-Thomas, I feel like finding a DH that doesn't completely suck is a hard task for the A's. :-/
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
good point.
where are matt stairs and john jaha when you need em?
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I know. Let's try Chris Carter.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I'm all for this, but why not have Josh around in case it all blows up?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Because if it all blows up it's probably because guys like
Carter, Taylor, Allen, and Barton are all performing well
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Aw, come on. It won't be that bad. :)
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Sure, but can he at least try to be SLIGHTLY not-depressing to watch?
‘Cuz that’d be awesome.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Really?Josh ranks 13th in WAR for LFers,
and has a 123wRC+. that doesn’t seem that easy to replace.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
2 WAR is not that hard to replace.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Well, there were 16 worse LFers.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
You could improve with Carlos Lee at 3.2 WAR.
-please.
"When you find your way. Then you see it disappear."
If you can accept that building via the draft is the only way
the A’s can rebuild a powerhouse to match up with Texas, there’s really no contract Willingham could sign that’s more valuable than the two draft picks he would net.
Scratch that. It’s not something you can choose to accept. It’s literally the only way.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I don't agree that the draft is the only way.
We can also get there by players having good years, and trading them for existing players. Texas did that with Tex.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
and, WE did that with Haren.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
See
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I would love to see McCarthy on a 3-year contract with the A's.
Especially if there’s a clause about requiring him to tweet during the length of his contract.
Given his frankness about the source of his shoulder injury and his proactive treatment of it, I trust him to stay reasonably (well, reasonable for an A) healthy, with the occasional blip or two (like this season). He’s a better investment than some of the pitchers we’ve had on payroll.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
That makes sense, except that why would McCarthy sign an extension?
From the A’s point of view, great, but McCarthy with another stellar season will have many FA offers.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Guaranteed money v. Injury risk.
McCarthy is a really, really smart dude.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
I agree with that, but supposing he really knows how to manage his injury
the risk isn’t as high.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 2, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't either.
While I’d give a kidney to see McCarthy get an extension and Gio stay for the sake of not watching shitty baseball, I think they could go either way on them.
It just surprises me when I see people wanting to keep the pitching while rebuilding the lineup — it doesn’t really make sense to me to scrap one but not the other. Premium pitching is a luxury for a team that is very openly intending to hang out in the gutter.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
This will be Gio's first year of Arb, correct?
Since he will likely achieve Super Two status, he could be under team control through 2015, so why be in a hurry to trade him?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Personally, I'm not in a hurry to trade him, I love Ojos Locos more than some of my relatives.
But if we’re rebuilding and not trying to contend, why keep a valuable rotation in tact in this market?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Wouldn't he be even more valuable after, say 2 more AS appearances?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Wow! How could I have forgotten?
Good to hear from you, stm.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
whazzup bro? i read everything, just not posting a lot lately
the artist formerly known as inbillywetrust
I'm sad. :(
BASEBALL is over, and I can’t eat enough BACON to make up for it.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
okaaaay, good luck with that. i'm hoping that the niners making up for it along with usa soccer
the artist formerly known as inbillywetrust
He's an Oakland A. Odds are higher that he'll get in a freak accident with his garbage disposal and end up on the DL after getting hit in the eye with an eggshell.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Nov 2, 2011 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather wait to see if he can win a Cy Young award.
Then get a Texiera-type haul for Gio.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I would be totally down with that.
I just live with the assumption all A’s players are one step away from a tragic, ridiculous demise.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Typical loser mentality
If we don’t have enough money to buy a world series, then we might as well suck REAL bad.
Unfortunately, the MLB system is set up right now to specifically favor the teams that either win a lot of games
or teams that “suck REAL bad”.
It’s not so much a loser’s mentality rather than trying to make do with the crappy system MLB handed to us.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
It's not the MLB system that favors that.
It’s your way of thinking. It’s up to you to decide what you value. If you only value championships and you don’t count negative points for consecutive years of mega-suck, then yes, the system favors that. But that’s your choice, not the system’s.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Doing the thing that leads to championships (winning lots of games) is tied to the years of mega suck, especially for small market teams.
That’s the point: In this system, one leads to the other, continuously.
If you value winning lots of games, then you inevitably have to deal with the years of mega suck. I reckon most people here, like me, want the team to win lots of games. Therefore, the mega suck is something we have to accept.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Your first and second paragraphs don't agree.
Doing the thing that leads to championships (winning lots of games) is tied to the years of mega suck
Yes. And thus, like I said, if you choose to value championships and choose not to care about mega suck, then you think the trade-off is worth it.
If you value winning lots of games, then you inevitably have to deal with the years of mega suck.
No. If you care about winning lots of games more than you care about championships, then you’d rather avoid the mega-suck and not have the championships.
Compare:
Tampa Bay Rays, last ten seasons:
55-106
63-99
70-91
67-95
61-101
66-96
97-65
84-78
96-66
91-71
total = 750-868
Toronto Blue Jays, last ten seasons:
78-84
86-76
87-94
80-82
87-75
83-79
86-76
75-87
85-77
81-81
total = 808-811
The Blue Jays have a significantly better record, but presumably you’d prefer to be the Rays because the Jays never made the playoffs and have no one great season.
It’s a question of whether you value total wins more or wins bunched into a season more. That is each fan’s choice, not the system’s.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Believe it or not, I'd rather be the Blue Jays.
That’s a rather impressive run of ~85 win teams they’ve had. In the AL East no less, so I reckon those teams might’ve won a lot more games if they played in a different division.
But you’ve failed to address one crucial part of my point:
Doing the thing that leads to championships (winning lots of games) is tied to the years of mega suck, especially for small market teams.
Are the Blue Jays a small market team? These are their payrolls (in millions) from 2001 to 2011:
2001: 75.8
2002: 76.8
2003: 51.2
2004: 50.0
2005: 45.3
2006: 71.9
2007: 81.9
2008: 97.8
2009: 90.0
2010: 62.7
2011: 62.5
8 out of the 11 years, they had a higher payroll than Oakland. 5 of those years, they were at or above the top half of teams in payroll spent. In comparison, Oakland’s had no years among the top half of teams in payroll spent. I would hardly consider the Blue Jays’ situation to be that of a small market team similar to the A’s.
You’ve yet to show me that a sustained run of winning lots of games is doable without the mega suck (I’m starting to love using this phrase) for small market teams.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
What counts as a "sustained run"?
The Jays are just a tad under 500 over the decade. That’s not fantastic.
All I’m saying is that if one values maximum possible wins, regardless of how they are clumped and regardless of playoff appearances, then letting yourself suck now in order to be better later does not pay off in the long run.
If you’re a small-market team then your W-L expectations drop across the board in either scenario, but it doesn’t make periods of mega-suck any more productive.
I mean, if you’re going to narrow the field to teams similar to Oakland, why not just look at Oakland directly? The A’s are 852-767 over the past decade. That’s way better than the Rays.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
The problem is that
All I’m saying is that if one values maximum possible wins, regardless of how they are clumped and regardless of playoff appearances, then letting yourself suck now in order to be better later does not pay off in the long run.
isn’t proven. What if the only way for a small market team to achieve the “maximum possible wins” is to let yourself suck before winning?
In other words, what if the “win 60 games for 5 years, win 90 games for 5 years” model is the only way for a team like the A’s to achieve the theoretical maximum amount of wins (which, to me, would define the “payoff” and being “productive”)? You seem to be implying that we have a choice between accepting that, or accepting winning say, 75 games a year for 10 years to achieve the same amount of wins. Where is the evidence that this possible for small market teams?
From a historical perspective, the “60-90” model is what all the small market teams (who actually manage to eventually start winning) are following. You mentioned the A’s of the last decade, but that depends on arbitrarily defining the length of the cycles as ten years. It can just be easily framed as a 15 year cycle in which the mega suck of the A’s during ‘93-’98 lead to the winning cycle of the 2000s. It just happens that a competent front office, while not ridding itself of the mega suck cycle entirely, managed to shorten the typical mega suck cycle and lengthen the winning years. Perhaps that’s the only control the FO of a small market team has. Perhaps we’re on the verge of another mega suck cycle.
It seems like you’re trying to frame the argument in order to get me to admit that I prefer the “60-90” model because I value championships and playoff appearances whereas a fan who doesn’t value those things can opt for the “consistently 75” model. It’s more accurate to say I value the “60-90” model because, as far as I can tell, it’s the only way to get the maximum amount of wins. In which case, being able to “bunch wins in a season” is synonymous with “total wins”.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 3, 2011 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions
should say, "75 wins* a year for 10 years"
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 3, 2011 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, it’s true. I thought you preferred the 60-90 model because of playoff appearances. If it’s because you think it yields more total wins, that’s interesting.
I really don’t think it does, though. I just can’t believe that the mega-suck yields enough future wins to make up for the losses entailed and then some. You want me to demonstrate with evidence, but from my point of view you’re the one making the improbable claim that should be backed up with evidence.
Realistically, neither of us can prove a thing because there just isn’t enough sample, and each decade and each team has too many other factors influencing its W-L history. But I see plenty of teams sink themselves into several years of mega-suck, only to continue to suck some more anyway.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
The sample is small, no doubt.
Definitely, a lot of small market teams simply suck and continue sucking. For this reason, It’s hard to pinpoint their theoretical “maximum possible wins”. But a few have managed to start winning. These teams are what we have to work with, and they set standard for “max possible wins” for small market teams. I am specifically talking about the A’s, Rays, and Twins.
Minnesota sucked badly enough in the ’90s that they ended up with the #1 overall pick in 2001. From 1993 to 2001, they were so bad that they had 7 top 10 picks out of 9 seasons. Their run of winning in the 2000s is well documented.
Tampa’s suck and recent run of success is also well documented.
Let’s take a closer look at the A’s. A cursory glance at this organization could tell you that they sucked mightily from ‘93-’98 (4 out of 6 years in last place, 1 second to last place finish) before winning dramatically from ‘99-’06. Let’s assume that constitutes one cycle of mega-suck and winning.
But you can see that the A’s from ’93 to ’06 won 1154 games out of 2201 games (.524 winning percentage). You say,
I just can’t believe that the mega-suck yields enough future wins to make up for the losses entailed and then some.
I’m not sure how you would personally define “and then some” but clearly the A’s made up for it and, under any conventional definition, “and then some”.
Now let’s look at the A’s of the last several years of not-really-winning-but-not-really-sucking-either and let’s assume that thereotical threshold of “max possible wins” has been set by the previous “60-90” A’s. Basically, .524 is the number you have to beat. This would be preferable to you, correct, because you think a team can get to the “max possible wins” without having to go through a mega-suck cycle?
Ok, the A’s of these years (‘07-’11) have averaged 77 wins. Assuming that they’re able to win 77 games every year for the same amount of years as the ‘93-’06 teams (14 years, so we’re assuming they keeping winning about 77 games every year until 2020), there’s no way they’d be able to match as many wins as the ‘93-’06 teams. Clearly in this instance, it pays to suck then win, instead of “sorta win” consistently.
You’re right that the sample isn’t big enough to prove anything definitively (rarely is anything in baseball ever “proved definitively”) but for every small market team that’s eventually managed to win, they’ve had a tremendous suck cycle before hand. So yes, it’s not set in stone, but the evidence certainly points that if you want the maximum possible amount of wins, you deal with the suck. And your theory that a team can’t make up the suck is thoroughly debunked by this very organization.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Aren't you arguing against your own point?
In the AL East, you said you’d rather have a sustained run of ~85 wins. You also said that had they been in another division, they’d have more “flags” to show for it. Well, they don’t have any flags and they’re not changing divisions. They’ve been okay, but for what? To get the crap kicked out of the by the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays?
The Rays, on the other hand, had a lot of suck and now have a lot of success. Which, as you’ve argued below, is the recipe for small-market teams to succeed. As iglew argued, they’ve succeeded in also clumping their wins in fewer seasons, which has led to playoff appearances in 3 of the last 4 years. They have gotten far closer to the winning the the WS than the Jays. It’s clearly better to clump your wins
Why, then, do you want to be the Jays?
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 3, 2011 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Because winning 80+ games in 8 of 10 seasons is impressive, and nearly
always much more gratifying than winning 60 games for 5 years and 90 games for 5 years like the Rays. At least to me. In a vacumn, I would think that 80+ wins for 8 of 10 years would also lead to the probability of more playoff appearances (keeping in mind that it’s 80plus wins).
The problem is that small market teams can’t win like that for a long period of time without some earlier suck cycle to get the requisite talent. Hence the Rays do what they do and the Jays, being not a small market team, spent money.
(I also didn’t say I want to win 85 games in the AL East or that they’d have more flags to show for it. I merely said that it’s impressive they did it in the AL East, and that they’d probably win even more games in a different division. It’s a compliment, nothing more.)
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
But that's ignoring the relative competition in their division
The boom-and-bust cycle of the Rays actually dovetails nicely with how to compete in a division with the Red Sox and Yankees: go all-in. Being an 85 win team is nice and all, and that would be a perennial contender in the AL West, but not in the East. It doesn’t matter that the Jays aren’t small-market by absolute definition; they are small-market by the virtue of the fact that their main competition to a playoff berth outspend them about 3-to-1.
They’d be better off remaking themselves in the Rays’ image, and using their money to sign the key FA pieces that complement a truly contending club.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 3, 2011 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Not sure where the confusion is...
I’m not saying I actually want my team to be the Jays incarnated, and to be in their situation (residing in the AL East). I definitely am not saying I want JP Ricciardi to be the one making the personnel decisions.
I am saying that I’d rather win 80 plus games 80% of the time rather than 60/90 (this doesn’t mean that I want my team to do what the Ricciardi lead teams did to get there). I’d also prefer having more money to be able to do so. This has nothing to do with the actual Jays, Rays, or being in the AL East, whatever. Essentially, I’m just saying I’d rather be a hypothetical mid market team than a small market team.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I don't know...
I probably thought this way at one point or another (Win 80+/80% of the time), but the run the A’s had from 1994 – 2006 was pretty sucktastic … then pretty fantastic.
The only way this run was possible was with high draft picks (Mulder, Zito, Chavez), getting lucky on a couple others (Hudson, Giambi), and developing players from the D.R. and Venezuela (Tejada, Ramon Hernandez). Fill in the gaps with players who want to have a chance to win now. You gotta have stars in order to win games consistently (and some drugs, too).
I just don’t see a small market team being competitive for 4+ years w/o sucking for the same amount of time (Top 5 picks for 5 straight years). The Twins have had a nice run, but even that included getting the best Catcher (Mauer) with the 1st Pick Overall.
So, lets suck for the next 4-5 years until San Jose happens… in the meantime, get used to this lineup next year.
1. Jemile Weeks – 2B
2. Scott Sizemore – 3B
3. Ryan Sweeney – CF
4. Chris Carter – DH
5. Brandon Allen – LF
6. Kurt Suzuki – C
7. Daric Barton – 1B
8. Michael Taylor – RF
9. Pennington – SS
This should be a lineup that will win less than 70 games.
Exactly. I'm not saying I like it.
But for small market teams, history has indicated that this is pretty much the only way to get to the max possible amount of total wins.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
It's only "clearly better" to clump your wins
if you value playoff appearances more than you value total wins.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
The '93-'06 A's clearly disagree.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Winning 75 games every year and finishing in 3rd place fucking sucks.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
If the intent is to commit to an all out rebuild,
then certainly it would make sense to trade the few pieces on the roster that still have value.
Bear in mind that trades start you off with a net loss, and depending on the value you traded away, it can sometimes be a huge one. Every trade that’s not a strict salary dump seeks to replace that net loss in addition to getting enough value from the remaining pieces of the trade to create a net positive.
For all the talk about how the A’s received a crap ton of talent from the Haren and Swisher trades, that talent still hasn’t produced enough value to negate the loss of Haren and Swisher’s production, let alone create that desirable net positive.
That’s not to say trading Gio and Cahill is a bad idea. You just have to make sure that along with getting excellent hauls in return, you’re also:
1) fully committed to developing those prospects
2) you don’t dick around with their service time
3) you give them an adequate chance to prove themselves
4) you don’t do stupid shit like trade one of the best pieces for a one year rental
Of course, the A’s failed all 4 of these with regards to the Haren and Swisher trades.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
There is nothing wrong with the Haren/Swisher trades.
There may be a problem with how the players were groomed, but that is a separate issue. The same can happen by misusing draft picks.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I never said there was anything wrong with the talent they got.
And yes, problems with turning them from prospects to productive big leaguers is the same whether or not they’re draft picks or prospects from trades.
The point is that if you misfire on a draft pick, you’re out on the probable value of the draft pick. If you misfire on the trade, you’re out on the tangible value of the Haren and Swisher you traded away. That’s a much, much bigger net loss.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
The same can be said by not signing Josh to a mutually favorable contract.
You may also lose the opportunity to trade him for a larger haul.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
To be fair,
I was responding to this
Scratch that. It’s not something you can choose to accept. It’s literally the only way.
I think we can agree that it boils down to how they handle the players that truely matters. We seem to be lacking in this, at times. Whether we get the players via trade, or draft, production from positional players seems to be very hit or miss.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
For my health,
I basically assume the A’s will strike out in some way or another on prospects. In which case, I’d rather have Gio and Cahill and continue to strike out on draft picks rather than not have Gio and Cahill and strike out on the prospects we got for them.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I'm really not in disagreement with this.
I just don’t agree that we can’t rebuild and be competitive by including trades.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I'd believe we could "rebuild and be competitive" at the same time
a lot more…if we could do either.
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
The problem is that it was done half-assed.
Both times.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Totally.
And if you’re wondering how useful half an ass is, just ask my friend Cory. Poor fellow.
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
Is he easily assimilated?
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
More imilated
(less ass)
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 should have said, "rebuild TO be competitive"
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Maybe that's Beane's problem
“Oops! Prepositions are harrrrrrd!”
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
No it's not the same at all.
Of course, I’m not saying that draft picks are always more valuable than the FA-to-be player. Obviously, you’d rather have the player than the draft picks if said player is Albert Pujols or your team is on the verge of contention. But neither of these applies to the current situation.
The difference between a trade of a Haren or Swisher (and in this case, Gio/Cahill) and letting a FA like Willingham go is extreme:
1) The former are (were) cost controlled for multiple years beyond the season you decided to trade them. The FA’s contract that he’ll sign on the FA market is almost never as valuable as that of a cost controlled contract.
2) There is pretty much no chance that the FA will have more trade value after signing his contract than the former cost controlled group. There’s little chance that the FA will have much trade value at all after signing his contract (unless it’s the trade deadline of the last year of his contract and he’s miraculously producing well enough that a desperate team wants him).
For those reasons, the loss of value of a Haren/Swisher/Cahill/Gio, etc is almost always a bigger loss than the loss of a FA-to-be. And since the FA-to-be in this case is Willingham, we can be sure this rule is applicable.
I’m not trying to be flippant, but I’m honestly curious as to how you think trades work. You simply can’t decide you want to trade Willingham one year after signing him to a long term contract and expect to get value back. Any team that wanted him that badly would’ve simply signed him to the contract you signed him to instead of trading for that contract and giving up prospects on top of it. That’s why you pretty much never see a player traded one or two years into a long term deal. FA contracts lead to a huge depreciation in a player’s trade value, and a common rule is to assume that teams nearly always trade for contracts, not names.
You also run the risk of Willingham injuring himself during that one year you have him.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Totally agree with this
That’s why you pretty much never see a player traded one or two years into a long term deal.
But didn’t an exception just happen in the last day or so? It surprised me precisely because it’s rare.
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
Are you talking about Derek Lowe? This is the last year of his contract.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Oh, maybe that's who it was.
It’s already the last year of his contract? Time flies. (Seriously, you should. It’s hilarious to watch those poor insects feel the pressure of a stopwatch.)
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
Especially when you drop it on them.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
That or an F-bomb.
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 consider a 2-year contract "longterm"
I am just not sold on the idea that our current prospects, nor those we get from letting Josh go, will be any better in the two years of his contract.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
You should never be sold on any prospect, especially if they're in the A's organization ;)
If anything, this discussion just how bleak MLB makes it for small market teams. Everything I outlined is just, IMO, a less crappy way of an infinite number of crappy ways to go about things.
If you’re the A’s, you’re damned if you try to build for the future, you’re damned if you try to win in the present, you’re damned if you want to re-sign your players….
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 2, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I hear you.
They do need to do better than field the RiverCats, though.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
by Tutu-late on Nov 2, 2011 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is something horribly wrong with the Haren/Swisher trades--
we never found a way to replicate their awesome hair.
I maintain my theory that the A’s succeed far more when players have epic hair and/or facial hair.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
My daughter still has her Bobby Kielty Kewpie doll. :)
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Because Gio is dreamy and McCarthy is funny and smart.
Why not sell off Gio and McCarthy and any pitcher that won’t be around for the 2014 season in San Jose?
That’s why.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
by iglew on Nov 2, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's the reason I would keep them, but apparently keeping players because they're made of awesome is not a good idea. :(
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Keep the Rotation intact
The rotation should stay intact to keep the young bats in games. Besides, most of the pitchers we have are young too and cheap! It’s obvious now that’s what Beane is doing.
Byron
It just seems like it has been one excuse after another for the last 5 or so years.
My fear is that, if we do this investment in the system in anticipation for the new stadium, that we’ll come up with another excuse to trade away our then-developed players because the stadium needs to be paid for, or something like that.
A hot dog at the ballgame beats roast beef at the Ritz.
~Humphrey Bogart
Sports Illustrated ranked the top 50 free agents
THE A’S WILL GET ONE OF THEM. AN ALL-STAR, MVP-CALIBER PLAYER!
… in 2002.
Vladimir Guerrero
Age: 37
Position: DH
2011 Stats: .290/.317/.416, 13 HRs, 63 RBIs, 2 SB
CURRENT TEAM: ORIOLES
BEST FIT: ATHLETICS
After a bounceback season with the Rangers in 2010, in which he ranked fourth in the AL with 115 RBIs, Guerrero flopped with the Orioles, setting full-season career lows in home runs and OPS. Still, he might have one more rejuvenation left in him, and the A’s — who ranked third to last in the A.L. in home runs, and who will likely lose four lineup regulars (Coco Crisp, David DeJesus, Hideki Matsui and Josh Willingham) to free agency — are just the type of club to take a low-risk chance on him. He might represent this year’s Lance Berkman.
Pass.
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
Though Vlad (v. 2012) is exactly the kiind of free agent we've signed over the years.
Unfortunately
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 2, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey, folks
Don’t mean to hijack the thread, so just a quick question. Do you think Brandon McCarthy will be a trade candidate this off-season? This is a contract year, and they could sell high. Thoughts?
Thanks, and good luck this off-season!
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer/Editor for Pinstripe Alley, Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
We love Brandon. You can't have him.
Can I perhaps interest you in something a little more Venezuelan?
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
I’m listening….
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer/Editor for Pinstripe Alley, Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Guillermo Moscoso is available for cheap.
I’d also be up for trading Cahill.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Who do you think the A’s would trade?
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer/Editor for Pinstripe Alley, Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
There are others who could answer this better.
I’m not in the business of predicting, nor am I a trade-junkie. When you see a comment from me it’s more likely just an expression of which players I’m a fan of, not whether I think they’re actually good.
But really, I think there are few players actually off the table. It’s just a question of whether we even have any players anyone wants.
I think our most tradable pieces are Andrew Bailey and Kurt Suzuki, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see either of them moved. I think any pitcher in the bullpen is available if a team is interested, and I also think any combination of our four catchers (Suzuki, Powell, Donaldson, Recker) is available if someone wants them.
Of the starters, Moscoso is the Venezuelan I had in mind. I think he’s available, though I don’t know there’d be much interest in him. I think trading Cahill or Gio is very unlikely, but not completely impossible if there were a really good offer. Anderson and Braden I think even more unlikely (not because they’re better, but because it’s even harder to imagine a team coming up with an unrefusable offer). McCarthy, in spite of what I said above, is slightly more available, I think, but it would still have to be a really strong offer: I don’t think we’d be actively shopping him.
I think Weeks and Pennington are near untouchable, since we have so little that could take their place. Barton and Sizemore seem unlikely but not impossible. Any of the rest of our backup and prospect infielders I think could potentially move if there were any interest.
Of our outfielders, do we even still control any? Sweeney and who else? I don’t see any outfielder on the 40-man who I think wouldn’t be available.
But again, all of this comes down to whether a team actually wants one of our guys enough to make a good offer. I don’t really see much demand for our guys except Bailey and maybe Suzuki.
I see the A’s in “make me an offer” mode this offseason. I think Beane would be open to persuasion on just about anyone, but I also think that if no good offers come along he’d also be content to trade no one.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Very interesting, is there a lot of potential in Pennington, still? Thanks for the answer, by the way!
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer/Editor for Pinstripe Alley, Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Pennington.
I think he’s OK, but not great. But the age of the awesome-hitting shortstop is over, so just having a guy who can play the position at all is something.
Just to be clear, when I say I think a player is not tradable that’s not the same as saying I think he’s too good. A player is tradable when he is potentially more valuable to another team than he is to us. Not the same thing.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Think Barton will figure it out again?
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer/Editor for Pinstripe Alley, Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Somewhere between 2010 and 2011 results would be likely, I'd think
Those thinking 2010 is more than a “career year” are probably deluding themselves, but he’s better than he has showed in his two worst seasons. .270/.360/.400 with above average defense seems about right to me.
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
Hell if I know.
I hope he does.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Brandon is safe because the front office fears the HELL THAT SHALL RAIN DOWN UPON THEM when I go all Kyli Smash on their asses if they even think about shipping that man and his excellent lady out of town.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
McCarthy is so cheap for a #2-4 starter that there's no way the A's trade him.
Because of his injury issues, they will never get an adequate return via trade.
The only way it happens is if McCarthy is putting together another stellar season, and at the trade deadline someone offers a very valuable prospect. Otherwise the A’s won’t bother.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 3, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
So sad
The Management has now said they will not be spending money on the present as they look to an uncertain future. And they want to keep a fan base? Can’t sign Willingham at 7-8 mil per year—this is not Babe Ruth we are talking about. But he was fun to watch, can hit at theColiseum, says he wants to be in Oakland, and they turn their backs.
I have been a season ticket holder for 8 years. How are they going to get me to sign up again this year? Last year presented some pretty unpleasant games to watch, and now we will have even less in terms of decent, true Major League players. I don’t know what they are thinking. Or maybe they don’t care because someday they will have a new stadium somewhere and all those corporate box owners will be their gravyboat. It will become ATT & T park—beautiful surroundings and no one who is a true baseball fan.
So sad.
.
In the event a stadium is approved for the A’s, the team would immediately begin pouring money into player development and scouting in order to build a contending team that would be ready to christen its new home in three or four years.
While I’m happy the A’s have finally realized what most of us realized years ago, it’s just absolutely ridiculous they apparently believed only with a new stadium on the horizon should they be investing heavily in scouting and development.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
meh, I mean, we're not the White Sox
I take that to mean as “If the stadium gets approved, we spend 1.5x-2x on development. If not, we spend x”
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Unfortunately,
300K is roughly the amount that’s preventing us from being the White Sox in terms of amateur spending this year.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
heh, true true
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 3, 2011 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
We either get all nice things, or no nice things. :(
If Lew Wolff has to be miserable with the A’s being in the Coliseum, apparently we all get to be miserable too.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
If we keep Brandon McCarthy and trade for Swisher,
that would be enough to make me happy, regardless of what else happens.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
The Mrs loves you for this.:)
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Here's a big upper for your day:
Maybe there will be a strike/lockout and all of 2012 will be wiped out as Brett Anderson’s elbow heals! Yay!!!!!!!
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
And Daric has been activated from the 60-day.
Are they going to nontender him?
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Only if they're mad at him for ripping the medical staff
He’s still their best 1B option, with Allen likely moving to COF (since we have…well…nobody).
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
Aw, don't be down, Nico.
We are still in the running for Pujols….and Fielder…. Beltran…
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I figure we'll sign all three.
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
Throw in a trade for Longoria, and we're set!!!!
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
That would be absolutely fucking idiotic.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
We are talking about the A's, right?
Nah, I just realized that they activated everyone from the 60-day. Sorry.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Not unexpected, but
None of 5 free agents from Oakland get offer
Wednesday came and went without the A’s making an offer to any of their own free agents, and now all five can begin talking to other teams.
I take that back; I’m slightly surprised Harden wasn’t offered something.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
For me, most surprising would be Crisp.
He’s not going to garner picks, we have no CFer, and he’s coming off a relatively healthy season. And he likes playing in Oakland.
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
It's cool Nico
We have JerJaiRyan SweMilMItch.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
To be honest,
if we had a player with that actual exact name, I’d be totally psyched. Even if he hit .012.
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
This sort of reminds of me 2010
When we had the 3-headed 3Bman who turned out to be Kouz. What did we call it — McPhoxez, right?
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Nov 2, 2011 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what Dr. Suess was calling it.
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 agree
You have to figure that we are OFFICIALLY going with the youth movement now, so having a veteran CF with young corner OF’s would be a good idea. And I like the idea of having DDJ as a 4th OF to spell a youngster who might be slumping. We are a decent team with Weeks and Coco at the top of the order too…
Byron
No
Just no.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Nov 2, 2011 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It is criminal...
…to “try” only if a new stadium is coming for sure. It would be like not mowing your lawn for years unless you knew a new house was being built. Have some pride, people! You own a baseball team! TRY TO WIN AT ALL TIMES!
My therapist is Milton Bradley.
by Ricky T. on Nov 2, 2011 10:04 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I still don't understand why someone would want to own a baseball team if they didn't also want to win and win and win some more.
I mean, isn’t that the POINT of having a sports team? Championships and glory and shit?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
I think they do want to win.
There’s just different levels of ability to do it.
For all the railing about how much money MLB owners make, I think any zillionaire could get better return on his money elsewhere. None of them are actually losing money on baseball, but they’re effectively taking a capitalist’s pay cut by choosing to own a sports team instead of another media conglomerate, investment bank, or slave labor camp textile factory in Malaysia.
But even if you do want to win, there’s only so much money you can throw at it, and only so much chance of it actually sticking even if you do throw the money at it. At some point you say that’s enough and roll the dice with what you’ve got.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
That's a reason to play little league. Or rec baseball.
Not own a major league franchise.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE!!!!
-Oldbob.
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
Nope, that was Macha's policy.
Except for Swisher and his $7 Blizzards, the rascal.
OldBob: “GRUEL FOR EVERYONE!!!”
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Maybe this is old news
But Slusser mentions in her article today that the A’s are expected to offer DDJ arbitration. So there’s a very mild win-win, at least.
I think its old news
But I bet – they are offering DDJ arbitration in the agreement that he rejects it, since he gets 1 draft pick correct?
"We drank, we fought! He made his ancestor proud!"
I think that the front office doesn't really care either way (if he rejects or accepts)
Although I dunno why DDJ would accept to voluntarily be part of an obvious youth movement rebuild. He’ll get better offers elsewhere.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 3, 2011 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Not a bad idea but...
I like the idea of giving DDJ another chance in RF. Maybe he has a bounce back year? I mean look at all the players who had decent career numbers and then come here and suck and then go on to other teams after a year or two and do so much better. Maybe DDJ is worth $1.5-2.0 Million a year if he has a bounce back year. After all we can just release him if he sucks again. What is he going to ask for if they go to arbitration? Also he’s not going to garner a pick so yet another reason to go to arbitration. I think Sweeney could play RF, but he is sooooo injury prone and obviously lacks power that it would be good to have a veteran as a 4th OF and if he hot Melvin can play him.
Byron
He will absolutely have a bounce-back year,
and it will be for someone else. The one thing that has been most consistently said about any of the 3 OFers is that “DDJ is not expected to return…” Sounds to me as if both sides know this.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
do you mean 1-2 million more a year?
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
Pathetic Team, Pathetic Owndership, Pathetic GM
Just plain awful. I wish they would sell the team. Gotta be the worst franchise in MLB. Pretty sad, given it used to be a proud franchise. Does anyone on this site work for the A’s? How can you go into work every morning? Employee morale must be lower than a staffer in the Cain campaign. Pathetic.
Hey now, Matt Cain is pretty good.
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
At Least We're Not The Astros, Who Are The Astros
Or the BoSox, who are boozers. Or the Marlins, who just suck. Or the Giants, because nobody likes the Giants. Or the Orioles, because they can’t win. Or the Angels, who are stupid. Or Colomus, because they’re not even an MLB team.
At least we weren’t owned by Frank McCourt. Things could always get worse.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
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
