Willingham extension talks held hostage to ballpark decision
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2011 8:44 AM PDT
Email
Print
In this article Sustan Slusser reports that Josh Willingham's agent went to Beane and suggested some contract possibilities. it's been apparent for some time that Willingham wants to stay, has no problem hitting in the coliseum, and would be affordable. Beane told the agent that no decisions will be made until they hear from the ballpark commission (i.e, Selig).
You may have heard Beane in numerous recent interviews that they are expecting a decision very soon. Tittle and others have suggested that the A's ownership and front office wouldn't even be saying this unless they thought they were getting the answer that they want - that is, that they will get the OK to move to San José (what about the vote in SJ?)
so what's a long time season ticket holder to do? I've sworn that i would not leave the A's, that they'd have to leave me. But it would be a hard sell to support a team that has no commitment to winning.
479 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
But Deb, you're missing the most important thing.
IF THEY GET THE OK TO MOVE THAT MEANS WE GET TO READ MORE OF YOUR POSTS WITH THE SQUIGGLE OVER THE E!!!!!!!!!!!
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 may have to hold the "squiggle' hostage as well
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
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
Oh, this? (é) Or this? (è) I'vë got your back, OakSi!
by player20 on Sep 25, 2011 11:15 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm not really liking this new development
The way they go about building the team should not be dependent on the ballpark situation at this time, unless they’re EXTREMELY close to finding out the news for certain, one way or the other.
However, I get some of the logic behind the potential future paths depending on those results. It looks like at this point, if they do get a new ballpark, the team will be very different by the time they move into the place. It comes off like the goal there is to have a team good enough to win from the start and it may take some more lean years to get to that point by restocking/rebuilding. If that’s the case, don’t get too attached to anyone we have now.
But if the new ballpark doesn’t happen in San Jose, I would expect there to be a new ownership group at some point in the not too distant future. So, to that side of things, it’s in the benefit of the current group to make the team as good as it can be in the short term so they can get a higher price from any bidders out there. That’d mean some more wins now, but a question about what would happen afterward both with the team and a future ballpark.
Overall I get it, I just don’t like it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Sep 25, 2011 9:12 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Willingham is affordable, and provides reliable power
with or without a ballpark decision (or a decision regardless of what it is) signing him would be a short term move that helps the team.
by OaklandSi on Sep 25, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Remember all those 234467659867 posts on here that say "We need GOOD hitters, not just power hitters."?
Willingham’s WAR has a ceiling of 3.0. He’s just not that good, and certainly not worth wasting a spot on and blocking Carter, Taylor, Allen and Choice with. I’d much rather see what our prospects can do over a full season, even if it means rushing them. Youth energy is something that cant be measured and we have too many retreads on the team this year, where we need more Weeks’s.
Willingham is a health risk, cant play LF for crap and is getting older. If we sign him, its a fantastic waste of money and time. Don’t be fooled by a few HR’s, Hammer just isn’t worth it. Let him be josh average for someone else.
of course the A's need good hitters.
they also need some reliable power threat. Allen, Taylor, Carter, etc. have yet to show that they will be reliable power threats in the major leagues. Willingham can and has done that right now.
He’s affordable in part because he has had health issues. But that can be said of many players, including those on the A’s roster and in their farm system. Melvin knows how to use him: alternating DH and LF helps him alot. (and he is far from the worst LF we have seen in recent years on this team.)
again, Willingham would be a short term signing (no more than 3 years, possibly even 2 guaranteed with a club option for the third year. That would be a smart move regardless of the ballpark decision.
Good hitters are more important than a "reliable power threat".
Especially if that reliable power threat adds literally nothing else, and I don’t know what guy youre watching but he looks so slow in LF to me, and its evidenced by how many balls hit at him that he isnt even close to. UZR and all the metrics agree with this.
Also MLBTR is saying he’s looking for 3/36, that’s way too much for a guy who has never had a WAR over 3.0 in his career who is getting older. I in no shape or form want a 35 year old Willingham on my team.
Looks like we agree to disagree on this. I’d honestly rather have Carlos Lee (with Houston picking up the tab) than Willingham. There’s just SO many other options out there both internally and externally that are more interesting than Willingham.
Carlos Lee's HR production has steadily declined since 2007
and he plays half his games in an indoor bandbox.
although doesn't he have no trade or 5-10 rights?
anyway, this isn’t really a post about Lee or signing or trading for power hitters. It appears that any and all such decisions are on hold pending the ballpark decision. Since Willingham is still here and wants to sign with the A’s, that’s why I posted this – also the additional comment about young players under contract.
Right, I'm just saying 2.0 WAR corner OFs arent what we ABSOLUTELY need right now.
Lee is just an example of how bad Willingham actually is. Lee is at 3.0 WAR right now.
I think there are two pertinent issues here
1) How much should we take the “AL adjustment period” that Nico mentions into account when projecting Willingham’s production over the next couple of years?
2) Although “replacement level” is supposed to mean “kind of player any team can grab at any time off the waiver wire”, how good would the likely replacement for Willingham actually be, given the A’s’ difficulty signing FAs, the talent levels of the specific people who might play in LF/DH next year (Carter, Sweeney, Taylor, maybe Allen depending on Barton)?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 25, 2011 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Willingham's walk rate falling so drastically really bothers me.
I don’t think he will be better moving forward.
But it's been good his whole career,
and has been good since the end of May. The best prediction I can see for his OBP going forward is .360.
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
Stats - Brain = Useless
You have to decide why, which is an imprecise but crucial venture. If you decide it’s because he’s getting older, that’s one thing. If you decide it’s because he saw so many pitchers for the first time in April and May and it skewed his overall numbers, that’s another.
No one knows for sure, but I think the more reasonable guess is that his second half OBP, matching his career OBP to a tee, is an indication that he still has all the tools and is in fact still a “.360 OBP guy”.
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
He's NEVER been any kind of a force though.
So I learn from AN the value of good hitting vs hitting for HR’s, then AN tells me I’m wrong for looking at a mediocre player as a “must have”, because he hit some HRs. Rrriiiight.
We need to be targeting the guys with the 4-5 WAR ceilings, not the 3 ones, esp not for a COF. This whole “no one wants to sign with Oakland” is absolute garbage, they signed 5 FA’s last offseason. This is my point. Willingham is not the only player we could get nor is he anything but a fine complimentary piece for a team with 2 or 3 A-list sluggers, he’s not part of the recipe for success as the main offensive source on a team that needs to catch breaks to compete.
Nobody of any real importance wants to sign here
At least not as far as a 4-5 WAR hitter goes.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Have you polled all FA's on this?
That comment is mere opinion until you do…if someone actually does and all the FA’s who had WAR’s over 4 this year say no matter what, no way would I come to Oakland, only then I will see that statement as fact.
Start by looking at the list of actual FAs to be
and tell me who you would even want? Willingham and DeJesus, believe it or not, are at the TOP of the list of FA OFers.
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
Let me ask you this:
If Willingham leaves, who do you see replacing him? Which internal prospect, or which FA, or which traded for player (causing to have to trade whom)?
Someone will need to stand in LF or in the batter’s box as DH in 2012 and 2013, whether the team is poised to win 95 games, 84 games, or 73 games.
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
My question: Why is that better than
Josh Willingham, Allen, Carter, and Barton? Because there is room for all them — assuming they are all healthy and successful, which is very unlikely to happen.
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 understand your point.
Willingham isn’t going to platoon with anyone, and I’d rather not do this year over with more veterans wasting our prospects playing time. Lets see what we have and just rebuild for real.
IMO we don’t need anyone over 30 on this team.
Well if that's the case then there's no reason to keep Willingham
But if you want to try to be as good as you can be in 2012, and as good as you can be in 2013, then you might want someone who is over 30 and good.
And if you want to attract good players in the future, you might not want to cast off good hitters who are interested in staying and you might not want to completely punt the next two years when you’re coming off 5 bad years.
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
there's no one ready in 2012 worth promoting
Grant Green, maybe if you squint hard enough. If he isn’t ready, that still leaves us with one outfielder (Sweeney) for 3 spots. There’s no reason why Willingham shouldn’t be part of that.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Green would need to make a Weeks-esque leap
to make it on the team next year. I just don’t see it for 2012. 2013, yes.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
by cityplANner on Sep 25, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Taylor doesn't excite me
Allen’s 1B job is probably his to lose in ST. We don’t know about Mitchell. Miller, maybe. But meh. That’s a 100 loss team waiting to happen.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Taylor looks awesome!
Barton tried to play through an injury and is still way too young to write off, he’ll be back, and Allen is mobile enough to play LF as good but probably better than Willingham.
Its never wise to write off an under 28 year old pro baseball player.
nor is it wise to write him in if he hasn't figured it out yet
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Barton certainly can't do what he did in the first half of the year
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
he was getting on base OK
he was playing good defense
and his shoulder was injured.
Nothing in his numbers suggested that he was different except the power numbers. making me think it was a shoulder issue, period.
He will be fine
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
I think so, too
I am afraid he will be fine for someone else, though
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Shoulder surgery isn't a sure thing, though
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Allen has been bad.
He can hit pretty HRs. I want to see him in left and BArton at first
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
I seriously am fine with this opening day look
2B: Weeks
1B: Barton
LF: Allen
RF: Taylor
DH: Carter
3B: Sizemore
SS: Pennington
CF: Mitchell
C: Suzuki
not sold on mitchell
but I dont find that objectionable.
I figure there will be some moves in the off season though
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
...If anyone needs me, I'll be sobbing in a corner in horror.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
He leads the team in OPS by 40 points
I’d say he’s a pretty good hitter.
I think you're selling Willingham short
After the “league adjustment period” we’ve seen a million times before, since the ASB Willingham has put up a slash line of .258/.360/.528 and that OBP is right at his career norm. (His career slash line is .262/.362/.475) That’s a very good hitter, period, on a team woefully lacking in good hitters.
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
Carlos Lee?
.
WAR/year over last 3 years
Carlos Lee – 1
Josh Willingham – 2.5
Age:
Carlos Lee – 35
Josh Willingham – 32
Height/Weight:
Carlos Lee – 6-2/266
Josh Willingham – 6-2/215
2011 Salary:
Carlos Lee – $18.5M
Josh Willingham – $6M
Really?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Its just a throwaway example of a guy who's had a better year than Willingham and would be available.
I dont understand why youd put that much effort into what was clearly a throwaway comment. Guys, if I REALLY wanted the A’s to push for a certain player I’d make a fanpost about it.
But way to go all all OMGZ!!!! on a clearly not-serious comment.
No, I don’t really want Lee, but I’d rather have him for free instead of Willingham. Because according to WAR, he’s a better player than him. That’s it.
You crack me up
But way to go all all OMGZ!!!! on a clearly not-serious comment.
Sorry for not realizing you were clearly joking. Sometimes I realize when people are not serious, because they make less sense than when they are being serious, but that approach has failed me in your case.
Also:
Because according to WAR, he’s a better player than him.
WAR/year over last 3 years
Carlos Lee – 1
Josh Willingham – 2.5
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
You crack me up too.
Lee’s peak WAR: 5.6
Lee’s seasons over 3.1 WAR = 4
Lee this season: 3.0
Willingham’s peak WAR: 3.0
Willingham this season: 2.0
Lee hit a rough patch (sweet .238 BABIP bro) in 2010 but has more talent than Willingham and even though they are both not good at defense, Lee is less bad.
But I don’t even really want Lee, he’s just an example of a gettable player with a higher ceiling than Willingham. Also other than 2008 Lee has played between 150-162 games for TEN years. Health is a skill and Lee has it. This is just another reason why Lee is a superior player to Willingham but like I said, I’d rather have an Allen-Crisp-Taylor OF next year more than anything else.
You've convinced me
We should let Willingham go, and sign Carlos Lee in 2006.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
If it's a bad idea to sign someone like Willingham now because he's 32...
…it’s an even worse idea to even think of going after someone like Lee who, right now, costs about 3x as much and will still be closer to 2x as much even if Willingham gets $10 million a year, and Lee is already 35. Your whole premise in the Lee example hinges on the Astros paying a large part of his salary, too.
Lee’s peak WAR was in 2004. Before getting back to 3.0 this year he combined for 0.2 in 09/10.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I don't know now - are you joking or not?
Lee’s peak WAR (5.6) was in 2004, dude!
You know who else had WAR over 5 that year? Aaron Rowand, Adam Dunn, Andruw Jones and Corey Patterson, all YOUNGER than Carlos Lee. Also, they weigh about the same when added together.
So, let’s sign Aaron Fucking Rowand because he had a good year a decade ago!
and even though they are both not good at defense, Lee is less bad.
Carlos Lee was worth -16 runs on defense over last 3 years, Josh Willingham -14. Another joke of yours or just no clue what you are talking about?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
No, just you guys freaking out over a throwaway comment.
How many different ways do I have to write “He had a better WAR than him this year.”? 100? 1000? I clearly put no effort into it other than looking at the OF WAR leaderboard on fangraphs and now you guys are making some massive argument out of it. Chill out. If I come up an available guy I really want here, I’d make a fanpost about it and try and cover every possible angle.
But even then Flashfire will end up disagreeing with it without even reading it and troll the thread with comments like “look at his past” and “he has no idea”. You guys are so mean for no reason at all. Chill out.
No, you really do have no idea
Saying you’d rather have Carlos Lee is not just some throwaway comment when you give no indication it’s that when you say it.
It’s just fucking idiotic and stupid.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
A better approach would have been to say,
“You know, Lee’s a terrible example of what I was trying to say. Replace Lee with __.” It wasn’t a “throwaway comment” so much as it was a comment that used an example that contradicted the point. It happens.
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 definitely was a throwaway comment, I clearly put little thought into it other than seeing he had a bigger WAR this year.
Looks like we agree to disagree on this. I’d honestly rather have Carlos Lee (with Houston picking up the tab) than Willingham. There’s just SO many other options out there both internally and externally that are more interesting than Willingham.
Thats what I wrote. This inspired AN to have like 200 posts about how dumb I am. Jesus christ.
You're right about clearly putting little thought into it, at least
You’d “honestly rather have” someone then when shown why Lee would be a worse choice you say “oh, it was just a throwaway comment.”
No.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I really would honestly rather have Lee than Willingham though
If it came down to those 2. But there are literally 100 other posible options out there so….
Flagged.
If what I write makes you so mad you constantly defer to petty and personal insults, maybe you should look into not responding to my posts.
Oh really?
I clearly put no effort into it other than looking at the OF WAR leaderboard on fangraphs
So, who wrote this?
Lee’s peak WAR: 5.6
Lee’s seasons over 3.1 WAR = 4
Lee this season: 3.0
Willingham’s peak WAR: 3.0
Willingham this season: 2.0
…
Also other than 2008 Lee has played between 150-162 games for TEN years.
…
Lee hit a rough patch (sweet .238 BABIP bro) in 2010
…
even though they are both not good at defense, Lee is less bad.
Your alter ego?
It’s really hilarious how you keep throwing numbers out and then cry like a fucking baby when people respond with numbers that actually make sense.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
I'll take the CGV if I get one
But the truth of it is, most of what you’ve ever said here has been full of holes and you can never handle it when it’s shown to you. You have the thinnest skin of anybody I’ve ever seen here.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
You need to look in the mirror.
Bottom line I could write “Albert Pujols would help the A’s win more games” and you’d argue it. You hate literally anything I write, holes or no. Its pathetic and you need to get a life and quit making AN look like a disaster area. I never ever write the disgusting hateful crap you do toward another poster thats totally unwarranted.
Never in my life would I predict saying I’d personally rather have Lee than Willingham, that a MASSIVE argument would break out. Holy shit you and elcroata need to get a new hobby. You are making AN unwelcoming to casual readers, even if I have opinions that are disagreeable, I do not do that.
And please
Stop acting like you’re above any of this. You’ve had your moments more than once.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
You could get off your soapbox and realize that people are entitled to their opinions.
I don’t “call out” and “go after” people who want Willingham here, I’m fine with it, I just wanted people to take a step away from the HRs and see that he’s not a very complete ballplayer, and could be replaced pretty easily.
And then you come in, and things get ugly really fast. What if you….did not do that?
Have you polled every casual reader on that?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
You both need to take a sec to chill out. Breathe, guys. :-/
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Both of you, I meant to say. Both of you calm down.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
DAMMIT FF JUST CALM DOWN OKAY.
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
This one I did flag.
You weren’t even describing his behavior, you just called him a “fucking baby.” That’s just plain over the line. I’ma stay out of this one, otherwise.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
It's neither pointless, nor argument
I am not delusional enough to think you might actually agree with anyone correcting you, nor do I care about you. However, when I see something that I consider to be nonsense, I feel it is my good right to explain to an innocent bystander why she or he should not put a single cent into such a malformed opinion.
The more numbers you randomly chose from internet to prove your point, more corrections I need to make so that people who might want to form their opinions based on what they read here will not be misguided by faux analysis.
You know, the kids out there should know that alcohol and numbers should only be enjoyed responsibly.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
That's a great attitude.
You just said your opinion is better than mine, and you MUST let others know!
It generally is
For as much as you cry about elcroata correcting you, he’s one of the people here you should look to emulate a little more when you have something to say.
He actually researches things thoroughly and puts a lot of thought into what he writes instead of pulling things out of his back end half the time.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
No
Seriously – there’s a reason elcroata is a respected member of AN and you aren’t.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Could you guys please have your spat offline?
I don’t really need to read 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
by Nico on Sep 25, 2011 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's what I'm saying.
I’m gunna go out for a beer run, I’m clearly not as drunk as Flashfire is right now. This is too much.
Listen
As far as I am concerned, we can just limit this to baseball analysis. You present your ideas as you see fit. If I see something that I feel is clearly wrong, I’ll write why. I’d prefer not discussing my attitude online, especially not by someone I do not see fit to do so.
And, you know, saying that 14 is bigger than 16 is not really an opinion
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
You have misinterpreted replying to posts before though.
and you just did again. Yeah I took up an argument for Lee Vs Willingham for the hell of it once you took my random example of players who are better than JW way too far. I mean are you just scanning my posts to see a name so you can rip it apart? Context is everything and there was a TON of ignoring it on your part.
I do appreciate you being civil though, I’d love to have an argument on here without someone resulting to petty name calling though. Flashfire cant help himself on that front, he thinks SO badly of me that anytime any single poster posts a rebuttal to my opinion he immediately jumps on that posters side. Its a pack/jock/cliqueish mentality that disgusts me and turns AN toxic.
For the record, Carlos Lee has a higher WAR than Josh Willingham this year. That’s also not an opinion. But personally I’d love to see Allen or Taylor or Mitchell in LF next year, so this massive argument is has and was from the start, moot. I just wanted people to recognize that if you take Willingham’s HRs away, he’s really bringing nothing to the table. If he had 15 jacks this year no one would be taking his side. That’s all I ever meant to say on the topic, and I’ll leave it alone from here on out.
In fact, it is an excellent attitude.
There’s no crime in thinking one’s own opinion is better than someone else’s, and it is the essence of healthy discussion to present a rebuttal when you disagree with someone.
PL, I have often defended your right to express your opinion, even ones that are widely considered foolish and unsupported, but by the same token you have to accept that others who disagree with you will express their counterpoint.
It’s true that at times you have been subjected to personal insults and/or baiting, and when you flag those we do look at them and consider them seriously. But when you object to someone rebutting your arguments and calling them foolish, you have no valid complaint.
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 Sep 25, 2011 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Iglew
Thanks for clearing that up. I just do not understand how much more clear I can be about bringing up other players nonchalantly as I can, how people can’t understand that I dont really care about it, it was just an example of how not really good Willingham has been.
Like I said AN specifically taught me that we need “good/great hitters” not just power hitters. Willingham has dont nothing to show he belongs in the former and is completely in the latter. The fact that he’s pretty abysmal in LF to the point where Carlos Lee has a better WAR than him, that’s a cause for concern that I thought AN would immediately understand….because of the whole “good hitters vs power hitters” line of thought that I bought into and agree with, that I learned from AN.
I do not think my opinion is better or more “respected” than anyone around here, but I definitely think my reading & writing comprehension is better and I feel like moving forward I have to dumb down my writing for fear of it turning into what just happened above. I’ll try to do that because my original post still doesn’t look like it deserved to go down the road it did, but of course I understand what I’m saying, I guess its a skill to put it in a way everyone does.
Also
Also other than 2008 Lee has played between 150-162 games for TEN years.
That’s already accounted for in WAR. If two players both have the same WAR, it doesn’t matter if one played 50 games and the other played 150.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Right, and then you have to have Matt Carson play when Willingham is injured.
But I don’t want Lee here, I just want better players who are capable of cracking a WAR of 3.0.
Im beginning to think you arent very bright.
I really do have to connect all the dots all the time talking to you here, dont I, sunshine?
OR maybe you are just trolling the ever loving shit out of me, trying to bait me into insulting you.
Hmmm I wonder what one it is?
I guess you don't really understand what R in WAR is for
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
I disagree.
That’s already accounted for in WAR. If two players both have the same WAR, it doesn’t matter if one played 50 games and the other played 150.
I would say that the player who garners equivalent WAR in fewer games is better.
If player A scores 3.0 WAR in 50 games, you still have another 100 games in which maybe you can get some more WAR out of someone else. If player B scores 3.0 WAR in 150 games, then 3.0 WAR is all you get from that position for the year.
Unless you think player A’s replacement is more likely to create negative WAR than positive WAR, a team is better off with player A. Since the definition of WAR is that a free-off-the-scrap-heap player can expect zero WAR, there is no reason to think a replacement could be any worse than zero, whereas he might be better.
(And yes, I realize this argues the opposite of what the person who brought up number of games was suggesting.)
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 correct
My statement was oversimplifying and what you add is probably true, especially for the big money teams with deep benches, or financial possibility to easily “plug the holes”.
Also, the advantage of same WAR over fewer games could be by design, not by necessity of health. Perfect example is two players with strong platoon splits.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
The article said 3/36 on the open market
The very next line in the article said Willingham was willing to give the A’s a below-market deal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm envisioning 3/30 for the A's
And I’d be ok with that. Gosh darn it, we’ll just have to not sign Ben Sheets every year for a while.
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
other than Carlos lee, yeah, Willingham doesn't help the A's in 2014 as much as the 2 picks do
and he is expensive
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
You seem to have embraced WAR as the end-all, be-all way of judging players
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Jack Cust circled around
then dropped the honor.
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
then kicked it, then threw it to the wrong base
and missed the cut off by 20’
"Like I said, it’s like me giving you a high-five and chest bump after you hit for the cycle against the kid in the wheelchair." Vacafan on May 14, 2010
I thought it only takes 8 months to build a stadium nowdays?
and the team is only year-to-year with the Coli. Why are they saying 2015?
But I agree it should never be dependent on the stadium, but I think that’s what Beane & co tried from 09-present and look whats happened. They need to press Selig harder and get him to say yes or no on SJ. Freezing everything and making it public is one way to do that.
30+ months
Maybe less if they push the schedule. There’s still a lot of procedural stuff to get out of the way, the remaining land buys, etc.
I don't see the vote as a major issue.
Wolff/Fisher could buy the land which could eliminate the need for a vote. Or they could throw millions into a campaign and effectively buy the election. They know the temperature on this and will act accordingly.
Even so
I don’t think there’s any chance that San Joseans not vote for a new stadium with the expectation that the A’s move there. if the land buy were taking place in adjoining Santa Clara or Cupertino, then yeah, there would be problems, but San Jose? Highly unlikely, especially since everyone has known the location of the proposed stadium since 2009.
Willingham stats
Who was it on this board said I was crazy to think Willingham could hit 25 home runs and 85 RBIs in Oakland. Lets see who owns up to the fact they were wrong. He has done even better on the RBI front.
RsBI are completely dependent on others in the line up
I think the biggest shocker for willingham is he has played 130 games
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
by Future Ed on Sep 25, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because of coming off the injury?
Because he averaged 127 a year over the past five.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
yeah, the injury thing
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
In the preseason GOG I had him with 27/95
But I also had Kouz hitting 22 so what do I know
"Like I said, it’s like me giving you a high-five and chest bump after you hit for the cycle against the kid in the wheelchair." Vacafan on May 14, 2010
Let me get this straight
The team will be able to raise the payroll if the team stays and won’t, even though they obviously could if a new stadium is built? Am I the only one that thinks that is terrible? It really shows were the fans and winning show up as a priority. No matter what happens I would love to keep Willingham.
"-i never said half the things i said." --Yogi Berra
by Ovale Fan on Sep 25, 2011 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree. I think a Willingham extension would be a short term, not long term decision
designed to help keep the team competitive and interesting, regardless of the ballpark decision.
Perhaps they'll offer arbitration, he'll accept, and by the time 2012 is over the A's will feel they can extend him another 2 years.
Though in the meantime, I expect Willingham will get a good offer on the FA market and will take it. I would.
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 A's should re-sign Willingham, if only because:
- Rarely does a good hitter seek to stay in Oakland
- He is willing to sign for less than market price
It makes a terrible statement to let a good hitter go, who wants to play here and is willing to sign for a hometown discount, when player after player (Furcal, Beltre, etc.) won’t consider coming in the first place.
The A’s should be re-signing Willingham even if only to make a statement that if good hitters want to play in Oakland, Oakland wants them because Oakland is trying to win baseball games. The statement the A’s are making now is a very bad one: “Either we’ll be stuck in a horrible situation with no fans or payroll, or we’ll get even cheaper and not try to be competitive in the near future.”
Why wait to try to win when you’re in San Jose? If they get the ok for San Jose, why not try to win now, and then also try to win later when their payroll flexibility will naturally jump? Both can be done. Unless you feel the natural need to rebuild anyway, it’s not a mutually exclusive thing that to be good later you need to be stingy now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2011 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 15 recs
It makes a terrible statement to let a good hitter go, who wants to play here and is willing to sign for a hometown discount, when player after player (Furcal, Beltre, etc.) won’t consider coming in the first place.
Yeah, that.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Also, do the A's not think that they will build a stronger fan base in San Jose
if they have a stronger fan base, period? They shouldn’t “try to increase the gate in Oakland” only if they’re staying. They should always be doing what they can to make “coming to an A’s game” a more appealing idea to “fans of that team”.
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 would seem to be a good idea to build as big a fanbase in Oakland as they can, in order to bring as many of them to San Jose as they can
Instead it’s looking more and more like Oakland will be an afterthought and they wouldn’t mind at all if the San Jose crowd features very little of the old base.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
It doesn't make sense to me
To reduce spending and get rid of good young players if teh team is moving to San Jose. That is not going to do much to get San Jose fans excited, and already have to contend with the fact that many San Jose residents are Giants fans. It would seem taht the focus would be to have a couple of very good, competitive years going into San Jose to build anticipation for them starting there.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it's a question of how invested the ownership is in the team
My impression from the article is that the A’s management feels the best thing for the team is to go young and start a serious rebuild. But that if they don’t get the approval for a new stadium then they don’t want to go through with a full rebuild and would rather just slap a fresh coat of paint to cover up the structural flaws and try to get the price they can for the team.
I mean I've been on the fence all along
on whether it’s an objectively good decision to commit $10+M/year to Willingham going forward, when his defense and health, and age, are significant issues. But at this point, given that he’s the A’s best hitter and is eager to stay, if Oakland winds up overpaying for a good DH at some point, you know what — that’s what you have to do when you’re the Oakland A’s if you want to be competitive.
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
There are question marks, sure
But at this point I’d rather go with Willingham than Carter if we need a DH type who occasionally plays the OF for a few years.
Of course if they go into rebuild mode it wouldn’t surprise me if they gave Carter a more prominent role in the lineup, for better or worse.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I really want Carter to succeed
But I’m not ready to bank on him to the point of letting his “ceiling” go so he can try.
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 is not physically possible for me to rec this as much as it deserves.
There is NO EXCUSE for complaining that good players don’t want to come here when they thumb their nose and leave a player like Willingham hangin’ in the wind like this.
Either rebuild or win — making it revolve around the stadium decision is revolting.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Sep 25, 2011 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks.
It’s almost as if the A’s are worried it would be a bad thing if they “peaked too early” and won in Oakland before moving to San Jose. The fans in San Jose won’t be more enthused to welcome a winning team than a team like the one we’ve seen the past 5 years?
Stop worrying about WHEN you’re good, and just worry about BEING good. Because frankly, Billy and Lew, you’ve had plenty of problems being good at all lately.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Absolutely
The goal should always to be to do what you can to win, regardless, of what else is going on. The whole thought of waiting until we get more clarity on what is going to happen is really frustrating and feels like thumbing the nose to the current fan base.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
It's almost like they're thinking
“Oh noes, we might win at the wrong time!” Your team has been a cesspool of unattended, uninspiring mediocrity for 5 years straight and you’re worried about winning at the wrong time?
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 fundamental flaw in the thinking is they think they can only be a shot in the dark
They can start winning here, and keep winning in San Jose or Oakland or Las Vegas, and NEVER STOP WINNING. That should be the goal.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Yup
Its absolutely ridiculous. And, if there has to be a vote in San Jose, why do SJ residents get excited and vote for a teams that gets rid of talented young players and drops payroll.
And I’’m tired of the baseball decisions being so dominated by the business decisions. I know there is always a link – but here we have chance to make a good baseball decision and get a good player to stay here for a “discout” yet waiting to find out about a decision that might or might not happen. Fuck. And the last week of Beane comments has made me much more concerned that if the SJ decision is negative, that the team might be leaving Bay Area. And that’s really sad.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
And I’’m tired of the baseball decisions being so dominated by the business decisions.
This this this. Yes, baseball is a business, but owning a sports team is somewhat a unique sort of business. Brand loyalty is something that extends through generations, not just a person’s lifetime. There is a deep passion and romanticism and mysticism and science tied into it. It should be treated accordingly.
Someone should own a baseball team because they want to own a BASEBALL TEAM, not just have another business in their portfolio.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Sep 25, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's good business to
- win
- be exciting to watch
- be appealing to fans
It’s not like they need to choose one over the other.
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
Apparently losing + revenue sharing is the good business plan nowadays. :-/
I like your plan better, since… yeah. Pretty much.
Sometimes I worry that the A’s marketing department must be full of alcoholics by now after trying to cope with what ownership/the front office does.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Now now -- no need to insult alcoholics by comparing them to the A's marketing dept.
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'm sorry, I just don't read it that way.
Seems to me that Beane thinks that the best way to win is to rebuild, because this core of players just won’t get it done. If Beane is going to be around into the San Jose years, then rebuild and put the best team on the field you can. But if the team is going to be sold, then he’s going to put a team out there that can compete for 2nd place for the next few years, since you can get more money for a “competitive” team than you can for one that is rebuilding.
I don’t think its about timing. I think its about either competing (in the future) or selling a team that looks like it could compete now, but doesn’t really have the personnel to get it done.
by sc00by on Sep 25, 2011 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, that "peaked too early" thing seems right.
It looks like they want to field terrible team after terrible team in Oakland, get the rooks ready, and then have a few high-priced FAs surrounding them on Opening Day in San Jose so that they can go from the basement to the top and prove that it’s all Oakland’s fault that the team has been terrible.
Of course, there’s SO MANY WAYS that could blow up in their faces. Trying to stay competitive every season, trying to win no matter what and balance young guys with older talent — that worked so well for us for so long, why the hell not stick with that?
Otherwise, there may not be any nice giant corporations even interested in being there on Opening Day ’14 in San Jose.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Sep 25, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can just see the SJ fans saying
Damn we have a 92 win team instead of the 78 win team they promised us
"Like I said, it’s like me giving you a high-five and chest bump after you hit for the cycle against the kid in the wheelchair." Vacafan on May 14, 2010
and if building a nice stadium was the one key to attracting fans
then baltimore would be filling the park with someone other than yankees / red sox fans flying down for the game
When Brandon Allen hits a triple, he just keeps running.
by eastcoasta'sfan on Sep 26, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not the one key, but compared to the ballpark being replaced it's a major key
The first nine years Camden Yards was open, Baltimore averaged 44416 fans per game and were 1st or 2nd in AL attendance each of those years. They went to the ALCS twice and averaged about an 84-78 record (plus 63-49 and 71-73 in the shortened seasons).
After winning the World Series in 1985, their final eight years in old Memorial Stadium saw an average of 26588 and they were usually in the middle of AL attendance (best 4th, worst 10th). Yeah, their best season over that period was 87-75 and they averaged about 74-88 including 76-85 and 67-95 their last two years in the old place, followed by a 22-game improvement to 89-73 their first year in Camden, but it wasn’t until 2006 that their average finally dipped under 30k – the 15th season in Camden.
The only reason attendance has dropped to what it has there now is because the team hasn’t had a winning season since 1997, but more because since then they’ve only averaged about 70-71 wins a year over that span. They still had eight years in a row over 30k while failing to finish at .500 or better.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
That's kind of my point
The A’s aren’t too far away from being Baltimore. They look a lot more like baltimore than Boston. Being Baltimore won’t work, even in the shiniest new digs.
When Brandon Allen hits a triple, he just keeps running.
by eastcoasta'sfan on Sep 27, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I think selling tickets to visiting Yankees and Sox fans
is an integral part of the Orioles’ business model. It’s kind of their raison d’être.
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
Clearly
I often wonder how many are just DC / Baltimore area residents who moved from Boston. I know a few of those who go to Sox games at Baltimore, but I’ve never heard anyone say they flew down for a game.
When Brandon Allen hits a triple, he just keeps running.
by eastcoasta'sfan on Sep 27, 2011 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
players want to be here when they are offered the most money
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
I agree Nico
I am coming to despise Management (Owners and Beane)
The guy really wants to be here and they pull this crap. He should have been signed 2 months ago.
And so far they have shown that they have know clue how to rebuild.
Why this article has made me violently pissed and throw chairs.
Rebuilding can go fuck itself, honestly.
If the A’s get the stadium deal? They’ve won. THEY’VE WON. And yet they’ve still decided that running over Oakland’s puppy wasn’t enough, they had to back up and do it again.
If the A’s get the stadium deal, they have a secure future and should raise payroll NOW as proof of commitment to the franchise and its future, to start putting together a winner NOW and show that it was the 2 1/2 years of delay that was REALLY fucking us over, uh huh, really.
I’m not normally about dictating how someone should spend their money (okay, that’s a lie, I totally am), but I think the A’s have an absolute RESPONSIBILITY to raise payroll and go for winning NOW if the stadium deal goes through. Don’t keep us fans in limbo with this team the way the MLB kept the stadium issue in limbo.
Play the rooks, get Weeks and Taylor and Choice some chances, but open the pocketbook to surround them with strong, talented FAs that can teach them things and keep the team competitive and entertaining on the field, while also being possible to trade during July to stock up our farm system with some talented young guys that can guarantee that we’ve got a long, awesome future ahead of us.
Rebuilding is a fucking terrible thing, because so many teams say “rebuilding” when they really mean “suck and die for 10 years”.
What was it we were hearing around ‘05-’07? That it’s not about rebuilding, it’s about staying competitive while also giving young guys a chance, that full-out rebuilding is a mistake?
I like that mindset. I liked those teams.
It’s not bad enough driving down attendance, now they’re going to make the team all-out suck so we can’t have any shot until the day they roll into San Jose? FUCK THAT. Seriously. FUCK THAT.
Josh Willingham wants to be here. WANTS TO BE HERE. In Oakland. In our crappy-but-beloved-by-me Coliseum. With this team. Just do it, Billy. JUST FUCKING DO IT.
I’m not a huge fan of intangibles, but I do believe there’s something to be said for giving young guys an example of how to win. That teaching young guys to love the feeling of winning, to want it and crave it, rather than having them stuck on the Pirates West will benefit the franchise in the long run. That showing FAs that the Athletics of Whatever Place is a franchise that wants to win, all the time, every time. That this team, if it were smart, would capitalize on the Moneyball attention to start getting the public’s notice NOW.
Moneyball is out while the team is in Oakland. We’re never gonna have this kind of national attention again. Getting fans away from the Giants is going to be a hard thing, even with a corporate playground in San Jo. So start now, with this publicity, to show why this franchise is the one to support and value. Don’t throw it away like a fucking short-sighted moron.
If nothing else, it makes me not trust that this team will do anything about payroll when they move — it’ll just be about Lew Wolff curled up around his money, mumbling about the precious, while the team continues to be in the lower third in payroll. Welcome to the Pirates West, my friends. Ownership has given us ZERO reason to trust them to give us a franchise that we can be proud of under the Lew Wolff ownership, the more shit like this comes out.
They want us to be Giants fans, to care only about the stadium and not the product on the field. And I am physically incapable of that. But I guess they don’t want me there anyway.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Sep 25, 2011 12:11 PM PDT reply actions 10 recs
+1,000 Kyli
They not know how to rebuild. Either that or they want to tank on purpose. He is an idiot if he does not sign Willingham.
If you are not going to do what it takes to win in the short term then Fuck off
Seriously.
And it’s not like Billy Beane hasn’t proven that he knows how to form a team that is both competitive in the short term while also focusing on developing long term talent and success.
So what the fuck is this shit?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
What I find really distasteful is that
ownership would publicly hang the specter of the stadium over every aspect of the team’s management and operations.
It may be that stadium issues could impact whether or not they are able to sign Willingham to an extension, but the question we should be asking is WHY they’re telling us this. Either way you cut it, this is a move that will piss off the fanbase. I can only see it as sacrificing Willingham at the altar of expediting Selig’s stadium process.
Willingham’s our most visible player. He’s the most intriguing FA of the bunch that we’ve got coming off payroll. As there’s already talk around MLB about him, what better way to inject more attention and urgency to the stadium situation than pit Willingham vs. stadium.
To me, this feels like a disingenuously constructed narrative meant to push more attention towards resolving the stadium issue. And it sickens me that the organization would play fast and loose with our best FA (and a guy that really wants to stay in Oakland) just to ratchet up pressure on Selig and his cronies.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
by cityplANner on Sep 25, 2011 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
PERHAPS,
and this is the only explanation I would find palatable, this is politicking: Using the Willingham situation to further force MLB’s hand by saying, “Look, you can’t leave us in limbo like this — we can’t even negotiate with our guys who want to stay.”
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 Willingham under the bus to force MLB's hand
so they’re not really expecting a decision soon? They want to make MLB decide soon?
Throwing your FAs under the bus seems like a terrible way to get guys to want to sign here, new stadium or no new stadium.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
making sure Selig doesn't chicken out, perhaps
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
there have been plenty of other times in our team's history
where we couldn’t pay a player what they wanted to stay, even when they wanted to stay. Sometimes it came in the form of an offer we knew they wouldn’t accept (Giambi) and sometimes it came in the form us just letting them walk (Tejada). Both of those options could have been utilized with Willingham. But to pre-emptively throw him under the bus (before the season is even over, no less!) smacks of crass, cynical politicking. And it is sickening to me.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
by cityplANner on Sep 25, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
That's exactly what it is.
This is all politics, and probably has little or nothing to do with the A’s actual attitude toward rebuilding generally or Willingham specifically.
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
bottom line, these owners only care about themselves and money
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Sep 25, 2011 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Great Fucking Timing!
I haven’t seen Moneyball, yet, but was really looking forward to seeing it this week. I very rarely see a movie in the theaters, and its been a long time that I’ve really looked forward to doing it. But, with the buzz of the last week, and even just Friday, I was really looking forward to Moneyball and excited about it as an A’s fan.
Now, this story has sapped a lot of that excitement. I’ll still see it and I’m sure I’ll love it. But, this idea that a stadium decision is going to have such an impact on the product on the field now, before the decision even made, and knowing that even if we move to SJ its going to be a long three- four years of crap teams to save up for a grand entrance – I’m just really sick and disgusted as an A’s fan.
If nothing else, Moneyball lets us remember the good times.
And we’ve got Brad Pitt-given evidence that the A’s played in Oakland, the A’s were successful in Oakland, and the A’s could pull some really good attendance in Oakland through the crazy method of actually being good. No matter what revisionist history we’re being fed now about how the A’s are and always will be low-attendance losers, we’ve got proof on the big screen, and trust me, you’ve never seen the Coliseum or Oakland look more beautiful than in that movie.
Don’t let this shit get you down about Moneyball. Since the organization didn’t have their hands on it, it doesn’t have that taint of suckitude upon it.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Myth of good attendance
re: “really good attendance”
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated by Oakland First-ers and Tittle. That the A’s had “good” attendance in the early part of the decade (or could acheive good attendance by putting a quality product on the field). In 2002, the A’s were 18th in attendance (both total and avg) and 19th in 2001. Both years they drew roughly 2.1 million, which, given the quality of both those teams, would seem to be the limit to what the A’s can draw in Oakland at the Coliseum. In ’03 and ’04, they drew about the same, 2.2 million and good for 16th overall, and then declined steadily after that.
So at their very best, the A’s can hope to draw average crowds or slightly below that.
by SantaCruzSurfer on Sep 25, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
re: myth
They also, don’t forget, bolstered that attendance with a constant stream of discounts and giveaways – dollar Wednesdays, dollar dogs, Taco Tuesdays, etc. So big chunk of that attendance wasn’t even profitable – it was just about trying to get people into the stadium and hoping they would get hooked on it. The East Bay is just not a good location, and I say this as an Oakland guy, born and raised. As much as it would suck to not have the A’s in Oakland anymore, if strong attendance is a necessary part of the model for competing again, it’s just not going to happen here.
rather than look at the number itself, it makes more sense to look at their ranking in MLB
for each year. For example, in 1990 – when the A’s drew more than 2.9 million during the regular season – they were third in all of MLB in attendance. The Cardinals ranked second, also with 2.9 million (not much more than 100,000 total more than the A’s). The top drawing team in 1990 was the Toronto Blue Jays, who drew 3.4 million. That’s right, neither the Yanks nor the Red Sox drew 3 million fans, nor were they in the top 3.
When you analyze attendance this way you’ll find that the A’s have averaged in the middle of the pack over their 40+ years in Oakland. Even from 1999-2005 (when both sets of owners campaigned to move to San José and claimed that Oakland couldn’t draw fans) the A’s ranked between 17th-19th in MLB attendance.
Ranking
If you look at my post, I indicate ranking repeatedly. Between 99 and 05, when the A’s had winning records every year, and made the playoffs 4 straight years, and were arguably one of the best teams in baseball for two years, with multiple MVPs and Cy Youngs, and A’s were only able to draw between 17th to 19th in attendence. THAT IS NOT GOOD. That is below mediocre. It is not something to aspire to, to say, “if only we could have another great team like that, maybe we could hope to have a half full stadium.” That is the best case scenario in Oakland. Its not a theory, its a fact. the A’s are not going to be able to produce a better product than what we had in the earlier part of the decade, and we saw what the attendance was. When there isnt a great product, the Coliseum quickly sinks to “empty”.
by SantaCruzSurfer on Sep 29, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
What is competing and rebuilding?
More from Slusser today:
I’m getting lots of email on the Willingham story and the Moneyball piece. There is surprise the A’s would cut payroll if they get the OK to go to San Jose, and it surprised me too, when I heard it, but if you think about someone such as Willingham, in particular, you can see the reasoning: 1) a new stadium wouldn’t be ready for three years and his deal would run out before they’d move into a new place and 2) if they plan to rebuild with an eye toward San Jose – and they do, if they get approval for it – why sink $27-30 million into a player if the team is not going to contend in that time?
Others ask how the team expects to keep fans if that’s the case, and that’s a tough one. Some fans enjoy watching the rebuild process because then they’ve seen the development of something special when the team becomes good, but others jump off, especially when the rebuilds continue and continue, ala the Royals. But mainly, I think the team believes that a move to San Jose with a good young core of players will attract far more fans in the end than they might lose with a rebuild.
The major problem for the team is that there is no “young core” outside of the pitching. We know that they’re not going on a buying spree, so it’s going to take at least another year for that core to emerge. I’ve run the numbers and payroll could be anywhere from $40-55 million depending on if they keep either Willingham or Crisp or both (and they don’t trade any starters).
So the question I have to post to the community is this: What do you think it’ll take for this team to be competitive in terms of payroll and signings? I don’t see $70-75 million as nearly enough. $90 million would run the team significantly in the red.
by vertig0 on Sep 25, 2011 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
why is it hard to undestand
its weird to admit it to a reporter. But it makes total sense otherwise.
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
It seems a little backwards to me
Considering that most of what I’ve read suggests that the A’s have very little high-ceiling talent in the system, if they really want to rebuild and have a good young core, they are going to need to acquire some better young players. One way to do this would be to sign Willingham, and then trade some of our other players who have value. If we’re going to trade away our “young veterans” (I’m assuming that’s who would be traded for younger talent), then can’t we have someone who can hit to at least have a little offense? And if his contract is going to expire before the stadium opens, then he won’t block any big FA signings to open the new place. I just think that it’s a false dichotomy to say that we can only have one (1) of signing Willingham or rebuilding.
right better young players like 2 first round picks you get for willingham signing elsewhere
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
That's one way
But draft picks also have a fairly high bust rate. At least if you are trading for minor leaguers, you weed out the Matt Bushs of the world (although I think I read somewhere that he’s playing for the TB system these days). Its not that I don’t understand one way of rebuilding (getting draft picks for Willingham), I just don’t think they have to be mutually exclusive.
getting draft picks is what the rays do and what keeps the red sox from becoming the dodgers or cubs
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
If memory serves
They have also made a few good trades, and picked up players on the scrap heap. I’m not anti-draft picks, I just want to suggest that there are multiple approaches.
red sox make good trades from using their good drafts
rays made good trades that aren’t different from beane trades
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
Correct me if I'm wrong
but I feel like our point of disagreement is in how valuable the draft picks are. I guess at this point, I don’t have much faith in the A’s draft strategy, but I admit that’s a fairly subjective thing. I feel like they are better at evaluating guys already playing professionally, which is why I’d prefer to diversify, and not put all the eggs in the draft basket, but I do think the draft is an excellent potential source, and if the A’s could do a better job at tapping it, I would rejoice.
Especially now that so many guys are holding on tightly to any minor leaguer that shows potential, it's getting harder and harder to pry away prospects.
The draft really HAS to have more money invested into it by the A’s.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Red Sox were also using their budget
by aggressively going over-slot in recent years
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
a very penny foolish pund wise strategy
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
Red Sox also have a fuckton of money, so they can afford to draft guys who demand a high signing bonus.
And keep the guys once they hit stardom. And also throw around a fuckton of money.
And the Rays just draft like they’re bringing sexy back, we haven’t really had that luck.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
they are not getting public money for the new yard
so assuming they don’t sell tickets for it until 2014, as an example, they will be shelling out for development/construction costs and debt service for two years or so without getting the revenues attributable to a new stadium.
Whether that’s wise or not as a long-term marketing strategy, I don’t know. If that’s the problem, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t say that.
Where have you gone, Steven Revetria? A bandwagon turns its lonely eyes to you.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"That one's on me."- Madison Bumgarner
by natteringnabob on Sep 25, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
This is what I was hoping for.
I’d love to get Willingham even if it costs us picks. When your current active player leads the team with 9. Let’s just say it takes the sting out of losing the picks. This article makes me think the A’s are going to offer arbitration which Willingham should certainly turn down. If we can get rid of Bell in an expeditious manner I don’t see why we couldn’t steal this guy from you while leaving you to focus on drafting well and preparing for the new stadium.
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
*9 Dingerz
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
Padres will have a protected first rounder
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
Does that mean you'd only get one pick from us?
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
Well, not exactly.
We’d get one pick from the signing team regardless. This just means that one pick would be in the 2nd round rather than the 1st.
We’d also get a supplemental (“sandwich”) pick, which is added to the draft between the 1st and 2nd round but not taken from the other team.
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
Okay, thanks.
I could live with that. It doesn’t matter I suppose. There’s probably no way the Padres are shelling out any cash even if the Bell situation gets resolved. I can dream, though.
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
That's assuming that the current
compensation pick rules still apply. The rules are set to expire with the current CBA, which expires this December. As of right now, there is nothing to provide compensation picks at all after that.
General opinion among baseball observers is that the new CBA will renew the scheme or at least grandfather in the picks for 2012 — based on how GMs are behaving and a few vague hints, it seems like they’re expecting that — but until the CBA is actually written and signed there’s no guarantee of it.
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
Of course, there's another way to look at this...
A rebuild does not necessarily consist of trading many of the current group.. it would probably mean not signing Harden (which shouldn’t happen anyway), letting Crisp, DeJesus and Matsui leave, non-tendering Powell, non-tendering Wuertz (which will probably happen anyway), trading Fuentes, Breslow, Balfour, McCarthy, and Bailey.
I would hate to see the A’s trade Gio (at least not until Anderson and Braden come back), and trading Cahill would be trading low. But it means that immediately the A’s would use Taylor, Allen and Carter, and sink or swim while others were coming up through the minor leagues.
If the use of young players was strategy
it would seem to have made sense to get Taylor and Carter as many ABs as possible when they got called up late in the season.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
but you need willingham and DeJesus to get type a and B status which requires playing them
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
They A's could still choose to sign Willingham to a three-year deal
Play him in 2012, and then trade him with two years remaining. He’s worth more at that point (assuming he has another good year) than his status as a Type A free agent. Plus, at the end of that time, if Carter and Allen did develop, the A’s would contend in 2013, “rebuilding” or not.
The entire idea of changing strategies like that is a terrible one, I think. The A’s are likely to be a better team if the prospects get a chance to play than using retreads like DeJesus and Crisp. In fact, using expensive retreads is the best way to emulate the 1962 New York Mets, not put a temporary contender on the field for future buyers.
Nah,
there’s no reason to expect a 33 year old Willingham with a 2 year ~20 million contract under his belt to attract more value in a trade than a 31 year old Willingham with a 1/6 contract (who, if we remember correctly, was traded for Corey Brown and H-Rod).
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
FWIW
he did have something of an injury history at the time, dragging down his value. He’d played 102, 133, and 114 games the three years previous
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
Yes,
and that injury potential factors into the risk we assume for keeping him in 2012 before trading him.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
By the by, check out Willingham by first/second half
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=willijo03&year=2011&t=b#half::none
That second half is excellent.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Rebuild please
I get the argument that we should re-sign Josh because refusing a show of good faith from a hitter who wants to stay and all that.
The problem is that it doesn’t make good business sense to do this. In my opinion, this team is not good enough to compete with or without Josh.
Opposed to many here I’d be fine with a complete rebuild but I’d hang on to Gio and Weeks. Josh is an aging DH at this point and I don’t see the need to forfeit the picks we’d get in return were he to leave. Coupled with the high pick we’ll get from being bad this year this next draft could really help replenish our system.
A lot of people blasted Beane for hanging on to certain players too long and now people are blasting him for doing the opposite.
If Willingham is re-signed I will not be happy.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 25, 2011 3:11 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Long haul
I am totally fine with this team cutting payroll in the next few years as long as the stadium in SJ is a go, and the front office has total commitment to putting the best product on the field for the opening of it.
I’m in this for the long haul, and the A’s have sucked for 5 years, what’s 2-3 years more? The important thing is that there is an endpoint, a goal. Right now and for the last 3-4 years we’ve been in purgatory with regards to our future. All I ask for is a stable future, and a plan towards building a competitive team for the long term. Do you think Red Sox fans would have cared about 5 years of sucking in the 90s if they knew the franchise success that awaited them in the 00’s? I couldnt care less about short term building. Teams and players come and go. I want this franchise set up for long term success.
by SantaCruzSurfer on Sep 25, 2011 2:15 PM PDT reply actions
My concern is that it's one thing to say that you're going to put a contender on the field in XX year,
it’s another to actually do it. Committing to suck for a few years can run longer than expected, and is incredibly cruel to the fans.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Particularly saying that
five years in a row – and having 5 years of not being competitive – then to hear that the current strategy will likely lead to 3 more years of it. I generally am ok with “rebuilding” as long as it not constant. At the end of 5 years of rebuilding, I want to see the effort moving forward to start winning again, not starting a new rebuilding project.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
If we're about to start rebuilding, I want to know what the fuck these last few years have been, other than horrible.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Basically, a team thinking its better than it really is, a team that adds a little here and there without it being enough to actually win
It’s a limbo the Warriors have been in for some time and instead of either being really bad and improving by overhauling things or actually reaching that upper echelon within the league, they spin wheels and go nowhere fast.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
when I read this
I felt sick to my stomach.
The people that own and run this team are some smug motherfuckers.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:21 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
I agree
They have no interest in anything but making money.
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 are total failures and counting.
I want Management and ownership gone.
As long as there's a new ballpark that comes from it, one way or another
Last of the Ninth - Photography
they haven't been making money, they've been taking it from the rich teams
like the Welfare Queens the billionaires (well, the ones that aren’t Warren Buffet) are always on about how lazy they are and how we need to cut them off and so on.
Revolution must come to save ourselves from these people at the micro and the macro.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the most disturbing
thing I’ve ever heard them say or leak out to a reporter. I swear, it makes me think of two words I don’t want to have to say and never imagined I would, even through all of the bad times of the last years and the stadium awfulness: Abandon Ship.
The sick thing is they just told me that is what they want. That the people up here quit caring so they can start at square one down south. It’s been true all along, oh my god it’s been true all along.
I feel sick right now, shaking and starting to cry.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
My concern is more what Kyli said above
That rebuilding doesn’t go as planned, and sucking continues well into the new stadium’s honeymoon period. In that case, the team will have whatever fans remain from Oakland, and an impatient group of fans in SJ who were promised a winner. That will lead the team to do dumb things to bring a strong roster in, OR, continue to suck until things organically change.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
yes I apologize for ever doubting Kyli
she is right on top of this shit and I regret letting myself sign on in my mind to the agenda of moving south without fighting them harder than I did. I feel ashamed and humiliated by what I have just read, like these people are sick and cruel and insane and I don’t want them or their product anywhere near me.
I think of when I first got into this, that playoff game 10 years ago when dude didn’t slide, and how that made me want to do what I could as a new Oakland resident to see it through and do whatever I could to help push it over the top — how that game and that experience illustrated why this franchise needed to be the one to be the counterweight to the plutocratization of MLB and of sports.
Fast forward to now, to a moment I could have never envisioned where the heartbreaking truth becomes clear. They never wanted me. I’m not rich enough.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
ML is right
They don’t care about you, personally, EN. Nor do they care about any one of us individually. They care about their goals. One of them is indeed having a new stadium where they want it. They don’t want it in Oakland no matter how many of us pout about it. So, we can sign onto it and hope for the best, or we can give something up we truly enjoy.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
There is an example of this
The San Diego Padres.
Petco Park was delayed for two years due to legal, financial, and political problems. That forced Kevin Towers and Sandy Alderson to spin their wheels for a few years until that situation shook out. They were able to align things when Petco opened, but it was a long valley they had to traverse.
And the Padres are still run like the A's
Even with a fancy new ballpark. Good young pitching, but they won’t spend money to keep anyone. Adrian Gonzalez would’ve been a perfect guy upon which to bet the farm. Hometown guy, fan favorite, big bat. Now Heath Bell wants to stay and it’s pretty evident that they’re going to let him walk at the end of the season.
The new stadium isn’t the be-all, end-all. After hearing this news, I really wouldn’t be surprised if ownership spends a little more money, but not enough to compete for the division.
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
I'm pretty sure the Pirates have continued to be run in a half-assed way since moving into PNC, as well
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I've heard many anecdotal reports
that the team has been run more intelligently and has been more sabermetric-friendly since Huntington took over as GM in 2007. Is that not true?
Of course that was several years after the new ballpark.
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
mine too
you were right all along Kyli. I apologize for ever doubting you.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
The joy of being paranoid and cranky.
Sometimes they really ARE out to get you.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
I can't see their statement in any other way
The content, the timing, the situation, the person they’re doing it to. It all points to one single, cruel, calculating goal.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
It's not that at all
They don’t care enough about you to go out to get you.
It’s not about you.
"person they're doing it to" =/= me
I meant Willingham. Because doing it to him will get the most play in the media
C’mon vertig0, I’m not THAT self-absorbed
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
This is all potentially true
BUT, I’m not sure what the other options are. The A’s NEED a new stadium, and public funding is nonexistent. If Oakland or the state committed $500M like in Minneapolis, none of this would be an issue. Somehow, in CA, the baseball teams have been left to fend for themselves, possibly because of the aversion to funding a stadium for rich owners. It’s cool to have a progressive stance like that, but the other teams have already benefitted from this, putting the A’s at a further disadvantage.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, it sure isn't making me any more likely to take the time and effort to come down from the Sacramento area to see a game again any time soon
I want the new ballpark but I don’t like the POV of “we’re going to go into fullscale rebuild mode until the place opens if we get it built.” What reason would the average fan have to keep going then, especially if they know they can expect bad baseball only as long as the team’s still in the Coliseum?
I want a winning team and I don’t really care a whole lot about the hows and whys of it coming to pass. Sometimes rebuilding is a necessity, but it’s not necessary to rebuild prior to moving into a new place.
Having read that this is their attitude now, there is a part of me that wants San Jose to fail just so the owners will (apparently) try to make the team better now in order to sell to someone else, but there’s another part of me that’s afraid if San Jose doesn’t work, the A’s won’t get a new ballpark anywhere local.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
it's as if they know full well
that whittling it down to nothing will denigrate the product on the field to the point where there will be no East Bay fans left.
And they welcome that.
Heartily. Or to the extent that the heartless can want something heartily.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Your last paragraph
is really my fear right now. I think that is why this news has hit me so hard – it just seems to me like if SJ is not a go that the likelihood of the team leaving Northern California is much higher. I had been of the opinion that it wouldn’t happen – but now I am very nervous about that and that would just suck.
by longtimeasfan on Sep 25, 2011 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand that point of view
but, to me, the out-of-area relocation fears are a red herring. There aren’t any other media markets that are stronger, there is no public/political will or funding to relocate an MLB team to another region, and (to me, most importantly) if the A’s were going to relocate to new region it probably would have happened already. I’d say contraction is more likely than them moving out of state. And I don’t consider relocation to be even slightly on the table right now. The more people buy into relocation as even a mere possibility, the stronger hand it gives to Wolff in his quest to move to SJ.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
Maybe so, but whatever the case is I'm saying staying in the Coliseum for the long term is not viable...
…whether that team is owned by Fisher/Wolff or anybody else.
We’ve still got all of nothing on the Victory Court location in terms of knowing if it would work.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
yeah, that's true
I’m not presenting an alternative. I’m just saying that this public boning of Willingham fits right into the long line of manipulative and alarmist rhetoric from an ownership group that has shown there is nothing they won’t do to scare their way into a new SJ stadium.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
The Willingham thing pisses me off more than the info on how the team will proceed based on the results of the ballpark stuff
Because Willingham WANTS to be here, he IS a good enough player that they won’t have to break the bank to keep him and still add to the roster if they want to, and he’s shown hitting in the Coliseum isn’t a killer for him along with the fact he’s had a nice second half, very much in line with his career figures.
Jerking him around as part of playing ballpark politics fucking sucks.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
really, it's beyond the pale
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
I could accept it a lot more if they just decided they'd rather get the picks and felt he was too big a risk going forward
But not this.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
what kills me
is that they could have just said, “He’s too big of a risk, we’d rather have the picks”.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
So it's not about the decision to sign or not sign Willingham? It's the rationale behind it?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
nope
it’s that they’re actively trying to foster controversy around this issue to drive attention towards the stadium impasse. From an organizational standpoint, that’s a classless thing to do to a player.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
More or less
Because in large part, I think they’d rather take the picks. I think they will if San Jose happens, and I think they’ll probably sign him if it doesn’t.
But, they appear to be jerking him around in order to make a point when they’ve never played it this way before with anyone else that I can recall. It’s always been “We’d like to keep you but we can’t afford to pay you what the Yankees or Red Sox can,” more or less. Now it’s “We can’t even talk to you yet because of the ballpark decision.”
I think it’s a lie.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
this
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
(At least, I think they'd try to sign him if San Jose doesn't happen)
But by then he may very well have signed somewhere else.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
This. It sucks to let a guy like that go, but at least this way he can start focusing on his other suitors, and the A's can move on.
Pulling this on a guy who has done a lot for the A’s this year is just disgusting.
He deserves to know one way or the other.
It sucked when Keith Foulke strung the A’s along to drive up the price the Red Sox paid him and stuck us with Arthur Rhodes. Pulling that shit on one of our guys is unconscionable.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
it's gone beyond fielding a crappy team because financial constraints
Ownership has now publicly told the world “we’re not even going to try anymore”. I’m sure that will do wonders for the fanbase and ticket sales.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
The Yankees and the other rich teams, will be thrilled to see how their revenue sharing funds will be spent
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I guess it really was the plan all along
The lesson is never believe a solitary word a billionaire says. They don’t get to be billionaires by acting like human beings with conscience, this is certain.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
rather
when you’re making that much money, it’s really easy to go down the rabbit hole.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
yes, and the rabbit hole is labeled
“Zero Accountability”.
When do the poor people, the workers that built this country, get a rabbit hole in which to insulate themselves from the depredations the rich feel so comfortable in subjecting them to?
I wonder, I truly do wonder.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree it's counterproductive and unfair to bring the stadium into discussions about the contract status of a player.
But ultimately what matters is deciding whether to have Willingham or the draft picks. In which case, letting Willingham go is the correct decision regardless of whether it’s because of the stadium, the budget, or because he smells like rotten eggs when he doesn’t shower.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
No way the union lets contraction happen.
With the way the economy is right now, out of market moving is also a far prospect. I feel like we’re gonna be in limbo for awhile longer but I honestly don’t know what’s gonna happen.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
It's sad is what it is
personally I had this whole farewell piece for the front page in mind where I wished the thing the best in SJ and acknowledged why moving there is best for the thing to survive and have a chance — a good chance — at prosperity with the Silicon Valley $ infusion.
Now I wanna come on here tomorrow and tell them to suck my fucking balls.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously.
As much as I’m pro-Oakland and pro-Coliseum and pro-living in the past, I haven’t actually been super-opposed to San Jose and a new stadium. I just was opposed to how this ownership has handled it.
But now, knowing that no-new-stadium = competing and new stadium = three more years of THIS SHIT? Sign me up for lifetime seats at the Coliseum, I just want to see the team win, I don’t give a shit about whether I’m eating sushi or slightly sketchy Coliseum dogs while I do so.
Making a winning team, especially with the Angels and Rangers, is HARD. Full out rebuilding? Why not get competitive, see who’s worth a long term contract, really take a team and these young guys through their paces? Start to separate the wheat from the chaff NOW so they can have an excellent run to finish off the last year in Oakland and go out with a bang instead of a whimper, and raise as much hype as possible for the new stadium?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
Don't get me wrong - if new stadium means three more years of bad baseball I can live with it...
…but I hate the message it sends to the people who have supported the team whether it’s been for five years, ten or forty.
To present it that way is a slap in the face because it doesn’t NEED to happen like that, especially if they CAN make the team competitive sooner should San Jose not happen.
The greater concern to me is not how good or bad the team is, but rather what happens next in terms of a new ballpark if San Jose fails. Does Victory Court magically move forward, or are we left with a ballpark that cannot sustain successful baseball in this day and age?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I can maybe deal with three more years of bad baseball if I drink a lot.
But I’m not sure it won’t be more than that.
And yeah, I am absolutely with you.
I mean, the season ticket holders who have been with the team since day 1? The people who were born and raised with the Oakland A’s? It’s just not that hard to show a little kindness and respect and appreciation to people who have been with the team forever. It doesn’t take any time or money or effort, it just takes… not saying things like this all the time. A little bit of “I really hope all of you will be with us at the new stadium.” “We’ll make sure that all of our fans are welcome and taken care of, even if we’re a little ways down the road.” “We appreciate the loyalty of those who do come out, and want to reward you with a great new place to watch baseball and a great team on the field.” Focus on how awesome a new park could be, rather than how terrible the Coliseum is. We know the state of it, we don’t need it beaten to death on a national stage.
A slap in the face is the right way to put it. You’re right, it doesn’t need to happen like this.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
But Kyli,
no new stadium =/= competing. From that article, it seems as if the A’s strategy, going forward sans stadium, is to continue signing retreads, 2nd tier free agents, and old dudes.
No new stadium = Matsui.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
from the remarks Wolff was making on the radio
during the game yesterday (and the leading questions from the announcers) it certainly seemed like the A’s would be offering Matsui a contract for next year – and announcing in Seattle that the A’s-Mariners Japan games to open the 2012 season would indeed take place.
Don't get me wrong
Matsui’s a great guy and all… but Chris Carter should have that DH spot for good next year.
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
Sure, he probably does
Unfortunately, I have a feeling Matsui might be our starting LFer next year.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
If he plays for the first week,
just to sell tons of tickets in Japan, and then gets cut in mid-April, I’d be OK with that.
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
If only there was some useful Japanese player
the A’s had a chance at over the last offseason. Doing that to someone like Matsui is pretty wrong.
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
They want to make the team attractive to a new buyer if the San Jose stadium isn't done.
If nothing else, it’d be less ugly than what we’ve been dealing with and what we’re being promised now. :-/
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
The other takeaway message there does confirm what a lot of us have suspected:
That if San Jose falls through, the current ownership would sell sooner rather than later.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
This doesn't make any sense
it didn’t stop them from offering that long term mega contract to Beltre last season. The Willingham contract would be shorter and for much less.
Keep mucking around A’s, and you won’t have my season ticket $$ for next year.
Re-sign Josh Willingham now!
that this is a negotiating strategy is not out of the question
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a pretty dick strategy, then. :(
When a nice southern boy slips you a note in fifth period that says, “I LIKE YOU. DO YOU LIKE ME? CHECK [Y] or [N]?” you don’t ignore him and let him sit there staring at the back of your neck for an hour.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
for either SJ or Willingham
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 25, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
fixed
I LIKE YOU DO YOU LIKE ME? CHECK [$12M] [$13M]
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
If Josh Willingham were here
I would thank him for his service and ask that he forgive them, for they know not what they do.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
This also shows me that Selig did the fans a huge disservice by not allowing the sale of the A's to the Dolich group
They were baseball people, who know how the run a franchise.
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I would high five him for the HR he just hit.
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
Aaaaaaaand
Willingham crushes #28 for RBI #93 on the season. apropos.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
The man speaks with his bat.
At least he’s gonna get paid by SOMEONE next season, he’s earned it. :( :(
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
It's not that they would DO this if SJ is indeed approved
it’s that they would SAY this and not just “we’ll take the picks, thanks very much.”
It’s a big FUCK YOU EAST BAY and serves to lend credence to the conspiracy theory, rapidly becoming undeniable and sickening reality, that the whole impetus of the last 5 years since Fremont shit the bed has been to make Oakland and the East Bay understand that these people hate them.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
it would explain their LOLcats calibre marketing as well
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
oh my
our worst fears are true, aren’t they? I feel sick.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
We need SS to write an article on how pissed off A's fans are
I totally HATE A’s management at the moment.
The owner needs to fuck off and keep building or buying hotels and let someone who wants to win own the team.
Management is alienating it’s remaining fan base
I just had an email exchange with her
I asked that she come into the thread here and help us parse this and not get upset and over-reactive to it, tempting as that is.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
OK, this if anything proves
that they feel available to be this forthright in their arrogance because they KNOW now that San Jose is approved and they have got what they most wanted.
They are acting like little kids at Christmas, or siblings where Johnny got the train set and is waving it derisively in the face of Tommy who got a stocking full o’coal.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
I'd rather extend Crisp anyway.
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
My guess is that's what will happen.
Coco’s a true CFer, he’s a local guy who likes the A’s, and he’s not that expensive. The A’s will take 2 picks for piggie, perhaps even have a private agreement with DDJ that he’ll refuse arbitration so they can safely offer arby and get another pick there, sign Crisp and have lame COFers until perhaps Choice arrives to save the franchise.
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
can you just shoot me?
I think I’d like to be shot rather than watch another X number of years of this amoral Welfare Queenery from this ownership.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Hi EN. Welcome to my scary hermit cave of A's paranoia and sadness.
Your complimentary tinfoil hat and membership card will arrive in 6-8 weeks.
It’s only a little dark and scary in here. :(
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
hey, I founded this island, remember?
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Would you rather see middle-of-the-pack team?
That gets Jack Shit in the draft and pretend to be an competitive team? The A’s aren’t fielding a playoff team next year, regardless of the stadium/payroll situation. They might as well see what Taylor/Allen/Carter can do, and hopefully one of them will come through. I love Willingham, and hope they can sign him, but I’m not calling for ownership’s head if they don’t open up the checkbook/farm system to field an 80-85 win team.
what do you say to the teams paying the luxury tax then?
Fuck you, Yankees! Fuck you Angels, Cubs, whoever! Keep paying us and we’ll pocket it!
Amoral.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, I do say that. I hate all those teams.
I’m not saying pocket it though. I’m saying to avoid spending money to marginally effective veterans who would be taking up spots that our prospects could be playing. (And no, I’m not including Willingham in there) They can spend it on something else. Spend it on the draft, international signings, Throw-Cash-on-the-Field-for-the-Fans Day. I don’t give a shit. It’s not as if they’re saying the team payroll is getting slashed in half next year. Expect a passive offseason.
by Furyan on Sep 25, 2011 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
can you imagine "Throw Cash on the Field Day" in Oakland
That would make history.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd rather see a team
that doesn’t continuously blame its fans for its woeful marketing and promotion efforts, and one that doesn’t send this kind of message to its prospective patrons such as this one that they sent through The hammer’s agent today.
This is an MLB product only in name now, the mask is off as far as I am concerned. The goal really was to flatten it and the East Bay base with it, so that the arrogant billionaires who run this banana republic of a team could have their rich friends and only their rich friends in those 32,000 seats down south.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand this SJ hate.
SJ is only an hour away, and is still part of the Bay Area. The team will change in name only. The prices and crowds will go up, but tough shit, if you want a higher payroll, it’s going to happen. The owners aren’t trying to alienate the East Bay. No ownership would be stupid enough to do that. It would be like an agent writing off possible suitors for his client; it only hurts his client.
it's not SJ hate
SJ is full of working folks just like Oakland and every other city is. I am fine with moving the team there, but not fine with the idea that it’s really gonna be put on for the wealthiest down there and no one with an income under six figures or not connected to a giant computer company will be welcome, and that ownership is showing its hand in terms of actively trying to make sure no one cares up here anymore about something that’s been important to people in this part of the region for 43 years, and making those people like OakalndSi and wacchampions who give their heart and soul and money to it are told that they are not wanted.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
No one will be told they are not wanted if they pay for tickets
I don’t know why you use that argument. If, however, you show up with $20 in hand to pay for $30 tickets (because $20 is what it cost in Oakland), then yes, you will be turned away.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Businesses follow money, EN, not customers
and in a society with significant and worsening wealth disparity, businesses like baseball teams have every incentive to go after a smaller number of very rich people, rather than a larger number of people whose incomes have stagnated or worse over the last 20 to 30 years.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
agreed, EN
it’s not the good people of SJ that I resent, but the crass, heartless realpolitik employed by the current ownership.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
so you do your best to field a competitive team
(for example, at least trying to sign a popular and affordable slugger who wants to sign with you for a hometown discount) in the hope that you keep those supposedly valued East Bay (and North Bay, etc) fans if and when you do move to what for them will be a much less accessible location.
This is assuming that you don’t want to just get rid of them and have a truly sorry product and audience for the next few years…
The point is that signing/not signing Willingham isn't the difference between fielding a competitive/non competitive team.
It’s more likely that it’s the difference between winning 73 instead of 70 games.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
that's true
but the reason for not at least starting the discussion witb him – that no decisions will be made until the ballpark decision is revealed, and Slusser’s further information that the team would likely trade off young players under contract if the answer is that they can build in San José – is the issue.
Who says they haven't started discussions with him?
Clearly they have. But they’re not going to make a final decision now, nor should they. There’s plenty of time.
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
Willingham was quoted as saying that he had heard nothing from the A's
now his agent reports that he went to the A’s to begin discussions, only to be told that the A’s are waiting for the ballpark decision.
Doesn’t sound like any negotiations have started.
Well, you and I have a different definition of "discussions" then.
Sosnick says they talked, each side told the other that they liked each other and would be interested, Sosnick made an initial offer, and Beane said the team won’t make any financial decisions until after they hear more on the stadium issue.
To me that’s a discussion. Sometimes the conclusion of a discussion is “we’re waiting for other information before we make a decision, so let’s get together again later”. But that’s a perfectly valid thing to communicate.
I think fans here are just bored and impatient. It’s still September, for heaven’s sake. Since when are new contracts negotiated in September? It’s like if there were a post in January complaining that the players haven’t even started packing for spring training.
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
hey, hopping on here
I didn’t imply anywhere they’d trade off young players under contract.
by slusser on Sep 26, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
aigh, she’s watching! quick, someone fix the spelling of her name!!!
(4th word in, oaklandsi.)
by AV on Sep 26, 2011 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
more than just being competitve or not
the way in which the ownership has ruled out Willingham points to their contempt of both attempted competitiveness and of the fanbase itself. Overtly making a Willingham non-signing be all about the stadium is both unnecessary and sickening
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
next year's A's ad slogans
“Don’t Bother.”
“Nothing to See Here Folks.”
“Wait to Compete.”
“See You In 2015. Unless You Live in the East Bay.”
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what you mean by "contempt" at "attempted competitiveness".
Would you rather the A’s sign Willingham, sign another Matsui, and trade the few remaining prospects in the system for another DeJesus, and tell us everything is going to be great and we’ll contend when they really just built another 75 win team? That’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
Telling us things will be bleak for the next few years or until San Jose opens is harsh, but it’s less disingenuous than what I just described above.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions
the contempt I'm talking about
is the audacity to use the situation of an impending FA (who has the highest profile of any on our team, and who has also expressed a strong willingness to take a hometown discount to stay) to forward the agenda of building a new stadium.
It’s taking what should be a completely independent discussion (about competitiveness, whether spending the money is worth it, getting compensatory picks, etc) hostage to further their goals.
When they were asked about Willingham, they didn’t mention cost effectiveness, they didn’t mention picks, they didn’t mention WAR, or injury history, or any of the things we’ve all been talking about. They talked about the stadium.
And that sickens me.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
I guess now would be bad time to bring up Willingham's wife saying she didn't really like it here
since that doesn’t jive with the “willingham loves it and wants to play here for free” vibe going on
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
His wife can like it or not like it all she wants
He liked playing here.
As it is, nobody’s saying Willingham wants to play here for free, but it’s no secret he’d like to stay whether or not his wife wants him playing here.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
But unhappy wives tend to suck the joy out of life
and that includes playing baseball in Oakland.
The monster at the end of this blog.
or, you know, NOT suck the
oh…
carryon.
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
That reminds me ...
These two guys are shooting the shit over a couple of beers.
Guy #1: Say, you know what the difference is between my wife and my job?
Guy #2: No, what is it?
Guy #1: After two years, my job still sucks.
I don't feel that I'm feeling your feelings, about these feelings that you feel.
that's neither here nor there
his agent said he’d be willing to take a discount. That’s what I’m going on. There’s no “vibe”. This isn’t a pro SJ or anti SJ thing. This is a “the ownership needs to stop dicking everyone around” thing
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
and my entire point is that people are going fucking NUTS over one small statement
Maybe that discount was $14M per year instead of $15M per year that they think he’s worth on the open market, considering what Werth and Crawford signed for last season and the drek that will be available this year?
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 in years past
the FO would say “Gosh, Josh is great, but we just can’t afford him” or they’d say “We’ve got concerns about his health” or “He wants too many years” or “We can’t commit that much money to one player” or even “we’d rather have the picks”. And those are all okay things to say publicly.
But instead, they’re saying they won’t negotiate, not as a bargaining ploy with an individual baseball player, but as a bargaining ploy to push MLB’s hand regarding San Jose. They’re literally holding the team hostage over this stadium.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
by cityplANner on Sep 25, 2011 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We're hating the wrong people, here
They’re literally holding the team hostage over this stadium.
If by “they” you mean “the other owners of MLB and Selig”, then I agree. MLB can do whatever the fuck it wants; they could approve SJ tomorrow by 3/4 vote if they damn well felt like it. If they didn’t meet the 3/4 requirement, Selig could change the rules and allow a 2/3 or simple majority. Or he could just do it himself.
I’m far more upset at the apathetic view MLB has of the A’s than the one Lew Wolff supposedly has.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Seriously.
The overreaction here is astounding.
Honestly, you’re being generous even to call it “one small statement”. What did Willingham’s agent actually say?
Sosnick was not specific about the numbers that he presented to the A’s, but he said the salary figure was under Willingham’s expected market value.
Well, fuck, of course he’s going to say that. He’s the agent. What do you expect him to say? That he asked for way more than Josh is worth?
The article may as well say
The used car salesman was not specific about the numbers that he presented, but he said the price was under the car’s expected market value.
But half of AN is so gullible that they’re all is “ZOMG! Josh loves us so much that he wants to play for half his salary! But Lew hates Oakland so much he still turned him down!”
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 don't see where anyone is acting like Willingham would play here for half what he could get elsewhere
Has anyone actually been suggesting that?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
No. That was comic exaggeration.
I have however seen several people mention Willingham’s alleged willingness to play for a hometown discount as if it were fact, when neither he nor his agent has said any such thing.
Nico:
It makes a terrible statement to let a good hitter go, who wants to play here and is willing to sign for a hometown discount
OaklandSi:
for example, at least trying to sign a popular and affordable slugger who wants to sign with you for a hometown discount
cityplANner:
who has the highest profile of any on our team, and who has also expressed a strong willingness to take a hometown discount to stay
And you repeated Nico’s comment by way of emphasizing your agreement with it.
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
Because the evidence out there suggests he would take less than market value to stay here
Unless you want to show where that’s false?
I mean, it’s in SuSlu’s article. Even if it’s just a million less a year, it’s still a discount. Saying “hometown discount” doesn’t mean somebody’s going to shave millions a year off a deal.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
What evidence?
The unnamed and uncommitted figure that Willingham’s agent says is below his “expected market value”? How much more vague can you get?
No, I can’t show it to be false — just as i couldn’t prove that Coco or DeJesus aren’t willing to take a hometown discount either — but I see no reason to believe it’s true. If you want to believe in it, OK, but you’re not going to sway me with any argument based on that premise.
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
My comment was because rarely has a hitter
indicated a willingness to take a “hometown discount” to stay in Oakland, period. (Perhaps Tejada?)
It’s one thing to say, “I’d like to stay,” which sounds a lot like some random feel-good politic statement with no teeth behind it. It’s another thing to say, “I’d like to stay enough that I’d actually be willing to sign for less than the most I could get.”
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
That's not any different than blaming the stadium situation for their inability to sign a top FA.
The A’s have been using the stadium limbo as an excuse for their own incompetence in the FA market for years. Heck, some, if not most, people here have agreed with that line of thought. I’m not sure why, after the umpteenth use of this excuse, it’s surprising so many people and inspiring so much outrage now.
Or we could just admit that’s not about entangling Willingham with the stadium situation and really about the A’s deciding not to re-sign Willingham, an unpopular but ultimately, IMO, correct decision.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The excuse was less about the stadium limbo and more about the facilities themselves being subpar...
…along with the Coliseum being a poor hitter’s park.
Saying “we can’t even negotiate with you until we get a decision on the ballpark issue” is a new angle, and a pretty low one for them to play.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
OK.
1) We can’t sign guys. Guys don’t like the stadium so we need a new stadium.
2) We can’t re-sign our guy. The stadium fucks with our money situation so we need a new stadium.
Both of these use the situations of players to “forward the agenda of building a new stadium” (as cityplANer puts it). Both of these are slaps to the faces of anyone who patronizes the A’s or the Coliseum. Arguing about which is a more painful slap to the face is beside the point.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Still, neither of those are the same as this
Now they’re playing the “We can’t even TALK to you until blah blah blah” game. That’s different from saying “We can’t sign you” or “We can’t afford you at what it’d cost to bring you here.”
They’re not saying they can’t or won’t re-sign Willingham because – I believe – they won’t do it if they get the go-ahead to proceed with San Jose and they plan to go into rebuild mode between now and then.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Where the heck do you get this
“we can’t even TALK to you” stuff?
They did talk to him, and they are talking to him. Beane and Sosnick have established a dialogue and they’re ready to proceed once more is known about the stadium situation, which is clearly something that is going to happen after the season is over but well before a deal would have to be finalized with Willingham.
So they’re going to wait and see what happens. What more do you want them to “discuss”? They both know where they stand, everything is all caught up, and they’re just on hold now.
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
Okay, saying "we can't even talk" is a misinterpretation
But it’s still “we can’t do anything further” until the stadium situation is decided on. It’s still playing ballpark politics, plain and simple.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
And you think they should?
It’s very likely that there will be developments on the stadium issue some time between the end of the season and the winter meetings. Why shouldn’t they wait until then before making final decisions on contract extensions?
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've already indicated I think the A's will not keep Willingham if San Jose is a go and they'd rather just have the picks
So that’s likely why they’re not going to do anything until they get the final word on the San Jose issue.
I still don’t like the message it sends when it involves someone who has said all along he’d prefer to stay here when we’re so used to hitters evidently wanting nothing to do with coming here.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Well, it seems part of our disagreement
is that you put a lot more weight than I do on Willingham’s supposed preference to play for Oakland.
I do think he is open to playing here and will consider it in good faith, but what you have perceived as statements “all along” that he “prefers” to stay here I think are an indication only that he is polite, friendly and classy enough not to diss the city, not that he actually has any significant preference for Oakland.
When it comes down to it, he’ll sign for a good deal. If Oakland can make that offer, great. If Oakland can’t or won’t, he’ll go elsewhere.
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
If someone says he wants to stay here, I tend to take it to mean he wants to stay here
Obviously it doesn’t mean he’ll stay if what he gets offered is less than he’s looking for.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Okay, so there are probably going to be developments on the stadium front.
Why should that determine next year’s team?
If this team is broke-down enough that we’ve got to flat-out rebuild rather than even make a pretense of playing good ball, why should that be reliant on the new ballpark situation?
Why can’t decisions about this team be made based on the team?
If they said they wanted to wait talking to Willingham until after the season, or until November, or let him go because they couldn’t afford him, or take the picks, or pretty much any other excuse, I would get it. It would be fine, whether he stayed or left or nothing happened with it til December.
But until the stadium decision… that’s not exactly a concrete timeline, is it?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
The assumption right now (based on buzz, albeit)
Is that the stadium decision will come down around the time the FA filing period is, around the few days after the WS. Which, really, isn’t a lot different than if the spector of a stadium weren’t hanging over the team’s head.
I’m with iglew — let’s just wait to see how this plays out after the WS ends. It’s all speculation until he signs something, anyway.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Timing
Oh, maybe I’m confused here. The FA filing period is right after the WS, yes, but the arbitration deadline isn’t until December. My understanding is that other teams rarely sign a player before the arbitration deadline because then they give up picks regardless.
My comments here have been assuming Willingham isn’t going to sign with anyone until December. Do we really think there’s a chance he’ll jump to another team immediately after the filing deadling in October? If so, then that changes my feeling about this a bit.
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 don't think he'll sign that soon
I think he’ll sign sometime around December or January.
FWIW, MLBTR thinks he’ll only be offered a 2-year deal
Pena and Willingham may have to settle for two-year deals. Willingham, in particular, probably will receive less than $10MM per year. I’m thinking something in the two-year, $16MM range.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Jeebus.
If 2/16 were to be what he could get on the open market, and he were to give any kind of “hometown discount” on that, I’d sign him right quick.
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
With these low figures
Is anyone going to sacrifice their draft pick for him?
if you don't get what I'm driving at by now
no amount of explanation is going to clear it up
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
You've continually stated that your problem is the A's using
the situation of a player to further their own agenda of building a new stadium. My point is that the A’s have done that for many years now and everyone is already aware of that. So while I agree that it’s despicable (as it has been every year they’ve used that excuse), my point is that it’s probably not the core of what’s driving everyone’s outrage in this particular situation.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions
you have to admit, however,
that this is, at least, a new way in which ownership is holding the team hostage to forward a stadium building agenda. One that is more blatantly despicable than any in the past.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
What's the frickin' rush?
Why do you care if they make a decision about Willingham now rather than in November?
Most free agent deals aren’t signed until November or December anyway? How is this “holding the team hostage”?
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 think the "rush" is that everything changes
once you’re one of 30 teams talking to a player. The chance to keep a player, at a favorable contract, is usually that window of exclusive rights when only you are talking to him about staying as opposed to multiple teams talking to him about coming.
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
Those changes are known and anticipated.
He knows he will be able to talk to the other 29 teams then. He hasn’t talked yet, but he’s going to.
I just don’t see that there was ever a possibility that Willingham wouldn’t look at the rest of the market. Nothing in that article suggests otherwise to me.
What it does suggest is that he and the A’s have talked already, they each know where the other stands, and when the A’s know more about the stadium situation and are ready to make decisions, they’ll be all set to proceed with Willingham. I read that as a good thing.
What’s the alternative? From Willingham/Sosnick’s point of view the purpose of the talks was to figure out what interest level the A’s had. Beane might have said, “yes, we’re interested, so let’s talk again after we find out about the stadium” or “no, we’re not going to re-sign you anyway, so go ahead and start planning for another team”. The quotes in the article clearly indicate it was the first 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
Here's the difference to me (and it may just be degrees of difference)
In the past, the FO said “our crappy stadium has low attendance, which precludes us from bidding on good FA”, or
said “Good FA don’t want to come here because of our crappy stadium”, or even
“We can’t keep our players here because of our low attendance and crappy stadium”. Instead it’s
“We won’t talk contracts, even with people who want to come back, until the stadium issue is resolved”
That, to me, is definitely something new, definitely something worse, and definitely something worthy of pillorying ownership for engaging in.
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
That's where I am with it too
The other examples aren’t exactly good but there’s at least some way to justify them. I don’t see any way to justify the latest excuse/ploy.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Crisp is 9 months younger than Willingham...
And has a worse medical dossier.
He might also be the top FA CF on the market.
If he hit Type B status then I’d prefer the A’s offer him arbitration. Someone will be willing to throw a ton of money his way and I don’t want the A’s to go into a bidding war on a 32 year old CF with his health record.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2011 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather have Crisp for 100 games in CF.
Than Willingham for 120 in LF.
We simply have too many COF options internally who are ready now.
Agreed.
Not really interested in giving a 33 year old league-average player a long term contract, especially if two draft picks are still in play.
by thelincolndude on Sep 26, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
It's so stupid to think they'll just rebuild if they get the OK to move
There’s some young talent here right now. Not a ton, but enough to make it interesting. What makes makes management so arrogant that they think they’ll just be able to do it all over again in 2015? Have a firesale now and then compete again when the prospects are ready?
You know who’s successfully done that? The Marlins. Once. They won the series in 1997, sold everything, then won again in 2003.
You know who’s failed at rebuilding? The Marlins since 2005. The Pirates. The Royals. The Mariners. You sell proven commodities like Gio and Bailey and maybe you become the Royals: a team that failed to successfully rebuild and has been stuck in futility ever since.
It goes back to the old saying about the bird in the hand. You hope there’s two birds in the bush, but you don’t know. There’s some good, young pieces here that you don’t just arrogantly throw away.
It’s beyond frustrating to think we could be waiting until 2015 to compete again. There’s been one playoff appearance in the last NINE YEARS. NINE LONG YEARS. And now you’re going to keep us out of the postseason for three more seasons? God help us.
"Da greatness of Da Rooster" - RLangford
"The whole thing was a piece of theatre. Billy had told Art how and where to stand during a game so that the players would... take strength from his countenance, because when Art sat on the bench... he looked like a prisoner of war."
-Moneyball
The threat of rebuilding isn't keeping the A's out of the playoffs the next few years so much as the current state of the team.
And of course, the current enviable positions of the Rangers, Angels, and yes, even the Mariners.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 25, 2011 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
As unlikely as a postseason berth may be in the next few years
It becomes incredibly less likely if you sell off all good pieces
"Da greatness of Da Rooster" - RLangford
"The whole thing was a piece of theatre. Billy had told Art how and where to stand during a game so that the players would... take strength from his countenance, because when Art sat on the bench... he looked like a prisoner of war."
-Moneyball
Rebuild!!!!
LOL
Billy Beane has no clue how to rebuild.
Started in 2007 and still failing.
New Owner and GM and you have a shot. Until then more of the same bullshit with him and Lew raking in their profits.
We as fans just have to suffer because a true fan never leaves. They just have to go thru having a team handicapped by an owner who makes his money building hotels and a GM who has a reputation for once being a good GM.
Half the GM’s in baseball would eat him alive now IMO
He's never fully committed to rebuilding
With San Jose approved he would have more incentive to cut payroll and really rebuild. Before they always tried to win at least a little. I’d like to see them do it the right way for once.
He has no need to cut payroll if San Jose is approved
He should be increasing it instead of lining his pockets with more.
That would do no good obviously
I don’t care if it’s their money and they can do what they want. They are doing just that and there are 3 people that go to every game and when they come out and blow off someone who likes it here and wants to stay then I say FUCK them, sell the team to someone who wants to win. The only winning they are doing is lining their pockets.
It is near impossible to attract decent players here without overpaying and Willingham while not a superstar and not the greatest fielder, is well within the range of what we normally pay.
He loves it here and likes the people around him
Well he would want to acquire picks
By letting free agents walk. Trading for prospects would also be good. We all know how rebuilding works right? We can’t rebuild like the Yankees do.
It really is irritating when you have Josh Willingham begging to come back
And our GM has to put him off until we get a ballpark decision.
No wonder people don’t want to play here. We get one who does who has 28 HR’s and provides a much needed power threat and is willing to take less than market value. But that asshole has to play the ballpark game.
Or maybe the principle owners won't OK an extension until MLB speaks on the stadium
Beane’s the GM but it’s not his money keeping the paychecks from bouncing.
The monster at the end of this blog.
True
but it sounds like he has a better chance of coming back if MLB says no to San Jose.
I cannot believe it goes on 2 1/2 years and then they say no. I want to see them in San Jose but I also want them to spend their usual amount of money and sign Willingham and or a decent free agent.
That's speculation derived from an unnamed source
I think Slusser is great but let’s not get dogmatic over a theme with such an uncertain origin.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Maybe they are making a point to mlb
I wouldn’t want to help the league by spending money if the league was continually screwing me.
I'd like Willingham back but I think we are all missing key information
Slusser mentioned numbers like 3/$36M for Willingham. Seems high but how do we know these weren’t the type of numbers his agent was discussing? Knowing our teams limitations I might rather have 2 picks than spend that money on a guy that will soon just be a DH.
If they need to sell the team then I could indeed see them making a shortsighted move like that. If they are in for the long haul in San Jose then those picks look nice and there is still the chance he doesn’t get good offers due to the type A status and still comes back.
If we assume the stadium decision is close (and the A’s seem to think it is… Bud is laughing at them somewhere), then they would be doing themselves a disservice by making key business decisions beforehand.
Now as for rebuilding… It makes total sense and I really don’t mind. If they get the go ahead to move the team to San Jose I will be so happy that I’ll be fine waiting for a contending team. They aren’t going to contend in Oakland anyways without a lot of luck.
If they have to sell the team then the Giants win and the A’s will leave the Bay Area. Let’s all hope they can move to San Jose and accept that rebuilding will be part of that. There is no other positive outcome.
3/36 was a guestimate of market-value numbers
Personally I think that might be a tad high even on the open market, especially with a new CBA on the way. So if Willingham’s agent was telling the truth and they were willing to offer an Oakland discount then the numbers were probably lower than $36 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
So Ellsbury has the most Total Bases in baseball this year
That guy has to be MVP if they make it (IMO)
31HR
103 RBI
117 R
.377 OBP
38 SB
What a stud.
Pity he’s on that team.
OK, this seems huge and hugely relevant so I am going to repost it here
PLEASE go read the whole thread on Marine Layer’s blog right here, and support the incredible work Rhamesis does on this incredibly vexing issue. I think ML has another post cooking right now about this most interesting conversation and I’d encourage you to read that as soon as he has it up as well. This is from Sid, one of the major comment contributors to newballpark.org:
I was at a bachelor party in San Diego this past weekend. A San Jose city council member was part of the group and we discussed the A’s in detail.
What he told me was this:
1. ATT is being a "pain in the ass" and will not move unless forced to by eminent domain. Even re-zoning the land for ATT in West San Jose did not help the cause at all. In fact the city council in hindsight would have never agreed to it had they known ATT would still refuse to leave.
2. The city will not use eminent domain on ATT unless MLB gives the OK that the A’s can move to San Jose. Therefore this is not a "race" between OAK and SJ. San Jose like Oakland is in a holding pattern waiting for MLB to make a decision…..Two cities, same boat.
He told me that they cannot "justify" using eminent domain on ATT without MLB approval to move forward.
3. He stated to me their RDA is pretty much done and he "implied" to me Wolff will have to buy the last 2 parcels himself but would not out right say it when I tried to question him more on it. The city council knows full well that Wolff will pay for it because everyone knows it is a "drop in the ocean" of the overall cost of the stadium. He also mentioned SJ unlike most cities did not misuse their RDA funds and used it for several successful developments across the city.
4. He agrees with me Lew Wolff has some kind of "backdoor" deal with Selig as being a former lawyer he does not understand Wolff’s patience with the situation. The city has brought up an anti-trust lawsuit to Wolff and he has told the city "not to sue" and to let the process play out despite San Jose having an excellent case in anti-trust court, which he agreed with me is "solid".
5. Without Wolff supporting an anti-trust lawsuit San Jose is stuck in mud and he is very pessimistic the A’s to San Jose will ever occur. Although he is still holding out some hope.
6. He also agreed San Jose is getting the "best ballpark deal" of any city in history of MLB. The city is not paying for anything outside of what they have so far. Diridon will be re-developed regardless of the ball park but not for several years to come. BART or High Speed rail would have to be within 3-5 years of being in San Jose.
I wanted to share this info with everyone as this is first hand info from a SJ city council member that is as recent as yesterday.
Sorry for the multiple blockquotes but that’s the only way I could get it to be a quote.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
Can you clarify point 6, please?
What has SJ already paid for and what needs building for the ballpark to happen?
I live in Sacramento, and since the bitches ain’t moving out here I haven’t followed the infrastructure talk too closely.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think he means the parcels SJ has already acquired around the Diridon station for the prospective development, G.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Sep 25, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Read between the lines.
Wow. I’ve waded through the hundreds of comments and all the visceral reactions on this thread, and I think nearly all of them are completely off-base. The mistake that nearly everyone is making is taking this story at face value when it’s clearly just messaging. Su Slu has dutifully and accurately presented what her sources have told her, which is her job, but our job as readers is to understand what it really means by considering who the sources are and why they say what they say.
For starters, Willingham’s agent Sosnick. Why is he talking to a reporter about Beane apparently behind his back? Agents don’t mouth off to the press like that. An agent only does that if (1) he’s fed up with the team and doesn’t care who he offends, (2) he’s using the press as leverage in his negotiations, or (3) the team knows what he’s going to say that and has signed off on it.
I see no evidence of #1. It seems like Sosnick and Beane are on great terms, and nothing I can deduce suggests otherwise. For #2, there’s a healthy bit of that in there. All the fluff about how much Josh loves Oakland and values loyalty is clearly designed to make his guy look good. It’s probably loosely based on truth — I believe that Josh really does like Bob Melvin, for example — but I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Certainly not the fantasy of a “hometown discount”, which several here have morphed into fact from only a few vague hints. Sosnick is still going to drive for a good deal, and if he doesn’t like Oakland’s offer, he’ll take his client elsewhere notwithstanding all the happy talk today. I think more than anything this is just about bargaining positions with other teams. Sosnick is getting it on record that Oakland’s offer is “under Willingham’s expected market value”, so that negotiations with any other team will have to start a step above that. All the spin about loving the team and wanting to stay here is just a way to express that without insulting either Beane or Oakland. That’s just basic tact and diplomacy from a talented agent.
A lot of people in this thread are talking about the A’s insulting Willingham or jerking him around. That’s nonsense. Today is September 25. The tender deadline isn’t until some time in December. It’s not like Josh is getting away tomorrow. There’s plenty of time to work out a contract if that’s what they want. No, they’re not going to do an extension before the end of the season, but they weren’t going to do that anyway. Frankly, that would be stupid. They have months before they have to make a decision on Willingham. Meanwhile, there is an evolving stadium situation which could drastically affect the expectations of the team’s near future, with a decent chance of a major decision coming up some time after the end of the season.
If it gets to be late November and MLB is still jerking the A’s around about the stadium, then maybe they have to reconsider and make some decisions, but until then, of course they’re going to hold off on any major roster decisions. Sosnick knows that, and unless he’s ignorant (which I doubt) Willingham does, too. So no, he’s not going to be offended by any of this.
In the meantime, there’s politics to be played, and the issue of the day is the stadium. As far as I’m concerned, everything in that entire article needs to be read in terms of what message Billy and Lew are sending to the other players in the stadium decision. I don’t think Sosnick said a single thing that Billy didn’t want him to say. I think he’s happy to have Billy owe him a favor and happy to have a chance to insert his own spin on Willingham in the process. As for the “one person familiar with the team’s thinking”, one of two things: either he speaks for the organization, in which case he too isn’t saying anything Billy doesn’t want him to, or else he’s some outsider with his own agenda, in which case I think his pronouncements on the A’s rebuilding strategy are about as meaningful as the pronouncements by any random yahoo commenting on some blog, ie, next to nothing.
So in summary, everything that everyone is pulling out of this article and reacting too with so much emotion — that Willingham loves us and we’re spurning him, that the team is going to tank in Oakland in order to “rebuild” for San Jose, that the ownership doesn’t care about winning and only cares about money, etc — is much ado about absolutely nothing.
If you’re going to get anything out of this article, I think you have to start by asking who holds real power over the stadium decision and what sort of pressure are Lew and Billy trying to put on them. That’s a mystery, and I surely don’t have the answer, but I think that’s the real starting point for this discussion, not everything else that everyone has been going on about.
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 Sep 25, 2011 10:37 PM PDT reply actions 16 recs
I'm going to rec this, but I take issue on one point
Certainly not the fantasy of a "hometown discount", which several here have morphed into fact from only a few vague hints…. Sosnick is getting it on record that Oakland’s offer is "under Willingham’s expected market value", so that negotiations with any other team will have to start a step above that.
Either Sosnick offered the A’s a discount on what he expects the free agent market will bear or he didn’t. If he does have a good repoire with Beane than he risks damaging it by first praising Beane for his honesty and then turning around and telling a lie to one of the biggest A’s outlets in Slusser.
Now it’s possible that Sosnick is completely misreading the market for Willingham and his below-market offer is really too high, but that runs contrary to the build up you provided that this is a smart guy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I can see your point, but
I don’t see it as something you’d call a lie. When an agent talks about a player’s “expected market value”, I figure that’s just talk. No one really knows exactly what the market value will turn out to be. The agent can make a pretty good guess what price he’s targeting, but he’s not going to say it out loud. He’s going to talk up his guy as much as he can.
Whatever the actual offer was, I don’t see this as anything Billy is going to feel betrayed by. I also don’t think the other GMs are going to put too much into it either. I think it’s just spin that everyone expects.
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
Let me try a more simplified version.
Let’s say that 3/36 is the “expected” market value of Willingham. We need a number to discuss and that one’s been used. Now, the A’s know two things. They know what they think Willingham is worth next year through 2014; and they know what they think the market will bear. The first point is rendered unimportant because of the stadium issue. The key question is: do the A’s and Sosnick’s vision of market value synch up? If the answer is YES then we can easily determine if Sosnick “lied” or not.
He either approached the A’s with an offer that was truly below-market or he did not. He says he did.
If the answer to our key question is NO than someone is doing their job poorly. Tough call to assume incompetence.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Enh, I still don't see it as anyone lying.
Here’s my example scenario. Suppose Sosnick thinks he’ll probably end up with about 3/36, but he doesn’t know for sure. He definitely intends to sound out the rest of the market before agreeing on anything. Josh has expressed mild interest in staying Oakland for the sake of continuity, but he is also open to sounding out other teams.
Sosnick has a meeting with Billy for a preliminary sounding out, with neither party expecting to ink a deal right now. Sosnick says, “How about 3/38, could you do that?” Beane says, “Hmm, we’ll think about it and get back to you.” Sosnick says, “Aw, c’mon, that’s a bargain. I’ll probably get 3/40 from some other team once the bidding goes up. Take this deal now while you can.” Beane says, “You know I’m not going to finalize on any deal until this stadium stuff is worked out.”
So now Sosnick goes to Slusser and says (1) we’re talking but haven’t agreed to anything yet, (2) all spending decisions for the A’s are on hold awaiting the stadium decision and until then Beane is “hamstrung”, and (3) I won’t tell you what my offer was but it was “under Willingham’s expected market value”.
The first two are true. The third is a matter of opinion in the first place and no different from what Sosnick already told Billy to his face as part of the preliminary negotiation. You can call it a “lie”, I suppose, but I just don’t see this as Sosnick damaging his relationship with Beane at all.
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 disagree
Of course the agent is going to try to get the best deal for his client. And the best deal, typically, means the most money.
But if he doesn’t have a solid understanding of the probable market value then he doesn’t know have a good base to negotiate from. That probable market value is the Truth (to put it bluntly) from which he spins his story around. As you’ve said, at this point of the year its entirely speculative. But if Sosnick believes per our example that 3/36 is the fair FA market value for Willingham then he had to have offered the A’s a deal with a lesser dollar figure in order for his conversation with Slusser to be true.
If 3/36 is true (and we’re simply picking a number out of the air here… although based on his age and performance level we’re probably in the ballpark) then if Sosnick did as you suggest and went to the A’s and asked for a larger contract then his conversation with Slusser was a lie.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Fair enough.
I gather then that you also think Billy Beane would perceive it the same way and resent Sosnick for saying what he said to Slusser if that’s the case.
So we disagree then. Wouldn’t be the first time :-)
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 quibble
There is something ado about the mentality that the A’s will tank in Oakland to rebuild for San Jose. That’s what SuSlu reported being likely:
According to one person familiar with the team’s thinking, the A’s would be likely to cut back on spending should they get the OK to go to San Jose, rather than increasing payroll. Were San Jose approved, the club would go into all-out rebuilding mode to put together a potential up-and-coming contender.
If the A’s do not get the all-clear for San Jose, they’d be more likely to spend money in the short term to try to increase the gate – and, possibly, to make the club more attractive for potential buyers.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Why?
All she says is “according to one person familiar with the team’s thinking”. Maybe the guy is familiar with the team’s thinking and the guy did say that. Doesn’t mean she agrees with him.
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'll let this set of comments over in her story do the talking for now:
roundingthird:
Why would they cut back on spending if going to San Jose? Do they want to just completely obliterate their fan base before the move? What are the motives Susan? Did you think to ask why? The reporting is a lttle light don’t ya think?
slusser:
As i said, Beane was out of pocket yesterday. From what I understand, the team will address this publicly after the season. You do know stories grow and evolve all the time, right, and that reporters can’t get every question answered at the same exact time? I’d like to. It doesn’t work that way. But I was happy to get this story, at least. If you want to nitpick, fine, but please let me know when you find a news story that ascribes every parties’ motives accurately the day the story breaks.
And, as I said, cutting back on spending would be to do a full rebuild in order to have a young contending team in place when they do get into a new stadium. When the team goes public saying exactly that, I’m sure you’ll hop back on and be happy to say that you read it here first today.
She seems to think there’s more to it than just some random source speculating.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Thanks. I hadn't seen the follow-up.
I’m still suspicious of the unnamed source. I’d rather wait and see what the team says officially after the season and more of the stadium things play out. Like Susan said, stories grow and evolve. I for one will give it a few months to evolve before I jump to any conclusions about the team’s plans for payroll in 2012. It’s still way too early for any of that.
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
She COULD just be reacting a little defensively and using the "when the team goes public" line as an 'if/then' thing
But I got the sense she believes what she’s hearing in that regard.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Yeah, the commenter she's responding to
is a litle bit snotty and accusatory. I don’t see the need for that. You can question an opinion reported from a source without questioning the reporting.
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
You CAN do this
But every dickwad commenter with a keyboard thinks that if one of their queries wasn’t answered by an article, all of a sudden the reporting is total shit. It’s a fall back argument and it’s beyond stupid.
"Da greatness of Da Rooster" - RLangford
"The whole thing was a piece of theatre. Billy had told Art how and where to stand during a game so that the players would... take strength from his countenance, because when Art sat on the bench... he looked like a prisoner of war."
-Moneyball
Thanks darooster
Spot on. My husband, also a sportswriter, calls it “repeating empty phrases.” People hear something like “light on the reporting” and spout it off at the first chance without thinking about what it actually means.
Especially considering that the story DID answer his question (possible A’s motives), extra silly to throw that out there. Plus, “light on reporting” when it’s the first time it’s BEEN reported?
Made me very grumpy!
by slusser on Sep 27, 2011 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don't worry about them. We lof you and we matter WAY more.
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 Sep 27, 2011 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm normally suspicious of unnamed sources, but honestly, I feel like Slusser's use of sources has always been pretty darn accurate. I'd trust her choices of unnamed sources more than any others.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
It sounds like she found one of the few people that was able to give her any information
And put that in, as opposed to having nothing.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Context is key
Can’t stop people from getting emotional though. SuSlu even mentions that in her blog followup.
This is wonderful ado about nothing, though - I am already looking forward to more off-season entertainment along these lines!
… everything that everyone is pulling out of this article and reacting too with so much emotion [snip] is much ado about absolutely nothing.
"A man makes a bad decision and he's an idiot for a day / teach a man to make bad decisions and he’s an idiot for life." - B-E-D
I sincerely hope it's a postsummer night's bad dream.
by player20 on Sep 25, 2011 11:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
All's well that ends well.
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
If ever anybody wanted proof that Wolff has never wanted baseball to succeed in Oakland
Here it is. They are effectively saying, “When we move to San Jose, don’t come with us, you hood rats. The new ballpark is for grownups.”
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Sep 26, 2011 8:01 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
hahahahahhaah
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
This makes total sense
If they get the OK to move to San Jose, then they’ve successfully dodged every remaining incentive not to alienate the Oakland fan base. Plus, it’s been well known for a while that owners can make good money by losing cheap, possibly more than by winning expensive.
If the franchise is going to be in a different city in 3 years, then it’s in ownership’s best interest to flush the team down the toilet until then: trade everyone, even good young players like Weeks and Gio, for a boatload of high upside prospects who are a few years away; lose a lot and stock the system with high draft picks; field the cheapest team possible and pocket the extra money – attendance sucks already anyway and may get even worse, regardless of performance, when everyone knows the team is gone in a couple of years. All with the goal of fielding a fantastic, young, exciting team for the first year at the new park.
Imagine a worst-to-first scenario in the first year in San Jose. That’s possibly even better than bringing a team with a recent tradition of winning. It’s a great story and would really excite the new fan base there and let them feel ownership of the new team. I’m not advocating any of this – I want the team to stay in Oakland and not become just another corporate-crony Red Sox-wannabe franchise – just trying to look at it from the owners’ perspective.
Right now, with the stadium issue in limbo, they’ve got to straddle the fence because they can’t risk completely destroying their Oakland fan base and then getting stuck here. Once they’ve got a foot out the door, it will be interesting to see whether they make even a token effort to be competitive before moving.
Other teams have gotten guff for doing that
I believe the Marlins were pushed into signing Johnson to an extension last year after criticism for not spending money. (Ironically — and I’m sure coincidentally — his agent is also Sosnick)
So, while that may be the A’s wishes, it’s unclear whether they can truly not sign anyone significant and trade away current young stars as well.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 26, 2011 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
True, but someone seems to get away with a payroll under $40 million every season
Also, the A’s were dead last in attendance this season, so they’d have a case to make for cutting payroll.
by thelincolndude on Sep 26, 2011 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I was looking at fans per game
The Marlins and Rays are still behind in total attendance but still have a few home games left and should easily pass the A’s.
Fun fact: the top 9 teams each drew more than twice as many fans per game as the A’s did.
by thelincolndude on Sep 26, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
So, um, about this...
Coco Crisp decision also hinges on stadium decision
Where’s the outrage and overreaction?
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
let me read the article and i’ll have some outrage at least.
by AV on Sep 27, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
it’s hard to outrage when the lede has a “might” in it. but if he ends up in orange/black, watch out!
by AV on Sep 27, 2011 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Coco doesn't appear to be ranked in the latest Elias update
Will probably make him more attractive to potential suitors (including us).
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 27, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, too bad SB don't count for the rankings
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
I hope that Elias rankings for FA are changed sometime soon
I can think of several other measurement systems currently available.
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 27, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Wait, you want Elias ratings to change?
or you want MLB to choose something other than Elias to determine compensation picks?
The CBA only says that players will be ranked, and the league will pick some independent source for the rankings. Choosing Elias is not part of the agreement, it’s just who they happened to pick. Elias should do whatever they want, and if MLB thinks they’re measuring the wrong thing, they can pick someone else. Hell, they could choose to rank free agents by FanGraphs WAR if they wanted.
(Assuming compensation picks aren’t eliminated in the new CBA, rendering all of this irrelevant 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
Change to something other than Elias to determine comp picks
Although, are Elias rankings used for anything else of import?
"I'll guarantee this: The A's will have a better season in 2012." - George Zimmer
by cuppingmaster on Sep 27, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Elias is in some way instrumental in the actual
distribution of numbers from the ballparks to the various news sources and databases that disseminate them, though I’m not sure exactly how.
Their ranking formula is just dumb, though. I’m at work now, so I can’t check my notes on this, but I know that the CBA doesn’t require MLB to use Elias. I think that because MLB was already using Elias for data collection they let them come up with the ranking formula too.
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
Coco's latest tweet
@Coco_Crisp
Covelli Crisp
Unfortunately the season is ending. I had a blast in Oakland and Want to thank all the A’s faithful and the organization for their support.
1 hour ago via Twitter for iPad
"He's listed as day to day, but then again, aren't we all?" — Vin Scully
That certainly doesn't seem like he thinks he's coming back.
Get out the time-fracture wickets, Hobbes! We're gonna play Calvinball!
The front office is full of quitting losers.
Is that better? Because it’s true.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
They should hire you instead.
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 had this oddly strange, parallel universe thought
which is if Silicon Valley and the computer industry had existed in 1968 as it does today, the A’s never would have played in Oakland in the first place. They would have gone straight from KC to to San Jose. And not even the most ardent of East Bay partisans would have questioned that move in the slightest… in fact, I’d suspect they’d have applauded.
I have weird thoughts like this, often before I’ve eaten anything on any given day.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
If the computer industry existed in 1968 as it does today, I'd have my flying car by now
and distance wouldn’t matter.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Sep 27, 2011 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
If the xylowhizmajig industry had existed in 2010
as it will in 2050, the biggest media market would still be in New York instead of Bozeman, Montana.
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 Sep 27, 2011 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
well it's no surprise that San José has been campaigning for an MLB team sine the early 1990's
first, to get the Giants, then since the mid-late 1990’s to get the A’s.
ATT Park was built during the height of the Internet company 1.0 boom of the late 1990’s.
There is an Internet 2.0 boom currently growing, along with renewable energy and other expanding fields. One of its major centers is downtown Oakland.
true, you have some real up and coming companies like Pandora
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 28, 2011 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
These companies are hardly in the same class as
Cisco, Adobe, Yahoo, SanDisk, Netflix, Intel, Marvell, Maxim, National Semi, etc
totally.
But this is way more that was happening in Oakland in previous decades (in terms of start-up/tech companies).
Anyway, too little too late. I wish the A’s were in San Jose while I was growing up there, now that I live in SF I would rather them stay in Oakland.
But whatever, that ship has sailed.
by Billy Frijoles on Sep 28, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
The main relevance of Pandora to Oakland
is the example it sets.
Pandora was a fledgling tech company that wanted to be near the Bay Area center but found SF too expensive, so they came to Oakland. Now that they’ve become successful, they’ve decided Oakland is just fine and so they’ll stay.
Oakland is a natural overflow location for companies that want to be in the Bay Area, near SF and Silicon valley, but find those places wanting in terms of price and/or congestion. But due to Oakland’s poor reputation (which the SF establishment deliberately promotes), it is generally not seen as an acceptable alternative.
Companies like Pandora change that perception, and they have the potential to attract enough similar companies to create a strong base. That’s not so different from what happened with, say, Mountain View.
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
Plus, you KNOW you'd be able to stream the games at Pandora Park!
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
Too little, too late, in regards to a baseball stadium.
by LoneStranger on Sep 28, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Or, "Tutu-late", for short
"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
not yet. but it's the next wave - as opposed to the last one
one of the things I found interesting about Wolff’s interview on Marine Layer’s site was his description of Oakland as the “post-industrial.” That accurately described Oakland vis-a-vis the south bay in the 1960’s-1970’s. However, since the dawn of the 21st century it more generally applies to the entire US including the south bay. His viewpoint is several decades late, (which Marine Layer did comment on, by the way.)
that’s not really the issue here, however. Wolff’s business ties are to San José and have been for over 20 years. He has been on record for almost that long as wanting to see a MLB club in San José. The Fremont plan was a way to get as close to that area as possible without triggering the territorial rights fight.
And even this was not the point of this fanpost. The point was that regardless of the ballpark issue it’s bad business and bad baseball not to put fielding a competitive team on the field. Willingham was a totally affordable power source AND clearly a short term signing, who would be playing in the coliseum regardless of the ballpark decision.
Willingham, Real Estate & the Ownership Group
Further evidence that the zillionaires in this ownership group are more interested in putting together a real estate project than in building a competitive team. A project with yet another shopping center, maybe more condos, and some entertainment to help generate traffic—which is where a baseball team and another stadium evidently fits into the picture.
Willingham has become the best hitter on a team that could be very competitive. He’s not a wanna be, he’s affordable, likes playing in Oaktown. Unsolicited advice for the zillionaires: Sign him to an extension or get out of the baseball business.
Wrong on one count
There is only six acres in the immediate area that could be developed. There is no money to buy that land for redevelopment, and even if there was nothing could be built there for 5-10 years because a BART tunnel is going to cut right through the area. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms against ownership. Pointing out this developer thing isn’t one of them. It’s simply lazy because it neglects the motivation for ownership: they’re trying to pay for a $500 million ballpark. And if you don’t have an answer as to how to do that besides, “oh let them pay for it out of their own pockets,” you’re missing how they became zillionaires in the first place. It sucks. That’s the reality of it.
by vertig0 on Sep 29, 2011 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
also wrong that Willinham was anything more than Just above replacement level this year.
We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley
That doesn't make him your worst option.
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
HEY, WE RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!
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
Think how I feel!
I’m sitting around hoping you toss him out like garbage go so we can sign him.
"Never have a motto, that's what I always say" - Me
http://marcel-oehler.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860506.gif
"I Hate SF" - The Chosen One.
Yes, but you have a pitcher's park and a team that can't score --
Oh wait, so do we.
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
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
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
