DLD 2/4/08 Super Bowl is over!!!!! We all know what's next.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 9:30 AM PST
Email
PrintWith the Superbowl over Pitchers and Catchers are just over the horizon.
Tom Brady is not Super on this day, and Belicheck can't tell time.
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks...
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks...
Now the 2nd most story we all want to go away, or if you are from LL it is #1.
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/story/...
Reports: Bedard to M's deal might be closer to reality
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...
Nothing much on our A's, just more from our deals.\
Could you please rank the overall packages of young talent received in the Dan Haren, Johan Santana, Nick Swisher, Mark Teixeira and Miguel Tejada trades? And which team received the best value, considering what they gave up?
Calvin Keeney
Hobbes, Texas
Let's expand this question to include the Miguel Cabrera/Dontrelle Willis deal and the proposed Erik Bedard trade. I'd rank the packages in this order:
- OF Cameron Maybin, LHP Andrew Miller, RHP Dallas Trahern, RHP Eulogio de la Cruz, RHP Burke Badenhop and C Mike Rabelo to the Marlins for Cabrera and Willis. I believe Florida would have gotten more had it traded Cabrera and Willis in separate deals. And I probably have more doubts about Maybin and Miller than most prospect analysts. Still, the Marlins did get Maybin and Miller.
- C Jarrod Saltalamacchia, SS Elvis Andrus, RHP Neftali Feliz, LHP Matt Harrison and LHP Beau Jones to the Rangers for Teixeira and Ron Mahay. That's two potential all-stars at up-the-middle positions, a guy who has hit 99 mph (Feliz) and a polished lefty who could be ready soon (Harrison). I almost put this deal at No. 1.
- LHP Brett Anderson, OF Carlos Gonzalez, OF Aaron Cunningham, 1B Chris Carter, LHP Dana Eveland and LHP Greg Smith to the Athletics for Haren and Connor Robertson. Anderson and Gonzalez immediately became two of Oakland's best prospects, while Cunningham and Carter could develop into big league regulars.
- OF Adam Jones, RHP Chris Tillman, LHP Tony Butler, LHP George Sherrill and RHP Kam Mickolio to the Orioles for Bedard. Jones will be a quality center fielder, Sherrill is a quality lefty reliever and the other three guys are intriguing arms from the 2006 draft.
- RHP Deolis Guerra, OF Carlos Gomez, RHP Kevin Mulvey and RHP Philip Humber to the Twins for Santana. Santana's no-trade clause and contract demands restricted the market for him, and it showed in what Minnesota got in return.
- LHP Gio Gonzalez, RHP Fautino de los Santos and OF Ryan Sweeney to the A's for Swisher. White Sox GM Kenny Williams just had to have Swisher, and he gave up his top two prospects to get him.
- RHP Matt Albers, LHP Troy Patton, OF Luke Scott, 3B Mike Costanzo and RHP Dennis Sarfate to the Orioles for Tejada. Albers has a strong arm but is erratic, and Patton might not be more than a No. 4 starter. Yet it's still hard to see how the Astros a) really think they're going to contend this year, even with Tejada, and b) how they can keep trading young pitching.
The Rangers got the best value, considering they only would have had Teixeira for 1½ more seasons. The only better haul went to the Marlins, who gave up two all-stars. Haren is locked up through 2010, and the Bedard can't become a free agent until after the 2009 season.
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Final results from the Super Bowl picks contest:
It’s entirely possible, maybe even likely, that I had some input errors somewhere in my spreadsheet for this, so I apologize in advance for anyone I’ve made to look more lousy than they deserve to look.
In total AN finished with a loss of 5,681 Magic Beanes, from 7 on-balance winning bettors and 15 bottom-line losers. Best single bet was vignette17’s 800 Magic Beanes on the Giants to win straight out, at +325. SuperBean’s 700 Beanes on the 4th quarter as the high-scoringest quarter was the next best single stroke, at 11:5. Muffinpryde and EastCoastA also get some kudos for picking the clear Gatorade and the MVP thanking no one propositions, respectively.
Winners
vignette + 2,700
SuperBean + 1,240
McFood + 589
FreeSeatUpgrade + 527
EastCoastA + 460
streetfan + 100
batgirl + 65
Losers
Cutthemullet - 17
jahs34 - 45
JLaff - 280
gigglingone - 429
bvank - 490
muffinpryde - 500
Poppy - 520
Scottbass - 575
Soaker - 624
monkeyball - 650
Ice Cream - 788
andeux - 790
hward86 - 1,000
Rubin Sierra - 1,000
xbhaskarx - 1,000
I shouldn't have done the victory margin bet.
Yes, thanks! It's the best I've ever done...
on an AN online contest. But, somehow, getting the bronze in this contest didn't merit a mention in the recap. :(
You surpass me as a sharp, McFood, so
can I have $10?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
Drat.
My first bet was 900 Beanes on NY to win, then 50 on OT and a safety. Then I swapped it to 100 on NY and 450 on each of the other two, just cause I wanted to see a huge payoff.
There was a decent shot at a safety, and another good shot at OT. Alas...
Oh. Bummer.
(who'll catch the ref?)
There's clearly a huge break
between package 4 and package 5 on that list. I would argue that the Swisher package was, frankly, better than the Santana package (although the Santana group does have quantity on its side). I'd also put the Bedard package at #2 and drop the Teixeira group to #4; I'm not overly impressed with that bunch and Adam Jones is crazy good. (Bill Bavasi is just crazy.)
Well, it is a matter of some debate.
You can take a two-pronged approach to the Swisher package being better but you really can't lay a glove on the Santana package because it's so much larger.
If that cat
starts playing "Yes We Can", can we CGV her?
How the hell does she reach the pedals?
pre-order cancelled?
the boston globe is the new chicago tribune
Kids in Gambia just got a new American textbook.
"Teacher? What is this Tom Brady?"
I do look forward
to seeing denizens of underdeveloped countries sporting, "Patriots 19-0" t-shirts.
As early as this morning...
...that was available on Amazon (it's no longer). The funny thing though, is that you could get it with this.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 4, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting story out of Salt Lake
http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_8149321
Looks like BYU's best hitter was kicked out of school before he was eligible for the June draft.
One of Brigham Young University's top baseball players - a potential pick in June's Major League Baseball draft - has been kicked out of school and dismissed from the team because his LDS Church bishop in Provo says he has not attended church enough.
Kent Walton, a junior from Yucaipa, Calif., and BYU's best hitter last season, has been called out on strikes because bishop Wayne Childs, an employee in BYU's admissions department, withdrew the ecclesiastical endorsement that every student - LDS or not - must renew annually to attend the LDS Church-operated school.
i want to comment
but i would feel dirty.
I didn't comment
I was simply sharing the news, since it is baseball-related.
by baseballgirl on Feb 4, 2008 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
absolutely
don't want to get your hand dirty?
Put on a mitt.
one's coming in the mail
good call monkeyball
(well, I got it)
(me too)
by baseballgirl on Feb 4, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Me too
But only because the Angel Moroni subject arose for me just yesterday, during the Super Bowl, in a conversation beginning with the name of Patriots RB Maroney (1st TD, jersey number UNDER 43.5).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Goodnight, Kent-boy!
BYU isn't a great baseball school though.
Like every year, their would be half a dozen high school kids from UT picked up before him
They've only produced two regular MLB players, Wally Joyner and Vance Law.
Bobby Crosby's brother, Blake, lasted a season there. He wanted to play short, they wanted him to play 3rd.
He threw a hissy fit and went to Sacramento State.
If the kid starts showing up to church. He'd probably have his ecclesiastical endorsement at the end of the month.
Being bothered.
Take some crab with you...
granderson
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...
The Detroit Tigers and center fielder Curtis Granderson agreed to a five year, $30.25 million contract
Top 10 QBs of All Time
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...
- Johnny Unitas
- Joe Montana
- Tom Brady
- Dan Marino
- Peyton Manning
- John Elway
- Terry Bradshaw
- Brett Favre
- Otto Graham
- Dan Fouts
my biased top 3 is elway montana manning
That...
was a great day to be a Peninsula-based Stanford h8r... :-D
easy now
you do not want to be on the receiving end of a batgirl hissy fit.
I have a long, tortured relationship
with Stanford. I could make you cry. Seriously.
I like that they own a buttload of non-campus open space that can't ever be turned into condo farms, though.
Does your long, tortured relationship include
being arrested and held captive by Stanford Police for 16 hours, too? I really hate Stanford.
Did you at least
get away with the Tree costume, or recapture the Axe?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Campus police are campus police...
... no matter where you are...
by RickeySteals on Feb 5, 2008 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
Top 3 worst sports moments ever.
by OaktownPower on Feb 4, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
Ads
IMO;
Best: Bridgestone (screaming animals)
Worst: SalesGenie (weird cartoons)
I also liked the *2nd* E-Trade baby ad,
starring mikeA jr.
I may be in the minority on this point, but I
find nothing redeeming, or funny about Will Ferrell, AT ALL.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
+1
Redeeming? Probably not
But the guy's made me laugh more then once. I admit though, I prefer him in small doses.
:hides in corner:
<makes note to keep humor preferences to self>
Barley, hops, and delicious alcohol wasn't funny? :-/
Aw.
I'm in grover's camp: Will Ferrell in small doses. A whole movie of him is way too much, but I think he's hilarious for light consumption.
Now you know my pain
Will Ferrell: the Ray Ratto of movie comedians.
by rubin sierra on Feb 4, 2008 10:35 PM PST up reply actions
DITTTO!!!!
I can't stand the guy! Nothing funny about him at all!
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Feb 4, 2008 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
Gotta love
the Audi, Godfather reference. Ha, my friend's uncle made all the kids close their eyes because he thought something really bad would happen
Dayn Perry lists his worst starters at each
position except pitcher. There are no current A's but 3 former A's and 3 current Giants of the 8 players. Viva La Bay Area.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7...
C — Jason Kendall, Brewers
Kendall narrowly edges out Paul Lo Duca for worst catcher. In 2007, Kendall "hit" .242 AVG/.301 OBP/.309 SLG and tallied only 24 extra-base hits in 514 plate appearances. Unless you're a pitcher, those power numbers are patently unacceptable. That's to say nothing of Kendall's poor throwing arm behind the plate. At age 33, he doesn't figure to improve going forward
Ooops.
Right field is a fairly weak position right now, but Guerrero is tops.
Teahen isn't a horrible player, and he's only 26. However, he makes it on this unfortunate list only because right field is a fairly deep position.
I like Dayn Perry, I'm sure this is just a minor slip, and it's not even directly contradictory. Still, kinda funny.
I like Dayn Perry's parents
and I'm sure the first name was just a minor slip, but it's still kinda annoying.
C'mon... you can be weak but deep
Just look at the stuff Nico writes.
Over/under
The Rangers will probably get out of the AL West cellar in 2008, if only because the A’s will be free-falling past them on their way to 98 losses.
hey- what is that?
is that an overwhelmingly stunned silence I'm hearing?
schadenfreude
German word meaning 'pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune'.
I guess that potential conflict
for the vidtory parade they had scheduled tomorrow is moot
hunh?
the A’s enter camp with question marks in two outfield spots, and arguably at both first base and catcher as well
"Arguably," how? Suzuki may not be the second coming of Johnny Bench, but how is his role as the starter threatened? And I must have missed the memo about Barton giving up baseball to join the circus.
And if the A's have "question marks in two outfield spots" -- which means, presumably, that Buck is the only non-question mark -- then don't they actually have three question marks, since Buck missed so much time, isn't the second coming of Mickey Mantle anyway, and none of the guys projected to start, in Sheehan's mind, are as good as Aaron Cunningham ("It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that he’s the best outfielder in the organization right now.")?
If this is any indication of the time/productivity pressures they're under, BP needs to hire about 5 more writers. I wouldn't pay for crap like that.
right. as a teaser for their pay content
I agree with you whole heartedly. This was a
hack job.
One move to make: Paying Eric Chavez $37 million through 2010 is a waste of money for a team that’s trying to spend as little as possible at the moment. The A’s have to leverage his first hot streak to get out from under the deal, even if it means taking a small value hit in exchange.
It isn't like Billy signed that contract the day after the Swisher trade, and since when are the A's trying to spend as little as possible? They might be in the bottom third, but besides Kotsay, nothing was a money dump.
For now, though, the remnants of the failed Harden/Crosby A’s will drift through a tough couple of years.
Harden has NOT failed, except to stay healthy. He has been upper echelon when on the field, Crosby may be a failure, but he was not the reason the A's didn't reach expectations.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
He doesn't understand what the A's are doing.
Assuming we take their stated goals at face value, anyway. As you point out, the offseason strategy has nothing to do with saving money, it has to do with restocking the farm system. That means you have to jettison assets with trade value (Haren, Swisher), or take advantage of friends and idiots (Scutaro, Kotsay). Trading an asset that has little value at this point in time (Chavez) won't yield anything in return.
Obligatory interjection
...the offseason strategy has nothing to do with saving money...
The extra 15-20 million not spent on payroll, less perhaps a few million in lost revenue and more spent on scouting/drafting, and you still end up with a cool eight figure addition to the Wolffish 2008 bottom line profits. Maybe that's 100% effect from the rebuilding cause, but it sure ain't meaningless, nor can it possibly have escaped Lew's well-tuned profit radar.
</obligatory interjection>
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Well you see EVERTHING that Lew does as
profit taking, so you are quite a bit biased.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
"Maybe 100% effect from the rebuilding cause"
Cause and effect. Worth understanding.
Everything Lew does with his business is geared towards making money...does anyone think differently?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
The A's have supposedly hired more scouts, they
have signed several international players, and could possibly spend more on the draft then in previous years. Until we can see the books and exactly what was spent last year versus what will be spent this year, you have no proof but your bias, that Lew is pocketing more and more money every year.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Proving the unprovable
As below, since MLB books are never opened, neither do you have any "proof but your bias" that Wolffish AREN"T pocketing more and more each year. Since the best (though limited) independent methdologically consistent guesses of team profits and value come from Forbes, I'll stick with their '07 estimate that the A's just enjoyed their two most profitable years ever in Oakland. And I'll then assume that, by spending much less and taking in nearly as much in '08, they'll continue and improve on that recent trend.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
Again you're determined to see this
as "profits," which don't help the product on the field, as opposed to (the much more logical) "franchise appreciation," which does. Trading a $15 million dollar asset (I'm making these numbers up, so don't eat me) for $10 million in cash would be fiscal idiocy.
In today's baseball marketplace, there is virtually no plausible reason to accept a decline in talent in return for a decline in costs. It makes far more sense to trade for talent than to trade for dollars.
I'd hazard a guess that I've
written more about asset appreciation w/r/t the Wolffish approach to the A's than every single other poster on AN combined. So your lecture is misplaced.
Also, see above re cause and effect, also re reading comprehension.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
I know what cause and effect are
You haven't proved the effect. And short of breaking into the Coliseum's accounting department or hacking Lew Wolff's bank account, I have difficulty seeing how you would do so.
This is absurd
MLB owners for over a century have made a practice of keeping books closed and hiding income, to their great advantage. So you propose a test of proof which is impossible, then argue as though the defeault, then, is to assume that salary savings will NOT translate into more operating profit. And that's at gross odds with what data, estimates and historical record that we do have. Forbes marks the last 2 years the most profitable ever for the A's, and guesses at $112 million asset value increase in 3 years of Wolffish ownership. To me, the continuing trend towards profitability both in the year-to-year and franchise appreciation senses is very likely to be improved in 2008, in part because of this payroll savings.
Hell, you yourself have posted more than once that the payroll total attributed to Lew (by the Chron's Shea) can't be correct, and is in fact lower. Devo has posted that the claimed budget bumps for scouting, foreign and domestic, and maybe possibly more signing bonus dough can't possibly amount to more than a fraction of the savings from 2008 payroll vs. '07.
This $15 million (let's call it) increase in operating profit may be purely a happy consequence of a needed roster rebuild. But even if it's only effect and not at all cause, the sum is relevant to every fan who has ever played low-revenue rosterbation, or felt it important for ownership to succeed, or dreamed about costly free agents, or observed that they'll be paying higher ticket prices to watch worse players. I don't draw direct connections to any of those things necessarily, but you can be sure that every time someone acts as though this saved money either doesn't exist or is somehow irrelevant, you can be sure I'll chime in with my obligatory interjections, as above.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
I don't act as if there is any "default"
When I don't know, and can't know, anything about something, I don't form an opinion on it. I have no opinion on whether the A's are or are not pulling money out of the franchise as a consequence of rebuilding.
I certainly do have an opinion on whether they OUGHT to or not (as I said, I think it would be imbecilic to do so given the rates of return that investing in MLB has had lately). My guess, based on the fact that the ownership is not composed of fools, is that they are behaving intelligently here. But I don't go around pretending that I know something that I have no information on.
By your standard, since you can't possibly know
what the ROI on that particular $15 million is, as isolated from the other money they're already investing, then you shouldn't have formed an opinion on that yet either. If the investment without that $15m is already achieving max return, then actually it would be imbecilic TO invest it, since it produces nothing, and pocketing it would be profit.
And therein the lameness of the "I can't have an opinion on" a subject where not all facts are in evidence. But if you are going to hew to that (utterly impractical) standard, you ought to do it all the time, not just when it fits your argument du jour.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
The difference between informed guesswork
and rampant speculation is the difference between poker and roulette.
You probably will not be surprised to find that I like poker and find roulette inexplicable and boring.
It's not that one can't have an opinion with incomplete information. It's that one can't have an opinion with NO information. Right now, with the exception of an apparent rise in spending on amateur and minor-league talent, we have no information as to where the putative budget surplus will end up.
So let's brainstorm
Stupid me forgot to link the story that had Wolff talking about the 2008 budget, but he said the A's had gone into the season with the payroll set around $72 million. This amount would cover all the existing contracts and leave some wiggle room to sign FA's.
In round numbers, the current payroll (after the trades) sits at $52 million. The A's have said a couple different times that they were going to boost funding for their Latin American operations. They were going to hire more scouts and increase the budget for signing bonuses. We've seen evidence of this with the signings of Arnold Leon, Omar Castillo and Franklyn Contreras. I've heard 6-figure bonuses for all three players but I don't think they totalled more then $1 million between them. BA keeps track of who got the top bonuses on the international market and the low end of the cut-off was $350K.
Moving on, from what I've read the Yankees were the big spenders in Latin America last year, dropping just over $4 million. So figure a scouting budget of $1 million over whatever the A's were already spending, plus an additional $4 million in available bonus money and the most we can expect Oakland to boost their Latin American budget is $5 million.
Which is a great big number, one that will go a long way down south.
That still leaves $15 million in usable cash unaccounted for.
Last year the A's spent (again, round number) $4 million on their 2007 draft picks. Going from the 26th pick to 12th overall will cost a minimum of $600K extra, with an additional $100K bump in the corresponding 2nd round picks. So on and so on down the line, figure the A's will need to spend and extra $1 million on their draft picks, assuming they draft for slot talent and not try to sign low-ball talent.
That $1 million is offset by the lack of extra draft picks the A's will have in 2008. The A's had 2 1st Supp picks and an extra 2nd round pick last year. Assuming that Stewart signs elsewhere Oakland could have 1 extra 1st Supp pick. Lacking those two extra picks should save Oakland roughly $1 million in 2008. So the move from the 26th position to the 12th position is effectively cost neutral due to the the loss of two extra high end draft picks.
Last year the Yankees, once again, set the standard for spending the most bonus money on amateur talent. This time they led the field by giving out just over $8 million in signing bonuses to their draft picks. In my research, the $8 million threshold has only been crossed 2 or 3 times since 2000. That means $8 million is the ceiling for potential expenditures in the draft. The A's spent $4 million in 2007, therefore doubling that total gives them a potential $8 million budget in 2008. Let's add an extra $1 million boost to hire more scouts in the US, giving us a theoretical boost of $5 million in the draft budget.
So changing nothing else, we see that the A's could realistically be expected to increase their budget for scouting and signing amatuer talent by $10 million over their existing budget, leaving $10 million earmarked for big league salaries that are no longer on the roster.
What will the A's do with that remaining $10 million?
There's no efficient way to spend it now
short of signing a free agent to a frontloaded long-term deal (by means of a signing bonus, one would presume) and apart from the debatably available A-Rod, no one on the market this offseason was good enough to do that for.
The proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to invest the money for now and deploy it as a floating cash reserve when the team is competitive again. The $20-30 million the team will save in the next two seasons is enough to upgrade a mediocre regular to an All-Star caliber player on the free agent market. Deployed at the right moment, it will more than pay off with the increased revenue of postseason berths.
That's fairly myopic
OK, so we've got the CD option.
Any other ideas?
Usually when you insult an idea,
you at least explain why you're doing so.
Why is it "myopic"?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make
There's no disputing that the major league payroll is down by about $25 million dollars (actually, a little more I think) from last year. A few more scouts and a couple of low-profile amateur free agents can't amount to more than a couple of million. Attendance, and hence revenues will probably be down this year, but not much, and that's partially offset by revenue sharing anyway. We actually have quite a bit of information here, and the estimate of an extra $15 million floating around somewhere seems very conservative to me.
If you're merely arguing that that extra money is (or at least might be) still in the possession of the Oakland Athletics corporation, rather than lining the pockets of ownership's personal (Gap) slacks, then neither FSU nor anyone else has claimed otherwise.
The only truly unsupported claim here is yours that said money will "help the product on the field." It could, at some nebulous point in the future, sure. But it could also be taken as profits at a later date, most likely when the team is sold, and your case against that seems to be purely speculative.
Pfsssh. What you don't realize ...
... is that the A's have hired Tyra Banks to scout Latin American ballplayers! That eats up the $25M right-quick.
well, we are selling jeans here...
Variously,
There's no disputing that the major league payroll is down by about $25 million dollars (actually, a little more I think) from last year.
The correct figure is approximately $22 million-- today's payroll is about 51.5 million as compared to last year's of 73.5 million.
If you're merely arguing that that extra money is (or at least might be) still in the possession of the Oakland Athletics corporation, rather than lining the pockets of ownership's personal (Gap) slacks, then neither FSU nor anyone else has claimed otherwise.
I might not be able to stick a perjury charge on him in a court of law, but if he hasn't said this prior to now, he's implied it in exceptionally strong terms on multiple occasions. When I see things like "nor can it possibly have escaped Lew's well-tuned profit radar", "saving up for long-term franchise development" is not exactly the first thing that leaps to mind.
The only truly unsupported claim here is yours that said money will "help the product on the field."
A franchise with more assets is in a better position to succeed than one with fewer assets. No?
Apart from that point, there is again nothing we can really say at this point. Sometimes having money hurts a franchise, such as when it decides to pay $120 million to Mike Hampton. That doesn't mean it's not generally a good thing.
Another way to ask this question
Leave aside the '08 example. What do folks suppose became of the money the A's enjoyed in operating income from '06 and '07? Forbes pegs that at $16m and $15m respectively. It didn't go into payroll those years; payroll's already accounted for. One can't know for sure, but indications are the A's didn't suddenly boost domestic or Latin scouting budgets, or signing bonuses. So where'd it go?
My contention is that ownership is "profiting;" that is, paying as the private ownership equivalent of dividends to Fisher, Wolff, Beane et al. I believe they'll do that again in '08. So I do believe they're taking much of that profit out of the franchise, because the franchise's expenses (and expansions) are already covered. (As an aside, I've said several times that I don't label that profit taking as wrong or evil. In fact, if the A's had shareholders you could make a strong case that they'd be negligent not to pay dividends under these unprecedented revenue circumstances).
So if you (Paul, or anyone) believe I'm wrong, and ownership is not "taking profits" in that sense, then where do you imagine that unallocated income beyond expenses went?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
I seem to remember reading about a new stadium,
tryingg to be built. where is that money going to come from ? Isn't that considered going back into the team?
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
That was going to be my guess too
Invest the money elsewhere until it needs to be tapped to pay for stadium construction.
Though the A's have been largely detail-averse
about the details of their stadium financing plan, I don't believe anyone has suggested they're planning on paying for any of it out of their operating profits. And if they did, they'd be the first team in baseball in at least 30 years to do so. Not even the public financing-obstructed Giants paid for any of their park with operating revenue.
And you can rest assured that the MLB owners would be pretty irate with frat brother Lewis if he opened the slightest door to paying for a park out of their own profits. The stadium construction MO has been to do everything humanly possible to avoid exactly that. Which is why they have so much interest in the entitlement financing scheme: it's a new way of not paying for parks themselves.
So, no, that ain't where the money's gone. Got any other guesses?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Being no kind of financial genius myself,
I must confess I have no idea what you mean by "the entitlement financing scheme."
it's quite obvious
The A's have been intentionally manufacturing all the injuries the last couple of years as part of an elaborate Medicare-fraud plot.
Entitlement financing scheme
That's the linchpin of the ballpark village: simplifying, when you take land zoned for office or industrial uses, and re-zone it for residential and retail development, you make that land considerably more valuable. In this instance, the City of Fremont's rezoning action would "entitle" Wolffish LLC to develop the land for residential, retail, ballpark, etc. The act of re-zoning changes the value of the land considerably. The difference between purchase price land value and development land value is what creates the funds to build the development.
That sort of thing happens a lot, all over the Bay Area. What's unprecedented in sports terms is using that entitlement-derived value to create development which also is the financing mechanism for the stadium. If it works, count on it being part of every ballpark development plan for the next 20 years, at least.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 6:17 PM PST up reply actions
Do I recall that the argument continues ...
... that the land-value thus created is a disguised public subsidy to the owners?
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
I haven't made that argument;
I might later though. That really depends on details which aren't now public...How much ancillary expense does Fremont end up incurring (police, traffic, schools, infrastructure, etc) versus how much they receive in boosted property and sales taxes? Does the deal involve some sort of tax increment rebate? Much left to be revealed on these and other fiscal scores yet.
And were I a Fremonteer opposed to the park, it's exactly those sorts of effects I'd be scrutinizing for a hook on which to hang a ballot initiative, which I suspect is one of Lew's worst fears about now.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
But wasn't that the crux of your concern ...
... for the original ballpark village just north of the current stadium? Where many of the necessary improvements are already in-place? Or was it a transfer of public land at its currently zoned value?
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Re 66th Ave swapmeet proposal
Not at all. My only concern about that plan was that it was never meant to succeed at all, as it:
- Required 75-100 small landowners to all agree to sell at pre-entitlement prices for the post-entitlement benefit of someone else; and
- Included a Wolff demand that eminent domain be foresworn, making 75+ land deals utterly impossible; and
- Also included a demand for a new BART station, a half-mile from the current Coliseum station, which was so laughably unrealistic as to make the motives of the proposer pretty f'in transparent, especially since the deal-breaking BART station requirement suddenly vanished when the plan was relocated 25 miles south.
The place Oakland could have done that deal would have been on the current Coli parking lot, with the City finding land for a village somewhere else, maybe nearby, maybe not (value is value in financing terms). Lew ID'd that exact location when he was still just the VP in charge of venue development...that option was magically deemed invalid once he became the ownership front man.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 7:09 PM PST up reply actions
I don't recall #2 at all -- indeed that may be
... the easiest way a deal like that can get done, lest every succeeding parcel seller hold out for a larger take. With the broader EmDom powers now available, maybe temporarily, what reason would Lew have for nixing its use -- is it that FMV would be denominated in post-deal values?
Of course, I suppose if Oakland really wanted those parcels conveyed, there are code inspectors who could be persuasive as to the advantages of a sale.
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
What reason for nixing EmDom?
The reason I cited earlier: the plan wasn't meant to succeed. That he did minimize and ultimately nix eminent domain is widely Googlable, including here here and here.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 8:10 PM PST up reply actions
Having read the first two articles,
I think he's saying that EmDom would take too long (art 1), primarily, it seems, because of the valuation issue (art 2) -- do they establish FMV based on current industrial uses or the much higher value as part of this project? My guess is that Lew was hoping to get the City to strong-arm the owners out of there by means other than EmDom, but the City was unwilling to do it.
I don't think that's the same thing as saying it was a sham from the inception, but it does emphasize the desirability of a site with a single owner -- like the Army Base, or the Cisco field. Otherwise, you need help from the gubmint, which presumably had different priorities. Personally, I'd have preferred the Army Base, but I can understand the lure of tech nation if they hope to actually fill the place.
I can make the decision work based on simple business pragmatism: Case one, 66th Ave village, but we need the City to step up to the plate. City takes a hike instead.
Okay then, Cases Two and Three are the Base or Cisco. Base maintains the cult following we've always had in Oakland, but it's built-out relative to other areas, so it doesn't appeal to any new people we'll need to fill it. Cisco sits on the edge of The Valley, with all that growth potential, and all those geeks in a stat-heads' game. No legal problem either way with the Giants. Cisco looks better all the time.
Looked at another way, what would he gain by doing an insincere village design for Oakland? Nothing, it seems to me, that wouldn't be overmatched by the time value of having gone straight to Cisco, instead.
To my simple, tired mind, a simpler model that explains the behavior is a better choice.
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 12:06 AM PST up reply actions
Re the BART station, I'm guessing that ...
... there are at least 12 stations that are less than 1/2 mile apart.
Not a problem if there's a good reason to do it -- and several thousand adjacent commuters/day would have seemed like a good one. The two stations would be busy at different times -- Raiders, Warriors and airporters at the Collie and A's and commuters at the other. Coliseum lot could become a big park-n-ride.
Further example: having established the Dublin-Pleasanton Station last decade, they are now starting on one in West Dublin to serve a different, new "transit village" there -- I don't think the two are more than about a mile apart.
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
BART Stations cost almost a Billion dollars
And Lew wasn't offering to cover any of that. As you might imagine, putting another station in an already well-served corridor was pretty low on BART's priority list. As Lew well knew.
You're revisioning...Lew said no ED a number of times, feel free to dig further. He announce the plan, said he'd give Oakland a year to get it together, then began publically talking about Fremont four months later. He also, we know know, in direct contradiction to his words at the time, that he was simultaneously making offers to MacGowan for the SJ territotial rights. He cut off all meetings with City of Oakland officials within three months of the 66th Ave announcement. More to the land value point, on 66th he made then plan announcement then began asking about land purchase, guaranteeing the price demands would skyrocket; in Fremont he has said explictly he asvoided announcing plans so he could buy the land before prices went up.
Oh, and he chose the timeline for his self-imposed deadline for Oakland to make a deal happen exactly when the City was in the middle of its most dramatic election transition in 25 years. To claim that Lew's Oakland plans were designed to give a new Oakland park its best chance of success is to grossly ignore the record.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
The budget for the West Dublin station is $80 M,
as self-reported here.
I think Unca Lew's point on EmDom in the articles you posted is "too time-consuming" regardless of how many times he says it.
And if you're seeking to partner up with someone, and you say you'll give 'em a year to decide, and they say "never in a billion years" -- or even 80 million years -- would you stay in front of their house -- at a parking meter, waiting it out? Ardor has its limits, at least for me.
Further, would you ever decide there's only one choice that'll do -- or would you hedge your bets? I would most certainly have several options going in parallel to avoid being left with none. Also, do you wait 'til conditions are perfect, or take 'em as you find 'em, especially if they're screwed-up most of the time?
Finally, since we're talking revisionism, I think there's a rather large substantive difference between your phrases "never meant to succeed at all" (7:09 PM, above) and "[not] designed to give a new Oakland park its best chance of success." (8:55 AM).
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
that might make sense
another public subsidy might be any public outlay for infrastructure (ie, public transit)
To add/clarify re the Giants
They do, however, use operating revenue on the back end of the deal, to pay annual debt service. That's the biggest reason why the MLB establishment was quietly furious with MacGowan et al when the PacBell deal was struck...if one team concedes that they might, maybe, be able to pay for part of their facility out of their profits, municipalities the nation over might start expecting all of the teams to do the same.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty normal for businesses to pay ...
... -off their earning assets over time. It does seem to suggest that cities might have better uses for their tax revenues than paying them out in this form of corporate welfare.
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
Yes Payroll is down, but besides the Swisher and
Haren which is what 7 million, the other 15 was removed for good business reasons, not just because they wanted to cut payroll. Piazza was 8 million, noone wanted him back, Kendall and Bradley were gone before the end of last year, so the 71 million was not the end payroll. You can't tell me the A's aren't better off without all those players. Hell NO ONE wants Piazza or Stewart, as they are still unsigned. I have no problem with saying payroll is down I have a problem with the contention that it is down just for a profit.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
I share some of your skepticism.
You've indeed documented very clearly the stark rise in profitability of the A's under Wolff's brief tenure. We won't really know until we see how they handle retaining the impressive crop of youngsters they've acquired when they become expensive free agents.
I think you need to get Billy into that nickname, though (Wolffishly?). He's part owner of this team, too, however small a stake he has, and I get the distinct sense that he's as acutely aware of bottom line profits as either Wolff or Fisher--maybe even moreso.
perhaps an anagram?
NEW BEER IS HALF OFF
That's freakish
...of course, if it's an omen of anything, it would seem to be one of relatively friendly ownership.
Kotsay wasn't a money dump either
The A's got legit prospects back and paid the significant majority of his salary.
The second blockquote is a comment on the team (the Harden/Crosby TEAMS certainly failed to live up to expectations) rather than on the individual players.
But you're right, I don't understand what the obsession with getting rid of Chavez is. Why take a value hit? What's the advantage to doing so? The team already has bags with dollar signs on them stashed around the corners of the Coliseum. I don't think they're exactly hurting for ready cash.
What were the expectations of the teams? They
have both been around for 4 years, and were in the playoffs twice. Whose expectations were higher?
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
Beane's, for one
He said prior to the 2005 season that the 2005 team would be the worst A's team in the foreseeable future, largely based on the potential of Crosby and Harden. As Harden has gone from potential superstar to Mark Prior v. 2.0 and Crosby has gone from a future cog in the A's plans to a guy that may lose his starting spot to the likes of Donnie Murphy or Gregorio Petit, the A's were forced to rebuild.
Ask yourself this question: if Harden had stayed healthy, Crosby had performed consistent with his minor league numbers, and Chavez had maintained his 2004 production, would the A's have been rebuilding this offseason? I think not.
Sheehan's prediction of 98 losses is silly in my opinion, as well as some of the other things pointed out by others. However, he is right on that the last couple of years, even the 2006 season, did not turn out quite like we all hoped they would.
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 4, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Hsrden has failed
Or Mark Prior also has not failed. Kerry Wood has not failed. Carl Pavano has not failed. And so on.
Wood is back and pitching, and if he can become a
effective closer, then he has not failed. Prior was throwing in the 80's, Harden still has his velocity, and as of yet not had surgery.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
aaron cunningham
"It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that he’s the best outfielder in the organization right now."
26. Carlos Gonzalez, of, Athletics
BP doesn't even have cunningham in the top 100.
The preceding sentence
was all about his offense, didn't mention defense at all.
Yeah
I read Sheehan's comments about Cunningham as meaning that Sheehan is really high on Cunningham. Cunningham's stats are pretty fantastic, even if he's a bit under the radar as a prospect at the moment.
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 4, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
This is Joe Sheehan
It's best to assume the opposite of his what he writes.
Since when is bringing Milton Bradley on to your
team "low investment"? The Rangers don't have the veteran presence, or a Swisher like presence, unless Milton really liked Wash. Well the race card won't be used, but what are the odds of an "Uncle Tom" dropping
Winter grade: B. The Volquez-for-Hamilton trade was a good upside play for a team that had no good center-field option. Jennings and Bradley are nice low-investment free-agent plays, as is bringing in Fukumori, the veteran Japanese reliever. One good winter isn’t going to be enough for this team, however.
4
Breakthroughs! Discoveries! Research grants! Scientists are all atwitter after giving a mouse a cold.
Apparently, the decline of Bernie Williams cannot be ascribed to age or injury. That would be simplistic. No, it was something far more subtle and insidious, something neither wizened scouts nor PECOTA could ever discern: the allure of classical guitar.
While retracing Bernie Williams’s unfriendly departure from the Yankees, Cashman said Williams had become more involved in his music "and that took away from his play" and that Williams had a "terrible season" in 2005. Cashman added Joe Torre had played Williams "ahead of guys who could help us win" in 2006, a reference to Melky Cabrera.
Elephant seals + Lincoln Navigators = Problematic.
Big bull seals, alpha males with distinct, long elephantine noses, battle for the right to dominate large harems. Quarrels over where one harem ends and another begins break out with regularity, sometimes resulting in bloody fights. Females, meanwhile, squabble over prime beach space while slick black newborn pups screech for attention.
Life is exhausting when your ears are longer than your legs.
Catfish Stew: How to defeat a Sabermetrician
The pen is mightier than the spork
you're just trying to inject politics, aren't you
Garofalo? That Hollywood ComSymp?
"Stand thee behind me, Satan! Stand thee...
behind me!"
that's gotta be either a misplaced reply ...
... or a really oblique reference to the A's signing Bonds to bat behind Chavez and thereby rejuvenate Chavvy's career.
Yep. Shoulda been below under the Devil Ray post
street
New Black Alternate hat
http://cgi.ebay.com/Oakland-As-08-59...
The above is the new one.
http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.js...
This last one is of course the old one.
I like the old one better. Of course I have about 6 of it (including the older wool style and the newer breathable one) and don't really want to get new ones.
by Athletics fan and runner on Feb 4, 2008 3:49 PM PST reply actions
E-mail sent to Marty Lurie
asking him to ask Korach about the black unis on his show this week. I want Ken to rant.
That new one looks like a BART bridge special
Why do you think it is on Ebay, before it is on
the A's site.
by theblackpearl on Feb 4, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
Time machines.
If you don't believe me, well, just look. You can buy your own time machine on eBay. Starting bid is just $16.99
I am going to miss the bart bride specials
I ran in a bart bridge special beanie this morning. Now that I am out of the area it may be awhile before I get one.
Maybe they are trying to capitalize on the hip bart bridge trend and bring it to the mainstream.
by Athletics fan and runner on Feb 4, 2008 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
Hey, this is the A's. Have anything to trade?
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
Mail-order is so pass-ay.
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 7:04 PM PST up reply actions
Athletics History: Dismantling Dynasties
http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=...
Finley stunned the baseball world on April 2,1976 by trading All Star outfielder Reggie Jackson, starting pitcher Ken Holtzman and minor league pitcher Bill Van Bommel to the Baltimore Orioles in exchange for pitcher Mike Torrez, outfielder Don Baylor and rookie pitcher Paul Mitchell. On June 15, 1976, Finley tried to sell Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers to the Boston Red Sox for $2 million dollars and Vida Blue to the New York Yankees for $1.5 million, but was blocked by then-Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, who voided the deals in the "best interests of baseball." At the end of the 1976 season, most of the A's veteran core players – Baylor, Rudi, Campaneris, Bando, Fingers, Tenace and Willie McCovey – filed for free agency and left the A's.
The collapse of the A's was total and swift. In 1977, the A's finished dead last, after the expansion Seattle Mariners ball club. Once again, one of baseball's most successful franchises suffered a total dismantling. The reasons varied on why the A's owners chose to break up their championship clubs, but the common denominator was cash. In reality, baseball is a business, and both Connie Mack and Charlie Finley were businessmen. They did what they felt was the right thing to do in order to survive in a competitive environment. But as an A's fan, those were very sad times indeed.
A spot of good news
From our friends at Baseball musings using the A's 2008 Marcels projections:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archi...
A's figure to score 5-5.3 runs per game based on their starting 9 projections. That's essentially the same as LAA, and better than the Mariners. Texas looks a little better than us right now on offense, so it could be an exciting battle for the bottom three slots in the AL West.
General shock!
Out of the blue, Bobby Knight resigns from Texas Tech, efffective immediately. Son Pat will take over as head coach.
"I guess you can never be surprised at some of the things Bob does," former UCLA coach John Wooden told the AP. "I don't think there's ever been a better teacher of the game of basketball than Bob. I don't always approve of his methods, but his players for the most part are very loyal to him. I would say that no player that ever played for him would not say he did not come out a stronger person."
In September, Knight signed a three-year contract extension that runs through the 2011-12 season.
"I didn't know, I've never really known when I was going to step down from this job. As I thought about it, my first thought was at the end of this season," Knight told the Lubbock paper. "My thinking was .. the best thing for the long run for this team would be for Pat and his staff to coach these remaining 10 games."
Knight told the Lubbock paper that a talk with legendary college coach Pete Newell on Sunday helped him make up his mind.
forget yesterday; forget tomorrow
You and I know that the real super showdown is Wednesday night.
Absolutely
Sadly, Carolina super point guard Ty Lawson is doubtful, with a bad ankle sprain suffered early in Sunday's game. It does open the door for Oakland Tech's Quentin Thomas, who will log his most minutes ever as a Tar Heel. Still, though, no Lawson means tough times for the Carolina transition offense.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
was he seen hobbling around in a boot
with a big bouquet of flowers for his girlfriend?
You better watch out.
i knew FSU was an UNCle
You too monkeyball?
by rubin sierra on Feb 4, 2008 11:01 PM PST up reply actions
No, he's with the forces of evil
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
FSU is correct
I am a proud Duke fan -- back to the pre-Coach K days of Gminski, Banks, and Spanarkel.
I would accuse you
of having made up all of those names, except that Gminski actually rings a bell. And if you're going to make up names, Banks is kind of beneath you creatively. Still, sounds like a hell of a law firm.
by rubin sierra on Feb 5, 2008 12:27 AM PST up reply actions
I'm back from McKeon Pavilion
where tonight's Gonzaga-Saint Mary's game lived up to all expectations.
Man oh man!
That was very entertaining! I thought the Gaels were in trouble heading to OT, the way Pargo was going at the end, but they held tough. Mills was awesome.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 4, 2008 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
Gaels are a fun team to watch
They have some guys who can shoot the ball (see Todd Golden's performance tonight). They should be a tournament team this year even without a WCC tournament victory and they have the core of Simpson, Samhan and the spectacular Patty Mills back next year. I assume Randy Bennett will show up on the radar soon as a candidate for a job with a big-time program...possibly the one just over the hill at my alma mater in Berkeley?
Apart from the expectation
that the officials would be semi-competent...
And I say this as someone with a pathological loathing of Gonzaga.
would that make you a "Gonzagonist"?
(I understand a late former president also shared your enmity. Garry Wills wrote a book about it.)
I guess so
Why would a former president hate Gonzaga?
I know exactly why I do...
a few days late...
.700 obp = clogging the bases
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...
"On-base percentage is the highest thing on the list," manager Tony La Russa said at the team’s annual Winter Warm-Up. "If you’ve proven that you can get on base, that will give you the best chance to lead off. It doesn’t mean it’s the only thing. Say [Molina] has an on-base percentage of .700 in Spring Training. I don’t think I’m going to lead him off because he clogs those bases a little bit. But I’m going to wait, let guys play."
keith law still hates the a's
a's farm system ranked below the giants??
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...
- Tampa Bay
- Texas
- Boston
- Cincinnati
- NY Yankees
- LA Dodgers
- Chicago Cubs
- Atlanta
- San Francisco
- Oakland
He appears to be laboring under the delusion
that Gio Gonzalez has a mid-80s fastball. Among other things.
I think we should pause, this being Black History
... Month, to acknowledge an important milestone in our A's Nation's history: this is now a 201-post diary, hosted by a great AfricAN-AmericAN mAN, ANd which contains nary a mention of Dr. King, at least 'til now.
We shall over-comment.
Of course they give us the shortest month of the
year.
by theblackpearl on Feb 6, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
It's like the Susan B. Anthony dollar of months
or the sal of months
Ok, ok--so you can have an extra day this year.
Sheesh.
by The Dogfather on Feb 6, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- 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)
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
