DLD 2/5/08: Super Tuesday AND Mardi Gras!
by gigglingone on Feb 5, 2008 8:36 AM PST
Email
PrintDo you live in one of these states? If so, get out and vote!!
And regardless of where you live, you can celebrate Mardi Gras! Wahoo!!
Oh, there's baseball news today too....Clemens is giving private testimony, Granderson gets a five-year deal, and yahoo threw this picture onto their main sports page to try to help boston fans forget about the Super Bowl....
163 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ewwwww
Clearly whoever chose the last option needs some enticing.....can I offer you a cupcake?
Urging people to vote is a political act
The radical rebuttal would be that voting placates the masses with the false delusion that they have some control over their government, thus helping prevent uprising and securing a docile work force for the production and consumption of Stuff. Don't ask for whom the shrill whine of the CGV whistle blows, gigglingone; it blows for thee!
(Kidding! I voted! And got yelled at by my curmudgeonly pollworker for feeding my ballot into the box the wrong way.)
Did the curmudgeonly pollworker
still give you your, "I suppressed the natural, revolutionary inclinations of the proletariat through bourgeois accommodationism!" sticker?
if I ever decide to borrow a line for my sig
this would be it
Everything is a political act
[/soapbox]
I agree 100%
Which is why I try not to pull too hard at the loose threads when political CGVs are discussed...the worst case logical extension would be a ban on ALL non-baseball discussion, which would be a grievous loss for AN's vibe.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
agreed
and in case anyone cares, this just might be my very first comment on a DLD
break out the champagne...
(or as Edward Norton once uttered "cham-pain for my real friends and real pain for my cham-friends")
CGV me baby
I didn't say you had to actually vote for anyone on election day, just that you have to submit a ballot. Anyone against the electoral process could always turn in a blank ballot. :)
but if you turn in a ballot *at all* ...
... you're still just playin' The Man's game, maaaaaaaaaan.
not necessarily
you can mail in pages from last month's Sports Illustrated in the ballot envelope.
I'm not sure which option to choose.
I filled out my absentee ballot, so "I already voted"... but I'll be dropping it off in the Elections Office (which is smack dab in the middle of my route from work to home) later. So I guess I haven't really voted yet.
Know what the best thing about today is? No more of those stupid commercials for the Community College proposition. ("Yeah, I went to Community College... but I have to get back to work." Horrible ad campaign... those people sound like they're ashamed of their education, AND hate their jobs...)
another permanent-absentee here
You, me, Nico -- who else?
(Obligatory snerk: "I went to community college.")
I'm a PAV
I voted a week ago....
And I'm just so dang excited to not have to watch the five billion ads for and against the casinos. Is it Wednesday yet? Is it Wednesday yet? Is it Wednesday yet? ;)
I won't be missing those either
or that Obama ad that was in the sidebar. It kept reminding me of this guy:
Have we already defined that one?
i don't like those ads with the kids
here in alameda county. mostly i just don't like kids.
Voter Kitteh goes to polling place on his...
It looked to me like the tail was stuck ...
... in that pink basket.
No more for me, Dock, thanks.
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
the battle for last place in the al west
http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/05/the...
The first season the M’s went 70-92 to finish 21 games behind the Angels and last in the AL West. They scored 733 runs and gave up 802.
I did some more work. Threw Horacio Ramirez off the team (as the team will likely do at some point), cleaned up some of the roles, brought Reed up to play a decent 4th OF and defensive replacement...
81-81, 3rd, 9 games back of the Angels, 750/804
69-93, last, 681-783
77-85, third, 717-809
72-90, last, 668-764
69-93, third, 690-810
64-98, last, 733-842
70-92, third, 754-763... and on and on. Again, this is with the M’s as the only team in baseball with a roster set up with reasonable roles and a rational bullpen. When I do this normally, teams with that advantage play way, way over their heads. At least as ZiPS is concerned, this is not a good team.
Love the Little Pony tea party
and there is a nice picture of a goat, in case anybody on this blog has an interest in such things.
I found this
http://www.replacementlevel.com/inde...
He does season simulations every year. Looks like the A's are poised for last place, a 72-89 finish.
The A's, in fact, will be so bad
that they will simply forego the final game of the season.
by BWH on Feb 5, 2008 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
this is, um, music- and drug-related
I fear FSU is going to cast his vote for Dock Ellis, or perhaps GLAUGHSHEEEENNNGGGZZZzzzmmmmnnnyeeeeeeeeeeeei or that little gnome in the corner with the pointed hat or the pulsating prism, if he votes at all.
You diss Klosterman and then link me
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Guilty as charged.
Good show last night. There was a taped thanks from the benefitee in question that said something along the lines of "and this is what my campaign is all about, inspiring young people to get together to work for change." Um, yeah. Young people.
inspiring young people to work for change
Isn't that Beane's current approach to the A's roster?
Me too
Well, except for the absentee voting and 401k supremacy parts. But I am still On The Bus. It pleased me when I heard they were doing that gig, since in my earlier life as a wild-eyed activist it used to bother me that the boys didn't get out more front and center on issues like Central America and nuke disarmament.
Vaguely related: I'm now about half through the Jann Wenner oral history of Hunter Thompson, which is facinating. The 1972 campaign is just starting.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
Sounds interesting.
HST's political writing from the '70s is stunningly incisive. As much as I like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc., it's kind of a shame that he's more remembered as a drug-addled clown (and that in his later years he lived down to that reputation) rather than as the journalist who seemed to know exactly what was going on in the Nixon White House a couple of years before the mainstream press bothered to report on it.
consistency/sense aside ...
... Sullivan can write rings around Klosterman in his sleep, with one hand tied behind his back.
Travis Buck, best RF over the next 5 years?
There are so many talented young right fielders that I fear getting lost in all of them. Remember, though, we're looking for the best right fielders over the entire next five seasons (which I mention with apologies to Magglio Ordonez's many fans). In the table below, the listed ages are seasonal 2008 and the next three columns are all from 2007 (and the last column, I'll get to in a moment):PLAYER AGE OBP SLG OPS+ '08 WARP
1. Travis Buck 24 .377 .474 130 4.5
2. Brad Hawpe 29 .387 .539 129 3.0
3. Nick Swisher 27 .381 .455 127 6.0
4. Corey Hart 26 .353 .539 126 5.9
5. Matt Kemp 23 .373 .521 125 4.6
6. Jeremy Hermida 24 .369 .501 125 4.6
7. Alexis Rios 27 .354 .498 122 5.3
8. Nick Markakis 24 .362 .485 121 5.8
9. Lastings Milledge 23 .341 .446 105 3.7
10. Jeff Francoeur 24 .338 .444 103 3.6
11. Franklin Gutierrez 25 .318 .472 103 3.3
12. Andre Ethier 26 .350 .452 103 3.3
13. Delmon Young 22 .316 .408 91 4.7
14. Carlos Quentin 25 .298 .349 63 2.9
Buck came in 4th
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 5, 2008 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
If true,
Unfortunately, I don't think it's true. Even SABR-nerds underrate Swisher. Apparently the only one who doesn't is Kenny Williams.
Best links from today's Deadspin:
But that's not even close to the harshest news of the day. That honor goes to this story, where Nevada HS football player Kevin Hart finished weighing college scholarship offers and decide he'd accept one from Cal. Called a press conference about it and everything. Only it appears as though Cal didn't really offer him anything...someone had been impersonating Jeff Tedford and stringing the poor kid along. And his competing offer from Oregon? Turns out that was a hoax too. This seems a little too polished, so I'm going to retain a bit of skepticism for now, but if it's real that's a seriously cruel trick.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 10:59 AM PST reply actions
< invites grover to write for BPro >
Make sure you vote today!
Voting is the single most important thing you can do as an American citizen--and it only takes 10 minutes.
If you live in a Super Tuesday state and you don't vote today you have no right to complain about your party's (or someone else's party's) nominee.
Just remember there is always a large difference between nominee's, no matter how much they might try to homogenize themselves to appeal to voters or their opponents voting block.
This is one of the few times the power comes out of Washington DC and back in to the hands of the intelligent people at AN. This is one of the few times that the pen (or touch screen) is actually more powerful then the sword.
Where is the "Not allowed to vote" option ?
I could have sworn that at some point in this country's history taxation without representation was frowned upon.
If anyone wants me I'll be tossing tea into the Bay today.
by green star oakland on Feb 5, 2008 11:12 AM PST reply actions
Imported, I hope
I'm certainly not going to waste
any fine native Californian crops by throwing them into the Bay.
by green star oakland on Feb 5, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
If Al Gore is right
we should get ourselves ready for a massive tea time in about 10 years.
Keith law has his top 100 prospect list on ESP
here are his top 5 A's
Oakland
- Daric Barton, 1b
- Carlos Gonzalez, cf
- Fautino de los Santos, rhp
- Trevor Cahill, rhp
- Gio Gonzalez, lhp
Barton and Gonzalez were between 26-50, FDLS was in the 70's i think, Chaill the 90's and GG didn't make the top 100.
Worst-run primary ever.
I mailed two registrations (one for the wife) before the deadline, received one sample ballot in the mail, which said I was supposed to vote at Coco's Restaurant, which decided yesterday they didn't want to be a polling place after all, the Beth Am Temple that is the new polling place has a gated parking lot and no other parking for miles exists, turns out I'm not even on their list, have to fill out a provisional ballot that won't get counted til next Friday...My experience suggests that we have something like a poll tax that makes it very hard for even determined people like me to vote. Especially if you live in a poorer neighborhood like I do. Democracy is dead anyway. Guess I'll go buy some stuff. Wait, I'm broke. At least Spring Training is around the corner. But Haren's gone...AAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I volunteered as a poll monitor
for a project called Election Protection, in 2004's general election. I logged a complaint from a woman whose family (along with most of her neighbors, in a "poorer neighborhood") had been directed to the wrong polling place by an official-looking letter that claimed to be from the local Elections Office, addressed to "All Registered Voters at [address]," stating that they didn't have to go to their assigned polling place -- if it was more convenient for them to vote near where they worked on Election Day, they could do so. THAT IS NOT TRUE; it was a fraudulent letter intended to misdirect a particular demographic (and it was successful... she was too late to be able to make it back to the right place, and didn't get to vote).
So be aware: Legitimate correspondence from your Board of Elections will be addressed to you directly, by name.
as will recruitment letters from Berkeley
"Recruited by Berkeley" = dry hump?
Mmmm, I don't think so
I'd lean toward "Hit on while drunk at bar by transsexual."
LOL
Much better.
L - O - L - A, Lola
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
and, of course, a "standing o" ...
... is what you might get in the alley behind the bar when you're "recruited by Berkeley."
LOL
Much better.
SO much better, I had to say it twice.
Caveat electors latinos!
This asshole sent a fraudlent letter to Latino voters trying to scare them away from voting against him: Tan Nguyen .
Considering how corrupt the current system is,
it would be much simpler and easier (and less hypocritical) if we simply had people buy votes. $1 a vote, say? At least that way the government would get the money instead of it all going into re-election campaign chests.
It's the Tuesday
after Super Sunday, which is determined by a complicated calculation.
Seven young pitchers who could be injury risks
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...
- Chad Gaudin, Athletics, 24 (+36)
Gaudin has handle-with-care written all over him, because he's just 5-foot-11, 165 pounds but whips his fastball in the low to mid-90s. (I can vouch for it, having popped up against him in my week with the Blue Jays in 2005 spring training.) But the A's pushed him in September, when he made six starts (only one on extra rest) and was 1-4 with a 6.46 ERA. Now you can officially mark him down as the first YAE victim of the class of '07: He underwent surgery in December on his left hip and right foot.
The manner in which Gaudin
was handled last season by the A's training staff was utterly inexcusable. You do not, ever, let a young pitcher who's already thrown a lot of innings "pitch through" pain. ESPECIALLY when there's a perfectly viable candidate to take his place (Dan Meyer) sitting around twiddling his thumbs while he runs out of options.
In an otherwise relatively well-run organization, the sheer breathtaking incompetence of a major area of the company is mind-boggling.
I can't remember from Gaudin's/Geren's comments..
Did Chad admit to having pain during the season?
I mean did he ADMIT it during the season
Larry Davis shoulda waterboarded him
That'll make him admit he's in pain.
Now that Larry D's been promoted
I wonder if his new duties include providing medical care to ownership.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
no, wolff does not dress that nice
while I agree with your conclusion/position ...
... I'm curious as to how you have acquired more information regarding Chad Gaudin's biometrics, his overall health, his communications with his personal trainer/physician, his communications with the A's training staff, and the A's internal front office/training staff discussions than you have about the publicly revealed parameters of the A's finances.
You fail to understand
That deliberate ignorance is an ephemeral vice . . .
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 5, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
All along...
It should have been almost irrelevant what Gaudin was or was not letting on about his pain level last season. The thing is, sometimes pro athletes lie about injuries! There's millions of dollars and their livlihood at stake. Also, they're kinda competitive, by nature...so they'd rather not just stop unless you make them.
I wrote a diary last summer advocating shutting him down in August, regardless of whether or not he was admitting to pain at that point. His performance was clearly suffering, his innings were way higher than the season before, and we were far out of contention.
The response here was basically, "Jacob, you're an idiot."
Clearly, he should have been shut down in August. It's not a responsible approach or defense to say, "Hey, Chad didn't tell the team he was hurting." Sometimes you have to protect 24-year-olds from their own stupidity.
by notsellingjeans on Feb 5, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
I was one of the few who agreed with you then
I still agree with you. Gaudin should not have been allowed to exceed 175 innings last year, and the fact that as far as I can tell the A's knew Gaudin was hurting but still allowed him to pitch is as PT said, "utterly inexcusable." I really hope that the superficial changes made in the medical staffing is indicative of a committment by the A's to get serious about injury prevention and non-drug performance enhancement.
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 5, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
But nsj was calling for a shut-down at 113 IP
and I think the response overall was more along the lines of "interesting idea, but its not going to happen (and certainly not before 150-160 IP)".
by green star oakland on Feb 5, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
There were also, IIRC
A lot of comments along the lines of, "Gaudin needs to learn to push through tiredness" and "he won't learn to pitch 200 innings if we don't allow him to get 200 innings in 2007." Those comments were wrong. It is stupid to allow a pitcher to greatly exceed his previous year's innings pitched without some real damned good reason to do so. The A's, who were competing for nothing in the second half of 2007, decided to jeopardize Gaudin's career just for the hell of it. It didn't make Gaudin "tougher," it didn't make Gaudin "grittier," it just helped him to the operating table.
Go back and read the comments, and you'll see that the overall response to nsj's diary was "let him pitch." It was dumb then, and it is even dumber in hindsight.
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 5, 2008 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
So..
Any Starting Pitcher who is younger than 25 years old, not in a pennant race, and having zero issues w/ his upper body... should automatically be shut down after pitching how many Innings? 100? 125? 150? 175?
I'm almost certain Gaudin's pitch count never exceeded 110 pitches in any start (and if it did, it happened once or twice)... partly because he was building up endurance druing the 1st Half, and partly because he sucked during the 2nd Half... But mostly because the A's are really, really good about not letting a pitcher go beyond a certain amount of pitches/game, pitches/2-Games, pitches/3-games, etc.
There's something to be said about building up arm/shoulder/upper-body strength & conditioning. And, I think I'll take the Oakland A's Approach vs. Bloggers Approach when it comes to starting pitching philosophy and conditioning... see: Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Blanton.
I can't think of any quality young pitchers that the A's have pushed too hard. Harden doesn't count.
What happens if the A's were contenders in 2008 (as was thought during the season), and we needed Gaudin to start a playoff game... but he was gassed because he exceeded his highest IP total by 50+ innings??? How would he react???
Does anyone have Total Pitches Throw for Chad Gaudin during the 2007 Season?
To each his own
by BlameChannel53 on Feb 5, 2008 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Pitch Counts
Do we know how many pitches it took Chad Gaudin to warm up in the bullpen + pitches thrown in games during 2006? I'd be surprised if the A's didn't know that exact number (within 10).
This will Gaudin's 4th season in the MLB. When do you take off the training wheels?
Just to Expand
2003: 139 IP - 17 Starts/17 Appearances
2004: 90 IP - 11 Starts/43 Appearances
2005: 163 IP - 28 Starts/26 Appearances
2006: 88 IP - 4 Starts/59 Appearances
2007: 199 IP - 34 Starts/34 Appearances
In the years Gaudin was primarily a "Starter", the IP went 119, 139, 163, 199. It looks like a natural progression as a 'full-time gig' in the Starting Rotation.
6 years as a Pro Baseball Player. 4th year in the Bigs. Why should any player (w/o an upper body injury) be rested in that situation? To give Dan Meyer starts?
by Colorado Fan on Feb 5, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
So basically, according to Verducci. Gaudin
should have had his YAE in 2005 when he went from 90 to 163. He didn't have any injuries then so it is irrelevant.
by theblackpearl on Feb 6, 2008 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Look again
139 to 163 is only 24 innings.
There was an intervening "bullpen" year, but 163 was not a major change in his career high.
This is the first time it jumped 30 or more
And, not to put too fine a point on it, yes-- giving Dan Meyer starts is exactly why he should have been pulled.
Meyer is out of options. The sooner they figure out if he's a long-term piece worth keeping or not, the better.
Dan Meyer
So, Rest a "healthy" Chad Gaudin, and Push Dan Meyer after having career threatening surgery 9 months prior? OK.
by Colorado Fan on Feb 6, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Meyer has had 2 160-inning seasons
He also had ample rest prior to the final 10-odd games of the season.
"Has Had" Being the Key Words
2003: 160 IP
2004: 128 IP
2005: 89 IP (Pitched while Injured - Rehab)
2006: 49 IP (Shut it down - Surgery)
2007: 135 IP
You can't honestly tell me Dan Meyer should have been pushed, and Chad Gaudin shouldn't have been pushed. It doesn't make sense.
Now, if you want to argue that Shane Komine should have been brought up to take Gaudin's starts, I'd be ok with that.
by Colorado Fan on Feb 6, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
Sure it does
Meyer was not hitting a personal innings high. He is in fact older than Gaudin, and thus somewhat less likely to be injured anyway. He was perfectly healthy at the time, and certainly hadn't worked a large number of innings over the prior month or so.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the loss of Meyer to an injury at this point would not be as big a loss as the loss of Gaudin. In the case of Meyer, the evaluative value of having him pitch was greater than the risk of an injury from overuse (largely since, as I pointed out, he wasn't overused). In the case of Gaudin, it wasn't.
Komine really was injured at the end of last season, so he was a non-factor.
This stuff gets written about
Believe it or not, the local papers have "columns" in which they discuss things like the injury status of players, and who knew what when, and things like that. Also, we can watch them play. The fact that multiple people, including NSJ and yours truly, wrote columns suggesting Gaudin was tired or hurt and needed to be shut down early suggests that the signs were not exactly mysterious.
They do not have columns in which they dissect and analyze the financial data of teams... because the information isn't available. (At least most of it isn't. The stuff that is, like MLB payroll and estimated gate receipts, does get discussed.)
Let me reemphasize-- I don't have a problem with informed guesswork. I do have a problem with unfounded speculation.
<rolls eyes>
"They do not have columns in which they dissect and analyze the financial data of teams"
Really, Gracie? With about two minutes of recollection of previous cites, and Google-driven URL reminders, here are a few of the hundreds of sources:
http://www.forbes.com/
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/
http://newballpark.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseba...
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/
http://thesportseconomist.com/
http://www.sabernomics.com/
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/
A tip of the iceberg of available resources. The A's pretty much disclose about the same amount of info on their finances as they do on their injuries: very little, and often deliberately misleading. Doesn't mean you can't form an opinion from other sources. This business of "only relying on official releases of info" is absurd on pretty much every subject in the world, be it high finance, toxic pollution, national security, or baseball economics. Thems that have, have incentive to hide info...almost always.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
You're exactly right
I only ever rely on official sources of info. That's why I refuse to read online news articles about baseball, cover my eyes when trade rumor threads appear on this site, and would never be caught dead trying to, for instance, calculate team payrolls.
Oh. Wait a minute, that's utterly false. I don't do any of those things.
Look, if you have a source that says that the A's ownership is pocketing the change from this season-- be it official or unofficial, I don't care if it's a rumor from the fricking groundskeeper-- I will look at it. I have yet to see you post a single actual piece of factual backing for your continued assertions that the money is going straight into the Wolff Fund for the Lost and Red-Sweatshirt-Clad.
Ahhhh, I see
Your shit smells like "informed guesswork." Is that by Lancome?
And on that note
I'm still waiting for an answer on your "informed guess" about where the A's 06+07 profits of $31 million went, since we know it wasn't team expenses or stadium financing. You're utterly certain (somehow, lacking columns) that they reinvested these profits in the franchise, yet I await a single credible example of where those profits went.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
Shit.
{scrambles for Swiss bank account}
let me see if I understand your informed guess
The A's bought $31M worth of fecal matter, and transferred it to your Swiss bank account?
Sounds like the sort of deal
that would require a middleman keenly attuned to fecal matter.
See Norman Mushari, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater.
"In every big transaction there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic second, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an in feriority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half the bundle, and still receive the recipient's blubbering thanks."
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
"surrendered a treasure"
What's the exchange rate on fecal matter?
by BWH on Feb 5, 2008 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
That's approximately how much it takes
to fill a football field up 6.3 feet deep, including the end zones.
I don't know what rhetorical peyote
enables you to turn my "we have no frigging idea what they're doing with the extra dollars" into "I am utterly certain that this money is being reinvested into the franchise," but whatever it is, I need to get me some of it. It's much easier to argue when you can invent your opponent's positions.
< snerk >
Of course, the lesser irony is my adoption of the Andeux Gambit to discredit uninformed health/injury speculation.
It's some mighty good shit
And you apparently already have plenty. Regarding your utter certainty on A's profit reinvestment:
"I certainly do have an opinion on whether they OUGHT to [pull profits out] 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."
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
Notify the authorities
"Guess" is now the same thing as "utter certainty."
Yeah, well, Utter Certainty Jeans
doesn't quite have the same sizzle.
Add the derision with which you (and others) have greeted the very suggestion that the A's owners would consider pocketing profits, and I think certainty is a fair characterization of your writings on the subject.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
My derision
has been provoked by people who have made categorical statements about the ultimate destination of the money that is now not being paid out in salaries. I don't think there's any basis for making any kind of statement on that issue.
Look, everyone is aware that the team is going to have more cash on hand next year than it did this year. That's pretty much an inevitable (and desirable, inasmuch as it allows the financial freedom to sign free agents in areas of need) consequence of rebuilding. It's also good for the ownership, for the fairly obvious reason that "Team plus $5 million in team bank account" is now worth "Value of Team plus $5 million for money in bank account." It's a very banal observation.
The only way the team accumulating money becomes a bad thing is if the money isn't eventually spent on something that will help the team on the field, and right now I don't see any way to divine where a group of dollars will eventually be spent (interpreting "spent" in a broad sense, so that dividends to ownership would also count as "spending"), particularly given that the point at which they are spent could be years down the road.
In other words, if you are NOT saying "this money is going to vanish into the Red Riding Hood Academy," then I don't understand what your point is-- and if you are saying that, I don't understand what your factual basis for the statement is.
Okay, I'll start. Let's concentrate on '07,
... wherein Forbes reports Operating Income of $14.6 million. (which, incidentally, ranked 20th out of 30 teams; value of $292M is 24th). They also reported a debt/value ratio of 0.31 .
So, let's start with what Operating Income means: it is the excess of revenues over expenses, before interest and taxes. So, let's take interest first -- if the Debt/Value ratio is .31, that means the A's have just over $90 million in debt, which needs servicing. Let's assume a prime interest rate: a year ago it was 8.25% and this week it's 6.00, so I'm going with 7.5% YMMV. Debt service would then take $6.75M, so we're down to $7.85M.
Not bad, but our rich Unca still has to pay income taxes, before carpetbagging the remainder. Let's assume a federal corporate rate of 32% and CA rate of 8%, in part because it sums to a conservative round number. 40% of $7.85M is $3.14M (and a significant slice of the pi), so the number that represents the actual filthy lucre becomes all of $4.71M, on total revenues of $146M.
It's also about half what we paid Chavez. Some probably went to the owners; as you say, that seems fair. It's also true that the team appreciated, but you can't eat that -- you may be able to borrow against it, but it's not realized until you sell out.
Finally, a year is a somewhat arbitrary block of time, when the business actually continues to flow , instead of stop and start. What we see here is that the A's are doing a little better (3%) than break-even on an ongoing basis.
Now, I would also add that our rich Unca is a 70-something guy, who, instead of cashing his chips, is risking them on the new stadium project. How many of us would be tempted, under the circs, to cash 'em in go play golf?
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
you have photographic evidence of my inclination
Monkeyball in his dotage:
Funny, though -- I always figured you for a rodeo kinda guy: 
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Debt service not so clean
As I recall, some of it was financed by Schottffmann as part of the purchase deal, and MLB also exempts some debt from revenue sharing calculation. And if Lew's paying actual straight fed-state tax rates on his dough then I may have greatly overestimated his shrewdness.
But now (and Paul will be relieved to hear this) we've reached the point of fiscal speculation I feel ill-equipped to dissect. I'm sure you're correct that the $31m doesn't flow straight as unencumbered takings; I am glad that you're conceding that the owners might actually be "profiting" some too.
On the last--Lew's not risking much if anything on the stadium deal which promises to appreciate his fat asset manyfold, and (as best we can tell) relies on land acquistion paid by entitlement value and capital floated by developers and their backers, not by Oakland Athletics Baseball Club LLC.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
My point is that your $14.6 million in ...
... 2007 is a badly exaggerated number, especially when your implication seems to be that it's in a big tub over by the Collie, mysteriously hidden from our view. And Lew bathes in it. Smacks of tabloid fandalism. $5M is a much closer, if dramatically less incendiary number.
And let's be clear -- it's never been my position that Owners shouldn't prosper, or that they haven't. But the real pay-off is down the road, when they do sell out and realize that appreciation -- a significant part of which will relate to their efforts around the new digs.
Finally, it's easy to call OPM(*) a sure thing. But the woods are full of belly-up former real estate moguls.
(*) Other People's Money
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
I've implied no such thing
I've noted on many occasions that the A's enjoyed operating profits per Forbes. Never once have I suggested what Wolffish do with it, at all, except that I believe it's not being 100% reinvested in the franchise. You have this habit of saying, in effect, "people who write stridently like you often believe Cartoonish Opinion X; I will therefore ascribe COX to you." If it don't fit, you must not talk shit.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
Oh give me a break.
When you consistently inflate actual, available income numbers by a factor of roughly three to make them seem more significant (which they might be, if only they were real), to say nothing of BART station costs by a factor of more than ten, you can't then claim you were neutrally "just sayin'." If your goal was mere reportage and neutral curious speculation, you'd have been a lot more accurate with your oft-repeated original numbers -- waaay closer to $5M/year than $15.5M (and $80M vs. "almost a $billion").
Further, let's look at this juxtaposition. Here's you above: "Never once have I suggested what Wolffish do with it, at all, except that I believe it's not being 100% reinvested in the franchise."
And here's you way back last yesterday: "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."
"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 above and in the other thread, there's a big difference between phrases like "not 100% reinvested" and "taking much of that profit out of the franchise." Or the other thread's phrases about Lew's plan: "never meant to succeed at all" vs. "[not] designed to give a new Oakland park its best chance of success."
Basically, I agree with you that you often write stridently; we differ in that I also believe that you can't then disavow the strident meaning conveyed via that language. Here's another image for you -- if we were in Texas, they'd call what you do "crawfishin'," 'cuz he moves forward until he's gone too far, then he propels himself backwards.
Hard to pin down, them crawfish are.
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
I give no break, but maybe no more
I don't constantly inflate income numbers. I've quoted the same Forbes operating profits figures for years. Please show me where I've ever exaggerated that figure.
You came in today with some ideas suggesting how the portion of that which is pocketable is lower. I answered that I'm sure you're correct the figure is reduced somewhat (though I don't grant your 67% estimate). Again, where exaggerated or inflated?
On BART: I dropped it because that thread played out, but my quick "nearly a billion" was shorthand for the estimate for track extension near Warm Springs, which may run $750m plus. Your $80m is for a station already planned with all the hookups built, as it were. I'd guess that interrupting the elevated tracks near 66th and building a new station would cost somewhere in between; I dunno, maybe $300m. I'm not avoiding a discussion or being dishonest with numbers...it's just old news in a played out thread, which itself rehashed an old discussion from years ago.
Re Wolff's 66th Ave plan. It was a bald-faced sham meant to fail from day one, a con job, a grotesque charade, and only willfully blind suckers still believe Lew actually at that moment intended to build a park in Oakland. I apologize for ever making you think I thought it was less than a total fucking scam.
Not 100% reinvested and taking much profit out of the franchise, regarding the operating income, mean functionally the exact same thing. Only the proportion is in question; I freely admit I don't know that answer, and I guess "most," but some amount is profiting Wolffish directly and specifically. This has relevance to everyone who's ever suggested that the poor A's can't make money in Oakland, compete on payroll, must raise ticket prices, etc etc etc.
If you have trouble pinning down my positions, that's on you not me, and I don't plan on sticking to your simplistic idea of what the script's supposed to be. And I can conjure a few colorful Texas aphorisms for folks who root for the wealthy to get wealthier at no benefit to themselves, but decorum intervenes, and instead recommends I stop this dialogue.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
However, kudos for
the mental image of Lew bathing in a tub of money. Nice flourish. Though I might've chosen the timeless "lighting cigars with C-notes" image.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 6:03 PM PST up reply actions
on-field performance
With respect to Gaudin's overall health, we saw a decline in his performance on the field. Attributing the decline in performance of a young pitcher to health-related issues is fairly common (I think), despite a lack of public acknowledgement from the team. I can't think of a similar flag for the owners' profit-taking though; we'd have to keep track of how often Wolff buys a new car, yacht, island, etc.
especially when...
he didn't even prepare during spring training as a starter!!!!
I agree with you, PT, very disappointed in handling of Gaudin during the second half.
was anyone complaining about his treatment
during the season, or just after gaudin had multiple surgeries in december?
when did the team know? dan meyer pitched through pain in 2005 without telling anyone.
none of the 30 posts above this one
were visible when i wrote this...
Wow, EVERYONE's in the xbx killfile!
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
< registers www.xbxnation.com >
Work is awesome!
(pardon the earworm)
Podsednik signs minor-league deal with Rockies
If he makes it, Rockies fans will get treated to this.
If one of you writers wants to make a splash...
on lower-tier free agents, as represented by a guy like Podsednik signing a minor league deal.
The stupid, flippant answer (hello Buster and Jayson!) is that "maybe it's an example of collusion".
In reality, this, to me, is the best unwritten story in baseball right now (with apologies, of course, to Who's Next or Who's Now-y-est):
I don't have time right now to write this story (and there's no way to really prove it unless one of you ladies sleep with Farhan, because it's the kind of issue that if you asked an executive about it straight-up, it would be too good a question to get a real answer) but for my money, you can point to one moment that led to the chilling effect on lower-tier free agents:
the Mets losing their catcher of the future, Jesus Flores, last year in the Rule 5 draft.
Because although team reactions to the Rule 5 draft aren't written about much, I'll bet that scared 29 other teams shitless. Every year, there are at least a few players, unprotected, who go undrafted in the Rule 5 draft who SHOULD'VE been picked, if the league's worst teams simply enacted the most intelligent strategy for their current situation (like what the A's have done this offseason).
In the '06 Rule 5 Draft, for example, Pedro Strop went undrafted despite being unprotected. He will one day be a good major league reliever - I'd say it's a safe bet that he'll be worth at least 8 million over the course of his career. That's a collective mistake by the league's worst teams - the squads without a chance of making the playoffs - to pass over a guy with that kind of upside. Players like this will slip through less and less - there's just too much money at stake.
This year, you saw teams protect players from out in left field before that Nov. 20th deadline - over 110 guys leaguewide were protected from the Rule 5 draft leading up to that deadline. And that excludes people like Melillo and Putnam, '04 draftees who were brought up by their teams during the season because of a need, but also with an eye toward, "We'll probably want to protect him for the upcoming Rule 5 anyway."
The economics of "why" teams are protecting so many players these days are obvious - every team needs to have 0-3 players in order to field a cost-efficient major league team, and free agent salaries have made that need greater than at any other point in ML history.
If your team loses a Jared Burton, or your catcher of the future, then you'll eventually have to pay for much more expensive replacements for those things.
Thus, anecdotally, in response to that threat, you see teams like the A's protecting some SERIOUS "reaches" in the Rule 5 draft - guys like Gray, or Powell, who aren't ready to be ML contributors, but likely will be one day.
As it pertains to the lower tier of free agents, the point is, for those five guys the A's protected, all of whom aren't ready to contribute on the major league roster, that equals one less Emil Brown-type player that the team can sign to a guaranteed major league contract.
And we just looked briefly at the A's. Seemingly every major league team was protecting more Rule 5/young players this year, which leaves more and more Sweeneys and Podsedniks forced to sign minor league deals.
It's smart business by the teams - if Jared Burton pans out, he'll provide six cheap seasons, whereas if the fringe Free Agent signing pans out, he's still a free agent a year from now, and same hole needs to be filled.
But it's an interesting, developing story that would be cool to look at statistically - the chilling effect of the Rule 5 draft on lower-tier free agents from '05 to '07 - and its the type of content you won't find on ESPN or Hardball Times or anywhere else, unfortunately.
But again, if one of you has the time and wants to write a very valuable story, I'd recommend studying that.
by notsellingjeans on Feb 5, 2008 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand the thesis here
Most guys who are going to be Rule 5 protected are going to occupy the "option slots." That is to say, the 26th-40th slots on the 40-man roster.
Podsednik et al are mostly out of options and can't occupy those slots. It's 25-man or NRI for them.
I'm sure there's some displacement effect-- in the past, teams might have signed Podsednik and optioned down their 5th outfielder, whereas now if they do that they would have to knock someone else out of one of the option slots-- but I'm not sure how large it is. The A's right now have a number of slots that are filled with players I'd consider to be expendable, and I'm sure most teams are in the same situation. There is a roster crunch, but it's at the bottom, and the guys who are getting bumped are the fringey 7th starter/long relief/backup corner outfielder types like Danny Putnam and Shane Komine.
My take on it is just that teams are realizing that players who are very close to replacement level are worth very close to nothing.
if what Poppy posted above is an earworm ...
... is this an eyeworm?
Yesss! Thanks, batgirl!
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
nice links!
The BADRAP people do good work, methinks.
Last week, there was a coordinated pitbull spay/neuter day in which numerous groups participated. A very big part of the answer for pitties is sterilization, because there's just not enough demand for all the puppies they churn out -- lots of folks are afraid of the mayhem potential. BADRAP also addresses that in a pretty even-handed way.
But if you look at the adoptables at local shelters, there's a big contingent of pit mixes, many of whom are currently headed for oblivion through no greater fault than having chosen their owners badly. One of my favorite dogs is Puppy-Anne, my BC/pit cross.
by The Dogfather on Feb 5, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
finally, a guy who DESERVES a hot cheerleader gf
are you saying I don't deserve a hot cheerleader
gf?
at the very least ...
you deserve to be recruited by Berkeley
Wanna taste the rainbow?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 5, 2008 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
No link to post
Giants had their Fan Fest on Saturday, and there's not a word about it on their official website or in the McCovey Chronicles. And we thought ours was subdued.
by kkdaz on Feb 5, 2008 4:53 PM PST reply actions
Never mind
Let me save all of you the trouble of pointing out to me that Feb. 9 has not yet occurred. Age-related issues, sorry.
by kkdaz on Feb 5, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
The Giants fanfest happens to be free of
charge for admission.
by theblackpearl on Feb 5, 2008 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
so pretty much is the A's
since every season ticket holder gives away their tickets they don't use, people just hand em out in the lot, and all the money from it goes to charity anyways.
Remember folks...
...don't get today mixed up. Don't throw beads at the candidates, and don't vote for the first woman who flashes her ... "platform."
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 5, 2008 5:48 PM PST reply actions
I voted.
And noticed when the poll worker was looking for my name on the voter list that I was listed TWICE!!! "Oh dear,that will not do," she said. Of course, out of fairness, I only voted once. Gosh, wonder if Oprah would have bought my vote for a million bucks.
WTF...
This image provided by the Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Department shows Kim Mattingly, the wife of Los Angeles Dodgers's assistant coach Don Mattingly. Mattingly was arrested over the weekend and charged with public intoxication and disorderly conduct after she allegedly refused to leave her husband's property.
does she "work for Jeff Tedford"?
WTF
Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal are cockfighters
If you’re squeamish or simply not interested in seeing Marichal and Martinez shake hands in a Dominican cockfighting ring before their roosters fight to the death ... I suggest you don’t play the attached video.
That’s right ... we’ve got video.
Que lastima
And from two of the classiest guys in MLB history. Next you're gonna tell me Bob Gibson is into this sort of thing.
by BWH on Feb 6, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
W T F
http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaste...
So, I've interviewed Michael Schur, the Emmy-winning writer of The Office (and also the man who plays Mose). And I've been critiqued by Ken Tremendous, the razor-sharp mind behind Firejoemorgan.com.
Little did I know they were the same person.
It's blowing my mind, man.
both are already in my killfile
Really?
I find FJM amazing, as well as The Office. It's original, spawned a whole lot of imitators, and (IMO) has managed to remain pretty fresh over the past 3 years. Where does the anti-FJM thing come from?
by BWH on Feb 6, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
the office or fjm?
It's original, spawned a whole lot of imitators
FJM
by BWH on Feb 6, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, it imitates itself nearly every day
I dunno that there's a huge tide of FJM hate around here, but there are some, like me, who find the "copy a few sentences then sabr-dissect them" routine to have become a bit stale. Same arguments, same approach, same jokes. Doesn't mean the points are invalid, just that at this point we've heard them an awful lot.
Others, not myself, have made the critique that KenT basically shoots fish in a barrel by over-simplifying the columns he dissects by makign them seem, well, simplistic, when perhaps they aren't always thus.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 6, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
I think a lot of the reason why the dissections
are the same is that bad sportswriters keep writing the same articles.
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
- 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)
