i support and applaud those trades because it makes sense. only doing hudson, not making sense. but mulder too, makes good sense.

trades have a sense of direction, bottom line. cheaper and younger, with more hard throwers

That would be a nice outfield with Beltran, Kotsay and Swisher.

It was a good run, but BB has made the decision (correctly) that it is time to remake this team.
Last year's failure to make the playoffs was probably the determining factor.

Mulder's swan dive last season concerned me and made me think that this guy's best days are behind him. Why wait to see if he continues to breakdown and watch his value fall further?

I am very excited about the 2005 season and beyond for this franchise. BB is doing the best with the resources he has and we should all thank our lucky stars that he is the GM.

Go A's!!

Does anyone remember the 2000 season, the season that started the A's current magnificent run?  Remember the pitching staff that year?  According to Baseball Prospectus, Hudson led the Oakland pitching staff with the highest VORP with 49.6.  Who was second?  Gil Heradia with 40.9.  Third?  An unknown rookie then named Zito with 38.5.  Fourth?  Kevin Appier with 35.5.

Losing Hudson and Mulder will hurt--no doubt about it.  But we've gained Meyer and Haren--two very well-regarded prospects that could form the basis of Oakland's rotation for years to come.  Remember that baseball is a team sport: As long as Beane can cobble together a strong supporting cast, Oakland will remain competitive.

LET'S GO OAKLAND!!!

What I can't figure out is: if Bean is in full blown rebuilding mode, why did we trade for a rather expensive catcher?  How do these moves fit together?  Admittedly getting rid of Rhodes was important, but at the end of the day Kendall will still end up costing a lot of money for the A's.

I'm even less impressed with the booty Beane got this go round.  Calero looks decent, but Haren's record is not at all impressive.  All they seem to have going for them is that they will be cheap.

It'll take a bit for this one to regiester ...

Anyone have any ideas why they aren't?

BUT: I am having a hard time trying to understand the logic in giving away an ace when he has 2 years left. Barring injury, if we got one more cheap year out of Mulder, his value on the market would be the same as it is now.

I think BB's plan has merit, I just don't know about losing Mulder's 2 cheap years.

Hudson was bad enough, but Mark too?  Geez, talk about making a "fuckin' A" trade.  It would seem to me that Mark's injuries have been freak at worst, and I would expect Mulder and Hudson to be 1-2 in Cy Young balloting in 2005.  Mulder is THAT good, he said so himself, he hates to suck and that's makes him a winner right there.  I mean, most of us have probably seen Mark in person at one time or another, he looks like the pinnacle of health really and built strongly.  

I don't know... this'll be one hell of a season in 2005 though.    

Lose: Hattaberg (1b), Byrnes (OF), Durzao (dh)

Keep: Chavez(3b), Crosby (SS), Kendall (C), Kotsay (OF),

Add: Swisher (OF), Ginter (2b), Johnson (1B), Thomas/??? (DH), Beltran (OF)

I'd been quite happy having my heartbreak spread out in slow incriments, both Mulder and Hudson is just too much for me to take in one offseason.

The prospects we've received in return just... they don't convince me. In particular, who we received in the Mulder deal has left me scratching my head. I mean, it's a lovely package and all, but I'm not sure that it'll address our needs. And it sure looks like we're setting up for another all-pitch, no-pop season in '07 or '08 or whenever this team'll be able to come up for air at the top of the division again.

Adios Hudson, Mulder. You boys gave us a heck of a ride.

I'm not stating any preferences about which 2 of the big 3 are hardest to part with--just noting the irony.

I'm going to miss Huddy and Mulder big time.  But being the long time loyal fan that I am I'll continue to root for the green and gold.  Billy Beane is the best thing the A's have going for them.  Without Billy there's a good chance we'd have a real good idea what it's like to be a Brewer or Royals fan.

And one more thing, there always doesn't have to be a winner and loser in a trade.  Maybe everything will work out for the best for the Braves, Cards and A's.  Maybe . . . wishful thinking I know, but maybe.

Thanks Blez.
Go A's!!!!

I guess we can view the glass as half-empty or half-full.  I always prefer to see it full.  But the Coliseum glass is a tiny one, that's true.

I think Mulder went cheap.

I wonder if anyone in baseball actually keeps a player around anymore because of their intangibles -- clubhouse leadership, motivation, team spirit etc.

With all these off-season trades, I also have in the back of my mind the wondering about the steroids news.  I keep wondering how some of these trades are being strategized.  

Trades and motivations for trades are awfully hard things to analyze.  Much social dynamic at work.  Very hard, very hard.

I am going to enjoy watching the pitchers and catchers report.  

depo might sign him then deal to oak for byrnes, chadford, barton or another catching prospect.

jd is the holy grail pt. 2

Fortunately, Billy Beane and Steve Schott clearly recognize this reality in far greater measure than other teams confronting low revenues. Correspondingly, the A's have acquired some of the finest young players in the game. They may not contend in 2005, but they will be contenders for years to come beyond that.

One theory on Mulder: When he was at AAA, his fastball was slightly above the MLB average. However when he got to the Bigs, he added several MPH to his heater. While I used to believe that was the result of Rick Peterson tinkering with his mechanics, the significant increase in Mulder's speed was a bit hard to comprehend. What else could account for it? Possibly steroids.

If the steroid theory has any validity and Billy Beane is aware of it, he doubtless realizes that with testing to come next season, Mulder would have to stop juicing. And without the increment in his fastball that better pitching through chemistry had given him, Mulder would be just an average starter.

Again, just a theory...

To get back to a balanced analysis to Beane's dealing of two aces, it's good to read this site and find such general appreciation of the A's economic realities and Beane's intelligent response. Like many of you, Ilook forward to the development of a fine, contending team in future seasons.

Of course, the events of the past few days have come as a bit of a shock, requiring a reordering of thinking for A's fans. And given said shock, we could all use some comic relief. So if you really need a laugh, check out the so-called "A's fans" on the OAFC site. They are the foremost whiners on the internet, with most of them marching in lockstep with their hate of the A's ownership, Billy Beane and Ken Macha. Correspondingly, a hilarious suicide watch is in order for these pathetic souls, as their "contraction conspiracies headed by Steve Schott" abound.

So for a good time, check that site out. As I said, we can all use a good laugh!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rolen3B27 wrote:
A big reason the numbers say that this is the best pitchers' park in the AL is that three of the most talented pitchers in the AL have been pitching there for the past few years. I will agree that all of that foul territory and relatively spacious outfield are better for pitchers, but you have to give the pitchers themselves some credit.

You gotta realize that the way they determine is is how many runs per game (both A's and opponent) are scored at home compared to on the road.
Look at the big 3's stats lifetime ERA's home and away:
Mulder:
Home: 3.36
Away: 4.5
Hudson:
Home: 3.19
Away: 3.84
Zito:
Home 3.33
Away 3.49
so this is another thing: Look at how much Mulder has benifited from the spacious confines of the Oakland COlliseum. Besides the ERA, his lifetime record is 43-14 (.754) at home and 38-28 (.576) on the road.

--------
I can't vouch for these stats, but they are interesting, especially in Mulder's case.  We know Mulder has always loved pitching in the Coliseum.  

I do wonder if the Cardinals wanted Mulder all along, as I suspect, or if Zito was ever in the mix.

There's hot talk that the Oakland A's are close to being sold to a group headed by Lewis Wolff, the megabucks Los Angeles developer whose possible emergence as a new owner was signaled last year when the team hired him to explore plans for a new stadium.

Wolff -- formerly a part owner of both the Golden State Warriors and St. Louis Blues hockey franchise -- isn't discounting the idea of taking over the A's, but says it's a bit early to tell how discussions will turn out.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/19/BAG0DAE6F01.DTL

As for lousy reporters, Linden mentions Mike Lupica denigrating Schott. Since when has ANYONE who writes for the NY Daily News been considered anything other than an idiotic tabloid reporter?

Dave Newhouse is also cited by Linden. Newhouse has long been the laughingstock of Bay Area sports columnists--it's been said he couldn't spell cat if you spotted him the "c" and the "t".

But Newhouse's claims to being the definitive sports columnist lamebrain has long ago been usurped by Ray Fatso. Fatso is obsessed with his hatred of both Billy Beane and Steve Schott and he has said so at every opportunity. Both his prejudices and lack of cranial capacity render him incapable of comprehending the A's economic realities and the long view Beane has taken in the necessary rebuilding of a low revenue team.

Perhaps the worst trade we have seen in the Bay Area was not the dealing of the A's two aces. Rather it was the forced retirement of the Bay Area's best columnist, Glenn Dickey, and the elevation of a total moron, Ray Fatso, as the paper's lead sports columnist.

"Even when you don't understand something while it's happening, you just have to trust him on it. His track record speaks for itself."

-Barry Zito

Still wondering why he wasn't traded?

I think M&R had it right this morning: Schott and Hofmann are dumping assets prior to selling the team -- at a huge, almost circus-like profit -- and I think the "Chronicle" beat reporter got the tone right, for once, in noting that Mulder's reaction wasn't nearly as intense as it was to the Hudson deal: he knows the A's are finished and was no longer emotionally invested. My guess is that his first, primary reaction was relief.

I think that part of the national reaction to this is mourning: the A's were always the counterexample to the argument that winning in baseball is strictly about money.

There are no counterexamples now. That's what's got everybody so unhappy. For two-thirds of baseball franchises, from now until the foreseeable future, there's no point in pretending that they can win the World Series.

But after the Hudson deal, it was obvious the team was not going to do what we wanted.  The owners are too cheap.

If you're going to dump salary and try to acquire a bunch of talented prospects, why not do it all now?  Why drag out the process?  Why risk Mulder not bouncing back from his 2004 meltdown if you were going to trade him after the season anyway?  It was obvious, from listening to Beane's press conference after the Hudson trade, that he was going to be dealing Mulder or Zito after the 2005 season if he had kept them.

At this point, we are the Royals and the Pirates and the Brewers - only with smarter management, and therefore a chance at coming back in a couple of years.

The Royals, Brewers and Pirates aren't who they are just because they're dumber than we are, although they probably are. This kind of downward spiral is very hard to escape from.

Vis. the small-market thing, I think the A's, Twins and Marlins have conclusively proven that you can win 90 games in a small market environment if all the cards fall the right way. In an organization that has a brief supernova of young talent -- that would describe the A's of a couple of years ago -- you can even win 100.

And, as Beane is so fond of saying, once the playoffs start, anything can happen.

But the odds are against any team entering the playoffs, and unless a small-market team hits that window just right, they miss it.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a small-market team can make the playoff two years out of ten, and win the World Series one year out of eight that they do. That would mean one World Series championship every 40 years.

(throws chair)

Arggh!