I can't help it.

So don't laugh at me if I cry when this happens, okay?

Someone give me something to dull this pain.

Don't think Mr. Beane doesn't have a long, thoughtout plan for Huddy. I'm sure in his secret chambers beneath the house that Al trashed, BB has cultivated several trade possibilities that will have all of us in AN going HOLYS**T!!!! Huddy is one of the top 5 pitchers in MLB right now, so his price will be steep. If no trade is possible, he helps us through July, and BB trades him to the NL for someone having a great year. Remember, the Red Sox traded Garciaparra mid-year and still did pretty well.

I hope he doesn't get traded, but if he does, I hope it's to the Mets or Philadelphia. That way he can come back to Oakland next year, but we wouldn't have to face him all the time.

On a side note, I had a dream a couple of nights ago where BB traded Hudson. I was really mad and I checked the newspaper as soon as I woke up just to make sure. I really hope it doesn't happen.

The reality of this day and age in baseball is that players rarely stick around with their first organization for an extended period.  Because the league is so starkly divided into financial haves and have nots, you basically end up with 4 categories of players:

1. Good young players - most of these are with their first team, but others could have been traded after limited time with their first organization.  It's hard not to like these guys, and the A's lean heavily in this category.
2. Good established players still with first team - this is a small group league wide, and the A's will never have more than 1 or maybe 2.  Even the Yankees only have a few (Jeter/Williams/Rivera), so that tells you something.
3. Mercenaries - good players who needed to leave their first team to make their deserved dollars.  The A's will never have too many of these, because they're drastically overpriced.
4. Has beens, never weres and never will bes - roster filler for the 4/5ths of MLB that's at least in part financially challenged.  The trick is to squeeze anything you can out of this group, catch lightning in a bottle, or otherwise get lucky.

Given this, what kind of team is the most enjoyable to root for?  I'd argue that it's a team like the A's, who have a greater percentage of players in the first category than just about anyone.

I guess what I'm saying is that good young players will keep being fed into the A's major league roster, so long as Billy keeps the machine churning.  Part of keeping that machine churning is to feed the machine with established players who are about to jump into a markedly higher salary class.  So, while it may hurt to lose a guy like Hudson in the near term, another gifted, likable, competitive player is coming down the pike, and the A's need that pipeline to keep pumping indefinitely.  It's their lifeblood, and their reason for being.

Feed the machine.  The machine is good.  The machine is perpetual contention.

You may be right, but I have an issue with one piece of your logic: they are going to trade Hudson because Harden is going to be better? Now, I agree that Harden has a higher ceiling, but why trade Hudson specifically, instead of Mulder or Zito? Don't give me the "left-handed" garbage either. It doesn't matter which hand a guy throws with, if he's better than the guy you are comparing him too. I have often said that if we gave Hudson a four year deal, the end of that would coincide exactly with the point at which Harden requires big money--saying his elbow doesn't explode, or anything (he threw a lot of pitches for a 22 year old last year). And another thing--there are no low-cost options on the FA market; Kris Benson just got $7.5 mil per. If we don't sign Hudson, I see no reason why we are going to be able to sign any of the Big 3.

Still, the fact that BB hasn't even spoken to him is a bad sign. I guess we'll find out this weekend. In the meantime, I'm going to go throw myself under a bus.

Reason:  Billy wants to be sure Blanton and the others are ready.  Now it may be that Mr. Beane sees a very good market this winter. In fact, he's already made reference to there being a lot of "restlessness"(or similiar word) out there.

In that case, you may be right Blez.  One thing for sure is that the A's realized some time ago that Hudson's probably not signable.  I also think that Mulder's always been the one they try and keep.  Look at how Billy stood by him during his September collapse?

As for Barry, he and Alyssa are headed for NY unless our financial situation gets better.  Getting to the World Series could do that.

At least the A's don't have to play in the Holiday Bowl!

And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sitting at the table
There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done

I will go on the record with a prediction he is not traded (unless A's are out of it at break).

Hudson has got to be concerned about Zito and Mulders less than stellar 04's and as such no trade.

remember when kendall joined the a's, billy talked about having kendall and hudson together, giving the a's two super tough guys (i think he called them mongooses?). now why would he say something like that if he was already planning on trading huddy? just wondering...

Don't take this the wrong way. I know Huddy is better than zito and mulder. Consistency is part of being a great pitcher. But look at it. Zito has had the best 1 season of any of them in his Cy Young year. We know what he can do, and last year towards the end he showed signs of coming back to that. You criticize his 03' season, but cmon. The only reason to criticize is because he wasn't AS GOOD as 02'. But a 14-12 record with a 3.30 is a really good year. He had 13 un-earned runs, and he had his fair share of blown oppurtunities (not by foulke, by bullpen). He could have had 17 wins. Plus, run support clearly was not at any sort of high. If you don't look at the ERA for a minute from last year, you find a pretty good pitcher.  His walks were down, K's were up by a lot from 03'. His major problem last year was Home runs. Normally, with his decreased walks and increased strikeouts, it wouldnt have been as big a deal. But he gave up 216 hits, 30 more than his previous career high. He was giving up more 2 and 3 run home runs, and was not locating his fastball. I fully expect him to bounce back and do what we know he can do. NO INJURIES!!! Say it aloud, record it, and play it again. Injury free.

Mulder. Take away last year, and you have Mulder, when healthy one of the best pitchers in the game. he goes into stretches of total domination. Aside from last year he had never had any of these breakdowns, and understandably. I mean when one of your Partners is pitching bad, trying to find himself, and the other is injured, its all on you. Never had that before. Expect him to fully bounce back too. He has had injuries, but a good sign was that he did not have anything last year, a full year. He is a special pitcher, and definitley a "gamble" worth keeping when you have him for 2 more years under his true value.

Than Hudson. One year left, give the impression he doesn't want to say. Is gonna make much more than we can provide, has more value. Most logical choice to trade. Plus he has a special case of Obliquenitis.

H

A guy signed for less than his market value for two years is worth more to the A's than a guy signed for less than his market value for one year.

But the guy signed for two years is also worth more to a potential trading partner. In other words, he will bring a lot more in return. The only question is will some other GM offer a deal which Beane thinks is a net improvement for the team. That could happen with any player.

So there is no way you can just say it's better to trade one or the other. Except in one case: if you know you're only going to be competitive in one of the two upcoming years and don't care about the other year. If the A's decided to compete in 2004 and rebuild in 2005, they'd trade Mulder or Zito to get some superstars for one year. If they decided to rebuild in 2004 and compete in 2005, they'd trade Hudson for young prospects.

But that's not the A's style. Their stated goal is to be competitive every season. That means players with short or long term contracts are equally tradeable.

Hasn't the strike taught us anything? These guys are business men and when the seasons over we don't take them home with us. Billy will figure out what is the best deal and make it and until then let's look forward to spring training and the 2005 season when we finally win it all. It will all be fine! And I am a therapist. Seriously. Mitch who bleeds green and gold, not the players who wear it.

Tim has been an A long enough to know how they work, far better than we know. He saw the Giambi thing up close, the losing of Tejada, Chavy's resigning. these guys played together and are on good terms - so where does Hudson get off with this crap? He knows exactly how deals go down in Oakland, why would he be suprised if they didn't treat him any different? Either his comments in the chron are strictly how agents/players do business or he hasn't been paying attention to the players around him. The cost of being an A's fan is watching the revolving door regarding the talent. I hope Hudson stays, but won't be at all suprised to see him go.

and, if you get it, take it.  Otherwise, start the beginning of the year with him and evaluate at the trading deadline.  To me, Austin Kearns is not close to what BB would be asking in return.  Marcus Giles, maybe, but I doubt it.  How about Miguel Cabrera, though?  If you can pry someone like that away, it's see you later, Huddy.  Hudson's a stud, a great guy, all that, but the picture is the same from his side of the fence as it is from BB's.  It's business, and we're looking for a buyer in the NL (or an AL cellar-dweller).  I'm guessing the only way the A's offer anything to Hudson is if someone desperately wants Zito or Mulder instead.  Unlikely, but possible.  I would think BB would be shopping them all right now and dealing from a position of big-time strength.

Cabrera's natural position is 3B, and he sucks at playing outfield. is there really a spot for him on the a's? the a's value defense, but he's a hell of a good hitter.
also, randy johnson is HELLA old and is a liability. i think it's not worth trading hudson who is just now entering his prime years and going after a 40+ year old dominant pitcher.
ok, so i may have contradicted myself a few times. that just shows how complicated this issue is.

I think all this speculation says that Beane is willing to part with Hudson for he right price.  The big question is there a team with enough young talent, resources willing to meet his price.  

I doubt that Beane believes that anyone on the team is irreplaceable, the team failed to make the playoffs last year and all indications are that the Angels are going to be major players in this years freeagent market and Seatle may just make a few acquisitions to again make them a contender.  So any projections on what it takes to win the division need to improve on the stats of last years team.  

Plus, I think anyone looking at last years playoffs can see that our lineup is well behind where it needs to be. Look at the success of Boston, Houston, St Louis and NY where you have a series of players who are tough outs and how that just grinds down pitching staffs, even above average staffs.

Beane is looking to obtain another middle of the order hitter.  If he can find that Hitter and if that hitter is a bargain for the next 2 years, and if he can get 1 or 2 top tier prospects I would say one of the big 3 is gone.

 The problem is that few players meet the above and any team that has one of those players is not going to part with him unless they are a big market team who will be able to sign Hudson long term.  Even if Kearns or Dunn might meet the above I doubt they would be able to get Hudson inked and I doubt a GM would make that trade and then watch him walk at the end of the year.  

In other words there are very few teams even in the running, so even if Billy wanted to deal him it might be tough, teams just are not giving away there prospects and young players anymore.

Fuck you Schott

the owner's meetings. Why? Because the most pressing deadlines in front of BB are the arbitration eligible players with whom the A's have, I believe, a Dec. 17 deadline. THAT is what concerns BB in the near, near future. After we get an understanding as to what next year's payroll will look like, can he determine if a contract tendered to Hudson fits the A's payroll.
Someone would have to knock Beane's socks off (I'm beginning to hate that phrase), in order to trade one of our aces. We all know that he will put the BEST team out there for next year regardless of what we all think. I can't remove Hudson yet from that equation, not at least before Dec. 17 and the 2 year offers to Dotel et. al. are completed.

First, Schott has the right to try to earn a profit.

Second, it is a virtual certainty that Hudson will be traded.  (and there's not a snowball's chance in hell it will be for Randy Johnson)

Third, it is better than 50/50 that more than one of the Big Three will be traded.

BB has a bigger plan in mind, I think.

Why did BB return to Oakland (ie turn down Boston)?  How long has he been GM?  Has his system 'matured'?  I don't think he returned so he could continue to do the same thing (busting his ass just to remain competitive) year in and year out while other GM's collect WS rings.  And let's face it, he hasn't been anywhere close to  a WS.  Even if his team does remain competitive I think Billy himself is too competitive to play second banana.  Why would he--what is his reward?  
What I have seen on AN in the way of suggested trades and/or FA signings nets the A's some good young players who can fit into a restrained budget and, at best, can keep the A's competitive.  I've not seen one suggestion that says: 'this puts us in the league finals or we are in the WS'!!  No such enthusiasm.  (Obviously, there are never guarantees.)    That's the way its been for 5 years (this annual struggle to remain competitive,and to BB's credit he has done well) and that's the way it will remain without some basic change in doing business.
Finally this (sorry for length):  Shott and BB have this private arrangement:  BB lives within a restrained budget until his system matures (when the farm, year in and year out, produces ML ready players).  Shott then increases the budget to accomodate the increasing salaries.  BB now has the opportunity to go for the whole enchilada!  Shott is celebrated as the smart, prudent, progressive, successful owner.
I think I remember Billy saying there would be money to sign Hudson.  Maybe now is the time,  maybe there is a plan for more than annual spasms.

Tim Hudson represents the last thread of the A's being taken seriously as a competitive organization. His departure, following those of Giambi and Tejada, will be a huge billboard on the major league superhighway: don't bother with Oakland. The team isn't serious.

I know that's how I'm going to take it. Hudson's departure will mean I'm going to cut back quite a bit on both attendance and TV viewing.

...insane not to prefer the East Bay to Boston.

I'm trying to get used to the idea of trading Hudson.  It ain't easy, because of Hudson's superior performance (not counting the playoffs) over the past few years.  And we know this would be a money-driven trade.  And we know Hudson is an intense team leader, an assumption Urban confirmed.

But it's never been a no-brainer to sign Hudson to an extension.  Jeff, you've acknowledged as much yourself.  Hudson would cost a lot, probably $12 million a year for four seasons at the very minimum, unless he was willing to give us an awfully big discount.  

Hudson will be 30 beginning next season.  He has a chronic injury, one that has shown up in each of the last three seasons (twice in the postseason).  He's got a relatively small frame and puts a lot of pressure on his body.  And he's getting older.

I have been an advocate of signing Hudson anyway.  I have thought he was the most likely of the Big Three to sign with Oakland.  He's been the most consistent performer of the three.  And I probably have a bit of an emotional attachment.

I don't think I will like any trade.  But if we get another good hitter (like Giles) and a closer or decent fourth starter, I won't conclude it's a disaster.  At that point, we'd have a lineup, if Durazo is resigned, of Kotsay/Kendall/Chavez/Durazo/Giles?/Hatteberg or Johnson/Crosby/Swisher/Byrnes.  That doesn't sound so bad.  Every game wouldn't be 2-1.

The big short-term risk of trading Hudson is that we would be putting a lot of pressure on Mulder, Zito, and Harden in 2005.  (And it almost guarantees that all of the Big Three will leave.)  Mulder is a big question mark, although as it's the season before his out year, will probably have a huge season and price himself out of our range.  (If he doesn't have a good season, the A's are doomed this coming year.)  Zito probably doesn't want to stay and won't be worth the price for a six-inning pitcher with declining statistics.  (He will need to boost his performance, but the signs aren't especially promising.) Harden looks good, but he'd better not falter, of the A's won't even contend.  And two-fifths of the rotation will consist of a rookie and acquired fourth starter.

I just shortened it when blez adapted this spiffy new system.

I miss the old AN when sharon was zonk and you could put any name you wanted to when you posted a comment. Macha and Zito were always posting here. New AN is even better though.

We have some players Beane would love- Austin Kearns, D'Angelo Jimenez......Heck we might part with Dunn for Harden even(obviously won't happen though)...Do you think a package with Kearns and Jimenez could fetch us one of the big three?  If you guys want a starter in return maybe a three way could work out even where you get a ML ready starter (that's worth Kearns) and Jimenez , we get one of the big three and the third team gets Kearns or even vise versa with you getting a young pitcher and Kearns and the third team gets Jimenez or LaRue.  What do y'all think?

BTW...many think Kearns is a better all around hitter than Dunn with .300, 30 HR, 100 RBI or better potential very soon.  Don't forget he is only 24.  Jimenez is good too although he did have a down year.  He still did have an ok year. (.270, .364 OBP).  Don't forget his .315 BA with RISP (.915 OPS) and the fact that he's only 26.