Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Rickey Henderson Coming Back to A's? Bar-right-arrows



4 GIDP + 0-13 RISP + 1 E = 0-1

That was one dubious equation that the A's created tonight.  And the funny thing was that after the A's beat the Twins all the experts could say over and over again was that the A's are a team that plays the game the right way.  If that's the right way, I don't wanna be right.

Tonight was essentially George Costanza's opposite day.  At least on the defensive front.  And it wasn't just the Jimenez error, although that was huge.  Swisher not getting an out on the Granderson play.  Chavez missing a ball that he vaccuumed up during the regular season.  It just wasn't the A's on the defensive side.

As for the GIDP thing and the lack of hitting with RISP, well, that is a tendency of our lovable muppets.  And if the A's are to advance, that's something that they're going to overcome with great pitching and defense.  Tonight, the pitching and defense couldn't bail them out.

Yes, the umpiring was horrid.  I found the non-strikeout call on Polanco to be the worst offense of the night.  But our boys lost this game tonight.  If that's Zito's last appearance in an A's uniform, then that's a sad way to go out.  I was surprised that the Tigers were able to go against their stats and have a very patient approach against Zito.  They looked more like Yankee hitters than Tiger hitters and for that they deserve kudos.  I think the Twins could've done the same thing and had success against Barry because to me, the majority of Zito's pitches were also out of the zone.  The difference was that the Tigers gave the ump a chance to call them balls.  When you throw 92 pitches and only 49 are strikes, you aren't going to win many games.

The A's set a couple of ignominious records tonight with the most double plays in a nine-inning game in an ALCS game and missing success with RISP, going 0-13.

The way I'm trying to approach this series (my wife would argue unsuccessfully considering how I was yelling at the TV) is that this has been a successful season and I need to be happy with whatever happens.  But the truth is that it's really hard to get this close to a World Championship and not have every play make you go crazy.

Still, 0-1 isn't the end of the world.  Although the Tigers have probably their most talented starting pitcher going tomorrow against a guy who most A's fans still think is going to fall apart like a house of straw any moment now.  The one thing that could be the difference in this series...if the Tigers remain that patient and approach every game that way, this could be a quick series.  Although the Sean Casey injury could have a big impact on their offense.

As for the A's RISP problem, I expect it to change if the A's continue to get guys on base, but the truth is that it probably won't since it hasn't all year.  They are also facing a great pitcher each and every night now in the playoffs, so it could continue to be tough sledding.

The Tigers lost the first game last series and then went on to win three straight.  Let's turn the tables this time.

GO A'S!!!!!!!  

0 recs | Comment 279 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

first?
"We've got a whole new team with a lot of smart, experienced veterans. It's time to create some new history." -Ron Washington.

by haroldMD on Oct 10, 2006 9:09 PM PDT   0 recs

Okay, who pinched me?
Now I know how the poor Twins fans felt during the ALDS.
"Get up!" ~ Ray Fosse, 5/31/2006

by KendallGurl18 on Oct 10, 2006 9:10 PM PDT   0 recs

I'm glad...
we got everything that could go wrong out of the way. On the good note, our bullpen dominated after Zito's early departure

by WhatElse on Oct 10, 2006 9:11 PM PDT   0 recs

I'll be there tomorrow!
Never good when the A's lose, but this series is far from over. Got to stay postive and get a win tomorrow.

Go A's!

A's, baby!

by Coach Cleats on Oct 10, 2006 9:11 PM PDT   0 recs

I'm with you Blez....
It's just so damn frustrating when you are this close to a World Title and our A's play like that.

Each pitch is so stressful and important.

We hit the ball well tonight and if we had any luck we would have scored five or six runs, but luck wasn't on our side tonight, niether was the home plate umpire.

As for Zito, the 2-1 homerun pitch to Inge was brutal and Zito just couldn't finish anyone off tonight. After the homer, he lost all focus and was really lucky to give up only 2 runs in the second inning. His luck ran out when Ivan Rodriguez smashed another 2-1 pitch over Kotsay's head.

We can't play any worse then we did tonight and hopefully Loaiza can surprise us again and beat one of the games very best youngsters.

We need the win tommorow as Harden, Haren and Zito will be ready when we head to Detroit.

"I hate the Angels"

by Vegas A's Fan on Oct 10, 2006 9:12 PM PDT   0 recs

That's the key...
...Win tomorrow and I like the A's chances with Harden, Haren, and Zito in Detroit.
A's, baby!

by Coach Cleats on Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That was...
among the most painful games to watch perhaps ever. Every crucial choke at the plate just seemed to piss me off further and further...
"Christ, evidentally I played against Swisher in '02 when he was at OSU and Granderson when he was at Illinois-Chicago."

by compy75 on Oct 10, 2006 9:12 PM PDT   0 recs

it was an ugly game.
it's better having it now than later, tomorrow we just need to go out there and score some runs, if we keep getting men on base then the runs will come, E-lo will do fine.

let's tie this thing tomorrow.

LET'S GO A'S!!!

"We've got a whole new team with a lot of smart, experienced veterans. It's time to create some new history." -Ron Washington.

by haroldMD on Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT   0 recs

After tough A's losses...
...I usually leave the house right away and take a walk to let off steam. For some reason tonight, I found myself enigmatically out of steam. The A's had just played poorly, they had just lost the first game of the ALCS...you'd have thunk I'd have a lot of disappointment and frustration to walk off. But I was strangely serene. The fact is, we didn't make the plays when we needed to, especially defensively. But the trademark of this team has been - especially defensively - that they make the big plays when they need to on the plays that really are the difference between winning and losing. They will continune to do so more often than not in this series - a 162-game precedent says they will. The defensive downgrade with Jimenez at second is a significant hurdle, but there are eight other guys out there whose MO is to make the big play that turns a game. This is a series. A seven game series. I feel good about tomorrow...

by willcmatthews on Oct 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT   0 recs

I'm not sure how good Kiger
is defensively, but I'm guessing if that he's better than Jimenez (in the A's eyes) he very well could be in there tomorrow.  The A's don't need offense from that position.  They DO need defense.

by Blez on Oct 10, 2006 9:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's what I said during
the game--about Kiger. And, I thought I heard about  10 thousand people laugh at me through the computer.

by Salvatore on Oct 10, 2006 9:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

See your point, but . . .
the A's need offense from every position.  We keep playing players who aren't likely to produce offensively, and then wonder why we don't score runs (see Mark Kotsay against a LH who owns LHs while a guy with a .965 OPS against LHs sits and watches).  Our defense was terrible tonight, but we scored 1 run tonight. We aren't going to win without offense.  
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 9:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree about Kielty being in there tonight
but I just don't see Macha having the stones to sit Kotsay at all.  It's kind of a veteran, been through the wars thing.  I don't agree with it, but that's where he's coming from.

by Blez on Oct 10, 2006 9:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't you think
you need a second baseman who can turn an easy double play?

by Salvatore on Oct 10, 2006 9:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes I do
Would Kiger have turned that double play?  probably.  Will Jimenez make that double play next time?  Probably. Is Jimenez a better hitter than Kiger?  Definitely.  I really don't care if we start Kiger tomorrow, but I am getting sick of the constant AN comments that we don't need hitting from 3B, from 2b, and from CF.  We need offense from every position, and need to consider offense along with defense.  
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 9:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Never happen
Nothing in the Macha/Beane history remotely suggests they'd be willing to start a whodat AA guy like Kiger...in a regular season game, much less the ALCS.  No way.  And it's hard to argue trade-offense-for-defense after tonight's one run tally.
The Green and Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 10, 2006 9:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dear Mr. Zito,
Never-ever-ever-ever-ever shake off Jason Kendall again.  If he calls for an inside fastball....throw one.....the catcher (J.Kendall) wants you to be more FITZ than you did in that situation.  He was right, you were wrong.  35 pitch innings are tought to recover from.

P.S. I'm still going to miss the hell out of you.

"hunting for fresh meat"

by Masaryk on Oct 10, 2006 9:17 PM PDT   0 recs

I've noticed Zito doesn't do well
when he shakes off Kendall.  In the Twins series he gave up the longball right after shaking Kendall off.

by calvin on Oct 10, 2006 9:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Just got Home
and am sick to my stomach I hope that was not Zito's last game as an A in Oakland not the way we want to see him go out
ChrisB

by ChrisB on Oct 10, 2006 9:19 PM PDT   0 recs

No offense but...
I sure hope Zito doesn't leave. And why all the talk of a trade? WHAT IF, and I mean, what if he does end up staying? I know it would be alot of money to keep him but if he plays poorly in the playoffs (God, I hope not) maybe he will decide to stay, for whatever reason that may be.

I just don't want to see him take the money and run to THAT OTHER team over there in the rotten apple.

I hope beane pays the man and pays him handsomely what he is worth.

Even though he was not worth alot after the 3rd inning tonight.

by Sheldon72 on Oct 11, 2006 1:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Zito likes stats
Zito apparently has made it pretty clear to insiders that he places a very high value on his personal statistics, especially his number of wins. I'm not making judgements here, I'm just reporting.

Apparently he's not happy enough with the Oakland offense to stay here, and money is not the big issue for him.

by Oaktown Girl on Oct 11, 2006 2:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Different Drummer Boy
Good-luck to Barry, wherever he winds up.  He's an excellent pitcher, at least in half of his starts!

It's been pretty apparent since he made the timely switch to Boras that he was thinking more about his future than the Athletics'.  It's human to anticipate the big bucks.  

It's also human for an A's fan to wonder whether his studying of the Yankees' Press Book in the YS dugout last spring (caught on TV) was motivated more by long-term social interests than short-term strategy.  Zen and music don't seem adequate explanations for his aloofness anymore.

The score is _always_ 0-0 until the final out. Each pitch is a new ballgame.

by FanSinceKC on Oct 11, 2006 9:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Whew
Yeah, that game sucked. Zito wasn't getting many called strikes with his 12 - 6, albeit the strikezone was . . . where was the strikezone?
"It's never 'just a game' if you're winning" - George Carlin

by bluelightrain84 on Oct 10, 2006 9:21 PM PDT   0 recs

Unacceptable!
"is that this has been a successful season and I need to be happy with whatever happens."

Sorry Blez, but that mindset is unacceptable to me. This team is going to have a lot of holes next season and if the goal is not "championship or death" than holding on to Zito was a horrid mistake.

That said, 0-1 doesn't worry me too much.

Tonight was a horribly accurate (and putrid) microcosm of everything bad about the A's. Inept managing, inept with RISP and bountiful GIDPs. I have a theory that this 7 game series will be representative of the 7 months of the 2006 season. A rough couple games, bounty in the middle, a tough Game 6 (representing September... which had its lulls) and a Game 7 that will mirror the success or failure of October.

I wish Haren was going tomorrow but oh well. Chin up AN, you're supposed to feel better after vomitting and that perfectly describes what Oakland did in Game 1. I wish I could be around for Game 2 but that's not what the Fates have intended. On second thought, I wasn't able to follow any of the A's/Twins series, so maybe my absence will bring good fortune to the A's.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:22 PM PDT   0 recs

I don't need you to validate
how I mentally approach this.  I'm doing it for my own mental health, thank you very much.

If you don't like it, tough.

by Blez on Oct 10, 2006 9:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's better!
A little fiestiness is in order for all involved parties. The fans should be pissed and the team should be pissed. Let's take that attitude and neuter the kitties tomorrow!
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My wife would tell you that
I'm only paying lip service to that sentiment.  She was quite annoyed with my behavior tonight given that my daughter was in the room.

by Blez on Oct 10, 2006 9:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hello!
I'm not supposed to be talking to your wife, remember?! You're the one who issued the restraining order in the first place....
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait a sec...
I wasn't supposed to mention that on AN, was I?

Nothing to see here folks! Move about your business!

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

FWIW, Blez
I'm basically with you on this one.  I do not deal well with A's losses in big games -- especially watching them alone, often on a 2x2 inch mlbtv.com diplay on my computer screen...well, let's just say that I've had lots of sleepless nights back here in NJ.

But I feel -- and I hope the A's feel -- somewhat, I dunno, liberated by the sweep of the Twins.  The monkey is off our back.  It's time to have a Nick Swisher type of attitude -- play all out, take a huge cut, and even if you K, go back to the dugout with a smile on your face.

So we K'd tonight.  Get back in there tomorrow night and take our hacks.  And keep doing that until they stop scheduling games for us to play or we raise the trophy.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Oct 10, 2006 9:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I feel liberated too.
for what it's worth.

Although I slept like crap in Boston last night.

Ellis and his bionic finger will be the bloody sock of this team. ~ pickinmachine

by poetwee on Oct 11, 2006 6:24 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I didn't so much sleep
as eventually pass out
Squeak!

by ArakSOT on Oct 11, 2006 9:09 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well
you did drink like eight beers. You should get in a contest with one of the undergrads tonight.

I'll be drinking more tonight, since I can RedLine it. That reminds me (again) that I should buy some Henessey for the commute home. I'm gonna tear this MBTA sh*t up, Oak-town stylee.

See, I never thought Haren was much more than a stoner-surfer dude. But lately, I am seeing a different side of Haren... The one that flosses. ~ anne

by poetwee on Oct 11, 2006 11:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

WDMDW?
What Did Macha Do Wrong?

Between Zito's shoddy performance, the defensive lapses, the DP's and the RISP 0-fer, I can't recall anything that Macha screwed up tonight. Doesn't mean it didn't happen; I just can't remember it.

"You are not very good, Dad. You always lose." --Dylan

by dylantravis on Oct 10, 2006 9:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The no Kielty decision
is a tough one.  He should've been in there against Robertson.

by Blez on Oct 10, 2006 9:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't blame Macha for the loss, but
I do think he erred in not pinch hitting for Kotsay in the 5th.  The only argument for letting Kotsay play tonight was his defense. When your team is losing 5-0 in the 5th inning, you need to score.  Kotsay has a .707 OPS against LHs and Kotsay a .965 OPS against LHs.  Even if starting Kotsay was defensible, not pinch hitting for him down 5-0 with three runners on is simply bad strategy.  Did it cost us the game?  Proabably not.  Was it another example of poor game management by Macha?  Certainly.
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 9:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

two runners on
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 9:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My big problem with Macha (tonight)
Zito needed to get pulled before he gave up the extra run in the 4th. But Macha loves to push his SP for every last out and it hurt the A's tonight.

Look, Zito didn't have his "A" game tonight and he couldn't get a call from the homeplate umpire to save his life. When Zito isn't getting his curve called for strikes, when he's getting squeezed by Blue, he's not going to be very effective. Barry does not have the fastball to blow it by hitters if they're sitting on it, he can't dial it up to 96 MPH like Robertson did.

Tonight called for a quicker hook by Macha. Maybe it doesn't help change the outcome, but pulling Barry after Igor's HR would have been the smart play. But Macha didn't do it and the Tigers scored two more runs.

Hey, I'm not blaming Macha for the RISP disaster or the shoddy defense, those faults lie on the players and maybe 3 runs would have been all the Tigers needed tonight to win. But coming back from 3 runs is a lot easier than coming back from 5 down, and those two extra runs that Zito gave up are Macha's responsibilty. Barry did not have it tonight and it was Macha's job to protect his pitcher and his team by removing him earlier than he did.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Fair enough, but
"inept" a little strong, imo.

Let's look at Zito's night. He retired the first six batters. In the third, he essentially gave up a homer, a double and a walk and got five outs, including the Polanco should-have-been-K and the Chavez misplay. I don't think that inning merited having someone up at the beginning of the fourth inning, which would have been necessary to make a change after the Pudge homer. Macha probably shouldn't have let Zito pitch to Polanco, but by then it was 4-0 anyway, largely due to Jimenez' bad throw.

"You are not very good, Dad. You always lose." --Dylan

by dylantravis on Oct 10, 2006 10:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Inept
Tonight showed Macha at his worst, which IMO equals inept. He's not always inept.

Thing is, we've seen this kind of thing from Barry before. He got shook up in the 3rd and Macha should have been ready to pull him if he didn't show signs of recovering from the trauma in the 4th. There is no way Macha could not have recognized the danger signs, he chose to ignore them until it was too late.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 10:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought Macha played it exactly right.
Zito was going to go as far as Casey in that inning, no more no less, because hitters #1 and 3 were lefty and Polanco vs. Gaudin-in-his-first-ever-post-season-pitch or Polanco against "I give up tons of hits" Blanton or Saarloos, was not a better matchup than letting your veteran ace try to work through his difficulties.

Zito's inability to throw enough quality pitches after the first 8 hitters, Crawford's pathetically tight strike zone, and Chavy's and Jiminez' inability to make plays you would expect them to make, were the problems. Macha did the best he could under very poor circumstances created for him.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 10, 2006 10:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

agree nico
macha's strategy was right--not playing Kielty was wrong but i'm guessing that was a group decision--not a macha decision. i knew that losing ellis would cost us at least one game--and tonight was it. ellis turns that dp, we trail by 3, not 5, we then do something other than swing for the fences and ground into dps with risp--we move them over, we start them, we play for one run at a time, not 3 at a time if we are down only 3 IMHO.  
  I hope that was the only game that ellis' injury costs us. maybe the casey injury will cost them a game--but i believe ellis was more important to the a's than casey is (was) to the tigers.
This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings. ~Bill Veeck

by Steve in Napa on Oct 10, 2006 10:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

A brave comment
considering hindsight shows us that Macha's "exactly right" play led to the Tigers scoring two more runs.

Zito did not have it tonight and he was getting squeezed by Blue. This is the play-offs, when you cough one up you don't get a whole lotta opportunities to make it up. You said it yourself Nico, Zito wasn't throwing quality pitches. What more justification does a manager need to pull a pitcher?

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 10:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

hey...
if you flipped one of those D's horizontally in your header, you'd have a palindrome! ;-)

by wolffpackdavid on Oct 10, 2006 9:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Your entitled to your opinion, but
those of us who agree with Blez are entitled to ours.  Nico stated somewhere near the end of the regular season that his theory as a fan is to be happy when his team is competitive over a number of years rather than having a Marlins style boom or bust team. I agree with Nico and Blez, I want my team to win the World Series but I consider this year a success if the A's do not win another game.  Getting a ALDS win made me very happy.  I want more, but I can accept a loss at this point.  Neither theory of fandom is objectively correct, it's just a matter of perspective.
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 9:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Did I say you weren't entitled
to your opinion? Nope.

While I agree with the principle of yearly competitiveness, the 2006 roster did not lend itself to that plan. Payton, Zito, Kielty and Melhuse are all likely to be elsewhere next season and I think there is a good chance that one of Calero or Duke will be traded to fill a hole elsewhere. Crosby has become more question than answer at this point. Does Thomas really have two more years in him?

Point is the 2007 looks to be a lot weaker than this year's version and the farm system is not poised to reload the roster like it did in 2005. The yearly competitive plan would have called for trading Zito and Payton at the deadline to strengthen future rosters but Beane didn't go that route. He's shooting for a championship, therefore anything short of that would have to be considered a failure.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 9:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Meh . . .
The title 'unacceptable' tends to indicate lack of ackowledgment of any opposing opinion.  Regardless, I think you set up a false dichotomy in assuming that if you favor a yearly competitive plan that you should always trade away players at the dealine to acquire prospects.  Perhaps the "championship" that Beane was shooting for was the AL West championship; if so, mission accomplished.  I also don't agree with your position that the potential for bad teams down the road bring additional urgency to this year.  For me, I will be unhappy if we are not competitive, and us having won a WS championship in 2006 will have no bearing on my happiness in 2007 and beyond.  I view each year individually and I will want us to do well every year regardless of what happens this year.  I'm not questioning the value of your opinion, but I don't agree with it.  In July you and Oaktoon were saying pack in the season because there was no reason to waste the effort this season and we needed to reload for future seasons.  I don't think a loss in the ALCS would validate your opinion on the season.  For me, and for many other fans, winning the AL West and the ALDS made this one fantastic year.  Let's hope the A's get it going and we both get what we want, a 2006 year we can both call a success.
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 10:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If the goal is a WS title
than anything short of that HAS to be considered a failure. That's why Steinbrenner is so pissed with his Yankees. And why should winning the AL West be considered a significant achievement? Is it going to boost attendance next year? Probably not, we've seen how little the AL West crown has influenced attendance totals in our recent past. Is it going to help get a stadium built or open up territorial rights in San Jose? Nope. I doubt it's going to boost ad revenue next year. The AL West title doesn't really offer any long term benefits for the A's. you get a nice hat but that's about it.

But a world championship is different. A new trophy can buy you that stadium. It can make you more attractive to free agents and advertising dollars. The trophy can have a long term impact on the health of a franchise.

On a different note, if FA compensation is done away with in the next bargaining agreement than yes, I think it would be imperative to trade players like Barry Zito rather than letting them walk away without receiving compensation. A lot of people have said that they'd be fine with letting Zito walk in exchange for the post-season and a couple 1st round picks. What if you didn't get those 1st round picks? What if compensation was set up like the NFL, where a team could lose a star player and it would get (at best) a draft pick at the end of the 3rd round? Would those extra two months of Zito be worth it if you didn't make the World Series?

I believe it's naive to think that what the future foretells does not have a bearing on the present. Frank Thomas was signed to a one year deal, he was exactly the type of player (ie expendable) Beane was looking for when he sought to build his roster this year. He knew that Zito was gone after this season and he deliberately brought in short timers like Bradley and Thomas because he wanted to build a roster that could win NOW. There is no long term upside to the trio of Zito and Thomas and Bradley, not in Oakland anyways. They are here to help the A's win now. And since there looks to be a significant talent drop-off on next year's roster the only plan that makes sense is to win the whole fucking thing in 2006.

Anything else is a compromised half-measure.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 10:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I feel sorry for the people who
root with the approach that "anything short of a WS win is a failure," because they are doomed to be oft disappointed and to miss out on a lot of joy.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 10, 2006 10:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I do too
but let's be honest here. Thomas was brought in for one reason. Zito was still an Oakland A on August 1st for one reason.

I didn't make this call. Billy Beane set the bar and if he doesn't clear it than you have to call it a failure.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 10:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Beane brought Thomas in,
and kept Zito, to be as competitive as possible for 2006, AND beyond. Just because you let someone walk, be it Tejada or Giambi or Zito, doesn't mean you don't intend to be competitive the next year or the one after that.

As a smaller-market team, you will always be "losing someone, keeping someone, and bringing someone up, just like last year and just like next year." The A's are intended to be contenders for the division, and any short-series possible, now and later.

Losing Zito will not send the A's into a rebuilding mode for 2007. Heck, if Harden is healthy in 2007, the starting pitching may wind up being BETTER than it was with Zito in 2006.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 10, 2006 10:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And if Crosby can stay healthy and live up
to his potential, then maybe you'll get finally get your pony. The Oakland A's cannot count on a healthy season from Harden, they can't build their starting rotation around that concept.

I'm not saying the 2007 Oakland Athletics are going to turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates West. All I'm saying is that next year's roster looks to be weaker than the 2006 version. The 2006 team was built to win it all this year. Right now it looks like the goal of the 2007 team will be much like that of the 2005 version: Survive and build.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 11:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thomas
I think he was brought in for MANY reasons.

I don't consider a "failure" if we don't get to the World Series.  

IMHO:  This season has been a huge success.  Everything else is gravy.

Go A's!

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Oct 10, 2006 11:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's fine
But I think when a team calls it's shot and doesn't hit the mark, you have to call it what it is... a failure.

And make no mistake, Beane's roster decisions have been about one thing, and one thing only, winning a World Championship in 2006.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 11:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't agree
Billy Beane was trying to get to the Playoffs this season.  Then, he was hoping to win a couple games of blackjack.  Today, the dealer was showing an Ace, and we were stuck with a 16.

Not having Zito next season makes this roster a non-World Championship Caliber team in 2006?  I don't think so.

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Oct 10, 2006 11:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

er, 2007
COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Oct 10, 2006 11:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I knew you meant 2007
and I wasn't going to pick on you for the slip. We can discuss the 2007 team in more detail at a later date, but the short version is this:

I'm an optomist. I'm absolutely positive that the A's can't plan around full, productive seasons from Crosby and Harden. That leaves the rotation holding open auditions for two jobs and hoping that Blanton can bounce back. The also line-up needs further reinforcments.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 11:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We could debate this forever,
but we will just have to agree to disagree.  As an A's fan, I will never suscribe to the "World Series Champion" or failure philosophy.  Comparing us to the Yankees doesn't work.  If I was a fan of a team that had the most unbalanced payroll advantage in modern sports, I would expect my team to win the WS every year.  On our payroll, we may never win a WS Championship.  I consider an AL West Championship a success, and I will probably enjoy being an A's fan a lot more than you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but I am really glad that I don't share it, as my 27 years as an A's fan would have been pretty miserable if I considered my team a failure for 26 out of the 27 years.
Please let 2006 be the year, and without an earthquake this time.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 10, 2006 10:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're not listening to me
Billy Beane declared 2006 a boom or bust year, not by his words but by his actions. He made roster moves that were designed to enhance the A's championship opportunity in 2006, they were not expected to have legs beyond this season.

That has not always been the A's goal. Nor should the A's attempt such a plan year after year, because their financial limitaions prohibit them from doing so. I agree with the concept of building a competetive team for the long haul, but that does not take away from the fact that Beane has built this year's team with an unusually heavy emphasis on winning this season.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 10:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What?
Beane has focused on the short-term plenty of times. He kept Giambi. He kept Tejada. He traded for Ray Durham, Jose Guillen and Johnny Damon knowing full well he would likely have them for a season or less. And I also don't buy your argument that Beane's moves have substantially hurt the team's future. How does signing Frank Thomas to a cheap one-year deal show a huge emphasis on winning today? If you believe he is worth the risk for 2006, you sign him, regardless of your expectations for the team's season because it makes your team better today at no cost to tomorrow in either players or money. In fact, if you are right about him, it could help your future by trading him mid-season if you are not in contention.

The Bradley deal was short-term focused, but I am guessing that Beane's logic was that Bradley will be better than Ethier in 2006 and 2007, and Buck will be almost as good as Ethier in 2008 and beyond.

Keeping Zito now will hurt the team next year, but I doubt that one starting pitcher is going to make the difference between the A's contending or not next year.

I think Beane's offseason moves were actually pretty consistent with most of his offseason and deadline activity: put the best team on the field for the current season term without doing drastic damage to your ability to compete in the future.

"You are not very good, Dad. You always lose." --Dylan

by dylantravis on Oct 10, 2006 11:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Let's break down the track record
Giambi. He kept Giambi because he thought he had a roster good enough to go all the way. He also had Jason Hart tearing up the minor leagues and honestly, finding a DH/1B bat isn't that hard. When Hart struggled in came Hatty.

Tejada. He kept Tejada because he had a team centered around the Aces that was good enough to win a title. He also had a hotshot SS prospect in Bobby Crosby who needed another year of seasoning.

He traded for guys like Guillen and Durham and Damon becuase he knew their departures would not gut the core of his team. He also knew he had guys who could replace those players in his organization.

By my estimation the A's are likely to lose Payton, Kielty (although I thought he was a gones before this offseason) Melhuse and Zito. Now, Melhuse can be replaced in-house but there is no ready to step up and fill behind Payton or Zito. Hell, there's no one in the organization who looks primed to replace Kielty as the designated lefty-killer.

Thomas was all about winning this year. For one thing, he only got a one year deal! For another thing, you do not sign a 38 year old DH with an eye on building for the future. At that age the end can come at any time.

The A's aren't positioned to replace their losses from within. Sure, they could always go outside their system to find help but that requires either money (which has never been in great supply) or tradeable prospects (which the A's do not have in abundance right now.) You're looking at a minimum of a 20% roster turn-over and it's obvious that the A's are short on resources to fill the holes. The A's played short-handed often enough in 2006, I don't really want to see that happen again next year.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 10, 2006 11:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My response
I believe the Giambi and Tejada decisions are the same as Zito: The A's kept a star player in order to make the best run they could in the current year while still believing they could compete without the star the following year. I don't think Jason Hart and Bobby Crosby were the reasons Giambi and Tejada were kept. I do believe that Beane thinks the A's can compete next year without Zito.

I agree with your paragraph about Guillen, Durham and Damon, but I don't see how that shows that Beane is more short-term focused this year than in those years. Beane didn't make any "rental" (one-year or less) trades this year, which would refute your assertion that he has been more focused on the present in 2006.

The players you list as being gone made $14 million this year. Kendall will be $4 million cheaper. Raises will eat into those savings, of course, but I would think Beane will have the resources to sign a decent pitcher to a Loaiza type contract and find a Kielty-level outfielder (maybe Kielty himself in a platoon with DJ). Does this make the A's better next year? Of course not, but it's not a certain ticket to mediocrity, either.

We just see the Thomas situation differently. I think Beane would have made this move in any year he was needed a DH, regardless of his expectations for the team. If it works, it makes the team better today. If it doesn't, it only costs a few dollars off the current payroll. In either case, it has no cost in players or future payroll, so who cares whether the end can come at any time? The only way the deal might not make sense is if the A's had a young player to use at DH and Thomas would be blocking him from getting experience, but that was not the case. Unless the A's had been in total rebuild mode, the Thomas signing made sense.

"You are not very good, Dad. You always lose." --Dylan

by dylantravis on Oct 11, 2006 1:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, the Thomas signing made sense
But you don't sign a 38 year old DH to a one year contract with an eye towards what he can do for you two years down the road. Giving the man a ONE YEAR DEAL is pretty much the definition of a short term focus.

Hart and Crosby were not the sole reasons Beane kept Giambi and Tejada, they just made the decision easier on Beane. Follow the pattern. Giambi was supposed to be replaced by Hart, a good prospect already in the organization. When Hart struggled Beane went out and traded for Carlos Pena (one of the top 1B prospects in all of baseball) to replace Giambi. Tejada was going to be replaced by Crosby, one of the top SS prospects in all of baseball. He traded Mulder for Haren, who had just lost top prospect status because of a big league promotion. Hudson beget Dan Meyers, one of the top SP prospects in baseball. Where's the top prospect lining up to replace Barry Zito in 2007?

<crickets chirping)<p> <cow moos in the distance>

Exactly.

Beane broke his established pattern of having a top prospect ready to replace a departing core player because he was placing more emphasis on winning a title in 2006. He didn't go out and buy a short term rental because he couldn't afford the price. Beane will never be the type of GM who will strip his farm system to chase down a title.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Oct 11, 2006 6:13 AM PDT to parent up