Loaiza claimed off waivers by Dodgers
It would seem Loaiza has been claimed off waivers by the Dodgers. Rosenthal seems to to believe the A's are going to just let him go without compensation..
I find this real hard to believe. Why would the A's just let him go for nothing? It can't just be about the money saved. If so, then the A's continue to come off as VERY cheap...............
0 recs |
370 comments
Comments
Link...
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7168078
by AthleticsPTBNL on Aug 29, 2007 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it's a done deal
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7...
The Dodgers have added another starting pitcher to their rotation, claiming right-hander Esteban Loaiza on waivers from the A's.
The teams did not complete a trade for Loaiza; the A's simply allowed the Dodgers to assume the rest of Loaiza's contract — less than $1 million this season, plus Loaiza's entire $7 million salary for 2008.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If this is true
then someone is asleep at the wheel. Given his contract, I can't imagine not being able to get a return on him with the other club taking on his entire contract.
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can bet there'll be a payback later.
We help you now, you help us later...
by Ozzz on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering the odds of the Dodgers winning
the World Series, I seriously doubt Billy's getting his ring from this move.
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hope not
if the Dodgers won't give up anything good now, I've little doubt that the A's can get something good in the offseason, especially given what the free agent class looks like.
by OaklandSi on Aug 29, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just checking in at work
and now have seen the news
ugh
by OaklandSi on Aug 29, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I'm completely baffled. Why not hold on to Loaiza and deal him this offseason? Another terrible move by Beane. Buy High, Sell Low.
It almost feels like Beane & Company have become a "Born Again" Organization.... choosing to keep "Good Guys" who suck (Chavez, Crosby, Kotsay) over "Bad Guys" who don't.
by Colorado Fan on Aug 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not sold on this move.
Baffling.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
another wtf moment for sure
by ArakSOT on Aug 29, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't they realize...
... How cheap they look to the fans, players, etc. I may not be a huge Loaiza fan, but his contract next year was not huge dollars by any means. I would think that they could have gotten someone for him. Maybe not a high level prospect, but someone decent with a good upside.
by AthleticsPTBNL on Aug 29, 2007 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The other option...
...is to hold onto some pipedream of a WS title this year and keep older players who aren't going to help way too long... ala the Giants the past several years.
It's a gamble, sure, but I see it as setting up for the future. The alternative is slow and painful.
by UncleLeo on Aug 29, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This makes
Charles O Finley look like Diamond Jim.
by billyball1981 on Aug 29, 2007 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's all keep our heads now
Letting Loaiza leave for no return is nothing like Finley's attempt to sell Blue, Fingers and Rudi for cash...just to cite one obvious example of Finley skinflintery.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 29, 2007 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we really trying?
Come on!
by Jennifer on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Release
OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland A’s today announced that right-handed pitcher Esteban Loaiza has been claimed on waivers by the Los Angeles Dodgers. To take his spot on the roster, the A’s have selected right-handed pitcher Colby Lewis from Triple-A Sacramento.
Loaiza began the 2007 season on the 15-day disabled list with spasms in his right trapezius muscle and was transferred to the 60-day DL on May 4. He was later diagnosed with a bulging disc in his neck and torn meniscus in his right knee and made two starts with Sacramento on a rehab assignment before having surgery on the knee on May 31. Loaiza began a second rehab assignment on August 1 and went 2-0 with a 2.93 ERA in four starts before he was reinstated from the DL on August 22. He went 1-0 with a 1.84 ERA in two starts with Oakland this year and was 12-9 with a 4.62 ERA in 28 starts in two seasons with the A’s. Loaiza is 124-108 with a 4.60 ERA in 362 career appearances, 325 starts, in 13 seasons in the Majors. He is in the second year of a three-year contract through 2008 with a club option for 2009.
Lewis joins the A’s for the second time this year after going 0-2 with an 8.06 ERA in 19 games, one start, during his first stint. He was selected by Oakland on May 22 and allowed 10 runs in 3.1 innings in a start that night at Chicago. Lewis was then moved to the bullpen and retired 24 batters in a row at one point while compiling a 5.24 ERA in relief. He was designated for assignment on July 16 and sent outright to Sacramento on July 19. Lewis was 8-3 with a 1.88 ERA in 15 starts with the River Cats, including 3-2 with a 1.40 ERA in seven starts after he was sent down by Oakland in July. He allowed a .202 opponents batting average, including .190 against left-handed hitters and .167 with runners in scoring position.
by OaklandA23 on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
money
That takes Kendall, Piazza and Loaiza off the books for next season which should free up about 20 million dollars. Anybody think they'll do anything with that money as in bring in some free agents who can hit?
by shawzy on Aug 29, 2007 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
name 'em
Do you seriously think any of these dudes are worth committing big money to?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
the answer is another season of mediocrity with that crew of free agents
by shawzy on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Bradley kid can swing.
Oh wait.
by Ozzz on Aug 29, 2007 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Craig kid can swing
Oh, wait.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His wide stance, on the other hand...
by Englishmajor on Aug 29, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the toe-tap is a timing mechanism ...
... like Crosby?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He went to school with Joe Blanton.
Craig's was 'Cup Balls'.
by Ozzz on Aug 29, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Julio Franco kid.... is no kid.
by McFood on Aug 29, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Julio Franco kid... is no kid.
by McFood on Aug 29, 2007 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
only four guys are interesting
- Hunter - would fit very nicely into the organization, but will probably get a better deal somewhere else
- Jones - see #1
- Fukudome - just think of the slams we can come up with when he screws up
- Linebrink - coming off rough season, maybe we can get him cheap to sure up the 7th inning
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best case scenario I can think of
off the top of my head would be something like Bonds for $10 million + Rowand/Fukudome for $9-13 million. I think Meyer or Braden can probably put up similar numbers to Loaiza, but it would be nice to have gotten something in return - even a low level relief prospect.
by scromulus on Aug 29, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barry Bonds
A lineup with Cust and Bonds in the middle would look really good, even if it means really crappy defense.
by AsMontreal on Aug 29, 2007 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If his current team doesn't pick up his option
I say we should sign that Ellis guy.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
20 Million Bucks
...doesn't go as far as it used to.
I really don't know what the A's realistically think they can get. This team needs to be rebuilt from the farm system up. The problem is Beane isn't getting any prospects. Too many GMs are weary of looking bad or burned by Billy if they deal with him. His reputation preceeds him although he hasn't exactly shown himself to be brilliant lately.
by Gerard on Aug 29, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, here's the plan
We need to figure out a way to get Crosby, Chavez, and Kotsay to start bitching publicly and by name to the press about Beane.
Then, Beane will simply DFA them.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I... don't... understand
This makes no sense whatsoever to me.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Would anybody have felt differently
if he had given up 10 runs over his last two starts? I think people are overvaluing him based on his stats in the last week.
That said, he'll go to the NL and probably pitch very well and everyone will think it was another terrible Beane move. I guess this means we won't be trading Blanton in the offseason.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are two obvious possibilities
(1) The A's intend to pursue a free agent or two to fill some holes, or
(2) The A's want to sign one of their current players to a long term contract.
My guess would be (1), but then I am not particularly in the loop as far as who is likely to want a long term deal or whom the A's want to lock up for a long term deal.
Also, Piazza may be traded (or claimed off of waivers) before the end of the week. The deals aren't done yet.
by intexile on Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Piazza already cleared waivers
but Detroit currently has interest so maybe they'll just say "Hey, take him, he's yours. Would you like Blanton and Swisher too? Really. For Free."
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giving Piazza away for nothing
would actually make sense.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love it....
Good riddance to the guy and the money he was owed next year. Bye bye ELo
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
giving players away = new market inefficiency
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, BB has obviously determined
The most overvalued commodity in baseball today is players, and the most undervalued is money.
by chadgaudummy on Aug 29, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There has to be more to this
Yes Loaiza has $8 mil on his contract, but thats actually pretty cheap considering the money that teams are throwing at decent, mid-rotation starting pitchers these days.
Can it be that they just claimed him and agree to work outcompensation later?
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's my guess, too
I don't think this was the huge giveaway others are suggesting -- I don't think we were going to get someone like LaRoche or Hu for Loaiza -- but I do figure we should have at least gotten a couple of lower prospects.
I'll be watching the wire over the off-season to see what comes up that might have been part of an unofficial, handshake agreement.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sorry to see DUIza go...
BUT...they should have gotten something for him! He's a starting pitcher who will give you a decent outing most times out and is coming on the cheap for today's market. And you're telling me you couldn't swing even one prospect from the Dodgers for him?
I wonder where all this "money" we're "saving" is going to go. Do the new San Jose Earthquakes plan to make a run at Beckham or something?
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 29, 2007 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I guess I am the same
Really happy to see him and his contract go....but would have been nice to get something. But sure didnt want him or his $$ on the team.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hi. My name is Billy ...
... and I'm a a free-agent-aholic.
Hi, Billy.
Last night, I hit bottom.
Congratulations, Billy.
My team lost its fifth game in a row, I realized we might finish under .500, and ... < sob > I broke the last chair in the Coliseum.
So, this morning, I woke up, and I went through the roster, and started pouring every bad, expensive free-agent signing and extension down the drain.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
< please note irony >
Yes, I know that Loaiza in the current market is a good deal.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irony is dead.
by LAXile on Aug 29, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
W T F
the A's are getting NOTHING in return?????
i don't understand!!!
by gotgreen on Aug 29, 2007 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You'll get nothing...
and LIKE IT!! Bajajajajajajajaja!
by Jennifer on Aug 29, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And no toys for christmas either!
Just socks and underwear. Now go eat your mush!
by kaweahkaweah on Aug 29, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley redux
Add me to the list of those who find this move ... puzzling.
Many didn't like this signing in the first place: the A's paid close to market value for an inconsistent averagish pitcher. And in a sense the critics have been right, as the A's have so far gotten only a month or two of effective pitching for their expensive investment.
But since then the price for averagish pitchers has only gone up farther: Adam frickin' Eaton got more than Loaiza, coming off a year in which he was injured and had an ERA of more than 5. Meche and Lilly got deals for 40% more than Loaiza (and with very risky 5-year commitments). And the Pirates were willing to give up two players for the last year of Matt Morris' contract (more expensive than Loaiza's, and Morris, though healthier, has not been as good as Loaiza since they both signed two years ago).
In these circumstances, one year of Loaiza at $7 Million - even given his injuries and inconsistency - is a low-risk bargain that many GMs should be willing to assume. Giving that away for nothing, especially at a time when Loaiza was finally pitching well, just makes no sense.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
At least they got a useful part for Bradley
Despite a few recent appearances, Brown appears to be a nice pickup with longterm value. Hard to believe that Billy couldn't work out a deal for something - a Brown, Hannahan, Van Buren type player.
by boilerdan on Aug 29, 2007 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wha...?!
We just let him go? Come on, Billy, you're better than this.
by danmerqury on Aug 29, 2007 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This team is going nowhere
and very fast.
Sad...
by chavyizdamn3 on Aug 29, 2007 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This isn't a done-done deal, is it?
Beane has a certain amount of time to pull Loaiza back, if he wants, right? Or are they saying he passed on that option?
I would think Beane would want to hang onto Loaiza and hope that he pitches decently the rest of the season. His contract will be a steal in the offseason.
by black beane and rice on Aug 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the A's press release would indicate otherwise
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figured it out
Billy had to save money because his subprime adjustable rate mortgage just reset and his payments doubled.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How many trades have there been
this season where Billy just gives players away for nothing? I don't understad him anymore. He's pathetic.
by chavyizdamn3 on Aug 29, 2007 10:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pathetic?
I'm guessing you don't understand the finer points of baseball dealing such as "What constitutes a trade", "How to get rid of players with little value" and "The payroll"
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pathetic?
Wow...a few questionable moves and he is "pathetic". Whata freaking joke that is....do you not remember the past 7 years where the A's have been competitive every season. Spoiled much?
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe ... just maybe ...
Assuming a modest increase in payroll ... the team is currently a bit more than $20m under payroll for 2008 with all of the starting positions covered (though a couple of them may not really be covered adequately ...)
With Kotsay coming off the books, we can afford that sum for at least 2-3 years ... which will bring us to the presumed doorstep of the new stadium.
Why not A-Rod?
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we dumped Kotsay, Crosby & Chavez's
contracts, you might have something. Until all three of them are gone, I wouldn't even start thinking about it.
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't have to do one before the other
Yes, signing A-Rod before jettisoning other players would limit Beane's negotiating position (other teams would then know that he had to get rid of one or all of those players), but if the objective is mainly just to dump salary -- well, they could ultimately just be DFA'ed. Or traded for peanuts.
I also don't think you'd have to get rid of all three -- Crosby is relatively affordable and plays excellent defense (he could stay at SS while A-Rod sticks with 3B; heck, Crosby could even be converted to 3B), and Kotsay is coming off the books after '08 (heck, he could conceivably retire this offseason if his back is bad enough).
Really, Chavvy is the only one who would have to go in an A-Rod scenario.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes you wonder
If Crosby could play third, then why not just re-sign Tejada instead of Chavez?
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tejada is DONE, he hasn't looked good all
season, and the only thing he would have been good for is the Cal chase, which is now over as well. I wouldn't spend that much money on him
by theblackpearl on Aug 29, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And an .813 OPS
I hardly consider that "done"
I think with each passing season we're seeing that the A's really rolled the dice on Chavez vs. Tejada and we've basically crapped out so far. Yes it gave us a little more salary room to play with and yes Chavez has been a solid defender with some potential left, but Tejada was a spark plug to this team that we've been hard pressed to replace.
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavez was better too.
Miggy EQA's 00-03: .284, .278, .298, .283
Chavez EQA's 00-03: .288, .299, .296, .295
And one less year away from FA. Considering we already had what was considered to be a good SS waiting in the wings, this decision wasn't even that close really.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea but you forget
That Tejada was coming off 2 excellent season, one of which was an MVP season. He had hit a level much higher than we had seen out of Chavez.
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
I just showed you how they hit. Tejada was only two points above Chavez in that 02 year. In fact he did not even hit at the level Chavez did the previous year (yes .001 is obviously about the same but I'm making a point after all)
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken
Buts stats aside...Miggy was an MVP player with fire. Didn't see that in Chavez pure & simple
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what I'm saying ...
is that we have the money now, without dumping any of those guys. Given the substantial upgrade from A-Rod, I'd be comfortable going into 2008 with Denorfia, Snelling and Kotsay competing for PAs in center and I doubt we're ready to give up on Crosby yet, so it wouldn't leave us with any real (unavoidable) holes elsewhere.
Our rotation should be good to very good, our bullpen could be anywhere from solid to spectacular, depending on health and Garcia/Brown's ability to throw strikes.
With the exception of CF and SS, our team is decent in every position, so there aren't really any holes to fill.
We have the money and the only other big money free agent I'd have an interest in would be Rowand but he wouldn't have anywhere near the impact that A-Rod would. I can't think of any better way to spend that money. (except, perhaps, if we could get Beltran from the Mets)
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love it, but ...
... why bring in A-Rod this far in advance of the new stadium?
If part of the consideration for bringing in A-Rod is marketing (and for the amount of money he'll cost, it damn well should be), then the optimal time to bring him onto the team is the year before (or, at the furthest out, two seasons before) the new stadium opens.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he won't be available ...
in 3 years. Assuming, of course, he opts out of his contract this year.
It also makes baseball sense and works financially over the next couple of years. You only need to get into the marketing angle for justification in the out years.
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a non-issue
That said, there's absolutely no guarantee they could sign him even if they freed up the money. He may re-up with the Yankees. Or he might sign with someone else for less money.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yankees have said they will not re-up
if he opts out.....could be all talk, but seems that is he opts out...he wont be back in NY.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO WAY!!!!
NO way No way No way No way... There is NO FUCKING WAY that A rod is going to play for the Athletics next year, or ever for that matter. That shit just does not happen with his agent.... A rod is going somewhere very high profile for a ton of cash. My best guess would be as much as I hate to say it, I think he will be an Angel by the start of the 2008 season....
by Shippee33 on Aug 29, 2007 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he would
NEVER come play here.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
based on?
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Boras as his agent...
No way he would let him go to a place that was not UBER-marketable. He will be in a huge city with a big market team no matter what.
Unless the A's want to verpay like the Rangers did..then I guess it could happen. But in any situation where deals were similar, he would not come here..No way.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't think it's possible that
A-Rod might prefer to play in a less visible, smaller-market team right now? I'm thinking he might getting a little tired of the spotlight. Not that he'd want complete obscurity or anything, but maybe tone it down a little.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beane would need to convince A-Rod
that there are some decent strip bars nearby.
by kaweahkaweah on Aug 29, 2007 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Third largest media market in the country ...
a perennial contender, fans who are generally pretty accepting ...
what's not to like?
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Screw A-rod
He's poison to every team he touches
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea....50 HR and 150 RBI
are poison...Haha, love that rationale.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a tounge in cheek comment...sort of
afterall how many world series has he played in?
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO!!!!!!
Please don't resort to that line.
by Ray of Lite on Aug 29, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which one?
Tounge in cheek or the world series line. Ok, hows this:
I was kind of joking, obviously A-Rod helps any team he's on with his stats, but I just find it ironic that whenever he joins a team, that team either gets worse or improves no more than marginally in the standings
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tounge in cheek
What's a tounge? Something you sip on while reclining in a chaise lounge?
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BBBZZZZT!
Correct spelling is chaise longue.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, now I'm not sure
if I was too subtle for you, or if now you're being too subtle for me.
Yes, I misspelled it. Why do you suppose I brought it up?
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you have this one.
But you both beat me, because I have no idea what that term means, let alone how to spell it.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I need to recalibrate my irony meter
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok your wrong
The Seattle Mariners were about 100 times worse before they got A rod. They had one winning season in their history, and after A rod? That team went on to win 116 games, not with A rod as their short stop, but the teams that he did play on had been building to that point the previous few seasons....
by Shippee33 on Aug 29, 2007 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He made the Mariners marginally better
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 30, 2007 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah..ok..my bad.
Thought you were serious...need to recharge my sarcasm meter.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you think we're going to sign A-Rod
then I have some swamp land in Fremont you might be interested in as well. (Hey, wait a minute...)
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in total agreement
It's time we lose the small-market battle cry and reassess the situation: the A's play in a major market shared with a team that's about to become VERY boring, they have a new corporate sponsor 29 other teams would die for, they have a new ballpark on the horizon, they have a young, solid starting pitching staff. Yes they've had a weak season but these moves (Loaiza, Kendall) to me portend a blockbuster. I think Beane and Wolff are ready to open their wallets and splash the A's on baseball's front page, much like McGowan and the Giants did in '93 (remember the G's weren't on anyone's radar and almost moved to TB). Speaking of the Gnats, what could be sweeter than one of OUR guys making a run at the wreckord in like 2015?? And what about a balanced lineup? Think about what A-Rod in the 4 spot could do for Swisher in the 3? And think about Buck, Suzuki, Ellis, et al ... imagine a team leader, a big fella to take the pressure off these guys? Oh, and I suppose A-Rod doesn't hit in the playoffs right? Well WHO DOES? Certainly not Chavez, and Tejada certainly didn't. Big Frank is the only guy in recent memory. DO IT!!!
by sonomanate on Aug 29, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod's playoff numbers
are almost exactly identical to his career numbers.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What will really make this deal great
is when the Dodgers trade Loazia in the off season for a couple of good prospects.
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 11:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
... whom we then acquire for Blanton
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody just shut up
about A-Rod coming here. It's a waste of time and why would he want to come to Oakland?
I know we all have fantasies but come on...
by chavyizdamn3 on Aug 29, 2007 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
pathetic?
He's about to win his 2nd MVP in 3 years and he's single-handedly slugged his mediocre team into playoff contention. The Yanks would have been DOA in April/May if it hadn't been for this guy. Remember when Giambi was a stud?? Remember Big Frank and Big Mac?? Isn't it great to have a bigboy in the middle of the lineup? Man I wish we could somehow sign this guy.
by sonomanate on Aug 29, 2007 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its lost under so many replies now
This was a response to this
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's the problem with these forums...
on one hand you have geeks like me who simply want to talk baseball, and on a completely different hand you have these ubergeeks who initiate inside jokes.
by sonomanate on Aug 30, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't an inside joke
I don't know the guy/girl at all, I just think they sound incredibly stupid for calling Billy Beane pathetic so I showed them what it looks like when you call someone who's the best at what they do pathetic.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 30, 2007 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Beane is making stupid moves on purpose, losing his "genius" tag and making other GMs want to trade with him again.
by chadgaudummy on Aug 29, 2007 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that's the dummest thing I've read yet
by Gerard on Aug 29, 2007 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so then maybe it IS true...
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There Are Possibilities and Probabilities...
...of which this speaks of neither to the former or the latter.
And then there is Absolute truth. In Billy I trust.
by Gerard on Aug 29, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
loaiza was *too* mexican
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he asked be cut
because he didn't take kindly to being chased around the locker room by a towel-whipping Piazza screaming "¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba!"
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Danny Haren: just Mexican enough
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
to be just mexican enough to play for the a's
you have to be selected to the national baseball team for the netherlands.
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was Wladimir Balentien on that team?
Just sayin'. It appears Bill "Nitwit" Bavasi is determined to block his own prospect.
(I assume you're actually referring to Andruw, right?)
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, to danny haren
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell does that mean?
Who the hell cares what Loiaza's or anyone else's national or ethnic origins are! If a guy (or a girl for that matter) from Outer Mongolia could pitch solid ball, they would be here. With that said, the A's were stupid to not get any compensation for Loiza.
by may7 on Aug 29, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a running joke
Eric Chavez, although he has a Hispanic name and heritage, comes from a family which is very assimilated -- he doesn't speak Spanish at all, etc. Years ago some reporter called Chavez "not very Mexican", which is basically a factual statement. That became a running joke in AN, and we often refer to Chavvy as being "not Mexican enough" in various humorous contexts. XBox's comment that Loaiza is "too Mexican" was just a reference to that, not meant as any sort of ethnic slur.
Your screen name is unfamiliar to me, so I'm guessing you're new around here. There's a lot of running jokes that don't really make sense if you're not in the loop. I guess this is one of them.
I'm bothering to explain all this only because I can see how you might think it was an offensive remark, and I'm trying to assure you that it really wasn't.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Chavy not Mexican enough" reference...
From ANcillary Terms:
Chavy's not Mexican enough = From a preseason diary about the WBC. Now used as shorthand for "we love Chavy, and that guy who wrote that he isn't Mexican enough is, uh, wrong." Similar to Chavy has no heart/guts/grit, but I can't find a link for the origin of that.
by calgbear on Aug 29, 2007 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no link
for the "no guts/grit" diary, because you know that at birth ... kind of like birds who fly south for the winter. It just is.
by Vacafan on Aug 29, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Semi-lurker ...
First comment was last December, but has only 77 comments total ... he/she has accumulated 25 diaries in that time ... actually the first diary came a week before the first comment ...
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People who write a bunch of diaries
but hardly ever comment are an odd bread...
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they're not even human,
just flour and yeast.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was a joke
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhpas he looks better to the Dodgers
when they're wearing the beer goggles.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 29, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is the scary part...
Oakland recalled right-hander Colby Lewis from Triple-A Sacramento to take Loaiza's place on the roster.
by arch on Aug 29, 2007 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well, at least we didn't get colby lewis
in a trade FOR loaiza, that would have been a worse deal than giving away loaiza for nothing.
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we basically did
We traded Loaiza for nothing. And we traded nothing for Colby Lewis. Ergo, we traded Loaiza for Colby Lewis.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's been awesome in AAA
which means he'll suck here, but it won't matter since this is essentially spring training 2008
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this a good time for a
"WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"?
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Aug 29, 2007 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of points that I haven't seen made yet
If Loaiza made it all the way to the Dodgers, then no AL teams and everyone in the NL except SD, NY, AZ, and Philly (and those teams may not have been either) were interested in him. If they weren't interested in giving anything up for him now or even just run the risk of taking his salary, would they really be interested in giving up anything in the offseason?
This also assumes that Loaiza stays healthy the rest of the year, which is no sure bet considering the last two years. Its possible Billy thinks Loaiza is really hurt and done, and would be just mostly dead salary next year.
I'm just tossing out ideas, though this move doesn't seem to make a lot of sense right now there probably is some rational behind it, I don't think this is another Jeremy deal.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They got something in return for Jeremy
Well, either Jeremy really, I don't know which one you mean.
I don't care if it's a 38 year-old with four fingers who throws underhanded, couldn't he have gotten SOMETHING out of this?
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meat Jeremy in the sense of irrational decision
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loiaza May not have been able to pass...
...the physical exam if he were traded. Cervical spondylosis, etc. may have been too much for any GM to swallow while giving up a prospect. My guess, is that if he pans out the Dogers may be generous with Beane in the future. Certainly at this point we can't see what Billy dies in making this move.
by Gerard on Aug 29, 2007 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cervical spontaneousis?
He's probably not a great guy, but that's going to far to say that he had a sex change.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smart Move by Management
Some might think giving away Esteban Loaiza for nothing is a bad move, but he's an overpaid average starting pitcher that can't seem to stay healthy or sober while driving. (this move is a no brainer)
We have 4 starting pitchers who project to be better and cheaper than him next year. (Haren, Blanton, DiNardo, and Gaudin)
I'm surprised actually that we were able to give him away without having to pay some of his salary.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 29, 2007 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Really. Why don't you slot in our #5 starter
so I can clearly understand the hidden genius behind this move? We haven't been able to find one all year and the team needs to spend every penny of money on offense in the off-season.
If you are going to mention Braden, Komine, Madsen, Meyer or Windsor as #5 guys than I'm still looking for an answer to the question. None of those guys are close to being ready for ML hitters.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting Pitching isn't our Problem as much as O
Rich Harden, Brad Halsey, James Simmons, whatever.
The hidden genius I think behind the move is that the money that was supposed to be used for Loaiza next year can be used for other things, like a bat that can hit ML pitching, or extended contracts to our current players for the future.
Basically gives the A's more flexibility, instead of spending 10% of your payroll on an aging average injury riddled starting pitcher. But that's just my opinion...
To be honest, I was hoping to see Loaiza on the freeway so I could race him, but I guess he won't be around too much anymore.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 29, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By your own logic wouldn't it be a good idea to
get rid of Loaiza's contract as it means more money for offense? And as for the pitchers you mentioned (all of whom would earn about 1/15 what Loaiza is owed), I'm willing to bet either Braden or Meyer is capable of besting Loaiza's career 4.6 ERA and .284 BAA next year. And if they don't, I seriously doubt it will be the difference between the A's contending and not contending.
by scromulus on Aug 30, 2007 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also keep in mind
That Loaiza was pretty pissed at the A's Brass for making him pitch in 3 or 4 rehab assingments after he said he was ready to come back. Perhaps there was some drama taking place behind closed doors that we'll never know about..
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Come on folks... this was a dumb move no matter
how much you worship Billy Beane. We had a #4 or #5 ML starter for next year at a reasonable rate. Why on earth would you get nothing in return when other teams are struggling to find #2 and #3 starters?
Yesterday someone alluded to the fact that this might be in response to Loiaza speaking out about not returning from the DL sooner. I thought that was crazy but now that is the only logical explanation as to why the A's would be this stupid.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why didn't the other 25 or so teams above them
claim him?
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Timing is everything. We gained nothing by
making this move today and I have already said that I wasn't necessarily against it in the off-season. Why did we make the move now and how did it benefit our team? I guess that question needs to be answered as much as why 25 teams passed on him.
Are all of the teams that passed on Jack Cust suddenly right for doing so?
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now
If by "now" you mean today as opposed to tomorrow, I don't know. But if you mean this week as opposed to the off-season, the answer is clear:
Any player not on the roster before Sept 1 is not allowed on the playoff roster. The Dodgers hope to be in the playoffs, and if they're going to get Loaiza they want him to be available in the playoffs.
In three days, Loaiza's value takes a dip. Hence, we move him now rather than later.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the timing issue you are mentioning
but I see no reason to be in a rush to get nothing in return. There are less teams vying for the playoffs right now, so there is less demand (sold low). If he would have waited until after the season there would be more teams showing interest (may have sold high).
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's a gamble ...
BB is betting against Loaiza.
If Loaiza stays healthy, productive for the last month of the season, we might have been able to get a decent (not great) prospect for him in the offseason. If he doesn't, we'd probably have to pay someone to take him off our hands.
In BB's estimation, the risk of holding onto him was greater than the possible reward. There just wasn't that much upside.
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not young and not cheap...
He does not fit on the team for 2008. Why would they want him in 2008. They are slowly rebuilding for a run at 2009 or 2010.....An $8 million veteran pitcher on a one year deal for 2008 fits that ion no way, shape or form.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could have waited until the off-season to
determine his market value. I'm afraid that most people around here just automatically agree with whatever BB does even when it doesn't make sense. It's kind of scary.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice job reading the thread
Its been pretty much the exact opposite.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did read the thread and found plenty of people
supporting the move. Why don't you go back and read some of the posts?
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Way to go from
"most people around here just automatically agree with whatever BB does even when it doesn't make sense."
to
"I did read the thread and found plenty of people
supporting the move."
in one fell swoop. Impressive. These two statements aren't remotely close to each other.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me rephrase- most BB "supporters" continue
to back his decisions unconditionally even when he makes a bad move. Your questioning of my conflicting statements still doesn't make it a good decision but you got me on that one. Way to go! ! !
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I automatically back BB's moves AND your opinion,
so thanks for putting me in a conflicting situation. Now I'm going to curl up in a fetal position, suck my thumb, and wait for one of you guys to change your mind.
by McFood on Aug 29, 2007 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll end up bowing out first because I love
the A's so it's all good in the AN hood.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm certainly not a Beane worshipper
but will you at least wait to see what the As do with the money saved before lambasting Beane?
Also, Matt Morris got the Giants Rajai Davis, and this trade was considered by many to be a steal for the Giants. I'm not sure that Loaiza is as valuable as you believe him to be.
by rfloh on Aug 29, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough on the waiting game but speculation
would say that 7 million dollars ain't a lot of money for a starting pitcher. Especially a veteran pitcher who will eat up a lot of innings in a rotation full of young guys who are not known quantities. The off-season would have allowed BB a lot of time to negotiate a deal for him too.
DiNardo has been decent this year but I'm afraid that he has overachieved leaving us with only Haren, Blanton and Gaudin. That scares me.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but certainly not me....
I hated the Loaiza move from Day 1 so I was far from agreeable on that move. I thought it was a horrendous signing the day he signed. I have disagreed with a lot of things Beane has done.....but you have to imagine Billy knows his market value better than anyone. Agree with him or not, he isnt an idiot and would not give away a guy he could have gotten something for. He clearly was certain of Loaiza's lack of value...and clearly he would not fir on the team for 08 at that salary.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are obviously right if you are taking a
snapshot of today. I wanted BB to work on trading him next year when there were more suitors/contenders that needed pitching. The season is over for half of the teams involved so that may explain why there isn't much interest at the moment.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last I checked to be considered a starter
You have to you know, actually start in games, of which Loaiza has done twice this year.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He pitched well in 2006. Why is Harden still on
the team if that is the case? He never pitches.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza: not Canadian enough
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you seriously not unerstand
the difference in costs and upside?
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You made this comment-
Last I checked to be considered a starter (0 / 0)
You have to you know, actually start in games, of which Loaiza has done twice this year.
I was responding to this comment. If we are talking about possible upside than sure Harden is better... in a fantasy world. Would you really be shocked if Loiaza pitched more than Harden next year?
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
http://tinyurl.com/28ysdq (game logs for last year; he was shit other than august)
by 31Boots on Aug 29, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is much better than any of the guys we have in
Sactown and, BTW, I'm not even claiming that he is a great pitcher. I just don't like getting nothing in return for a player who will havevalue after the season is over.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely
Beane doesn't appear to be able to do any wrong. Change the team to the Oakland B's.
I'm sure his face will be the logo in the near future anyway.
by Erik being Erik on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet he keeps Larry Davis around for some
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would imagine the extra $20 mil
will primarily be used to arbitrate with players who are eligible for it this year, namely Blanton and Street, and perhaps some long term deals as well. I can't remember who else is arb eligible this year.
The results of 2008 will tell us whether this was a good move or not. Until then, I will not judge Billy on whether or not this was idiotic, because it very well could be genius.
Also, if Harden is healthy next year (c'mon it could happen), we'll be laughing our asses off at the Dodgers with their silly rotation.
Those are my thoughts.
by AintEasyBeinGreen on Aug 29, 2007 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Correction
To AVOID arbitration with arb eligible players. Not the best with the baseball business terminology.
by AintEasyBeinGreen on Aug 29, 2007 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 20m figure ...
is after estimated deals with arbi guys ...
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that's interesting.
Thanks for clarifying that.
This is like some crazy mystery novel where we're all trying to sift through Billy's clues to find the case cracker. Except I REALLY wish I could skip to the last page and see how it ends.
by AintEasyBeinGreen on Aug 30, 2007 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we overvalued Loaiza
Why wasn't he claim by the Braves who are starving for starting pitching. This is really puzzling at first, but I don't think E-Lo is going to be better than Dinardo next year, and we have to give a shot to Meyer or Braden.
by AsMontreal on Aug 29, 2007 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wolffish's 07-08 profits are booming
Subtract Kendall amd ELo, add Bowen and Colby, and you come up with a pretty robust eight figure sum which is essentially pure profit for Wolffish. A profit which was already above $15 million for this year.
Not yet Loria with better PR, but damn, they're sure making cynicism feel like insight at the moment. (and the cherubic smile and tousled hair don't hurt...dontcha just wanna take him home and give him puppy treats?)
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 29, 2007 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With Beane's complicity, natch.
The proof will be in the pudding: do the A's spend the money or pocket the money over the offseason?
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
depends on the spend
There's surely no point in just spending willy-nilly on the meh crop of free agents.
And they've already passed up the chance to break slot on draft bonuses.
And while a few guys are up for arby raises and extensions, (a) those would likely have happened anyway, and (b) there are a few guys (Scutaro for sure; Ellis, debatably) who probably aren't worth their due raises.
So -- where would this good-faith '07-08 offseason spending happen?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question.
I'll reserve judgement until I see what Beane has in mind. If it goes to developement, we may never hear about it since team's rarely give out press releases about an increased scouting budget. If it goes to drafting, we'll know from the bonuses. I doubt that it goes to sign a type A FA, since the team's finish is going to net the A's a high first round pick and Beane would have to sign...A-Rod...for it to be worth giving up that draft pick.
Still, Street, Blanton, and possibly Buck could be looking at extensions this winter; Chavez ($2MM) Crosby ($1MM), Harden($2.5), Haren ($1.8MM), Swisher ($2.8MM), and Kotsay ($1MM) are all looking at modest raises as well.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a sec
Those raises are already locked down, right? They should already be factored into the budget.
To me, those (especially Kotsay's) certainly wouldn't count as good-faith salary increases due to freeing up Loaiza's salary.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also, didn't Beane explicitly state at AN Day ...
... that he doesn't cross the streams when it comes to budget sectors? That is, sure, we're saving $ by not paying Loaiza, but since that $ was budgeted on the "player salary" worksheet, it will only go toward other player salaries -- not to draft bonuses, inflatable yoga balls, or more resilient plastic chairs.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair points.
While I think Beane does intentionally spend himself into corners - that is, he may have been factored having to dump someone's salary in order to pay for the planned raises - your point about isolated budget sectors is well-taken.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They wouldn't have to give up a top pick
Top 15 picks are protected. Right now the A's would be picking around 12th, though a strong finish could still push them into the lower half of the first round - a point which opens up another possible line of speculation about the motives for a late-season talent dump.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 million isn't profit
It will go to removing "Oakland" from all the signage.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fan-friendly of them
Otherwise fans might misguidedly show up at the Coliseum
by rubin sierra on Aug 31, 2007 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he were a FA this offseason
would you sign 36-year-old Loaiza to a one-year $7MM deal? He of the 4.60 career ERA? He who only had one monthly ERA under 4.90 last year? He who missed 8 starts in 2006 and 25 starts in 2007?
So, if you think getting rid of Loaiza for nothing was a bad move, you have to believe that signing an old, bad, often-injured pitcher to a big $$$ contract to serve as the team's #4 or 5 starter during a rebuilding year while you have cheap, at-least-as-effective replacements in the minors, is a smart move.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 11:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
faulty logic
That's like asking in the middle of '06 if you'd sign Kendall to an $11M/y deal.
If the deal's done, it's a sunk cost.
Beane did not, in this case, manage to unsink the cost (especially not the cost he's already paid to Loaiza): he essentially traded Loaiza for cash -- when, in all likelihood, he probably could have waited 8 weeks or 8 months and traded Loaiza for cash (i.e., someone picking up all of his contract) plus at least one warm body (no, we wouldn't have gotten LaRoche or Hu -- but we would have gotten someone).
And please identify the replacement starters we have in the minors who are guaranteed to be "at least as effective" as Loaiza in '08 and '09.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
monkeyball finally understands sunk costs...
...or maybe it was beneficial to your position this time!
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or maybe you're both confusing
intrinsic and extrinsic value...
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hanh?
The only value that's at all relevant in an exchange is extrinsic value (i.e., what both parties perceive the worth in exchange to be).
And Beane DFA'ed Loaiza in precisely the situation in which circumstances minimized his extrinsic value.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
different terms
intrinsic/extrinsic value are terms from the world of valuing real options, not extrinsic=observable, intrinsic=unobservable (although kinda sorta).
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about just plain ol' trinsic value?
by kaweahkaweah on Aug 29, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or, in the case of much of the roster ...
Plain ol' trainwreck value.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's finally sunk in
... or, I'm a cynical bastard.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, no, he doesn't
Jubjub's logic is correct, precisely because Loaiza's contract isn't a sunk cost.
It was sunk, but the Dodgers' waiver claim is one-time opportunity to unsink it. Thus, the question is: do you use this opportunity to get out from under the contract?
The cost-benefit analysis is the same as when choosing whether to take on such a contract.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quite a few teams,
including the Braves whose rotation is Hudson and Smoltz and pray for rain appear to have passed on him.
by rfloh on Aug 29, 2007 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
gets back to the timing issue
Right now, he's not worth much, because as a mid-to-back-of-the-rotation starter, he'll only make, what, 4 more starts in the regular season, and only minimal starts in the postseason.
Ironically, it's the teams with the weakest rotations right now who wouldn't want him -- if you only have two good starters, Loaiza ain't gonna be much of an upgrade as your #3.
But if you pick him up in the offseason, you're acquiring him not to bolster the rotation for the stretch run and the playoffs, but to contribute 25 starts in '08 and '09.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't follow the NL East do you?
All the Braves starters not named Hudson and Smoltz are getting SHELLED. They have gaping holes in their rotation. In any games not started by Hudson and Smoltz their offense has to put up crooked numbers. As a result, the trade for Teixeira is probably not going to pay dividend this year.
The 25 starts in 2008 aren't going to get the Braves to the playoffs this year.
by rfloh on Aug 29, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
faultier logic
It's not a sunk cost. Sunk costs are costs that are already paid, whereas Loaiza's 2008 salary was going to be paid in the future. My whole point was to argue that people weren't taking into account the opportunity cost of NOT trading Loaiza.
As far as the contention that we could have gotten something, who knows. But, two points:
- When do you think Loaiza would have more value a)now - to a team in the middle of pennant race that needs starting pitching now and is willing to take a risk in hopes that his first two starts represent his "true value" or b) the offseason - when there is less pressure to "win now" and take risks in the short-term?
- Given that he's 35, coming off neck and knee surgies, and generally been a not great pitcher when healthy, it's much more likely that he would have pitched poorly the rest of the year than he has to date. So, by not trading him now for nothing, you're betting that he'll pitch well the rest of the way, so that you can get something. That bet could go the wrong way and you're stuck with him.
As far as who could replace him? I'm sure that some combination of warm bodies could replicate his 4.50-5.00 ERA in the 5th spot. By mid-season, it will probably be Simmons.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
see my "timing issue" post above to rfloh
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
two more points
1 - why would he have more value in the offseason as a bad pitcher? Bad pitchers get moved this time of year because teams are desperate.
2 - after re-reading your original point, I think we're talking past each other a bit. The Kendall argument doesn't hold because, yes, he was signed in the past, but we couldn't have gotten anyone else to take his contract in mid '06. That's not this decision. Beane's decision this morning (or whenever) was a) let the Dodgers take him, thereby saving $8MM between this year and next or b) don't let them take him. This is the same as if he were a FA and you could sign him for that same amount of money. So letting him go for nothing, is like a reverse FA signing.
The composition of the team is like a stock portfolio. If you assume no transaction costs, you should sell any stock you own that you wouldn't buy at that given moment. We wouldn't sign Loaiza to a contract for the amount left on his current one, so if we can get rid of him for nothing, we should do it.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
In a heartbeat. See my post above: considering that teams last year spent considerably more per year, and for many more years (with all the risk that entails) on equally mediocre pitchers (Eaton, Meche, Lilly, Marquis), a one-year flyer on Loaiza at that price seems like a very reasonable low-risk move. Not necessarily low-risk in the sense that it has a high probability of working out, but in the sense that you don't have much to lose compared to signing some other free agent pitcher.
It's hard for me to believe that there wouldn't be at least two teams out there willing to take that chance.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
but what about just using one of the plethora of AAAA arms we have in his place and saving the cash? I get that you're saying he's cheap relative to the insane prices that arms went for last offseason, I would just think that we could duplicate or exceed his expected performance for less money.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We might be able to
It's not that I'm heartbroken about not having Loaiza for next year. But as long as there are other teams for whom the contract would be sensible (as I think there are) you should be able to get some positive value by trading it. And if that value isn't available now for whatever reason, then it's worth holding on to him in the hopes that it will be in the off-season.
But as always, of course I don't have inside info on how Loaiza is rated around the league, or internally by the A's.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with your logic above,
but andeux has a point. mediocre veteran pitchers are worth $8 million for one year (hell, pretty much any one year deal is worth it).
"when healty" loaiza is worth that much money. also, he tends to perform better in the final year of his contract.
so the only explanation is the a's don't think loaiza is healthy, or they don't think he can stay healthy.
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think everyone is assuming that Loaiza is still
a nice mid-rotation starter. But is he still? It took him several rehab starts to get to the velocity he is at now. I have not seen most of the two games he pitched, but in what I did see he seemed to be working in the high-80's. Also, although he didn't give up many runs, he struck out exactly FIVE batters in 14 innings. This is not 2nd half 2006 Loaiza we're talking about. Now, he could regain velocity either this year or next, but that's a big risk to take when you can get rid of him and his salary right now. We already have an immovable contract in 08 of 7-8 million with Kotsay, I don't think we want another one. If he regains velocity, the move will look bad. If he doesn't, it will look good. But why risk it? We have Haren, Harden, Blanton, Gaudin, Braden, Meyer, and Dinardo next year. And don't forget, we will probably finish in the bottom 15 in the standings, which means we can sign a Type A free agent hitter with all this money being saved and not lose our draft pick.
by drink on Aug 29, 2007 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
I think everyone's pretty much covered it, but for posterity's sake. To shame, Billy. To shame.
by walk off bunt on Aug 29, 2007 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wait no
I've figured it out.
Sabean throws away a uselss, more expensive starter and manages to get a useful part, while Beane throws away a less useless, less expensive starter for nothing.
They've switched! We've been bamboozled! It's a Sabeane monster!
by walk off bunt on Aug 29, 2007 12:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
would that make Jennifer, Poppy, and GNGG ...
... the Sabeane Women?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think so
Things could get ugly.
by walk off bunt on Aug 29, 2007 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*could* get?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Loaiza less useless?
The last time Morris had less than 150 IP was in 2000. Except for 1998, 2000, 2003, he has been close to 200 IP pretty much his entire career. ERA wise, his and Loaiza's performances over the last several years have been similar.
by rfloh on Aug 29, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quite true
It's a fair point. My only point is that if Brian Sabean can get something in return for Matt Morris, I'd expect Billy Beane to be able to get something for Esteban Loaiza.
by walk off bunt on Aug 29, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
especially how Morris tanked the month pre-trade
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point would be that
One pitcher has pitched all year and was dealt before the trading deadline and the other was dealt on waivers after having missed just about all the year and 10 or so starts last year.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's only one Dave Littlefield.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Loaiza
is, if you look at his season by season numbers, he is not a dependably mediocre innings eater. His performances, both in ERA+, and in IP especially, tend to fluctuate much more than a guy like Matt Morris.
If you discount somewhat his career year in 2003, when he had an ERA+ of 154 and finished 2nd in CYA voting, his numbers are pretty unimpressive, especially considering his lack of durability. His next highest ERA+ is 111, back in 2000.
by rfloh on Aug 29, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
No, it wasn't good, but in my heart it had pluck. Plucky quip.
by walk off bunt on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
high-intrinsic-value quip
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salary dumping made sense for the Giants
who were in a position where they had no chance of competing in '08, rendering Morris's contract worthless to them. The A's were not in that position.
Ironically enough, NOW they probably ARE in that position, so that further dumping of salary (Kotsay, in particular; Chavez, possibly; even Crosby or Harden, I suppose) might actually make sense. It's going to take half the season to figure the rotation out. Even with another second-half run, the crappy first half I'm anticipating will probably hose their playoff hopes.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, this is the thing about waivers
that I don't get.
Loiaza claimed off waivers and he is automatically traded?
Stewart claimed off waivers by the Cubs, and nothing happens.
So management decides at that time that they will trade or keep the player once he gets claimed? Did I just answer my own question?
by BleedGreen on Aug 29, 2007 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They have an option to pull a player back
if he is claimed. They chose to do that with Shannon, they chose to let Loaiza go.
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And this is because Shannon plays!
EVERY DAY! So reliable! I'm telling you, good riddance to bad rubbish!
by A'sfansince1970 on Aug 29, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stewart plays every day??
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do we need for Loaiza?
He was hurt more often then not. I'd rather have 10 Guadin's or Blantons to 100 Loiazas. Just not reliable. I'm sure a player to be named will come our way later, or there's another deal we don't know about in the works. Just sit tight before you pass judgment. Haven't you all learned this from being an A's fan?
by A'sfansince1970 on Aug 29, 2007 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Plus only 25 loaiza's can fit
on the active roster. What are you going to do with the other 75? Oh right the DL.
by designatedforassignment on Aug 29, 2007 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on the skeptic side, but...
Could be that he didn't want to slot Loaiza into the rotation in any case because he thinks DiNardo/Meyer will be as good or better, and they're optionless next year.
It's difficult to translate the value of that 7 million onto the field. The FA class doesn't look too hot. It's hard to believe we could get nothing in return, but maybe the discussion went bad prospect/A's pay some of the salary or what actually happened.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Backdoor deal?
Andy LaRoche is on the Dodger 40-man roster. Is it possible that this is, in effect, a trade of Loaiza and someone else for him, except that the "someone else for him" part can't happen until the offseason without exposing LaRoche to waivers?
Apart from the (frankly) farfetched A-Rod scenario, this is really the only possibility that makes any sense to me.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Slusser thinks maybe
Though the A's wind up with nothing out of the deal, they will save $7 million on Loaiza next year - and they have the goodwill of the playoff-chasing Dodgers for not pulling Loaiza back. Don't be surprised to see the A's make some sort of favorable deal with LA in the next few months, unless letting Loaiza go is reward in itself for Oakland. Loaiza had pitched very well in his two starts this season, but he fought injuries much of his two seasons in Oakland. He missed the first four and a half months of this season with a bulging disk in his neck and then a knee injury.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
favorable, maybe
but trading pretty much anyone on our team not named Haren or Blanton for LaRoche would be a bit more than favorable.
I think a lot of people will be disappointed when there isn't a second deal. But, then again, people probably won't notice and it will just fade into memory.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it'll be hard to tell
All this stuff has to be kept on the down low.
I could definitely see a Harden/Loaiza for LaRoche deal being consummated in the offseason if Harden shows healthy down the stretch.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there might be a backdoor deal
but not for LaRoche. Loaiza at full price isn't nearly that good.
What I find interesting here is that Billy didn't even try to put a fig leaf on it. Even if the real decision is that it was worth letting Loaiza go just to dump the salary, it should have been pretty easy to make it a trade for a PTBNL, or add a low-level minor-leaguer on each side -- anything so that it doesn't look like it's a pure giveaway.
The fact that he didn't bother suggests that:
(a) Billy just doesn't care about appearances anymore;
(b) He's pissed at Loaiza and wants to dis him; or
(c) There was something urgent in the Dodgers' claim so that there would be no time to work out a side deal without risking the Dodgers not taking him at full salary at all.
I'm not sure which it is.
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Appearances
I don't think Billy ever cared about appearances. Maybe he just doesn't care period
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some explanation would be nice
This move is surprising and A's fans aren't idiots, we can put together enough skepticism around what might be good and what might be bad about this move (see nearly 200 comments already). What I'd really like to hear is "Ok, we released two players this year and got nothing in return, but we have did that because of []". And please let "[]" be something more than "It was better for us".
Seriously, something real in response from the organization would be great. This whole "we are poor and we needed to save the money" stuff doesn't cover it. We're smart enough to know that Loaiza's contract is pretty much league-average for what he provides, and it's not "cheap" compared to league-minimum guys. But, why the hell not get anything in return?!? I hate sitting here wondering wtf and losing faith in our team's management. I just want that feeling to go away and a decent statement would help a lot. Sigh.
by Eric in Atlanta on Aug 29, 2007 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Best post yet.
Couldn't have said it better.
by Vacafan on Aug 29, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 29, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
<carefully worded non-response from Beane>
by jeepers on Aug 29, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes Billy please
Spill all the info about how you run the organization to everyone else in baseball, please tell us that you think Loaiza is done as a pitcher and won't make 10 starts next year that sure makes you good in the public eye and future FA acquisitions.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may as well have.
It's not like it jeopardized the return on his investment.
by jeepers on Aug 29, 2007 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It certainly would affect future returns.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because we know Billy is way too smart to
"spills all the info about how (he runs) the organization to everyone else in baseball"
On a completely unrelated note, has anybody read any good baseball books lately?
by rubin sierra on Aug 31, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Relax
This is all setting up for the signing of A-Rod, which I've been saying for months.
by sprtsnwyn on Aug 29, 2007 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There has to be something later
- 8 million for Loiaza next year is relatively cheap ... it wouldn't have "broken the bank" by any means ...
- He pitched his ass off the last two starts ... probably the A's best starter right now.
- Dumping salary means nothing if you aren't committed to making the team better ... not one move Beane has made this year has made the team better -- not one.
by Vacafan on Aug 29, 2007 1:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL ever hear of Jack Cust
I heard he's done pretty well this year and is under our cheap control for the next 4+ years.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 29, 2007 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack Cust
Who...?
by franks a lot on Aug 29, 2007 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh.
OK, that was interesting.
So that makes 6 players that were pencilled into the 2007 Opening Day roster that have now been cut or given away. In return the A's have eaten all but a couple million in salary and received two bullpen arms in Brown and Blevins.
I'll be honest, I'd expect this from KC or Pittsburgh, not Oakland.
by grover on Aug 29, 2007 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
at least this mistake "undo"
didn't cost us anything going forward, unlike the Redman/Rhodes for Kendall, Bradley + cash for warm body, and Kendall + cash for warm body recent mistakes
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN link
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...
"Certainly Esteban was making some money next year," A's assistant general manager David Forst said. "But it wasn't as much about salary as about giving guys an opportunity."
by closetasfan on Aug 29, 2007 1:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You have to admit, Beane has placed
his players in winning situations: Bradley (SD), Loaiza (LA), Kennedy (AZ), Kendall (CHC) all found homes with contenders. Of course, that may just be a function of who's desperate enough to take these players.
by salb918 on Aug 29, 2007 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've finally figured it out
They're going for 501(c)(3) tax status.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, they're apparently FOR profit
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or perhaps Lew's in a really exposed position ...
... wrt the RE/credit bubble.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His political contribution porfolio
indicates a soft landing.
by mikeA on Aug 29, 2007 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And for all those guys
we got Andrew Brown and Jeremy Brown's stunt double.
by jeepers on Aug 29, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Jeremy Brown's stunt double"
Nice!
by McFood on Aug 30, 2007 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"giving guys an opportunity" =
Not having to hear Loaiza b#tch the next day from the media about having to make one extra rehab start (giving Meyer an opportunity).
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 29, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesn't that hurt ...
... twisting yourself around those facts to wrench them into the "Loaiza's a lazy malingerer" argument?
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should be careful what I say
Monkeyball might quote me in his posts...
Thank is one funny quote you got from grover.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 29, 2007 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds eerily like the Milton Bradley fiasco
With the "giving opportunity" explanation. Maybe Loiza & Beane threw chairs at eachother..
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um... Colby Lewis already had his chance
and sucked. Big Time. So we give away a guy for free in the final month of the season instead of the offseason? That doesn't add up.
by DMOAS on Aug 29, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
He wasn't talking about Colby Lewis. Colby got called up to be a reliever, because the A's won't use the 5th starter until after the rosters expand. It'll be Dan Meyer, I'm almost 100% sure.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loaiza - #2 Starter in last years Playoffs
Less than one year ago, he was our #2 Starter in the ALDS & ALCS.... and now he's rendered useless?
I need an explanation from Billy Beane on this one. Are we getting Andre Ethier back?
by Colorado Fan on Aug 29, 2007 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is Beer Back
...in the clubhouse?
I see Loaiza as the stock you wish you hadn't purchased. You want to unload and cut losses and now that SEC has reinstated trading you see it go up a few points and decide not to get greedy. Do those who wonder why Beane didn't get more realize that no one may have been offering more. Does anyone think Loaiza earned his salary last season or this season? Why do you expect him to deliver value next season?
by NoeValley on Aug 29, 2007 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Normally, I'd be unhappy about this
But this season has cooled my sense of entitlement as a fan with the way the franchise is won. Not to mention the fact that Billy has made head-scratching moves before, only for the reasoning behind them to become clear much further down the road.
I mean, it's Esteban Loaiza. Who cares? I'd rather see Dallas Braden struggle with his command and learn from it than watch ELo do the same and drink to forget it.
Catty.
by Joey C. on Aug 29, 2007 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This gives me new insight into
"How the West was won"
by iglew on Aug 29, 2007 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So which road out of Oakland will Esteban take?
The Bobby Kielty, I won't bad mouth anyone, or the Milton Bradley and JoKe, this organization is Bush League and racist/cheap road
by theblackpearl on Aug 29, 2007 4:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it depends, what's the speed limit on that road?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 29, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well you certainly can't argue
the "organization is cheap" claim, can you??!! This organization redefines cheap-ass every time you turn around ... I guarantee the $8 million that we "save" by giving away Loaiza goes into someone's pocket -- it sure as hell won't go towards a free agent contract!
by Vacafan on Aug 29, 2007 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You don't think Beane, with arby eligible players and a few free agents, will find a way to spend as much money as the front office allows? Sure, he likes to keep costs down, but payroll seems to increase every year, if not for inflation alone.
by JediLeroy on Aug 29, 2007 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 