From MLBTR, via Mike DG of the LA Times.
This makes sense. The Angels entered this offseason expecting to be a player for at least one major talent. They whiffed on Crawford, and have publicly said that they are content with their bullpen after signing Downs, which means they are passing on Soriano. Clearly, Beltre is the guy they intend to pursue at this point.
The significance of this development is that it means that the A's aren't the only bidder, and it also means that their previous reported offer would not be sufficient to lure Beltre to Oakland.
If the money is equal, Beltre will choose LA. He played in the area for much of his career, his family lives there, the facilities are better, the attendance is higher - there's basically no reason one could rationalize him signing with Oakland if the money is equal.
So how much more money would it take, and is that increase justifiable? Where would you draw the line for Beltre? Would you offer him that sixth year? Would you offer him $80-90M?
I think this Angels development puts the A's team in a situation where they can publicly say, "Well, shucks, once again we offered a free agent a lot of money and they didn't take it, because of the facility." Counterintuitive as it sounds, it bothers me that the team continues to make these types of market-rate offers to good, desirable players. The team should simply acknowledge that good players don't want to play here and either a.) Offer the Jason Werth/Nationals-style overpay, or b.) ignore them altogether.
To take the "woe is us" middle approach bothers me. They've already proven their point. We get it, the stadium makes it difficult to sign players.
So, at this point, with the new Angels information, if you were in Beane's shoes - do you offer the $10-15M increase on the Angels offer, and/or an additional year? Or do you think it's time to call it an offseason?