First of all, I really need to stop taking my cues from TV ads. See, I was really inspired by that RJ Reynolds ad that so considerately reminds us of all the different ways we can quit smoking, so I tried out the same philosophy in finally summoning the courage to ask this cute girl out. “Would you like to go out on a date sometime?” I asked. “Oh, and here’s a pamphlet of 12 easy ways to break up with me.” (I’m not sure what it means that she said no to the date, but took the pamphlet.) Anyhoo, where was I? Oh right, baseball…
So in reading through Blez’ excellent (IMO) interview yesterday, and your comments, a few thoughts came to mind. Here they are, in no particular odor:
- Many scoffed at Beane’s notion that if healthy the team, as is, can hope to compete in 2008 without making major moves. I think what he meant—and I agree with him—is that a rotation of Haren, Harden, Blanton, and Gaudin is going to keep you in so many games that the current mediocre offense (which isn’t that awful if you assume a healthy Buck and Chavez) could get it done more often than not. The notion that Harden will be healthy may be scoffworthy, but if Harden were somehow to stay healthy in 2008 the current A’s wouldn’t be far from contention. Harden is that big a piece of the puzzle—as well as that bad of a place to rest your hopes.
- From the “devil is in the details” dept.: I just thought it was interesting how Billy kept mentioning how good Haren, Harden, Blanton, and Gaudin are, and how well DiNardo has pitched this year. There’s a difference between being a good pitcher and pitching well. It’s a Kirk Saarloos kind of difference. Maybe I’m reading too far between the lines, but I wonder if Billy appreciates how well DiNardo has done—and isn’t expecting it to continue.
- Put me in the camp who did notice a difference between Billy’s AN Day comments about the “health” staff and his comments in Blez’ interview. The underlying theme on AN Day was generally to excuse the health staff with the refrain, “Hey, these guys have been doing it a long time,” which overlooks the fact that tenure does not necessarily translate to competence. Yes, on AN Day Beane acknowledged that “we always need to take a look at…” but never did he acknowledge that changes were needed—and were being implemented (to the extent the A’s can control the process, which is another very real issue). If I were Clarence Cockrell, I would have walked away from AN Day feeling cocky and job secure—and if I were reading Blez’ interview, I’d be bookmarking Craigslist just in case. Perhaps (and maybe I’m being overly optimistic) certain acts have actually become tired.
- Overall, I do think the A’s hope to return to the pennant chase in 2008 and I think that once again they will be relying on “better health,” with some of the key characters being the same (e.g., Harden, Chavez) and some different (e.g., Buck instead of Bradley). I don’t think the A’s will massively increase payroll simply because I think they believe that their chances of competing are about the same whether they spend 50, 60, or 70 million dollars. Some key guys get/stay healthy or they don’t. Plus ça change…
A’s-Rangers at 5:05pm PDT. See you then.
I'd like to commend you
on finally targeting the person who's truly in charge of the Strength and Conditioning of this team as opposed to Larry "Conditioning? I don't know the first thing about hair treatment" Davis.
Personally I'm not 100% certain Cockrell is the problem, but if I were looking to make changes (and how could you not), he'd be my scapegoat <insert funny goat joke here>.
The real problem is the players not staying in game shape year round. Too often they bulk up or bulk down in the off-season and then let the season bring them to some sort of balance (Chavez has especially done this) and the body just can't take that kind of alteration without punshiment. These guys should be focused on maintaining the same weight/bulk/flexibility year round to limit the amount of strain their bodies take over the season. But unfortunately, that's not in the team's authority to force on these guys (despite the millions they throw at these players).
DMOAS - September 7, 2007
I think our rotation is a respectable one
without Harden. With him it's a formidable one. What's a shame is pinning your hopes on a healthy Harden. It's got to happen sooner or later....right? IF we go into 08 with the above rotation, I think we can compete. Our bullpen should be fairly decent too.
As great an interview as it was, does anyone think for a moment that Beane is going to outline his strategy for the off season in a public forum? I rather think not. There's no doubt in my mind that he finds the injury bug plaguing the A's as annoying as the fans. The difference being that he is expected to do something about it. Good luck with that Billy.
I like that he implies that the new guys are going to be around. If BB likes a player and openly ponders the wonderful problem of having to many good players...that's got to lend them a certain value in the baseball world...right? Is it possible that Murphy, Hannahan, Cust, and others are being auditioned in order to create trade possibilities with other franchises? That includes Crosby, Chavez, and unfortunatley, Ellis. I think the new Mantra for the A's may be "forever young." Not a bad idea if you ask me.
alox - September 7, 2007
I for one was very happy
to hear that Hannahan will be here for many years, he didn't mention Murphy but that was probably due to the fact he was injured and on the DL at the time.
The team just has to forget about
Crosby ever being anything other than what he has been, a "major disappointment".
china bob - September 7, 2007
Beane & the 2008 Starting Rotation
If Beane believes the 2008 Rotation will be - Haren, Blanton, Gaudin, Harden, Dinardo - He's going to be wrong. And count me in as a guy who thinks Dallas Braden will never stick as an American League Starter.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to see him trade Haren for 2 young starters and young field position player (To the Yankees for 2 of: Hughes/Chamberlain/Kennedy). Heck, if the Yankees lose A-Rod, throw in Chavy. Chavy can step right in and be their modern day Scott Brosius.
Trading 3 Years of Haren (2008 - 2010) could help replenish the starting rotation until the Fremont Stadium is built.
Colorado Fan - September 7, 2007
I highly doubt...
that the Yankess would do the trade you mentioned above. Hughes, Chamberlain and Kennedy are three of, possibly, the top 5 prospects in all of baseball. Not just PITCHING prospects, mind you, but ALL prospects. Why would they trade two of those guys, who have higher ceilings than Haren and are cheaper and will be under club control for twice as long as Haren?
With plenty of veteran rotation options besides those young guys (Petitte, Mussina, Wang, Clemens again) the Yanks have no pressing need to add to their rotation, especially at the expense of their top prospects.
I could see them take an interest in Chavez ONLY if they lose A-Rod, and even then, they would be very hard-pressed to part with any of the crop of their "Big Three".
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
Kennedy does NOT have a higher ceiling than Haren
He's projected as a #3-4 starter, according to Carlos Gomez. For that matter, the Hughes luster has tarnished a bit lately too, although perhaps that's just post facto rationalization.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Well....
A cheap and young 3 or 4 starter is going to win a lot of games given the Yankees potent offense. Look at Wang. Nobody (even Carlos Gomez) "projected" him to be an ace given his pitch-to-contact tendencies and low K-rate throughout the minor leagues. But low and behold, he wins 19 games last season and starts striking a few guys out, and he's a labeled a number two (if not number one) starter. The same effect can easily rub off on Hughes, Kennedy and/or Chamberlain.
My point, which you've already touched on with your second post below, is that I doubt the Yanks would have any interest in doing the deal as outlined above, as they are essentially just swapping comparable quantities of the same currency (young, above-average starting pitching) bit sacrificing 3 years of service time and millions of dollars.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
Haren's Value
is through the roof, personally, I wouldn't trade Haren for just Hughes & Chamberlain. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees traded their farm system for Johan Santana in the offseason.
And, I could be a 20 game winner on my off hand if I started for the Yankees.
Lastly, Wang signed a ridiculous Major League contract back in 2000, so I wouldn't say he was "cheap". Although if you compare him to Clemens, Mussina, Petitte, Igawa's Posting Fee, and, Pavano. (all of which, sums to a payroll already more than the A's) Guess he was a phucking steal.
Instant Replay Umpire - September 7, 2007
The Yankees...
are getting much smarter and conservative in terms of developing and hording their own talent, especially within the last two/three years, having re-stocked their system with some high-upside arms from some good trades and good drafts and by finally trusting their positional player prospects with major league jobs (Mleky Cabrera, Robinson Cano).
Knowing that, I would doubt that they would trade their guys for Haren or Johan, since, especially with Johan, they can just wait one more year, wait to see what they get from their young guys and then just go out and buy Santana if needed on the free agent market without giving up any young talent (except for their first round draft pick, which doesn't matter anyway since they'll probably just go way over slot again and grab the guy with the huge bonus demand in the later rounds anyway and get an equivalent first round pick).
In theory, I partially agree that Haren and/or Santana might be worth as much as two of Chamberlain/Hughes/Kennedy, but I just don't think they're worth that much to the Yankees at this particular time, since they've gotten veteran depth in their rotation and with their powerhouse offense they don't need three number one starters to get to the playoffs and compete. Value, like beauty, is based entirely on the viewpoint of the beholder.
It's like Beane said in the Blez interview and has said in previous interviews, that the trade market is always changing and what seems like a no-brainer to the layperson is really unrealistic in the operating baseball world...which is why I question this particular Haren trade proposal.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
if we could get chamberlain and hughes
for haren, i would do that in a second. to scoff at a deal like that is ridiculous.
flipgatey3 - September 7, 2007
Nobody's "scoffing" at that deal.
I'm just pointing out that the Yankees wouldn't do it, for precisely the reason you're so excited about it: because it's a better deal for us than it is for them.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
I don' t know about 'scoffing'
but Json443 clearly stated he wouldn't do that deal.
And that's what flipgatey3 was responding to.
iglew - September 7, 2007
Got it.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
I don't understand trade suggestions like this
Trading a commodity for more of the same commodity doesn't make sense. One team or the other isn't going to like the deal.
Look, if the Yankees believe that Hughes and Chamberlain are 2/5s of their rotation next year (not an unreasonable belief), they aren't going to deal BOTH of them for one starter, even one as good as Haren. And if they don't believe this, and ARE willing to do that deal, it has to raise questions about whether they think those guys are sufficiently good. Kennedy isn't even really good enough to be in the discussion here. The A's farm system and evaluation process produces more than enough back-of-the-rotation guys essentially from scratch (Saarloos, DiNardo, etc.).
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Your Response
Look, I don't understand responses w/ subject line "I don't understand trade suggestions like this" - It clearly has a place in this blog.Colorado Fan - September 10, 2007
that would have been a great follow up question
to ask Beane during the interview, regarding whatever differences in opinion he had about the health staff then and now.
Oh well, maybe next time.
black beane and rice - September 7, 2007
also analyzing the practice of
trading for and otherwise acquiring players with a history of chronic injuries, and/or basing the belief of ability to contend on players who have yet to be healthy enough to be part of that base (ie, Harden).
OaklandSi - September 7, 2007
2008, etcetera...
Beane sounded fairly confident that by instituting a more assertive, year-round health monitoring program, the organization would be able to ensure more healthy seasons from Chavez, Harden, Duchscherer, Murphy, Buck, etcetera.
If this is truly the case, then yeah, I agree with him that the 2008 team will be competitive. Like you mentioned Nico, the offense with regular contributions from Buck, a (25 HR/.450 slugging) Chavez and a (.280/.360/.400) rookie season from Barton would probably be adequate enough to win most well-pitched games.
Regarding DiNardo: He's most definitely the Saarloos of this season. His ERA is clearly unsustainable given his current peripherals. Beane knows this, and is even probably understating the surprise he must experience everytime the guy goes out and turns in a quality start.
But as you've also said before, while DiNardo's ERA will certainly balloon in the near future, his left-handedness and ability to keep the ball in-the-park and on-the-ground, give him some value as a "luxury" fifth starter. He'd be a nice "change of pace" guy at the end of a rotation that consists of Haren, Harden, Blanton and Gaudin if we're truly looking to compete next season. But Beane obviously is not planning for him to be here very long...nor should he.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
She didn't turn you down, she just said "Ba-a-h"
Also, pamphlet mystery resolved:
The Dogfather - September 7, 2007
Looking at the photo,
she ATE the pamphlet. Sigh.
Nico - September 7, 2007
After reading Beane's comments
regarding Chavez, I think I need to cut Eric some slack for a change ... yes, I said it ... for some reason, Beane's comments rang true to me regarding Chavez' lack of "moaning and groaning" about injuries (which is a good thing in that it shows he really wants to play.)
I still think giving Chavez the money we did was a mistake ... and I still think he's vastly over-rated offensively (well, he's so bad now that's no longer the case,) but I need to stay off his case regarding the injury thing ...
One more season -- with an entire offseason of rest and rehab, I want to see the 40 HR, 110 RBI stats everyone thought they'd see (whether you admit it or not)and certainly what he is capable of talent-wise. We'll see ... I doubt it, but we'll see.
Vacafan - September 7, 2007
I doubt he'll ever post those numbers
Well, the 40 HR, anyway. 110 RBI is easy for even a terrible hitter to get if he hits in the right spot. But RBI are worthless anyway.
Look, Chavez is unlikely to ever be more than 90% of what he was at his peak healthwise. Giving it his all is one thing, but he simply is not the physical specimen that he was at the start of 2004.
Speaking of which, god, that was such a bad year. Virtually all of the team's current problems stem from that year or its aftermath. Kotsay, the Kendall trade, the Lilly/Kielty trade, the Angels signing Vlad, the late season collapse... and the start of Chavez's health issues. Beane's worst year by a huge margin.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
110 RBI is not easy
for even a terrible hitter. Yes, there have been terrible hitters who have hit 100 RBI. But the large majority of hitters who hit 100 RBI are at least average, ie 100 OPS+ type hitters,
rfloh - September 7, 2007
I love the idea of a health staff
But I just don't think it will happen. Maybe I am having a pessimistic morning, but it is really hard for me to look at Harden and think he will ever be health.
This of course is coming from the girl who is convinced Bobby will return to form and shake off the "Bad Luck Bug" in 2008. But the difference is, Bobby has Bad Luck. Rich is just, and yes, I am saying it, Injury Prone!
So, I would feel much better if Billy had said something along the lines of, "Our Starting rotation would be awesome with Harden in it, but given his history, our back up plan is..." Whether he explained that plan or not, if he had just said, we have a back up plan, I promise, I would have felt 100% better about those comments. Because frankly, he has been saying "A healthy Harden is going to keep us in contention" for YEARS now and it still hasn't happened.
I hate to sound like Macha, but Harden is a Non-Issue. We should be looking at the rotation as a 6 man rotation. Even if Harden is nice and 100MPH Healthy, chances are someone else will get hurt. So why not have a 6th man sitting, waiting in the wings? We talk so much about depth, but I just don't see that right now as far as our 2008 starting staff is concerned. But maybe that is just me.
BobbyCrosbysGirl - September 7, 2007
I can't believe I'm even saying this...
but I think Crosby still has a chance to be a great player. He has to have reached a point where even he is doubting his approach to the game. To be fair, he's never really had a health off season to work on the upcoming season. He would be wise to play winter ball this season and work on his fundamental hitting skills. Without the pressure of performing in a MLB game he can work on adjustments and see what works and what doesn't and go from there. All this is assuming he has reached a point where he realizes there is a problem.
alox - September 7, 2007
No player who isn't at least "good" at age 27
can possibly be "great". It just doesn't work that way. Jamie Moyer is just about the best-case scenario possible for a post-30 resurgence, and no one would ever describe him as "great."
Crosby could become average. He could even, I suppose, become above average. But he has zero chance of ever becoming great.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
David Ortiz?
If you allow DHs.
Nico - September 7, 2007
David Ortiz, age 27
448 AB, 31 HR, .288/.369/.592/.961I'd venture to say that an OPS over 950 qualifies as "good."
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
I've never understood people's fascination
with Crosby. I've always thought his ceiling would be around .280-.285, 20-25 HRs, and 80-90 RBIs, numbers that are hardly great but which any A's fan would settle for now. I hear people say he only needs to stand closer to the plate. But I don't think that's his problem. I think his problem is his long swing. I bet that if he stood closer to the plate pitchers would start jamming him and he won't be able to get around on the fast ball because his swing is just too long.
oakfan2000 - September 7, 2007
when he was still in the minors
scouting reports (not from the A's) considered that he could be a very good major league shortstop and hitter, though not at the level of a Jeter or Tejada (their words). However, at the time that the A's chose to let Tejada leave for free agency -- and pointed to Crosby as the heir apparent to the position -- some people were claiming that Crosby had the potential to be better than Tejada. Seeing as how important Tejada was to the A's during his last few years with the team, that created some pretty lofty expectations.
OaklandSi - September 7, 2007
link to a 2004 preseason article
from Baseball America:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...
interestingly, while the writer says that Crosby wouldn't be quite to the level of his predecessor, Rivercats manager DeFrancesco was quoted as putting Crosby potentially at the level of the top shortstops, which would have included Tejada at that time.
OaklandSi - September 7, 2007
I wasn't very clear....
so I blame myself. By "great" I mean bearable to watch at the plate. He's a good defensive player, and that coupled with mediocrity at the plate would be adequate.alox - September 7, 2007
Quality starts
Folks are right to be focusing on the starting rotation. BP recently had some historical data that show that teams win approximately 70 percent of the games in which a starter goes 6 innings and gives up 3 earned runs. With the injuries, it's likely the A's 5th starter this year had relatively few quality starts. The injuries to Duke and Street also caused some games to be blown. Still, it's not clear how the team can be strengthened by trading one of the starters when the lack of quality starts from the back end of the rotation was a key factor in plunging the team into mediocrity.
SA - September 7, 2007
I think we need to re-think the whole concept
of "re-building" when it comes to the A's. What the hell would that even mean to a team that is constantly changing its cast of characters? 2007 wasn't a write-off any more than 2006 was, or more than the next few years will be. I think this is part of the fun in rooting for this team, that it stays competitive year after year precisely because it doesn't gamble on the big FAs, or stake its hopes in any one strategy.
LAXile - September 7, 2007
like painting the Golden Gate
always a work in progress, never "done"
ArakSOT - September 7, 2007
Ironically, the Bay Bridge might be more a propos
for the team across the bay: every once in a while a chunk of it collapses and someone dies, but don't worry, 15 years later, after millions of dollars of wasted time and public funds, rebuilding occurs!LAXile - September 7, 2007
QOTM
monkeyball - September 7, 2007
I like Mychal Urban's idea
of trading D Barton for a right handed power bat. I think this is smart. We just don't need him and Swish would do SO WELL at first base. I also think next year is the year that Harden and Crosby finally live up to their potential and we have a healthy team. I'm just feeling optimistic these days! I also think Scutaro will go and Donnie Murphy will be the utility guy replacement.
A'sfansince1970 - September 7, 2007
If only Bavasi was not a complete idiot...
A swap of Barton and Wladimir Balentien would make so much sense. Consider:
They need a first baseman after Sexson leaves.
The A's need a left fielder after Stewart leaves.
They need left-handed hitting.
The A's need right-handed hitting.
They need on-base percentage.
The A's need slugging.
Admittedly, I have a Balentien man-crush. But the guy has more AAA homers than his age. That's some good. And it's not like Seattle, which already has 4 outfielders, is going to need him. They're set for years with Ichiro, Jones and Guillen.
Damn you, Bavasi.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Emphasis placed on the COMPLETE part...
of "complete idiot" I'm sure, Paul.
I'm also interested in Balantien and Jones. The M's have had interest in Blanton in the past.
What do you think of a blockbuster, inter-division deal involving Blanton and either Barton or DJ for Balantien, Matt Antonelli and William Inman?
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
Wrong farm club
Seattle's AA team is West Tennessee, not San Antonio.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Wow....
That's really confusing. Both Scout.com and the link on Yahoo label the Missions as the farm team of the Mariners, but I guess it's been handed over to the Padres.
Maybe I'M the complete idiot and Bill Bavasi is the smart one!
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
Bill Bavasi--
So smart that he trades players from OTHER teams to get guys for his own.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Haha!
Touche! Now THAT's an undervalued part of decision making...
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
According to Ken Rosenthal
there appears to be a holdup in the Guillen deal.
rfloh - September 7, 2007
Gotta be a typo
Byrnes is not worth $3M for 30 years.
doctorK - September 7, 2007
Not that we'll get either, but
I'd rather have Jones than Balentien. Both are good, but I think Jones is slightly better in general and is a much better fit for what our team needs.
Bavasi has clearly stated that he won't play both Jones and Balentien. And even if he hadn't said so, it's still a logical deduction from the team's pattern of introducing young players slowly. Given that they've already starting introducing Adam, I think it's a safe bet that Balentien is the one who will get sent away.
But not to Oakland. Besides the whole don't-trade-within-your-division idea, I think Bavasi is one of the GMs who just plain won't trade with Billy Beane.
By the way, I think you're on the wrong track in identifying Seattle's needs. We have a tendency here to analyze a team's needs using A's-style thinking, but other teams have entirely different ways of thinking. I don't think the Mariners care much about OBP. On the other hand, I think they care a lot about when and how they introduce new players to the team. The Mariners have a corporate philosophy which is very much the opposite of the fresh-new-faces approach we're so used to here in Oakland.
That's why they're still playing Sexson. If it were just a matter of "needing" a better 1B, they've already got options. They could bench Sexson and play Ben Broussard there. For that matter, they could bring Balentien up right now and put Ibanez at 1B. But they won't do that, because it's not consistent with the company's philosophy about its product.
iglew - September 7, 2007
Good points.
You can add to that the whole Suzuki extension. I think they went a year or two too far with that, but, as you've pointed out, the Seattle corporate culture almost required that they "take care of their employees" and keep him in the fold no matter what.
I also would prefer Adam Jones to Balantien, but I don't think they're going to trade him to us, unless we pony up Blanton, since they clearly need starting pitching.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
Of course
but it wouldn't be logical for them to trade Jones for Barton. Unlike Balentien, Jones is an above-average fielder. They simply wouldn't be getting enough for him.
Re: Sexson, I was assuming all along that Barton would be groomed as the successor, not given the job next season.
But as noted, this will not happen. Bavasi doesn't know what he's doing, for one thing (thus the hacktastic/low OBP offense), and he clearly has an intense inferiority complex with regard to Beane. Add in the natural reluctance to trade within division, and there's little to no chance of this actually occurring.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Bavasi
I'll agree with you about his unwillingness to trade, but I don't think it's correct to say Bavasi "doesn't know what he's doing". It looks like that to you because you have a distorted and simplistic idea of what his job really is.
Further downthread Taj says, "a professional baseball team's goal is to win baseball games". Well, that depends on what you mean by the "team". If you're talking about the 25 guys on the roster, yes, it is. If you're talking about the organization, no.
The goal of the Seattle Mariners is to provide quality entertainment to its customers. Fielding a winning team is a significant factor in doing that, but it's not the only one. Bavasi's job is not to create the winningest team within a specific budget limitation, as many fans would have it. Bavasi's job is to develop a product that continues to sell. Moreover, he is expected to do that in a manner consistent with Nintendo Corp's conservative approach to brand development.
It's arrogant to the point of absurdity for us to assume that Bavasi, a top professional in the baseball business for over a decade, is so utterly ignorant that he can't see what you and I see from reading blogs and stats. Of course he knows that Adam Jones can outhit Richie Sexson. But that's not all there is to it.
iglew - September 7, 2007
His moves make little to no strategic sense
Ergo, he does not know what he's doing. You can't possibly tell me that Nintendo insisted that he trade for Jose Vidro or sign Jared Washburn and Jeff Weaver to be rotation centerpieces. By and large, Mariners fans agree with this assessment.
I think you'd be surprised at the extent to which some baseball insiders (not specifically talking about Bavasi here) ignore what we consider "cutting-edge" research. As Lewis and others have noted, there's a pretty shocking amount of arrogance in the profession.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
Strategic sense
I'm not saying Bavasi doesn't make some dumb trades. He's definitely made some terrible ones. I'm saying that his job is not just to win as many games as possible, and that's why your idea of "strategic sense" is awry.
If by "Mariners fans" you mean the sophisticated fans who post at USS Mariner or Lookout Landing, then yes, they agree with you -- because they're looking at it the same way. If you mean fans in general, no they don't. Most Mariner fans think Sexson, Washburn, and Vidro are great acquisitions.
I feel weird defending Bavasi, because I actually do think he's a pretty lousy GM, but you're going overboard with your criticism and I don't think you're getting the point.
iglew - September 9, 2007
the A's have a new outfielder!
Kevin Thompson, ex-Yankee
gotgreen - September 7, 2007
he looks like LL cool J's brother!
gotgreen - September 7, 2007
tonight's game lineup on Yahoo
it's the same group of players that has consituted nearly every lineup over the last week. However, there are some changes in the order. Swisher was moved down to sixth, behind DJ, while Ellis is up to second. Also, Scutaro now bats seventh, while Hannahan is in the eight spot. Suzuki will be catching and remains in the ninth spot.
Geren just said he moved Swish down because he's been scuffling at the plate. The team got a day off yesterday -- might Swish not benefit from another day off?
OaklandSi - September 7, 2007
"I don’t think the A’s will massivel
why would they increase payroll? this team is basically the trophy front of a real estate development operation at this point. until they move in, there's no reason to field a better team than the devil rays. if anything, the motivation is the opposite - contrast a mediocre cellar-dwelling team in the crusty old confines of oakland with a reborn winning team in the gleaming new park. getting back to the playoffs will be the bait to get the crowds in the condos, err, i mean seats.
maybe the speaker fees will even get a nice bump up in 2010 for the genius who once again rendered a miracle from wreckage.
notah8er - September 7, 2007
The flaw in this
as in all irrational claims that the A's are trying to lose, is rather simple. When you lose, people stop coming to games and buying tickets. This causes you to lose money. It's really not a complex phenomenon.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
"lose money"
No, they lose marginal profits.
In the larger scheme of things, attendance (espeically in terms of relatively minor variations) doesn't matter economically to individual teams.
monkeyball - September 7, 2007
but the new condo market in the SE bay sure does
nice to know the a's have outperformed at least one thing this year... too bad the median price of a fremont shoebox probably means more to their payroll than anyone's average or the seasonal w/l total
notah8er - September 7, 2007
But you're not a h8er.
Yikes--what are you like when you are a h8er?
Nico - September 7, 2007
i'm sorry for the bile
it just sucks to have followed this team through those crappy springs in 04 & 05, see this crew gel so well last year and then see it all given away with a bow on it - it also sucks to see the cult of beane overtake the reality of just how shabby this lineup looks and how this is just as much his fault as anyone's. i understand - superstar managers in many businesses often become more interested in being their own brand than in doing the work that made them famous.
but what sucks most of all is knowing that something that i projected so much of what i value onto - scrappiness, brains over physical talent, discpline manifested in watertight defense - was just given away.
the opposite of hate isn't love, it's apathy.
notah8er - September 7, 2007
If you're looking for scrappiness,
I hear the White Sox are looking for some new fans to replace all the guys who jumped off the bandwagon this year. And next year they might have David Eckstein, too!
Heck, Kendall's a free agent. Maybe they can pull off the All-Bran Trifecta with him, Eckstein and Erstad all in the lineup at the same time!
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
What is this, Econ class?
Team loses. Team sells less tickets. Team has less money. I call that losing money. I really don't care what you call it.
The simple statement "attendance doesn't matter economically to individual teams" is patently ridiculous. Would you like to actually justify that in some way?
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
But
if the team saves more in payroll (or in other expenses) than they lose in ticket sales, then they end up with more money. The upper deck closure along with the general lack of marketing show how much ownership cares about attendance at the Coliseum.
andeux - September 7, 2007
let me be the first to introduce you to
the 2007 sf giants. ooh, pretty park. ooh, barry(s). ooh, ASG. mmm, yummy beer.
notah8er - September 7, 2007
Plus...
this idea totally backfired on the Showgirl-owner of the Cleveland Indians from "Major League". And why would we EVER do something that Hollywood filmmakers have proven doesn't work?
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
The notion that it would be in
the A's best financial interest to be less competitive in 2008-10 is just silly. Does anyone really think that if spending 5-10 mil more could bring the revenue and buzz of a playoff appearance before 2011, the A's wouldn't think it was in their best financial interest to do it?
Nico - September 7, 2007
Or, to put it simply:
What PaulThomas said.
Nico - September 7, 2007
if it costs enough more money to achieve ...
... "more competitiveness" in that time period, no, it wouldn't be worth it.
And the biggest draw in the first 3-5 years of the new park will be ... the new park.
monkeyball - September 7, 2007
Yep
I thought one of the more clever Giants-tweaking slogans the A's had a few years back was "While they were building a stadium, we were building a team."
Now the cleat is on the other foot.
I certainly don't think that the A's will "try to lose," but I'm not convinced that trying to win is as high a priority as it has been for the last several years, or as I would like it to be.
andeux - September 7, 2007
The flaw in this reasoning
is that it assumes that competing now somehow trades off with competing 4-5 years from now. I have yet to see any evidence of this notion, particularly given that 3/4 of the current roster will be gone by then anyway. There just isn't any reason why the A's would NOT "compete now." I don't understand why the A's would build the team any differently now than they would if there was no stadium upcoming. This is not a business in which banking money for a rainy day makes a lot of sense, especially with the rate of salary inflation recently. It's all about cash flow. The income being (more or less) the same now as before, the payroll ought, strategically speaking, to be about the same as well.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
I'm not assuming that at all
In fact, I've argued against that assumption (a trade off between winning now and winning later) in other diaries.
But the team's goal is to make money, now and in the future. The reason to win is (as you say) to put butts in the seats, both now and further down the line - obviously more fans go to see a good team than a bad one, and there is also a longer term effect of breeding fan loyalty. The latter would be something that would fall under the economic category of "goodwill," i.e. something that doesn't make you money today, but is an obvious asset somewhere down the line.
The new stadium changes the equation both because the fanbase will be moving somewhat geographically and because the new stadium is itself an attraction that's going to create sellouts for the first few years. So the value of goodwill generated by winning now is reduced somewhat for a team that is building a new stadium compared to one that isn't.
Again, I don't think this means that Beane will purposely put a bad team on the field for the next few years. He'll still spend the money he has wisely, with an eye toward today and the future. But, from ownership's point of view, it's a perfect time to cut payroll or at least let it stagnate while taking some profits. The Loaiza trade in particular seems to indicate that may be happening.
andeux - September 7, 2007
The profit motive.
Since Wolff and Fisher raised team payroll this season to the highest level it's been in over a decade, I highly doubt that they are really motivated to let the payroll "stagnate" and pocket some extra cash.
I think they are interested and committed to making money THROUGH the team and it's successes, and not at it's expense. They aren't going to go all Walter Haas on us and dip into their own fortunes to help the team win, but they'll definitely manage the team's expenses as a business, meaning that they might pocket a respectable profit, but will likely plug most (if not all) of what they take in back to the team on the field, which is both the right thing to do for the fans and for the long-term growth of the business.
They haven't, they shouldn't and they probably won't treat this team like a stock portfolio...cashing shares out whenever they want a new car or something. From a logistical perspective, there is no compelling reason for them to do that, since the team is moving to Fremont regardless of how much money it takes in between now and 2010, and if they can grow the brand by winning on the field or bringing in marketable stars, then they'll commit resources to doing that.
Lastly, the Loaiza waiver deal wasn't simply made to save money that won't ever be spent. It was to open a rotation spot for some guys that might be cheaper and better than Loaiza AND to create financial flexibility to pursue players this off-season that might be expensive, but will also help the team win more than Loaiza would have.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
better than Loaiza?
Identify, please, the current members of the 40-man roster who were being blocked by Loaiza and will outpitch him.
Also identify, please, the freely available players on the '07-08 talent market whose salaries would be covered by the '08 cost savings of not paying Loaiza and who will "help the team win more than Loaiza would have."
Also, for what it's worth, identify all the marginal A-AA players who probably could have been acquired in a trade for Loaiza who just weren't worth pursuing.
monkeyball - September 7, 2007
That last one is pretty easy
since the answer is, evidently, "zero."
As I've noted elsewhere, I think either Fukudome or A-Rod would be good deals if the A's can swing them.
Get over this notion that Loaiza had trade value. Either the A's were better letting his contract go, or they were better with him in the rotation in 2008 (and possibly 2009). While I happen to think the latter was in fact the case, and thus opposed the deal (barring any back-door concessions), it's pure fantasy to suggest that the A's could have acquired anything of consequence for him in a trade.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
he looked great last week
esteban pitched a great game and got a win against a divisional leader. funny how the injuries clear up and these guys look like 8-digit talent again the second they leave the oakland infirmary...
notah8er - September 8, 2007
I'm confused.
So it's not worth it to spend money to make the team better? That's not right. Billy will continue to spend every dime Wolff gives him because a professional baseball team's goal is to win baseball games, not save the owner money before a big move that will make him richer than God.
And it's not like once we move into the new stadium the team that Billy continues to build will of a sudden disappear and then materialize into multi-millionaire free agents not currently on the team's roster.
The players brought in and the money spent on payroll between now and 2010 will dictate the team we move to Fremont with. So in that sense, Wolff should be encouraging Beane to spend money now to ensure that we have a competitive team for the move to Fremont.
Taj Adib - September 7, 2007
you need to work on your reading comprehension
Everything is relative, and is especially relative to the current constraints and commitments of the A's player roster.
I said that "if it costs enough more money to achieve 'more competitiveness' in that time period, no, it wouldn't be worth it."
Beane believes, as he all but directly stated in his interview with Blez, that the A's 40-man roster as currently constituted is competitive enough. I disagree with that sentiment (I suspect Beane actually does, too); but the marginal expense to achieve a significant uptick of marginal "competitiveness" is going to be huge this offseason. Simply spending a little more money (say, ELo's salary, which is going to be eaten up by salary raises and arby anyway) won't improve the A's much at all for '08.
You seem to believe that the A's start at 0 every season, and the achieving competitiveness is simply a matter of budgeting for it.
monkeyball - September 7, 2007
Thanks Professor...
I'll be sure to re-read my Kaplan SAT prep book to improve my reading comprehension for you. Seriously, what an unnecessary statement.
Anyways, I'm not saying that the A's start at "0" every season. Of course they have financial commitments and operational liabilities that, if they sufficiently drag the team down enough, will totally make it financially unwise to spend more capital on the team on the field, since the liabilities will counter-balance whatever credit is extended to the team. I'm sure that if Beane and Wolffish determine that this is the case this off-season, then I would agree wholeheartedly with them that investing any money into this team is a bad idea.
But, if the team can be made sufficiently "more competitive" relative to the costs associated with improving the team (say, investing an extra $10 million on player payroll this winter by realizing that that money and possibly more will be recouped by playoff ticket sales and added media coverage) then isn't it worth it to go ahead and do that? It's a risk, sure, but it's a risk that can pay off for ownership.
Taj Adib - September 8, 2007
Come on
God has like eleventy trillion dollars.
mikeA - September 7, 2007
The A's aren't trying to lose
They’ve just reckoned that it’s not cost effective to pay a lot extra to maybe possibly win a little.
Look, this is really a golden era for MLB ownership...maybe even The Golden Era. Certainly the most lucrative since free agency. Wolffish have taken in more in operating profits in their three years than the collective bottom lines of 25 years of ownership before them. Their asset has jumped $112 million in value...in three years! And the A’s are still a "poor" team. Nationally, revenue has exploded even more, through national and local media, the internet, stadium naming and in-park ad placement, international marketing, the Expos-Nationals swindle. Attendance has never been less important to the revenue pot, proportionally, than it is today.
That’s why the A’s don’t necessarily feel like they must field a winner. Additionally, that’s what makes this an almost uniquely perfect time for owners generally to pocket some profits. The money won’t always flow in like it is now. For the A’s particularly this even more true, because they’ve already decided to write off a third or more of their current game-attending fans. Two years ago it was the third deck closure, and sharp cuts to the cheapest of cheap tickets. This year it was a retooled discount structure, incentivizing purchase of mid-priced seats, not the cheapest. In a year or two $2 Wednesdays will be gone. In four or so years BART will be gone, functionally. And the deliberately smallest park in the majors will open. All of this likely makes bottom line good sense. But any ownership crew savvy enough to figure that out is certainly smart enough to make this much easier calculation: the difference between spending $65 million and $85 million on payroll, say, isn’t worth anywhere near $20 million in revenue next year.
I don’t see Wolffish as Jeffrey Loria/Carl Icahn style profiteers, though I may yet change that view. It just seems like smart business right now to draw from the profit well, and most people would do the same.
FreeSeatUpgrade - September 7, 2007
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here
You and monkeyball seem to mean, when you talk about attendance, the literal number of human beings attending games. You're right, that's not terribly important. What IS important is the amount of money paid by those human beings. (Which will drop if the A's suck, thus hurting the bottom line. This is not a disputable point.) Closing the upper deck and moving to a smaller park are measures designed to raise revenue by increasing average ticket price, and the former, at least, has evidently been successful.
None of which bears even the slightest relationship to the decision whether to pull money out of the company as profits or reinvest it in an effort to raise the value of the company. It is, I guess, true that raising ticket prices and other anti-consumer measures are correlated in the general sense with looting of teams (see: Huizenga, W.). But there's no actual evidence that that's what's going on here.
Not for the first time, I envy fans of the Packers and Celtics... they being public corporations.
PaulThomas - September 7, 2007
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.