Athletics Nation

Maybe sign Dunn for similar money you were offering Furcal,

thereby adding 40HRs to the lineup. You have two choices with Dunn: Play him at 1B and eat the defense there, or DH him and put Cust in the OF (and eat defense there along with blocking Buck/Cunningham). Then piece SS together from among Crosby, Izturis, Cabrera, etc. – whatever’s available and affordable.

It’s not ideal, position-wise, but if Dunn’s value really is as low as rumored can the A’s afford to pass it up?

The only issue I have with this idea, and really it's because we just don't know at this point,

is that we really don’t know what the market is for Dunn. I personally think we’d be assuming too much and taking all these sports columnists too much at face-value if we really bought into the notion that Dunn is only going to get a 3/36 or 4/40 sort of deal, tops.

Plus, now that signing him no longer means giving up a draft pick his value has increased and he’s a lot younger (ergo a better bet for a long-term deal) than Burrell or Giambi or Abreu, and has as much if not more potential power production to offer relative to other hitters on the market.

no to penny

and definitely no to Mulder since this is implying we actually spend ANYTHING on him. Yes to any of the 1b/DH and no to the infielders except possibly Lopez depending on the cost. We really need another SS option.

Why do people think Punto is someone the A's should get?

He is barely worth a backup infield spot.

brenarlo - December 6, 2008 reply

Because

Hes got a great glove, and an Ellis and Punto combo up the middle is very good defensively.

pbra17 - December 6, 2008 reply

No better than Petit / Ellis

And significantly more expensive.

Agreed

This looks like a power play to me. Give him a fair, albeit low, offer knowing full well he’ll decline. By declining this time-limited offer, it temporarily takes the A’s out of the market for him. There are already 2/3 teams fewer in the running for him then when the off-season started, now one less with possibly no strong alternatives left. Now Beane can let Furcal explore the Winter Meetings in a vulnerable, significantly weaker position and see exactly how poor the market for him really is. At that point Beane can reapproach Furcal and either drop the extra year, accept the offer that was on the table, or potentially settle for even less for per year. I seriously doubt the A’s are really out of the running and I seriously doubt this is over.

It's not a power play -

it’s a market that’s recalibrating. Have you tried to buy or sell a house lately? It doesn’t matter that your pad was worth 200k more in 2007 if you’re trying to sell it today, and since that’s hard for sellers to accept, the pace of deals slows down. Seems like these guys are groping around to find market value in our bailout economy, and in this case the seller is not willing to cut loose of his 2007 valuation.

Exactly - it's Furcal (or his agent) who have drastically

misread the current market. No one was offering anywhere close to what he wanted before and now most teams have moved on. Other than Oakland, no one ever entertained four years and including Oakland no one ever entertained 12million/year. That’s all in Furcal’s head.

this needs the disclaimer "as far as we know" on the offers he may or may not

have received from other teams, or discussions his agent may or may not have had with them.

I thought that was always implied on a blog

Oh yeah, no worries- just reminding myself, and all of us, that there's plenty we

might not be aware of and could not possibly know at this point.

It’s all fine and well for us to act like this is the only offer Furcal has gotten and he’s being stubborn bordering on idiotic not to take it, but there is also the possibility that he and his agent have genuine reason to believe that they can get a better offer based on discussions they’ve had with other teams up ’til now.

still bills kingdom - December 7, 2008 reply

What's the point of publically rejecting an offer if another team has offered exactly what you want?

If Boston has offered 4/48, why not just sign that. Or use the media to help those negotiations. What’s the end game of saying Oakland’s offer wasn’t good enough?

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

Well, the endgame of publicly letting it be known the A's offered 4 years

but not enough money, from the agent’s point of view, would be to set a public baseline for offers from any other team that might be interested and to also make it known that a team had been willing to offer 4 guaranteed years (something nobody was confident would happen in the first place.)

I find it interesting that practically in the same breath, when going public, Kinzer indicated that a 3 year deal at the right contract amount would be of interest- he clearly wanted to get that out there and encourage teams that aren’t willing to offer 4 years to consider bidding.

It may be, in fact I’d think it’s likely now, that Kinzer feels the best option for Furcal is to sign a 3 year deal, or even a 2 year deal, at higher annual salary and then re-enter the free agent market in a couple years when things might be better economically.

As for the hypotheses on other teams’ interest- I didn’t mean other teams have necessarily made concrete offers yet (I doubt it) but I find it highly unlikely that other teams haven’t expressed interest and had initial discussions with Kinzer regarding what they’d be willing to do in terms of contract length, and even parameters of contract value.

Put it this way- there’s a reason that Kinzer/Furcal said no to the A’s offer, and that reason most logically is that they believe he can get a better deal, whatever the parameters and context of said deal would be- and it may even involve playing for a team he’d rather play for in a place he likes better, at comparable years/dollars.

Correct

That’s why Beane’s stand here IS a power play. He’s in a position to say take it or leave it. Do WE want a new shortstop, yes. Does Beane NEED a new shortstop? Not necessarily. This very well could just be a wish list signee for him. If it fails, so be it. He’s seeing the market crumble, he takes a hard line stand on price in a take it or leave it fashion, knowing full well that if it turns out his price was reasonable, great, he eventually gets the “house” he wants. If some idiot steps in and pays more for the house than it’s worth, oh well, he’s not married to the house yet.

Actually, the A's NEED a new SS

If not now then certainly by 2010. This year’s FA SS crop is better than next year’s so something has got to give.

I actually don't see it as a power play,

in that the A’s said from the git-go that they would not get into a bidding war. Meaning they were going to make an offer at some point hoping Furcal would accept, and if Furcal said no Oakland would move on (what else can a team do?).

Maybe Beane is also trying to establish the market for Furcal, but more likely he’s just making a fair “high on years, not so much on money” offer based on the 2008 market while Furcal is living in 2007.

I guess that really depends on how you're defining a power play

I see it as move that exploits your position of strength. A take it or leave it offer that lowers the players current value in a weak market to me is exploiting the position. Is it some uber play, not really. It’s not like trying to sell water in the middle of a dessert and you’re the only one with the h2o, but it’s still a play.

Yeah, except the "take it or leave it" aspect was understood from the start

It’s not something Beane did out of the blue to exploit the current situation. Maybe the timing, but not the “doing it at all.”

See and I view the timing of

coming just off the Giant’s. Braves’ & Cards’ moves as why NOW being the moment to make his move is brilliant. He does this before Thanksgiving and it’s a stupid move that has no potential for being successful. He does it now when the Braves are likely out of it, the Giants & Cards are definitely out of it.

Yes, I agree the timing is strategic

It’s a power-play in that regard – but I think the A’s were up front that they were going to pick a strategic time to make a take it or leave it offer, and that’s exactly what they did. So maybe it’s an “above board power play.”

Which is pretty much all I meant by it

All that could be true

But lets not forget the risk here for the A’s. Another team could move in and land Furcal, leaving the A’s with a lousy SS. That’s still a viable scenario. The A’s are moving on Dunn because he’s suddenly looking like a bargain. Why couldn’t some other team, a team that didn’t have previous interest in Furcal (White Sox maybe?) at 4 years/mucho millions, suddenly decide that Furcal’s price has suddenly dropped to acceptable levels?

Let’s say that Furcal’s price drops to 3 years/$30 million. Would you really be comforted by the knowledge that the A’s didn’t sign him at 4/44 while he’s playing for another team?

If Furcal's price drops to 3/30,

Oakland can offer 3/32. Better for Furcal, and maybe better for Oakland than 4/36 would have been.

I think the bottom line is Furcal

does not want to play in Oakland no matter what the cost. That is apparent. I am concerned that other free agents do not want to come play for a perceived loser organization.

pedoman - December 6, 2008 reply

Possible... but I think there was a definite misread of the market by his agent

For now I think it was the market bit that plays the more prominent role.

A player rejects an obvious lowball offer

and suddenly he “does not want to play in Oakland no matter what the cost”?

You’ve managed to insult the intelligence of both Beane and Furcal simultaneously.

Though I do think Furcal has a pretty lousy agent

At every turn, I think he has not really helped his client.

I think "obvious lowball" is strong

Furcal is coming off back surgery, his stats are all NL, with the risk that entails, and – most important – the economy of the united states of america is…shall we generously say “unsettled?” I continue to be struck by the A’s willingness to throw around some money in this market and genuinely doubt there are more than a handful of other teams who aren;t planning to cut payroll in the face of what seems like an inevitable decline in both revenue and team valuations. Put me down for a bet that Furcal ends up getting less money than this.

the Sox have the money though

If the A's offer was 4/36 then yeah, that was a lowball offer

I don't think it's that low

Furcal stated initially that he wanted 4/40. Nobody was willing to offer 4, period. Then the market has proven way softer financially than we thought. 4/36 seems fair to me for an injury-recovered 31-year old getting a 4-year commitment in a super-soft market.

Its low

b/c Renteria is getting 9million per year albeit for 2 shorter years. Renterial set the market.

njnick - December 6, 2008 reply

Renteria could very well have hurt Furcal's value

simply by signing and taking a suitor out of the picture. If there’s truly only the A’s left, then Furcal may not get more than Renteria’s 9mil

designatedforassignment - December 6, 2008 reply

two shorter years is significant

Renteria has been healthy pretty much throughout his career, though that didn’t stop him from sucking the last two times he spent years in the AL. I would much rather have a two year commitment and pay more per year. Renteria screwed Furcal by taking the most irrational bidder (Sabean) out of the market.

Although I happen to think Renteria is done

If he performs like he did in Atlanta, he’s a better player than Furcal.

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

Depends on what he ends up actually signing for.

If he gets similar or less, and the market will only do what it can bear, then no it wasn’t.

UncleLeo - December 6, 2008 reply

an organization that has been in the postseason

(or came very close) more often than not in the past 10 years can hardly be perceived as a loser organization. According to many players Oakland has a reputation for having a congenial clubhouse, if not sold out houses (although not as bad as some other clubs that do have the “loser” label).

My feeling is that Furcal was disappointed to get an offer that represented a pay cut from his previous annual salary. His agent should, among other things, advise his client well and take into account market trends.

Exactly - Furcal thinks he's worth 13mil/year,

the A’s think he’s worth about 9mil/year, and the market thinks he’s worth about 9mil/year.

Anybody who preceives Oakland as a "loser organization" when its one of the winningest

this decade should be chopped in the throat repeatedly.

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

The two sides have already said No to a deal

Yes, they could change there minds but this is a business negotiation. This is a sales pitch. And the 1st rule of sales is to have breath mints handy.

After that, don’t let the mark walk away if you’ve got a chance to close the deal. Because once the mark leaves he might never walk back in. (Course, we could really have fun arguing over who the “mark” is in this scenario!)

That, of course, assumes that the mark has other options

IF... Furcal and his agent come back and ask the A's to match or beat the offer.

What if he has other places he’d rather play, and one of those teams now decides he’s a bargain and that they’ll sort out the roster complications as they go along and that they want to sign him now?

It’s a risk that the A’s are taking, if they genuinely wanted him to begin with.

Is it a smart risk? Depends on your perspective, and it will very much depend on what happens from here.

Like when we drafted Justin Smoak

and then we didn’t pony up, something like 100,000 grand to sign him. Saving pennies, losing dimes.

pedoman - December 6, 2008 reply

Actually, Smoak's number was $1 million IIRC

I'm just amused by the fact that he said "100,000 grand"

which really would be too much for a draft prospect…

Good point

That’s like a lot of money

Strasbourg shrugs

It's not much for an entire Alsatian city

Or is it Lorrainean— I can never keep my oft-fought-over French borderlands straight.

Yeah yeah, spelling error.

nevermoor shrugs

Alsatian

Alsace is on the Rhine, Lorraine is not. Alsace is the real border state. Lorraine is larger and Frencher; the Prussians only annexed about a quarter of it, the northern part.

Let me guess....

the part with non renewable energy resources. Clever fellows those Germans.

I believe you're describing the Saarland.

Germans aren’t the only clever ones.

Was it really only 1 million for Smoak?

I wanna know who was keeping the A’s draft stategy cheap all these years. Was Beane following Selig, or Lew Following Selig, or just the A’s setting a (foolish) budgetary choice. Smoak for Brett Hunter money sounds great to me.

It was $1 million

I lived in SC at the time and Smoak was a local kid from Goose Creek — I lived in a town just 3 miles across I-26. The Athletics offered him $950,000. I think that Smoak was always intent on playing college baseball for the USC (University of South carolina) Gamecocks and never had any real intentions of beginning his professional career at that time.

Gallagher's Watermelons - December 6, 2008 reply

That's what I heard

Smoak had zero intention of signing. Smart move; he made himself a bunch more money.

We have a shortstop

His he crap? More or less yes. BUT it’s a filled position. I’d rather Beane be in a position to be under cut by a mystery leave that decides to jump in and outbid him, but like on eBay, you set your max and stick to it, that’s the value you place on that item. You don’t just suddenly throw more at it OVER the value you’ve placed it on it just because someone else holds the item at higher value. If you do you’re going to get taken time and again.

Also, grover, your reaction is my "gut reaction,"

which is “Oh my God, what if we don’t end up with an acceptable solution at SS?” But a GM can’t operate that way. There are more acceptable solutions out there for the A’s than there are suitors out there for Furcal, and way overpaying for Furcal is a panic move. Examples of solutions:

Sign Dunn for offense and you can add Izturis for defense. The two combined should come in at less than Furcal is asking.

Offer enough to pry Tejada away from Houston – a decent prospect and Crosby to replace him might do it.

Sign Cabrera shorter-term (2 years?) as a guy who might give you equal defense to Crosby and hit for more average, and figure that Furcal’s back gives out you might be glad you lost out on him.

Etc.

i still like the cabrera idea

and tejada wouldn’t hurt if he wasn’t expensive in a trade

I don't know what's worth hating about Cabrera more

He’s a complete tool or he’s not very good at baseball. I’d be shocked if he’s a win better than Crosby.

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

See an attitude "oh no, we're stuck with Crosby"

is NOT one I want to see from our GM because that just breeds panic moves. I want one that says, well, there goes plan A, let’s upgrade elsewhere and not overpay for something we, while technically we may need it in a we need to do better there way, we don’t necessarily HAVE to because there are other upgrade possibilities out there.

You're right, there are other solutions

But most of them carry an additional burden besides cash loss.

Cabrera costs a draft pick and it’s more likely that you’d have to over-spend on him than Furcal because there are a few teams who weren’t interested in Furcal that were interested in Cabrera.

I’ve championed Izturis enough that I don’t need to go there again.

Tejada/Escobar/Hardy all cost you talent in a trade.

And for the record, I wouldn’t consider 4/44 an overpay, especially if the 4th year was optional. If Furcal had signed at 4/40 I’d have considered it a good deal for the A’s. You (and Beane, it seems) are gambling that the market will drop a great deal lower on Furcal.

Maybe it will.

Maybe it won’t. And if it doesn’t, it means the A’s will have missed their best shot at signing Furcal. They had him in their sights and passed up the opportunity. There is always the chance that opportunity won’t come again.

I guess I see Furcal's "market value"

as being 3 years and as being, maybe, 10.5 mil/year: In other words, an offer of 3/31.5 might be a true “market value” offer. So an offer of 4/36 – more in years, but less per year – and an offer of 2/23 – fewer in years, but more per year, is also a fair market offer.

OK, Nico you're worth $10.5 million on the open market

I want you to sign this 4 year contract that will pay you 10% less than what you’re worth.

4/36 is lowball.

You're ignoring the importance of # of years

My value for a four-year commitment is NOT 10.5mil/year because when my back hurts my counseling sucks and in four years I’ll be well past my prime.

No, I'm not

I’m playing using your numbers. You think his market value is 3 years/$10.5 annual. OK, fine. Now lets negotiate.

Furcal wants more money and more years.

Oakland wants less money and (maybe) fewer years.

4/40 gives him the extra year he wants at a small cost in cash (which the A’s want).

So using your numbers, 4/40 is a “fair” deal.

Asking Furcal to go 4/36 (and the article gave the range as $35-40 million) represents a lowball figure. It is below fair market value as YOU defined the parameters.

i agree with you, but

the real question is, is there a market for furcal? i don’t think so. i don’t think we should abuse that to try to really shaft him, but i think its totally fair to get a good deal out of it. my guess is, he goes to the winter meetings, finds out the a’s had the best offer, comes back to us, and finds out we’ll either give him that offer, or slightly more money but fewer years – and this will still be the best offer for him. if he gets something better (which i don’t think will happen), go after a dunn/izturis combo.

guy incognito - December 6, 2008 reply

Then he better hurry up

and realize what the market currently dictates he’s worth. Beane has a history of saying what he means in negotiations. I imagine him and Forst are well on their way to plan “B”. If Furcal makes a move before the A’s initiate other plans, I’m sure they’ll entertain his offer. Otherwise, by the time Furcal realizes the A’s were offering the most, the ship will have already sailed.

You don't know what the market is for Furcal

I don’t know what the market is for Furcal. Why is Kenny Williams doing what he’s doing to the White Sox roster? What happens if the Braves renew their plan to trade 2B Kelly Johnson for an OFer, would they turn to Furcal to plug the hole? Seattle might/should be second guessing Betancourt, what if they can trade him? If the price keeps becomes 3 years for Furcal, could they get interested? Baltimore is shopping for a SS, they were going after Izturis but isn’t the whole arguement for not signing Furcal is his price keeps dropping? What to say the price doesn’t drop to a point the Orioles like?

There’s plenty of uncertainty in the market to say the A’s are Furcal’s only option.

I'm thinking that Beane

wanted Fucal’s answer before the winter meetings. Hence the deadline. I imagine he’s going to pursue another option via trade. Probably something he considered second best, but still viable.

The timeline still allows Furcal to come back

Winter Meetings tend to lay the groundwork for deals two-three weeks later. Furcal can probably come back looking for a deal with Oakland throughout December.

Honestly, I think Winter Meetings are mostly overrated

Given modern technology. I don’t think there would be much of an effect (if any) if they stopped happening.

You're not in the hotel business I take it.

Heh, no

Is it even that big a convention in hotel revenue terms?

right

this is all just speculation at this point. educated, and possibly accurate, but still speculation. somebody certainly could give him 4 years and more money. i think its not that likely, but who knows.

guy incognito - December 6, 2008 reply

Isn't the whole 4/36 figure even speculation?

All I’ve seen is “35-40” – maybe it was for 4/36 with playing time incentives that would kick it up to 4/40 if he stayed healthy.

exactly

this whole topic is based on speculation. maybe furcal has potential offers. maybe he doesn’t. maybe he asked for 4/48 and wouldn’t budge. maybe beane has no intention of not coming back with a counter-offer in a few weeks after the winter meetings. personally, i think its unlikely that he’s getting 4 years from anyone, and since the years may be more important, we’re still the best offer around. unless we move on someone real quickly, i really don’t think this is the end of the discussion between us and furcal.

guy incognito - December 6, 2008 reply

Agree on all that

If he was really worth what you think he is,

He’d be getting offered contract for what you think he should and/or there’d be significant grumblings about strong interest in him. So, when it [a deal] happens, you can say he was worth it. If it does not happen, or rather, until it does happen, it may not be an accurate claim.

I’m always amazed that those without this kind of money and not in the position to offer players contracts, seem to claim they know so much about who is worth what.

Personally, I think a good teacher is worth more than Furcal is worth,

but I submitted a 4 year/$36million proposal to my school two weeks ago, and have yet to hear back.

Did you ask for "Goat Allowance" in your proposal?

Trainman - December 6, 2008 reply

Yes. I think that's why they rejected it.

few of us can hit a lick either,

but it doesn’t stop us from critiquing the best in the world…

skutch - December 6, 2008 reply

Grover's position makes sense to me

The A’s are gambling- but the gamble is not to make Furcal possible (the A’s can afford to pay 4/44 and still sleep well at night)…the gamble is to save an extra 7 million. That’s fine, but the potential 7 million savings have to be weighed against potential costs (stuck with Crosby, trading Prospects, or a pick). 7 Million doesn’t seem worth it.

On the other hand, Nico’s position is that the A’s can just up the offer later. I think that might work, but I see scenarios where that fails: The most likely outcome of all this is that Furcal has to choose between two identical offers- one from the A’s, and one from another team. It’s rare one team outbids another by a small increment such as 2M. Usually, two offers are identical, or one team outbids significantly (as in, one extra year, or 5M total extra). I’m betting there’s at least 1 team out there that will take Furcal at the current price. With two identical offers, there are three reasons Furcal says no to the A’s.

1. Players want to feel wanted. Like it or not, lowball offers cause insecurity…they make him question himself. In a tie, the A’s might lose because he feels like the org didn’t value him enough to make their real final offer upfront.

2. The A’s are not a desirable destination. Players routinely get traded, and even though they’re professionals, being traded sucks (for Family, stability, etc.). We haven’t won for some time, have poor fan attendance, a shitty stadium, and make batters look bad in the coliseum (killing Furcal’s next, final, contract). Plus, we’re in the AL, and its possible he’d prefer NL.

3. He might have an interest in some other team for personal reasons. (we don’t know- it could be anything) The patient approach might be because his heart is set on a team that he hopes will offer. E.G. Boston, perennial AL contender, LA, for continuity. or some other team.

So, I thing Grover’s right- Now was the time to be decisive, and not let the buyer out without a deal. Remember, being decisive doesn’t mean being desperate- 4/42 probably gets it done, and only represents a 5-6M investment over 4 years.

Nice post

It must have been, for you

to overlook the misuse of a capital “G”!

Too busy telling you how wrong you are to bother with mango

I just think you and Furcal are overestimating his value

The A’s might have made him the best offer he’s going to get – which means the A’s will remain in the running as others offer less (in money and/or years).

The difference, which you are ignoring

is that if you’re right, our approach costs us 7M (at most)

If we’re right, your approach leaves us with Crosby, and then no better than Khalil Green etc. in 2009. OR we have to pay top prospects for performance no better than Furcal. OR we give up a pick AND pay money for Cabrera.

You (and, it seems, Beane) are betting much more on your hunch than we are.

But maybe Beane thought Furcal would accept

Why offer 4/44 “just to make sure he accepts” if he’s likely to accept 4/36? There’s a decent chance that at no point will anyone offer 4 years OR 36million. Not only could Furcal have accepted this offer, arguable he SHOULD have.

Because making sure he accepts

is more important than saving 7M, given the lack of alternatives.

You just restated the choice (7M vs. risk of not having SS options) rather than arguing why one side of the choice is right.

You position is tenable if you think the alternatives to furcal are not bad, or if you think that it is very very likely no-one else will bid. I think #2 is probably your position, but you should defend it.

+1

#2 is almost my position -

I do think other teams will bid, but not for four years and not for 36 million. The A’s have, IMO, made the top offer in years AND the top offer in dollars. So they didn’t bid as low as it seems.

My position is that Furcal will end up taking as many or fewer years AND as little or fewer total dollars in the end. In which case, the A’s have not lowballed at all. They’ve been the highest bidder and can still be the next highest bidder in everything but “annual salary” (in years and in total dollars).

Well, there have been numerous potential bidders mentioned

Boston, LA (who haven’t said no, but are just waiting for other priorities-Manny- to pan out)

Hell even the Blue Jays could jump back in. They have a payroll freeze, but its possible that a bargain Furcal unfreezes them.

I see no reason why another team can’t match the A’s 4/36 offer, or top it w/ 4/40 or 3/32. That’s a bargain for a lot of teams (all of whom can bid), and I’ve argued that the A’s would be losers in that scenario.

They could, but it appears Beane

believes these offers won’t happen – and he’s the only one of the three of us who’s in a position to make that assessment. (And as for 3/32, the A’s can still bid that.)

Boston has a SS and hasn’t actually been linked to Furcal. LAD lowballed Furcal with the offer of “You know what, forget it.” That’s the kind of interest we’ve seen so far. NO ONE wants to offer him four years except Oakland. Oakland’s offer wasn’t that low.

You know what I think it is?

I think you’re being swayed by “straw men” – figures like 4/48 and 4/60 (remember NSJ’s post?) that make it appear as if those are the numbers in play.

In fact, it appears that the market for Furcal is more like 3/30 at best, which makes 4/36 more than fair – especially when that fourth year is such a risk.

Honestly, can you name any team

that it appears has ever even considered offering Furcal 12million a year for any length of time? How about 11? Those figures come from our assumptions only – and I suspect our assumptions have been wrong.

Who are you trying to convince here?

Ok, we can probably agree this is a good end point

you are sure the market is so bad that no one will offer 4/40 or 3/32, and are willing to bet a year of Crosby + a poor signing in 2009 on it.

I am less sure about the market, and spend the 6 MIllion extra (4/42 offer) to try and avoid risking the poor alternatives to Furcal.

Replace "you are sure"

with “Beane appears to be confident” and that first paragraph puts us in agreement. (I’m not sure about anything, except that Bobby Crosby sucks.)

ok, that's fine

although your opinion article seemed to agree with Beane (as opposed to merely describing his actions), so I don’t feel too bad characterizing this gamble as being your position.

Stop saying that

Stop assuming the A’s are going to get a chance to bid at 3/32. They told Furcal that they were out and they were going to pursue other options. That doesn’t mean the A’s can’t come back around and make another offer, but it does mean that if another team comes in and makes a 3/32 offer Team Furcal is under no obligation to call up Beane and give him a chance to counter.

If Kenny Williams (for example) calls up and says “Hey, I’m interested in Furcal for 3 years, what kind of $$$ we talking about?” and the answer is $32 million then the deal could go down real quick if that figure is within what Williams was willing to spend.

You're right - if another team

offers 3/32. I have a feeling the A’s don’t believe that market exists for Furcal or that if it does it’s Oakland that will offer it.

that's fine

that’s the bet.

The A's believe $9 million a year (min) is necessary

Renteria got $9 million annual and a healthy Furcal (which the A’s obviously believe in) has to be worth at least $1 million more a year. All the offensive and defensive numbers say that very thing.

So $10 million a year is probable. 3/32 is less than $11 million a pop. The A’s could re-coup that much cash by trading Crosby after signing Furcal!

Market wise

I don’t see Furcal necessarily is $1 million more a year than Renteria. True value, yes, but not necessarily market value. Renteria took out a suitor (of whom there have been a limited amount) and what looks to be a buyer’s market, that means Furcal’s value which (should be at least $1 million more than Renteria BEFORE he signed) is now less than than that. Furcal’s market value may now be equal to Renteria simply because there are now fewer interested teams. Now, I’m not saying that’s the case. Odds are he could and should get more. But assuming he would, isn’t necessarily true. It’s like the Mulder deal after the Hudson deal. Take one player off the market and the prices/values shift.

This goes right back to

how many teams are going to be interested in Furcal at 3 years. If the market size doesn’t change then you’re probably right. If it grows, you’re wrong.

Agreed

Furcal should fire his agent

If Furcal’s agent snaps up a 3/32 deal and doesn’t even try to start a bidding war or even check to see if he can use as leverage against the A’s or any other team he is probably the stupidest agent out there.

OkayJay81 - December 6, 2008 reply

Flip that around

If the A’s offered 4/36 and Furcal said no, how about 4/40 then the A’s should have closed the deal. It doesn’t matter if there wasn’t another team willing to go 4/36 or 4/40… the SS in question wasn’t going to sign the deal. Maybe he’s willing to take fewer years at a higher annual salary.

Maybe 3/33 sounds sexier than 4/36.

And if the numbers were 4/40 vs 4/44, then the A’s still could have found a way to make that deal work.

+1

This is what I said below. If Furcal said 4/40 gets it done, that’s a reason Beane should have done it.

Do you really think Furcal was ready to sign

a 4/40 deal with Oakland – but when offered 4/36 said “No” instead of “make it 4/40 and we have a deal”? C’mon.

If the A's were lowballing Furcal

He could have said exactly that and the deal wouldn’t have gotten done because the A’s said no.

The point is,

you might be right- he may have said 4/40 gets it done. If he did, Beane said no. you agree with this decision.

I disagree. That’s the argument. Whether or not Furcal said it is irrelevant.

Also, Furcal won't say 4/40 gets it done

he won’t cap himself there. He wants A’s to offer 4/40.

Furcal say

he doesn’t want a paycut. he made 13 million a year. He is asking for 4/48 from what I read. The A’s upped to 4 years but not the amount.

makes sense he'd demand that

I think we all agree we’re not going to bid that, in light of the market right now.

I lean towards offering 4/42 now, to see if he’ll settle (to avoid a disaster) preemptively.

I haven't see anywhere where Furcal made a counter-offer

In fact, all that’s been said is that he turned down the offer but still remains interested in the A’s (or thereabouts). Now, if he countered with 4/44 (while willing to take 4/40) and the A’s don’t countered back with somewhere in the neighborhood of 4/40, then I absolutely agree with you that would be a bad move. But I suspect no counter was made by Furcal.

Exactly - and I suspect that either

Furcal wants 4/48 (and isn’t going to get it from anybody) or never really intended to sign with Oakland (in which case, so be it, good that the A’s are moving on now).

Let me see if I get this straight

Furcal’s agent walks in, looks at 4/36 and says no…

and then doesn’t make a counter?

That’s just stupid on the agent’s part. So barring stupidity, we’re left with 2 options.

#1: The A’s said take-it-or-leave it. Which would certainly support the lowball plan.

#2: Furcal’s agent made a counter that the A’s refused.

It’s possible, I suppose, to think that Furcal’s agent still believes he can find a 4/48 deal out there somewhere but then we’re venturing back to the realm of stupidity.

What I've seen so far supports

that Furcal’s agent is stupid/out of touch. I think he’s holding out for an offer that isn’t there and will have to settle for worse than what the A’s put on the table.

There's stupid and out of touch

and then there’s the argument that the agent wouldn’t counter the A’s proposal.

strannahan has a nice chronicling below

of some of the counter-productive moves Mr. Agent has made. I still say he wants 12mil for 4 years in a market that values Furcal at 9 for four years and maybe 10 for 3.

Either no counter offer or a non-serious one

Like 4/48.

I think grover’s approach here is too much like the “negotiating against yourself” that led to the first A-Rod contract and the Zito debacle.

If Furcal starts looking for a 3 year deal

He’ll get more interest from teams other than the A’s. In which case the A’s would be bidding against other teams.

Clear enough?

Then beat them by adding a year

Prezactly

Beane’s betting a lot to gain very little. Those bets usually seem like good odds, but sometimes they lead to you losing your hair in a game of Mario Kart.

That is the last time that you will suggest that betting on Mario Kart gains one very little

Joey C. - December 6, 2008 reply

I'm speaking from personal experience here

You have nowhere near enough information to make this determination

Yo, PT

You embroiled in finals right now? I’m re-teaching myself the nontestamentary nature of revocable inter vivos trusts when dealing with nonprobate property and I want to punch the kid sitting next to me in the library right in the neck.

Joey C. - December 7, 2008 reply

Yes

My incomprehensible Civil Procedure exam is on Wednesday. Or at least, it projects to be incomprehensible, based on the professor’s previous exams. No reason to expect differently this time.

Ironically, I think finals is actually increasing the amount of time I’m wasting here… partly because of escapism, but mostly because I don’t want to actually get embroiled in anything that’s going to take significant time…

designatedforassignment - December 6, 2008 reply

Bingo

My comment count spikes every year in early December and May.

I hated Civ Pro.

Joey C. - December 7, 2008 reply

7 million dollars is about 1 year of Johnson, its not peanuts

plus the 4/44 deal that you suggest is still a pay cut for furcal who made 13 m last year. Furcal probably wanted a deal like 4/52 or at least the deal that we were rumored to offer him at 4/50. If thats where he sees his market value im sure 4/44 is just as insulting as 4/36-40

Not to mince words:

Those solutions suck.

And Dunn/Izturis most certainly does not look cheaper than Furcal. Nor is it anywhere near as good. It’s probably 2 wins worse, for more money.

I like Dunn's HR numbers

But how would he do in the American League? Some that cross over to the AL from the NL don’t do well. Maybe Im soured on the whole Kendall thing, but the NL is more of a fastball league. I’m just not sold on it, yet.

billyball1981 - December 6, 2008 reply

I think he'd do fine

40HR hitters will hit 40HRs. And guys who walk will walk. He’s a very good Jack Cust and Cust has done fine in the AL.

Izturis trying to hit in the AL would be painfully comical

Would he OPS+ higher than 50? 45? Has a hitter ever had a sub-.500 OPS for an entire season?

Wouldn’t Izturis have to be a plus defender at short AND third at the same time to be valuable?

Has an AL team ever DHd for a position player, and is this even allowed? Because I’m not kidding when I say I have no doubt at least one of the A’s starters would be more worthy of a spot in the lineup than Izturis.

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

Beane isn't a fool, I think we're agreed on that

But in a negotiation you don’t open with the max your willing to spend. The A’s waited to give their offer until after the Giants and Cards dropped out. They judged what they thought the market would allow them to offer and have a chance at success.

The A’s haven’t maxed out on what they’d ultimately be willing to spend on Furcal.

And we're definitely agreed on that too

I don’t think the A’s are done with Furcal at all. I think Beane set his max price and made his “first” move. Yes it’s a take it or leave NOW, but once Furcal has a chance to actually see how bad the market really is, then the A’s can make offer number two OR simply throw offer number one back at Furcal and re-open talks. Right now, Beane is betting that after the meetings, Furcal’s position will be at it’s weakest. He says take it or leave NOW, because he knows Furcal still hasn’t reached bottom yet. He’s like a cat stalking prey, he’s chosen his victim, now’s he’s herding it into a dead-end canyon where the prey has fewer ways out.

Could be

maybe Beane let the offer get out there so Furcal couldn’t use it against the A’s to up a deal. Think of the rumor that Furcal said to a reporter he had a 4/48 deal on the table that wasn’t true.

Beane isn't the only cat on the block

And if he plays too long another cat might come in and steal his prize.

If Furcal signs elsewhere the A’s will have lost an opportunity to replace Crosby. I for one would prefer that to happen in 2009 but it will happen in 2010 when Crosby’s contract ends. It is fairly certain that the A’s don’t consider either Petit or Pennington legitimate options as starting SS, otherwise they could have traded Crosby already to someone like the Cardinals and still be fine if they missed on Furcal.

The first post-Crosby SS is going to have to come from outside the organization. It would be better for the A’s if they could just spend money on a FA rather than trade talent to acquire talent.

That doesn't mean they have to overpay,

if the market for their first choice is WORSE than we all thought. I bet Furcal ends up signing for either about 3/30 or 2/23 – and I hope it’s with Oakland. He’s not getting four years, and he’s not getting 12 million, from anybody. Except Oakland if he’s jiggy with 9mil/year.

Exactly

Furcal is the one that is sweating it out

If you graphed his value as a "stock"

it would look like:

—-\
     \
      ———\
               \
                ———————\
                                  \
                                   \
                                    —-

Except the formatting would be better

Is this some sort of metacomment

on that olympic high diving dream you had last month?

Nico's gonna do the Triple Lindy

Nico, if you're saying 4/40 is "fair"

(Which is a simple move from your 3/31.5 argument) then your exaggerating to call 4/44 an overpay.

4/48 would appear to be an overpay in this market.

I'd say it's a contextual overpay

assuming there’s no market for him, paying more than 4/40 fair market value is an overpay because with no market, no one would beat our 4/40 offer (we’d be competing only with ourselves). If there is a market for him and we’re in competition, 4/44 is most definitely a good deal and not an overpay.

There is a market for Furcal

How strong it is depends on several things. The whole world knows that there isn’t a 4 year deal on the table for Furcal. Team Furcal was pushing hard for that 4th year, if they bend on that than he becomes much more attractive to those teams who were only interested in going up to 3 years on him.

You know how AN is always talking about “it only takes 1 idiot GM” to throw out an unreasonable offer that drives up the price of a FA? In this case, Beane was that idiot GM by offering up 4 years! He crowded out the market, not by throwing a ton of money at Furcal but by agreeing to go 4 years. If Furcal can’t get 4 years, the means he’ll get 2-3 years and that is a price tag that had many suitors.

That's fair

The only thing I’d throw in is that based on the market (non-baseball), I’d be far less inclined to believe that a GM would go the idiot route this year. Even the Yankees seem to have limits on offers made this year. That’s NOT to say one can’t or won’t, I’d just estimate less likely. But all things considered, I still agree with your assessment.

The A's weren't and aren't competing with anyone

for a four-year deal. They can still make whatever competitive three-year offer they want, after exploring whether they could land Furcal for four years on the relatively cheap.

Why bid against yourself for a four-year deal? The A’s can still offer Furcal 3/30 or 3/32 or whatever is reasonable for a three-year deal and maybe still be the highest three-year offer.

Nico... the A's could lose in a race to sign Furcal for 3 years

The A’s have stepped away from the table, they are focusing on other targets for now. If another team comes in and offers 3/33 or 3/36 then A’s might not even get a chance to make a counter-offer.

That is the risk the A’s are taking. You’re assuming the A’s will get a chance to counter.

I don't think they've stepped away from the table forever

If and when Furcal says “I’m open to a three-year deal,” either he’ll allow the A’s to make a new three-year bid or else he just doesn’t want to come to Oakland (and is trying to use the A’s for leverage) – in which case the A’s had better be exploring other options.

false dichotomy

option 3: Furcal is not all that exciting about the A’s, but if offered 4/42 now, would sign anyway, to be safe.

Also, this approach might make your option 1 (Furcal allowing another bid from the A’s) converge to option 3 (Furcal may NOW not want to come to the A’s, and will now just use the A’s to get equal offer from another team).

In your scenario, though,

why couldn’t Furcal, if he chose to, come back and say “No to 4/36, but if you up it to 4/42 I’ll sign”? He didn’t – which might mean he’s simply not interested. Why wouldn’t he do that instead of just saying “Nope.”

because Beane framed it as a

one-time offer, w/ no bidding against self.

Also, he might have said that, and Beane might not have accepted.
My argument is that if he did say that, we should agree.

He didn’t – which might mean he’s simply not interested. Why wouldn’t he do that instead of just saying "Nope."

We don’t know that this is true. It’s possible that Beane said no, or that he didn’t, but only because Beane Guaranteed he would negotiate the offer.

Everyone who has ever negotiated anything

knows that the receiving party can always say, “No, but this’ll get it done.”

yes,

and my position is that the A’s should offer 4/42 in a preemptive strike.

Why are we arguing what furcal said? It’s irrelevant. He said one of three things in response to the offer:

1. No
—> A’s either offer 4/42 to try to close the deal (my position)
—>or they wait and see (your position).

2. 4/42 will get it done.
—>A’s say “deal” (my position)
—>A’s say “no”, stick to original offer (your position)

3. 4/48 will get it done (I think this is probably what he said)
—> A’s counteroffer w/ 4/42 (my position)
—> A’s say no, stick to original offer (your position)

The disagreement is over whether the A’s should make the 4/42 offer, NOT over what Furcal said. I’m trying be really clear here, since “everyone who has ever negotiated anything” knows furcal has options.

If Furcal had accepted the 4/36 offer,

which he probably should have and the A’s may have thought he would, your pre-emptive strike offer would cost 6million dollars unnecessarily and hamstring them to the tune of 6million going forward. The A’s, contrary to what it may appear right now, do NOT have 6million to throw around carelessly.

Right, I'm fine w/ starting w/ the 4/36 offer

but I wouldn’t stop there.

Plus, the A’s DO have 6M over the next 4 years to make a SS solution happen.

Unless you're getting a counter

you’re basically negotiating against yourself WITHOUT another suitor which is bad dealing. You put a number on the table and they sniff it and turn away, then so be it. If the other party is actually interested in making a deal with you, they will make a counter offer. It would be a dumb move to negotiate under the premise that if you fail there aren’t any alternatives because you WILL make a very bad deal.

You're right

I think I’d back down in Scenario 1 and wait. But #1 is exactly the scenario Nico ridiculed as unlikely.

I haven't ridiculed anything

But they've stepped away for now!

If Furcal accepts defeat and starts looking for 3 year deals then there’s a good chance he’ll find more teams willing to invest more cash annually to get a 3 year deal done.

There might be a team willing to go 3/36 and they could get a deal done before Beane ever got a phone call in.

That could happen, but it's among

many, many possible outcomes – including that the A’s are willing to make the most attractive three-year offer and it’s less than 12mil annually.

Then why didn't they do that when they had him in the room

The A’s were the only team willing to go 4 years on Furcal. Once they pulled their offer it became a 3 year package.

They had Furcal in the room… and they let him walk. That leaves Bobby Crosby as the SS and that is not a realistic move for a team with designs to contend.

That would be pretty bad negotiating by his Agent

If he received a good deal at 3/36 and didn’t come back to another possible suitor and kick the tires on their interest in matching or bettering. At worst, he waits a few hours to respond to the offer, at best he gets a better offer from someone else and suddenly fines himself in a bidding war. And that’s when you throw down the 4/40 or 4/44.

If the agent suggests 3/36 and the other guy says OK...

Well, it doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for the agent.

Earlier it was suggested that Furcal’s agent didn’t make a counter to the A’s offer, whatever it exactly was. Which only makes sense if the A’s muscled him into silence.

So why can’t this new team do the same thing? Here’s 3/36… take it or leave it.

They can.

At which point Mr. Agent says, let me talk this over with my client and get back to you. Pick up the phone, call the A’s or other suitors to determine their interest in matching/exceeding said offer. Will there be a time limit on this sort of muscling, yes. Will they say they have to have an answer on the spot while the player may not be in the room OR without allowing the agent or player to convince the other it’s a good deal, not likely.

I'll be shocked and stunned

if anyone offers 3/36. I’m expecting Furcal to sign for about 3/30 in the end.

What the actual offer is matters less

than the fact that whatever it is, Furcal better fire his agent if he doesn’t at least probe for better offers from competitors and/or completely avoids the A’s.

Except that if Furcal is going to get offered

3/36 then it makes sense for him to turn down 4/36. If he’s going to get offered 3/28, then not so much.

Why would he only get 3/28?

He’s better than Renteria and that’s Renteria money. The back injury only goes so far, in fact, it shouldn’t really come into play that much in the annual salary.

You’re worried about Furcal’s back, do you:

A) Seek to cut his annual salary from $11 million to $9 million

OR

B) Cut the length of the contract from 4 years to 3 years?

4 years at $9 million annual = 36 million

3 years at $11 million annual = 33 million

Any concerns regarding his back should be felt in the length of the contract, not the annual salary.

I'd see it showing in both

He could be out the entire length of the contract for all anyone knows. The risk is just as much there in year #1 as it is in year #3 or 4.

If it's like Kotsay,

performance will be affected in year 1. Then health itself is a big issue in years 3-4, as he gets to his mid 30s. Year 2 is probably the best bet of all.

Not in this market

Dollars are already shrunk, but Renteria set the floor.

As I've stated above

I’m not convinced that Renteria’s contract is even relevant because of how he effected the market as a whole. It would have been one thing if Furcal signed first. As top dog, he sets the ceiling for those under him. Someone under him can’t set the floor, especially when the market dries up around him.

Well

What the Hell am I gonna have to say to convince you otherwise?

Loaiza

last time the A’s upped their offer because they were out bidded. What did it get us? a injury.

That's fine

but Furcal’s seriously the only good option.
Also, he’s a huge upgrade. Injury DISCOUNT is the only reason Furcal’s not getting 4/50 or even more.

Agreed

But say there is another cat on prowl. This would be a pretty good way to both flush it out of hiding and avoid over paying for the prey if there isn’t one. Two scenarios.

#1). We’re the only suitor left. We come back to Furcal after the Winter Meetings (or during) and offer a 3 year deal or a little more on the 4th, but never having to hit our max. He sees we’re it, so he signs.
OR

there is another suitor left and that suitor exposes itself. If it jumps our max, we walk away and look for other prey. If it doesn’t jump our max, we throw down with the other suitor until we’ve either signed Furcal OR the other team bids over our max. But by “walking away” now, we don’t offer Furcal higher leverage with this mystery suitor driving the cost up exponentially and we can sit back and play it on our own terms.

One thing I can tell you for sure:

There is no “mystery team” – that’s just bullshit put out by a lame agent acting like nine teams would identify themselves along the way as interested but one team would be highly and deeply interested but insist on remaining completely anonymous. Sure, buddy; there’s a “mystery team”.

Absolutely agree with that one

Nor do I ever think he got a 4/48 offer on the table.

Graphic representation of this negotiation:

WIN

Since I don't see an image

I’m imagining a graphic representation of what we actually know about the negotiation (scaled down to adequately compare to the amount of hand wringing we’re doing about it)

Here

Link.

That's funny too

I just think the A's lose a bidding war of any type

even if its a passive, both teams offer 4/42 type. See my post above.

actually they've won bidding wars in recent years

although sometimes we might wish they hadn’t.

Free agent bidding wars: Loaiza with SF, Piazza with Texas
Prospects: Michel Inoa (Texas)

exactly

don’t overpay unless your the giants

We can beat SF or Texas

I think if Furcal gets bid, its from sexier teams. Boston, LA, White Sox, Jays.

designatedforassignment - December 6, 2008 reply

Jays not likely

the falling value of the canadian dollar means that the economy crashing is hurting toronto far more that any of the other non canadian teams.

Dodgers don't have the cash for Furcal.

Especially if they target Manny, which they should. If anything to get him out of the AL.

Whitesox not likely

They have a very good secondbaseman and a top SS prospect in minors unless they give Furcal a 2 year deal but no way a 4 year deal.

Beckham isn't going to be ready in 2 years

At least, the Sox shouldn’t be expecting that to happen. With the A’s out of play there are no 4 year deals out there for Furcal. That means 3 year deals come into play and the White Sox could definitely play in that range. Worst case scenario (in terms of the White Sox signing Furcal for 3 years) is that Beckham is ready in 2 years and someone has to play 3B for a season.

Whitesox going for starters

After trading a starter and losing another last year their starting staff is thin. They would be better off using the money to sign a starter but you never know.

The White Sox appear to be slashing payroll, though

I’m not sure they’re really in play for anything at this point.

Williams doesn't need to slash payroll for the sake of saving money

At least, I haven’t read anything to suggest he’s facing a mandate to cut his payroll. He’s moving contracts to free up cash for… something.

I wouldn't assume that the White Sox

have a plan at this point. If they do, with the amount of cash they’ve freed up, I would think they’d be going after Tex or Sabathia, not Furcal.

Josh Deletchi - December 6, 2008 reply

Williams has a plan

What it is or if it will work is TBD.

He's kind of scary in that regard.

My guess is Sabathia.

I’ve heard reports that Poreda might be better suited for the pen, which means that they don’t have any good pitching prospects on the horizon. Getting CC would be good for the Sox.

The bottom line is Bobby Crosby is still going to be the starting SS in 2009.

Unless Furcal comes groveling back or Billy makes some sort of Fuckin-A trade to land, say, one of the Escobars or even JJ Hardy or something.

I dunno, I’m just really really hoping that plan B isn’t “Keep Crosby”

Different numbers

4/36 is a low-ball offer

4/40 is what the team wants

4/48 is what the player wants

To me, that says 4/44 gets the deal done and the A’s get a massive upgrade at SS. The A’s believe that Furcal is healthy or they’d never have negotiated with him in the first place. Maybe they’re wrong, but they were willing to bet 4 years on him staying healthy. 4 years/$44 million would be a fair deal all around.

Beane does not

hold all the right cards

here. You’re right Nico, no other team needs to come in and offer a 4 year deal to Furcal. But if there’s still a team that’s willing to go 3 years and up the annual amount to $12 million a pop then the A’s don’t get Furcal.

That means the A’s #1 SS is still Bobby Crosby.

Beane can’t hold all the cards if THAT is still a possibility!

Why can't that team be the A's?

If Oakland and Furcal are still looking later, come back and offer three years, $34-36million – done.

You're not taking ego into play here

What if it’s another team that offers the 3 year/$36 million deal? Sure, Furcal’s agent could go back to the A’s to see if they’d match it (or better it I suppose) but the two sides have already said no to each other on a previous proposal. Maybe I’m reading too much into the pride angle, but the A’s had an exclusive shot to land Furcal and it didn’t happen. Now we’re talking about a situation were the A’s would be competing against another team to land Furcal… which is exactly what his agent wants.

Only if

Furcal could change back to second and look for a deal like that with a team that loses out of Hudson but its a big if. All big money teams have a establish SS except the cubs who is out of money room. All other teams are not going to pay.

+1

Nico, you’re assuming Furcal is a money calculator, nothing else. And, I think most FA’s have 2 equal offers, or one team who makes large commitment by bidding 5M above the competitors. If Furcal gets two offers, and the A’s don’t outbid substantially, I think he goes elsewhere.

If he's not going for the most money, period,

then either he thinks someone else will offer what he wants (more years? the A’s already did that anyway) – which is very likely untrue – or he simply doesn’t wish to sign with Oakland, in which case the A’s just aren’t going to get him.

And how are you defining the most money?

A’s offered, 4/36?

Someone else offers 3/33.

$33 million over 3 years, then getting to play the FA market again might be worth more than the extra $3 million the A’s offered. He only needs a $4 million offer in 2012 to earn more than the would guarantee in the same time frame. If Furcal stays healthy that’s probably a lock.

A guy with a back history

should be smart and take the guaranteed upfront money and not gamble that it will improve in 4 years. Backs are notoriously fragile things.

A guy with a back history, yet got healthy and played at the end of last year

It would be a gamble, but the pay-off exceeds the risk.

Not so sure.

Really only Furcal can answer that question, but it’s definitely a factor. Who knows what the market will be for him in 3/4 years or whether he’d be healthy. There’s no certainty in it paying off in the end, he could very well find himself completely out of baseball at the end of the 3 year deal.

If he was healthy enough to come back and play

Then I’m guessing he’s willing to bet on being healthy enough to pursue FA in 3 years vs. the extra $3 million.

36+ games?

Play a full season healthy before getting overconfident about your health.

supposedly the A's examined his medical records

and were satisfied that he was healthy…

But there's still risk -

no one, including doctors and Furcal, know how he’ll feel in a year.

Like I said above

That risk, and the mitigation of that risk, should be felt in the length of the contract and not the annual figure.

Maybe what the A's should have offered

was something like 3/32 instead of 4/36. But Furcal emphasized the years and the A’s were clearly the only team willing to look at 4 years, so maybe that’s why Oakland went with a 4-year offer. But there’s no reason they can’t be the team to offer 3/32 next time Furcal gets an offer.

If another team offers 3/36

And Furcal’s agent comes back to the A’s and they counter with 4/44, which do you think he’d take?

And I didn't realize the block quote would looks so ungainly

I agree with your comments 100%.

I would even submit that a 2 year $30 million contract could do it.

brenarlo - December 6, 2008 reply

Couldn't have said it better

You are right on to the Furcal gate. Some a’s fans are to scared to think of another year of Crosby but I rather have another year of him(gulp) then to over pay a player with injury issues. Kotsay comes to mind. I rather pay the money to a healthy player. Maybe there will be a renegotiate of the contract later but it should be with less years. A 2 year 24 million deal.

The only sense in which Crosby does not have "injury issues"

is the sense in which he’s so close to replacement level that him getting injured barely makes a difference to the outcome of his team’s season.

His staying healthy killed us in 2008, though

do we even know in 09

that crosby would be healthy…it could end up like 05/06/07 all over
with either penny/petit filling that scutaro role

backup plan

No way A’s go into spring training with crosby as SS unless they have a backup plan. Look for Izturis or Eckstien as backup plan in case the A’s don’t a SS.

If Beane goes with Eckstien over Petit...

I’ll eat my A’s hat and quit being a fan.

Would you like fries with that?

The A's appear to hate Petit

judging by how they’ve handled him through his career (leaving him open to Rule 5 twice, bringing him up to Oakland only to sit on the bench every day for a month, not calling him up last September and wasting ABs on Pennington instead).

I’d be surprised, at this point, if he’s ever an everyday player for the team.

Just like poker

Agents are like poker players always bluffing and trying to win the most money but sometimes they over value their cards and lose.

i'm more concerned

that already 2 sources rosenthal/olney says that they are ok with crosby
looks like the best route is trade or the 2010 fa market

next yr SS Fa’s

Shortstops
Bobby Crosby
Khalil Greene
Miguel Tejada
Jack Wilson

i would not spend a dime on any of those names...

That's because the A's party line HAS to be

“We’re ok with Crosby” – why would you want to say, “We HAVE to make a move!!!!” if you can say, “Fine, we’ll improve at other positions and be ok with what we have”?

Gallagher's Watermelons - December 6, 2008 reply

Exactly

And saying you’re okay with Crosby makes him seem more valuable for the purposes of a future trade. Which hopefully is the end result.

Ding Ding Ding

I’m really surprised by how seriously people are taking the “we’re ok with Crosby” thing. Not only does Beane have to say that, he should say it. The fact that two sources report he has said it doesn’t make the underlying idea any more true, only the fact that Beane said the right thing.

Similarly, if 300 reporters report that a player says he doesn’t care about winning the MVP I don’t believe he actually doesn’t care.

I know most people hate Crosby on this team

and I agree his stats are very, very bad. But for some reason I’m kind of comfortable (not happy, just comfortable) with him on the team in 2009. I’m not sure why? maybe I don’t like change.
I think it could be because the rest of the team isn’t that great. If they didn’t have so many holes to fill maybe I would be more concerned.

micdog2001 - December 6, 2008 reply

It's because we talk about him like he's the anti-Christ...

… when he’s really closer to a mildly objectionable dictator. Or the bully who beat you up in 4th grade.

He ain’t good. But he also ain’t gonna single-handedly hold the A’s back from competing. So it’s okay to feel okay about this.

Joey C. - December 6, 2008 reply

When the bully in 4th grade swung at me, he didn't miss

did you try

going outside and in the dirt on him?

+1 billion

No. He's a highly objectionable dictator. Josef Stalin not Lee Kwan Yew.

Do any of these make sense?

Billy Beane gave a deadline for several reasons.

1) He has other options in mind which still mean getting rid of Crosby and that he wanted a solution with Furcal so he could pursue other FA’s at other needed positions and;

2) He is tired of Furcal’s agent who appears wishy washy to say the least.

3) He knows he can still get Furcal in a week or two as the market is not a good as Furcal and his agent thought, or

4) Bobby Crosby has leverage on Billy and is blackmailing him (LOL)

Trainman - December 6, 2008 reply

I'd say it's

mostly 3, a little bit 1, and not at all 2 – it’s business and you don’t make decisions based on being frustrated with an agent. 4? Don’t know.

one thing needs to be made clear that many don't realize

The A’s WILL NOT sign Dunn or Burrell. Folks, it’s not gonna happen. If the A’s are going to acquire a position player of upper-tier value, it is going to be Furcal, or they will be had via trade.
Why?
Because we cannot compete dollar for dollar with the teams who will put money into these guys if their first option doesn’t pan out.
If the Angels don’t get Tex or Sabathia, they will throw money at these two. Even Baltimore and Washington could put plenty more into these guys.
Beane is not going to get into a bidding war, that was made clear with Furcal. Maybe Furcal doesn’t come back to the A’s and does get a better offer, but still it won’t change anything in regards to Dunn or Burrell, they won’t be wearing Green and Gold next year, you can count on that.

Problem with your theory re: Dunn & Burrell

Neither Tex or Sabs have signed. Meaning if the A’s come in hard and fast after Dunn or Burrell early in the game then they could sign either bat before the Angels are done fighting the Yankees over Tex/Sabs.

all forgetting Blake

casey Blake plays 3 positions. 1b,3b, and OF. He is looking for a 3 year deal. His stats are similar to Furcal and he could be had maybe a 3/24 contract. If Chavez is not ready then he is your third or first if Barton is not ready. Sign Eckstien who is a upgrade over crosby and cheap. Then you have the money to sign a starter.

no

Exactly!

Blake plays 3B, 1B and OF, and his stats are like a Shortstop!

Zonis - December 6, 2008 reply

eckstien is not an upgrade over Crosby

In fact, Crosby is a significantly better player than Eckstein by about any rational measure. He’s better defensively, and outhit Eckstein by a decent margin last year.

MrIncognito - December 6, 2008 reply

2008 OPS+

Crosby — 76
Eckstein — 84

wOBA*:

Crosby – .299
Eckstein – .291

There isn’t much of a difference on offense, it’s suck or suck. At least Crosby is capable of playing the position.

MrIncognito - December 6, 2008 reply

You completely removed Eckstein’s Toronto performance.

Regardless, signing Eckstein would be a step backward, since i don’t think it’s a good idea to have two poor hit, poor field SS on one’s roster.

baetown415 - December 6, 2008 reply

crosby can field. That’s the difference.

MrIncognito - December 7, 2008 reply

Just got to see the UZR’s from fangraphs, which say you’re right. +/- says he’s been bad overall the past 3. I think the former is more correct in this regard. 1/2 point for you

baetown415 - December 7, 2008 reply

what stats are those?

eckstein 265/343 combined w/jays and dbacks

2008 wOBA* I thought that was pretty clear at least

MrIncognito - December 7, 2008 reply

but i think this Furca situatin shows that won't happen

the A’s won’t go in hard and fast to sign these bats.

then this offseson

suddenly went from optimistic to just okay

i’m not too thrilled about the idea of just holliday and a bunch of maybe’s

then after 09 its back to normal

i'm pretty sure haikus

are supposed to be 5/7/5

flipgatey3 - December 6, 2008 reply

Nico, while I appreciate and more or less agree with your sentiment,

I can’t help but feel that inherently there is a lot of risk on the GM’s side when he makes a move like this.
While we at AN can perform a decent market assessment going team by team and deciding that nobody out there wants Furcal as much as the A’s, anecdotally I feel like the market for free agent baseball players is too unpredictable for this sort of exercise to be conclusive.
What sane person among us can say we truly understand what is going through Brian Sabean’s head when he makes a move? Do any of us really have an in-depth knowledge of the short- and long-term strategies of every major league team and what their organization looks like top to bottom? I mean, it takes our collective knowledge just to attempt understanding Oakland in these ways. And I’m sure we all take our musings with a grain of salt, as accurate as they may be.

I guess the point I’d hoped to arrive at is this (re-post from old thread):
If the Furcal acquisition is as key to the A’s current strategy as we all think it is, why take the chance? I can come up with these possibilities:
1) we dont understand the A’s current strategy very well
2) we are not correct in how we are assessing Furcal as part of that strategy (including things like: the possibility that the A’s are really worried about giving to much money for a guy with health concerns)
3) the A’s truly believe they are not taking a big risk by letting talks fall apart at this point in the game.

I am more inclined to believe 2 than I am 3.

oakinboston - December 6, 2008 reply

i vote 2

After the last few years of injury after injury I am not comfortable in giving Furcal a 4 year deal. I remember hearing how kotsay’s back is ok then it goes out.

I'd vote a combination of 2 & 3

But, I’d also suggest that I’d trust Beane/Forst’s judgment of the market. They’ve likely kicked the tires of some/most of the teams looking for a shortstop by dangling Crosby or attempting to check out other non-FA shortstops that could be on the market. I’d bet that they’ve come to conclusion that this is the right and smart move to make.

I still don't want Burrell or Dunn.

Go after Teixeira if you really want an offensive upgrade. Otherwise, live with waiting for the prospects.

jeepers - December 6, 2008 reply

That would make sense, except for Matt Holliday's presence

Seriously.

We didn’t unload three useful players just to sit back and see if one superstar could carry an otherwise uninspiring teaminto infamy.

So where does Furcal end up? I would guess in Oakland still, unless the Dodgers somehow get some good starting pitching without spending a lot or Manny declines arb. and signs elsewhere.

baetown415 - December 6, 2008 reply

If BB is taking this risk to save a few million

It might mean that he’s thinking about saving payroll space for 2011 for a Holliday signing. (thinking about grover’s payroll post)

Josh Deletchi - December 6, 2008 reply

I really hope so

You're underestimating how much of an upgrade Furcal is

Furcal over Crosby is AT LEAST a two win upgrade. It’s not about “holding the right cards” or watching the market. In fact, I’d argue that the A’s need Furcal badly enough that they should be willing to overpay market value for him. The simple fact is that the A’s NEED a better shortstop over the well, crap, they have now.

The A’s are in no position to gamble on the market dropping even more on Furcal. If they truly plan on competing in 09, this is a deal they have to make. Is Furcal worth ponying up to 4/44 or 4/48? Absolutely.

The second you feel

something is a deal “you have to make”, you’re screwed. I don’t think Beane is gambling on the market. I think he already has another plan which he intends on setting in motion at the winter meetings.

Well isn't it kinda his fault the team has been stuck with Crosby the last few years?

all the while not acquiring any other SS options, prospects or otherwise?

And I seriously hope he has some magical plan up his sleeve, because from all of AN’s dissections of the shortstop situation/options, it seems like signing Furcal is the only plan that’ll provide any sort of significant upgrade to the team.

I'll grant you that he rode the Crosby train

a very long time. It’s sort of ironic that he “tires” of him in the last year of his contract. I think he set a deadline on Furcal for a reason. It makes sense that he wanted Furcal’s answer prior to the winter meetings, especially if he has another route in mind.

+ a lot

This is pretty much how I feel too.

This

If there was ever, ever a situation crying out for a team to “overpay” and throw money at a player heedlessly, this is it.

So imagine that Furcal would have said yes to 4/36-4/38

(whatever the A’s actually offered). The A’s should have heedlessly offered 4/48-4/52 anyway?

Not necessarily. You're making a false argument here. You're assuming that a negotiation

has to be handled the way the A’s just handled at least the opening round of this one (from what we know.)

There’s no reason that they couldn’t have started by offering 4/36 or whatever the final value was that they offered, and then made a second bid once Furcal turned the initial offer down. Better yet, instead of just heedlessly making a second bid, what they could’ve done is said “look, we’re your best option, we’ll give you 4 years, so tell us what you think is fair and we’ll decide how close to that we’re willing to come, and we’ll tell you why, and we’ll figure this out together.”

Usually a negotiation involves some back and forth like that. From what we know, none of that transpired in this instance, and the A’s are playing hardball saying “fine, that was our best offer, so… see you later.”

That’s the only part I take exception to, and that others are voicing their displeasure over as well- it doesn’t seem like the A’s made a reasonable attempt to sign him, now, while they’re in a strong bargaining position. And now it seems they’re gambling that no other team is going to swoop in and offer a higher per year value and a 3 year deal with an option or something and sign him, taking him off the market.

Maybe they’re right; maybe they don’t really want to sign him at all; maybe they don’t want to sign him right now or be too aggressive because they think the market will favor them later in the offseason; maybe they really do have a “plan B” in terms of shortstops they think they can acquire based on previous investigations and perhaps ongoing talks with other GMs or something.

I don’t know, none of us know right now. We don’t even know if they’re truly looking to contend in 2009 and trying to add pieces specifically with that in mind. But if they ARE looking to contend in 2009, then Furcal or somebody who can bring a comparable boost at the shortstop position would be a really, really good idea. And the sooner they start getting each piece in place the easier it’ll be to line up the rest and go forward from there.

I think the A's reasoning in saying "take it or leave it"

is that unless you do that all the time, your offer has no real meaning – everyone knows it’s a low starting point to work up from. Remember, these guys just met for two days and toured Oakland. The offer can’t have been a huge surprise. Do you think they talked about 12mil/year and then Beane offered 9? I still think it’s more likely that the A’s expected Furcal to accept 4/36 because both sides knew no one else was offering 4 years to begin with.

Your first point is exactly true. Your offer has to have some meaning if you don't want

all your offers to be rejected.

I hate to break this to you guys but...

remember when the A’s signed Loiaza? He didn’t agree to sign until the A’s changed their offer from 2 years + an option to 3 years guaranteed.

You're allowed to up your offer in light of new information, ie another team tops

you. Not just because the seller rejects your first one.

If Beane did what you suggest he'd (rightly) get pilloried on this site and in the media

It’s the very definition of “bidding against yourself” and fundamentally stupid. See, for example, Barry Zito’s contract.

still bills kingdom - December 7, 2008 reply

And if the A's don't get Furcal or find another decent solution for shortstop

for 2009 and for the next couple years beyond that this offseason, then Beane will also (rightly) get pilloried on this site and in the media.

You’re saying it’s fundamentally stupid to be flexible enough in negotiating a deal to actually negotiate, and that to me is fundamentally stupid.

The hallmark of any successful negotiation should be achieving the desired outcome, so the only thing in question here is what the desired outcome was from the A’s perspective- was it to sign Furcal at a price and contract length that allows them to be competitive going forward, or was it specifically to sign Furcal at a certain price and contract length only and not to sign him at all if he wanted one dollar more? In other words, was their desired outcome to get Furcal, period, or was it to only get Furcal if they could get a good deal and not to be flexible on what a “good deal” would be in their view?

We obviously don’t know that, and we don’t know what their real “plan B” or “plan C” is at this point- though I think we’re all confident that they have one.

Negotiation is fine

Upping your offer in response to your offer is not

still bills kingdom - December 7, 2008 reply

Agreed. I realize I didn't phrase it well in the first instance.

How about this scenario?

BB isn’t really trying to make playoff caliber team this year.

The offer to Furcal was his attempt to buy a shortstop below market value. If Renteria can get 2/$18 whether he’s worth it or not then Furcal is worth at least $10 mil per. The trade for Holliday was a way to boost the offense for 1 year and give our young pitching staff more support than it did last year and give our young studs some seasoning in the minors. He has said this much in interviews. (to lazy to find a link) In 2010 he then uses the same roster flexibility and cash he has now to make a run at building a perennial powerhouse, plus he’ll have a better idea what guys like Cunningham, Buck, Pennington, Barton Gallager, Gio, etc. are capable of in the Majors. Then fill in the 2010 needs, whether its resigning Holliday or make a couple trades or FA acquisitions.

Most of us were under the impression that BB was aiming for 2010 anyway, I think he’s still trying to do just that.

jbxchico - December 6, 2008 reply

Dealing Gonzalez, Street, and Smith to give our young pitchers warm fuzzies is a bad idea.

If that’s what happened, it’s time for Beane to find something else to do.

Beane saw the Angels losing a couple important pieces in Rodriguez and Teixeira. They’re going into next year with this:

Mathis/Napoli
Morales
Kendrick
Aybar
Izturis
Aging Guerrero
Hunter
Aging Matthews (aging VERY quickly)
Some guy

That’s a pretty poor lineup. The bullpen started to look old last year. The Angels are catchable. With Holliday and another bat on board, and our young players having had another season to improve, the window has opened. Even if we can’t keep Holliday around after this year, this season sets the tone. We have a shot, starting now, and not ending for a pretty decent amount of time (provided a decent enough number of our prospects pan out).

Gallagher's Watermelons - December 6, 2008 reply

I agree

Beane also saw a window in 2007, but the A’s rash of injuries dashed that one.

If we're going 2010

I would much rather the A’s still have Carlos Gonzalez rather than the possible effect Matt Holliday has on the psyches of our young pitchers.

vignette17 - December 6, 2008 reply

Especially since most of the real good young pitchers won't see much MLB time in '09

Eh, I don't mind losing Gonzalez since I don't think he'll ever be very good

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

He was already, in spite of himself, almost league-average last season

At age 22.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that he won’t improve AT ALL in his career.

Furcal was a nice, convenient solution to a bothersome problem

And if the A’s back up their tough talk by actually walking away entirely from the table (mmmmmmmmmmmmdoubt it), that would unquestionably suck.

But I’m not sure I’m all that broken hearted about missing out on someone with back issues who would bestow on me the privilege of watching him play for big money at age 35. Don’t get me wrong— I wanted the A’s to pick him up. But this isn’t the end of the world, or the end of the A’s competing in the next year.

Joey C. - December 6, 2008 reply

+1 on both the "doubt it" and the "not the end of the world"

There is roughly a 0% chance that Furcal’s agent would sign with another team without giving the A’s a chance to beat the offer. If for no other reason than that he’d get a bigger bonus for the bigger contract (not to mention Furcal probably cares about money and the MLBPA would strongly suggest he take the bigger deal)

The unseen factor

Could Furcal have hurt his back recently and will not sign until its better. He did say he wanted to sign last week then push it back another week and now rejects the A’s offer without a counter. If he fails a physical before signing it would kill off any multi year offers from other teams. You never know how backs go out without warning. Something to think about.

That could make a LOT of sense.

Or, complications with his back (ex. Trever Miller and past surgery).

I don't think so...

I don’t think Kinzer is speculating the market well at all right now.
First he goes out and says K-Rod deserves Rivera like money and what does he get? The Angels offer 3 years $34MM and the Mets offer is expected to be around 3 years $36 MM.
Then he keeps setting deadline dates for Furcal to sign, and continues to set them back. Not to mention that whole ordeal with Furcal saying tha he had a 4/48 deal from Oakland on the table, and then the Braves offered 4/52. Kinzer I’m sure has initiated this plan that was doomed. I wouldn’t be surprised if he insisted Furcal turn down the A’s deal and wait.
This now leaves Furcal short on options.
He can:
a) Come back to the A’s and ask for the offer or a bit more after he realizes there is no market.
b)Sign a shorter deal for a bit more annually
or
c) maybe even have to consider switching to 2nd to make himself available to teams with higher payrolls.
Regardless, each of these options is not a position he saw himself at at this point.

might we see Furcal fire his agent?

Not that I’ve seen anything to suggest that, but it certainly wouln’t be the first time a player has done that.

K-Rod is more likely to fire Kinzer first.

A media interview/conference call with a NY media outlet where he sounded very wishy-washy. Not reading the market well, especially in the K-Rod case. And, K-Fuck is an ass anyways.

forget about Furcal - CROSBY will crush Furcal's stats for '09

seriously – I think it was a bad idea to begin with, and I’m THRILLED if what’s being reported is the case, and we’ve pulled our offer. I see this guy getting hurt in the first year, and suddenly we’re paying for something even less than Chavez. Bobby Crosby, mark my words, is going to come out of the gate playing his ass off, keep it up all season, and make all of the haters feel like schmucks.
I’ll bet that over the next 4 years, Bobby Crosby’s stats crush what you’ll see from Furcal during the same 4 years. Crush. I’m SO tired of all the Crosby haters – hell, even if you don’t like Crosby, the others will be passable enough. Can’t say it enough – Furcal was a bad idea, and I’m about as excited about hopefully not getting Furcal as I am about having picked up Holliday. Furcal is a waste. Good riddance!

catfish hunter - December 6, 2008 reply

do you have any reason to believe

crosby will become a good hitter?

Are you Bobby's brother?

Seriously, I hope you’re right if Bobby stays. I’ve always thought that the second we get rid of him he’s going to turn into what Gammons predicted.

He'll never turn into what Gammons predicted

and he’s always about to have that great season. He might do better elsewhere but he’ll never do well. His batting approach is terrible and his defense is just getting worse.

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2007/8/19/41516/9846#756271

oblique - December 6, 2008 reply

agree

he appeared to try to do something about that stance early in the season, but as the season went on he just reverted to his long, loopy unbalanced self at the plate. It’s not for lack of effort, I think, but either he’s unteachable or he hasn’t found the right teacher, or something.

anyway, in earlier years he at least looked good playing shortstop, but last year he seemed to be taking his plate troubles into the field with him.

He wasn't even good early in the season

thejd44 - December 7, 2008 reply

I was trying to put as positive a spin as possible

assuming that he was trying…and he did look not quite so bad early in the season.

Blake Crosby sighting?

miggyk2 - December 6, 2008 reply

22 dingdongs

This isn’t a scientific approach, but he hit 22 dingers his first year. Then he had a series of freakish injuries, and then finally, played an entire year last year. I can’t believe that the abilities he displayed when he hit 22 are that far gone. Where they went – dunno, but I don’t believe he’s as bad as a) everyone thinks, or b)he’s played the last couple years.

Nope. Not his brother, but I like the guy, and I have a nephew who looks like him, but that’s not why I’m so optimistic. I just get a sense that he’s tired of all the bs from everyone, finally getting his groove back, is playing for the next contract, and I think, will have a much better lineup around him.

He’s certainly not so bad that it warranted paying waaaay too much for an over-hyped, bad-back having SS who maybe plays 2 full seasons in the next 4 years. Maybe. I’d be interested in what scouts say are the changes in his batting from that rookie season – are those changes that are permanent? If it meant that we improve in some other area, and ride it out with a combination of Crosby / Petit / whomever, I’m still happy as a clam that it appears we’ve come to our senses, and won’t be paying for Furcal’s services.

While I’m making baseless, gut calls on players – Chavez is going to be en fuego this year. Crosby will be vastly improved this year. Mark it.

catfish hunter - December 6, 2008 reply

I'll give you one out of two -

I also think Chavez will have a very good year. But in his rookie year, Crosby played far better defense than he does today. He’s not the same guy who played his rookie year – when he hit .239 in his “good season”.

I'm somewhat relieved that the Furcal thing is dead for the moment myself, since I'm still scarred

from the Kotsay experience, but I see nothing anywhere to make me believe that Crosby’s not even worse than we all think he is.

Odds are the collective injuries he's suffered have sapped his power

I think what you see is what you get with Crosby.

I'm not sure if I missed it in the previous comments

but does anyone realize that the Twins may be a good fit and that the have broken off their talks with Casey Blake? Maybe there IS another market for Furcal

Blake was never a SS candidate, but yes the Twins might be a fit

Since the Twins and A’s are comparable payroll teams and comparably attractive for league, competitiveness, etc., if the Twins got serious I’d give the A’s 50/50 to be the more desirable destination between the two.

Note that Furcal may break down a LOT faster on turf – that alone may still make Oakland a more natural fit.

i didn't mean Blake was a SS candidate...but the fact that they broke off talks means they will have money to put towards Furcal

Ah, I see

Other than the turf factor, it seems like a possible fit.

I’m not quite as down on O. Cabrera as the average ANer seems to be. You could expect a line from him of about .270/.320/.380, with good speed, excellent base-stealing pct, good contact and “small ball” skills, and better defense than Crosby has been giving us. That’s a fine #9 hitter at a key defensive position, for fewer years and fewer dollars than Furcal will cost – meaning the A’s could still afford to add a plus hitter if they saw fit.

Furcal is still my first choice, but I think Cabrera is my second choice.

Speaking of Cabrera...

I wonder if Cleveland is still looking for relief help?

Asdrubal would be a good pickup for the next 3 or 4 years.

I like the Asdrubal idea a lot

I wonder what it would take to land him. Cleveland could definitely use a young starter such as Mazzaro, Simmons, Braden; they could use a reliever but the A’s can only spare ones that aren’t ready for 1-2 years.

Ya but Cleveland needs him too. They were thinking of moving Peralta to 3B

and Asdrubal to SS.

Enter Bobby Crosby!!!!!!1111!!!!!!one!!!!!

ill take the 'other' cabrera if he changes his name to fruity mcfluffy pants

otherwise thats a no

By Cabrera

you better mean “if Cabrera accepts Arbitration and then we trade Matt Murton to the White Sox for Cabrerea and $10 million”

Otherwise, NO.

Zonis - December 6, 2008 reply

No, by Cabrera I mean

“Cabrera.”

Or "goat" in Spanish

I knew there was a reason I liked him

OK, let’s get Orlando and Asdrubal, put them in my bedroom, and have a menage-a-baaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_/ai_n9363157

Actually it seems to mean "goatherd"

According to this.

Is that a herd of goats, or one who herds goats?

oblique - December 6, 2008 reply

Probably the latter...

Apparently it also means “Land of Goats” and is the name of a region in Spain plagued by inbreeding

Wow.

No wonder there are so many in MLB?

oblique - December 6, 2008 reply

And the prejudice against inbreeding rears its ugly head again

Sigh.

{calls sister to complain, calls wife to complain}

I only made one phone call, you know.

One call to a person with two heads?

Does one head complain about the other?

If it's a wife-head and a sister-head

Then yes, absolutely no doubt.

"Herd goats?"

“Yup – they go ‘baaaaaaaaaa!!!!’”

This might happen without the $10M

i agree on Cabrera...it just depends on how much you value the draft picks we give up

I don't think you can be overly obsessed

with giving up 2nd round picks. You don’t want to give them away like hotcakes, but to lose one in order to fill SS for a couple years while you try to contend? I don’t see the draft pick as a huge factor.

It may also make him cheaper money-wise

I'm thinking one of the appeals is that

if Cabrera comes cheaply enough it will help the A’s improve elsewhere. Furcal does have the potential to impact things this year or next like signing a starting pitcher or slugger, negotiating long-term with Holliday, etc.

i agree, and i still like cabrera's game

even if he’s not quite the upgrade furcal is…though there can’t be that much of a difference, and it should be made up by signing another we wouldn’t have signed otherwise

Dear Santa...

All we want for Christmas is an Escobar. We would like a Yunel or an Alcides model. We promise we’ll treat him nice and give him off days and keep him fresh and off the DL. If you grant us this one wish we’d be willing to part ways with many prospects not named Cahill, Anderson, or Carter.

We promise I’ll be nice to everybody else next year. We’ll even donate a player or two to charity. [Bobby Crosby, Welcome to the LOLNats]. We feel that we deserve this one little wish. After all, we are givers, too. We gave Jack Hannahan a starting position for a whole year!

We know earlier we said all we wanted was for K-Rod’s arm to fall off, or for him to take a comebacker off the face. We’re sorry for that, that was rude. We take it back. Please! Just one time, grant our Christmas wishes and we will have a very happy Holliday!

NateHST - December 6, 2008 reply

+2 chocolate escobar points

If this is what you're asking Santa for...

… this must be what you’re asking the Easter Bunny for:

keep him fresh and off the DL

After reading this thread and thinking about it, I'm thinking Buyer's Remorse

Beane likes to strike early in the FA market — witness Loaiza. That works well in a good market, where the early deals are sometimes similar to later deals for worse players.

But this year, time favors the teams. Player compensations are falling as the weeks go by. Beane saw that if he waited he could maybe get Furcal for 2/$20 rather than 4/$36. If not Furcal then maybe Cabrera for 1/$8.

Then he could also potentially scoop up other goodies like Unit, Nick, Giambi, Dunn and have a choice of guys in doing so, while making it more possible to make a massive bid for Holliday after 2009.

He may think he underestimated the importance of having money in a falling market, and jumped at the chance to retract the offer.

That doesn't make sense

Beane offered the contract after Renteria signed with the Giants and the Cards traded for Greene, whatever market adjustments were going to happen had already done so. He retracted the offer because Kinzer said “No” and Beane wasn’t going to leave the offer on the table so Team Furcal could use it as leverage during the Winter Meetings.

Maybe but the discussions beforehand must have involved some numbers. It's hard to make a

formal offer that’s way below the numbers you’ve been discussing for weeks just because the market’s changing. It’s worse form than making the offer and putting a time limit on it.

This I agree with - the offer can't have been that different

from what Furcal was expecting, after he flew to Oakland and hung out with Beane for a couple days. I’m more inclined to think the A’s are surprised Furcal refused than that Furcal was surprised by the offer he got.

saw something about Hardy being available from Milwaukee

and that’s something I’d look into, and be willing (yikes) to trade a top-shelf pitcher for.

catfish hunter - December 6, 2008 reply

Where'd you see that?

I’d love to see the A’s go after Hardy, who I think could be attained with a package not involving Cahill/Anderson – albeit a painful non-C/A package.

i want alcides instead

cheaper in trade prospects since they already have hardy and will be cost controlled. what it comes down to is whether you think he’s going to be a productive mlb player or not.

milb.com had him as one of their Top 10 prospects, so he may or may not come cheaper

in trade value

I'll try to locate the article

It might’ve been on MLBTradeRumors.com – this would be painful, but, I think provide a much better, long-term solution. The problem though is that I think the Brewers are looking for someone ready right now…
I’ll post a link if I can locate the article.

On a side note – you’re still here in Chicago, right? We should get together sometime and have a beer / bite to eat, or something…

catfish hunter - December 7, 2008 reply

Dang - Crosby's not ready right now so that won't work

To grover, ohmangoas, and others I've been debating,

I’m also trying to keep in mind that previously I’ve been disappointed by A’s failed signings only to be glad later.

Many (myself included) wanted the A’s to re-sign Giambi for 6/90, many (myself included) were crushed when Foulke chose Boston (which did hurt for one season, but not overall), and many wanted the A’s to re-sign Zito. I trust Beane to know the market and to know when not to go overboard for someone.

There are many very possible outcomes that wind up good for the A’s here:

- Furcal could still sign with Oakland in the end for 3/30 or so.

- Furcal could sign elsewhere and have back problems.

- The A’s could land Hardy or Asdrubal or someone else worthy, in a deal that is good for the A’s now and later.

I vote for option #3

Giambi at 6/$90 would have been a pretty good deal. We would have had an offense in 2002

and 2003 and a few years since. Foulke basically threw his arm out in 2004. I’m not sure he would have done that in Oakland. Also it would have saved us the Arthur Rhodes and Octavio Dotel experiences.

Remember, Giambi was during the

“Tell Miggy we can’t afford him” Schott/Hofmann era. Giambi’s contract would have hamstrung Beane terribly – remember he traded Lilly when Lilly’s salary was going to jump from 300,000 to 3million in arbitration – for a player who hit rock bottom during the life of the contract. In order to have Giambi when he sucked, Beane probably would have had to deal the Big 3, and others, a lot sooner.

I'm not sure the other downgrades would have been more than Giambi to Hatteberg

The only way letting Giambi go made sense is if they believed in Pena. When they had to go to Plan C in Hatteberg…and then Johnson…it was terrible. Lilly for Kielty was terrible any way you look at it.

4/40 is not an overpay! 4/44 is not an overpay!

In any other year, if the A’s had signed Furcal to one of those figures it would be a great deal.

You want to use the “Billy knows the market” argument? Fine, let’s play.

First off, let’s forget about the 3/30 offers for now. Beane offered a 4 year deal, as per Furcal’s request. Beane offered the deal and if Furcal had said OK he’d be an Oakland Athletic today. To me, the A’s willingness to go to 4 years diffuses any serious concern about Furcal’s long term health. It’s an issue but one they think they can manage.

Beane offered 4 years after his principle competition, the Giants and the Cardinals, bowed out definitively. Why did he do this? Because he knew that offering 4 years was his best card to play in order to land Furcal.

We know the financials were between $35-40 million, which quite honestly sounds about right if not low. We know that Renteria, a player that Furcal is younger and better than, signed for 2 years/$18.5 million guaranteed. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to think that the market for Furcal’s services will drop below $9 million annual. If anything, it is perfectly reasonable to look at the market and say that Furcal deserves a higher annual salary than Renteria. For now, let’s say that number is $10 million a year. (What can I say, I like round numbers and, oh by the way, ‘tis what the A’s offered!)

There has been some speculation that perhaps the murky dollar figure (35-40) is because of bonus money tied to Furcal’s ability to stay on the field. OK, let’s assume that is true. We can then say that Beane, having looked at the market and finding himself as the only suitor willing to give Furcal a 4 year contract, was willing to pay a healthy Furcal $10 million annual. Unless the information we’re basing all this on is completely inaccurate there is no reason for anyone to dispute what I’ve said so far.

Furcal turned the A’s down. And here’s where things get interesting.

Nico, you say this now presents the A’s with the chance to potentially sign Furcal for a lower overall figure at a future date. This could be true, especially in term of years committed but there is very little reason to believe that the annual figure will drop. The A’s had an advantage in being the only team willing to go to 4 years for Furcal. Even though the Giants and Cards have dropped out there are still teams looking for a new SS and we’re all agreed that Furcal is more attractive as a 2 or 3 year buy. Let’s focus on a 3 year deal for now.

The potential is there for 1 or more teams to suddenly look at Furcal again because he’s now, presumably, more willing to sign a 3 year deal. If everyone, the A’s included, are now discussing 3 year deals then the key is no longer to offer long term security but to provide the most bang for the buck. Increasing the number of suitors increases the likelihood of Furcal getting more than $10 million annual. That’s basic economics, a higher demand leads to higher prices.

And if you don’t think that could happen, then you have no reason to believe that the A’s are now looking at Dunn or Burrell.

OK, so now we’re conservatively talking $11 million annual for Furcal, or 3 years/$33 million. That’s not far off from the $36 million the A’s were guaranteeing over 4 years. But Billy knows the market right? What do you think he thinks is more likely, that a FA would take slightly less over all money to earn free agency again a year earlier or to spread out a little more money over more years? I think Furcal would prefer the $33 million over 3 years vs. $36 over 4, because if he believes he’ll stay healthy over 3 years he’ll earn more than $3 million in the 1st year of his new deal. And if he doesn’t, well, it wasn’t that bad of a loss.

So how do the A’s counter this? Well, if they’re confident in Furcal’s desire to play in Oakland they can make a matching offer and let things play out. Here’s the thing… why would we presume that Furcal truly wants to play in Oakland if all the dollar figures are equal? I think it becomes a case of offering the most cash and the A’s have already thrown away their hole card by pulling the 4 year deal off the table. They’d have to pony up like everyone else and paying, I don’t know, $13 million annual would do a lot more to affect the A’s ability to pursue other players than spending $10 million.

‘Course, the A’s could always pull out their 4 year offer and guarantee the $40 million, but by then Furcal could be looking at 33-36 million overall.

Nico, you keep calling Kinzer dumb but Beane’s actions have potentially given the agent exactly what he wanted, a bidding war between multiple teams!

Here’s where I think Beane screwed the pooch. (You’re a goat lover, I figure you won’t be offended.)

Beane was willing to pay a healthy Furcal $40 million over 4 years, why not pay $44 million to close the deal? Look, what are the odds that Furcal’s performance over the next 4 years would be good enough to make $40 million acceptable but bad enough to make $44 million look like a waste? Slim to none in my opinion. Beane could have guaranteed the $40 million and tacked on $1 million in incentives each year for plate appearances and Furcal is a good enough player that if he met the incentives his performance would have helped the A’s win baseball games. And if Furcal wasn’t healthy enough to meet the incentives then the A’s aren’t out the extra $4 million and it probably wouldn’t matter if Furcal was making $9 or $10 million a year because it would most likely be a sunk cost and either number hurts!

Dammit, I did the math already and the extra $1-2 million annual Beane saved by not guaranteeing the $40 million and kicking in another $4 million in incentives is not going to make a bit of difference in signing Dunn or Johnson or extending Holliday. Beane’s already either under budget and has the cash (Dunn, Johnson) or is going to need to make some serious room (Holliday) to make things work.

And here’s the kicker! I swear it, this part just might kill you. If Beane had ponied up the extra $4 million I think it would have taken to sign Furcal then he’d have been free and clear to trade Crosby. And what would that bring in return? Remember, I’m the pessimist here and I foresee the A’s needing to kick in cash to get a deal done. In my dream world trading Crosby frees up $2 million and brings in a decent prospect! It’s like getting a rebate to sign Furcal, so the A’s weren’t really kicking in an extra $4 million guaranteed… they were kicking in an extra $2 million and getting a 2nd, cheap talent in return. Hell, if someone was feeling muy optimistic they could even argue that maybe the A’s would have been able to free themselves from Crosby’s entire $5.25 million salary if they’d been willing to take a non-prospect in return! That right there would have covered the bump for Furcal.

+ a billion

grover's scenario makes a lot of sense if Beane wanted Furcal as badly as grover does.

I get the impression that Beane wants Furcal for a specific price, most likely tied to WAR, but if he thinks he can get that WAR more cheaply by some other means then he’s gonna pursue that other means. The extra $4 million matters to Beane in this case because maybe he thinks it enables him to sign Robin Rosario’s and Dustin Coleman’s little brothers.

The difference seems to be that grover views Furcal as a piece in a contending puzzle, and Beane views Furcal as a Box of WAR interchangeable with other Boxes of WAR.

It's OK to capitalize my name when starting a sentence

I don’t even go here if Beane doesn’t trade for Holliday. Right now we get 1 year with him and the only thing that makes sense is to capitalize on the addition and make a push for the play-offs. Beane isn’t interested in Randy Johnson just to give the young’uns a mentor, he thinks Johnson can help the A’s win games.

Replacing Crosby with Furcal helps the A’s win games.

Exactly

This kind of negotiation— getting a player if he’ll come on your terms, giving him a miss otherwise— makes a ton of sense in the A’s usual modus operandi, namely kicking around trying to (and often succeeding at— don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing the strategy) find enough cheap players to make a run for a few seasons.

It doesn’t make sense when the A’s just traded good talent for an expensive short-term upgrade in the hopes of scoring a lucky playoff run in a weakened division. In that scenario, you buy every 2009 win you can find and afford. They’ve found a bunch of wins in Furcal, and they can afford them. It doesn’t make any sense to me to spend a ton of money remodeling your kitchen and then refuse to buy a frickin’ stove because it’s not on sale. Not a perfect analogy, but it’ll do.

See, I don't think the A's are "going for it in 2009"

as much as you think they are, or think they should be. I think the A’s plan either to extend Holliday beyond 2009 if they can, or to replace him with a good poor-man’s version while the rotation becomes increasingly kick-ass in 2010-2013. They want to be as good as they can in 2009 without mortgaging 2010 and beyond, and that means trying to add Furcal but not paying so much as to hamstring themselves with other opportunities.

Whether they're going for it in 2009 or not

I still think Furcal just plain makes the most sense for the next 3 or 4 years at SS in Oakland.

I mean, who else might possibly be there? The system is barren, the 2010 free agent class sucks, and any trades are going to cost talent as well as just money.

I agree and so do the A's

The A’s, who usually don’t sign FAs that cost a lot, just made a 4 year, 36million dollar offer to a player coming off of back surgery. Furcal is clearly “Plan A”.

If you believe that, you also believe that this is all just posturing?

No, I think it's

“Hi, we’re at lunch – so you wanted 4/40? We’ll make an offer before the Winter Meetings, it’ll be around 4/40 … OK, here’s our offer – it’s around 4/40. Are we good? We’re NOT? Huh.”

So you think they'll speak again. I'm not sure about that.

I’m thinking they can find their WAR Box someplace else…maybe someplace we’ve not even considered. A wild guess would be something like trade for Reid Brignac and then sign Dunn or Burnett or Varitek with the Furcal money to replace whatever you just traded.

They can’t have not considered the possibility that Furcal would turn down the offer. There has to be a Plan B and they can’t wait forever to put it into action.

Okay, another side of the coin...

the A’s have money to spend. We know that, and from all appearances they are willing to part with some of it. But in addition to having money, they also have talent on the farm. Talent to spare. Am I wrong in thinking that the A’s view their depth of talent as a perishable commodity? It seems to me that everyone is dreaming on player potential these days. That potential has currency for only as long as a player is considered a prospect. There’s no way all the talent in our farm sees MLB time on the A’s….even if they prove good enough to get there. So the opportunity for the A’s to make use of that talent may be right now.

Beane doesn’t appear to be losing any sleep over the Furcal deal. And he damn sure hasn’t hoarded all this minor league talent just to watch it wither away on the vine. One thing for sure, I don’t think he intends on letting 09 pass without making a serious run at contention. The next couple of weeks should prove interesting for A’s fans.

And, that talent should be looked at as stocks.

Some of that talent is never going to see the majors, as much as it pains me to say that, its reality. Some of it is going to implode/get hurt.

Sometimes it is good to sell stocks when they’re safely at a high value, although you could easily spin the roulette wheel and see if they’re going to peak even further.

Blicks - December 7, 2008 reply

Yes, you are wrong in thinking that

Then you hold that the majority of the

talent on the farm is not a perishable commodity? Surely you don’t believe that all of it, or even a majority of it, will reach the parent club do you? What good does it do the A’s to have it and not use it…..for at least something?

I have no clue what you're on about here

The A’s are going to use it. They are going to use it to fill their major league roster with major league baseball players who are good at major league baseball (and cheap). That is why teams have farm systems.

I think you’re mistaking “likely to decline in value” with “overvalued.” If I have a lottery ticket that has a 10% chance of winning me $1000, and someone offers me $10 for it, I’m not selling it, even though it’s “likely to decline in value.” It is, in fact, UNDERvalued.

insomnia

Beane doesn’t appear to be losing any sleep over the Furcal deal.

Beane is never going to appear to be losing any sleep. He’s way too cool for that.

I’ll bet he did lose some sleep over it, though.

Just as he won't appear to NEED Furcal,

or NEED to move on from Crosby or NEED to add a bat. And this is good negotiating. Always have other options and always be willing to walk away.

I believe you have stated my views

succinctly. And I would add, never stay in the same game to long.

Well, your wrong

Simple as that, Nico. The A’s are going for it in 2009, that’s why they traded for Holliday, negotiated with Furcal, asked about Johnson (and that happened before the Furcal deal fell through, so I don’t think those moneys intertwine) and could possibly pursue someone like Dunn.

You want to talk about a kick-ass rotation in 2010-2013? Fine, who’s going to be the SS? Crosby is gone in a year, if not earlier. Petit and Pennington don’t seem to be the answer. Coleman, Christian and Leyja are a minimum of 2-3 years away. The A’s just traded away three major chips that could have landed the new SS for a slugger with 1 year left on his contract. If that doesn’t jump up on you and give you a lap dance to get your attention then I don’t know what the Hell will.

A SS will emerge from somewhere.

A year from now, a few things will unfold that that no one would have predicted. These things just happen. (e.g. A prospect becomes ready in another organization and makes a current player expendable)

First of all, its "you're wrong,"

second of all the A’s might re-sign Holliday, and third of all they might replace Holliday with another very good hitter. Meaning that 2009 just becomes ANOTHER year to try to contend, not THE year.

Replacing Holliday with your boy Bay (for example)

Costs the A’s their 1st round pick in exchange for signing the older, lesser player. Why not just keep the better player and not lose the draft pick?

I'm sure that's Plan A

I believe the A’s will make a serious play for Holliday. Whether he’ll sign or not, of course, is another matter.

but furcal is not a 1 year rental

so 2009 doesn’t have to be the the EXCLUSIVE go for it year. If it is a go for it year, than furcal is the single biggest acquisition we can make.

ohmangoAs - December 7, 2008 reply

My feeling is that the A's have intended throughout

to be competitive from 2010-2013 and that by acquiring Holliday they have simply added 2009 to that timeframe: now 2009-2013. 2011-2012 always was, and remains, the peak.

The Holliday trade is a complete non sequitur to any plans after 2009

Well, except insofar as it removes multiple potentially useful pieces from those plans.

I’m sorry, I do not see any remotely reasonable chance of the A’s signing Holliday to an extension. I might give it a 10% chance of happening if I was in a particularly jolly mood.

I think this is PT's way of saying "lets agree to disagree on something neither of us have any real information on"

So you're in favor of it?

Good.

nope

just don’t believe Furcal is going to be that much better than Crosby. deep breath and realize that the guys’s even more of an injury concern than Crosby…

catfish hunter - December 7, 2008 reply

Deep breath and realize that he isn't ****ING TERRIBLE like Crosby...

So then let me turn the question back on you, mr. grover (note the lowercase)

Let’s agree to agree on two things:

1. Furcal has been the A’s first choice for SS – they have actually wanted and hoped to sign him

2. Billy Beane is a smart, effective GM

Why do you think the A’s offered 4/36-4/40 instead of 4/44-4/52?

It’s not because he’s trying to be cheap – the A’s rarely go after high profile / expensive free agents, and Beane is offering 9million on up, for the four years no one else will, for a definite risk. He’s venturing into “real money, real years commitment, real risk” territory. So why didn’t he offer 4/44-4/52? Because he doesn’t really want Furcal? No. Because he’s an idiot? No. So why?

First off, 4/52 is more then I heard Kinzer was asking for & not even I am that generous

So why not 4/44? That’s the real question, isn’t it. Off-hand… I don’t know. We’re basically talking an extra $1 million a year. And if I’m right about how much the A’s could save by trading Crosby, we’re talking even less than that in the aggregate.

It sounds as if Beane was being stubborn in his negotiation with Kinzer. The reports say this was a take-it-or-leave it deal with a 48-72 hour time limit. It’s clear that Beane didn’t want to give Team Furcal a chance to go to another team and start a bidding war. Even if the other team wasn’t willing to go for 4 years they might have been willing to go 3/33 as a counter to the A’s 4/36. Perhaps Beane thought that backing off even the slightest bit now would cost him in the future. Beane has always been a tough negotiator and he’s used to getting what he wants or he goes elsewhere. We’ve seen that in the past, and I’m referring to when he was shopping Hudson and he refused to let the Orioles talk extension before making a deal. Letting teams talk about an extension with Hudson would have guaranteed the A’s a better return package but Beane refused to play that way.

So are we talking character flaw? I don’t know. Could Furcal be someone the staff wanted more than Billy? Possible, I suppose. I guess there’s a chance that Beane saw playing hardball with Furcal could lead to him saving money on Dunn or another bat but that seems tenuous at best. I don’t have a definitive answer.

Could the A’s afford to pay Furcal 4/44? Yes.

Would adding Furcal and replacing Crosby help the A’s win more games? Potentially, yes.

Would adding Furcal now cover up an organizational hole for the next 3-4 years? Yes.

Is there any reason to believe that paying Furcal $11 million a year vs. $10 million a year would impact the A’s ability to sign other players, be they vets or amateurs? No. Hell man, the A’s could go $12 million annual and it wouldn’t change things in that regard.

To be honest Nico, I can’t come up with a single logical reason why Beane would balk at 4/44. If Kinzer was holding out for 4/48 or 4/52 I could understand but I really don’t think that’s the case.

See I don't know either

We both would love to have seen Furcal signed for 4/44 and we both aren’t sure why that wasn’t the offer. But I’m willing to assume that the reasons aren’t that the A’s wanted him to say no or that Beane is dumb. So I think there’s a third reason – probably that Beane wants Furcal, but not at 4/44. At some point, the risks outweigh the gains and at some point the money impacts other opportunities.

BTW, the Rotoworld blurb, which may or may not be accurate,

says “but Furcal won’t take a pay cut” – which would suggest Kinser IS holding out for 4/48 or 4/52. That may just be inaccurate wording, though.

And on that note,

if Kinser is asking for 4/52, then when Beane offers 4/36 and they come back to the table later to “meet in the middle,” guess how much the deal is for? 4/44.

I don't think they'd do that. It would have to be something like 3/$33. You can't

just give up more because the other side throws a tantrum.

True dat

I expect Furcal to actually sign for around 3/30.

Kinser can hold out for whatever the hell he wants to

Doesn’t mean a team will be willing to pay it.

Whenever a market re-adjusts itself, it will always take greedy people kicking and screaming with it.

Threepwood XX - December 6, 2008 reply

You don't have to be dumb to make a mistake

Just because neither one of us can divine what Beane’s thinking doesn’t mean we can’t spot a mistake. You talk about the money impacting other opportunities… unless we are totally wrong about how much money the A’s have on hand can go 4/44 on Furcal and sign Randy Johnson and make a play on someone like Dunn.

The difference between Furcal at $9 million and the next FA SS worth a damn (Izturis, IMO) is greater than the $2 million saved by not going 4/44. So Izturis+Dunn would cost more than Furcal at $9 million plus Dunn.

Nico,

You mean that money is finite and that GMs face opportunity costs, budget contraints, and trade offs? Who knew?

Why are you assuming that 4/44 was a counteroffer (or that it would have gotten the deal done at that point)?

Because Furcal isn't getting 4/48 in this market

Hell, the A’s are the only team willing to go 4 years at this point! So one side wants 4/48, the other wants 4/40.

4/44 is the common ground.

And you're basing all of this off a report that we offered 35-40 and Furcal rejected it?

That doesn’t seem like a lot of assumptions to you?

Assumptions

OK, I’ll try to break this down without coming across as talking down to you.

Do you believe that Renteria signed with the Giants for 2 years/$18.5 million guaranteed? If "yes’ then continue.

Do you believe that the A’s actually offered Furcal a 4 year deal? If “yes” then continue.

Do you believe that Furcal turned down the A’s offer? If “yes” then continue.

Do you believe that Furcal is at least as good a SS as Renteria? If “yes” then continue.

Do you believe that if Player A is as good as Player B then it would make sense for them to both make the same salary if they were both FA’s? If “yes” then continue.

Do you believe that Furcal is a better SS than Renteria, assuming both are healthy? If “yes” then continue.

If Furcal is better than Renteria, then doesn’t it make sense he should receive a yearly salary of equal or greater value?

At this point I’ve got to ask… what assumptions are you talking about?

Well, from your list you have some problems

“Assuming health” is a red flag. Furcal can/should/will take less than he would get if he had Renteria’s health record.

Also, I don’t agree with your assumption that the FA market is totally rational (ex: all pitchers aren’t getting better deals than Zito, though most are better players).

But I was actually talking about your “Furcal counter offered,” “Furcal would settle for 4/44,” and “Furcal only wants 4/48” assumptions

Why do I bother?

Assuming health is not a red flag, I’m asking if both guys are 100% who would be better. That’s Furcal.

I never said the market is/was rational, but it is limited in what it can do. It can pay Furcal an equal amount as Renteria makes, it can pay him more than Renteria makes (either of which supports my argument) or it can pay Furcal less than Renteria. That’s just the way it is and I hereby challenge you to come up with 5 instances where two players who play the same position enter the FA market at the same time and the “better” player ends up taking the lesser annual average salary. And just so we’re clear, hometown discounts don’t count.

Why do I “assume” that Kinzer made some kind of counter-offer when the A’s made their offer? Because that’s his fucking job. If he wants more money for his client it would help the cause if he actually spoke up and mentioned the larger figure.

Why do I think Furcal would settle for 4/44? Because that is likely the highest offer he’s going to get, especially if he really wants 4 years.

As for the 4/48, just something I read Team Furcal was asking for.

You're just not accepting that

health is THE factor. It’s a fundamental part of his profile, the reason he’s not being offered 4 years by everyone and why 12million/year is not being thrown around for him. Health questions have severely affected his value, just as his track record has enhanced it.

I'm perfectly aware of the health issues Nico

The guy came back and played at the end of last season. The A’s were so concerned about his health that they offered him a 4 year deal and they were willing to go up to $40 million total. If Furcal backs off from 4 years more teams will consider him and that will probably drive up his annual price.

I’m betting he signs for 3/30 before he signs for 4/36 because he’ll hit FA faster and make more money in 2012. And I’m being conservative with the 3/30 number, he can probably get closer to 3/32 like you suggested.

There's always a limit somewhere

They are optimistic enough about his health to risk up to 40mil but not optimistic enough to go to 44, 48. The risk is substantial, even if he came back at the end of last season.

It’s more arguable that the A’s are erring by going as high as 40 than that they’re erring by not going as high as 44-48. The A’s have stepped up to the plate and Furcal said no. (And the word at the Winter Meetings, according to the Chronicle today, is “What the heck is Furcal thinking turning that down?”)

His job is certainly not to always make counter offers

He might very well have said “let me ask my client” and then called back to reject.

There has been no report of a counter-offer, so you have to admit this is your idea (and you’re basing a lot of your opinion on just that idea).

Let's play out your scenario

Kinzer says “Let me call Furcal”

Furcal says “No”.

Kinzer tells the A’s his client says “No”.

According to you the conversation ends and Kinzer walks out the door.

Bullshit.

That's exactly how I suspect it went, personally,

regardless of what foul language you use to state your opinion. I’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

You can't have it both ways, Nico

You think Kinzer is an idiot who’s completely misread the market for his client. You think he believes he can find more money.

So here he is, with the only team who has offered his client the 4 year deal they’re asking for, and he gets an offer that’s lower then he wants. And instead of living up to your expectations and try to get his client more money from a team offering him money… he walks.

He doesn’t say anything to try and get his client a higher offer.

So what is it Nico, is Kinzer trying to get his client more money or not?

Of course he's trying to get his client more money

And he has likely miscalculated that Furcal is going to be offered better than 10mil/year for 3 years. He wanted four years and he wanted 12-13million annually. I doubt he’ll get either.

Stay on topic

You’ve said Kinzer didn’t make a counter-offer on the A’s proposal. I say it’s in his best interest to make a counter-offer.

You keep saying because it wasn’t reported that must mean further dialogue never happened. I’m saying that’s ridiculous and in the absence of total disclosure it makes sense to assume Kinzer would act in his best interests… which means he didn’t say “No” to the A’s and walk out the door without another word.

He would have told Billy what his client wanted to sign the contract.

Then why wasn't the counter offer reported?

If the counter offer was 4/48 why didn’t Beane move his offer?

I think my version makes a lot more sense, and likely is how an agent who expects to find multiple offers would operate. Making a counter-offer sets a ceiling on your client, and many agents have gotten rich by not setting a ceiling and letting a stupid owner screw himself.

According to you, many very specific things happened that have been entirely unreported and to question your story is bullshit.

That actually is bullshit.

It's not questioning my story that is bullshit, it's not following the logic that's your problem

We know were the ceiling is, it’s no greater than 4/52 and in spite of Nico’s claims I don’t believe Kinzer to be a complete and total idiot. He has to know the chances of him getting that contract is virtually impossible. Now we could split hairs and argue 4/50 or something but the easiest thing to do is knock the price down $1 million a year. Thus 4/52 becomes 4/48 begets 4/44 and on and on.

If Kinzer is trying to get the most money for his client, is it not logical that when talking to the only team willing to give his client a 4 year offer for him to try and get more money out of them if he feels their proposal is less than he and his client want/expect?

I am saying yes to that logic, you are saying no. You are saying Kinzer is acting against his greed and against his best interests, right after condemning for being a greedy, ignorant bastard.

Why didn’t any conversations regarding a counter-offer get reported? Because the 4/36 or whatever offer is history, it’s OK to talk about. Beane does not like to discuss ongoing negotiations EVER, and it would not be in Kinzer’s best interests to blatantly piss off the only GM willing to discuss a 4 year deal.

We keep calling it a 4/36 offer,

but all we’ve seen is “35-40” so it may have been worth 4/40 with PA incentives, or just close to 4/40 period. 4/40 is what Furcal said he was looking for initially, back when many more teams were vying for his services.

No one else ever offered four years. If the A’s offered a contract for four years that could reach 40mil if Furcal stayed healthy, offered after the Giants, Cardinals, Braves, Dodgers, moved on and shrunk the market…

Let’s see who else is ready to bid for Furcal and what they’re willing to bid. I think Furcal may be sorely disappointed.

Anything lower than 4/36 guaranteed was a crap offer

I agree with you that the number variance could be attributed to incentives. It’s probable that is the case. At the same time it is unlikely that the total would be murky if the full $40 million was guaranteed.

Rather than split hairs and argue 4/36 guaranteed vs. 4/38 guaranteed (an argument which would actually weaken your side, by the way) plus incentives we’ve been saying 4/36 with $1 million in incentives each year.

I realize that no one else offered 4 years but do you realize that going 4 years allowed the A’s to lower the annual figure they had to offer? If Kinzer and Furcal drop their 4 year demand, if they conceed that point, it will allow them to ask for more than $10 million annual because they’ve reduced the amount of risk his new team has to take on.

I think teams were more wary of giving Furcal that 4th year then they were of offering $11 million vs. $9 million a year.

Sure, it is logical that he would try to get more money

But it doesn’t follow that the way to do that is counter-offer the A’s.

A much better way would be to tell the world “Furcal got a 4/40ish offer, time to step up” and see what happens (if you assume, as it appears Kinzer does, that there are other interested teams).

If he comes back to the A’s with “How about 4/48” then not only will he not get 4/48 (they could probably agree on 4/44 or something), but no other team would bring an offer of more than 4/48.

If he comes back to the A’s with “How about 4/55” or some other higher number, he risks the A’s and (more) other teams moving on to other options.

In other words, there is nothing inherently stupid about not counter-offering. It may well be the best strategy. As a result, your stubborn insistence that it happened and Beane didn’t handle it properly is very strange (and uncharacteristic since I don’t usually find your arguments stupid).

Except... Furcal doesn't have a 4 year offer anymore

The A’s moved on, remember?

That’s the consequence of ignoring the guy in front of you and proclaiming to the world that you want more money. You may think Kinzer is an idiot but this isn’t his first offseason and in no way did he not see this move coming. He knew the A’s would pull the offer off the table when he turned it down.

Therefore, with that in mind, doesn’t it make sense that he’d at least ask about more cash before turning the contract he had in his hand into kindling?

You keep arguing that Kinzer did the worst possible thing he could do when you don’t have the information to back that up. When in doubt, assume people are going to act in their best interests. The only scenario that includes Kinzer acting as you’ve suggested is if Furcal absolutely does not want to play in Oakland and Kinzer is merely trying to play Beane against the rest of the field.

And there is no evidence to support that claim.

It isn't the worst possible thing, it's actually the right thing if there is any market for Furcal's services

And I strongly suspect that if he called Beane today about the offer that is “off-the-table” he could have it.

What about the market right in front of him?

Kinzer was in the room with one of 30 men in the world with the power to make his client richer and you’re saying he snubbed him.

I get that you think the guy is an idiot but I truly believe you’re underestimating him just a little.

You’re right, Kinzer could probably call up Beane today and sign the off the table deal.

And if he called up any other GM and said “Well, Oakland’s offering 4/36” the guy on the other end of the phone would call him a liar. Kinzer can’t pit other teams against an offer that is no longer available. I hope you can see the difference there.

I think you're overstating the difference

How about “My client has turned down a 4/36-40 so you’ll have to do better than that”

Especially given the fact we agree the “closed” deal could probably be revisited pretty easily.

The reply being... too rich for my blood

Or how about… “Call me back when Beane puts the offer back on the table.”

(click)

Because the other GM knows Beane won’t make that offer again unless Furcal is ready to sign. Right now that 4 year offer has about as much sway as the “mysterious” team did.

You have that list of 5 names yet?

What list of five names?

Nice to know you're reading my comments

Since you seem to be ignoring every reasonable argument I’ve made, let’s try this:

YOU ARE WRONG.

:-p

Actually, grover, IMO you're full of it on this thread

The main difference between you, me, and nevermoor on this thread, is that nevermoor and I are basically speaking respectfully and you just keep getting more condescending and confrontational. That doesn’t make us wrong, just less condescending and confrontational.

I don’t need to keep repeating myself, so as far as any further debate my reply is, “Read what I’ve written above.” G’nite.

Get off your high horse

You’re damn right I’m getting confrontational, you should be smarter then you’re coming across in this thread. Of all the folks I thought I’d need to explain common sense to you were way down on my list.

If it weren't for high horses,

I wouldn’t get any action on Friday nights. That’s all I have to say.

So in other words you're in for a long week

Nevermoor...

Either you can’t see it or you don’t want to see it, either way I’m out of convincing arguments to try and persuade you. So… here’s hoping tomorrow the A’s sign Tex and we won’t give a damn about Furcal.

Whatever

I find your arguments here embarrassingly – and unusually – weak. Your complete confidence in them does nothing to help them make sense.

Like you and Nico, though, I’m through with it.

Slight disagreement with

your idea of Kinzer’s job. His job is to represent his client and his interests. Furcals financial interest may take second place to a whole host of other interests.

For example, Furcal may have stressed that he wanted the largest contract possible for a contending team. He might not want to play for the Royals at any price.

Really, we have no idea of the constraints that Fucal may have placed on his agent.

He isn't getting 4/44 in this market either

Beane knows this; Kinser is still dreaming.

4/40 with $4 million in PA incentives, lands Furcal in Oakland

Which last I heard is something we wanted as fans.

If Furcal drops his demands to 3 years it lessens the chance of him becoming an Oakland A. Other teams will get involved in the negotiations and Beane will get into a bidding war to land the SS. Wait a second… that’s not going to happen because Beane doesn’t like to play that game.

Which means the A’s will move on from the best option to improve the SS position.

I guess I'm just not sold on that

“4/40 with $4 million in PA incentives, lands Furcal in Oakland .” Really? I don’t know why you your so sure he would come down of 4/48 for that but not for 4/35-40. If anything I don’t think Furcal signs for anything less than 4/48 untill they at least try to drum up some interest at the Winter Meetings.

And I’m not so sure Beane wouldn’t try to beat someone else’s 3 year bid. From what we’ve seen so far, even if Kinser can find someone willing to offer 3 years at 10M+ I doubt that team is really looking to get into a bidding war either. At this point the A’s have the biggest need and the most available funds. That puts them in a pretty good position should another offer for Furcal materialize.

OkayJay81 - December 7, 2008 reply

Exactly - all the available evidence

suggests that 4/40 with 4 million in PA incentives would NOT have landed Furcal in Oakland. All we’ve heard from his side is “Furcal doesn’t want to take a pay cut.” Well then, he’s not getting a four-year deal from anyone and personally I doubt he gets the three-year deal (3/36) he’d want either.

+1

Grover, I think you’re presenting your hopes/ideas as irrefutable fact on this one.

Again I ask, make up your mind

You’re saying 4/40 + incentives isn’t enough to land Furcal.

You say he’s not going to take a pay cut.

You say he’s not going to get 3/36 from anyone.

Alright Nico, please explain why my suggestion doesn’t land Furcal because your current argument makes no sense. You’re essentially saying 3/33 lands Furcal vs my plan… when my plan offers the same annual salary for longer years.

No, you're just not reading correctly

I never said he isn’t going to take a pay cut. He IS going to take a pay cut. He hasn’t accepted this yet. When reality sets in, I imagine he’ll end up having to sign for about 3/30, having left a better offer on the table because he has way overestimated his value in the current market.

I'm reading things fine

Nico… Furcal’s last contract averaged $13 million annual. I’m saying the A’s should’ve offered $11 million annual. Do you really think I don’t know which number is larger here?

According to what we've seen,

Furcal would have rejected 11 annual, but who knows? Furcal is currently unwilling to take a pay cut. Eventually he’ll realize he has to – then the real negotiations will begin. Right now Furcal is not living in the real world and fortunately the A’s are not catering to his delusions of grandeur.

Will you make up your freaking mind?!

You aren’t sure Furcal will back off of 4/48. OK, I can understand your argument.

You think the next highest bid Furcal is likely to get is 3/30+… maybe.

Will you please explain to me how 3/30+ beats 4/40 plus incentives?

It doesn't. Furcal turned down

the best offer he’s going to get. Nice work, Kinzer.

That's were we disagree

We think the A’s offered 4/36 guaranteed.

If Furcal drops his asking price of 4 years it reduces the risk a team has in signing him, doesn’t it. A 3 year deal is going to attract more teams. Both of those things should push his annual salary up from $9 million a year.

If Furcal gets an offer of 3/32 guaranteed (the number you consider to be fair market value, remember) I can see Kinzer convincing his client that the 3 year package is better than the A’s 4 year deal because he’ll be able to re-enter the market sooner.

The A's are in as much a position as any team

to make that 3/32 offer, once Furcal says “3 years is ok.” At the time that Furcal was insisting on four years, Oakland was not competing with anyone. You don’t make an unnecessarily high offer when there’s no competition. Unless you’re afraid of losing the player, and fortunately Beane doesn’t negotiate out of fear.

This is where you don't get it

Imagine you’re in a fight. It’s you vs. Kinzer and you’re going to keep throwing punches until only one of you is left standing and that guy gets Furcal. What do you think you’re odds are of being that guy?

Imagine you’re in another fight and it’s you and Kinzer and 4 other guys and you’re all going to keep swinging until only one of you is still standing. That’s the guy who gets Furcal. Do you think your odds are better or worse then they were when you were going 1-on-1 of being that guy?

When Beane was offering 4 years he was going 1-on-1 vs. Kinzer. If Team Furcal drops to 3 years I think there will be more suitors.

Beane sacrificed his main advantage, he sacrificed position, to save a few dollars. Take everything you’ve argued about how the A’s could come out ahead if they end up signing Furcal for 3 years vs. 4 years and weigh that against the increased chance that the A’s miss out on Furcal completely. And if they miss out on Furcal then they have to move on to Plan B, which is still probably a good plan but it wasn’t as good as pursuing Furcal, because if it was as good or better it would have been Plan A.

Nico, overpay or not, the A’s could have afforded to go $13 million annual to land Furcal. I don’t think and have never thought that it would take that much to actually sign Furcal but adding him to the roster is a critical component to contending in 2009.

Sounds like if you were the A's GM,

you’d be so desperate to sign this “critical component to contending in 2009,” so desperate to “make sure we don’t start the season with Crosby,” that you’d pay 52million over 4 years – way more than anyone else has ever considered offering him – to make sure you didn’t lose Furcal right now. There’s a reason why you and I are not GMs. That’s just a terrible mindset from which to negotiate.

And you're completely wrong, again

I’ve already said 4/52 is unreasonable and ain’t happening, but if you’d like to continue to make like oaktoon be my guest.

LOL - you said

“When Beane was offering 4 years he was going 1-on-1 vs. Kinzer. If Team Furcal drops to 3 years I think there will be more suitors” and, “Nico, overpay or not, the A’s could have afforded to go $13 million annual to land Furcal,” followed by, “I don’t think and have never thought that it would take that much to actually sign Furcal but adding him to the roster is a critical component to contending in 2009.”

How did I interpret that as saying the A’s could have offered 13mil/year when they had Kinzer 1 on 1 (i.e., discussing 4 year deals), and that the A’s should have taken the opportunity to add this critical component even if it meant offering those terms?

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/6/683371/advantage-beane#10488645

Here, I'll spoon feed you

Notice the Excel sheet where I’ve got Furcal down at $12 million annual? I’ll save you the trouble of misreading the article, but in that post I said I’d go $12 million annual IF the 4th year was optional.

Here are multiple comments I made about going 4/44:

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/6/683371/advantage-beane#10488988

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/6/683371/advantage-beane#10488572

Here’s a good one where I say 4/44 good, 4/48 an overpay:

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/6/683371/advantage-beane#10489673

Here’s one of you pretty much quoting my price tag:

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/6/683371/advantage-beane#10491073

Yet after all that, you think I’m advocating 4/52 when if you look at all the posts that have been made in this thread YOU are the person who keeps using 4/48 and 4/52.

Well, OK, now I used them too but mainly to point out your own foolishness!

Yes, the A’s could afford $13 million annual. (Hell, they could probably afford to go hip deep after Tex or Sabs!)

No, I do not advocate going that high on Furcal.

Now that we’ve hopefully unscrambled your brain maybe you’d like to explain why you continue to dump all the blame on Kinzer and Furcal while every freaking news report on the aftermath of this failed negotiation says that the A’s offer was a take-it-or-leave-it deal?

No thanks -

I’ll converse with people who engage me in more respectful dialog. For any answers you seek, read my comments above. There are plenty and I don’t need to repeat myself when there is a printed record. G’nite.

And because I'm feeling spiteful...

This 4/52 argument is just another example of you being wrong on this thread.

Okey dokey then.

I'd do one of those sticking my tongue out things...

but I used that bit on nevermoor.

Let me just say,

you come across as a really, really nice guy in person. Seriously. I don’t know why you talk the way you do online, but I choose to remember you as the pleasant and furry guy I know you to be at AN days and the like. And your son is nothing short of adorable, btw.

He is adorable... he must get that from his mother

I don’t carry on 30 hour baseball conversations in the real world. I’d have convinced you of the righteousness of my position in under an hour in person.

Just out of curiosity,

when Beane said “4/36 +4” or whatever he actually said, what should he have said in your opinion? Anything under 4/48 Furcal might also have refused according to the little we’ve heard through the rumor mill.

Should he have said “Look, no one else is offering four years either, so I’m going to offer 3/36?” Or should he have offered 4/48? 4/44 take it or leave it? What’s your position on exactly what the offer should have been?

I think

4/36+4 is the “If he says yes I’m headed to Vegas, baby!” offer because you’re having a lucky day that day.

I still think the biggest advantage the A’s had in the negotiation was their willingness to go 4 years. Dropping down to 3 years brings more teams into the mix.

If 4/36+4 was rejected Plan B would be 4/40+4 OR 4/48 with the 4th year being a team option and a $3 million buy-out. That gives everyone a little of what they want.

If Furcal needs that 4th year guaranteed he’s got to take a little less cash. If he wants the cash, he’s got to be willing to lose the 4th year. The beauty to the option plan is if the A’s buy him out, he’ll have earned the equivalent of 3/39… which is exactly how much his last contract was.

IMO, 4/36 (assuming that was the offer) was putting the screws to Furcal.

Just to avoid any confusion

If Team Furcal rejected: 4/36+4, 4/40+4 and 4/48 (option) and insisted on 4/52 I’d have told him to have a nice day and shown him the door.

It was the most logical argument you've made too

Which is sad.

How would you know?

You didn’t bother to read the previous ones. ;-)

If you mean 5 shortstops

I did that somewhere else.

I don't get it, but it seems funny -

help?

As I was reading Grover's (or mr. grover's) long reply it

kind of hit the bullseye

Ah - Poochini has been walking funny all day

Now it all makes sense.

According to USA Today

Furcal’s salary was 15.7 million in 2008. it must have been backloaded by the Dodgers. There is no way any team in today’s fiscal climate would pay Furcal that kind of salary again. So a 4 year 40 million dollar contract would have been a pre- Chistmas bargain, but is appropriate for Furcal’s back history & in today’s fiscal tightening for a mid-grade free agent.

If you take out the top tier free agents, will we see collusion / some fiscal restraint by teams in terms of length & overall amount given to lesser free agents? Timing is everything & it looks like Furcal picked the wrong year to be a free agent.

alpine26 - December 6, 2008 reply

Also the "lesser free agents" may be the ones that weren't offered arb

I'm pretty sure there's collusion already going on, personally

By the Players Union, sure.

Please tell me you're not being serious.

I cannot tell you that I am being serious.

Because technically there is nothing illegal about union activity therefore their meetings do not have to be secret. The effects are the same, though, to gain leverage through cooperation with others who have the same goals.

LowcountryJoe - December 7, 2008 reply

"Technically"?

Two people commit homicides. One writes a report about it and then goes about his business. The other is put to death. The first one is a police officer shooting a bank robber, the second is the bank robber’s accomplice.

Could I say “technically there’s nothing illegal about being a police officer, but really they’re both murderers”?

Homicides? Wow!

A few questions:

Not that a player would but could a player opt to not participate in the MLB Player’s Union?

Now, if two or more owners got together to collude to keep the costs down on one desirable SS and that each was in the market for that particular SS’s services for a multiple year deal, at which point would the other one renege and break the collusive agreement? In your opinion, how long does that kind arrangement last?

LowcountryJoe - December 7, 2008 reply

Respectively:

1. No, and neither could an individual owner “opt out” of their end of the deal, and

2. Up to 4-5 offseasons.

I fail to see where you’re going with either of these questions.

On the MLBPA thing...

didn’t Bonds opt out of the licensing arrangement with the PA? And aren’t the players who crossed the picket line in the last work stoppage intentionally left out of the MLBPA?

Not really

The transactional rules, pay scales, etc that are agreed on in the CBA still bind them, as far as I know. It might be technically the case that they are not members but there’s no practical upshot to it.

But the marketing opt out happened

Up to 4-5 season? Really, so no team ends up with the SS?

Or some team got him on the cheap? More than one team really wanted to have the SS but they had a deal to keep the market price lower than what it could/should have been. So, did the GMs decide beforehand who was going to get the SS? How does the agreement hold if one of the GMs decides to pursue and effectively end the agreement by stabbing the others in the back? Please tell me how the collusion works in this case.

I fail to see where you’re going with either of these questions.

And I failed to see how collusion could happen on a player. BTW, the anaolgy was pretty good wasn’t it overkill for the scenario?

LowcountryJoe - December 8, 2008 reply

In the mid-1980s, that's exactly what happened

Players were forced into signing lowball deals with their old teams. Now, that’s hardly the only way collusion could happen— the owners could simply agree that no one will pay player X more than Y dollars, which is a lot less suspicion-inducing.

Collusion is always vulnerable to cheating, but baseball’s clubby ownership and limited number of teams, all of whom are significantly under the power of the league head office, make it very prone to collusive behavior. There are plenty of ways for Selig and friends to get back at owners and GMs who get out of line.

PaulThomas - December 8, 2008 reply

it's too bad eckstein sucks now

it woulda been fun to use him against the Angels next year. alas, revenge and good SS don’t go hand in hand

VORP is too nerdy - December 6, 2008 reply

No, no it wouldn't.

I had to watch this guy for 3 years in St. Louis. He’s not good, and he’s incredibly overrated. You know what REALLY pisses me off about Eckstein? Everyone thinks he’s underrated because he’s small and hustles. He’s the most overrated ‘underrated’ guy. That just gets on my nerves. He sucks.

And he won World Series MVP because he made and outfielder slip on wet grass, meanwhile Yadier Molina did nothing but hit throughout the entire playoffs, especially in the WS and NLCS.

Damnit.

Count the Ringzzzzz

The Holliday trade

We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Beane didn’t trade for Holliday.

And I still don’t get that one.

By trading for Holliday, based on the reasonable assumption that he’s a rental, Beane has set up the expectation that he’s going to try to steal a division title from a weakened Angels next year. Otherwise, the deal really doesn’t make much sense.

Beane didn’t suddenly get stupid, although his record as a signer of big-money free agents isn’t very good.

I just don’t really see how the A’s, even on a relative spending spree, can acquire enough talent to be a serious contender next year. I don’t mean that they cannot contend under any circumstances, because the Angels could suddenly be terrible next year and then all bets are off. I’m talking about a non-fluky season by the A’s that puts them in range of the Angels and even the Rangers.

Does that team currently exist? The starting rotation is kind of a joke right now. Gio is penciled in at the moment, for crying out loud. Sean Gallagher is supposed to be a #2 starter. Duchscherer is supposed to stay healthy all season.

I remain mystified by the Holliday trade, and not because I don’t think Holliday will be good.

To me, the trade makes the most sense

if you believe that CarGon won’t ever be anything special, in which case the chance to acquire Holliday for so relatively little makes it a worthwhile endeavor just to acquire a star for pennies on the dollar. Basically, if Sweeney is better than Gonzalez for the next 6 years, the trade makes more sense. I don’t see that happening, but it certainly could.

Or

The Angels were over achievers last year and out performed their pythag. That, combined with their possible loss of Texiera and K-Rod convinced Beane that there might be an opening in the division.

I think what he’s doing is trading future production for the chance to compete this year and a couple of first round prospects in ’10

Threepwood XX - December 6, 2008 reply

It's more than that

One year of Holliday must be worth more than six of CarGon, not to mention Street and Smith.

Fine. Maybe Holliday will be great, but the A’s will sign up to a long-term deal anyway. Or maybe the team will turn its collection of parts into a real contender next season.

I’m still confused.

Do you need a hug?

i think PT still has strippers over at his place.

No hugs

You and Paul are smart and take more time to explain your arguments than I do.

But I keep adding up the prospective additions to next year’s team and get a roster that isn’t as good as the Angels even if they don’t sign their own free agents. The Angels can afford to lose their free agents, as that would free up money to sign other free agents. I’m not persuaded by the run total argument, largely because of Nico’s theory that the Angels are built to win close games and be blown out in losses.

Next year’s team still looks awfully mediocre to me. That’s what I don’t get. I admit this is off-topic to the debate of how much the A’s should offer for Furcal, but the whole debate is only happening because of the Holliday deal.

That trade did kick up a hornets nest, didn't it

I don’t believe in the run total argument as strongly as PT, but I do believe that if the A’s continue to add talent they will win more games. The A’s will still need their young guys to grow, of course, but some things you gotta take on faith for now. I’d hate to think the A’s were wrong on all their young pitching!

Let's assume

at least some of those young pitchers in the minors turn out to be very good.

How does that help the 2009 team? Barring a big surprise, it doesn’t really help at all.
So I remain stuck. Usually, I understand what Beane is trying to do, even if I question how he’s doing it. This time, I am genuinely confused.

Obviously, the Holliday trade should help the A’s win more games next season. But I don’t really see how he suddenly transforms a crappy offense into something decent. And the starting rotation is unreliable due to heatlh issues (Duke) or not very good. Again, I’ll stipulate that some of these starters will improve, and the team will sign another pitcher. But then the A’s have to sign a shortstop, hope Chavez is a good third baseman again, and all sorts of other magical things.

I’m not seeing the logic yet.

In and of itself, the Holliday trade doesn't make sense

We’re going to have to wait for Beane to finish painting this picture.

One way to better understand, I think,

is to imagine that they traded for Holliday AND signed Chavez as a free agent. Because if Chavy is healthy, the A’s have just added two big bats, not one – which makes a huge difference in an offense. Beane obviously believes Chavy will be healthy and very productive.

You did not just make that argument

You last post blasted Furcal for his health issues as why he won’t see $12 million annual. At least Furcal was playing at the end of last season.

And by the way, in case I wasn’t clear the previous half dozen or so times I said it, I agree Furcal doesn’t see $12 million annual guaranteed. I’m saying $10 million guaranteed with $1 million in incentives, annual.

They're two different people

There is nothing inconsistent about talking with reservation about one player’s health and with optimism about another’s. The A’s have made no efforts whatsoever to bolster 3B, not even with a Plan B like Branyan. Clearly they feel that Chavez is finally healthy; there is not enough data yet to know about Furcal with as much certainty.

although they have September and October 2008

as at least some evidence that Furcal is healthy, while they have NOTHING to prove that Chavez will be healthy enough to play in 2009.

True, they have nothing in the context of

Chavez handling baseball related activities. They just have how he feels physically and his knowledge of his body – but if he finally feels closer to how he felt in the early 2000s that’s pretty reliable. Of course, he still has to play baseball and then see how he feels.

last spring training he said he felt fine

until he put on cleats. I doubt he’ll put on cleats before spring training 2009. I really hope he is healthy and can be productive in 2009. I just think that right now there’s more evidence that Furcal is healthy, than that Chavez will be.

Yet more confidence, from the A's side,

in Chavez’ health in 2009 than in Furcal’s health over 2009-2012.

makes sense

given that the A’s are ~~stuck with~~ committed to Chavez already.

Yeah, but they didn't need to deal for Holliday

That they did suggests to me confidence that Chavez actually is ready to produce again.

More like,

if ALL THREE of Sweeney, Buck and Cunningham are better than Gonzalez, and all healthy to boot, the trade makes more sense.

I suppose there’s some chance of a breakout from Denorfia or Murton, but I’m not exactly betting the house keys on that happening.

Also if you believe Holliday's value at the deadline is close enough to SSG that it's worth the

punt at contention.

it makes sense even if you believe CarGon will be something special

if you think he still needs a couple of years before he can be productive in the big leagues, and you see an opportunity to improve your club now and perhaps take advantage of what may be a vulnerable divisiion frontrunner.

No, no it really doesn't make any sense.

If you believe you have a “special” talent, you don’t trade it for one season of Matt Holliday.

I know teams say nice and complimentary things about players they trade, but I’m talking reality here. You can’t hold a press conference and say “Yeah, we figure we got Holliday for a bag of baseballs, so we’re pretty happy about that.”

I don't think it's necessary to claim that years of expert evaluation

of the talents of this very young player were all wrong, based on his poor performance in 2008 when many felt that he wasn’t ready for the MLB, in order to say that the trade for Holliday made sense…and why would the Rockies even be interested if CarGon was “crap”? You have to give up something of value to get something of value. Clearly CarGon is an outfielder of value, otherwise he wouldn’t have been part of the deal. Much as we may have enjoyed Gre Smith there was nothing to suggest that he has a ceiling much higher than what we saw…and we know that Street was no longer high on the A’s list.

It is my position that that is precisely what you need to claim for the Holliday trade to make sense

In one of the great coincidences of human history, the Holliday trade makes no sense whatsoever to me. I think the team purposelessly punted between 5 and 10 wins with that deal.

To try and summarize everything that's been reported (somewhat chronilogically):

-The A’s are interested in Furcal, concerns about health
-A’s receive medical reports, Furcal is healthy
-A’s claim they will not get in bidding war
-Furcal’s agent says he will sign by time X
-Mystery team appears from the depths of hell
-Furcal does not sign by the deadline, Kinzer sets new deadline
-Furcal does not sign by deadline, says he wants 4 years.
-Mystery team exists?
-Kinzer sets date that Furcal won’t sign by
-A’s offer 4 year deal before that date
-Furcal says no, reports say A’s are out of running
Then, after scanning through every single major news source I could find that has reported this news, while they say the A’s are out of it, Kinzer said he plans to meet with the A’s again at the winter meetings, along with"any other team interested".
This whole thing does not add up.
Help to unravel this mystery…

Kinzer has screwed his client royally

and the A’s are still front runners?

Exactly

Furcal is getting screwed by his agent. The same agent who thought K-Rod was (is) going to get a 5 year $75 mil contract. The same agent who looks like an ass with some of the quotes that have appeared in the media.

I personally think Beane is getting tired of dealing with this clown.

Trainman - December 7, 2008 reply

Kinzer knows that the A's dropping out of the Furcal race

is really, really bad. He has to keep them in. And, has BB ever been frank and open about negotiations? No.

Now we just hope that Jack Wilson is traded to the Dodgers, which takes them out of the running. Or if the Dodgers sign Manny. I don’t think the Orioles are targetting Furcal, their target is pitching/Teixeira. They’ll pick up Punto or someone else cheap.

Twins could be an interesting competitor though.

Blicks - December 7, 2008 reply

Is grover realy Kinzer?

He wants Furcal signed so badly makes me wonder if he gets some % of the money.

I'm better looking

VORP is too nerdy - December 7, 2008 reply

and smarter

Kinzer the guy who plays poker and bluff with crappy cards showing.

Arcman - December 7, 2008 reply

I recently took a class on negotian skills...

Seems as though Beane took this class as well as he well understands about the market, his ideal cost and what Furcal is really worth.

This move doesn’t surprise me given the recent developments in the market for SS, as supply has definitely stripped demand with the last domino with falling in the Giants (perplexing) signing of Renteria…..

ST - December 6, 2008 reply

ack apparently...

i needed a spelling/typing class instead of “negotiations” class…

ST - December 6, 2008 reply

Wow, gotta love hot stove season

There has been a lot of good debate about this, but I think it’s getting a bit over-analyzed here. I take the A’s "take-it or leave-it’ offer as Beane not wanting to have an offer hanging out there in Furcal’s hands on his way to the Winter meetings. I don’t think it means there won’t be anymore discussion between the two sides.

As of right now the A’s seem to be the only team making serious offers for Furcal’s services so right now I don’t think they need to beat there first bid. As of right now the A’s have made the best offer and I think they’re comfortable in that position for now.

OkayJay81 - December 6, 2008 reply

Overanalysis on AN?

Say it isn’t so!

But yeah, I agree with you. The A’s were essentially the only team making a serious offer to Furcal. They were the only contenders left in the Furcal sweepstakes, and he turned them down. Who does he expect to come along and top the A’s offer? BB probably knows this and is taking advantage of it.

that's what addicts do in the "offseason"

Beane Got Lucky

Furcal obviously wasn’t worth the money the A’s offered. They were lucky that he didn’t accept it. The A’s can’t afford to keep moving players around like so many trading cards when there isn’t a clear advantage. Crosby isn’t the problem here. His defense is good enough. The SS position does not have to be a power position. The A’s simply need the time to grow their farm system. They have a lot of B level replacements in the system right now and that’s good. But It’s going to take a few years to get things in order. Everybody in baseball has sabermetrics now. Yet unlike the top clubs the A’s don’t have the money to compete. To compete the A’s are going to need to keep a clear head until they can take advantage of the next overzealous GM. An opening will present itself soon enough. I’ve been against the Furcal deal from the beginning and I’m glad it didn’t happen. Beane got lucky this time.

Ran - December 7, 2008 reply

...speculation

He probably wants 4/100 million plus the fact of life is you dont always get what you want…dont speculate on what he wants, unless you have insider information and spoke with him or his agent. I think it is safe to assume none of us no a) what the offer was exactly, b) what furcal was thinking when he said no c) what the market actually consists of, d)what furcal actually wants, nevermind i will stop the list could go on for days because we all speculate so much on here. I think it is funny because the only filter we have on the information we are getting is likely furcal’s agent who of course is going to say whatever he can in order to spark interest in his client. That is why the old “mystery team” is funny to me, this really could be no team at all or maybe an imaginary team in the agent’s head. anyways.

Here are the facts I know the two actual teams I have heard that were seriously interested in furcal have been the A’s and the Giants with possiblities including braves in the right circumstances, which havent happened and that famous mystery team. I could be leaving off some teams because I havent read every story but regardless there hasnt been an overwhelming amount of interest and the A’s have been the most serious throughout. Well the Giants have a shortstop so now the only team I can confidently say has any interest is the A’s. Red Sox is all speculation that I have been unable to verify anywhere except on this website(if somebody can give a link to story that implies the red sox interest itd be great). Maybe the dodgers could jump back in but I doubt it bcuz it seems they have been all for not being involved.

I cant wait to see two things, the actual deal furcal signs and who he signs with. I will go on record of saying i think it will be with the a’s still for something like 4/40-4/45 with maybe some kickers that could escalate it to 4/50. (this is the homer in me talking and the speculator in me talking, right after I said how we are all overspeculating) The reason I say this though is I do not see any other interested teams and think its going to be hard to find a team with the desire and the money to sign him to this type of deal. I believe Beane was trying to get him for a super bargain and felt that if he signed it, it would be a steal.I doubt this was the best offer the a’s have and besides if he declines the a’s can sit and wait to see what furcals market is like while checking into some other options and hoping the market drys up even more for furcal, which could lead to furcal crawling back to the a’s.

Basically we are all overanalyzing this way too much. We all need to put our pants back on and calm down. deep breaths. Lets all continue to be patient and hope that he signs with the A’s or at the very least Crosby is replaced. Remeber most of the information we are seeing is coming from Furcals agent not anyone with the a’s or any other organization

yawedout21 - December 7, 2008 reply

not signing furcal could start a chain reaction

i think he was the only guy they were willing to spend long term money on

as much as i like to think they might sign a dunn/ burrel to 3-4 yr deals…technically this team is still rebuilding and wont fit into the short term plans

furcal was a situation just because SS was a huge need

so i think RJ is probably their main target in the 7-10mill range…1 yr deal…hoping the hometown thing helps
giambi if he backs off that 3 yr deal demand
nick johnson, juan rivera, etc
back to mid tier FA scrap heap
plus maybe one of these days it wouldnt be so difficult to get a legit mlb ready ss/3b.
this is at least a top 3 farm system with a very aggressive and creative gm. there is enough ammo IMO to get even a decent 3b/ss type like hu, lillibridge, freese, craig, etc. or maybe the front office views it differently that they are no better than pennington, baisley, etc and it isnt worth it to waste prospects in that area

so even w/ his injury issues, he didnt want less

wasnt willing to taking less $$ or yrs….oh well, good riddens then

Olney reports that Rafael Furcal’s final contract request was 4 years, $52MM. He wound up rejecting the offer of 4 years, $35-40MM.

http://www.fannation.com/si_bl…ove/posts/29743

4/52 is utterly stupid.

When nobody offers that, Furcal will be in for a nasty surprise.

If Kinzer thinks he can get that deal for Furcal, he’s stupid beyond reason.

Blicks - December 7, 2008 reply

is 4/35 a low ball offer?

maybe A’;s thought offering 4 yr, but less money was good enough

According to Heyman at SI….Furcal’s offer from the A’s was 4/35:

The rejection by free agent shortstop Rafael Furcal of a $35 million, four-year A’s offer has really stirred some response. “What the heck is he doing?” one GM from another team said, before adding, “Maybe he just didn’t like Oakland.”

All along, though, there was said to be that dreaded “mystery team.” Agent Paul Kinzer said a while back that my guess of the Reds was wrong. My next guesses are the Twins or Indians. And believe me, both are strictly guesses.

But one thing I know: Players don’t normally pass up their best offer.

He might be right in the fact the he just didnt like Oakland...

We have to be honest with ourselves here, the East Bay is not at all an attractive place to go especially for a guy whos been playing in LA. Im not talking about the markets of the different teams, just the lifestyle is quite a bit different.

son of wes - December 7, 2008 reply

we don't know that he loved Los Angeles so much

that was a job, and he didn’t live there in the off season.

I personally love the East Bay, and apparently so do millions of other people. But that’s not really the point. I think the money issue was probably the reason Furcal turned down the offer, unless for some reason he didn’t like the organization.

Can someone please explain why Cabera is supposedly so bad

when his UZR/150 was second in all of baseball and he was -1.2 runs with the bat. To me, he seems like a pretty decent upgrade over Crosby, and he’s not going to cost us our best draft pick because it’s protected. Admittedly, I don’t know enough about defensive statistics and the merits of each rating system, so maybe UZR isn’t the best predictor of defensive performance. But it seems that Cabrera isn’t as bad as people keep saying he is.

+1

He’s actually my second choice barring a trade.

If you compare him to Crosby

then you have a massive upgrade to say the least.

I compare Crosby to Oscar De La Hoya. Both should have retired years ago and speaking of Boxing, what a joke. No wonder MMA trumps boxing IMO

Trainman - December 7, 2008 reply

the difference is that in his prime De La Hoya was really good

Crosby is supposedly in his prime now.

"Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?

At least a Summer’s day geteth hot now and then."

if BoCro was ODLH

he could’ve simply punched runners out as they ran by him. I think that would’ve been a lot more valuable (and entertaining, to say the least) than his otherwise abysmal defense. Of course, Crotchby is too nice for that, I think.

I actually like him, althought I'm not sure

that at this point in his career the A’s will want to give up a draft pick in addition to $$ for him.

i meant -1.2 WINS, not runs, with the bat

he's a type A also

would A’s want to surrender a 2nd rd pick for him plus i think he’ll also want 10+mill/yr

depends on whether or not he accepts arbitration, which may be in doubt

My reason is that I don't believe he is actually the second best defensive SS in all of baseball

CHONE has him as a league average SS next season

The question is simply one of how well he’ll hit. I think he’ll be around -10 runs with the bat, but that’s still a sizable upgrade on Crosby, who’s -20 or worse.

what does CHONE have Crosby at for the SS position?

+3 runs... but that's because it's regressed to seasons when he was actually good in the field

If you think he’ll keep declining, as I do, you don’t put a lot of stock in that.

I don't

Fangraphs has him with a worse 2008 wOBA than Crosby (posted in a much friendlier hitter’s park). His UZR/150 is waaaay better, but there’s a ton of fluctuation on Cabrara: high of 24.6, low of -1.6.

I’d rather have him than Crosby, but not enough to pay to go get him.

err

I’m wrong, was looking at the wrong column for Cabrera.

Oops.

Unscientifically

Cabrera is going to be about 4 runs better on defense and 15 runs better on offense. While I may be overestimating the offense, Cabera is going to be probably be a 1.5-2 win upgrade over Crosby. Since I probably should be more conservative, I’ll call it a 1.0-1.5 win upgrade over Crosby. If we signed Cabrera for 2/18mil and somehow dump most of Crosby’s contract for a nonprospect, we are going to be paying 13 million more for 2-3 wins over the next two years. We should be getting equal market value on a player that will give a slight upgrade to our team. Of course, if he costs draft picks then he may be more than he’s worth, but I think if we can sign him to the right deal, he is worth acquiring. Also, this is not to mention that Cabrera has a history of actually staying healthy over the course of a season, whereas BoCro generally hits the DL at some point in the season.

plus he gets a bonus for having the revenge factor, since he used to play for the Angels

plus, I have to imagine that O Cab is at least somewhat better than Crosby on the basepaths. I’m sure it’s marginal at best, but you could probably throw in another run or two on top of the previous totals.

Cabrera was a more modest 19/25 in SB last season,

but the three seasons prior he was 68/77 (approximate average: 23/26), which is awesome.

ok so maybe it's more than a few runs

but i just figured that since he’s kind of, you know, getting older, those totals might start to drop.

Missing the point

I was busy this weekend, so it’s taken me till now to get caught up on this thread. That long and bizarre argument between grover and Nico about who would be an idiot to say yes to 40, 42, 44, or whatever, and the even weirder bickering about whether Kinzer came back with a counteroffer all seems to completely miss what I thought was the obvious point here.

This “take-it-or-leave-it” offer had nothing to do with a specific amount, nor is it any sort of bargaining tactic. It’s about the timing. This supposed negotiation has been dragging on forever. How long has it been since we first saw the announcement that the A’s and Furcal were close to a deal? It was ages ago. At the time, we were told that we might not know the details for a couple days. Then they said he hasn’t decided yet but he’ll make a decision over the weekend. And then he was going to decide some time during the week.

It kept dragging on and on and on. Beane stuck with it for a while because Furcal really is Plan A, but eventually there comes a point where you say, “What the fuck is the hold-up here? do you want to deal or not?” If it was just a matter of $X being enough to get the deal done, as grover seems to be assuming, they could have figured this out a long time ago. Beane would say, “we offer this much”; Kinzer could counter and say, “no, it has to be this much.” They would haggle and either they’d find a price they agree on, or they’d conclude that Furcal is asking too much and that would be the end of it.

Beane’s “final offer” was basically saying, “Enough is enough. If you want to negotiate, great, let’s negotiate. But don’t just dick around with me.” He was willing to put up with it for a while because Furcal was plan A. But now winter meetings are coming up and there’s plenty of other deals to be done. Beane expected the Furcal question to be answered yes or no by now, but Kinzer/Furcal kept dicking around not making a decision. Beane had to move on.

If tomorrow Furcal makes up his mind, I’m sure Kinzer could call Beane and settle a deal in no time, but they can’t expect Beane to put all his other plans on hold while he waits by the phone.

I think this is very much right on

After all, if both sides wanted to try to get a deal done before the meetings, the conversation could have turned immediately to, “Is there a three year deal we’d both be good with?” and maybe a 3/32 deal would have been hammered out yesterday.

It may be that Oakland is Furcal’s second choice and he’s stalling to see about his first choice, or it may be that Furcal wants something no one, including Oakland, is going to give him. Beane made a move to get a deal done – a solid offer – and Furcal didn’t move to get it done; he said, “Nope” and we don’t know of any more he said.

Hell, even I agree that Team Furcal was taking their sweet time

Kinzer is hoping to drum up more money at the Winter Meetings, that much is obvious. And Beane is smart to not leave his offer on the table for Kinzer to use against other teams.

But I still don’t think the fault all falls on Furcal and his agent. And I don’t think the fall-out leaves the A’s in as advantageous a position as they were in last week.

Omigosh!

Nico and grover both say they agree with me.

Now let me tell you what I think of the Israel-Palestine situation….

I stopped reading that argument quite some time ago

and I read everything on this frigging site…

Well, except fanshots. No one reads fanshots.