Athletics Nation

First is worst!

Isn't Chavez our 3B?

I guess Chavez will go straight to DH if they sign him…

I want Vlad or Damon to DH on a 1 year 6 million dollar offer

Vlad is absolutely not worth $6 million anymore

thejd44 - December 26, 2009 reply

This. Vlad will probably sign for a third of that.

Or someone better than him (Jack Cust!!!) will sign for about a third of that.

Vlad

Vlad is absolutely worth 6 million. If we put him at DH and get him off of the field, then he can hit 100%. Even if he isnt as good as he used to be, he is still better than any hitters on the A’s, and will produce more runs than Beltre who is asking for more than that.

Mikey6rocker - December 27, 2009 reply

Watching him in the Post season this year was excruciating.

Decline.

brian.only - December 27, 2009 reply

Yes, in both senses of the double meaning

PaulThomas - December 27, 2009 reply

I wonder if the Athletics are really interested in Beltre

Or, perhaps, it’s just his agent’s way to bore us and also bore Beltre’s potential suitors who can afford to be so daring.

LowcountryJoe - December 26, 2009 reply

I'm just happy

that the off season isn’t as anti-climatic as originally thought. I’m hoping Mr. Beane has his poker face on for one more big play before early spring rolls around. I’m becoming optimistic about the A’s 10 season. Our rotation appears solid and deep, our bullpen is money, and there seems to be some offensive ray’s of hope on the horizon!

I read on mlbtraderumors

that maybe the A’s will use Hairston as the DH and can also spell the other OFers for rest and let one of them DH so their not so worn out over the season… While using Fox and McPherson used in a similar role!

I guess Buck is done in Oaktown? Changed his swing I thought???

In thinkng how the A’s can get any kind of return or use out of Chavez and thought;
Maybe BB can pencil Chavez in a Nomar type role for the team. Once every 4 days DH and maybe play 1B, or PH 2 out of every 3 games????

I'd be curious to know Eric's mental outlook....

because if he intends on playing baseball in the future, he’s got something to prove this year. A highly motivated player with his talent could bode well for us.

CHAVEZ

In thinkng how the A’s can get any kind of return or use out of Chavez and thought;
Maybe BB can pencil Chavez in a Nomar type role for the team. Once every 4 days DH and maybe play 1B, or PH 2 out of every 3 games????

I really just the A’s to be able to get something out him rather than just another trip to the DL and another surgery…

Crap formatting...

I wish I could just delete it!!!!

No problem....

I’m just hoping against hope that he comes hard out of the gate with an attitude and something to prove. I think it’s a safe bet to say that his career is on the line during the upcoming season. That’s assuming of course, that he even wants to play baseball after this year. If he does, we might be in for a very pleasant surprise. Why this time next year, we may all be collectively cursing him for spurning us for another team after we supported him during the dark years.

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Umm Chavy was done a long long time ago :(

I hope I am wrong but if he gets more than 200 AB’s next year I would be SHOCKED!

Athletic - December 30, 2009 reply

Sounds like Reno to me

I split a couple of aces and end of with a 20 and a 19 then the dealer gives herself a 21. Damn it I give up and left the table.

Blackjack has been completely crooked for well over 20 years,

with the exception of certain dealers on single-decks… but even then, they often have the auto-shufflers, which can arrange cards in one of tens of thousands of house-favorable sequences.

Also , any good roulette machine has electromagnets underneath that can pull a ball to a specific slot with a great deal of accuracy.

Slots are cooked through computer algorithms, and the vigorish will eat you away in sports betting.

All craps bets have a negative expectation in the long run.

The only worthy game in a casino is poker… or maybe baccarat if you’re very very good at it.

odds on house

Poker does give you the best odds. The house is up as soon as you walk into the casino. They know most people don’t stop when they are up money and will put it all back and then some.

You've got to be kidding me

Casinos have what amounts to a license to print money. You’re telling me that they’re breaking a million laws and jeopardizing that license for… slightly faster profits?

Don’t be ridiculous.

PaulThomas - December 26, 2009 reply

Color me skeptical as well

When the casino already knows it has odds on all games where one plays the house (perhaps with the exception of an unshuffled multideck shoe against a card counter), it would not jeopardize its practical guarantee of profit for a slightly better chance at a slightly better profit with much more downside.

No Beltre

Beltre is a steroid stat cheater before testing. He will never be the homerun hitter he once was and be lucky to make it into the teens. He can hit lefties but just completely sucks against righties. The defense is not worth anymore than $5 million a year. He would be a bad signing and look at it this way the M’s let him go for Figgins.

I agree with the emotional content of your argument.

Maybe not your valuation.

on the steroids?

His big jump in stats from year before FA year was so big of a jump that it had to do with roids. He does have a little power but only a 20 homer guy like most hitters today then 5 years ago.

Pretty sure nobody thinks Beltre's a 40 HR guy

JediLeroy - December 26, 2009 reply

so it's come to that....

riding the bus to the casino. Did you wear the powder blue leisure suit with the white velcro New Balance ’walking shoes"?

ak_A - December 26, 2009 reply

For your information, I drove my car to the casino

Obviously I had to take the bus back, having lost my life savings at the blackjack table, but that’s what I get for having only $100.00 in life savings.

tough to win against the house

OaklandSi - December 26, 2009 reply

No kidding -- every time we both bust,

they take my money!

Competing?

If the A’s sign Adrian Beltre, and then either resign Cust or sign another one of these aging DHs whose likely to give us about average production from the role, we could, without a stretch, have an average or above-average player in every position. Add in a potentially dynamite rotation and an awesome bullpen and the A’s could contend next year.

Of course there are a lot of ifs and hypotheticals involved, and the Mariners are much improved, Texas’ excellent minor league system is beginning to hit maturity, and the Angels are the still the Angels. But hey, I’m an optimist. And at least now I’m feeling like I have a route to be optimistic about.

*"who is" not "whose."

I apologize.

It's just that sort of slip up

That gave Prince John his ‘in’ to try to depose you. But we’ll let that one slide.

worldblee - December 26, 2009 reply

lol...

Yes, Jeremy -- we'll let it slide. Now, SLIDE!!!

Even with Beltre and Cust, you have 0-1 real #3-#4 hitters. Cust can pass as one, Beltre shouldn’t really be there, nor should Sweeney or Suzuki or Hairston or anyone else the A’s have. Yes, it’s an amazing defensive team with a very good pitching staff, but it’s still pretty lame offensively IMO.

Is there an awesome offensive team in the AL West though

Angels aren’t better offensively than they were last year, and they’ve downgraded in the rotation (and defense!)

Mariners are good b/c of their awesome pitching and defense, not because of their big power sluggers.

Rangers are actually not a crazy strong offensive team when you take away the Arlington effects; they’re good because they’ve got all 3 (pitching/defense/offense), to an extent. They’re not elite in any one of the three.

Yes there is. The Angels are always solid at offense every year. They may not be as good as the used to but they will still contend. Also, this year the Mariners and Rangers are beginning to stack up. Their offenses should be better than last year, and last year they weren’t too shabby.

Mikey6rocker - December 27, 2009 reply

Just don't give Prince Albert his 'in.'

LoneStranger - December 27, 2009 reply

that's Hall we want

bobnothing - December 27, 2009 reply

Just gave my thoughts on Beltre in the A's infield thread before I saw Nico's post so i'll post it here as well.

I understand the concern people have with giving Beltre a big contract. Thing is, I don’t think thats whats going to happen. Beltre may be asking for $10-15mm per season, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. It’s obvious that in this down market, teams aren’t willing to fork over the cash for these types of players that they did 2-3 years ago.

Personally, I am for signing Beltre. Signing him would give this team a ridiculously good defense all over the diamond and although his offensive numbers were down last season (the first season in which he missed substantial time due to injury since 2001), he put up OPS+’s of 105, 112, and 108 with HR totals of 25, 26 and 25 respectively the 3 seasons prior to 09’. People easily write guys off who have a big season entering free agency, and say they will more then likely return to their previous performance the following season. Well, i’m willing to go with the same line of thinking when it comes to Beltre, only I think there is a solid chance that at his age he returns to being the type of hitter he was in the years prior to 2009. From 2002-2008 he failed to hit 20 HR just once, when he hit 19 in 2005. He’s not 36 and in decline, he just had an "off" year in 2009. Shit, if I took a devastating shot to the goods I would probably be a little "off" for awhile too. I just think its unfair to write this guys offensive potential off because of one wierd season. Aside from his random 48 HR explosion in 2004 entering free agency, he’s been a whatcha see is whatcha get type of player. Consistently putting up solid, but unspectacular offensive seasons while being one of the best 3B in baseball year in and year out.

JPShark - December 26, 2009 reply

What I'd be interested to know is whether there's a specific reason

Beltre’s power took such a dive last season. Post presumedroids, Beltre fell from a 48 HR hitter to a mid 20s one, but only in 2009 did he plummet from mid 20s to 8. Now if he had a wrist injury he was playing through, or his balance was severely impacted by having one, but not two, swollen testicles, that’s one thing. If he was 100% healthy and couldn’t get on base more than .304 times out of 1000, and his power dropped to 1/3 of what it has been for years, then I’m more than a bit concerned.

I’d still grab him on a one-year deal and I’d still grab him for $5M/year, but I’m assuming he’ll command more like 4/32 even in a meh market and I think the A’s should save that kind of commitment for a younger and “more in his prime” player.

It MIGHT be because he injured his ballsack.

I dunno, that’s just a hunch.

thats exactly why!

he hurt his scrotum after failing to wear a cup, missed a lot of games. No Joke.

I think Beltre would do better in the NL west because historically he hits better in those parks, however in the three years prior to bruising his sack, he averaged:

25HR and 85 RBI and .270BA, and GG 3B skills. Jack Hannahan would be lucky to do half that.

He’ll be 31 all of next season, not exactly old. neither is 32 or 33, heck even 34.

Brandon Inge is going to make 6.5 million next season, I’d rather have Beltre.

Jessse - December 26, 2009 reply

Compared to the AL, NL hitters have a far lower sac tap percentage.

danmerqury - December 26, 2009 reply

If he got on base .304 times out of 1000,

that would be a .000304 OBP. Which is even worse than Crosby.

Sorry. 304 out of 1000 or .304 out of 1.000

Maths are harrrrrrd.

I was gonna make a comment about this...

but I couldn’t quite figure out how to do it without coming off like a jerk.

Nico, you have mostly succeeded where I feared to tread.

I thought it was a joke and had a slight laugh

Claim it as such next time and no one will ever suspect that you think that.

Oh..ahem..

IT WAS!!!!!!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ooh, that was rich. To everyone but the amazingly astute vignette17: “Gotcha.”

Maybe he had a bulging dick in his neck?

Cheezombie - December 27, 2009 reply

I pretty much agree with all of this

Considering how bare the cupboard is at 3B in this system, even if we have to overpay for a regressed version of 06-08 Beltre, it’s probably worth it. Forget even 2010, if we want to compete in 2011 or 2012 we’re going to have to have somebody capable at third. Beltre would only be 33 at the end of a 3-year deal. Just eyeballing things, I’d probably have no problem giving him 3 years and 30-35 mil.

I’m sure someone smarter than me can come up with a better figure than that, but the point is he’s as good a fit as there is out there it seems, so as long as we’re not vastly overpaying, it seems like a pretty good idea to me.

walk off bunt - December 26, 2009 reply

Thing is, Cardenas is pretty likely to be a solid solution at 3B by 2011,

and if the A’s allocate 3/30-3/35 kind of money to Beltre they are unlikely to be able to put that kind of money into a Chapman, extensions for Suzuki/Sweeney/Anderson et al, and so on.

The A’s can only do those level deals once in a while. Look at how Chavez hamstrung them, even if it was a good risk at the time. I’d be fine with making a substantial commitment to a player who was 27, or a player whose performance level was more certain going forward.

Don’t get me wrong — I’d love to add Beltre. In a vacuum. But given the amount of years and money, and his wildly fluctuating offensive performance, I’m not sure it’s the best risk for a team that can’t take many.

The problem with the Chavez albatross

is that we also had one for Kotsay, Kendall, and a couple of others all at the same time, none of which were really producing anything of value for the team. You can afford one at a time, multiples at the same time will cripple. Avoiding them altogether is priceless.

Yeah, I mean it's also possible the A's have 8M/year, or 32M over 4 years,

more to spend than I think or know, and if they can make that kind of investment in a 31 year old who’s good, instead of a younger and more certain player, that’s terrific. I’m not against Beltre by any means — he’d be far better than anything the A’s currently have to offer at 3B.

But I think Cardenas is a very solid prospect and I always assume that the A’s financial resources are limited enough that they need to try to avoid “likely albatrosses” at all times, in favor of guys with more like Chavez/Dye ability and/or mid-20s age.

For the most part I agree

The few potential albatrosses you have, the more financial flexibility you have. I’m not really a big fan of a 4 year deal unless the numbers are a real steal. A 3 year deal, I’m cool with. Definitely wouldn’t touch the 4/40 with him at all. I think there’s definitely a price where the risk with that sort of player is worth the gamble and a price where it’s not.

As I just mentioned on PL78's post,

maybe Boras is getting a really luke-warm response to his multi-year demands, realizes Beltre picked a terrible year to have such a bad offensive season, and now is open to a solid one-year contract — and Beane is jumping at the opportunity to bring Beltre in on a one-year deal. I’m all for that. It’s the idea of 4/32-ish that I’m not so excited about.

Hell, for a one year deal

I wouldn’t mind overpaying a little. I wouldn’t want them to, but if they did, I’d still be cool with it.

I agree. That's where an overpay makes some sense to me.

The thing about that is

It hinges on Cardenas actually being able to play third. And so far, I haven’t seen anything that suggests that’s a slam dunk.

Also, possibly foolishly, I’m kind of operating under the assumption that if they have enough to pay an Adrian Beltre, Beane isn’t doing so instead of paying for a Chapman, or a Sweeney/Suzuki/Anderson extension.

If Beltre comes at the expense of the latter group, then no, I’m with you, no dice. But I’m not exactly sure that’s the case.

walk off bunt - December 27, 2009 reply

Sorry Nico

but i think you need a lesson on both blackjack rules and strategy. I don’t know of any table that will pay you for a blackjack after splitting unless they are seriously (and i mean seriously) screwing you on some other strange rules variation. Splitting face cards is wrong no matter what has happened previously. The cards have no memory, consider every hand a regression to the mean.

cvdoug - December 26, 2009 reply

You may be right on the splitting. I know only that one table at the whole casino

didn’t pay 1.5 on the spot for a split blackjack, though, because they told me that.

And I know splitting face cards was a bad move strategically, but it was my “roll the dice” moment following tons of bad luck, and had the dealer busted I would have come out nicely. I’m not suggesting it was good strategy, just that it had a decent chance of working out well.

rollierollieOxenfree - December 26, 2009 reply

try counting cards

there’s a book written by some math-types who went thru the stats on counting cards according to the hi-low method, and came up interesting scenarios on when to pull a split vs dbl down. Basically, it’s a measure of the relative likelihood of pulling an ace vs. a face card. I don’t want to steal too much of the thunder, but it’s google-able.

Counting cards is good, but when

the casino shuffles with half the deck still unused, it really makes counting cards less useful. The casinos pretty much never allow anything that actually harms their odds in any meaningful way. So when they play “single deck!!!111” they don’t let the deck get down far enough for the changed percentages to be significant.

I disagree a little.

In single deck, the changed percentages can be significant if the first hand has a lot of faces and aces, or if the first hand has a lot of baby cards.

Depends on how many

If after 1/4 a deck, there have been 3-5 “face cards” (10, J, Q, K) it’s really not significant. If there’s been 1 or 7, yes. But that’s rarely going to happen.

3-5 face cards rolling off

with no babies would put you at a significant disadvantage even one quarter of the way through the deck, and you should find an excuse to sit out. remember, blackjack is about pushing small edges.

picture this:

1st hand of a single deck. you are playing two spots, and have been dealt 3,5 and 5,8. The dealer is showing an ace. Do you take insurance?

The answer is yes— and just a few cards off of a full deck was enough to change the insurance bet into an advantageous proposition

mrrickyg - December 27, 2009 reply

The cards may not have a memory...

…but the shoe certain has a specific compostion.

“Splitting face cards is wrong no matter what has happened previously. The cards have no memory, consider every hand a regression to the mean.”

If the count is positive enough, it is definitely correct to split face cards.

Absolutely. If the dealer shows a 6,

and you have a pair of aces, you’re foolish not to split. Same with a pair of 8s.

In the cases of Aces and Eights

You are foolish not to split, period. Doesn’t matter if the dealer has a 6 or a T up :-)

Not sure about with 8s and the dealer showing a 10

Are your odds of winning each single hand with an 8 good enough? Playing one hand, with a 16, you’re pretty likely to lose. But how likely are you to win, lose, split when you play two hands with an 8?

You're f**ked with two eights,

and you’re slightly less f**ked splitting two eights.

what he said

it gets more complex than just individual shots, but basically starting with 2 8’s for a single bet loses less combined than starting with a 16 for a single bet.

good things can happen to the 8— They can catch a 3 and all of a sudden you have gone from really bad shape to doubling down territory. or they can even make 2 18’s which are in bad shape against a T, but not nearly as bad shape as the 16s.

thanks, doctor.

Although I am ahead in my blackjack career, that’s only because I don’t play anymore!

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=639&position=3B#advanced

I'd like to point out that

Last year Beltre’s dollar value based on WAR was $10.7mil. That was with a weak bat. Bill James projects him to be a league average batter this year, coupled with his awesome defense makes him a projected 4.2 WAR player ($18.7). If you believe in this kind of stuff, as I’ve heard BB does, 32 million sounds like a pretty good deal, seeing as we need a 3rd baseman and all.

5Tool - December 26, 2009 reply

Seconded, Seriously!

How can people not want to give Beltre 8mil a year for 4 years? That would be a KILLER deal and definitely put us into the “competitive” category.

Forget Chavez people.

ChadGod - December 26, 2009 reply

This!!!!!

Especially since I can’t see him commanding that much to begin with.

Either:

1. The Red Sox get in and outbid everyone.

2. Beltre signs for a relatively discounted price in relation to ability.

You are wrong about Beltre Nico. Long post to follow tomorrow or monday to explain why. Yay vacation!

Is it because Josh Donaldson is better than I think he is?

It’s great that you can show he’s worth more than $8M based on his defense. That’s super fantastic bubble plastic. But I still wouldn’t want the A’s to make a 4 year, and $32M commitment, to someone entering their 30s on two strangely sudden declines. If I’m the Red Sox, sure, but if I’m a team that can offer that kind of contract once every few years, no.

Now a good counter-argument is to say that once Carter and Taylor burst onto the scene, the A’s will have enough power and thump elsewhere and that Cardenas is actually the A’s 2Bman of the future. (And that the A’s can replace the ones who don’t make it with comparable prospects behind them.) But I’d rather wait to see what Cardenas can do before investing long term on such an uncertain FA.

By the way, I want to point out that you had two choices in how you started your comment:

“I disagree,” which suggests the matter is one of opinion and conjecture, and is respectful, and “You are wrong,” which suggests the matter is one of fact and truth, and is off-putting. Just saying.

Should we go back to your comment to PT

about you basically having “proof” that he was dead wrong about something based on your inside information that you can’t share? He made a statement of fact. He’s planning on backing it up shortly. If you determine he failed in that, you can point out his errors once he’s actually made an argument. I certainly didn’t read his comment in the “off-putting” fashion you seemed to, but quite frankly, I suspect you were looking for something that just isn’t there. Could he have said “I disagree”, sure, but really don’t blow this thing into something it’s not and need not be.

It's a statement of fact on an issue that doesn't involve fact, is my point

If the point is simply, “WAR says Beltre is a good risk at $Xmillion,” then sure, that may be fact. If it’s that signing Beltre to that amount would be a good move for the A’s at this time, that’s not a question in which either of us is going to be right or wrong. To many variables, too many uncertainties.

And I’m not trying to blow it into something big; I’m just pointing out that when one turns debates of opinion, conjecture, and analysis, into “one group being right and one group being wrong,” it is not helpful when done once and really unhelpful when done constantly. Why not just disagree, and acknowledge that there isn’t “an answer” in much of baseball analysis and conjecture?

Without all the information, you're also jumping to a conclusion on DFA's statement

You’ve made a number of statements above. Someone are fact based. Some are opinion based. You don’t know which he finds to be “wrong” yet.

Beltre is a superior defensive player and a meh hitter, and while he’d be way better than any of the current 3B contenders, I wouldn’t pay Jack Hannahan $4million/year for 4 years and I’m sure not in favor of paying Beltre twice that to be a glorified version — which is all he’s really assured of being in the years he turns 31-34.

It’s pretty bold to call Beltre a glorified version of Hannahan. You’ve offered no facts to back this up. So I’m assuming it’s mainly bold opinions. For all you know, DFA’s post could be alluding to a fact base argument showing how Beltre is most definitely NOT Hannahan (something I completely disagree with you on many levels), and that over the course of a given contract, he’s the best option out there for us (even potentially over the next 4 years even with expected decline).

Some of that may be opinion, but it’s also, knowing DFA, to be constructed based on factual information that you simply don’t offer in your post. You’re stating an opinion above, but you don’t offer any real reason for it. So yeah, he could have said “I disagree”, but I’m not so sure that really makes the point that you’re not really giving any foundation for your argument.

And, for someone trying to encourage conversation, there’s still a better way to respond on your part even if the initial reaction wasn’t the one you wanted (and I’m not talking about DFA disagreeing).

In your effort to hate Nico, you fail.

Nico was responding, if I recall correctly, to PT’s assertion that the A’s would have no interest in Izturis, because though he presented an upgrade, he was not worth the cost of acquisition. If you believe Nico has a source, and why not, he simply told PT he was wrong in that the A’s have no interest. It was exactly in line with out PT treats posters.

Anyways, Beltre was simply abysmal at the plate last season. Even factoring in Safeway Select field, he still sucked, badly. Simply put, the dude was horrible at creating runs. Now the previous three seasons he was average in that category, but to dismiss last season completely is foolish.

Granted Beltre is quite the hot-hand with the glove, but given his potentially abysmal offensive contributions, one can clearly, debate whether or not it is worth signing him, which is what DFA’s comment is attempting to quash.

Disagree

For all the sanctimony certain people put on people like DFA & PT about taking the “higher” stance, they fail utterly miserably in following their own advice when dealing with them. To say he just did what they did, I call bull shit. If you’re going to condemn them for it, DON’T DO IT YOURSELF IN RESPONSE. Prove you can be the better person. This isn’t the way. And no, that’s not how Nico’s earlier conversation went. He didn’t even bother making a point in that statement. Just that PT was extremely wrong without offering any foundation.

Nico said, to paraphrase,

That Macier Izturis and Chase Headley should be valued nearly equally.

That's actually exactly what I didn't say

Hopefully, you’re being facetiously funny in a humorous way. Kind of like my .304 out of 1,000… :-)

I did say that Maicer Izturis was a decent player whom a team like the A’s might want. And in fact at one time, I know lhe was very much on the A’s radar — perhaps more so than Furcal, about whom you heard a lot while hearing nothing about Maicer Izturis. The A’s think very highly of Maicer Izturis.

Now that he has only 1 year left on his contract, I doubt he’s on the A’s radar anymore. But he’s a better player than PT gave him credit for in that discussion, and I happen to know that the A’s agree.

Based on the conversation

and the way you said it, I misinterpreted it the way vignette17 did. Easy to misinterpret others intentions though ;)

I think vignette17 is kidding.

It would be difficult to glean that I thought those two players were of about equal value from the statement, “if you think I believe Headley and Izturis to be of equal or comparable value, you are mistaken,” which were my exact words.

I am jesting to an extent

When I read your first post, that’s exactly what I thought. You seemed to back down from the position in later posts. That’s how I read it at least.

No, I was just initially throwing out names

of players who would be natural A’s targets at positions of need.

I thought of Headley because he’s a young 3Bman who would fit the A’s strategy of adding “building blocks” for the future. I probably thought of M. Izturis because I knew the A’s actually wanted him (not too long ago).

I had to spend an entire off-season pretending I didn’t know that, because I only knew it off the record, but it probably kind of slipped out in that recent comment because I had “Maicer on the brain” for so long.

I think the fact that he’s been stuck behind Aybar and Cabrera his whole career has caused Izturis to be mistaken for being no more than a backup — similar to Scutaro’s problem pre-Toronto — and I tihnk the A’s felt that as with Scutaro, Izturis might be “better than you think” if given every day chances.

It’s amazing what playing every day can do for a Scutaro, or Rajai Davis — or possibly Maicer Izturis, whose career batting line, incidentally, is about the average of Scutaro’s career numbers and his last 2 season numbers.

I agree that he's better than one might think

The problem is not his playing ability but his contractual situation, which should always always always be the first thing anyone consults before making any kind of trade suggestion. Contract situation is much more important than play skill when assessing what a player’s trade value should be.

In Izturis’s case he’s a free agent after 2010, which means that acquiring him now is a bad idea, though holding one’s horses and signing him next offseason (if the need is still there) may not be.

PaulThomas - December 27, 2009 reply

No argument there at all

His contract situation is why I imagine the A’s are no longer keen on getting him.

Im going to argue that Beltre is a non entity in the 4th year and still show its worthwhile to sign him.

I would jump jump jump at 4/32.

If you think that it would make my statement more palatable, please include “I think” at the beginning of my statement. Im saying the exact same thing that you are proposing. I think you are wrong. I will in due time compile and present what I consider to be overwhelming evidence that backs up my assertion on Monday.

I am excited to see what you have to say,

especially about the possibilities of trading Beltre sometime within the duration of the contract.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk

The phrase “I think” makes a big difference — in fact if “I think” is at the beginning, I would had no problem with the comment in any way, shape, or form.

Maybe that’s overly semantic of me, but to me it changes the entire premise of the comment: That there isn’t a clear answer, just good reasons to hold contrasting opinions.

And I think it’s fine if you’d jump at 4/32 and I wouldn’t, and maybe Beane will and maybe he won’t. I know this: If the A’s sign Beltre for 4/32, I’ll be more excited about 2010 and glad the A’s finally have a good player at 3B, and for multiple years to boot. So it’s not like I’ll be mad or even indifferent — just unsure as to whether it was the wisest use of that many resources.

Now I need to take my own advice but

while I don’t necessarily think you fall under semantics, if you’re looking for a “personal” attack (which I don’t think you actually are), you’re going to find it if it doesn’t necessarily come out as it’s intended. If you’re not looking for one, when a comment unintentionally looks like a personal attack, you’re more likely to ignore it since you’d assume otherwise.

Since I don’t really see DFA being the type to intentionally start anything, I interpreted his original comment as you actually wanted it to have been (i.e. simply an opinion), vs. how it could have been misinterpreted (in the literal sense that you saw).

Maybe so. I'm not itching for a fight.

It was just “all too familiar” to me and I think how you choose to say something can be as important as what you say — especially since how you say it will often determine how well the listener is able to hear it.

If you feel that “You’re wrong” and “I disagree” aren’t going to be received fundamentally differently by many, many people, that’s cool. ~~You’re just wrong~~ I just disagree.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from

I just think DFA has been around long enough to know that he really isn’t one to intentionally start a fight (but more than willing to defend himself if one happens inadvertently). And simply letting it go and walking away wouldn’t haven’t have started a fight and would have likely just ended with the original comment. Some times just quietly sighing and letting it go without a response can be the better part of valor. But then that’s all been hashed/rehashed in the past often enough to know where everyone stands. I do agree with the overall context of what you’re saying is fair. And had it been a new user, I wouldn’t have said anything (or back you up), I just think long time members of the community should be a cut a certain amount of slack and given a little rope to work.

Man, I'm going through this right now.

Friend A f**ked over Friend B and Friend C and Friend D.

I could have been quiet and said nothing, but I spoke up, and now she hates me just as much as the others, and I’m at war with her, along with the others.

She will lose this battle, likely along with her job and apartment, but it will be painful for both sides.

When it comes to close friends

Some times it can be difficult to say something, some times it can be difficult not to say something. If you’re really friends, you find a way to weather the storm. If you’re not, well, the storm doesn’t really matter in the end anyway.

I am learning through this episode

that this particular person is psychologically incapable of being friends with anyone, so any overtones or currents of friendship over the years have been merely a facade, meant to lure me in to use to fill her needs and facilitate her addictions.

A sad life that.

In my meager defense,

I think in general I now “sigh and let that kind of stuff go” about 19 times out of 20, maybe speak up every 20 times or so. But more to the point, I really don’t think my comment was all that confrontational. If you re-read it, it basically says, “Dude, y’know…” about a way of framing debates that makes me feel less like participating.

I try especially hard not to speak up much these days, given my blogfather status, and I think in the past year I’ve rarely commented in discussions where spats are involved (even when I may have been a target and even when I may have had a strong opinion).

At the same time, I feel I have the right, like anyone else in the community, to say things like, “Dude, can’t you just say ‘I disagree’ instead of framing things in terms of ’you’re wrong / he’s right / I’m right / they’re wrong’…?” That’s not such a “ZOMG” thing to say to a fellow blogger. I guess I just don’t think it was that big a deal of a comment one way or the other.

I was just taught that writing I think is a waste of time because everybody knows its what you are thinking

since you are the one writing it and it puts it in second person which is less formal.

Everything I write that isn’t verifiable to a certainty is my opinion. I definitely think that my opinion is always right, or otherwise I would think something else. In this case we differ. Im on a greyhound tonight for 9 hours where I will write about why.

In future, I'll just try to imagine the "I think"

so that it doesn’t come across as off-puttingly to me. I’ll also imagine that “offputtingly” is a word, because I like the way it sounds.

Enjoy the greyhound — they’re really sweet dogs.

Sweet dogs

but really, really hard to write while riding.

not on a laptop

I once had a dream that I was riding a greyhound

When I woke up, Calista Flockhard was next to me.

When you woke up from that did you find yourself spooning a rake?

Wait, Calista Flockhart can flat out rake?

Why are you people discussing Beltre and Izturis then: Flockhart @ 3B!

LowcountryJoe - December 27, 2009 reply

No one was next to you, Nico

You were flocking it hard while dreaming about greyhounds. Just don’t make the mistake of letting the sheep and goats that you have other ‘interests’.

That’s just some advice from me to you as I certainly do not condone your perverted love of animals; in fact, you’re flat out wrong for your proclivities…there may or may not be a future fan post about this.

LowcountryJoe - December 27, 2009 reply

Hmmm. I think I remember

a poster leading off, saying something along the lines of “you’re just wrong.” But that was days ago.

BoyHowdee - December 28, 2009 reply

In regards to what?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. (But rarely do!)

Nico - December 28, 2009 reply

Oh, just a conversation

regarding Jack Cust and other exciting trivia questions…I was hurt, hurt I tell you, by the inferrence (inferrence hell) that my opinion regarding the very slow Mr. Cust was wrong … or something. Busy day. I’m very forgiving. But I do remember the remark’s lead-in (damn I wish I was anal enough to have even remembered where it was) stating I was wrong…..Memory jogger…I replied almost immediately by c&p’ing the headline.

Not a biggie…move along folks, there’s nothing to see here. Just a smartass passing by.

BoyHowdee - December 28, 2009 reply

vacation? sweet! say hi to mom!!!!

Please include...

How many runs per game our offense will score with the following lineup:

1. Rajai
2. Crisp
3. Cust
4. Beltre
5. Suzuki
6. Sweeney
7. Ellis
8. Barton
9. Pennington

I’m sure the “WAR” looks great, though.

Colorado Fan - December 26, 2009 reply

Worry more about run differential than runs scored

Runs scored is like looking at RBIs in reference to how good a hitter someone is.

Just curious to see how many wins that this team would get...

when looking at WAR. The above team probably looks great to the person who puts together a team based solely on Statistics… I think this team wins 72 games, tops.

Colorado Fan - December 26, 2009 reply

I think this team wins 92 games, tops.

But realistically, put me down for 83-79.

What the hell?

The best to evaluate a batter is how many runs he creates, whether it be through advancing runners or simply reaching base. We may be playing with semantics here, but if not, I’m very lost to say the least.

*best way

Yes, but

The best way to evaluate a player, not just his bat, is to see how many runs he gives up subtracted from the runs he creates.

danmerqury - December 26, 2009 reply

Agreed, but the author's statement wreaks of hyperbole

That's a pretty bad lineup

rec'd

According to the Baseball Musings lineup analyis tool

4.78 runs per game

And one goddamned good defensive team, too.

NateHST - December 26, 2009 reply

And the A's come out with positive run differential

A’s allowed 4.76 runs per game last year total, which is a measure of both pitching and defense.

That number should go down quite a bit with Giambi’s, OCab’s, and Kennedy’s removal from the field (yes, two were removed midseason, but still), Cust never sniffing the OF, full seasons (hopefully) from Ellis and Barton, and Beltre at 3B.

Unless you think the pitching will be worse than last year’s, that team already looks good on paper.

It's possible that the pitching could be worse.

But with a year more experience under their belts and with an incentivized Duke at or toward the top of the rotation, it’s likely to be better.

LowcountryJoe - December 26, 2009 reply

1. All nine of those projections are too high. Using CHONE, I get 4.490
2. The runs/game you get from that tool would be if those guys played every inning of every game, so the actual expected runs/game will be lower for every team. It is a terrible offensive lineup, but probably an okayish team with very low RS and RA with that group….

mikeA - December 26, 2009 reply

Oh hai thar DFA.

Hi Blicks... see you on Monday!

You are wrong about Beltre, dfa. I will explain why in a shortish comment on your post tomorrow or Monday.

mikeA - December 26, 2009 reply

thats fine. im pretty confident in my position.

You have an opinion about Beltre.

and unless you come off neutral like Switzerland, I will make a goofy comment or three, but probably not at your expense.

I may only browse the post,

but I will be sure to give full and repeated attention to your 1-3 goofy comments.

pencil me in for a crappy joke when I get back into town

Possibly involving the phrase ‘sack fly’

You'll work on it on the plane?

That’s kind of the closest you’ll ever come to joining the “mile high club,” I suppose: Constructing a joke about Adrian Beltre’s testicles while at an altitude of 30,000 feet.

nah, I'm getting a lift back up

apparently we’re taking the 101. Which is a nicer route than the 5, but I’m not sure how much I’m looking forward to being in the car for eight hours, or whatever.

Blackjack strategy 101

First and foremost never expect to win…
Second, your strategy is right. Playing by the book does yield winnings over the LONG haul…that’s only if you want to keep playing and risk losing big while playing!
Third, leave the table. Cards are cards! It’s not a matter of luck. There is NO such thing as luck. That’s the gravest mistake one can make while playing cards!

Your "third" is not true

Luck is a HUGE factor in a small sample, and when one spends 30 minutes at a blackjack table luck is probably the main factor. Heck, I always play “by the book” 98% of the time (allowing for one “gut moment” along the way), and either win some or lose some based on luck.

Also, IIRC playing by the book doesn’t yield winnings over the long haul. I think you can win something like 98 cents to the dollar by playing well. But you can win a blackjack — you just need some luck.

Philosophically luck doesn't exist

I guess you can look at the universe any way you want?

I find that playing out of a multi-deck shoe has yielded me the best results over the years….

Magically, you make your own luck.

Do you want luck? Then, believe you’re lucky. Believe that you suck the luck out of the air like a plant sucks out carbon dioxide, and breathe out victory like a plant breathes out oxygen.

Wax on. Wax off.

that's how I won at dominos tonight

That is one strange pizza parlor.

Better than 98...

It’s more like 99.5% depending on the rules (some games in Vegas approach 99.9%). Playing a 6/5 single deck game is death tho, then you really do drop down to like 98% territory.

What does the 6/5 refer to?

I probably should have picked the other $10.00 table, which was multiple decks. I didn’t think to ask about all the specific rules for each given table; probably should have.

Blackjack pays 6 to 5

rather than 1.5 to 1, which is 7.5 to 5.

Yes, they got you like they got lots of other people

People who don’t know blackjack have vague understandings that the fewer the decks the better— Which is true all other things being equal. But it’s not true if they lower BJ to 6/5 instead of 3/2 :-)

To be honest, I thought 3/2 was just standard fare

I didn’t realize that they don’t all pay “time and a half” for a blackjack. I’ve only played at Nevada casinos before and I think they all had the same rules and regs.

Also, fewer decks is only even marginally an advantage if you take the trouble to count cards carefully. And given that they reshuffle after half a deck, it’s not really worth it.

I chose the table mostly based on it having the lowest minimum bet. I wanted a $5.00 table (so I could play longer to win $50 or lose $100) but could only choose between two $10 tables. Should have chosen the other one!

You'll find 6/5 single deck here too (Nevada)

They can’t call it “Blackjack” legally here with 6/5, so they just call it Single Deck 21

true true...

6/5 negates the count advantage. I forgot about that, ‘cause it’s been a long time since I played.

oh and hehe

fewer decks is an advantage because you are more likely to be dealt a blackjack the fewer the decks…counting cards is exactly as easy whether you are playing 1 deck or 6 decks— though most people think you are tracking each specific card, you are really only maintaining a running ratio in your head.

The issue is true count as opposed to straight count

Divide your count by the number of decks left. By definition, if you’re playing single deck, and a hand comes up with a lot of faces or a lot of babies, you multiply that hand’s count by the amount of the shoe left, which would be less than one deck, therefore giving you a higher (or lower) true count.

However, as you stated earlier, paying 6-5 on Blackjack instead of 7.5 to 5 negates count advantage in the long run.

Yeah, but with 6 decks,

it’s less relevant to count cards — until you’ve gone through enough decks to make the sample big enough and the percentages titled enough, by which time the casino has long reshuffled.

The problem is that casinos just don’t let you get far enough through the deck or decks for card counting to become significantly advantageous.

FreeSeatUpgrade - December 26, 2009 reply

no it just means you have to spread more to win...

…because +EV opportunities are fewer and more far between.

mrrickyg - December 27, 2009 reply

Yes, penetration is key

and you need to be on the happy side of your standard deviation. Right up your alley, really.

But it’s not true that counting’s not worth it if you’re only getting 50% penetration. Single deck, with you, the dealer, and two other players, you’re usually going to get a third hand before each shuffle. The count can be a particularly significant factor when you place your bet on that third hand.

TWSS

Yes, penetration is key

Beltre

Beltre doesn’t need to be an offensive force if the A’s sign him. I think Beane is counting on Taylor and Carter in the 3rd and 4th spots so even if the A’s sign Beltre to a multi-year deal, he’ll be nothing more than a complementary piece to the offensive after 2010.

Then the next question is;

How much and how many years are the A’s looking at signing him for?

My guess is

2/20

I'd be more in favor of that than I would be of 4/32

4/32

is wayyy too long

If the A's signed Beltre

Would they still go after Cust?

3/27 kthxbye

Good point -- it was my main thought in support of the signing

I must also compliment you for your rarely correctly spelled use of “complementary.”

Gold star for me!

2010 Opening Day Lineup

My guess is as good as yours, but here it goes!

CF Coco
RF Sweeney
C Suzuki
3B Fox
DH Chavy
LF Hairston
1b Barton
2B Ellis
SS Pennington

I think signing Beltre would be counterintuitive to what the A’s are trying to do…

No Rajai?

please explain

how it would be counterintuitive?

I'm guessing he means "counterproductive"

although "counterrevolutionary" looks good there too.

I think that's how I read it to

And I still would like to know how DoomandGloom sees it as being counterproductive…

Well I'm not DoomandGloom,

but guessing I’d say maybe that it goes against the youth movement to commit several years to a veteran, instead of maybe using that money to lock up your good young players, or to sign good young international talent, or to let Cardenas play 3B for Oakland by the end of 2010 / start of 2011.

Raj is going to get traded??

Sell high right? I think Billy has that option if he wants!

I'd much rather see

Hairston get traded

I'd rather trade Davis, since he has the higher trade value at the moment

and could net us another IF prospect.

MMunoz33 - December 27, 2009 reply

At least

Rajai can be a good 4th OF if all else fails

Agreed

Maybe we can trade both to Kansas City for Alex Gordon???

Yes

if the A’s don’t sign Beltre. If not, they need a SS.

I'd rather the A's target Kevin Kouzmanoff in trade than sign Beltre past two years.

Kouz and Beltre seem like fairly similar players, although Beltre is decidedly the better player in every facet, but they offer similar total packages. Kouz seems like a slightly above-average defender, is a righty with some power and is not fond of getting in base. Beltre offers better defense, a little more power and contact ability and with a bit better overal skills at getting on base but is certainly not a big walk guy.

I think that if the A’s are looking for a defensively-solid 3rd baseman as insurance for Chavez and also as a stopgap for Cardenas, then Kouz is the way to go. As far as salary, he’ll be many millions cheaper than Beltre in the coming years, is younger and while he would likely cost something decent in trade, I would think the A’s could piece together an interesting package of spare parts (Buck, H-Rod, Eveland, Patterson, Mortensen) to get the trade winds swirling in a positive direction.

Taj Adib - December 26, 2009 reply

I like Kouz too

but I don’t think the Padres want to trade him unless the A’s give up someone like Mazzaro which I’m fully against

He's also not as good defensively as Beltre

and doesn’t hit RHP very well. He’s kind of like Jack Hannahan (with more power to compensate for fewer walks), so I’d gladly trade Souza for him.

The A's should

refund Hairston for Kouz

If they still have the receipt, that'd be awesome.

I'm already printing a believable facsimile.

make sure you date it within 30 days

TWSS!

what, the lady working in the store that you brought your christmas sweater back to?

Otherwise, I can’t imagine the circumstances under which that would be said

It's actually what she said to her friend.

Good advice.

It is, indeed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention

truely, you are a munificent leader

Kouz likely will be more expensive

Particularly in terms of prospects.

He'll cost too much in prospects

Hoyer has made it clear he will not get rid of Kouz unless it is for a substansial package.
He views Kouzmanoff as the man to build his offense around once Adrian is gone (even though I’m building around Blanks if I’m the SD GM) so I wouldn’t overpay for him…

He views Kouzmanoff as the man to build his offense around once Adrian is gone

such a person probably can’t be reasoned with

xbhaskarx - December 26, 2009 reply

Fine, if he wants to be that way

we’ll build our offense around Scott Hairston.

Burn!

Nico

Cache Creek or Thunder Valley

My best gambling experiences lately have been at these Casinos. Thunder Valley has Texas Hold’em on tables not tourneys. The last time I went, I came back with $1500 and only started with $300!
I might go tonight??? Christmas Money!!! LOL! Only if my family new what I was spending my Christmas money on!!!

I should add that after my blackjackdebacle,

on the way out my mom stopped at one of the “quarter slot machines,” pulled the lever and watched, “plum…plum…plum…plum…plum!” She won $50.00 for her most excellent strategy of pulling the lever.

LOL!!!

Ya my ex use to always win on slots.

I would sit down next to her and start playing and the next thing I knew my eyes were glossed over, my wallet was empty and I was seeing visions of dancing dolophins and singing starfish!!! And that was before I dropped the acid!!! LOL

Really slot machines bore me to death!

"Ya my ex use to always win on slots"

I can’t be the only one who snickered at that can I?

No, sir, you are not

And if you happen to wander down to Southern Cal

Morongo is the way to go. Love that place, best craps table I’ve ever been to, Vegas included…

Southern Cal

is all about the Bicycle in Gardena.

for poker at least.

Never been

I’m close to there so I’ll have to check it out. You ever find yourself at Commerce?
I’ve never been but I heard they hold mini poker tournaments if you can get 15+ people…

You can set up your own sit & go's at many of the major poker rooms.

Kind of a fun idea for a bachelor/ette party weekend in Vegas or LA, if so inclined.

I’ve never been to Commerce, unfortunately.

I’ve played many of the major rooms in Vegas… not for huge money, but for enough to pay the rent. (Gambling with rent money and paying rent with poker money are both bad ideas.)

thank god for your public service announcement at the end, there.

I was just about to run outside and bet on…well, anything.

Leopold Bloom - December 29, 2009 reply

Why not Crede?

We could get him cheap like 2.5 million 1 year deal. His defense is almost as good as Beltre. The bad back means he will only play about 1/2 the games but could be a good stop over until the A’s get a young 3b.

For a stopgap, that would be smart

but do you trust the A’s medical staff.

I just don't trust his injury history

Plus his bat has only contributed positively in one year of his career.

Crede is injury prone and...

on the decline.

Kouz is still young and relatively healthy. And get him out of SD and who knows what will happen to his power numbers!

The reply button is your friend

It makes things way easier to follow.

Crede is FA

Kouz would cost the A’s and it will not be good since they would want pitching in return.

Oakland is not THAT much of a better place to hit than SD

The difference between parks is more than mitigated by the fact that the AL is the superior league. I’d say SD and Oakland are equally bad for hitters when you take league into account.

Although Kouzmanoff is an OK player, of course. And the Padres do have too many 3B.

both bad hitting parks

This is a reason why many free agent hitters with power will not sign here.

They are NOT equal parks for hitters

I don’t know where this meme about the AL being a bazillion times harder than the NL came from, but— particularly for hitters, who don’t randomly get to take batting practice every 9th at-bat— the difference is not that large.

PaulThomas - December 26, 2009 reply

Russel Branyan

Here is a guy that could be a good DH/1b and wouyld hurt the M’s if they lose him. Not sure what he would cost but if the M’s are offering him only a 1 year deal we could out bid them and have a power hitter in the middle of the lineup.

Back problems scare me

Kotsay 2

good player when healthy but thats a big if.

Brayan is the Anti-Christ in....

Beane’s eyes! LOL!!!

But he has power much like the devil….

Sounds like Vlad

He looks like a witch doctor. I can see him doing a voodoo curse.

LOL!!

ya he’s a really evil lookin dude with those dreds…

GoldenStateGuerrero - December 26, 2009 reply

If he came to the A's I would instantly buy his jersey

Just because we share a last name :\ Bad reason I suppose.

At least that way I won’t seem like a shameless ex-jock who never got his big break.

Actually, that's a great reason.

Unless you’re of the opinion that having one’s own name customized on the back of their jersey is a party foul.

I personally don’t feel that way, and I can proudly say that someday, if the A’s ever sign anyone with the last name of O’Mulligan-Grabarkowitz, I will proudly rock that jersey!

No on Beltre

and no on Kouz. Beltre is a product of steroids and Kouz is an NL hitter who will be even worse in the AL, surely BB has learned that lesson, or has he? He fell for Hairston last year, Holliday the year before. Just stay the course, go young and let the chips fall where they may.

Laoren - December 26, 2009 reply

Nico,

you talkin’ ’bout The Cheat?

cityplANner - December 26, 2009 reply

BUH-leted

A'shole - December 28, 2009 reply

I wouldn't mind Beltre at all

because I highly doubt anybody is going to pay him $10-15MM, and if somebody does, it won’t be Oakland. He’s fantastic defensively, he’ll probably be around average with the bat. I actually thought he was older than 31 (next season). The AL West certainly appears to be changing drastically.

NateHST - December 26, 2009 reply

Furcal turned down 4yr/350-40 million from A's

He came off an injured season then played well in the playoffs. Plays at a huge need position. Did most people here object to that offer or were willing to pay that much? I dont think there’s a big difference between thefurcal situation and beltre. Maybe A’s valued furcal’s top of the order bat and speed which they lacked at the time. Which maybe why they also signed crisp too

MagicMike23 - December 26, 2009 reply

He turned down 4 years for $350 million? Wow. Some people really don't like Oakland...

"It's the crime, stupid."

Well,

The odds were looking good for the A’s around ST last year and look what happened.
I’m hoping the Mariners trip up at the gate, the Rangers still cant pitch, and the Angels fall apart.
Dear lord pls not four crappy seasons in a row.

brian.only - December 26, 2009 reply

One thing.

The odds were looking good for the A’s around ST last year and look what happened.

Yeah, and a lot of the predictions were blatant helium from Opening Day. Although nobody expected the 2009 Mariners to do what they did.

They generally were resting on 4 premises.

-Giambi was his Yankees self. He was still a very very good player, if not a superstar.

-Matt Holliday would be really good. (Which he was, so they were actually right here).

-Two pitchers who had barely seen any action above A ball would immediately do well in the rotation. All the other top pitching prospects would also do really well, immediately.

-Dana Eveland wouldn’t regress from his fluke 2008. (Eveland is a replacement level pitcher, not the 2 WAR pitcher he was in ’08; that was a luck-induced fluke.)

3 of the 4 were misguided from the beginning.

You're right, doctor.

There was a lot of hope last spring training, and some of those hopes were longshots, that is true.

I think that a reasonable, multi-faceted examination of the club’s x-factors, and our hopes and expectations of how those factors will turn out, would be a great idea, once the dust settles right before pitchers and catchers report.

My gut feeling is that last year’s hopes were much more of a longshot than this year’s. I wonder if that will be the consensus in six weeks’ time.

I had mostly realistic expectations last year.

Not to say that anyone would have guessed the first half would have bombed so greatly.
I had hoped they would have ended w/in 5 games of .500.

It is encouraging that our team resembles the 2nd half team that played actually pretty decent ball.

Its also very satisfying to watch players drip from the Slegna sieve.

Here’s to hoping Gio can pull it together, when he’s on its pretty fun to watch- we’d also have a serious rotation barring injury.

brian.only - December 26, 2009 reply

I had expectations of .500

Which turned out to be unrealistic.

worldblee - December 26, 2009 reply

I put them for 80-90 wins, but not a playoff berth.

I also believed Giambi when he said that he was going to start concentrating on hitting to all fields, rather than trying to jack balls to right. I figured he’d hit .280 with 15 dingers and a lot of walks, or something equally as valuable.

Holliday played well towards the end of his stay in Oakland, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t expect more from him, too.

I thought they'd win 84 games and win the division only because every other team would be even worse.

PaulThomas - December 26, 2009 reply

Stupid Angels

{shakes fist at Chone Figgins even though he’s on Seattle}

Anybody who says Dana Eveland is a replacement level pitcher

is all right with me. Blicks for President!!!

I picked the Mariners to win the division in 2009. OK I was wrong, but I liked their defense

They have a pretty good chance this year-

WTHell-
2010
Mariners
Angels
Rangers
Athletics

brian.only - December 26, 2009 reply

way too early, but since I enjoy it so much:

1. MARINERS 95-67
2. ANGELS 88-74
3. ATHLETICS 83-79
4. RANGERS 74-88

way too early, and this is probably unbelievably wrong but:

1. ANGELS 89-73 (I’ll believe they’re not the cream of the West when it happens)
2. MARINERS 86-76
3. RANGERS 81-81
4. ATHLETICS 79-82 (there’s always a rainout)

A’s jump from worst to first in 2011 behind BEAST1 (Carter) and BEAST2 (Taylor).

Oh, and before folks cry "flip flop!!!1111" in March,

sometime during Spring Training I will undoubtedly pick the A’s to win the West. March is a month for optimism, just like December is a time to fret about all the things that are wrong with your favorite team.

sound more like

March is a month for ~~optimism~~ drinking

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

You misspelled “January through December.”

That bit was silent.

And invisible.

4. ATHLETICS 79-82 (there’s always a rainout)

Sometimes you win, Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains. Think about that for a while. ~ Ebby Calvin LaLoosh

LowcountryJoe - December 26, 2009 reply

Just because everyone else is doing it

Mariners 90-72
Angels 88-74
Rangers 80-82
Athletics 77-85

The way I see it,

We could have Chavez, McPherson, Crede, and Branyan, and would still need a complicated spine transplant involving multiple donors to have one workable third basemen. Or we could have Beltre for just one nut, which presumably could be harvested from an aging minor league non-prospect. I don’t know if any of this makes sense, but its definitely the way I see it.

Aufheben - December 26, 2009 reply

lol

(felix pie?)

xbhaskarx - December 26, 2009 reply

Let's face it -

Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don’t.

but if you don't for too long,

you might consider milking.

Okay, I sleep with guys!

WHAT’S YOUR POINT?!

Leopold Bloom - December 26, 2009 reply

I guess I just never found the Almond Joy appealing.

Mounds are my thing.

LowcountryJoe - December 27, 2009 reply

you like balls?

Perhaps someone on this blog will offer one of his balls for the sole use of Mr A Beltre?

Heck, if he's willing to play for a low enough salary,

I’ll throw in an autographed ball.

I lived very close to River Rock for a while there, and probably will again soon,

where I plan to make my living as either a slot jockey or a poker shark, especially since no one from AN can be bothered to secure me either housing or a vocation as of yet, even though I clearly made the request well over a day ago.

Both times I’ve been to River Rock, I walked out a winner. Must be you, Nico.

Leopold Bloom - December 26, 2009 reply

You're acting like "holding" on 11 is being too conservative.

I didn’t bust once the whole night and yet I still lost money.

Yes. Someone definitely said that.

Generally, they get angry if you take that long to bust and will eventually charge you more.

In a related story, I had a friend who used to frequent houses of ill-repute, and, after having quite the similar experience to you, the Asian courtesan chastised him, “Next time, you no drink so much!”

Leopold Bloom - December 26, 2009 reply

I once had a White Russian at the Mustang Ranch.

True story.

Was it Olga or Oksana?

Jessse - December 27, 2009 reply

Viktor

mikev - December 27, 2009 reply

Nøøt that there's

inything wrøng with dat.

Beltre

Beltre is 100% not worth what he is asking for. Yes, he is a good defender but he is an average hitter. We could probably pick up someone who hits just as good for 8 million less. Or if we are really looking to give away 10 mil, then there are plenty of other 8 mil+ players out there who can hit much better than Beltre.

Mikey6rocker - December 27, 2009 reply

I'm late to this thread. Last week I won a few hundred bucks at the Mirage in Vegas playing a single deck.

I like single deck because it gives me a chance to mentally rest more often, while the dealer reshuffles, and I’m less likely to make a mistake. This was the first time I played one. (Plus, the table with a four deck shoe was non-smoking!)

I’m all fired up from winning, and would be psyched to go to a local casino, if you’ve got a destination in mind. I’ll drive!

By the way, for anyone heading to Vegas: Cher rocks, Chriss Angel sucks.

paris7 - December 27, 2009 reply

Sweet -- are you in the Bay Area.

Maybe we can go gambling together sometime. You bring the good luck and I’ll bring the money. You might also want to bring money.

Coming to you live, from North Oakland!

paris7 - December 27, 2009 reply

I'm off all this coming week.

Where are we going, when are we going? Jack Cust, here we come!!!!! (Our winnings will pay for his contract.)

Cher rocks, Chriss Angel sucks

This was my opinion on the matter, before going to Vegas. Thanks for supporting this supposition.

Am going up with some friends in February for a bachelor party (assuming I have a job); I’m pretty sure that they’re going to want to go see Cher.

Ok, I’m pretty sure I’m going to sneak away and go see Cher.

bobnothing - December 27, 2009 reply

If you go to Vegas, the one to see is Rita Rudner

She’s awesome.

strangely, I think I agree with you.

As someone who has experienced extreme testicular pain, I resent that caption nico...

9Custs - December 27, 2009 reply

I didn't think you'd have the balls to complain.

it's his own damn fault for not wearing even a jock, much less a cup.

Sorry. I didn't think it was necessary when blogging.

Now I know.

I mean, it depends greatly whether you've got a wireless keyboard and mouse, sure.

But you’re always better served out here if you’re protected.