User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4693 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: December 15, 2008 at 03:41 PM (#3029071)In the same sense that I'm a lesser owner of Microsoft.
I'm all about LA getting boxed into trading something solid for Jack Wilson.
That's what she said.
I am really wondering what the thought processes of the A's owner is. When Billy Beane actually writes a book, the transition from desperately trying to trade the grossly underpaid Dan Haren to seeking out Matt Holliday and Rafael Furcal should be one of the most interesting parts.
There's no reason they couldn't sign Orlando Cabrera.
Four years seems like a long time for Furcal, doesn't it? I'm always nervous about a 30-something guy who depends on speed.
Don't fast players tend to age better?
I think the idea is players with speed, but for whom speed doesn't represent an overwhelming part of their game, age well.
So maybe someone like Castillo or Pierre or Willy Tavares don't age well; because a whole lot of their value is predicated on beating out infield singles. But you have a guy like Beltran; he has speed but it isn't the most important part of his game, so even if he loses a step or two in the OF he can still be a pretty good corner OF if he isn't a CF and he can still help you on the bases.
I am not sure if this actually happens, but the idea seems to make sense to me.
defensively it's a bigger problem - within a few years he might need to move to 2B, depending on how quickly his range diminishes.
If you have decent speed, decent pop, a good eye and good bat control, you'll decline slower, because you're not relying on being exceptional at anything, so you can overcome being slightly worse at everything.
There's the 1st round draft pick they'd lose.
I don't know about the "desperate" part, but I think it's as simple as the transition from not having a farm system to complement stars to having one.
Seriously. This is the perfect storm for the A's. They have horrible options at SS right now, they have money to spend, the second best infielder on the market is available and a bit undervalued because he's coming off an injury AND it won't cost you a pick. And, if you sign Furcal, you immediately pick up the buzz of being a contender. I'll be disappointed if this doesn't work out. If it doesn't owrk out, I'd rather Pettit was plan B than signing Cabrera. #### Orlando Cabrera.
It would probably be Crosby though. Welcome Orlando Cabrera!
This kind of stuff worries me the most. Furcal really really seems like he doesn't want to go to the A's, and if there were ever a formula for predicting what kind of player would dog it, I imagine it would look a lot like "just got paid + doesn't really want to be here + coming off an injury."
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Furcal would prefer Toronto or Kansas City to Oakland.
Lack of Latin guys on the A's? Maybe Billy showed him around Hayward? "And this, Raffy, is the world famous Industrial Parkway! But let's continue on to Whipple Road..."
edit: It also occurs to me that his agent might be trying to drum up a second team to ratchet up the pressure on the A's. It seems as if Furcal(or his agent) are really trying to get 4/50 or something close to that from someone. Don't ask me why I think that as it's just a guess based on what I thought he might get when the free agent signing period started.
A stadium that sucks the life out of your offense and ugly uniforms.
Fair enough....
You take that back. You take it back right now.
Yep. "That team is offering the most money, but Rafael would really prefer to play for your team--so just top their offer and everyone will be happy."
I hate alternative uniforms. Home whites. Road grays. That's all you need.
I was talking about the Dodgers. Would the Dodgers really rather trade actual talent for Jack Wilson than lose a draft pick by signing Cabrera? Granted, if I could get Wilson for free, I might take Wilson instead of signing Cabrera, but I was speaking to Vlad's point, which is that maybe the Dodgers would trade something valuable for Wilson.
I hate alternative uniforms. Home whites. Road grays. That's all you need.
This. If I was commissioner for a day, one of my first acts (after banning interleague play) would be to ban uniforms of any color other than white or gray.
No reasonable person hates the white cleats.
Call our team cheap, call our general manager overrated, make fun of our stadium...just don't #### with our uniforms.
The green alternates are wonderful. The blacks, though, really are hideous.
I'm with you, except I'd make exceptions for the Royals (cornflower blue) and the A's (green jerseys). I do think every team should have one road and one home uniform.
Well, we are just rooting for the laundry...
I knew you were talking about the Dodgers; the A's first round pick is protected by virtue of sucking. I can't imagine anything the Dodgers would trade for Jack Wilson would be as valuable as the 16th pick in the draft, but maybe I'm undervaluing the market for him.
Everyone seems to think that they'll be able to get Wilson for nothing, and they're always surprised that the Pirates don't want to downgrade their team without getting anything in return.
Can he play SS?
Theoretically, the Pirates could use the ~$8M they would have spent on Wilson to sign another player(s).
Really? Furcal's career line is .286/.352/.412. If you can get .280/.350/.400 and above average defense over the life of that contract, $10 mil/year is a bargain. Hudson's a better offensive player, but his defense has also declined and he plays a less demanding positon. I guess it's a question of price... Maybe Hudson would be a good opportunity for the Royals, given the tepid market.
Ca he play SS?
I don't think so. I think he's only played 2B in his career. Obviously Oakland has a 2B, I was thinking more for the Dodgers and Royals and Jays.
A) Who are they going to sign who's a bigger upgrade on what they already have than the downgrade they'd take moving from Wilson to his backups?
B) Why would they need that money, when they're already a fair bit under their 2009 budget?
Do people just not pay attention to these things?
If it were that easy, the team(s) trying to acquire Wilson would do this instead.
I fail to see how having extra money to spend wouldn't allow the Pirates to upgrade their roster. The fact that they already have extra money to spend just means they'd be able to afford a better player. For example, they could move Freddy Sanchez to SS and sign Orlando Hudson.
And I'm not saying the Pirates should get nothing in return--just that I think the Dodgers would be better off giving up whatever prospects it takes to get Wilson than losing the 16th pick in the draft to sign Cabrera. And I was responding to the idea by JMN that getting rid of Wilson--even for free" would necessarily downgrade the team. I guess I just don't think Jack Wilson is the optimal use of $8M in 2009.
The teams who are reportedly interested in him consider themselves contenders with a hole at SS--which is not a description I would apply to the Pirates.
No, they couldn't, because Sanchez's shoulder is gimpy. He can't handle it there anymore. And giving up a second-round pick for an over-30 2B really isn't something a rebuilding club should be doing. And then we get into the issue of no free agents wanting to sign with a perennial loser like Pittsburgh for anything less than a drastic overpay...
And of course, the Dodgers were asking the Pirates to pay a substantial portion of the freight on Wilson's deal, so even if adding extra money made the team able to upgrade the roster this offseason (and I don't think that it does), we're still talking about something closer to $4M than $8M.
The problem here is that nobody wants Overbay at that price, so the Jays would need to either pay to get someone else to take him, or take back a bad contract in return. Which doesn't make a Furcal signing any easier.
I suspect that the thought process is something like "Our fans are abandoning us in droves. We'd better do something big to shake things up, or we'll basically be the west coast version of the Florida Marlins."
Ha ha! Nope. The government just made available some TARP funds!
Alas the dreaded Overpay conundrum.
Yeah, during his heydey of letting dudes like Tejada and Giambi jump ship, Beane's philosophy was always "the fans will show up if the team is winning."
The problem with that is when you've continuously jettisoned popular players and now the team isn't winning, the fan base sort of Marlins out on you.
Also, a little off topic, but why is getting a player to play for a team in Oakland like pulling freaking teeth? The Giants never have any trouble attracting guys as far as I know, provided they're willing to pony up the money, and it's not like anyone who plays for the A's actually lives in Oakland. The Warriors just ran into the same problem. They tried shoveling money at Elton Brand and every other free agent under the sun and had to settle for Corey Maggette, much to my chagrin. Randy Johnson keeps talking about the Giants but the A's are interested too, and they're in the same stinking place. Hell, Randy was born and grew up in the East Bay. Cross a bridge into San Francisco and everything's just swell, but try to convince a guy on Oakland and you've got to go to all these extra miles.
The problem with that is when you've continuously jettisoned popular players and now the team isn't winning, the fan base sort of Marlins out on you.
Yeah but in hindsight, Beane was right to not re-sign Giambi, Tejada, or Zito, and he shouldn't have re-signed Chavez either. I would agree that the casual fan probably doesn't realize this.
Oh, sure. But your last sentence says it all. The A's fans that populate this site and Athletics Nation and the like aren't going to be deterred, but we aren't the people who drive attendance figures or ratings or merchandise sales or what have you.
That group of people, if they weren't done in by Tejada and Giambi and Zito leaving, if they weren't done in by the Hudson and Mulder trades, were certainly done in by two straight losing seasons and the Haren and Swisher trades.
One by one they're not the worst thing, but put them altogether (along with the crappy stadium and horrible broadcast situations) and you have the popular perception that they're the Marlins of the West, which is a tough thing to sell people on.
All true, but one quibble regarding the stadium: it isn't horrible, really, in fact in many ways it's a fine ballpark, extremely accessible, the weather's usually nice. What it isn't is a modern-day theme-mall-park, and most significantly what it isn't is a modern-day theme-mall-park handed to A's management on a taxpayer-funded platter. Since that's what A's management wants, they've spent the past 10 years loudly proclaiming what an untenable dump the Coliseum is, when in fact it isn't bad.
But the dynamic does represent yet another vivid example of anti-marketing by the franchise.
I agree, actually. I mean I grew up watching games in the Coliseum, even after that ####### monstrosity out in center field came up (I really only barely remember what it was like before Mt. Davis at this point, in fact), and I never had any complaints about the place. But, as you say, for the last 10 or so years the perception that the place is a dump has become almost ironclad. And, also as you point out, the A's have done everything to make it that way, instead of telling people why they should come out to the ballpark.
(Off topic again, but....did the McAfee thing get dropped? I saw the Raiders on TV yesterday, only because they were playing the Patriots, and the pre-game graphic said Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, and so did the benches and stuff...)
Mt. Davis is indeed Sovietesque in its sheer massive stupid brutalism. Back in the day, an early summer's evening game, watching the Oakland hills bathed in sunset glow beyond center field, was truly a pleasure.
Of course its aesthetics have been trashed. But it's still just as conveniently accessible as it ever was, and the weather is still as nice. But, of course, to say that (you know, speak the truth) might undermine the neverending campaign to rip off taxpayers, so the A's can't do it.
It is interesting that they've willfully driven away many hundreds of millions in potential customer revenue over the years, all in vain striving to get a couple hundred in public subsidy.
It's a shame, because the way I hear people talk about it like this, and from what little I remember firsthand of the place, it seems like if the Raiders hadn't ever came back and ruined it, the Coliseum would almost have had a "Fenway of the 60's" kind of old-school charm to it.
I wouldn't go that far; the architecture of the Coliseum is inescapably 1960s-ashtray-drab. But the fan vibe has always been excellent. Certainly they could have invested in some first rate concession amenities and such and made the best of it, and it would have been great. Instead they've adopted a defeatist posture since Mt. Davis was imposed upon them, and made the worst of it.
Mine are more along the lines of Don Mincher ... :-)
I sat up there for Game 1 of the 2003 ALDS. I couldn't even tell they had won until I could figure it out from the rest of the crowd's reaction, and I had no idea Ramon Hernandez bunted until I was back home and saw the highlights.
It's an inconceivably bad place to watch a game from.
Before Mount Davis:
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/oak701.jpg
After Mount Davis:
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/pictures/mcafeemain.jpg
Completely disagree. Tejada would have been a fantastic sign -- his first three years were 311/360/534, 304/349/515, 330/379/498, not missing a game, all during years the A's were competitive. And he significantly outplayed Crosby in years 4 and 5 of the deal as well. Giambi would have been useful -- in 4 of the first 5 years of the deal, all years the A's were competitive, he was well over 400/500, would have been the best hitter on the team by a fair margin, and a massive upgrade at 1B or DH. Only one truely bad year out of 7, as he'd have been an upgrade on what the team actually had in 07 and 08.
It's not at all a stretch to say that resigning Tejada or Giambi, much less both, might have tipped the division to the A's in 04 and/or 05, and might have got them another playoff victory or three.
Zito, I like the guy, but not on my team at that price, and he timed his exit perfectly.
There are people who sit in a box for A's games?
(Also having lived in Boston for three years now and relying on their absolutely horrendous public transportation, I can say with confidence that BART is pretty much the best.)
Also, again, I don't think real fans at large have any problem with the Coliseum. It's a more than pleasant place to watch a ball game, and tickets are cheap and easy to come by.
But the casual fan has been convinced, by the A's, no less, that the place is heaping pile of suck. And, not surprisingly, the A's have no draw with the casual fan.
I believe that with KC it's the familiarity with Moore and others he knew at Atlanta. Toronto, in addition to being a much nicer city than Oakland, is also less famous for stinginess.
Yeah, and this is what's been so uniquely weird about going to A's games over the past 5 or so years. The fan vibe is, as I've said, great: A's fans seem more knowledgable, more into the game, happier to be there, than a big crowd.
But here's the thing: they aren't a big crowd! (And all the "tickets are easily available, and cheap" comments relate to this.) From a business point of view, the A's have been a weak producer for a long time. And a franchise that seems to actively work toward driving away casual fans can be seen as actively engaged in creating the problem.
Playing hooky to go to a midweek day game? Absolutely heavenly.
And what's worse, they don't even offer the seats for sale to fans at baseball games, so they sit there completely empty, and the fans have to sit in the rest of the stadium looking at this giant ugly empty grandstand reminding them that they are secondary to the interests of football. I can see how that wouldn't be welcoming.
EDIT: 2nd link no worky
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/simpsons sun-jj-001.jpg
there's a team in Pittsburgh?
And c'mon now, you guys just give players away all the time. And don't give me any of this "oh but there's a new GM now, he's much smarter than the old GM." That's what was said about Littlefield at the start too. (No, really, it was. :-)
Not so much, that's why they "need" a new stadium.
The Pirates should be taking on most of Wilson's contract in order to receive as much talent as possible. Free agents have to be over-payed in order to sign with the Pirates, so the best way for Pittsburgh to spend their money is to "buy" players through trades.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main