MLB 2005-2006 Offseason Thread

[The Miz]

I don't know why everyone on this board assumes that the A's didn't get out of the first round because they didn't have the talent, and therefore didn't spend to get the talent. Did you guys watch any of these series? They choked, plain and simple.

In 2003 Oakland had a WS-caliber team. Tejada and Byrnes fucked it up. Tejada made 756738905679385 errors, and both he and Byrnes had the retarded baserunning plays that should've won the game and swept the series. Chavez also forgot how to hit. Macha also completely blew it in the last inning of Game 5, pinch hitting Melhuse, who struck out, for Dye, who was about to be intentionally walked. And then that idiot Long sat there and watched Lowe throw strikes. If any of you watched these series you might realize how good Oakland was and how badly they choked.

Originally Posted by BCWWF They are just like the Twins, always a step behind what they need because they aren't willing to spend the money to get it.

I'd love to hear your in-depth assessment of Oakland and Minnesota's financial situations, and how they can afford to increase payroll given their revenue; including profits from tickets, merchandise, stadium food and drink, parking, and team promotions.

BCWWF > Billy Beane and Terry Ryan

[BCWWF]

So you went on a big Christmas Eve hissy fit making sure we know that we know what I just said? Well thanks.

Billy Beane and Terry Ryan keep their teams competitive, something most small market teams can't do. In the same respect, other small market teams can focus on one season, go all out. Their philosophy doesn't allow that.

Don't for a second imply that either GM could put together a better team this year. Instead, they hold onto their prospects and settle for simply being competitive, barring a lucky break.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by BCWWF So you went on a big Christmas Eve hissy fit making sure we know that we know what I just said? Well thanks.

Huh? I love how whenever I point out how wrong you and VEL are, I'm either having a "hissyfit" or "crying".

You said Oakland has not has WS caliber teams. Wrong, they have, 2003.

You said the reason they lost in the first round was because they didn't have the talent to move on. Wrong, they had the talent; their series losses were due to awful baserunning, terrible late-inning managing, mysterious slumps by their best hitters, and poor defense when it had been a strength. In all, choking.

You said Oakland/Minnesota refuse to spend money that they are capable of spending to boost their teams to the next level. I challenged you to present any proof or backup to this argument, and you didn't.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Billy Beane and Terry Ryan keep their teams competitive, something most small market teams can't do. In the same respect, other small market teams can focus on one season, go all out. Their philosophy doesn't allow that.

This is right, and their philosophy is right. Going all out on one season rarely ever works, and whether it does or doesn't, you are usually screwed for the next 2 or more seasons. The playoffs are not about the best team. Obviously you have to have a good team, but it's more about the hottest team. Florida was not even close to the best team in 2003, but they had a good one and they started playing their best baseball in September and never stopped. The last few years, Oakland has played their best baseball in July/August and cooled off for September/October.

I'd take my chances getting hot right before the playoffs than building a super team with one shot and then sucking for the next three.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Don't for a second imply that either GM could put together a better team this year. Instead, they hold onto their prospects and settle for simply being competitive, barring a lucky break.

I think you meant to say couldn't instead of could, anyway, Beane does not settle for being competitive. He admitted that last year was a rebuilding year and they still had an 85+ win season. Beane is going for the WS in 2006. He traded Andre Ethier, his best OF prospect who won't be ready for another year, for Milton Bradley, an MLB proven talent. He traded Dustin Majewski, one of the best hitters in A-ball, for bullpen help. He signed Esteban Loaiza to help the rotation. He signed Jay Witasick to a 2 year deal and picked up Jay Payton's option. He has been actively talking with Frank Thomas and is considered the front runner to get him.

I don't follow the Twins too closely, but I know that their offense blew last year and they picked up Rondell White and Luis Castillo, two players who aren't getting any younger and are ready to win now.

This was one of the weakest free agent classes in years, and I think both GM's did a great job putting their teams in a position to win in 2006.

[VonErich Lives]

Miz, we're going back and forth over the same subjects.

They let/traded all "most" of those players due to money. No one can say for sure they would have won a WS series w/ them, in the same way you can't say for sure that 2003 they should have won a WS.

The fact remains they don't keep their talent when they reacha certain pay level, if you want to blame that on them being "small market" or on "moneyball", you can pick either one.

You keep asking for examples of when money was a factor and I've listed them, you just don't accept them. Apperently anything short of Billy Beane posting himself you won't accept.

You still don't get that their isn't a right/wrong all the time, that an "opinion" isn't a "Fact", but heck, it's the holiday season so I guess whatever makes you happy.

As for the

Originally Posted by The Miz lol, show me where I have dodged a request for an example

Originally Posted by The Miz Huh? I love how whenever I point out how wrong you and VEL are, I'm either having a "hissyfit" or "crying".

So, I ask once again for examples of how

whenever I point out how wrong you and VEL are, I'm either having a "hissyfit" or "crying".

Normally, this is only directed at me, but since you called BCWWF on this one, you can show the multiple examples of him also.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Miz, we're going back and forth over the same subjects. They let/traded all "most" of those players due to money. No one can say for sure they would have won a WS series w/ them, in the same way you can't say for sure that 2003 they should have won a WS. The fact remains they don't keep their talent when they reacha certain pay level, if you want to blame that on them being "small market" or on "moneyball", you can pick either one. You keep asking for examples of when money was a factor and I've listed them, you just don't accept them. Apperently anything short of Billy Beane posting himself you won't accept.

lol let's see this list VEL.

I never said money was not a factor for any of the decisions, it has been in 2.

Giambi - could not afford
Foulke - should've resigned, bad play by Beane
Mulder - got trade proposal of a life time, no reason to turn down, got a better SP and two great players for him
Hudson - needed to get rid of a SP and he had highest trade value
Dye - sucked for them in contract year, was not wanted back and did not want back
Damon - sucked for them in contract year, there was no reason to compete with Boston's offer of a multi-year deal
Tejada - not wanted back with postseason play and attitude, best SS prospect in baseball ready and waiting
Isringhuasen - not an impact player

Originally Posted by VEL You still don't get that their isn't a right/wrong all the time, that an "opinion" isn't a "Fact", but heck, it's the holiday season so I guess whatever makes you happy.

Both you and BCWWF have acted like it is a fact that Oakland has the money and refuses to spend it. Despite twice asking for evidence of this you have not responded. Even if this claim is your opinion, you need backup to support your opinion.

Originally Posted by VEL Normally, this is only directed at me, but since you called BCWWF on this one, you can show the multiple examples of him also.

I know what threads they are in, don't feel like digging through 40+ pages right now. I will get back to you however.

In the meantime I want to directly re-ask questions you have dodged.

1. Why should Beane re-sign Jermaine Dye after the awful season he had?

2. Why should Beane re-sign Johnny Damon after the season he had when Boston offers a multi-year deal? If Kotsay was traded to Boston tomorrow, and put up the same numbers Damon did in 2001, would you expect Boston to compete for him with a team offering a multiyear deal?

3. Would you turn down Mulder for Haren, Calero, and Barton when your rotation without him would look like Hudson/Harden/Zito/Blanton/Saarloos?

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by The Miz Who said anything about discounting? I'm not responding to any more posts you make until you answer the 3 questions you've continuously failed to answer.

Originally Posted by The Miz In 2000-2001, Tejada was not a big star player yet so getting anything out of him was nice.

So, if you're not a "big star player" it doesn't count... I get it, actually I don't. You love your stats but only when they suit you.

Originally Posted by The Miz 1. Why should Beane re-sign Jermaine Dye after the awful season he had? 2. Why should Beane re-sign Johnny Damon after the season he had when Boston offers a multi-year deal? If Kotsay was traded to Boston tomorrow, and put up the same numbers Damon did in 2001, would you expect Boston to compete for him with a team offering a multiyear deal? 3. Would you turn down Mulder for Haren, Calero, and Barton when your rotation without him would look like Hudson/Harden/Zito/Blanton/Saarloos?

1) I'll give you Dye, but you might think while is avg slipped his fielding and obp were still good and he was coming off an injury, they might give him a shot.

2) Because one off year doesn't always kill a player, because while is avg slipped he still had speed, when he did make contact he was still getting to 2nd base, he was still stealing bases, it wasn't like he completely fell apart.

3) No, I wouldn't, Mulder was proven at the time the others weren't.

Now, I'm still waiting for how "every time you point out how me and bcwwf are wrong we say you're crying or throwing a hissy fit". I mean, it shouldn't take you this long since.

Originally Posted by The Miz I know what threads they are in

I mean, there has to be a LOT of them, since your always right and everyone else is wrong and you're always telling people they're wrong... I could pull all the threads where you tell someone they're wrong or toss in an insult or dodge a question to ask another, but it's really a waste of time, rather then just sticking to the subject "you're wrong... blah blah blah, you always tell me I'm crying or throwing a hissy fit when I won't out how wrong you are..."

You still don't get it and you never will...

Anyway, we just keep repeating the same crap now, so I'll let the others continue this with you if they wish, I'm done.

to summarise, yes the moves worked out, however if Oakland was willing to spend more money they wouldn't have made most of those moves, Why do you think they got an offer for Mulder? "Beane wasn't looking to trade him", you don't really believe that one? do you?

[The Miz]

Jason Giambi - This is really the only case where the A's could not afford someone. Giambi recieved a 7 year, 120 million dollar deal from the Yankees, the A's would not pay any player that.

Keith Foulke - I agree, at the time this was a bad move, 2004 opened with Arthur Rhodes as the closer. But whose closer situation is better now, Boston or Oakland?

Keith Foulke/Mike Timlin/Curt Schilling

vs.

Huston Street

I know who I would take.

Johnny Damon - Don't know if you paid attention, but Johnny Damon sucked for the A's.

.256/.324/.363 (.687, not a typo), 9 HR, 27 SB, awful defense in CF

Damon was not wanted back. He was replaced by David Justice, who had a much better season.

.266/.374/.410 (.785) 11 HR

Miguel Tejada - If the A's offered Tejada a 7 year 700 million dollar contract he would've turned it down. He did not want to be back in Oakland, plain and simple. He was losing popularity anyway with his poor defense and constant playoff fuck-ups. Tejada's future was not with the A's anyway, they had one of the best SS prsopects in baseball (2004 rookie of the year).

Defensively, Crosby > Tejada, no question. Offensively, Tejada > Crosby, but that could change very quickly. He made a ton of adjustments his sophomore year and I see him as a .280/25/85 guy. He only played a half season in 05 but finished with 25 doubles in 84 games which is ridiculous. I'll take the small dropoff in power and OBP when Crosby brings GG defense, as well as the league minimum salary with Tejada making $13 mil and being a team cancer.

Tim Hudson - What Beane got in return for Hudson all had crappy 05's, but the verdict isn't out on this trade yet. Dan Meyer is still a great pitching prospect (at one time he was the #1 lefty) and Juan Cruz can still be a valuable flame-thrower. Charles Thomas is probably never going to find playing time in Oakland, but is good insurance to have in AAA as a 5th OF with Payton, Bradley, and Kotsay all having recent injury trouble. Oh and here's how Hudson compared with his replacement

Hudson (NL): 14-9, 3.52 ERA, 192 IP, 1.35 WHIP, 115 K
Blanton (AL): 12-12, 3.53 ERA, 201 IP, 1.28 WHIP, 116 K

Nearly identical numbers, Blanton did it against the big boys (AL) in his rookie season.

Mark Mulder - Here's what Mulder did in the second half of 2004, while losing 3-4 miles off of his fastball:

5-6, 6.13 ERA, 16 homers allowed in 15 starts

Mulder seemed like he was injured and not telling anyone. I have no proof of that, but it was pretty mysterious how he went from the Cy Young frontrunner to shit in the second half. So Beane traded him. Do you know what he got in return VEL?

Danny Haren: 14-12, 3.73 ERA, 217 IP, 1.22 WHIP, 163 K
Kiko Calero (setup man): 4-1, 3.23 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 52 K in 58 innings
Daric Barton: #1 offensive prospect in all of baseball

Haren (AL): 14-12, 3.73 ERA, 217 IP, 1.22 WHIP, 163 K
Mulder (NL): 16-8, 3.64 ERA, 205 IP, 1.38 WHIP, 111 K

Mulder got to pitch in the junior varsity/National League, and still failed to eclipse (the rookie) Haren's numbers.

Beane completely raped the Cardinals in this deal. And for the record, Mulder has never shown up for a playoff game in his life.

Jermaine Dye - Why the hell would they want Dye back? They were paying him $11 million to K 128 times, have an OBP of .329 (awful for a corner OF), and hit into a double play in every clutch situation possible. Dye was supposed to be their cleanup hitter and he was fucking terrible. They lost the division by one game that year, I can't tell you how many lost games featured their #4 hitter K'ing 2 or 3 times. And look at his replacement, who made the league minimum.

Jermaine Dye 2004: 137 G, .272/.334/.469 (.793), 23 HR, 80 RBI, 128 K
Nick Swisher 2005: 131 G, .238/.325/.443 (.768), 21 HR, 74 RBI, 110 K

Real drop-off in production there. Dye made over 10 million dollars more than Swisher and barely edged his numbers. Swisher put up all of his stats in the 7 or 8 hole all year, Dye put up his at 4 or 5. Also, Swisher is 24 and a rookie. Dye is 31. Who would you rather have for the next 5 years VEL, Jermaine Dye for $55 million or Swisher for $1.5 million?

Jason Isringhausen - Not a big deal, Koch and Foulke did just as good as he did, and Street now obviously is 10x better. Izzy had more days on the DL than saves anyway.

Can't believe I just typed all that, but you are really really wrong.

[The Miz]

Forgot to mention, getting rid of Hudson and Mulder really fucked over their pitching staff.

Zito: 3.86
Harden: 2.53
Haren: 3.73
Blanton: 3.53
Saarloos: 4.17

Good for a combined 3.82, 3rd best in the AL.

[The Icon of Elisim]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Miz again.

[VonErich Lives]

Miz, you gotta pick one side or the other.

You started with "what has beane done to make oakland look poorer" and then argue that only in 1 case could they not afford a player. So, hence in the others they could afford the players and Beane didn't get them, hence using his "money ball" system and making the team "look poorer" if we assume they could afford them, which according to you they could.

The one thing I found most amusing about your breakdown and you pick the situation to suit your argument.

Foulke has a bad year due to injury so, somehow that made it ok because Street came along, 2yrs later an unproven rookie, so they could have had Foulke who at the time was one of the top closers in the game, or nothing, (sorry, Arthur Rhodes) and they chose nothing.

Damon has a single bad season then bounces back.

In most those cases you were dealing provens for unprovens, experience for none.

I'm sure when they let Iggy go and then Foulke, they knew they'd have Street pitch lights out, heck, Street wasn't even the closer when 2005 started.

Yeah, Tejada didn't want to stay, why? becuase when ever a player gets real good and wants to get paid they get rid of them, they go for prospects, some pan out, some don't, it takes a few years for them to "come into their own". So, of course he didn't want to stay.

The issue isn't what he got in return for these players, the issue is the need to dump them, either via trade of not bidding on them via free agency.

That's what you're missing here, if they were willing and/or able to spend the money they wouldn't have lost Tejada, Damon, Dye, Giambi, they wouldn't have delt Mulder and Hudson. It would be a complete different approach.

So, you can keep saying BCWWF and I are wrong all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you keep making our argument for us.

Of course you could try the "you always say I'm crying when I tell you you're wrong", as usually when you say stuff like that I'll ask for examples, and as usually you'll probably have none. Although, it wouldn't shock me if I did tell you to stop crying at some point, you do have a habbit of trying to put yourself on the cross to somehow help your argument. You really know a lot about baseball/stats, but you can never accept that sometimes you might be wrong, or sometimes it's an opinion and their is no right/wrong, that's the only reason I take the shots at you once in awhile (which is no where as often as you seem to think) is you're "hollier then thou, I'm always right" attitude that you try to project, it makes me laugh.

anyway, back to the subject, I don't disagree they got prospects that turned out to be good players, but the issue is, if they had or were willing to spend the money, they never would have looked to make those deals, they would have kept their team intact, Tejada wouldn't have wanted out, etc... etc...

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Miz, you gotta pick one side or the other. You started with "what has beane done to make oakland look poorer" and then argue that only in 1 case could they not afford a player. So, hence in the others they could afford the players and Beane didn't get them, hence using his "money ball" system and making the team "look poorer" if we assume they could afford them, which according to you they could.

They could afford them. You seem to think that Dye and Tejada were wanted back, but they asked Beane for money that he had but did not want to spend on them. This is simply untrue, in Dye's case he was not wanted back. Dye was not producing, he was making 10x what he was worth, and there was just no reason to keep him. He needed a fresh start somewhere, he got it and it worked out great for him. Why would Billy re-sign Dye when he had Swisher in AAA who will produce just as well for a fraction of the cost?

Originally Posted by VEL The one thing I found most amusing about your breakdown and you pick the situation to suit your argument. Foulke has a bad year due to injury so, somehow that made it ok because Street came along, 2yrs later an unproven rookie, so they could have had Foulke who at the time was one of the top closers in the game, or nothing, (sorry, Arthur Rhodes) and they chose nothing.

Like I said, this was a bad move at the time. Beane got lucky and drafted Mariano Rivera Jr. a year later. I said this was a bad move, I was just pointing out that Oakland's closer situation is much better than Boston's. I don't agree with every Beane move, and having Rhodes as his closer was one of his stupidest ones.

Originally Posted by VEL Damon has a single bad season then bounces back.

What if Oakland traded Mark Kotsay to the Red Sox today, and Kotsay put up this line in 2006:

.256/.324/.363 (.687), 9 HR, 27 SB

Would you expect Boston to re-sign him to a multi-year deal? Kotsay is a great player, he's proven it with San Diego/Oakland. Damon was a great player, he proved it with Kansas City. But there was no reason for Beane to try to compete with Boston offering him a multi-year deal. Signing Justice to a one-year was a much safer and cheaper move, and they got an increase in production from their outfield spot.

I'm sure when they let Iggy go and then Foulke, they knew they'd have Street pitch lights out, heck, Street wasn't even the closer when 2005 started.

I'm not sure if "Iggy" is supposed to be Miggy or Izzy, I think you mean Izzy. So they let Izzy walk, so what? Your whole argument is that they don't win because they don't re-sign their impact players, right? So you're saying having Isringhausen in 2002 would've caused them to not lose the ALDS vs. Minnesota. For the record, there was not a single blown save in that series. Closing was not the problem. Whether it was Koch, Izzy, Foulke, Taylor, or anyone else; it doesn't make a difference in Oakland's playoff campaign in 2002.

Originally Posted by VEL The issue isn't what he got in return for these players, the issue is the need to dump them, either via trade of not bidding on them via free agency.

There was no need to dump Mulder, Beane would've been happy with a 2005 rotation of Zito/Mulder/Harden/Blanton/Saarloos. But St. Louis offered a trade he could not refuse. Beane wasnt even shopping him, Jockety offered him an unbelievable deal and got raped.

Originally Posted by VEL That's what you're missing here, if they were willing and/or able to spend the money they wouldn't have lost Tejada, Damon, Dye, Giambi, they wouldn't have delt Mulder and Hudson. It would be a complete different approach.

Still waiting for you or BCWWF to show meany proof that Oakland had the money and wasn't willing to spend it.

Originally Posted by VEL So, you can keep saying BCWWF and I are wrong all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you keep making our argument for us. Of course you could try the "you always say I'm crying when I tell you you're wrong", as usually when you say stuff like that I'll ask for examples, and as usually you'll probably have none. Although, it wouldn't shock me if I did tell you to stop crying at some point, you do have a habbit of trying to put yourself on the cross to somehow help your argument. You really know a lot about baseball/stats, but you can never accept that sometimes you might be wrong, or sometimes it's an opinion and their is no right/wrong, that's the only reason I take the shots at you once in awhile (which is no where as often as you seem to think) is you're "hollier then thou, I'm always right" attitude that you try to project, it makes me laugh.

lol, show me where I have dodged a request for an example VEL. Seriously, quote one of your posts in this thread or any thread. If I missed it, my mistake, I'll answer them now. You have really bad grammar and it is often hard to decipher what you are asking, but I promise I'll try if you ask clear questions.

Good to know I give you a chuckle.

[BCWWF]

The Miz, you can write as many books as you want, but all the A's had to do was keep one or two of those players and they would likely have a World Series trophy on their shelf. Instead, they have The Miz praising their low ERA's and non-playoff appearances because they are just "loaded with potential!"

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by BCWWF The Miz, you can write as many books as you want, but all the A's had to do was keep one or two of those players and they would likely have a World Series trophy on their shelf. Instead, they have The Miz praising their low ERA's and non-playoff appearances because they are just "loaded with potential!"

I don't respect your opinions enough to give you an essay, but I challenge you this, give me one example where having _____ (superstar player) over _____ (replacent player) in ____ (year) would've resulted in a WS championship.

Jason Giambi, Scott Hatteberg, 2002
Keith Foulke, Octavio Dotel, 2004
Johnny Damon, David Justice, 2002
Miguel Tejada, Bobby Crosby, 2004
Tim Hudson, Joe Blanton, 2005
Mark Mulder, Dan Haren, 2005
Jermaine Dye, Nick Swisher, 2005
Jason Isringhausen, Billy Koch, 2002

[Loose Cannon]

Yea, Johnson just prefered Flaherty over Posada during the final four months. But the Yanks signed Kelly Stinnett, who caught Johnson in Arizona.

And the A's definately could of won the whole thing in '03 and possibly '04, but like Miz said, they fucked up. I forget what they did in '02. And dealing Hudson and Mulder was a pretty dam good move by Beane. Nobody thought they would contend last year, but they got red hot with a bunch of young guys behind them. Just think what they are going to do in the next four years.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon Yea, Johnson just prefered Flaherty over Posada during the final four months. But the Yanks signed Kelly Stinnett, who caught Johnson in Arizona. And the A's definately could of won the whole thing in '03 and possibly '04, but like Miz said, they fucked up. I forget what they did in '02. And dealing Hudson and Mulder was a pretty dam good move by Beane. Nobody thought they would contend last year, but they got red hot with a bunch of young guys behind them. Just think what they are going to do in the next four years.

you mean 2years, because at that point their young guys will be proven and might even have contracts up and will want more money and will get traded.

I'm not saying the mulder/hudson deals didn't help them, but if they were willing/able to spend the money they would have kept them. They wouldn't have delt proven guys for unproven if money wasn't an issue.

Also, '04 they didn't make the playoffs.
'03 you could argue they might have gone further, they had a 2-0 lead on the Red Sox, but all 5 games were pretty close and game #3 is when Hudson left with the injury and Byrnes missed home plate and then had a brain fart and went for the catcher instead of the plate. The Yanks then barely beat the Red Sox and then lost to the Marlins, so yeah... they might have won it all in '03, but normally they "compete" they don't try and "put the team over the top" to win it all, and that's due to money.

[BCWWF]

Well to say it's all based on money ruins your argument. What I am saying is that they could have found a way to keep some of the big players while not going over their limit, but had they done that they would probably < Texas right now. For teams like that, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Joey Slugs]

Saturday, December 24
WHO	INTERESTED	THE SKINNY
David Wells Red Sox	Padres Dodgers	West Coast pursuit Dec 24 - The Dodgers have jumped to the front of the David Wells trade line, The Boston Globe reported. The Red Sox would likely be seeking young arms such as Edwin Jackson, Jonathan Broxton, and Chad Billingsley or third baseman Andy LaRoche for Wells, The Globe reports. There's also a chance the Sox could ask for bullpen helps such as Yhency Brazoban or Duaner Sanchez, according to the paper. The Padres' latest offer for Wells revolved around center fielder Dave Roberts and right-handed pitcher Woody Williams, The Globe reports. The Red Sox are said to have little interest in Williams.
WHO	INTERESTED	THE SKINNY
Kevin Millwood Indians	Mariners Rangers Red Sox Orioles? Nationals? Dodgers?	Rangers pitch Millwood Dec 24 - Kevin Millwood and his agent, Scott Boras, met with Red Sox brass on Friday. The Boston Herald reported that the Red Sox have made a four-year offer to Millwood. The Dallas Morning News reported in Saturday's editions that the Rangers had offered Millwood three guaranteed years at around $10 million per year; however, a second source told the Morning News that the team had guaranteed a fourth year that would make the offer worth more than $40 million. Boras is believed to be seeking a five-year deal.
WHO	INTERESTED	THE SKINNY
Ryan Langerhans Braves	Indians	Prelude to a Crisp? Dec 24 - The Indians are closing in on a deal that would send outfielder Ryan Langerhans from Atlanta to Cleveland, the Providence Journal reported. With an acquisition of Langerhans, that would free up the Indians to make a deal involving Coco Crisp. The Red Sox would be suitors for Crisp and it's likely the Indians would ask for prospect Andy Marte in return, the paper reported.

[The Miz]

One other thing about Hudson/Mulder, if neither had been traded, here is the list of MLB-proven or MLB-ready starters Beane would've had in 2005.

1. Rich Harden
2. Tim Hudson
3. Barry Zito
4. Mark Mulder
5. Joe Blanton
6. Kirk Saarloos

Can't have six starters, and the bullpen needed no help. So you have to trade somebody. Harden? No, he's the best of the six and costs next to nothing. Blanton and Saarloos had no trade value. Hudson, Zito, and Mulder were the only three that would warrant anything good in return. Beane decided to trade Hudson because he had the highest trade value, and he knew he could survive with a rotation of Harden/Zito/Mulder/Blanton/Saarloos. He was fine with that rotation but got an offer for Mulder he could not turn down. A great young SP to add with the best player in minor league baseball and the best slider in the National League.

Worked out ok for him

[BCWWF]

Any of the players on the left would have made the A's considerably better.

And if you looked at the posts, it's not Mulder and Hudson that I have been focusing on. It's the batters, such as former MVP Miguel Tejada, that put a team over the edge. Sure, Crosby is good, but Miguel Tejada is better. Hands down.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by BCWWF Any of the players on the left would have made the A's considerably better.

Duh. That's not what I asked you. You claim that just one or two players would've won them a WS, name me one or two that support your argument.

Originally Posted by BCWWF And if you looked at the posts, it's not Mulder and Hudson that I have been focusing on. It's the batters, such as former MVP Miguel Tejada, that put a team over the edge. Sure, Bubba Crosby is good, but Miguel Tejada is better. Hands down.

The Hudson/Mulder stuff was not directed towards you, VEL brought it up. I guess you've never seen an A's playoff game, because in every one Tejada has forgotten how to hit, field, and run. He was by far their biggest choker. 2004 and 2005 are not WS wins with Tejada at SS.

[BCWWF]

Originally Posted by The Miz Duh. That's not what I asked you. You claim that just one or two players would've won them a WS, name me one or two that support your argument.

I did. Any of them could have been the difference.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by The Miz The Hudson/Mulder stuff was not directed towards you, VEL brought it up. I guess you've never seen an A's playoff game, because in every one Tejada has forgotten how to hit, field, and run. He was by far their biggest choker. 2004 and 2005 are not WS wins with Tejada at SS.

yes, I brought up them as examples along with Giambi and Tejada etc...

As for Tejada in the playoffs.

he's been in 4 div series.
he had 2 good ones and 2 bad ones.

One was really bad (2003) and that effects his "totals" big time. but take a look at his playoff stats.

2000 .409-OBP, .450-SLG, .350-AVG (not horrible numbers)
2001 .304-OBP, .429-SLG, .286-AVG (not great but nor horrible)
2002 .174-OBP, .333-SLG, .143-AVG (This is where it starts to get ugly)
2003 .087-OBP, .130-SLG, .087-AVG (this one is realy ugly, any injuries?)

It's interesting in 2002, he only had 3hits (2 in 2003) yet he had 1-double, 1-homerun, 4-RBI, 3-runs scored, and also what killed him, 7 Strike Outs.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives yes, I brought up them as examples along with Giambi and Tejada etc... As for Tejada in the playoffs. he's been in 4 div series. he had 2 good ones and 2 bad ones. One was really bad (2003) and that effects his "totals" big time. but take a look at his playoff stats. 2000 .409-OBP, .450-SLG, .350-AVG (not horrible numbers) 2001 .304-OBP, .429-SLG, .286-AVG (not great but nor horrible) 2002 .174-OBP, .333-SLG, .143-AVG (This is where it starts to get ugly) 2003 .087-OBP, .130-SLG, .087-AVG (this one is realy ugly, any injuries?) It's interesting in 2002, he only had 3hits (2 in 2003) yet he had 1-double, 1-homerun, 4-RBI, 3-runs scored, and also what killed him, 7 Strike Outs.

In 2000-2001, Tejada was not a big star player yet so getting anything out of him was nice. 2002 Giambi was gone, the weight was on Chavez/Tejada, both of them fell asleep. It wasn't even Tejada's offense that killed them, in 2003 if he and Byrnes can touch home plate, Yankees/Red Sox Boone walkoff never happens. Not to mention is bobble or bad throw every time a big out or DP was needed.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by The Miz In 2000-2001, Tejada was not a big star player yet so getting anything out of him was nice. 2002 Giambi was gone, the weight was on Chavez/Tejada, both of them fell asleep. It wasn't even Tejada's offense that killed them, in 2003 if he and Byrnes can touch home plate, Yankees/Red Sox Boone walkoff never happens. Not to mention is bobble or bad throw every time a big out or DP was needed.

Ok, for now on, you just let me know which stats we can count and which we can't, it will save us all time.

[The Miz]

Actually, not "Duh". Blanton > Hudson, Mulder > Haren

[BCWWF]

I've decided to go Miz on ya'll. Enjoy.

Johnny Damon: World Series Champion 2004, ALCS 2003
Avg. 316 HR: 10 RBI 75 Runs 117 SB 18
Mark Kotsay: Missed playoffs
Avg. 280 HR: 15 RBI: 82 Runs: 75 SB: 5
Advantage: Damon

Jason Giambi: Made the playoffs each year
Avg. 271 HR: 32 RBI: 87 Runs: 74 SB: 0
Scott Hatteberg: Missed playoffs, released?
Avg. 256 HR: 7 RBI: 59 Runs: 52 SB: 0
Nick Swisher: Young, but still missed playoffs
Avg. 236 HR: 21 RBI: 74 Runs: 66 SB: 0
Advantage: Giambi

Ramon Hernandez: Made playoffs
Avg. 290 HR: 12 RBI: 58 Runs: 36 SB: 1
Jason Kendall: Missed playoffs 2005
Avg. 271 HR: 0 RBI: 53 Runs: 70 SB: 8
Advantage: Close, but besides runs Hernandez

Miguel Tejada: Missed playoffs
Avg. 304 HR: 26 RBI: 98 Runs: 89 SB: 5
Bobby Crosby: Missed playoffs
Avg. 276 HR: 9 RBI: 38 Runs: 66 SB: 0
Advantage: Tejada

Jermaine Dye: World Series Champion
Avg. 274 HR: 31 RBI: 86 Runs: 74 SB: 11
Jay Payton: Bitched, traded to A's, missed playoffs
Avg. 267 HR: 18 RBI: 63 Runs: 62 SB: 0 (to be fair, included whole season)
Advantage: Dye

--------------------

So there's probably the five biggest offensive losses and their replacements. Besides Tejada, the other four were all on playoff teams and all had better stats than their replacements in Oakland.

They had the pitching to spare, but the offense is lacking. Losing all-stars and winning players doesn't help that. BUT WAIT! They have potential! Just give them a year or two to gel and they will be a sure World Series contender! Or even better, if we let them develop into stars then the Yankees can sign them in free agency and we can start all over.

I love potential!

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by BCWWF I've decided to go Miz on ya'll. Enjoy.

I'm flattered my name is associated with using facts to back up arguments, instead of the BCWWF method, "Nah uh!!!!"

Originally Posted by BCWWF Johnny Damon: World Series Champion 2004, ALCS 2003 Avg. 316 HR: 10 RBI 75 Runs 117 SB 18 Mark Kotsay: Missed playoffs Avg. 280 HR: 15 RBI: 82 Runs: 75 SB: 5 Advantage: Damon

I wonder why Johnny Damon, who bats in front of Renteria, Ortiz, and Manny; scored more runs than Kotsay, who hit in front of Chavez, Payton, and Hatteberg.

Theres no doubt Damon is a better offensive player than Kotsay, but I want to know if you would've competed with Boston's mutiyear deal offer after the 2001 he had.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Jason Giambi: Made the playoffs each year Avg. 271 HR: 32 RBI: 87 Runs: 74 SB: 0 Scott Hatteberg: Missed playoffs, released? Avg. 256 HR: 7 RBI: 59 Runs: 52 SB: 0 Nick Swisher: Young, but still missed playoffs Avg. 236 HR: 21 RBI: 74 Runs: 66 SB: 0 Advantage: Giambi

Swisher was not the 1B, so that's irrelevant. And I already told you Giambi could not be afforded.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Ramon Hernandez: Made playoffs Avg. 290 HR: 12 RBI: 58 Runs: 36 SB: 1 Jason Kendall: Missed playoffs 2005 Avg. 271 HR: 0 RBI: 53 Runs: 70 SB: 8 Advantage: Close, but besides runs Hernandez

lol since Hernandez made the playoffs with the 82-80 San Diego Padres I guess that's a notch in his favor eh? Also, Jason Kendall was amazing working with the young staff this year. Blanton, Haren, and Saarloo's ERAs are much higher with Hernandez behind the plate. How can you compare their offensive stats? Kendall hits leadoff, Hernandez was like 6 or 7.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Miguel Tejada: Missed playoffs Avg. 304 HR: 26 RBI: 98 Runs: 89 SB: 5 Bobby Crosby: Missed playoffs Avg. 276 HR: 9 RBI: 38 Runs: 66 SB: 0 Advantage: Tejada

This is irrelevant because Tejada made no negotiations with the A's and had absolutely no intentions of coming back. I can assure you that Crosby would've touched home plate in the 2003 ALDS, and wouldn't have made an error on every routine play.

Originally Posted by BCWWF Jermaine Dye: World Series Champion Avg. 274 HR: 31 RBI: 86 Runs: 74 SB: 11 Jay Payton: Bitched, traded to A's, missed playoffs Avg. 267 HR: 18 RBI: 63 Runs: 62 SB: 0 (to be fair, included whole season) Advantage: Dye

Payton replaced Byrnes, not Dye. You don't read very well so I'll repeat myself:

Originally Posted by The Miz Why the hell would they want Dye back? They were paying him $11 million to K 128 times, have an OBP of .329 (awful for a corner OF), and hit into a double play in every clutch situation possible. Dye was supposed to be their cleanup hitter and he was fucking terrible. They lost the division by one game that year, I can't tell you how many lost games featured their #4 hitter K'ing 2 or 3 times. And look at his replacement, who made the league minimum. Jermaine Dye 2004: 137 G, .272/.334/.469 (.793), 23 HR, 80 RBI, 128 K Nick Swisher 2005: 131 G, .238/.325/.443 (.768), 21 HR, 74 RBI, 110 K Real drop-off in production there. Dye made over 10 million dollars more than Swisher and barely edged his numbers. Swisher put up all of his stats in the 7 or 8 hole all year, Dye put up his at 4 or 5. Also, Swisher is 24 and a rookie. Dye is 31. Who would you rather have for the next 5 years VEL, Jermaine Dye for $55 million or Swisher for $1.5 million?

--------------------

Originally Posted by BCWWF So there's probably the five biggest offensive losses and their replacements. Besides Tejada, the other four were all on playoff teams and all had better stats than their replacements in Oakland. They had the pitching to spare, but the offense is lacking. Losing all-stars and winning players doesn't help that. BUT WAIT! They have potential! Just give them a year or two to gel and they will be a sure World Series contender! Or even better, if we let them develop into stars then the Yankees can sign them in free agency and we can start all over I love potential!

I haven't said the word potential one time in this thread, good impression though. I do, however, think this team is in much better position to win in 06 than Boston and New York.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Originally Posted by The Miz I wonder why Johnny Damon, who bats in front of Renteria [..] scored more runs [..]

lol I'm surpsing Damon scored any runs infront of Renteria. Edgar was better at hitting into double plays then turning them.

[YOUR Hero]

Cardinals made a very good pick up in Juan Encarnacion. He'll put up bigger offensive numbers, I believe, as a Cardinal. He's a big stud, but never as of yet, hit 20 HRs. I believe that's all going to change. I was hoping the Jays might have made a move for him. The Jays seem like they still believe Rios is going to turn into a big HR hitter, or at least doubles hitter... Still unclear on that myself.

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero Cardinals made a very good pick up in Juan Encarnacion. He'll put up bigger offensive numbers, I believe, as a Cardinal. He's a big stud, but never as of yet, hit 20 HRs. I believe that's all going to change. I was hoping the Jays might have made a move for him. The Jays seem like they still believe Rios is going to turn into a big HR hitter, or at least doubles hitter... Still unclear on that myself.

encarnacion is a mess in the outfield though.

I agree with you on Rios(a.k.a mr ground out to short")

[The Miz]

Rangers sign Millwood 5 y/12 mil, Cleveland grabs Jason Johnson to replace Elarton as #5 starter

TOR/ARI trade is now official, Glaus for Batista and Orlando Hudson. ith Hudson switching leagues, I'd like to be the first to congratulate Mark Ellis on his 2006 AL gold glove.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Didn't Mulder also only have one year left on his contract when that trade was made?

[BCWWF]

You are biting your own butt in your rebuttals. Your excuse for just about everybody is "there is no way he could come back" or "he didn't want to come back". It is amusing that you think the A's have a better chance of winning next year than the big dogs out east. The Yankees have a better offensive player in each position on the field. No matter how average RJ, Pavano, etc. were last season, they are veterans.

With the A's it all comes back to the same thing. If they make a run next year and maybe even make the playoffs, they will have to start letting their players go because they can't retain them. Quite simply that doesn't have to happen, and letting your good players get away because there are young players coming up isn't effective management of your players.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Originally Posted by BCWWF Quite simply that doesn't have to happen, and letting your good players get away because there are young players coming up isn't effective management of your players.

Well for the A's, what they have been doing has been working so far. Once a talent gets too expensive, bring up someone who isn't going to kill you in salary. Even though this has continued to work, is it going to continue to work forever? The A's aren't perfect though, by doing this they've never had a player who has "had it" like an Ortiz, or a Jeter or something. Somebody who is clutch in the playoffs and does something in a big game. That's why they have never won in the Playoffs, and in my opinion, probably never will.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by sTiMa34 Well for the A's, what they have been doing has been working so far. Once a talent gets too expensive, bring up someone who isn't going to kill you in salary. Even though this has continued to work, is it going to continue to work forever? The A's aren't perfect though, by doing this they've never had a player who has "had it" like an Ortiz, or a Jeter or something. Somebody who is clutch in the playoffs and does something in a big game. That's why they have never won in the Playoffs, and in my opinion, probably never will.

How many playoff games have you seen Rich Harden, Dan Johnson, Nick Swisher, Bobby Crosby, Jason Kendall, Milton Bradley, Mark Ellis, Joe Blanton, and Huston Street play? How do you know if they "have it" or not?

Zito "has it", check out his postseason numbers.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by BCWWF You are biting your own butt in your rebuttals. Your excuse for just about everybody is "there is no way he could come back" or "he didn't want to come back". It is amusing that you think the A's have a better chance of winning next year than the big dogs out east. The Yankees have a better offensive player in each position on the field.

The A's lineup is much more balanced than New York and Boston's.

You are really quite stupid if you think that because each offensive Yankee is better that gives them some huge advantage. If you've watched baseball at all the last 4 years you should've picked up on the calling card of the recent world series teams:

Chicago: pitching
Boston: pitching
Florida: pitching
Anaheim: pitching

And as far as pitching goes,

Harden > Johnson
Zito > Mussina
Blanton > Pavano
Haren > Wang
Loaiza > Small

Harden > Beckett
Zito > Clement
Blanton > Schilling
Haren > Wakefield
Loaiza > Wells or Arroyo

At this point Oakland's rotation is only on par with Chicago and Minnesota.

Originally Posted by BCWWF No matter how average RJ, Pavano, etc. were last season, they are veterans.

LMAO yes. New favorite BCWWF quote. You know who else is a veteran? Al Leiter. Pat Borders. Benito Santiago. What does being a veteran have to do with not sucking?

RJ - excellent year in 05
Mussina - 4.45 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, but...uh... he's a veteran!
Pavano - Well, he's gotten raped in every start he's every made in the AL, but I guess I can't be too harsh on a veteran.
Wang - 4+ ERA, actually better stats than Mussina/PAvano, but he loses mad points in the veteran category
Small - A veteran with good stats! Yes! I'm quote sure he'll be able to repeat his 10-0, 3.20 in 2006.

Why have good players when you could have veterans?

[Joey Slugs]

Tuesday, December 27
WHO	INTERESTED	THE SKINNY
J.T. Snow Giants	Orioles? Yankees? Red Sox?	Snow in Boston? Dec 27 - According to the Boston Herald, the Red Sox are negotiating with first baseman J.T. Snow, who could serve as a backup and a defensive replacement for Kevin Youkilis, and a decision may come Tuesday or Wednesday. The Herald reports that Snow is believed to be negotiating with three or four other clubs, and two of them are likely the Yankees and the Orioles.

[YOUR Hero]

Miz, while I tend to agree with you on most things. I find it pretty weak on your end to blame an entire team failing on a bobbled ball or base running mistake., These things happen all the time and are simply the easy things to remember when discussing a lost series. There are so many factors involved that it's really not fair to state they are why things went wrong. Also, it's pretty shitty, IMO, to feel a player sucks and should be traded based on an incident such as that. Tejeda, for example is better than one missed play. I understand Crosby was coming up the system, I understand that Tejeda was looking for huge sums of money, but it's pro baseball and he was deserving of it. Oakland should have tried to keep him.
You posted some great posts in this thread, but that doesn't change the fact that Oakland moves players once they reach a certain plateau, they get good value for them, yes, however, they trade them off because of salary concerns as much as anything.

[The Miz]

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero Miz, while I tend to agree with you on most things. I find it pretty weak on your end to blame an entire team failing on a bobbled ball or base running mistake. These things happen all the time and are simply the easy things to remember when discussing a lost series. There are so many factors involved that it's really not fair to state they are why things went wrong. Also, it's pretty shitty, IMO, to feel a player sucks and should be traded based on an incident such as that. Tejeda, for example is better than one missed play. I understand Crosby was coming up the system, I understand that Tejeda was looking for huge sums of money, but it's pro baseball and he was deserving of it. Oakland should have tried to keep him. You posted some great posts in this thread, but that doesn't change the fact that Oakland moves players once they reach a certain plateau, they get good value for them, yes, however, they trade them off because of salary concerns as much as anything.

1-1 game in the 6th, Byrnes makes it home but forgets to touch the plate, Tejada decided to stand there and let Varitek tag him. Its not like they tripped and fell and failed to reach home, I understand that sort of thing, it happens, these were mental mistakes any little leaguer over the age of 12 would not have made. They play with little league fundementals, Oakland wins 3-1 and sweeps the series. Tejada is a great player, but it didn't seem like a coincidence that the 2 straight years where he was the "team leader", he could not hit or field anything. With Crosby in the minors, and Tejada consistently displaying a bad attitude, it was time for him to move on. Tejada was not happy with the teams direction, he didn't want to deal with a "re-building year". His loss, he goes to Baltimore in a year they claim they will contend, finish with a much worse record then the A's, and is now in on an absolute mess of a team and wants out. He's an amazing hitter who has always been below-average defensively and never shown good baseball smarts. I never said Tejada sucks, but I'll take Crosby.

[BCWWF]

Once again, if you don't keep players who are in their prime, you will remain consistent but barring a big break you will never win a World Series.

It's not a hard concept to grasp, The Miz, they got rid of at least five offensive players who are much better than their replacements right now. Damon, Giambi, and Tejada are three of the top offensive players in the league, and there is no doubt the A's are below par offensively.