MLB 2005-2006 Offseason Thread - Page 27

**The Miz** · 12-24-2005, 02:06 PM

Latest rumor is

Red Sox send Wells to LAD for a prospect (eith Broxton or Jackson)
Red Sox then send the prospect to TB for Julio "May or may not have beaten his wife" Lugo

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Miz

Latest rumor is

Red Sox send Wells to LAD for a prospect (eith Broxton or Jackson)
Red Sox then send the prospect to TB for Julio "May or may not have beaten his wife" Lugo

yeah, been hearing a lot of "lugo talk", you know my feelings on him... that being said, I like his stats in 2005, but not before then.

Also, can he move to SS? or does Loretta move to SS?

**The Miz** · 12-24-2005, 05:24 PM

Move from where? Lugo's a natural SS and has played there his whole career.

If need be, Loretta moving to SS wouldn't be that big of a deal, I believe he came up as one with Milwaukee and has a lot of experience there and at 3B. He definately has the arm for it.

**BCWWF** · 12-24-2005, 05:55 PM

But why would the Twins, with the best pitcher in the AL and one of the top overall staffs, go after more prospects when in reality they are probably just as close as the Red Sox to making the next step.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Miz

Move from where? Lugo's a natural SS and has played there his whole career.

I thought he was a SS, when I clicked on mlb.com they have him listed as a 2B.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

But why would the Twins, with the best pitcher in the AL and one of the top overall staffs, go after more prospects when in reality they are probably just as close as the Red Sox to making the next step.

Because I believe he's a free agent after this year? and they can't afford to keep him and 2-3 prospects (2 of which are MLB ready) plus another young pitcher, who doesn't make a lot would give them more players/depth for the same or less money.

**BCWWF** · 12-24-2005, 07:11 PM

I just hate the attitude that the rest of the MLB is around to develop players for New York/Boston. Oakland doesn't really help that, but thats basically how baseball reporting goes. Who gives Boston/New York their players next.

I'm not meaning to call you out VEL, because it is obviously concievable and has been talked about, but I really wish there was some variety in the league so that it's not a disappointing year when the Yankees or Red Sox don't win the World Series.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

I just hate the attitude that the rest of the MLB is around to develop players for New York/Boston. Oakland doesn't really help that, but thats basically how baseball reporting goes. Who gives Boston/New York their players next.

I'm not meaning to call you out VEL, because it is obviously concievable and has been talked about, but I really wish there was some variety in the league so that it's not a disappointing year when the Yankees or Red Sox don't win the World Series.

It's not the sox/yanks, it does seem that way because they are the top two spenders in one of if not the biggest TV market for MLB.

But it's the big market vs. small market.

Red Sox, NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, Phl, STL even SF.

All teams that have money and spend money.

Teams like Minnesota either don't have money or choose not to spend it (which in the case of minnesota it's always said that it's part of both, but Bean or another minnesotan could probably tell more).

What bugs me, are the teams that "choose not to spend" and then cry about the teams who do.

One of the few things I ever agreed with stienbrenner on, if the point of the "luxury tax" is to help even the playing field, then a team should be required to spend the luxury tax they receive on their payroll, some teams receive the tax and don't increase or even end up decreasing payroll, which is clearly not that the tax was meant for.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

I just hate the attitude that the rest of the MLB is around to develop players for New York/Boston. Oakland doesn't really help that, but thats basically how baseball reporting goes. Who gives Boston/New York their players next.

I'm not meaning to call you out VEL, because it is obviously concievable and has been talked about, but I really wish there was some variety in the league so that it's not a disappointing year when the Yankees or Red Sox don't win the World Series.

Also, I don't think (except for their fans and the MLB Advertising sales) it's "disappointing year" when the red sox or yanks don't win the WS.

That being said, with the big payrolls, heek in mind for every Manny or A-rod, their's a Kevin Brown.

**The Miz** · 12-24-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

I just hate the attitude that the rest of the MLB is around to develop players for New York/Boston. Oakland doesn't really help that, but thats basically how baseball reporting goes. Who gives Boston/New York their players next.

Why Oakland? Giambi is the only one. Foulke and Damon did not come up with Oakland and each spent a total of one year there.

**The Outlaw** · 12-24-2005, 08:43 PM

We don't need to get rid of Langerhauns.

**The Miz** · 12-24-2005, 09:23 PM

A Kelly Johnson/Matt Diaz platoon will likely equal his production. If Langerhans nets you David Riske or another good reliever it is certainly worth it.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Miz

Why Oakland? Giambi is the only one. Foulke and Damon did not come up with Oakland and each spent a total of one year there.

But, in both cases (Foulke & Damon) they "couldn't afford to keep them" also, don't forget Tijada and Hudson and Mulder.

They are always considered a "small market" team, which you would think they should have no problems out there, I think because of the choices Billy Beane makes with his "money ball" system, it makes them possible look "more poor" then they actually are.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-24-2005, 11:17 PM

hey LC, or EOE (first two NYY fans that come to mind) why didn't Johnson want to pitch to Porsada last year? and think it will effect him that the Red Sox signed "his catcher". Who started his career with Boston 15yrs ago...)

**The Miz** · 12-24-2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives

But, in both cases (Foulke & Damon) they "couldn't afford to keep them" also, don't forget Tijada and Hudson and Mulder.

They are always considered a "small market" team, which you would think they should have no problems out there, I think because of the choices Billy Beane makes with his "money ball" system, it makes them possible look "more poor" then they actually are.

Damon was not wanted back, he had an awful year in 2001.

I'd love to hear what choices you think Beane makes that make them look poorer, VEL.

**BCWWF** · 12-25-2005, 12:42 AM

In terms of success, the A's are perennially competitive in the division but they have never really contended for a World Series. I don't believe this current era of A's has made it out of the first round has it?

So I would say Billy Beane has done more to keep his team competitive than to win a World Series. You would have to assume that just one of those players could have made the difference, Tejada, Giambi, Damon, Dye, Hudson, Mulder, Isringhausen.

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. So while I would rather be a fan of the A's than the Royals, I wouldn't call his way of spending to be perfect.

**The Miz** · 12-25-2005, 01:49 AM

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.

Quote:

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** · 12-25-2005, 02:03 AM

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** · 12-25-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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** · 12-25-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Miz

I'd love to hear what choices you think Beane makes that make them look poorer, VEL.

Giambi, Foulke, Damon, Tijada, Hudson, Mulder, Dye, Isringhausen.

Are you saying they couldn't afford to keep any of those players?

**The Miz** · 12-25-2005, 05:00 AM

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** · 12-25-2005, 05:08 AM

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** · 12-25-2005, 05:35 AM

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

**VonErich Lives** · 12-25-2005, 08:02 AM

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...

**Excellance of Execution** · 12-25-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives

hey LC, or EOE (first two NYY fans that come to mind) why didn't Johnson want to pitch to Porsada last year? and think it will effect him that the Red Sox signed "his catcher". Who started his career with Boston 15yrs ago...)

I think it was just a matter of preferance. Johnson was comfortable with how Flaherty caught him and i would guess how he called the game. Honestly, i don't think it will affect him much. How could it? I don't think he could be quite as bad as last year.

**VonErich Lives** · 12-25-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excellance of Execution

I think it was just a matter of preferance. Johnson was comfortable with how Flaherty caught him and i would guess how he called the game. Honestly, i don't think it will affect him much. How could it? I don't think he could be quite as bad as last year.

I thought he was good the 2nd half last year? maybe, I just caught him in a few good games.

I just hope Flahrety can catch a knuckleball, cause that's going to be his job, once every 5 games, catch wakefield.

**Excellance of Execution** · 12-25-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives

I thought he was good the 2nd half last year? maybe, I just caught him in a few good games.

I just hope Flahrety can catch a knuckleball, cause that's going to be his job, once every 5 games, catch wakefield.

He had glimmers a couple of games, but other than that, he was a disappointment in my eyes. I expect him to bounce back. It seems all the Yanks big signings do better their second year. Its almost like, the Yanks sign a big player the following year and it takes the limelight and pressure off the player they signed the year before. A-Rod put up better numbers his second year and so did Tino (when he originally signed), Giambi and probably more. I expect Johnson to be way better this year. Not quite his old self, but close.

**BCWWF** · 12-25-2005, 04:07 PM

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!"

12-25-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero

I sort of agree.
The Jays do need a legit HR threat/RBI guy, it should have came in the form of an outfielder, as the Jays are heavy loaded in the infield.

However, Batista had no place on the team anymore, especially at the sum of money he'd be making. Hudson was my favourite Jay, that's the tough part to swallow. Not to mention he's lightyears ahead defensively of any other 2B in the majors.

The Jays still need pop from the outfield. PLEASE MOVE HINSKE.
Wonder if Koskie or Overbay can be shifted to the outfield...?

loosing hudson is gonna hurt quite a bit, batista... not so much, but the jays REALLY needed an homerun/rbi guy

**Loose Cannon** · 12-25-2005, 05:15 PM

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** · 12-25-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

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** · 12-25-2005, 06:11 PM

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** · 12-25-2005, 11:00 PM

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** · 12-26-2005, 01:57 AM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

**The Miz** · 12-26-2005, 02:05 AM

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

**The Miz** · 12-26-2005, 02:13 AM

Quote:

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

**BCWWF** · 12-26-2005, 04:19 AM

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** · 12-26-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

**The Miz** · 12-26-2005, 04:26 AM

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

**BCWWF** · 12-26-2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

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.

**BCWWF** · 12-26-2005, 05:01 AM

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!

12-24-2005, 02:06 PM	#1041
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	Latest rumor is Red Sox send Wells to LAD for a prospect (eith Broxton or Jackson) Red Sox then send the prospect to TB for Julio "May or may not have beaten his wife" Lugo

12-24-2005, 05:24 PM	#1043
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	Move from where? Lugo's a natural SS and has played there his whole career. If need be, Loretta moving to SS wouldn't be that big of a deal, I believe he came up as one with Milwaukee and has a lot of experience there and at 3B. He definately has the arm for it.

12-24-2005, 05:55 PM	#1044
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	But why would the Twins, with the best pitcher in the AL and one of the top overall staffs, go after more prospects when in reality they are probably just as close as the Red Sox to making the next step.

12-24-2005, 07:11 PM	#1046
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I just hate the attitude that the rest of the MLB is around to develop players for New York/Boston. Oakland doesn't really help that, but thats basically how baseball reporting goes. Who gives Boston/New York their players next. I'm not meaning to call you out VEL, because it is obviously concievable and has been talked about, but I really wish there was some variety in the league so that it's not a disappointing year when the Yankees or Red Sox don't win the World Series.

12-24-2005, 08:43 PM	#1050
The Outlaw Unofficial Legend Posts: 11,931	We don't need to get rid of Langerhauns.

12-24-2005, 09:23 PM	#1051
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	A Kelly Johnson/Matt Diaz platoon will likely equal his production. If Langerhans nets you David Riske or another good reliever it is certainly worth it.

12-24-2005, 11:17 PM	#1053
VonErich Lives WTF do you want? Posts: 14,760	hey LC, or EOE (first two NYY fans that come to mind) why didn't Johnson want to pitch to Porsada last year? and think it will effect him that the Red Sox signed "his catcher". Who started his career with Boston 15yrs ago...)

12-25-2005, 12:42 AM	#1055
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	In terms of success, the A's are perennially competitive in the division but they have never really contended for a World Series. I don't believe this current era of A's has made it out of the first round has it? So I would say Billy Beane has done more to keep his team competitive than to win a World Series. You would have to assume that just one of those players could have made the difference, Tejada, Giambi, Damon, Dye, Hudson, Mulder, Isringhausen. 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. So while I would rather be a fan of the A's than the Royals, I wouldn't call his way of spending to be perfect.

12-25-2005, 02:03 AM	#1057
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	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.

12-25-2005, 05:00 AM	#1060
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	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.

12-25-2005, 05:08 AM	#1061
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	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.

12-25-2005, 05:35 AM	#1062
The Icon of Elisim Elitist Member Posts: 15,438	You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Miz again.

12-25-2005, 08:02 AM	#1063
VonErich Lives WTF do you want? Posts: 14,760	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...

12-25-2005, 04:07 PM	#1067
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	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!"

12-25-2005, 05:15 PM	#1069
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	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.

12-25-2005, 06:11 PM	#1071
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	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.

12-26-2005, 02:05 AM	#1074
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	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

12-26-2005, 04:19 AM	#1076
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	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.

12-26-2005, 04:26 AM	#1078
The Miz Clutch Poster Posts: 11,997	Actually, not "Duh". Blanton > Hudson, Mulder > Haren

12-26-2005, 05:01 AM	#1080
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	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!