The D-Bags just acquired Dan Haren for a package of about 5 or 6 guys. I don't have the time or inclination to look up all these jackasses right now and evaluate the deal but I wanted to get this news up as soon as I read it and find out what people think about how this improves our competition.
Since I haven't really looked closely at the deal my only real thought on this is that the A's are a complete fucking joke. This guy wasn't going to be a free agent for quite some time so I see no reason to dump him (unless this package is off the charts). This team has had a tremendous scouting/development system for years yet continues to piss away talented players. Being financially responsible is one thing, but being cheap should not be tolerated. My guess is this team makes a huge profit and will continue to do so. Here's an idea, maybe if you gave a shit about competing people would show up to games and you wouldn't have to put up a tarp in the upper deck of your stadium to hide all the empty seats. And don't give me the small market sob story. There is plenty of money in the Bay Area and it isn't like the team is in KC, Tampa, or Minneapolis. If you can't make money then sell the team. My guess is that these guys will just continue to plead poverty while raking in the cash and sticking it to the few fans they have left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
This is what Rotoworld has to say:
That's five of Arizona's top 10 prospects, plus Eveland, who no longer qualified. The A's are really going for quantity over quality here, which is pretty surprising. Gonzalez has star potential, but plate discipline is a big issue. Anderson is clearly the best bet of the pitchers. Smith and Eveland are more bottom-of-the-rotation guys, but Anderson could be a No. 2 in time. Now that Haren is gone, the A's might as well trade Joe Blanton, too.
I agree with you on Billy Beane, by the way. He is a smart guy and he is able to field a contender every year by going after stats that are undervalued on the market, but there was no reason for him to give up Haren at this point, especially for a handful of prospects, only two of which have very much potential.
Beane seems satisfied to make it to the playoffs 3 of every 4 years instead of trying to put together a team that can compete in the playoffs (i.e. a stud pitcher, great bullpen, and "clutch" hitting although I hate the term clutch).
It's bullshit.
I think you're off the mark on this one Purple Stuff. Here's why...
Haren does have another 3 years on his deal (or it might be 2). Either way, he's probably going to be really expensive when free agent time comes around. Probably too much for the A's. Oakland is ghetto and they have the worst stadium is baseball. Without a new stadium, they're never gonna attract enough fans to increase revenue.
In addition, the A's are going to suck for the next 3-4 years regardless of whether they have Haren or not. Their lineup sucks and beyond Harne/Blanton the rotation is nothing to be proud of (Harden never pitches).
Therefore, trading him for 5-6 guys is EXACTLY what they should've done. These guys likely won't be big contributors for a few years, but who gives a shit? Nobody on the A's is gonna be worth shit anyway.
Getting 5-6 guys that might be good in 3 years is much smarter than watching Haren pitch well for a team w/ no chance of making the playoffs...and then watching him walk.
Furthermore, Haren is at his highest possible value right now. He's locked up for reasonably cheap and coming off his best season. If Beane waited Haren's stock would almost certainly go down unless he had an absolutely lights out season.
Assuming the prospects are high-end...this is another great move from Beane which proves he's one of the best in the game.
I'm not even sure it is Beane as much as the ownership group telling him to cut costs at every corner. Beane (and I think the scouting department as well) has just run out of aces after all this time. These guys are becoming the Donald Sterling's of the MLB despite having had an opportunity to put together a powerhouse team over the last few years. With Bonds leaving SF there is even more opportunity to seize the market up there (Aren't they building a new ballpark too?) but instead they are dumping top notch players who are under cheap control for 3 more years?
The only team worse at this is Florida (they make $60 MM in league payouts before selling a ticket yet have a payroll of $10MM going into next year).
Pretty sad from a franchise that has a pretty good history of success. It is also infuriating because it means the Gayngels will win their division by 20 games next year.
Adding Haren to Webb in the D-Bag rotation is NOT something I wanted to see. However, I am glad to see that they emptied their farm system to do it.
Here is Forbes' list of baseball teams' profitability for 2007:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
(sorted by revenue)
Yes, the A's are getting a new stadium in Fremont. Also they are not paying for the ground lease because of advertising.
The thing with the Marlins is that they have fire sales yet still win the World Series every few years.
It keeps cutting off the end of that URL. Just google Forbes Business of baseball table
I don't know why you think the A's have the chance of being some power house. I don't see any evidence for that whatsoever.
They had a very short run a few years back. This run was put together with home-grown talent (Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Tejada, Giambi) and some guys pulled off the scrap heap. All their minor league talent developing at the same time was lucky more than anything else.
Also, I don't see them as being even close to competing with the Giants for fanbase. Not even FUCKING CLOSE. The Giants have history, tradition, location, and an amazing stadium (and Bonds). The A's had Canseco and have a POS football stadium in the ghetto. The A's are Rollie Fingers while the Giants are Willie Mays. I'm glad we're not rivals w/ the A's because I wouldn't even give a shit.
The A's have 4 WS titles, SF has ZERO! I don't buy that history/tradition bullshit in favor of the giants (although they do have nicer building in better part of town by a long shot). However it isn't like the A's don't have a fanbase/history or that they are in some butt-fuck part of the country with no money in the surrounding area (SC football proves people will drive to the hood for sports).
Oakland could have been much more proactive in trying to lock guys up to affordable long term deals instead of letting every single one of those guys you mentioned leave. I do agree on the luck element (I think Beane gets way too much credit for work done by the scouting department). I think that is the only reason it has taken so long for this organization to be exposed as a fraud (after years of letting one or two guys go the cupboard is now REALLY bare). If their ownership wasn't completely cheap they wouldn't be in the shitbox situation they are now (with absolutely no chance of competing as you pointed out). Also, I think success breeds increased revenue (along with fan perception that the team is trying to win and not just fortunate that their GM is holding things together with paper and string).
And for the record, we are not rivals with ANYONE! We are the Dodgers and everyone else wishes they were!
Which of the following guys do you think they should've held onto???
1. Zito
2. Mulder
3. Hudson
4. Tejada
5. Giambi
Most of these guys were either way over-priced or have experienced a serious downturn (or both). Zito wasn't worth the money. Mulder has been consistently injured. Tejada and Giambi have been frequently injured and experienced their obvious post-roids decline.
I think Hudson was the only guy that has proved to be worth holding onto...and he has had injury issues too.
They probably should've gotten rid of Chavez too. He's gone to pure shit. They had oppotunities to trade him for a big return, but chose not to. Now they couldn't get much of anything for his washed up ass.
I think this entire thread about what the A's could've been (or should've been) is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. The USC football/ghetto analogy makes no sense. USC has 5 home games per year...not 81 home games. In addition, it's a college with all that ra-ra alma matter crap. Furthermore, the Coliseum is a great college football venue. The Oakland Coliseum is a fucking joke for a baseball stadium.
Look at the Forbes link Bobby put up. As of 2006 the Giants are worth $459MM while the A's are worth $292MM. There's a reason for this difference. The primary difference is probably location/venue.
I'm not saying the A's should have been a perennial WS champion. I'm saying they wouldn't be complete dogshit (and had a chance a few years ago to be pretty good) if they hadn't refused to spend money at every single opportunity. Lots of teams have shitty stadiums/locations but still attempt to compete. I'm not saying the A's should have kept certain guys (although hindsight is 20/20 with all those dudes and I'm sure they weren't let go because Beane was convinced they were ripe for a fall). I'm saying they should have kept SOMEBODY. ANYBODY. Or at least tried to replace the guys they lost by signing somebody else.
My point is less about what the A's team could have been and more a complaint about cheap ass owners who make tons of cash while claiming they can't afford to play with the big boys. The key numbers I looked at on that chart were income and increase in value. The A's appreciated in value and made money but the owner refuses to bump payroll or try to stay competitive. How do you expect fans to show up anywhere if that is your stance?
Also to the stadium point, more money comes from TV anyway so the A's are still in a much better position than teams in smaller media markets with similar location/venue issues.
And the Coliseum (despite its history) is a dump. There are massive negotiations going on about restoring the building because it is so old and run down (Didn't you get that email from Mike Garrett?). People will show up to see a winner though (SC drew only 50,000 a game in some of the Hackett years).
The other thing I learned from that chart is we all need to chip in and buy an MLB team pronto. Look at the income/appreciation of these clubs in comparison to the cost of the team and it is an unreal investment. Now if we can just get a bank to loan us a couple hundred million bucks we are set!
Yes, but they've seen unprecedented growth in the last decade. This isn't going to last. McCourt has seen a 35% increase in 4 years.
Post a Comment