OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Schott speaks
| By kevink on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 09:06 am:|
I'm sorry that Stevie feels that what Beane said is "unfair."
| By fwa3 on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:30 am:|
It is unfair! Mental blunders by the A's cost them in the series! Not the officiating! Not "bush league" tactics by the bosox! And NOT a limited payroll! An extra 50 million wouldnt have byrnes not tagging home nor kept Miggy from even getting to home (which he would have done handily!). It wouldnt have kept macha from needlessly using foulke in game 2! It wouldnt have kept rincon throwing melon balls when holding the lead/small deficit was at a must! It wouldnt have prevented our lineup from popping up in three straight AB's with the bases loaded! And finally, it wouldnt have kept 2 conscutive batters from looking at strike 3!
| By chavvy03 on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:45 am:|
I agree with you fwa3. The A's held their own destiny and decided their fate. The only argument I might have in what you are saying, is that maybe with that extra $50 mil, we could've gotten some players that wouldn't have made those mistakes. Sometimes there is a reason that a player costs so much......because he does those little things the right way and earns his big paycheck. But I totally hear what you're saying and I have to agree. I guess the one positive we can drag out of that whole game 3 mess, is that I'm pretty sure the Oakland A's will NOT make those same mistakes in the future. You can probably bet money that Byrnes will always go back and tag homeplate no matter what, and that Miggy will always finish the play before disputing. Its a hard lesson to learn....but we did learn from it and that might just pay off in the future.
| By deajay on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:47 am:|
I didn't know our payroll was up to $56mil.
Have to agree with fwa on this. Once again, this team (small payroll and all) should have won. In fact, they should have swept and Boston should have finished with 0 runs in regulation to our 3(at least), Saturday nite. And even with that, we still might have finished it off in game 4 if Foulke wasn't pitching with a bad back. But that's a copout and it shouldn't have even gotten to game 4.
Small payroll or not, bottom line: baserunning killed us. And even with that, we still should have won 1-0, because as if that wasn't enough the guys horribly botched that "sure out" at third when obstruction was called. No, this series was not lost because of a small payroll, it was lost because of multiple brain cramps.
| By eyleenn on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:55 am:|
According to Glenn Dickey yesterday, Schott apparently spoke at church on Sunday in Boston:
"At Sunday mass in Boston, A's owner Steve Schott was dismayed to hear the presiding priest offering prayers for the Red Sox fans.
Schott rose and said, "There are A's fans here, too, Father. I think you should give them equal time."
"All right," the reluctant priest said, "but that will cost you double in the collection plate."
If Schott really did this, I commend him.
| By diamond_lil on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:01 am:|
I knew that as soon as I read Beane's latest excuse, Schott was not going to like it and would take it personally. I even mentioned that was the wrong thing to say and would reflect baddly on ownership.
Last year when Beane had Howe to use as scapegoat, I wrote right here that I was going to wait and see what the excuse would be and who the new scapegoat would be if they would blow it again...
Beane should have consulted with his spin doctor to come up with a better excuse than he did. Or he should have stuck with his crap shoot excuse. Many people are willing to buy that one...
But still, his worse quote came when he stated "I will sleep like a kitten"...well, it seems Schott's grandkids didn't make it easy for him to sleep like a kitten.
I'm sure Schott would have slept like a kitten too if he didn't have those grandkids...he certainly wouldn't have stayed up tossing thinking of the disappointed fandom. We don't count for them.
| By diamond_lil on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:04 am:|
Ey, I commend the priest for saying that to Schott about the collection plate. He showed an incredible knowledge of who he was saying it to...
and now we know why we lost...the collection plate was passed and Schott passed too
| By voxhoo on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:25 am:|
For me, the other tough-to-swallow play was the botched rundown. The A's panicked and forgot how to execute a simple fundamental play.
I don't care if you're a team of all-stars, if you play tentatively, if you lose your head and composure, you will lose against playoff-caliber teams everytime.
By the way, the A's payroll was not $56 mil any more than the Twins was $67 mil as reported by ESPN. ESPN totals up the annual salaries for everyone on the 25-man roster. But, the A's picked up Sparks off the waiver wire, so the Tigers paid most of his $6 mil salary. The Twins picked up a few players the same way, paying only the pro-rated major league min.
The A's spent just over $50 mil. not counting benefits or salaries for guys in the minors on major league contracts like Mark Johnson (was this guy the highest paid AAA .200 hitter?) and Ed Yarnall or guys who are still under contract but were released like the $1+ mil paid to Mike Holtz. I'm also not sure if the A's had to buy out any options on Magnante and Venafro or not. The Curse of the 3 Mikes lives on, one season is not enough punishment (Hey, maybe that's what we should call the A's post-season curse: Curse of the Three Mikes). If you add all those guys in, then the A's spent over $52 mil for all major league contracts.
| By rocket on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 12:42 pm:|
ESPN's website shows the A's at 49.2 million
which includes Sparks at 6 million. The exact numbers are not really available to the public,
with bonuses etc figured in. The A's payroll was somewhere between 50 and 55 million.
The real problem is that the payroll budget for
2004 is going to be very similar, but the core
players all have escalating salaries, thus leaving
less $$ to fill in the holes.
| By okplayer on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 02:26 pm:|
thank you FWA. so long as you don't hold yourself accountable you'll never reach the promise land. babies!
| By okplayer on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 02:42 pm:|
Must admit that I agree with Schitt for a change. BB was talking out of his ass, and given, that he could have been the GM for the sox, makes the comments even more curious.
| By eyleenn on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 05:48 pm:|
Just goes to show how frustrated BB was. Deep down, he probably wants that extra payroll, but he puts up a good show of reveling in the challenge of the small budget.
| By chris_d on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 07:14 pm:|
Corporate PR people call it "staying on point"...Funny how similar Glenn Dickey's bit about Schott challenging the priest in Boston (which sounds more rude than feisty, actually) falls right in line with the remarkably inaccurate "Gosh, what a competitor Schott is" theme that ran through the USA Today article on Schott a few weeks ago.
No doubt both writers were fed those bits/theme by Sam Spear, Schott's PR guy.