Can't disagree with Gammons this time
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Can't disagree with Gammons this time
| By deajay on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:40 pm:|
"The Oakland collapse has been tied to one reality ... the Big Three finally hit a collective bump in their careers, and the bullpen was too weak to get nine outs a night. And there was the question of this team's personality which other than Mark Kotsay seemed passive at times.
Which begs the second question: Should they have signed Miguel Tejada for 5 yrs. and $50mil last spring and traded Eric Chavez last winter for three young players and played Bobby Crosby at third base?
Think about Tejada's energy, think about his presence in the lineup and on the top step of the dugout every day."
Yeh, well that last paragraph certainly hits home and I've thought about that a lot. IMO it is pretty hard to argue with all of what he says.
Especially in retrospect I agree that Tejada should have been the one signed. Be that as it may, Tejada had a lineup full of protection this year. Will Chavez ever become the guy that teams fear? From the looks of his confidence and cavileer attitude it doesen't appear promising. Hopefully someday the ownership that decided to make him be the one, will get him some protection.
| By chavvy03 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:20 am:|
I would have to agree with that scenario of keeping Tejada. This team really misses his bat....but most of all his leadership and personality! Gosh...its making me depressed just thinking about it. Oh well...that's life....we have Chavez instead and we gotta make the best of it. I wonder how much Durazo will command on the open market? Man, we really need that guy back.
| By yc2578 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:02 am:|
Did you know that Chavez had a better OPS and more runs created per 27 outs than Tejada? Just saying. Chavez's counting numbers just looked unimpressive this year because of the broken wrist but he had a very good year.
| By sactodavey on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:14 am:|
durazo is arb eligible i bet the A's give him a multi yr contract before that happens he is worth 5 yr maybe 3 yr 15 mill
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:16 am:|
RTD, no doubt you're right about Tejada's offensive support in his current lineup ... that and the fact Camden Yards is pretty hitter friendly.
Yeh, great Chavez had a better OPS and granted, considering his broken hand, he did well to come back and do as well as he did. And there is no question re his defense. But he certainly fits the passive category and being the "franchise player" I guess it just sticks in a number of fans' craw, that he is anything but a leader.
But big OPS #s or not, those numbers seemed to disappear (except for the contributing walks) when it counted most. Tejada made a habit of getting his big hits here, when they were meaningful ... more often than not ... with the game on the line. Not to mention he is always near the top in fewest Ks in the league. So, even when he makes out, more often than not, the ball is put into play. Yeh, his bat never seemed to show up in the playoffs. But as I said before, you have to get there first; and he was always a huge contributor in that category ... not to mention an energy and leadership the others fed off of. His first year gone = no postseason. A coincidence? I don't think so.
And, yeh, he's gone and no use crying over it. True, but it still hurts.
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:18 am:|
As far as a multi-year deal for Durazo, one does have to wonder about this sudden appearance of vertigo with re to Dan Johnson. I hope it passes quickly. If not, it could threaten his career.
| By renobill on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:25 am:|
Spilt milk for sure but Gammons viewpoint now, was mine last offseason. As much as I hoped for it, this season unfortunately did not change my opinion.
Chavez is good.
Tejada is better.
Spirit, leadership, enthusiasm, overtness, whatever you want to call it, is the difference.
One other reason we should have kept Miggy over Chavez not mentioned by Gammons is the simple fact that we needed one more RH power bat to balance the lineup.
Imagine this offseason if we had kept Miggy.
FIRST OFF, IT WOULD HAVE STARTED A HELL OF ALOT LATER.
Second, we would have the flexability to jettison JDye and Ruby without significantly weakening our team. Swisher and Johnson could be integrated with greater ease.
As it is now, we are going to have trouble finding a spot for another RH power bat. A resigning or replacement of Dye is a wash. 2b is the only spot unless our top ten hitting DH is sacrificed for balance.
Not good, but I do have faith BB will surprise us with a creative solution.
Oh, by the way, fire the Manager!!!
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:31 am:|
I have faith Beane will be creative, as well and surprise us again.
It is interesting to note, that the Tribune seems to think Macha's job could be on the line, believing he is fed up with Beane's interference. Alas, my guess is that he'll finish out his 3yr contract this next season.
Oh, and Kielty is saying he presently has no plans to scrap switch-hitting. Though the organization may suggest otherwise.
| By eyleenn on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:09 am:|
The CC Times also says Macha's future is "in doubt."
| By bigthree17 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:00 pm:|
And here's Gammons again with a couple of notes:
Jeff Kent is going to Cooperstown, but A's owner Steve Schott wouldn't spring for $1.7 million to pick him up for the stretch, blowing postseason revenues.
MLB may be ready for Schott to move to Las Vegas in two years.
| By yc2578 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:14 pm:|
With MLB's stance on Pete Rose and Joe Jackson I still never believe that a team will ever be put in the gambling capital of the world. I also personally don't think a team there would have long term drawing power as there is always going to be other things to do in Vegas.
| By sactodavey on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:20 pm:|
the vegas thing is blow but the thing on kent upsets me more , if we get kent we are playing the red sox with a real chance to win it all if Mulder i shelved damnit!!!!!
schott did this on purpose we have way more talent then the Angels with our pitching yet we from the top up tried our best to lose the divison and did.
| By goldtymer on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:26 pm:|
Sacto, you did scream like chicken little when the A's missed the boat on Kent.
Here is someone (Gammons) basically saying that you were right. While Kent wouldn't have been part of our pitching staff/bullpen, he may have made a big difference.
That's tribute brother.
You may now as the first I can think of to say our season is done, officially say that you told us so.
Good call, I sure didn't want to believe it.
Credit where it is due..sadly.
| By raiderjohn on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:34 pm:|
...just like saying what if Zito started the 8th? Maybe the 9th. We will never know.
| By sactodavey on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:32 pm:|
i wish i was wrong but i always thought Beane would make the key trade to give the team some spark and Dotel was not that trade his was to make up for the huge mistake on rhodes , Kent would have given us veteran leadership and some key hits, this is all that we needed was a key hit here n' there and we win the west.
if we would have own the west with kent does anyone here think we could have beaten Boston with him in linupe ? i do ,as long as we did not play mulder we could have challlenged with Zito, Hudson harden this is what is stupid schit head purposly caused this collapse by not helping this team out .
how many owners would love to have this talent and the ability to challenge for a ws chance? all we needed was 1 more trade but noooo.
gotta wonder if Gammons knows something about shit heads intentions on vegas if he the owner sabataged the team to make excuses for a move? the ownere is really keeping a low profile on a new stadium since they went pub on the parking lot thing, if they really wanted a new satadium those 2 devlopers would have gotton it done hell Magaowen is a food man but he got it done yet your telling me that a billionare builder cannot get a new stadium done? bullshit its all in the big plans i am beggining to wonder if secretley the plans are in works for a vegas move do you know how much $$$$ is in vegas? the hotels will build the stadium for schit head he would pack em in with corp money buying the tickets.
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:40 pm:|
I agree completely with yc's comments on Vegas. The gambling venue, yes, but more so that it is unlikely a team would draw more than we do in Oakland, with any regularity. Vegas is still a transient city and a city with other "primary" interests.
| By whoknows77 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:45 pm:|
The draw wouldn't be the regular fan base - but the wide customerbase for luxury suites. I'd think they would do quite well for the first decade or so, as long as their stadium was among the coolest out there. Once it ceased to be a draw, however, they would likely be in for lean times.
We also have to remember that, while LV is the fastest growing city in America (it is still, right?) it can't maintain this growth into the future. There just isn't enough water.
| By ronc on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:02 pm:|
There was program about sports in Vegas a month or two ago on ESPN. David Stern the commissioner of the NBA said he would consider a team in Vegas if they get rid of the basketball sports book. Selig's view is probably come up with the plans to finance a stadium and we'll get you a team.
We stop dismissing Gammons as "Hedda Hopper" as soon as what he says dovetails with our predispositions. It's sure as hell difficult to separate fact from spin.
My understanding is that the main stumbling block to a Kent trade was Kent's $9 million option for 2005. If we'd traded for Kent, we would have been on the hook to pay him $9 million next year at the same time that Ellis is coming back.
Who knows how much treasure we would have had to give up to get Kent. There were a lot of other doubts about Kent voiced on this site this summer, such as his being a malcontent or whether he'd be able to adapt to AL pitching, but the doubts magically disappeared once it was clear we weren't going to get him. Now he's talked about as if he would have saved our season.
Kent would have been an expensive bet, and that fact didn't change when the trade deadline passed.
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:03 pm:|
5thtime, I believe that Kent subsequently agreed to waive that option, since it was evident Houston wasn't going to pick it up, anyway.
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:05 pm:|
And you're right about opinions being voiced (including mine) with re to his being a malcontent, etc. But when it became clear we weren't going to get anything else, Kent looked pretty darn good for 8 wks. worth.
| By bigthree17 on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:21 pm:|
I thought someone posted an article that Houston wanted Freddy Bynum when we were talking in August. Certainly not an untouchable prospect.
Also, I think in July there was a rumor that the Astros would have been willing to take Rhodes as part of the deal, but that may have been more wishful thinking than reality.
| By deajay on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:07 pm:|
bigthree, I think you're right about Bynum ... seems I recall that as well.
They did express interest in Rhodes right after the Dotel deal. Remember? Rhodes commented he wouldn't have a problem playing in Texas, if the deal went down. But I also think Rhodes was still on the DL at the time. Maybe that is why it never got done. Too bad.
| By dansward on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:24 pm:|
I'm an OPS guy and basically buy into the philosophy. But Tejada drove in ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY RUNS! That's an amazing number. Give Chavez his DL games back and he's no where near that number. Bat Melvin Mora in front of Chavez and he's no where near that number. Yeah, they gave up a special player when Tejada walked out of the clubhouse. But he's not Beane's kind of player...