Incorrect information being used by the press . . . . no suprise but . . .
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Incorrect information being used by the press . . . . no suprise but . . .
| By oakfan on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 11:37 am:|
Because the A's played that team from NY last week and will again starting tonight, the press is of course writing stories about Jason and the A's. That is all understandable and fine. What I don't understand is why they keep making statements that would make the reader believe that Jason would still be here if the A's had only offered the no-trade clause. Now am I forgetting something or didn't S&H include the clause at the end?
Here is the quote from the NY Post:
"If the A's had included a no-trade deal, Giambi would be in the first season of a six-year contract worth $91 million instead of signing a seven-year pact worth $120 million with the Yankees."
You all probably know what I think of this statement. Total bleeping BS!
And of course, the more I think of it and watch this team mature before my eyes this year, I am glad McHammy decided to chase after the bright lights. His departure does not seam to have ripped the heart out of the A's but only strengthened it.
I know, I know, I need to get over this but being and A's fan has made me a bit defensive. I am so tired of every Yankees/Redsox Tonight . . I mean "Baseball" Tonight starting off with how NY or Boston did and the most important question on everyone's mind, "Is Pedro 100% yet?" Who the bleep cares? The Redsox are just going to choke by Sept. like they always do. (deep breath)
Happy Tuesday Everyone! :-)
Here's my story of what happened....
The A's refused to include the no trade clause.
The controversy is around when the no trade issue came into the negotiations and who turned it into the contract derailment.
Some say Jason threw in the no trade clause as a monkey wrench (Glenn Dickey's version) into the negotiations because he never wanted to sign with the A's to begin with...
Some believe the deal was sealed and ready to be signed by Jason (with the no trade clause there from the start in one form or another) in early spring when Schott took the no trade clause off the table....this fact was confirmed to me by DePodesta.
believe what you want to believe...
Jason is gone!
I for one didn't want him to leave because of his bat and was worried the A's would not be able to replace his offensive numbers.
But I do believe this team can survive the loss of his bat if some of the present players can pick up the slack.
Actually I'm a lot more worried at our CF lack of defense and lack of bat to boot...
| By jace on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 11:58 am:|
Remember how depressing it was after Mac left? But the A's endured and, the 70-HR season notwithstanding, eventually he was but a distant memory because the team moved on to bigger and better things. The same thing will happen again. It just takes time. Of course with Mac, it helped ease the pain that the Cards never did much once he got there. Let's hope the same fate awaits the yankees (at the hands of the A's).
| By buzz on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:01 pm:|
Even more infuriating was the Steinbrenner quote that preceded your excerpt from the George King story in today's Post:
"Was I ever impressed," The Boss told The Post yesterday. "They (Oakland fans) booed him, but what those people out there fail to realize is that he wanted to stay for less money if the team would have given him a no-trade clause."
That's not only a dishonest statement, it also piles on Schott and Hoffman, something that fellow owners don't usually do to each other, since they need cooperation to get anything accomplished on the labor front. Having a fellow owner take shots at your credibility isn't going to endear Steinbrenner to S&H when it comes time to vote on which way MLB goes with their economic system. Not like they were on the same side of the issue to start with. Anyway, I thought it was an unusual cheapshot for one owner to take at another. It's something you rarely see in MLB. There must be some real loathing between those guys.
One more thing on this Giambi deal. Billy Beane was on KNBR in January and addressed the issue of Giambi's contract head-on. He said that the idea that Jason had agreed to a deal last spring that was simply conditional upon the no-trade clause was not true. Jason and his agent have spun it that way, but it sounds like they did a lot to dash the deal themselves. Beane didn't deny that some components of the deal had been agreed upon, but said they weren't at the finish line, and there were several other issues that would have needed to be worked out. It wasn't just the no-trade. I believe Billy, as Susan Slusser has always said that he is an impeccably honest guy. In the end, it was the best thing for the A's. A 34-36 year old Jason, on creaky legs, making $16 million per year, was not in the A's best interest. He might make the A's decision look foolish for the first year or two of his contract, but beyond that, I'll take Carlos Pena's potential production (and physical longevity) over Jason's.
| By oakfan on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:11 pm:|
Here is a link to the archived story stating that the A's did offer the no trade clause at the end.
I understand the beginning of the process and what happened has been debated and maybe always will but in the end, they did offer Jason what he wanted and he said no thank you and many other things that I think he is learning to regret.
I just drug this topic out again because there have been many inacurate articles that lead you to belive 1. That the A's never offered the no trade clause and 2. That it was all about the no trade clause.
Lil, when you are able to drop names like that I guess I can't argue with what happened at the beginning. I just don't think it should have been a big enough issue to keep him from signing the contract if he really wanted to stay in Oakland. This is now becoming PR spin to make McHammy look like the good guy. People are foolish to believe this spin. On one hand he really wanted to stay in Oakland, on the other had he always wanted to be a Yankee. WHICH ONE IS IT?!?!?!? Of course his next question would be "What paper are you with?"
I also believe it was the best financial decision for the A's. As I also believe that Beane's ability to turn a negative into a positive made it an even better decision in the long run.
Remember that Schott himself went public stating that he could not accept the no trade clause and even added that not even a partial no trade would be possible. Beane went public saying the issue was non negotiable.
But the fact remains that the decision was taken not to sign Jason and the no trade clause was a very important issue for both parties.
Like Jace pointed out in her post, we went through all of this when Mark McGwire was traded.
But Steinbrenner's statements of course and as an aside, typical of that arrogant sob.
But MLB prides themselves in picking who deserves to own a franchise and they allow this convicted felon to dominate the game. They are all at fault for this.
| By dorrit on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:22 pm:|
I completely understand having the Red Sox early on for sports news.A no hitter is exciting, and they're playing well. But, EVERYTHING everyday is Yankees, Yankees, Yankees. Now it's "Jason and the A's on tonight.." Those Yankee fans are going to try their best to make the A's miserable. Of course, it's going to be justified if the YANKEE fans boo! (or do worse..)
The bottomline is this: the A's organization wants to paint the picture that it was Jason who never intended to re-sign; the Yankees' organization wants to paint the picture that it was the A's who stiffed Jason, who actually wanted to stay. If I understand Lil's recap, believe who you want to believe. From the boos last week, A's fans have accepted the organization's spin, regardless of whether it's true or false.
It will be interesting to see the Yankee fans' reaction this series. As a point of contrast with the "rude" A's fans, will the Yankees fans bond quickly and lustily scream their support for Jason tonight? At this point, I really don't care. It appears that the trade worked out best for all parties concerned (and if Jason is to be paid $120 million over seven-years, it's probably best that it come out of Stinkbrenner's wallet).
Oakfan, I am not dropping names here. When Glenn Dickey accused Jason of purposedly derailing the negotiations, I saw DePodesta at the Coli and asked him if that was correct. His answer to me was: "No, that is not being fair to Jason...the no trade clause has always been there in one form or another..."
I think the timing of when Jason wanted to go to New York is what confuses things a bit.
It is my belief that the A's could have signed Giambi the year before his free agency if they so wished, but they did not...at that time Jason wanted to stay and would have signed. Once the offseason passed and spring showed no progress, then Giambi at that point had his eyes set with the Yankees.
The exact same thing happened with Mark McGwire.
The A's decided they did not want to sign him to an extension during the offseason prior to his free agency. Once the free agency year started, the fate was sealed.
What I don't understand is why it's such a huge problem to understand that contract negotiations do go sour and players have the right to move on, especially when they see that the match with the team is not working. Teams and players have to weigh what is best for them and move on...
It is the badmouthing and bitterness from players and team owners that gets to me...
the fans are always in between and are always asked to stay loyal when there is no loyalty in baseball anymore.
I think A's fans booed Giambi because of the things he said about the fans and about Oakland.
I booed him for that reason alone and not because of his and the A's decisions.
| By oakfan on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:51 pm:|
Can we all agree on one point, that it is now being spun as if the A's never offered him the no-trade clause at any point and that this is not true and that the A's did offer to include it in their final contract offer? This is the main point I was trying to get across believe it or not.
Also, if memory serves correct, once the no-trade clause was O.K.'d by S&H then McHammy's stance changed to well are they going to up their dollar amount, this is the same amount they offered in the spring. Am I right Lil?
Yes, it was too late and Giambi had his eyes set in NY.
I think that when Giambi saw that he had a chance of going to the NY Yankees, Oakland could have offered him the moon and he would not have stayed.
Actually, the exact same thing happened with McGwire...at the eleventh hour, Sandy Alderson offered him 8 million for that year or something like that...so many in the media said that Mark turned down the A's offer and wanted to leave all along.
| By ronc on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 02:51 pm:|
"I think that when Giambi saw that he had a chance of going to the NY Yankees, Oakland could have offered him the moon and he would not have stayed. "
I agree. Once he knew the Yanks were interested the A's were toast.
| By chavy4ever on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 02:53 pm:|
The fact remains that Giambi should not have had a chance to go to New York. They should have had his deal signed, sealed and delivered in Spring Training.
| By deajay on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 03:15 pm:|
Lil, you keeping talking about Long's lack of bat. Yeh, .208 sucks ... altho' we're only a month into the season, and heck, Ramon is hitting .197. The fact is, next to Tejada, Long is the most productive on the club with risp and 3rd most productive (behind Tejada & Pena) with runners on. In both those situations he is hitting .302 with 12 & 13 RBIs respectively. While Chavy is hitting .227 with risp and our DH, Hatteberg is hitting .130. Chavy and Hatteberg with 11 and 4 RBIs,respectively. I'll take the production from any player over less production and a higher avg., anyday. Because that is the bottom line.
| By kevink on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 03:19 pm:|
Another interesting note here is that I'm pretty sure NY did NOT include a no-trade clause in Jason's contract. He obviously had no problem signing it anyway.
DJ, I talk about TLong's lack of offense because of his lack of defense. I think his offense should be better than it is considering his D liability at CF. I'm not even looking at his BA but his OB% which ranks 30th for CFers in the majors.
I never even look at a player's BA anyway...
I consider catcher a defensive position and the offense is to me a plus and a bonus. And Hernandez missed a lot of games so he is still trying to find his timing.
| By buzz on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 03:37 pm:|
Regarding Jason and the no trade clause: you know, I've never heard a definitive answer. Does he have one with the Yankees. Nobody was sure in the days following the signing in December. I don't think it has ever been answered. Does anybody know for certain, and where did they see it?
| By deajay on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 03:45 pm:|
I don't cheer Long's defense either. But the fact is, there are probably 19 worse than him in the majors, who have been playing the position longer. The fact also still remains that at this date, he is still one of their best RBI men, while with a woeful (.240) obp. His career obp, however, is .328.
I most definitely agree (as you know, I think) about catching being first and foremost defensive. I mentioned Ramon's avg. along with Long's, because neither will be hitting that woefully as the season moves along. My point is, this is the best start they've had in 9 years, we're less than a month into the season, and everybody is already trading away half the team. I think it is considerably early for knee jerk reactions. Now, at the end of next month and the numbers for a couple of these guys still look the same, then it probably is time to get concerned.
Hey, I never advocated trading TLong. But he does rank 26th out of 30 in fielding percentage out there at CF.
| By jayho on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 06:32 pm:|
I'd trade him if I could secure a real speed guy at the top of the line up. Not sure that is out there. Long isn't horrible but we could improve in CF...
| By deajay on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 06:44 pm:|
We could improve in CF ... so could 20 other clubs. We've got so many "good" CFs in the AL, that not one was voted to the all star team last year. Even if you wanted to trade him, who do you think is going to give up a good cf? Yeh, Blue Jays would deal Cruz, but he has shown no consistent offensive abilities. Stewart would be great, but probably too expensive. Personally, I'd like to see them get Garrett Anderson, but his salary is probably too high. And, of course, I would LOVE to have Juan Pierre. But I don't think the Rockies are that crazy. And there is no one in the farm system that I know of. We may be looking at Long in CF for some time to come ... well beyond this season.
| By eyleenn on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 08:08 pm:|
You might remember that Jason made the statement that he had secretly made up his mind that if the A's didn't sweeten the deal by the All-Star Break, he wouldn't give the A's any special consideration over offers from other teams. Funny thing is, the Yankers were the only other team that was interested and they made no secret of it even during the season.
| By darth2900 on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 09:44 pm:|
Jason Giambi is history. I, like Lil, take more exception to the fact that he said "it is nice to play in a place where the fans understand the game."
I do agree that he didn't want to be in Oakland though. I think all fans of baseball should be looking at Mark Sweeney in Kansas City and giving praise. He signed a deal for under market value, he made the team committ to winning in writing (which is really the only committment to winning any team has ever made in a players contract that I have ever heard of) or he gets out of the deal and is free to find a new team willing to over spend.... all things Jason could have done. Instead he goes to New York and whines that the A's didn't resign Damon or Izzy (please), he bad mouths those of us who voted him in as a starter in the All Star Game, chanted MVP everytime he came to the plate and "jokes" about Oakland on Letterman. The guy is a world class suck up, we were yesterdays news to him and thus okay to be bagged on. He got his earful 3 days in a row.
It is 2 way street... The A's owners harbor some of the blame, but I still feel the bottom line is if he really wanted to be here, he would be.
| By deajay on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 09:50 pm:|
Also, very interesting comments from Fosse tonite. As he said, the Yankees got Giambi for his power because they had no power hitters ... gorgie porgie made no secret that was why he wanted him. But Jason's power is to left and right center ... death valley areas in Yankee stadium. If Jason starts pressing for the porch he will screw up his swing. He may hit for power on the road, but he may never hit for much in the way of HRs in Yankee Stadium. Will be interesting to watch.
dj, I heard Korach mention that Joe Torre thinks the reason Jason is struggling at home is because of the fixation with that short porch. So that confirms what Fosse thinks.