"Beane explains shocking 72 hours
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: "Beane explains shocking 72 hours
| By deajay on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 09:45 am:|
Nice article by Joe Roderick on this winter's deals. Much we know and have read in athleticsnation; however, some interesting comments from other GMs, etc. Worth the read.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:51 pm:|
In fact, both the Times and the Chron have numerous articles about the A's today. Highly recommended reading.
Also, this column by Neil Hayes is great. Time for Bonds to provide some answers, indeed.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:53 pm:|
And this one about Hudson's departure.
| By orangeman on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:18 pm:|
"The comfortable thing would have been to let this thing just burn itself out, but I'm not going to let that happen," said Beane, whose team has averaged 96 victories the past five seasons. "I'm more excited about this spring than I've been since 2001. I've said this many times, but the 2001 team was the best we've had since the '89 team. It didn't realize its ultimate goal, but it was more of a complete team.
You know, of all the playoff series I've watched over the years with my teams involved, I would have to say this is one of the two or three that still bothers me (I'm referring to A's-Yanks 2001) The A's were the best team in baseball that year. I really think they would have won it all, or at least gotten there.
We may not see another A's team that good for a long time.
Two months on, I still disagree that Billy "had" to make these trades. The ownership could have increased the budget by several million -- that's what they'd been doing the past few years -- in order to accommodate Hudson and Mulder's contracts. Not spending 11 million freaking dollars on a catcher would have helped. And those of you who are wondering whether it was a salary dump (Lil), I think it's pretty clear that when Billy talks about his budget constraints, he's indicating that the primary motivation was indeed an old-fashioned salary dump.
That said, if Haren and Meyer turn out to be red-hot studs, I ain't gonna be complaining.
| By deajay on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 09:08 pm:|
Well, let's see ... no Durazo, no Dotel, no Kendall, no Dye (nor replacement other than Swisher), status quo for the pen. So, even with Mulder and Hudson, how do you think they would have done even as well as last year? The bottom line, if Mulder's and Hudson's salaries weren't dumped, the aforementioned would have been, while the above would have had to be fortified with whomever was the closest (in our system) to the majors. Oh yes, and ... whooppee ... we would have been looking at draft picks again for Hudson, next year. I'm not saying this year's team is going to reach postseason; but staying not only with what we had last year before even getting to the fact it is highly unlikely Durazo/Dotel would have been re-signed, we likely would not have come close to postseason. Beane was right in being proactive, as upset as I was in his dealing Hudson/Mulder ... in retrospect ... given all factors ... it was the best move he could make.
Durazo, Dotel, Kendall, and ... Dye? deajay, you're framing the debate to suit your purposes.
What I'm saying is that it would have been possible, budget-wise, to sign Huddy, a leader of this team, to a multi-year contract and also keep Durazo and Dotel. Dye was gone regardless of what happened with Hudson and Mulder. I'm still convinced that Kendall is a luxury that comes at a very steep price, e.g., a HOF pitcher.
Hudson just signed with Atlanta for about the same amount, annually, as Kendall. So, if we had re-signed Huddy at $11-$12 mil per year, would you have been willing to trade him straight-up for Kendall? I sure wouldn't have. Re-read the article about how the Braves are foaming at the mouth about having Huddy.
Again, I have to admit that there are imponderables related to what Huddy's oblique injuries portend and how Mulder was atrocious in the second half of last year.
| By ws9 on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 07:54 pm:|
5th time a agree they should have kept him, but keep in mind that Kendall $11 should be read as $6 mill, since the Pirates took Rhodes and Redman off our hands. It would have been great to keep Huddy and move Mulder especially looking at what we got in return for each, but to make it happen a payroll increase to cover Dotel and Durazo would be required.
| By deajay on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:13 pm:|
"Framing the debate to suit your purposes"????? That's an interesting way to contest a differing opinion. Very original ... I guess.
Exactly what is my purpose? I responded to your post. What was your purpose? I totally disagree with you. And unless he is a liar, so does Beane. But 2+2 = 4. So, you really think this team would agree to tie up better than one third of their payroll in two players? It is pretty much fact ... given the payroll Beane has to work with ... Durazo, Dotel, Byrnes, Kendall, et al, would not presently be with this team, had they kept Hudson. The pen would also likely still suck. In short, this team would have been worse than last year's. That's framing nothing (for my purposes), except to tell it like I see it. Yes, pitching is a big part of winning ... but, after all, this is a team sport; unless the everyday players and relievers measure up, all the pitching in the world is not enough.
Also, one other factor ... actually more than one ... that is being overlooked, but I only mention one ... the others have already been drawn and quartered several times. Even for the same $ he got from Atlanta, it is highly unlikely he would have stayed. He would have wanted assurances that enough of the talent they had would be kept and they would continue to be competitive. Very simply, Beane could hardly make that promise and Hudson knew it. And I suspect (from what I'm hearing) some of this will be coming out in Urban's book, as well. In any event ....
Next to Tejada, Hudson was the other guy I desparately wanted them to keep. No one was any more disappointed than me that they didn't. But realistically, there was really little option. Given the circumstances, Beane made the best deals he could. Just how good ... or bad ... the jury will be out for some time. I still say, had we kept Mulder and Hudson, our chances of being more competitive than we our at this moment, IMO, would have been less. Simply because of no Durazo, no Dotel, and most of all, most likely a pen remaining pretty much status quo. Also, and no Kendall. Surely you don't think the A's would have dealt for Kendall if they already hadn't made up their minds they would be dealing Hudson? I think it was pretty clear that when they acquired Kendall ... even if it was for Rhodes/Redman ... that Hudson was pretty much gone. Remember, we're dealing with just this year's payroll ... '06 and '07 would have been a killer for them ... carrying Chavy's, Huddy's, Kendall's contracts, just for starters.
So, in summary, "framing" this for my purposes (still trying to figure out my purpose), as you put it, simply adds up to what I deem as reality.
| By oakchick on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 04:25 pm:|
| By bigthree17 on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 07:00 pm:|
Brevity is the soul of wit.
| By slash034 on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 06:18 am:|
5th get a clue. Yeah I would have liked to keep them but there is no way. Dye contract room was mostly eaten up by Chavez and the others we signed so there goes that room. Kendall is a great hitting catcher that we are getting and Pittsburgh is paying for a good chunk of his contract. So unless another team is paying us money to keep Hudson and Mulder we can't afford it, yeah it sucks but get used to it because we root for Oakland.
| By chris_d on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 09:27 am:|
More than anything, it's because we root for a team that's been owned by Steve Schott.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm fired up for spring training and I think the A's are gonna prove the skeptics wrong.
Schott's sports epitaph one day will read: Here's the guy that let Tim Hudson and Miguel Tejada leave his team when he had the money to stop it. Quite a legacy.
I'm too busy right now but I'll respond later when I can.
I promised I'd respond and, a month and a half later, I still hate the Hudson trade. The Mulder trade, on the other hand, is looking like a masterstroke by Billy B.
I could expatiate on this but it looks like the "Postseason" section is as dormant as the A's offense.
If anybody wants to hear my rebuttal to deajay and my good friend slash, just give the word.
| By eyleenn on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:03 am:|
Hey, 5thtime, where have you been???
I've been real busy with work and my three small children. I promised my wife I would cut back on baseball this year, which I did at first, but ... they keep sucking me in!