Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I wonder if the A's have more of a fanbase away from Oakland. There is no doubt, I truely don't believe what I'm reading from some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Oakland is in alot better shape than people give them credit for. I wish we were in half as good of shape. I'm sure as hell happy we aren't Oakland, I'm much happier with our situation then there's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 There is no doubt, I truely don't believe what I'm reading from some people. Why, because people recognize they have a bright future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I'm sure as hell happy we aren't Oakland, I'm much happier with our situation then there's. They are in such better shape, their future is gonna be huge. Whereas ours isn't looking so hot. Without a 5th starter we're f***ed anyway. Sorry for being repetative but it's damn true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 They are in such better shape, their future is gonna be huge. Whereas ours isn't looking so hot. Without a 5th starter we're f***ed anyway. Sorry for being repetative but it's damn true. What you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Why, because people recognize they have a bright future? You know what Aj, I could put together a lineup of minor leaguers that could make the sox a power house in a couple of years too, I think it's ridiculous for him to rip this team apart when they could have been a relief pitcher or two from having a legitimate shot at winning the world series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I understand what he is doing, I just think it sucks when you have a team that can compete already. With that rotation they're always in it. Even after the Hudson trade, they had a team good enough to compete. But after the Mulder deal, I don't see them having that good a shot at the division this year. He's taking a chance on a ton of young pitchers en mass, which is really risky. I don't really see the point in trying to build a stellar rotation for the future when you were damn close already. Now you need at least two of the guys he traded for to turn into well above average starters (especially if Zito goes too, and I'm not counting Harden in that, although he needs to take the next step too), which I'm not so sure is going to happen. They didn't have to go into a rebuilding mode quite yet, but the Mulder deal sealed it. This reminds me of the breakup of the Bulls. I admit Beane has more to start with and is probably going about it better than Krause did, but it still doesn't make that much sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I agree with Zoom. IMO, I think Beane should have waited one more year before doing this. They had the pieces in place. They got a good catcher, they solid staff and the decent bullpen. Now that the Big 3 has become the big one, they'll have to wait a couple years to even have a shot. Even if they traded Hudson, the players they got from him were still good and just made their bullpen better and they still would have had a solid Mulder, Zito, Harden combo. Just my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 You know what Aj, I could put together a lineup of minor leaguers that could make the sox a power house in a couple of years too, I think it's ridiculous for him to rip this team apart when they could have been a relief pitcher or two from having a legitimate shot at winning the world series. All BB has done is trade proven players for in exchange for those who are young, essentially Major league ready, or very damn close, and have a high upside. All KW has done is trade a proven player for a 29 yo, who's only upside is maybe he won't be as bad as he was last year. KW could have had him for free with a simple waiver claim 2 years ealier. One is a man with a plan. We have to move forward, not slide backwards. What I’m trying to do is set our pitching up for five years. That’s something we can’t do in free agency, so we have to be as creative as possible. There are risks, especially with so many young pitchers, but we have Harden, Blanton, Haren and Meyer for at least five years, Zito for two more. The other has none. Sure he has the "three year chart", but that's the baseball equivilent of the terror alert chart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 So basically he's smart for trading his pitchers that are already good (one of which was still signed for this season and the next) for a bunch of young guys that might be good just so he could do it again in 4 years if the young guys show any sign of success? God forbid he keeps ONE of the two bonafide aces he has. Just a question, how much money did they get with Kendall? I have to imagine that they would have saved a good amount of money to potentially resign one of these guys if they hadn't acquired him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 So basically he's smart for trading his pitchers that are already good (one of which was still signed for this season and the next) for a bunch of young guys that might be good just so he could do it again in 4 years if the young guys show any sign of success? God forbid he keeps ONE of the two bonafide aces he has. Just a question, how much money did they get with Kendall? I have to imagine that they would have saved a good amount of money to potentially resign one of these guys if they hadn't acquired him. I think they kept one of their two bonafide aces. Zito> mulder, at least this far in their careers. It's believed that the A's are taking on about $15 million in salary here. They'll actually give money to the Pirates for the next two years, but about half of Jason Kendall's $13 million salary for 2007 will be paid by Pittsburgh. In the end, the A's will receive about $5 million. Kendall should fit right into the No. 2 spot in the lineup for the next year or two. It wouldn't be surprising to see him sent to another team before his current deal expires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I am willing to bet their pen is better than ours next year. Who's do you think will better? Qwerty, I know I'm a little late here, but I'm willing to put up our bullpen up against just about anyone's right now (I'm overstating that a little bit, but I'm very confident in the bullpen right now). I'm not saying the Oakland bullpen will be bad, but I really like the way our bullpen is shaping up. Fifth-Seventh Innings, you got Cotts, Adkins, and Politte. Cotts was solid last year when someone not named Mike Jackson pitched behind him, Adkins was solid for the better part of the year, and Politte was very good post-Montreal. While I'm not confident on saying whether or not Politte will improve upon last year's numbers, I am confident in saying Adkins adn Cotts will do so. Seventh and eighth innings, you got Hermanson, Marte, and Vizcaino, which I think is pretty damn sick. Hermanson was a lot better once he was a full time reliever, and I think that he'll be one of Kenny's better moves this season. You know that at worst, Marte will give you a 3.75 ERA and be damn tough against lefties, and Vizcaino is a very good addition. Shingo is the wildcard. If he's able to be as good as last year (I'm not expecting that -- I'm expecting a little worse, but it'll also be good that this year, in most cases, he'll only need to pitch one inning rather than two), then our bullpen might shape up to be one of the best in the AL. I've preached for a while (and it's not like I'm proclaiming anything huge here), that a good bullpen is probably even a bigger key than having that fifth starter. I really hope we're able to do some damage this year, as our bullpen will definitely be a strength. JMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I think they kept one of their two bonafide aces. Zito> mulder, at least this far in their careers. I was referring to Hudson and Mulder. I'd rather have either of them, although Zito's numbers are better than I thought (they talk an awful lot of s*** about him for someone that had a 3.30 ERA in 2003). You could really argue which has been better throughout their career, Mulder has a slightly better record, Zito has a better ERA. Both had 3 very good years that were virtually identical statistically and were a little disappointing this year, the only real differences are Mulder had a bad 27 start year in his first season(seems to be a major factor in the ERA difference) and missed a couple of games in 2003. Zito stayed pretty mediocre this whole year (IIRC he fell apart for a stretch in 2003 too and when he got out of it he had no run support), Mulder started out great then fizzled. As long as he isn't hurt, I fully expect Mulder to pitch better next year, Zito seems to have become more eratic for some reason. Besides, there's still a chance he'll trade Zito at the rate he's going, and I'm not so sure his odds of resigning are any higher than the others. I don't think he kept Zito as much as he found a trade for Mulder first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Why, because people recognize they have a bright future? I didn't realize all of these guys were locks to become stars for the A's for years to come. Do you honestly believe any of these guys will be equivalent to Hudson, or Mulder (and in a couple years Zito?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I didn't realize all of these guys were locks to become stars for the A's for years to come. Do you honestly believe any of these guys will be equivalent to Hudson, or Mulder (and in a couple years Zito?) Why is it so hard to believe they will be as good as any of the big three? Especially mulder, while he has a career era of 3.92 it is good, but great? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Why is it so hard to believe they will be as good as any of the big three? Especially mulder, while he has a career era of 3.92 it is good, but great? No. Just because they're talented doesn't mean they are going to be as good as Mulder and Huddy, I'd be willing to bet that none of the pitchers they got will come close to putting up the numbers that Mark and Tim did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I am willing to bet their pen is better than ours next year. Who's do you think will better? Sox. They have nobody on their roster that has proved to be a good closer. It's can't be Dotel he is awful as a closer. If Garcia or Street can't step in as the closer this year then their bullpen will still have issues closing out games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Just because they're talented doesn't mean they are going to be as good as Mulder and Huddy, I'd be willing to bet that none of the pitchers they got will come close to putting up the numbers that Mark and Tim did. Alright, we will see. Do you really think that a 3.92 era in a pitchers park is that great of an accomplishment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Why is it so hard to believe they will be as good as any of the big three? Especially mulder, while he has a career era of 3.92 it is good, but great? No. Uhhhh, because they hardly have any MLB expierence? I don't see how an A's fan (some of you) could be thrilled with Beane trading two of the best pitchers in the AL. Oh I forgot, A's fans get to look forward to Juan Cruz and Dan Haren for 2005 while the team goes from finishing 1 game out to potentially in the basement. I wish I were an A's fan right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Alright, we will see. Do you really think that a 3.92 era in a pitchers park is that great of an accomplishment? Mulder has been getting better each year up until the 2nd half of this year. If he gets this hip issue taken care of his era will be under 3 for St. Louis. Also, yes I do believing having an era under 4 in the american league is pretty solid but like I said he continues to get better when healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 They may put up as good of seasons, but what are the chances they consistently put up as good of seasons as Mulder and Hudson? 4 straight years 15+ wins, no more than 10 losses, sub era of 3.5 in 3, 200 ip in 3. Beane may be smart, buf if I were the gm of Oakland I would of clung to Mulder and Hudson until the very end, especially while they were making sub 10mil. I mean Pavano got $10mil. Just cant comprehend. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 They may put up as good of seasons, but what are the chances they consistently put up as good of seasons as Mulder and Hudson? 4 straight years 15+ wins, no more than 10 losses, sub era of 3.5 in 3, 200 ip in 3. Beane may be smart, buf if I were the gm of Oakland I would of clung to Mulder and Hudson until the very end, especially while they were making sub 10mil. I mean Pavano got $10mil. Just cant comprehend. SB So hang onto them and get nothing for them at all? I really don't understand why they got rid of mulder since he has another year left on his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Hudson is understandable, although I would of tried to sign Hudson before I traded for Kendal. But Mulder is just puzzeling, not only was he signed next year, I think he also had a team option on the year after. And I would not risk so many young pitchers at one time, consistency is a major strength of good pitching teams. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 So hang onto them and get nothing for them at all? I really don't understand why they got rid of mulder since he has another year left on his contract. Trading huddy might have been the right thing to do but don't you think they could have been a reliever or two away from being a legitimate world series contender???? Why not make a run at winning the series and then rebuild. I can see what Billy was thinking when he traded huddy(even though I think he should have still tried to win this year) but trading Mulder makes absolutely 0 sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Alright, we will see. Do you really think that a 3.92 era in a pitchers park is that great of an accomplishment? First off the Coliseum isn't a pitcher's park because it has a home run factor of 1.089, and that's based on stats from a team that 13th in the MLB in home runs, and a home rotation that included great pitching from Tim Hudson (Extreme groundball pitcher,) and Mark Mulder (another ground ball pitcher.) Secondly, when Mulder was healthy during the first half, his home ERA was 2.67. Is that impressive to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.