Many pundits, whose puns shall go nameless have predicted our A's to do fairly well this season. What we have been reading and hearing is that the A' s need to get off to a fast start and then hold off the Rangers' charge in the second half of the season. Really?

Continue reading this post »

I haven't posted in a while but this concept came to me after some recent quotes from Billy Beane about Rickey Henderson's now found grace in the A's organization after being inducted into the HOF. His work with Rajai Davis and others has been documented well. The fact that in a recent interview Beane said they brought him back  a second time during spring training to work with hitters on reading pitchers from the  batter's box was surprising.

Why the cold shoulder for so many years? Was it his simple request to finish out his career as an Athletic that caused the big chill between he and Billy or a lack of communication? That is conjecture that  we may never know. I simply look at it as a failure to communicate on the part of A's management. But Rickey has come back to the fold and we are all happier for it.

So now that the A's are not in denial about the usefulness of the stolen base perhaps we can get to my main point. As you know, nobody was better than R. Henderson at reading pitchers not only in the batter's box but also at first base. What  a tremendous asset he could be if a pitcher who just gave up a single to any of our faster base runners now had to contend with the eyes and brains of Ricky Henderson giving instruction to our base runners on a regular basis. I have never seen too much use for 1st base coaches other than for length of leads off of the bag or instructing on the location of balls in play. The nuances of pitchers can be tricky and yet any opportunity to get an extra base can result in what we are witnessing with the combination that Seattle is showcasing with Ichiro and Chone Figgins.

Can you think of examples where base coaches have made positive impacts on their team and caused fear in the opposition from the 1st base side?Or is it that regardless of" who's on first", the base coach couldn't even help Lou Costello steal a base.

I have been an Oakland Raiders fan since 1970.  I will continue to be a fan because I do not give up my allegiance to anything that I have ever supported.  I cannot, however, continue to put up with the hubris and gross mismanagement of this team.  I don't know anyone who can tolerate 7 seasons of horrid football and continue to feel optimistic about our situation.

Jerry Mac voiced my opinion succinctly in his column I read today which I believe echoes many loyal fans to this team.  Mr. Davis needs to step down from the various positions that he holds and allow others to do their job.  Whether it is scouting, drafting, player contracts and de facto defensive coordinator, he needs to give it up. It was easy to follw this team and understand why they were winning in the 60s, 70' s and first half of the 80's. Now it's Davis way or you are out...winning...committment to excellence doesn't exist anymore.

Jamarcus symbolizes Davis more than anyone. A lot of misplaced power and no intelligence, currently to justify his lofty position. I just cringe when I think about Jamarcus Russell. Heck, he makes Todd Marinovich look like a genius, even while on dope.  Will Davis insist that Jamarcus is great and fire Cable? Probably, because as you know this team needs to be built on  power and speed so that we can marvel at how far a football can be thrown or fast DHB is. Great. Should I be excited watching Crabtree who has evolved, as rookies should across the Bay? At least he has shown some intelligence and hands softer than the stone hands of DHB. Never mind this team displays the collective IQ of a Pop Warner team. But the more accurate description is that it is a team the reflects the senility of its owner. King Leer anyone?

This game reminded me why  I stay faithful to the Raiders after 39 years. Forget about the last 6 seasons. Forget about blown 1st round draft choices. Forget about an owner who still thinks his antiquated views of player assessment and foolish control of player personnel has sold this team into the depths of dysfunction that makes other football fans shake their heads at us and chuckle.

This game, for 60 minutes and as important to a team attempting to make the playoffs in 2009 faced the grit and determination from a local highschool  QB who broke all of Dan Marino's passing records. The Steelers faced a team whose faithful continue to question the undying loyalty of their head coach who has absolutely refused to give up on the talent he sees in a mostly undisciplined team. This game, if I could just forget about all of the anguish this team has caused me recently. This game showed me that somewhere deep inside we really do have players that if they just believe the way their 4th yr QB believes, can beat any team on any given Sunday. I never want to see Jamarcus line behind a Raider center again.  We have found a quarterback.

Not since the home opener in 1976 when Ken Stabler guided the Raiders to a stirring 31-28 home victory over the Steelers with 17 points within the last 90 seconds have I felt like a did all of those years ago. Excited about a Raiders victory.  Of course, we won the SuperBowl XI that season, but it's just nice spend a Sunday afternoon with a smile on my face. That's why I stay faithful to the Raiders.

It's been an arduos process keeping up with the A's radio stations over the past several years but they just reached an agreement  and can be found at 860 on the am dial.

Here's the link:    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=21&entry_id=34165#comments

The question is how much will this change our listening habits given a potentially stronger signal throughout most of the bay area. I think a special reward should go out to anyone on AN who can list the A's stations going back to...KNBR in the 70's (yes, THAT KNBR which we've grown to despise).

 I believe it was Finley that had a larger impact than Kuhn could have dreamed of. Okay, orange fluorescent baseballs didn't stick. What did was the DH and prime time playoffs and WS, which was Finley's idea. Kuhn...I'm really not so sure of his efforts and how productive they were. Indellible, yes but not productive.

Continue reading this post »

  I thought just for fun we can talk about our fantasy baseball teams given our enlightened perspective on managing our fantasy baseball rosters.

Continue reading this post »

   Alright AN our heads are spinning with all of the injuries that have taken place. So what's this roster going to look like in the next month, by July and beyond? Theorists, prognosticators and cynics are all welcome.

Continue reading this post »

  Thought I'd share my thoughts about the latest set of injuries as I have some experience dealing with them.

Continue reading this post »

   Every year it seems like we go through the same story. This is almost as frustrating as watching "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray. So every season, after the players file out of the locker rooms and pack their bags for home we lose track of them except for a few words when the Carribean Series starts up.

  Yet, our players from the Carribean (who know when Spring Training starts) invariably have trouble attaining their visas on time and show up at camp late. How can this be? It's not as if they don't have calenders down there. I know that because I've seen the calenders. At this point in their careers, they are essentially consecrated due to thier abilities and money is not an issue for them as much anymore.

   This year, we see our favorite alias (although mine had her show cancelled) Santiago Cassilla and Antonio Perez delayed in arriving to Papago Park. So what's the excuse this time? Yet another name change, shaky birth certificates, bad food (bad crop year for beans and rice)...what could it possibly be this time? Please share your insights.

   The A's have reportedly signed lefty Scott Sauerbeck who was recently released by the Cleveland Indians.

  He was recently involved in a DUI case in which the woman who was driving his was intoxicated. In their attempt to evade authorities, they were found hiding in the bushes.

   The question for us is whether or not he remains with the team short or longterm.

   Now that Nico stuck a needle in my side with his  entry "At What Point..." regarding the health of Bobby Crosby, then Monkeyball twisted it (ouch), I've been compelled to ask the question regarding the depth of infield.
   This roster has been carefully put together by Beane with the purpose of adding enough depth at all positions to handle any potential injuries to our starters. Most agree that this team has the deepest roster in terms of ability that we've seen in several years.
   With the latest information about Crosby's injury, are we collectively comfortable with Marco Scutaro, Antonio Perez and possibly Mark Ellis filling in at SS?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: I completely missed this story yesterday until I woke up and saw it in the morning paper today. I think baseball took a great step in getting this rectified. It's just too bad that it took the threat of Congressional action for it to happen. Also, what about the folks still using human growth hormone? Can we see an addition to that, please? Then we might finally know whether or not Bonds is actually hitting those home runs clean or not. - Blez]

MLB finally woke up to the 21st century regarding substance abuse. The penalties are much more severe for abuse steroids and (finally) amphetamines.

Apparently 1st offense for steroid abuse is 50 games, the 2nd is 100 games and the 3rd is banishment for 2 years before applying for reinstatement.

The details of amphetamine abuse is I believe 40 games, 80 games and then up to the Commissioner for further penalty (please forgive me I forgot the exact details).

Testing will be performed during Spring training and then randomly 1-2 times per season. The key point is random testing during the season.

   Like the rest of the sporting public, I am in mourning over the loss of an individual who shaped the way I view sports, in general. I won't attempt to describe what made his impact on my life any more special than anybody elses. Over the last 24 hours, we've read accounts of Bill King that described him as "having no peers", the "soul of the A's" and as a "Rennaisance man, who was born in the wrong century..."

   There is no way to completely describe an individual who shaped the way you viewed every major american sport you watched growing up. In Basketball, he and Chick Hearn. In Football, nobody but maybe Lon Simmons from these parts were as effective. In baseball, enough has been said.

   The only way we will get a handle on Bill King's life is what Ratto suggested this morning. He needs a biography, and it would be long, but probably one of the most intriguiging and interesting reads anyone could ever get their hands on. Maybe our buddy Michael Urban would take on that challenge. Truly, it would be a challenge but I would guess it would be a labor of love more than anything else.

   There are no words that can do justice to the man who's command of the English language inspired me. My two cents worth would be to propose that if and when the A's get a new stadium, a statue of Bill King seated in his shorts and sandals, on a briefcase, with a box of popcorn mixed with relish, onions, mustard and ketsup gazing outward toward the field will be there for all of us to admire and remember.

    With all of the hype about the recent firings at KNBR 680, some have looked upon the Giants relationship with the station as a mixed blessing and curse.

   On the Bay's east side, A's fans have silently loathed and envied the fact the Giants get so much airplay. For years, we have heard A's broadcasts move from station to station. On the radio dial our games have been heard on radio AM 560, 610, 680 (back in the 70's-briefly), and 910, to name a few. I won't get into mentioning the A's on Cal's radio station (FM) in 1979 and how long that lasted.

   Over the past several years, the A's and their radio network made up for lack of a strong station in the Bay Area. Games could be picked up on local stations ranging from King City to various corners of N. California.

   So what would be ideal? Have Lew Wolff et. al. buy KNBR? In years past KGO and KCBS, carried Raider and 49er games, but their on-air time during the week was limited to talk shows whcih didn't necessarily focus on the teams, whose games they were carrying.

   Large portions of the print/television media have claimed that the rivalry between these two clubs is only recent. Pointing out that in 2002, while the A's won 20 straight, the Angels only lost the season series by 1 game. Likewise, last year the A's were out of the playoffs by 1 game, the difference in the season series, once again 10 games to 9. Arguably, the A's lost the division during the period in which they were swept by the Tigers and performed poorly against central division foes.

   Most discussions will mention the Giants and Dodgers here on the west coast, and of course, the Yankees and Red Sox are invariably mentioned. The notion that a rivalry only takes on meaning if both teams are successful is short-sighted. Rivalries are created from all sorts of circumstances. The length of a rivalry can also inspire a deeper meaning into the importance of the games being played.

   Examples of this include when Bert Campaneris threw his bat at a Tigers' pitcher back in the early 70's comes to mind. Of course, Detroit hated Campaneris and his association with the A's for that. In the mid 80's I'd say our rivalry with the Angels serves as a beginning point that I can recall. During that time, there were several games when Bobby Grich and company threw fisticuffs at the Coliseum due to a hit batsmen and subsequent retaliation. From these examples, one may conclude that rivalries are born out of "extra-curricular" activities that took place during a game.

   Geography has certainly played a role if you consider the Giants and Dodgers. But were the Giants truly rivals form a competive standpoint? If the argument is based on both teams being better than the rest, the Dodgers win this argument hands down as Giants rarely challenged them for the division only a handful of times during the 70s through the 90's. The Dodgers were vexed rarely as Joe Morgan's game winning HR comes to mind as the only example of when the Giants had a direct impact on the Dodgers post season hopes. The Dodgers were perceived as better than the Giants, so when they won, emotionally they probably flet better about themselvves for the short term.

   So, is it about Nor Cal vs So Cal, when we think about the Angels? Is it the fact they jumped on the Yankees and went to the WS and won that stirs jealousy in our hearts. Is it the face of their manager that causes us to harbour angry thoughts. Or they just a stepping-stone impeding our way to our 10th World Series title?

   Now that we've reached heights that we haven't been at for a while. We need to think realistically about the expectations of the A's over the next couple of weeks.

   The next 12 games are against Seattle, Chicago and Toronto. Is 9-3 realistic over that span? I icked 9-3 b/c that would put us over .500

   We've just witnessed a crushing of the Giants. But after all, the're just the Giants and were already going the wrong direction. Seattle took one in SD and we know they're tough. The WhiteSox are the benchmark by which all teams must be compared to so far this season. We were a little lucky the first time around. The A's will need to probably take 4 of 6 from the pale hose. Toronto is young and therefore unpredictable.

   So what do you think AN? Can we go 9-3 or what is more realistic?

   Like Mark Kotsay, we are watching another NL'er make the transition to the junior circuit. Thus, far his hitting is average compared to other catchers batting at .247. We have seen that he too has caught the virus that afflicts most of our hitters with RISP.
   Defensively, he's been a tremendous leader to our neophyte starters. Their confidence and early season success can be attributed to his pitch calling. On the other hand, as pointed out today, i believe in the Chronicle, runners are stealing at a high rate off of him. We know that the pitcher has a role in stolen bases, but this may be the one issue that can be looked upon as a chink in the armour of this team's defensive makeup.
   So what does AN foresee happening over the course of this season? Have we seen enough of him to say that, just like Kotsay, his hitting will take off by June? Is he at the point where Melhuse should be playing a couple days per week(my preference). Lastly, is he worth the $10M or so he's being paid?

   Three games plus Spring Training is a small sample size. But what we've seen Marco Scutaro deserves significant attention. He's basically taken the criticism from within and beyond the organization and improved his play. Through the media no one can fault a single thing he has said. In other words, speculation of demotion to the minors hasn't caused him to burn bridges with management.
   On the field, he has played "BillyBall" better than anyone could have expected. Last night's win stands as a case in point. His ability to apply himself the way he has, shows tremendous intelligence and ability. He has proved to be a great asset to this roster.
  Regarding Ginter, we know he has pop, potential and is now under the watchful eyes of one of the best infield coaches in the game. He deserves the chance to prove BB's investment was worthwhile.
   Come three to four weeks from now when Crosby may be activated, what's going to give? If Macha's words hold true, which players are going to " write the lineup card"? Or for that matter which players will remain on the roster?
   What would AN do given this situation?

   Although posted yesterday, the issue of steroid use and its effects will not go away anytime soon.
   Most of us by now know that steroid testing is being conducted in a random manner. Past policies were insulting to the collective sports world's intelligence when compared with Olympic testing, for example.
   Human Growth Hormone and amphetamine use were not included in the most recent policy (for obvious reasons).
   Almost half of the players that were caught of Latin American descent. The players from the A's list were mostly Venezuelan. Is this coincidental or has there been greater pressure on these athletes that come from 3rd world countries to succeed at all costs?
   Personally, it's tragic when some of those players are our own that we are anticipating doing well over time. A's director Keith Leippman commented that he was aware of our worst offender, catcher David Ortiz(correct me if I'm wrong on the last name). He stated that they reached out to him in various forms without success.
   Does AN suspect more names to come out in such large quantities as yesterday? Secondly, can we realistically expect MLBPA to ever add human growth Hormone and amphetamines to the list of banned substances tested?

   Not too many diaries posted lately but I did find this interesting. Scott Miller discussed the off-season moves of the Braves and how successful they'll be. See www.cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/8269374.
   I have some difficulty with the perception that Hudson was "stolen" from our A's. We are all aware of his value and we know now that a trade was inevitable. Somehow, this comment could be made about ANY team that picked up Hudson.
   My question is three-fold:
  1) Could the A's have done any better in a trade with other teams, given last season short-comings (eg weak bullpen)?
  2) Has anybody ever really taken advantage of our ol' Beane any trades over the last several years?
  3) Who will make out better in this trade over the next 3 years?

   While Jose has been banished from any sense of credibilty according to many pundits, players and fans, we have to thank him. We all have looked upon his talent after watching his metoric rise and thought about his superiority for a few years back in the late 80's and into the 90's. Then we all cringed that night the ball bounced off of his head into the bleachers.

   It's amazing how many players are coming to camp 20-30# lighter than last year after a vigorous off-season cardiovascular program. Am I shocked that some of those players are the very ones that Jose has named? Hardly. Furthermore, can Barry Bonds' response be anything less than what it has been? Will Giants fans take the higher road once and for all regarding Barry's indiscretions? I doubt it. I doubt it for the same reason why I took pleasure in watching Jose "bash" other teams along with his brother. Back then, I suppose I wasn't so much interested in how these guys got to be that big as I was just in awe of what they were doing to the baseball.

   Now we are all interested in the process of how they reached their level of power. Our jaundiced eye has been corroborated by the leaks of the grand Jury testimonies. Those players that did it, we may never know. Those that don't want their precious records to receive the public scrutiny that McGwire, Sosa and Bonds will have to endure, will certainly avoid any association with these players. And then there's Jose.

   What do we do with his allegations? Deep down we know that Jose's motivation wasn't to just tell lies. They wouldn't stand. We also know that listening to Tony LaRussa defend McGwire makes him look like the public defender a criminal had no choice but to accept because he was too poor to hire a good attorney. La Russa should be glad he had baseball to fall back on. He like the rest of us was seduced by the productivity of Jose and Mark.

   Jose has chosen whether he realized it or not to look just as silly as when that ball bounced off of his head. He's the fool that will cause people to look the other way and mutter something under their breath about what a rotten thing he did.

   I choose to look at him differently. For a few years, he was my favorite player. I can't erase the feeling of watching that blast off his bat in the Skydome when we beat the Bluejays. College players who have felt the pressure will relax a bit because maybe their talent will be enough. Minor leaguers will relax knowing that they may become the pariah that Canseco now represents. And Jose's colleagues can now relax because someone has been willing to take the heat for them.

   Scott Miller of CBSsportsline, whom I occasionally find reasonable offers more dreck for the baseball audience. Once again, he like Nick Peters, explains the travails of the A's and really doesn't offer too much credible analysis of the off-season moves by BB.
http://cbssportline.com/mlb/story/8153341
   Once a phrase such as the BIG3 enters the lexicon, then a perspective is created by which a team will be evaluated or judged. We will never forget the privilege of watching our trio of Mulder/Hudson/Zito and what they meant to this franchise and us over the past 4+ seasons.
   My contention is that the  BIG 3 in '04 was actually the BIG 4. A good case can be made that Harden was the most consistent pitcher and therefore became as established as any one of the Big 3 for last year. Mind you he didn't sneak up on anybody as it was his 2nd season, in which many players experience a "sophomore slump".
   If we get very little productivity out of anybody outside of Zito and Harden, we still have a great duo that could theoretically produce as well as Schilling and Johnson for Arizona a few years back. I'm only looking at their potential here, but this is not too far fetched.
   Anyone who has followed the team knows that both starting/relief pitching and hitting waned last year due to lack of depth and talent. Focusing on the bullpen, we can now say that with our additions the team will have the ability to take a tremedous amount of pressure off of our starters.
   Two thirds of the BIG 3 is gone, we have all heard this too often. I'd rather think of this as we lost half of or big 4, still painful, but that we gained a bullpen.
Tony LaRussa taught us during his tenure that he approached the game from the 9th innning on down. With Eckersly at his disposal, the A's dominated by "shortening" the game. We have that type of potential with Cruz/Colero/Dotel etc. once again.
   Getting back to Scott Miller's column, he certainly offers multiple disclaimers to his evaluation of the A's. That's fine, but he did not address the issue of infield depth as well as the bullpen shortcomings. Nor does he acknowledge and comment too deeply on any of the additions. Once again, the baseball world viewed the A's through the paradigm of the BIG3. With their breakup, the best that we hear is the Chicken Little response of "the sky is falling". What a great story about the rise of the Oakland A's  in 2005 will make. It's just a matter of time.
   

   This morning I read that the trade/sale of Randy Johnson to the Yankees was finally approved. Players and cash were, once again involved.
   This is coming from a team (Arizona) that has been in debt for a good portion of its existence. A team that I would call fiscally irresponsible in many respects and by receiving 9 M$ certainly looks like a drop in the bucket.
   Before Mr. Finley passed away he talked about why he tried to sell Blue/Rudi etc. to NY and Boston. He essentially claimed that the $$ would then have been used to keep the rest of the team together.
   I know he was cheap, shrewd  and a SOB in the eyes of his players and that he made a stupid mistake with regards to "Catfish" Hunter. But how was it "in the best interests of baseball", according to Bowie Kuhn,to allow those players to stay one more season then leave for free agency?
   Was he not trying to trade his players one year early before it was too late?
   Getting back to NY and Arizona, the Yankees and their syle of player acquisition continues to be approved in the eyes of baseball. It appears without regards to the serving in the "best interests" of MLB, as far as I can tell.
   Where does MLB go from here or where or when will this ever end?

   So far Tim Hudson is an Oakland A'. We know that our speculation may or may not be accurate given all of the deals that we've read and heard. Would it be beyond BB to resign Hudson albeit without the "no trade" clause to a contract that is back loaded but essentially averages b/w 10-12 M per year?
   Would he still be an attractive pitcher to the higher-end teams from larger markets than Oakland should BB decide to move him? Would this fit within the framework of what the A's have done over the last several years?
  In light of Giambi's circumstances, if he signed with the A's back in 2002, Beane would have had the ability to move him although probably at this point wouldn't find many takers. Or, does Hudson fall into a category that would be similar to Jermaine Dye's circunstances? Dye essentially under achieved due to his injuries.If Dye wasn't signed to such a huge contract giving him 10M/yr over the last 2 years, the A's would have had more flexibility with their payroll.
   So, does he stay or does he go?

   One of the issues last season was that while the team recorded more hits in Oakland history we didn't do well bringing those runners home. The lineup appeared, somehow anemic, and was in need of several blood transfusions when September rolled around.
   Whether it was production off the bench or just plain old burnout evidenced with Hatteberg's poor at bats in September, or Crosby just showing mental fatigue something was left to be desired.
   I think it was character.
   In spurts we would feel good about one or a couple of players carrying the team, but it wouldn't last. When Chavez came back from injury, he was hot but we all knew it wouldn't last. It didn't, and his production in September waned. Kotsay was awesome, a "gamer" if you will, but there weren't enough "Kotsay's" to make a difference when we needed it most.
   For all the talk about trading Hatteberg, he was described as the MVP for the first half of the season by some of his peers. That speaks well about his usefulness in Oakland and I would hesitate to trade him given the uncertainty of putting another rookie in the lineup next year.We now know that he needs more rest throughout the season to remain productive. The same can be said of Byrnes.
   So who are the "gamers" out there that would improve this team's character. Some clutch hit-ting (dare I say Kirk Gibson types) that fit our needs? We just got one in Kendall, but is he enough?
   From a pitching standpoint, I think we are all pretty excited about seeing Street and Blanton produce. I would be surprised if BB will do more tinkering with the pitching staff  this off-season. I do predict that during the year he will find a need via trade or the farm system if necessary to improve the club. AN what do you think? Do we need any more gamers?

As an A's fan that has suffered with the rest of the A's faithful. I've taken the last few days to get a sense from the local media about what will happen this off-season. The great pontificators from The Trib, et. al. basically make it sound like a major housecleaning is in order. Truly it was demoralizing watching our A's suffer a slow death over the last 4 weeks. We know that if there are better players to be had, we've got the best GM to find them. But this organization's farm system is deep, real deep. I think the continuity of having so much success in the minors will pay off so that the drop-off at the Major League level will be at a minimum. Will we see 90 wins next year? Hard to say, but it really is exciting to think about the talents of Jairo Garcia, Nick Swisher,Dan Johnson, Joe Blanton etc. at the Big Show. This year, ultimately, the team just couldn't get beyond the fatigue. Scott Hatteberg is the perfect example. Over the last month he looked and played tired, like the rest of the team. And one more thing, Mark Mulder, I believe was just as tired, let's not forget his season in 2003 was over sometime in August. Let's GO A's