What is it about Garret Anderson that interests Beane?

I just don't get it -- not even if the intent is to have him being in a platoon situation, batting only against RHPs.  The guy just doesn't seem like a typical Beane target.  And isn't GA also a type "B" free agent?  I'm pretty sure that he is.  Adding insult to injury, the team would cough up a supplemental pick for the 'pleasure' of adding Mr. Anderson [Agent Smith voice] to its roster...a roster already jammed with OF-types that may or may not develop but who are cheap.

I mean, heck, if nabbing an OF/DH is Beane's priority and he's considering Anderson, why not just trade with the Dodgers for Andruw Jones [there'd be no pick lost; nothing that lasts longer than 2009; and seemingly not much difference in crappiness the Athletics' fan could expect].  Maybe when LA agrees to pay the bulk of AJs salary to make the deal happen, they'd also be kind enough to take a SS in return [I don't do emoticons but if I did, I'd probably insert one here].

I've heard the conspiracy theorists suggest that this Anderson talk is just a ruse to push Giambi into making a hasty decision (as he'd see another suitor's window closing) but this strikes me a way way to just piss players off and begin to hate Beane for being duplicitous.  Does anyone really think that this supposed ruse has merit?  If you do, please comment

But the most pressing question is sort of like the one that grover asked on a different thread: why Garret Anderson?  Will someone that participates here explain that one?

How can you be optimistic about the 2007 Athletics?

Let's face the facts, the team lost Barry Zito, our former Cy Young Award winner and our most streaky pitcher - I'm told by stat guys, that hot & cold type pitchers actually help win more games, so be worried, be very worried about this and more.  

The team also lost Frank Thomas, our "big stick".  And, Jay Payton and Kirk Saarloos, too.  How can this team compete any longer, everything has to "break the right way" and then some just to stay in the race that the team won't win anyway?

We know the sky is falling because the odds of Bradley, Kotsay, Ellis, and Crosby missing significant playing time in the same season again is virtually certain...it has to be this way because the most recent history projects the scenario to be true, and, well, we just have to temper our enthusiasm around here because there's too much of it exuding itself from the Kool-aid drinkers as it is...there has to be balance; an offset, of sorts.  And back to injuries, hell, we also have to assume that Loiaza's fastball doesn't crack 87 mph for half the season, that Calero and Duchscherer spend time on the DL and that Chavez will battle forearm tendonitis and other injuries again.  And, we also have to assume that Street struggles and so does Blanton, because, well...again, that's what history predicts and that just what Athletics' fan does.

So, in closing, get ready for the days of 77 win seasons once again and a depleted farm system, too.  Because, folks, the sky really is falling (this time) and you are a dumbass if you don't already know this and have not already boarded the pessimism train for Gloomsville.  

 The players of the free agent class are commanding a ridiculous amount of money this year.  Remember the 7-year 105 million dollar contract that Kevin Brown signed several years ago?  I remember thinking, "yeah, he's an elite pitcher, but what will his performance be like after year number four?  And what about beyond year number four?"  Turns out that I was pretty close.  Today's contracts are even getting nuttier...for God's sakes, does the average player even play seven years any longer much less produce at lofty level for that long?

Now more than ever, Athletics fans should recognize that adding high priced players at such stratospheric valuations is an invitation for letdown and total payroll inflexibility in the future.  I'd be happy watching some prospect get a shot or someone like Kielty playing more, eventually pricing himself out of the market once he turns into an upper-tiered outfielder.

Beane has made a career out of resurrecting people like Thomas and Foulke, turning players like Jaha, Taylor, Isringhausen, Stairs into desirable commodities, and letting players walk like Giambi, Tejada, and Zito after their maturing, early years netted much production on the relative cheap.

Now is not the time to tinker with the model unless the value is there and the contractual time commitment isn't overly cumbersome.  Beane & Co. are quite the baseball contrarians and they will continue to win more than they will lose as long as they operate in that mode.  This is the off-season that everyone will speculate on just what big named player Billy will pursue when this is precisely the crazy time that Billy will nab an inexpensive someone that leaves most people saying, "What kind of shit is Beane smoking?"  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Beane replaces Zito by bumping up everyone in the rotation and signs someone like Tomo Ohka to be the number five guy for two years...and then we all watch Ohka win 16 out of the five slot with mid-four ERA.

We've watched Beane make the value-plays for almost a decade now; to expect something different would be truly shocking...only not half as shocking as scratching your head over a new acquisition at the beggining of the season and the by the end of the season seeing fans coming to games with their dedicated-to-one-player fan endorsing banner.

Who will be the goat-to-hero player(s) for the '07 season?  Stay tuned!

That's right, as in: "commencing countdown [magic numbers] on."  Hat tip to baseballgirl.  Look, AN [and various lurking Angels' fans - to include the alias NoWeWont], the fat lady just sang and the facial diaper holding back the shit-talk has just come off...the Athletics' magic number is at ten and it is less than half as much as the 21 that the LAAofAs own.  Deal with it Rally Monkees!  Yes, it is weird, but magic numbers can be calculated for the non-first place teams...you will notice, though, that the magic number in those cases will be larger than the number of games that they have remaining to play.

I know it seems comical for me to even post it and I know that it doesn't seem like a big deal or impressive, but did you know, even with all the non head-to-head games left to play -- that is: games that will be played by the Athletics and Angels against the rest of the league, each of which representing an opportunity for the Athletics to reduce their magic number -- the Angels cannot let Oakland win five games (or more) when they face each other?  That's no matter how poorly the Athletics play or how well the Angels play in those other non head-to-head games...the Angels, as it stands right now and in spite of everything else, HAVE to win at least two games from the Athletics in their seven remaining games.   Think about the a little while, my fellow Major Toms, as you're floating in your tin cans.

If you were in the General Manager's shoes this off-season, how would you shore up the 2007 starting rotation after assuming that Harden, Haren, Blanton, and Loaiza are still part of the rotation when your decision(s) are being made.

You could:

A)    Take a dip into the free agent pool.  Disclaimer: some of the pitchers buried 3/5ths of the way down on this link-provided list have option years that may be exercised.  If a pitcher with a club held option is someone you would go after, then please state why you think that the current club wont exercise the option or, if it's likely that they would exercise the option, how do you plan to entice the current team into giving you the option rights on the player?
B)    Resign Zito to a new contract.  If this is your choice then please specify what you believe the terms of that contract will be.
C)    Use another pitcher from within the organization to fill the remaining hole in the starting rotation.  Please let us know who your candidate(s) would be and who do you feel the likely candidate will end up being and why?  If you cannot decide on one player then please just narrow the choice down to two players.
D)    The copout option. Such as :"I'd go with a four-man rotation and an extra deep pen!" or "That's some assumption that Harden is healthy and that Loaiza hasn't been thrown under someone's bus!" or "I've already blown up the rotation by trading so and so for [insert two to three of the best players from another team that haven't reached their five years of major league service].

Let's try and keep this positive without really tearing into each other's opinions.  Here's an example of what I feel would be a positive exchange:

Me: I think I'd try to get the $9.5 million option year on Mark Buehrle by offering Kiko Calero to the Sox and the Sox, in turn, picking up some of Buehrle's contract and sending him our way.  This gives the Athletics one more year to develop players (starting pitching) from within while keeping our starting pitching very competitive.

Reply #1: The Sox don't think that highly of Buehrle after this season's disappointing performance [a link insert with reference to Sox's management not being inclined to resign Buehrle after this season].   Buehrle could probably be had for x number of dollars in the open FA market without giving away any of our players.  Basically, the Sox aren't going to exercise his option.

Reply #2: It's going to take more than Calero!  The Sox are still high on Buehrle and just might not let him go at all.  In fact, the two sides are trying to hammer out a deal [insert link to contract discussions].

So, I'm sitting here on my computer, waiting for a potential employer to call me and give me details on when and where to interview, and I'm noticing that there's not a whole lot of new diaries popping up.  Which means I don't have a whole lot to respond to get the antagonist in me flowing. Certainly there's not as many diaries popping up as they seem to do when things are going badly for our Green & Gold.  Wait, is that really a truthful statement or am I guilty of following my own gut feelings on the matter?

So, to stir the pot some and also to be an attention whore, I submit to you some past diary links to explain this community's behavior as I see it.  Flame war, anyone?  Intentinal CGV seeking?  Not really, just a means to provoke discussion on why we write the things that we do and why we feel the way that we do during different conditions.

In late July -- just one short month ago, mind you -- louismg wrote, IM not so HO, an excellent diary titled "Negativity Flowing from the Need to be First".  Good stuff there and well worth the read if you haven't visited it.  Of course louismg's diary was probably in response to a diary entry earlier that morning by Grover, titled "I'm sorry AN".  In that diary Grover explains his position on why he does not believe in this year's Athletics team any longer.  I wonder if Grover would write the same thing just one day shy of a full month later.  One thing about Grover: he does seem to be even keeled when things are going good [notice I wrote "to be" rather than "remain").  But are the rest of us even keeled when things are going good or bad?  Actually, I'm kind of glad that most of us are not; that would be rather boring...and it wouldn't allow me the opportunity to say things like, "I told you so", for I really am a type two and a type three rolled into one.  And you know what, Cutthemullet, I suppose you were correct after all.

The following text is taken from a book written by Todd Buchholz titled New Ideas from Dead Economists (from chapter VII "Alfred Marshall and the Marginalist Mind"):

...Imagine you are traveling through Europe.  You begin in Greece and have a splendid time.  On the way to Italy, you stop in Corfu, where you rent a moped [and admit to it?] and circle the charming island.  In Italy you enjoy Florence more than any place you have ever seen.  Your visit in Italy cost $800, but gave you thousands of dollars' worth of pleasure.  You reach Venice and then consider crossing the border into Austria.  Austria, you fear, will be disappointing compared to Italy.  You prefer calamari to Wiener schnitzel.  How to decide whether to go forward or go home?

First, consider Buckaroo Banzai's advice [an earlier reference in the author's chapter]: "No matter where you go - there you are."  You are now on the border of Austria.  Forget where you have been - the pleasure you had in Italy is irrelevant!  Marginalism declares that the past is behind you.  The issue is whether to step forward, and the starting point is where you are now.

Second, think of Henny Youngman's joke [again, an earlier reference from the author in the chapter].  What do you compare when choosing whether to go into Austria?  You ignore the past pleasure in Italy and ask, Will the benefits of going to Austria exceed the costs of going to Austria?  If a day in Austria will cost $50 and give you $75 worth of pleasure, go.  So what if in Italy the benefits outweighed the cost by tenfold?  The issue at hand is whether to go forward.  And you should go forward if the benefits outstrip the costs, even if they exceed by a lesser margin than before.

Third, remember the editor in Scoop [yet again, an earlier reference].  Up to what point do you continue moving forward?  You continue as long as the benefit of one step outweighs the cost of one step, until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost.  When a $50 day in Austria gives you $50 of pleasure, you rest...

So, I'm not sure what this means in regards to which infielder a manager should give more playing time to.  I'm guessing that this is only relevant to deciding where to go from here based on whether your decision's expected benefit can surpass its expected cost.  Now, when it comes to making decisions based on playing time, all this crap - well, most at least - goes out the window and a determination has to be made as to who will provide the most benefit above cost [cost being, in this case, the loss of playing time of another player since salaries are going to be paid regardless].  And, well, if you as the decision maker expect infielder A will be of more benefit to the team by taking at least some playing time from infielders B and C, then you do so...even if B and C are generally regarded as better; and only if a benefit for doing so is expected [reiteration for effect].  But, be warned, fan[atic] A, B, and C will be critical of your every decision: for the fanatic really believes that s/he is a better decision maker than you...and believes this by a wide margin, too!    

Warning: clear violation of the community guidlines ensues.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30096

Law would make ISPs responsible for posters

Sue the messenger

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 07 March 2006, 08:54

THE STATE of New Jersey is planning a law which makes ISPs liable for any false or defamatory messages posted on public forums they may operate.
The law, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Peter Biondi would require an ISP to "establish, maintain and enforce" a policy requiring posters on "a public forum website... to be identified by legal name and address".

If someone posts something libellous, then the ISP will have to provide a legal name and address of the poster. If it doesn't then the person defamed can sue the ISP instead.

You can read the fine print here.

Absolutely sickening.  Biondi is a Republican - you know, the party that claims to believe in a limited government!