SB Nation User Blog: Yellowhorse

Steelers History Question- Batch and Maddox

Yellowhorse — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:47:53 -0000

A question regarding recent Steelers history. When Batch was brought in (2003) was he expected to be the back-up to Maddox or was their a competition for the job that year. Also, was Maddox cut in 2005?

I have the QB situation for each recent year below. Can anyone confirm the status

2003- Maddox starter Batch back-up (didn't play but was healthy)

2004- Maddox started. Ben R. took over in week 2 due to Maddox injury. Ben kept starting job when Maddox returned. I think Maddox played last game at Buffalo- meaningless. What about Batch? I think he wa hurt for entire season.

2005- Ben R. started. Ben R. got injured. Batch played some games in replacement got hurt. Maddox played as well. This is what I can't remember. Did the Steelers have all 3 on the roster that year? OR did the team cut Maddox before season and then re-sign him when Ben R. got hurt.

2006 and 2007. Ben R. started. Charlie B played a game or two when Ben was hurt.

2008 Ben R. started. Batch was hurt again. Leftwich was #2.

2009 Ben R. starts, batch hurt again! Dixon is now #2.

A Quick question for the board- Recent history?

Yellowhorse — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:06:37 -0000

Hello. I was just wondering if someone who remembers the contracts of recent players can help me out.

In 2007 the A's traded Nick Swisher and Esteban Loaiza. I was wondering if anyone could tell me their contract status?

Was Swisher about to be a free-agent? If not does anyone know how many seasons he was under club control? If he stayed on the A's in 2008 wouold he have been a free agent in 2009?

Same with Loaiza. Was his contract with the A's due to expire at the end of the 2007 season. (I do remember he was traded before the season ended).

I know they traded Kendall and Kotsay who were still due big money from the A's during that year but I couldn't recall the contract status of Swisher or Loaiza.

No agenda or point of view from me. I just couldn't remember.

Thanks

GO A's!!

Questions about Cust and future

Yellowhorse — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:58:18 -0000

Where does Jack Cust fit in to the future plans of the team?

At this point much of the focus for our A's is on the future, and rightfully so. There has been some great debate regarding SS and keeping Cabrera. (I vote to keep him for next season). The outfield has several young guys who appear to be in the mix for playing time next year (Sweeney, Buck?, Patterson, Cunningham, Hairson). Also, looks like we have some great young prospects for the corner positions and are set at 2B and C. The question I have is what is the future role of Jack Cust on the team?

At this point would he be considered a young player/ prospect? Is he part of the A's future? I ask this because in my view after playing pretty regulary for 3 seasons I have not seen much improvement from him at all. I think that Cust is what he is- decent power with limited defense, lots of strike-outs. I think Cust is a fair option at the DH position but could the A's be better served looking at a young prospect getting those at bats or a better hitting veteran?

I am starting to look at Cust like I do Crosby. An average major league player who does not show signs of improvement.

I think the A's should keep him on the team but at this point I think that they should look at trying to add another power hitting OF for next year, who can also be a DH. Or bring up another hitter from the minors to challenge him for his role/job. Not sure who is on the free-agent list but I think that the A's organization needs to come to the realization that Cust is a decent player but I think what you see is what we are going to get as we move into 2010 and beyond. The question is can the team find someone who can perfrom better at that role.

Remainder of 2009 Season - Key Questions

Yellowhorse — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:21:21 -0000

Right now as we approach the inter-league games might be as good as a time as any to look at the key questions for the team for the rest of the 2009 season.

First, the AL West. I may be fooling myself but I still don't see a team that will run away with the division. This makes in my view all of the close losses up to now so painful as I really believe that this season was there for the taking. The Rangers pitchers usually wear down in that heat and the Angels injuries have kept them from rolling. I still think with improved play from Oakland they can battle for a playoff spot.

Second, the starters. I think that barring an injury the A's should stick with the 5 and see how they develop. They were thought to be the biggest weakness on the team in the Spring but they are far from it right now. It will be interesting to see who can improve the most. I really think they can be the start of something special. Will be interesting to see how the AL hits them once they get thru inter-league. For many AL opponents it will be the 2nd 3rd time seeing our pitchers, will our staff keep up the decent work.

Third, injuries. IF ( I know its a major IF) IF Duke, Ellis and Garciaparra can come back and play the 2nd half that would be huge for this team. I think they should put Duke in the pen to pitch in the close ones like tonight. He is a major upgrade over the chumps in the bull-pen. I think both the GM and Manager share in the blame for the selection and mishandling of the bullpen this season. Nomar even if he could play only 2-3 games a week is an upgrade in hitting over Crosby and Hannahan (neither at this point should be considered up and coming talent, thus there is no fear that a rookie is loosing valuable playing time). Kennedy may cool down and thus Ellis can platoon or they can stick one at 3B to upgrade the offense from that spot.

The biggest question however has to (or the 2nd year in a row) be will the team start hitting. I never thought that Giambi and Cabrerra would be so unproductive so far, will they turn it around. If not its another year fighting with the Mariners to stay out of the cellar. Also, Holliday and Cust need to improve as well. Yes, the lower part of the order is killing us (possibly solved with the return from DL of GArciaparra, Buck, Sweeney) but the top of the line-up is not pulling its weight either.

I think that Beane should give the team until the ASB to see if the team can 1- get healthy and 2- start hitting. If so then he should make a move or two to add another piece to the team to see if they can sneak into the playoffs in a weak AL West. Once in the playoffs (heck even with a 85 or so win total anything can happen).

The decision to tear down the 2006 team?

Yellowhorse — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:21:31 -0000

O.K. right now it appears to me that the decision to tear down the 2006 A's has put the team in the basement.

First, the case of the manager. Macha is back in baseball and is winning. Another coach off that team Washington is in first place. Why exactly did the GM dump Macha and bring in Geren. This was obviously the first mistake.

Second, the decision to get rid of Milton Bradley. BTW the A's had a winning record when they DFA Bradley in 2007. Why? How did that work out for the team- bad. If my memory is correct, the OF was crowded with the rise of Cust and Buck. Bradley was seeing his playing time reduced and snapped. Obviously, the decision to go with Buck over Bradley has not led to more victories on the field. However, if Bradley was such a major disaster in the clubhouse, why not wait to make a legit trade as opposed to just dropping him out of the blue for nothing.

Third, dumping Swisher and Haren. They were relatively low-paid young guys. Neither had been health risks. Why trade them? The players brought in especially in the case of Swisher have not made up for the value of a top 5 ace starter and a decent everyday outfielder. I would much rather have Swisher than R. Sweeney. The pitchers received from Chi. have been busts as well. As to the crop brought in for Haren there are some good players but Haren is an ace and his value to a team was an enormous cost. There is no reason to believe that he would be putting up great numbers for the A's in 2008, 2009.

Trading Harden, Scutaro and Gaudin overall low-cost players for little in return.

The promotion of Suzuki and the dropping of Kendall from 2006 has been a good move but it would most likely have occurred in time anyway, as Suzuki was a rising star in the system.

Also, not signing Zito was a good move but I don't think the A's had much of a choice with the cash the Giants shelled out.

Obviously, guys like J. Payton, Thomas and Loiaza whom are mostly out of the game right now would have been gone anyway and could have been replaced.

Adding a veteran DH to the mix each season with the core group of guys from the 2006 season would have made the A's a more successful team.

I still don't quite understand why the GM felt the need to blow up a successful, generally young team. I didn't agree with it in 2007/08 and I still don't.

Why are the A's in trouble? - Blame the Democrats!!

Yellowhorse — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:34:37 -0000

Not sure if anyone noticed this trend before (sorry if it has been posted before) but our beloved Oakland A's have fared MUCH, MUCH better in the years in which the Republicans have controlled the White House.

1968: Johnson Democrat:Losing season

1969-1976: Nixon and Ford Republican: 8 winning seasons 0 losing seasons (3 World Series)

1977-1980 Carter Democrat 3 horrible losing seasons 1 winning season (1980)

1981- 1992 Reagan and Bush Republican: 6 winning seasons 5 losing 1 year at .500

1993- 2000 Clinton Democrat: 2 winning seasons (99, 00) 6 losing seasons

2001-2008 Bush Republican: 6 winning sesons 2 losing ones.

The transition years were the most striking. In going from Ford to Carter the A's wen from 87 wins (1976) to 63 wins (1977)

Reagan's first year was the best Billy Ball year.

Going from Bush I to Clinton was a huge drop off as well (1992 won AL West) to a horrible 1993.

Anyway. I thought that besides poor managing, weak starting pitching and weaker power hitters we could find another reason as to why we are really struggling this year.

Of course I think its a total coincidence but thought it might distract us from this losing streak.

Does anyone thin Geren will be on the hot seat??

Yellowhorse — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:44:46 -0000

I was wondering if Bob Geren will have to worry about his job security if the team continues to struggle?

I did read Moneyball and know that the 'importance of the Manager' was not rated that high according to the author's perception of Beane. Yes, I also know that he received a contract extension. Furthermore, I understand that he is friends with Beane.

All of that being said. He did take over a playoff team that had several winning seasons and has had 2 straight losing ones. This fact would usually have meant the loss of his job in many cities.

This post is not meant to argue in favor or against changing the manager. I am merely asking IF the team has a bad year will he start to get more and more of the blame? If the team struggles and underperforms will the stress start to build on him? Would the owner panic if the team is in the cellar in June?

Just wondering what the fans thought about Geren's job security.

Direct- TV for people outside of West Coast

Yellowhorse — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:47:30 -0000

I have Direct TV and live in the south thus am in no way the A's territory. Is this Direct TV blackout of CSN-CA going to effect me and the other subscribers to MLB Extra Innings on Direct TV outside of the West Coast?

On my viewing guide on Direct TV there are two channels showing the A's- Angels game on monday. This was the set-up last year when the A's and the other team were showing the game. I am hoping that this and the call I made to direct TV is evidence that those outside of the west coast will get the A's telecast.

Does anyone have an answer?

I think that this whole thing is garbage for my fellow fans who know they are blacked out who live in California and Oregon.

To those who are tired of all of these direct TV posts I only set this post up to address the question of those outside the area. Nealry all of the other posts appeared to be from people in California or the A's territorial rights.

Some Questions for the board.

Yellowhorse — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:21:51 -0000

Of course there are many big questions swirling around the team, primarily regarding trades. Tonight I have some questions on different issues.

First, do you think some of the guys rumored to be traded will turn it around in the last 2 months? If you look at the last 2-3 weeks many of our players on the trade rumor list (Street, Ellis, Crosby) have been off. Does anyone think these guys will impove once they know their status?

Second, will Daric Barton be back before the September call-ups? The last report (SF Chronicle) suggested he would be back on the next road trip. I am wondering if they will give August to Sweeney and Chavez as kind of auditions for next season.

Third, how much longer will the team keep sending Patterson and Conrad out there. I would hate to see them continue to get embarrassed out there and continue to cripple the offense. I would imagine that with Thomas back, Cust will have to play LF. So I suppose Patterson has tomorrow and maybe one or two in Boston.

Fourth, will Buck make it back this year?

Fifth, Do you think the team will bring back Thomas or Mike Sweeney next season?

Sixth, barring any trades do you think the rotation will stay the same for the rest of the year?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Emil Brown

Yellowhorse — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:29:52 -0000

I wonder more and more if he will remain on the club for the remainder of the year.

A few weeks ago I assumed he would be DFA when guys like Thomas and R. Sweeney got back. I even posted that he better start learning another position to increase his value as a reserve in order to keep his roster spot.

Two days ago I thought he or Davis would be dropped. Now I am not so sure. I think the A's may trade him but I really don't think they will waive/ release him. A few weeks ago, it was R. Davis who was seeing more starts when R. Sweeney was out. Now its Brown starting the last 4 games.

Now Brown might be starting because the team is trying to boost his stats/ presence in order to trade him.

I think dropping him and keeping Murton or Davis would be pretty tough to do considering he has an advantage in many offensive categories and the fact that he has been with the guys since March. Provided he was a nice guy and positive teammate, I would think that just dropping a guy who has better stats for another wouldn't help team chemistry.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was traded, even as a throw-in. I wouldn't be surprised if he was sent to the bench, but I doubt that he will be DFA.