Everybody has their opinion about performance enhancing drugs, but yesterday's unsurprising David Ortiz reminded me of something that tends to go unmentioned in the discussion.  Despite the A's history, from Jose Canseco to Jason Giambi, the team - going forward - would be much better off if steroids and HGH are kept out of baseball.

Why?  It's all about the money.

Continue reading this post »

The "Anything Can Happen" optimist in me wants to believe that anything is possible.  The rotation, with two barely-able-to-drink rookies and a collection of other guys, will be unexpectedly good.  The guys in the bullpen who did well in stretches last year will keep it up, and prove to be more than flashes in the pan.  The lineup, filled with old and injured guys, will be a lot more productive.  The rest of the division will stink.  The A's will be in contention, and Billy Beane will pull off a deadline deal to keep us in the hunt through September.

Why must we think this way?  Why must two young pitching studs be rushed to the big leagues, using up a year of service time on a team that really cannot afford such a luxury if they turn out to be good?  Why is the focus on this year, when realistic expectations dictate that this is a rebuilding team, at least a year away from serious contention?

I'll tell you why.  It's because Billy Beane has chosen to pursue two goals that conflict with each other.  He wants a contending, watchable team now - and he wants to rebuild for the shiny future up the road.  Beane is trying to pull the trick of doing both at the same time.  My fear is that he will end up achieving neither of his aims, harming the long-term goal along the way.

Continue reading this post »

An awful lot of time and energy has gone into debating what to do about the shortstop postion.  But I would argue that, of the position players, the question of first base - and in particular, Daric Barton - is far more critical to the team.

First, the A's are not going to have a good shortstop next season, and likely not anytime soon.  Bobby Crosby will play out his contract, or Petit will man the position, or Beane will sign a less-desirable free agent.  Whatever.  It's hard for me to get excited about any of those options.  But it doesn't have to be the end of the world.  Lots of teams can contend with a mediocre shortstop, as long as he can field.

But teams rarely contend with a black hole at first base.  Daric Barton was the touted prospect in the Mulder deal, a young "pure" hitter who already had plate discipline.  He lacked power, but plenty of first basemen have done just fine in the major leagues if they do everything else well.

So we waited for his arrival.  And in 2007, we got a promising taste of what could be during his September callup.

And then 2008 happened.

Continue reading this post »

The Eric Chavez saga tells us a lot about the Oakland A's, and none of it is good.

Billy Beane decided, a few years ago, to build this team around Chavez.  That's why he, and not Tejada or any of the pitchers, got a long-term contract.  The team invested more in Chavez than in any other player.  And they've totally botched that investment, or allowed him to do so.  That's rank incompetence.

We now know that Chavez won't ever be a third baseman again.  He has an injury that's degenerated to the point that it can't really be fixed.  A baseball player who can't throw without pain and whose injury makes it impossible for him to hit is one thing: a designated hitter.  And from Chavez's own comments, that option seems questionable as well.

How was this allowed to happen?  As I mentioned in a comment last night, there are plenty of elite athletes whose careers are cut short due to injury.  One is tempted to put Chavez in that category, except for the nagging feeling I have that this particular injury could have been prevented or not allowed to destroy his career.

After all, it's not exactly new for Chavez to complain about his throwing shoulder.  A few years back, Chavez said he could barely throw the ball across the diamond.  That wasn't just talk.  His throws consistently bounced in the dirt.  Chavez's fielding wizardry made up for it, in terms of performance, but wasn't that a huge warning sign for the team and Chavez?

Remember, this isn't some borderline guy on a year-to-year contract.  This is a player in whom they have invested a great deal of money, especially by this team's standards, and counting on for years to come.

But Chavez said he didn't want to have surgery, didn't think it would help, wanted to play when he could, et cetera.  Did Chavez refuse to have surgery that would have prevented his shoulder from degenerating to the point where it can't really be fixed?  What did the A's medical staff and outside doctors recommend?  The player complained of extreme discomfort, and anyone with eyes knew it was affecting his performance.  Did the medical folks really just tell him he should do nothing?  And at what point does Billy Beane, the guy who signed him to the big-money deal so he could be a cornerstone for the team, get involved?

The A's and Chavez seem to have used hope as a plan.  But it must have been clear, after he finally had surgery, that Chavez's shoulder woes were far more serious.  Chavez is saying the shoulder is "shredded," and that it's so bad that there is nothing that can be done.

Beane knew that last fall.  He knew that his third baseman was almost certainly not coming back, not just for part of 2008, but ever.  What has he done about it?  In all of the trades he has made to rebuild the team, has he acquired a third baseman who can help now or in the future?  No. 

There was some discussion on last night's thread about the team's obligation to disclose the severity of a player's injury.  Full disclosure makes sense if you're trying to trade a player.  You can't, or shouldn't, be hiding damaged goods.  But full disclosure is not necessary if you're hiding the vulnerabilities of your own player.  Beane could have used the opportunity to add third base prospects.  I realize prospects can be traded for other prospects, but now everyone knows of the A's crying need for a third baseman.  They didn't know before.  They do now, and that will make a trade more difficult.

Chavez, even as a DH, cannot be counted upon.  How effective would he be?  Will the shoulder make it impossible to hit for any sort of consistent power, or play at all?  The A's, at this stage, can't pencil him in as a designated hitter - not this year, not next year, not ever.  He's Rich Harden, but without the superstar potential and with a bigger contract.

For all of the agitation about the team's recent swoon, I can't be too upset over the 2008 performance.  This is actually a little better than I expected, although the recent trend is ominous.  But I was hoping that Chavez would be able to work his way back into game shape and recapture some of the form of his early career so he could be ready to go in 2009.  If other things went well, perhaps the A's could contend next season.

I don't think that is a realistic goal now.  A Duchscherer trade still doesn't appeal to me, but I can see it now.  The team is at least two years away from serious contention.

But I don't think the A's should be left off the hook on the Chavez fiasco.  This was an organizational failure and a huge waste of money.

Edited to add:  Will Carroll's 2004 piece in Slate (link is in the comments) makes a good case for why Chavez and the A's might have been reluctant to pursue to surgical route.  [The piece doesn't mention Chavez in particular, but it seems to fit the situation, even if Carroll's article is mostly about pitchers.]  This dovetails with the biggest criticism of my FanPost, that I am making a bunch of hindsight-influenced assumptions without knowledge of what medical diagnosis and advice was given to Chavez and the team.

But let's assume that my critics are right, that surgery probably wouldn't have helped, and that Chavez and the A's suspected as much all along.  That doesn't negate my second point, that the A's failed to take action to fill what was likely to be a gaping hole in the lineup and on the field.  In fact, if the A's knew that Chavez's comeback was questionable at best, it strengthens my argument that the team needed to acquire a replacement.  The A's failed to do that, despite trading away a lot of Major League talent over the past year. 

Well, the A's sweep of the Red Sox kind of screwed up the premise of this diary, now that everyone is all happy, but I'll write it anyway.

We have a lot of be pleased with concerning the team, including some things that have gone a bit unnoticed.  It's not clear how far this team is from true contention, and there are some crosscurrents that make this difficult to predict, but the outlook is a lot brighter than I ever expected.

I'll return to my random thoughts format, in part because I like it, and in part because I don't have a big theme...

-- Think about the Dan Haren trade.  Haren is performing as well as expected with the Diamondbacks, giving them an important piece of a possible World Series winner.  But the trade still looks like a steal for the A's.  The supposed keys to the deal remain in the minors, but the two starters we got in return have lower ERAs than Haren's and look pretty impressive after almost a third of the season.  I don't know the WHIP and all the other stuff, but that's pretty impressive.  They'll struggle at times, as the league adjusts, but both look like keepers to me.

-- The "throw-in" of the Swisher deal may turn out to be the best Major League player. 

-- I have not been a fan of the Geren choice as manager, less because of Geren himself than because of the whole "best man" weirdness.  But I must admit that he's done a nice job juggling an awful lot of people and giving them enough playing time while maximizing their chances for success.

-- Bobby Crosby isn't awful.  This point has been made periodically, but it should be emphasized, because he has been everyone's favorite whipping boy for years.  I remember a conversation at AN Day a couple of years ago (I think) in which I argued that we need to ratchet down our expectations for Crosby.  He's not a budding superstar, or even a star, but he is a capable defensive shortstop who wouldn't be a problem if he just could stop swinging at crappy offspeed pitches and trying to hit home runs.  He's not perfect now, but he's been fine.

-- I'm not sure how Barton is going to turn out.  I've always been a little skeptical about a first baseman without power, because guys like that have to be on-base machines to be terribly useful.  I don't mind his struggles, because that's what happens with young players.  But I do wonder about the long-term potential of a slow, powerless first baseman with an average glove at best.

-- Let's do ourselves a favor and not get too excited about Chavez's possible return.  Whenever he returns, whether tomorrow or later in the year, it's going to take him a while.  I will concede a twinge of excitement simply at getting the pre-injury Chavez back.  I have given up hope that he will be a great hitter.

-- The A's are one of the few teams that can lose its two right-handed setup guys and not appear to miss a beat.  Bullpen depth is handy.

--  The team has a lot of decisions to make, but many are dilemmas created by good performances.  We're all eager to see CarGon, but I think the team's current performance - and that of the current outfielders - argues for keeping him in Sacramento until July or until he's totally dominating AAA pitching.  I'm cheap, and think life would be simpler if he's more affordable years down the road.  Besides, who's to say he would play better than Sweeney if called up early?

-- The minor league pitching looks more promising than it has in years, despite the recent injury problems.  Hitting remains a need, though.  I assume that's what we will be targeting, in the draft and any major trades.

-- Harden doesn't have enough of a track record of health to yield much of a return, so I don't really see the point of trading him now.  We'll see how things look at the end of July.

-- I remain uncertain of Blanton's trade value, and am not sure dealing him is wise as long as the team remains in the race.  But he's probably the most valuable trading chip, especially for a team that loses a starter in the next month.  

-- While the American League is as weak as it's been in years, I think the Wild Card is very unlikely.  Some team will get hot.  And the Angels are probably just too good.  That's okay, from my perspective.  The team is hanging around, proving entertainment to those of us who pay attention, and might get lucky.  More likely, the A's are setting themselves up to be a legit contender as soon as next year.

-- Frank Thomas remains a presence in the lineup, and takes pressure off everyone else even when he's not hot.  Of course, if he has a good year, he will probably be playing somewhere else next season.

-- The outfield is crowded already, as is the bullpen (despite the injuries), so those are likely places where deals will be made.  The trouble is that I don't see any of those players yielding high-potential prospects.

-- Good pitching covers a multitude of sins.  But the team needs to get better defensively (something that should start to happen as injured players return and prospects get called up) and needs to develop or acquire a stud hitter.  For all of my optimism, I remain concerned about the team's ability to find somebody like that.  They're not usually lying around, waiting to be found.

The A's head into the All-Star break in the unfamilar position of non-contenders.  And let's not kid ourselves.  One of the many sobering bits of information I read in recent days was that the A's haven't been this far away from a playoff spot at the break since 2001, when they won just about every single game in the second half just to make the Wild Card.  And that 2001 team was the most talented A's team since the 1990 World Series squad.

I understand that the Mariners may be playing a bit over their heads, based on runs scored and runs allowed, but their bullpen is pretty solid.  The A's may catch Seattle, but it hardly matters, because the Angels and at least one other non-division winner will almost certainly beat them out.

So we start to look to the future, and here's what I see:

Continue reading this post »

With Street and Duchscherer out for the forseeable future, the A's will need bullpen reinforcements at some point this season.  I've been pleasantly surprised by just about everyone in the bullpen lately, but it is not realistic to expect this sort of outperformance to continue.

Meanwhile, Rich Harden is getting close to being ready to pitch.

The A's have already talked about starting Harden's "rehab" in the bullpen.  It's unclear to me why Harden would be any less injury-prone as a reliever than as a starter, but several factors are making me seriously consider the idea.

Continue reading this post »

The St. Louis Cardinals, a team with the worst record of all postseason teams and one that came close to choking its playoff berth away, are World Champions.

Jeff Weaver, who was dreadful for the Angels and not much better for the Cardinals in the regular season, dominated the deciding game and pitched well the entire postseason.

The Cards lost their closer and had to rely on a rookie.

The Tigers, who steamrollered through the American League playoffs after stumbling down the stretch, fell apart in the series.  No one, except for Casey, could hit.  And the pitchers could not field.

The playoffs were a strong argument for the "get hot at the right time" school of baseball.  The Twins roared into the playoffs and then, suddenly, played very poorly.  The Mets were struck by the injury bug but almost made it to the series anyway.  The Tigers played like the best team in baseball, as they had been through August, until the World Series.  And then Placido Polanco couldn't get a hit.  Scott Rolen got healthy at a very good time.

There is no way any serious person can argue that the Cardinals were the best team in baseball.  They were a .500 team that came from a terrible division in a weak league.  Their right fielder was derisively cheered at home, in the team's clinching game, because of his inability to catch the ball.  Their Game One starter was 3-13 season or something just as ridiculous.  Their hot-hitting, pennant-clinching catcher had a .218 average in the regular season.

But there it is.  The Cardinals, with their weakest playoff team in the Tony La Russa era, won because their stars and scrubs got hot at the right time.    

I have been somewhat skeptical about Billy Beane's "crapshoot" theory, in part because it felt like an excuse, and in part because the "better team" (even with the caveat about a short series) usually does win.  But it's hard not to buy it this postseason.

And so now we're reduced to this.  Ken Macha, having been trashed by what looks like an organized hit job by Billy Beane and his player-allies on the team, finally decided to tell some of his side of the story.  Beane responded by calling him a liar.

Macha said:

1. Beane wanted him to play Kielty against lefties, but Macha ignored him and - irony of ironies - played Kotsay instead.  This decision and others like it, Macha tells John Shea of the Chronicle, got him fired.
2. Macha wanted Dan Haren to pitch Game 3 (and a possible Game 7) but Beane wanted Harden and Macha went along.

Beane responded to this by calling Macha's view of events "a total fabrication" and says Macha's memory of some events is "a little different" and that this is why it's good Macha and the A's are parting ways.

Continue reading this post »

And so, three years later, here we are again, playing an elimination game.

The media can hype it.  Most of the players can say it doesn't apply to them.  But for me, as an irrational fan, this is THE barrier of the recent era.  I am old enough to remember the A's winning the World Series when I was a fan, and of winning other playoff series.  But it's been a long time, and my memories of the team's post-2000 losses are quite vivid.

In 2000, it was the Yankees taking a huge early lead against Gil Heredia, and then fighting back gamely.

In 2001, it was Game Three ('nuff said), and then the Jermaine Dye-breaks-his-leg game that I attended the following day.  My biggest memory from that game isn't Dye, though, it was El Duque going through his warmups in front of me.  Watching his confidence made me very concerned.  Game Five just felt like a foregone conclusion, even though it was close.

In 2002, it was the Metrodome fiasco, followed by another elimination game I attended.  The whole vibe was strange, with many empty seats on a nice Sunday afternoon, and "thunder sticks" provided by the organization.  I refused to use mine.  The biggest game memory is easy:  Mark Ellis hitting the three-run home run that, as I watched, confirmed for me that the A's were going to lose in the most agonizing way possible.

And in 2003, there were bar fights, obnoxious Red Sox players, baserunning blunders, emergency knuckeball pitchers, blown saves, and pinch-hitting for Dye when there was no reason to do so.

It's all there, phantoms of my recent life as an A's fan.  It will all come back if the A's lose today, and then must face Santana (albeit on three-days rest) or even a return trip to the Metrodome.  Today is the best day to figure out a way to get this done.  They're at home, with no Santana on the mound, and just need a solid pitching performance out of Dan Haren and some runs off Brad Radke - the team's nemesis in Game Five in 2002.  

The Twins have made mistakes in the first two games, and the A's have avoided costly ones, but Minnesota remains a very good and dangerous team.  And I have seen them play quite well in Oakland over the years, including in the playoffs.

I'll believe the A's have it in the bag when the last out is recorded and the players are rushing onto the field.  Not a minute before...

So, who is going to AN Day 3?

If so, do you live on the Peninsula or are coming to the Coliseum via the San Mateo Bridge?

And if the answers to the first two questions are yes, are you willing to give me a ride to the festivities?  I'll pay for gasoline and the bridge toll, and will try not to be too annoying along the way.

I don't want anyone going too far out of their way on my account, as I can take public transportation and do my part for the nation's energy independence.  But I wouldn't mind a ride, if it's not too much of a hassle.

Let me know if this works for you.  As I understand it from baseballgirl, the tickets should arrive later in the week.

So the A's enter the All-Star break tied for first place.  Their defense is excellent, Nick Swisher had an excellent start, Frank Thomas has been an exciting presence in the lineup, Haren and Zito are having good years, and the bullpen is getting healthy again.

But with Rich Harden out for the forseeable future, Eric Chavez suffering an injury-induced slump that has no end in sight, and the offense looking dormant, Billy Beane faces a dilemma that is extremely unappealing.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Milton Bradley comes back healthy and plays well.  That isn't nearly enough to transform a inept offense into something that can do much more than tread water.

Continue reading this post »

It's always interesting to get away, and get a different perspective on the A's.  But my trip was to Los Angeles while the Dodgers were playing the A's, so it didn't change my perspective much.

The good news was that I missed the Monday game entirely, and caught bits and pieces of the Tuesday game on the radio.  I saw Dan Johnson fly out to end the game on television after we got home.  I don't have much to say about the Rockies games, and that sounds like it's just as well.  All I will say is that Loaiza still hasn't proven that he can be a useful contributor.  He pitched well in Cleveland.  That's it.  And it seems like the team's offense, which was running on fumes, is out of gas - at least for now.

Zito in Colorado's thin air... well, that should be a challenge.

But the Dodger games were interesting.  The first thing that struck me is that the Dodgers actually seem like a pretty good team, and I was very impressed with Andre Ethier.  Gee, I wonder if he could teach some of our players to hit the ball to the opposite field.

The other thing, and I'm late on this, is Vin Scully.  He did have trouble with pronouncing names, and would switch back and forth.  It's also apparent that Scully has a crack staff who feeds him an awful lot of material.  There's no way anybody, no matter how prepared, could have all that information on a team the Dodgers never play.  But it's the way he works everything in together - personal anecdotes, nice turns of phrase in describing the ongoing game, details I never knew - that's impressive.  It can't be explained by mere professionalism, although it is that.  Scully has been doing this for five decades now, and he obviously still loves the game and the people who play it.  So it's important for him to tell his Dodger fan listeners all these details about Dan Johnson, a guy I'm sure most of them never have seen before and won't remember in a week.  He expressed disappointment in the Dodgers' extra-inning loss in large part because a bases-loaded walk was "anticlimactic."  The fans, up until then, had been treated to a marvelous game, Scully said.  And he seemed to appreciate all of it himself.

I watched the last five innings of Saturday's marathon game while my family slept.  I was sure the A's were going to lose.  The Dodgers kept trotting out pitchers whom the A's couldn't hit, a harbinger's of this week's runless trip to Colorado.  Meanwhile, Brad Halsey was getting whacked around, only to have everything turn out fine.

Ironically, Steve Karsay looked the best I had seen him this season.  He was in control, unlike most of his appearances, when he could not keep the ball down consistently even though his velocity was fine.  So I was surprised when I read of his retirement in Monday's Los Angeles Times, although it probably makes sense for him.  Karsay's apparent intelligence and work with Huston Street make me think he probably has a promising future in baseball, if that's what he wants.  In the end, I watched his major league debut debut in person, and his career-ender on television in a hotel room.  

It's a little difficult to write about Harden's injury because we don't know yet how bad it is.  The comparison in today's Chronicle is to A.J. Burnett's injury.  That's not terribly comforting, as Burnett hasn't pitched yet this year, but it would hold out hope that Harden could return later in the season.

The problem, though, is that even in a weak division, I fear that Harden's absence for most or all of the season will make it very difficult to advance to the playoffs.  The Angels' rotation is clearly superior, if reasonably healthy.  The Rangers can hit like crazy.  The A's don't hit much and are missing an awful lot of important pitchers whose return dates are uncertain.  The best hope was that the rotation would carry them through, but that's less likely without Harden - unless Blanton and Loaiza pitch a lot better and the bullpen gets healthy.

The other 2006 problem is that Harden's absence makes a playoff win less likely.  The A's would be underdogs against anyone they play.  But in a short series, a Harden-Zito-Haren-Hot Fourth Pitcher rotation would be formidable if our top bullpen guys are back and pitching effectively.  Without Harden, the team would need to rely on lesser hurlers.

Continue reading this post »

Jason Kendall is everyone's favorite whipping boy.  He's being paid a fortune, but rarely seems to hit the ball out of the infield.  Kendall, as we all know, has never hit a home run as an Athletic.  His penchant for hitting into rally-killing double plays is maddening.  He's supposed to be this great defensive catcher, but until recently, had a terrible time throwing anyone out.  To make matters worse, he's been treated deferentially by management even when his performance didn't warrant it.  Kendall looks like a textbook example of what happens to the performance of an overworked catcher in his 30s.  Nico and many others on this site fume about him.  The Elephants in Oakland guy wants him traded.  Kendall is regarded as the product of Billy Beane's misguided effort to bury two high-prices mistakes.  Instead, he got one expensive out-making machine.

Continue reading this post »

Some of you have fancy technological ways of following the A's when you are away.  Not me.  I just got back from a week-long family vacation to Hawaii, where I had no Internet access (except for about three seconds of Athletics Nation; I'll explain later).

Here's my week...

Last Monday -- I make a critical decision, to bring my A's cap on the trip.  I wore it pretty much all the time outside, except at night.  Later, I convince myself it is a good luck charm.

Last Tuesday -- Leave for Hawaii in the morning.  I discover the hotel television has only ESPN, and that their version of Headline News is utterly lame during the week (no scores, just that idiot commentator/interviewer who yammers on about true crime stories).  I am bailed out by the hotel bar, which has one television tuned to ESPN2.  I see the A's are losing again and scoring no runs while everyone else - Angels, Yankees, Indians - is winning.  

Wednesday -- I'm spending more time at the bar in the afternoons (remember, the A's games were starting at 1 p.m. Honolulu time).  Some Angels fans tell me the A's are winning easily.  It's easy for them to be so nice.  The Angels are up 3 1/2 games, and our talk is of the Wild Card race (about which I am pessimistic, as I have long believed Oakland's best chance to make the playoffs is to win the division).  I catch the Yankees losing and Shrek throwing a shutout.  Saarloos sure has been good.

Thursday -- I see the bad news in the morning, when I buy USA Today and see that Rich Harden is missing his start with some non-arm injury.  I panic at the thought, assuming he's turning into Tim Hudson and the A's are doomed.  The USA Today story is just a brief, and again, I have no access to information.  This is very frustrating.  I debate the team's options in my head... Yabu?  Kennedy?  Juan Cruz?  If he's out for the rest of the season, the team is in big trouble.  If he misses a start or two, I figure they can survive.  I hope.  Meanwhile, Zito cruises to an easy victory against the Tigers - the early game is won before I even see the newspaper.  And the Angels lose later in the day.

Friday -- Blanton wins again.  I keep waiting for his arm to fall off or something.  He's been amazing.  The Angels lose again, which is a nice bonus.  The Yankees have the Royals at home, so I assume they will do what we couldn't.  By this time, I am an expert on ESPN's odd timing for showing updates - at 18 and 58 minutes past the hour.  But it's easy to miss the A's score, because the AL scores come first.  You're doing something else, like paying attention to your family, and you miss it.  Very aggravating...

Saturday -- Headline News is useful on weekends, so I can follow the games from our hotel room.  But it doesn't matter, because we're taking a trip around Oahu today and I won't see a television all day.  When I get back, late, I stop at the bar to see that the A's won - with Kennedy getting the victory - and that the Angels lost again to the Devil Rays, with Ervin Santana getting clobbered.  The lead is a half-game.  Hmm...

Sunday -- The games are on early, and I can follow them on Headline News before we go out for the day.  This qualifies as a bonanza.  Haren pitches well again, and the A's blow it open.  (Later, I see some ESPN highlights showing a whole lot of Oriole walks.)  The Angels lose, and the A's are in first place.  Later, my wife prints out our boarding passes for our return flight, and I try to log on to Athletics Nation in the seconds remaining before our Internet access timed out.  I got on long enough to see the cartoon, but not to read it.  I was not going to spend three bucks to go back and see it, so I let it go.  I'm obsessed, but not that obsessed.

Monday -- The return flight.  I catch a score on ESPN in the morning, A's leading 2-0 in the third.  Then, I resign myself to not finding out anything until we arrive home.  But in the airport, I find... ESPNEWS!  Oh, lordy.  This is a thrill.  It's tied in the ninth.  But we're going to have to board the plane soon.  I keep rushing back from the gate to the bar to check scores.  Last one:  Game tied, 5-5 in the top of the 12th.  #$%#&!  An extra-inning game before the Anaheim series, burning through the bullpen, and now I won't know the result for hours!  Oh, well...

Monday night -- I hear about the win on the drive home from the airport.

End result -- While I was gone, the A's went 6-1 and vaulted back into first place.  That's my kind of vacation.  

A few days ago, I looked back to see what I was writing back in the miserable days of May - when eight-game losing streaks were the norm, injuries were rampant, and the offense was almost nonexistent.

Back then, even Blez was a little downhearted, and people on this site were divided (remember the controverisal Optimists' and Pessimists' threads? -- I posted on both).  In "How Low Can We Go?" he asked if this was the team's low point - ever.  He got a lot of responses saying no, that it's been much, much worse.

On May 27, I wrote:

"This is nothing.  This is a team that had a really good run and failed to win any big prizes.  And now it's over.  But there is talent on this team, even if it's difficult to see it clearly at the moment.  And Billy Beane was right to trade Hudson and Mulder; the team had gone as far as it could given the budgetary constraints.  (I'm less sure about whether we got the right guys in return, but Nico is correct to point out that the keys to those trades are Meyer - injured - and Barton - a teenager.)  

The bigger question is how long it will take Beane to rebuild the team so it's competitive.  I don't know, and it may take longer than we hope, but his track record speaks for itself.

It's difficult to adjust to a season without scoreboard-watching and a steady diet of losses.  We've grown spoiled, and expected Beane to give us a contender against all odds.  It hasn't happened, and everything has gone much worse than expected.  It's no fun, but as mentioned above, it's been a lot worse."

On the fateful day of May 30, I wrote:

"With the exception of Kielty and Scutaro, the whole team has been a disappointment.  Some of that can be blamed on injuries, the rest on poor performance.

These things happen.  Sometimes everybody goes into the tank, and sometimes it lasts a lot longer than anyone expects.  Beane's offseason moves haven't worked - not a single one of them, at least not yet.  That doesn't mean they won't down the road, or that nothing is salvageable.  There is obviously a psychological component to the team's ineptitude at the moment.

But I'm afraid it's going to a long road back, as this sort of awful season - if it continues - will have signicant ramifications (attendance woes, player defections)."

And then the Devil Rays game began, with Oakland falling behind early.  I was watching the game and posting a lot that evening.  Initially, I was posting nonsense, such as a lame riff on Tampa Bay starter Kazmir - a recitation of lyrics from Led Zeppelin.

It was one of those many evenings when the out-of-town fans were unable to follow the game closely because Gameday was running way behind.  So everyone was posting play-by-play updates.  And at the end, there was much rejoicing.

I still have my Chronicle from the following day, with the game story and a Gwen Knapp column quoting Billy Beane as counseling patience.  "Temporary irrationality aside, I think this is the kind of situation where I need to be very rational," he said.  Beane blamed injuries for the team's troubles, and said things would get better.

I never imagined it would get so much better.  And while I still have my doubts that this is a playoff team, I certainly have enjoyed being proven wrong so far.  

The A's recent performance still leaves them on the outer fringes of the playoff race, but I think it does have significant implications for the team's 2006 plans.

First, the idea of contending in 2006 looks quite realistic now.  Sunday's offensive outburst notwithstanding, the A's revival has been built on pitching.  Dan Haren was inconsistent but now has been outstanding.  Rich Harden is back, hopefully to stay.  Barry Zito has pitched well but been unlucky.  Joe Blanton has been a revelation, and Kirk Saarloos has been a solid fifth starter.  Huston Street already has gotten started as a closer.  Justin Duchscherer has been excellent almost every time he's pitched.  That's a pretty good foundation, and all of them belong to the team through next season.

The questions have swirled, and will continue to swirl, around the team's two most valuable trading chips - Zito and Mark Kotsay.  It appears, from Susan Slusser's reporting, that Kotsay wants to sign an extension for numbers not far from what he's scheduled to make already.  I don't know whether Beane will trade Kotsay or keep him.  If he's traded, the A's will need a center fielder - because Eric Byrnes and/or Charles Thomas ain't going to cut it on a contending team.

But the really interesting question is what to do with Barry Zito.  I've written about this before, arguing that the team should keep him despite his flaws but predicting he would probably be dealt either by the deadline or during the offseason.  

Now I think the argument against trading him is even stronger, because the rationale for dealing him is weaker.  He's not the Zito of 2002, but has been a solid performer most of the season.  As usual, he hasn't missed a start.  Zito also has demonstrated leadership on the team and a willingness to adapt (by adding a slider).  If the A's are going to contend next season, they could really use a veteran left-hander with a Cy Young on his resume and a deserved repuation as a big-game pitcher.  It's kind of nice that they already have one on the roster.

The two main arguments for trading Zito are that his performance is declining (so we should get what we can for him while he is still valuable) and that he isn't signable (because starters are so overvalued).  Zito has refuted the first argument.  The second argument has more merit.  I don't know if Zito would sign an extension with the A's under any circumstances.  I do know he would be expensive.  But if we're planning on being a serious contender next year, the A's should probably keep him - unless some team offers us something ridiculous in return that would help the team more in 2006.

It won't be long before the Zito rumors begin in earnest.  He is our most valuable trading chip, with a year left on his contract, a reputation as a clutch pitcher, and a Cy Young to his credit.  And he's still in his mid-20s.

It is widely assumed by baseball insider types that Zito will be dealt by the deadline.  He will fetch several good prospects, Bruce Jenkins wrote over the weekend in the Chronicle.  Rob Neyer says it's just a matter of time.

I can make a case for dealing Zito.  It's not difficult.  First, there is the question of whether Zito would consider signing a contract extension with Oakland this offseason under any circumstances.  If I am Zito, and especially if I'm Zito's agent, I don't think I would do it.  The only risk is injury, and Zito has shown himself to be remarkably durable.  If Billy Beane knows or strongly suspects that Zito plans to leave or test the free agent market, he should trade him.  I've always assumed Zito is more of a "big market" guy, and he must be influenced by the good experiences of Hudson and Mulder after leaving Oakland.

There is also the question of whether Zito's performance will ever approach his Cy Young year again.  Zito is doing and saying the right things lately, adding a slider and taking an open leadership role.  But he remains inconsistent, and is overly dependent on the umpire's strike zone and willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt on his curveball.  Zito also is a seven-inning pitcher, which reduces his value.  And the statheads will note that his strikeouts have declined in recent years, a sign that the league is catching up to him.

Finally, it would be very expensive - perhaps prohibitively so - to sign Zito to an extension.  Starting pitching, as we saw last winter, is a very valuable commodity.  Teams are quite willing to overpay for it.  The A's would have to overpay for Zito, and that would restrict the team's ability to sign other players, such as Kotsay.

But I don't like the idea of dealing Zito, for several reasons.  

First, it would send the wrong message to the team and its fans.  That message would be:  We won't be a contender in 2006, either.  Zito is one of the team's few stars, and certainly the only one with marquee power and pizzazz.  That's not important on one level, but it makes a difference on another.  Trading Zito would depress fans and damage attendance.

Second, Zito isn't some old veteran hurler who's past his prime.  He's entering what should be the prime of his career.  Zito has no injury history at all, and is making adjustments (such as the slider).  Are we really going to get a package of players in return that will help the A's more than Barry Zito in his prime?  We've already seen that there are plenty of risks in trading for touted pitching prospects (see Calero, Kiko and Meyer, Dan).  And it's not like Oakland is overloaded with starting pitching talent.  At the moment, we're filling out the rotation with Seth Etherton, Kirk Saarloos, and Joe Blanton.  

Third, I'm not ready to give up on 2006.  It's quite possible that the A's could have a strong rotation led by Harden, Haren and Zito.  Beane could fill in the blanks for the other two spots.  If some of our young players develop and Beane trades well, the A's could be right back in the thick of things next year.  But if we trade Zito, I have trouble seeing how that happens unless some desperate team gives up way too much.

In the end, I assume Zito will be traded because he won't really want to stay.  But I think Beane better be sure of that before he pulls the trigger.  The related question involves the new owners, and whether they are willing to pay the money to keep talent.  It would be awfully nice if the team made a commitment to its own young, talented pitcher instead of trading him for a bunch of young players and prospects who may not work out.  

As the losses pile up, it's looking increasingly likely that the A's will be sellers at the midseason trading deadline.  A lot of people seem pretty sanguine about this prospect, noting that this will be an excellent opportunity to dump underperforming or unneeded veterans and acquire prospects or young players who can play a big role in the coming years.

Billy Beane is an excellent judge of talent, and I am sure he and his staff have their eyes on some players who could help the A's.  But I think we need to be realistic about how much our trade bait is really worth on the open market.  Frankly, I don't think they are worth much.

Here are the obvious candidates...

Dotel -- He will draw suitors, simply because there are always contending teams that have injured or ineffective closers who want to upgrade for the stretch run.  The obvious example is the 2004 Oakland A's.  But what did we have to give up for Dotel?  Two minor leaguers, a third baseman who doesn't hit for power and a starter who wasn't highly touted but had good AAA numbers.  I would be happy to end up with a Teahen-type prospect for Dotel, but that's what we're looking at.  The other problem is that Dotel is strictly a rental this year; last year, we had the option of keeping him a year and a half.  That lowers his value.

Durazo -- He's a good hitter, but doesn't hit for a lot of power and can't field at all.  That limits the number of teams who would even be interested, so I suspect his value won't be as high as we would hope - even if he's hitting better during the summer.

Byrnes -- Even if he goes on one of his crazy-hot streaks, I doubt other teams will be fooled into offering too much.  We'll get some offers, especially from teams with injury problems, but I don't think we're going to get much in return.

Hatteberg -- He has no value other than as a pinch hitter, so I don't really see the point in trading him.

Ginter -- Some National League team, like the Cubs, might want him.  But we aren't going to get much.

There is one exception, a player who would probably still fetch a fair amount of talent in return:  Barry Zito.  He's a former Cy Young award winner with marquee status and a documented history as a big-game pitcher who excels down the stretch.  And the team that trades for him can keep him in 2006.  The Zito dilemma will loom the largest as the trading deadline approaches.

Billy Beane's rationale after trading Hudson and Mulder was that the team was reloading to avoid a long period of mediocrity, and that the trades would allow the A's to be serious contenders by 2006.

I understand the logic of this, but I do wonder whether the assumption that the A's will be serious contenders in 2006 and beyond is one we can make.  Let's look at next year's team:

Catcher -- Jason Kendall.  By next year, he should have adjusted to the American League and should be a solid contributor on offense.  He seems to have done a good job handling the pitchers, but is not very good at throwing out runners.

First base -- A mystery.  If it's Dan Johnson, he will be a rookie next year, so he can't be counted on for too much.  Hatteberg?  He'll be 36, I think, and his productivity is subpar for a first baseman even though I like his style a lot.

Second base -- Ellis or Scutaro, I assume.  That's fine.

Shortstop -- Bobby Crosby.  Hopefully, he will have a good second half this season, setting himself up for a breakout season in 2006.  But there's no guarantee of that.

Third base -- Chavez.  There's no sign, yet, that he is going to develop into the superstar that Billy Beane has been expecting.  For the A's to be a serious contender next year, that needs to happen.

Left field -- Total mystery.  Some player, not on the roster, will be manning the position unless Kielty ends up with the job.

Center field -- Kotsay.  Hopefully, the A's will sign him to a contract extension.

Right field -- Swisher.  It's not clear how good he is going to be yet, but he seems likely to a good, solid player - not a star.  It's too early to say, though.

Designated hitter -- Another mystery.  I don't think Durazo will be around.  Does Johnson get the job, or do the A's acquire somebody in a trade?

Rotation -- Harden, Haren, Blanton, Meyer and somebody (possibly Zito if he isn't traded or allowed to leave).  Harden should be a stud.  The rest are question marks, despite Blanton's good performance thus far.  If Zito is gone, this would be a pretty inexperienced group.

Bullpen -- Calero, Cruz, Rincon, Duchscherer, Street.  After that, it's hard to say.  Everyone assumes Dotel won't be around by the 2006 season, but that leaves us without a proven closer again.  I don't think it would be wise to throw Street into the job yet.  

There is certainly room for trades to improve the team's sickly run production, and I assume that will be a focus in any trades Beane makes.  The team has mediocre or worse performers at positions that usually produce a lot of offense (first base, left field).  But any improvement by trade will require giving something up, and I'm not sure that marquee players like Zito and Dotel will fetch that much in return.  Zito hasn't been a dominant pitcher for a couple of seasons now, and Dotel would be a rental.  The same is true of Durazo.  Our most valuable commodities are players we wouldn't want to trade.

The A's don't appear to have future stars waiting in the wings in the upper minors.  Dan Johnson might become a good major leaguer, but my impression is that management isn't sold on the guy.

We could get lucky with Crosby and/or Swisher, but otherwise, Beane will need to be very shrewd and a bit lucky when making trades so that the offense doesn't continue to be a lead weight holding back the team.  And, of course, the pitching will need to prove that it isn't a flash in the pan.  Does Blanton's low K rate bode ill for his future?  Is Dan Haren going to be one of those talented guys who can't put it all together, or is he just going through the usual struggles of a young starter?  We don't know.

It's hard to feel good about the team when it's in such a funk, and that does influence my analysis, but I do worry that all of this sacrifice won't yield the rewards we're hoping to get next year.

I don't know how long Crosby will be out, or how serious his back problem is, but do think his injury impacts several players and the team.

-- Scutaro.  AN gets to play more games of Marco... Scutaro.  Macha seems to want him as a shortstop, and I have my doubts about whether Mark Ellis is able to play the position with his arm in its current state.

-- Ellis.  In an ideal world, he'd flip over to shortstop.  I think his injury precludes that, and also have concerns about a lineup that includes Ellis AND Scutaro.  Maybe I'm overreacting to the Opening Day shutout, but I just think we need more guys with offensive pop.

-- Ginter.  He seems to be a winner here.  His offense is needed now, and his numbers seem roughly comparable to Crosby's.  I'm concerned, sight unseen, about his defense, but we may have to take our chances.

My guess is our lineup will have Ginter at second base, most of the time, with Scutaro at short, most of the time.  Ellis will be a defensive replacement at second base when he's not filling in at short.

As an A's fan, I have found myself trying to rationalize the steroid revelations.  It's not that I didn't know McGwire and Canseco and Giambi were using; it's that I didn't know when they started and how they compare to other major leaguers.

I never saw Canseco as a minor leaguer.  He entered the big leagues as a huge, muscled guy.  I never saw the transformation, or the sudden jump in power numbers in the minors.  And so, while assuming he started using steroids at some point, I thought it might have happened later in his career, perhaps after he left Oakland and turned himself into a one-dimensional home run hitting machine.

McGwire hit 49 home runs in his rookie season, when he wasn't the behemoth he became later.  While I believed he was a steroid user, and that he used while on the A's, my guess was that he started later - in the early 1990s.  

I didn't know when Giabmi started using, but - again - hoped it started later and perhaps accelerated after he left in 2001 and joined the Yankees.

All of this is turning out to be wrong, and frankly, makes me feel a bit stupid.

Part of my desire, of course, is that of a typical fan.  I don't want my memories to be tainted.  I don't want the A's world championships, pennants, and division titles to be tainted.  But they are.  Canseco, McGwire, and Giambi were the A's most dominant hitters over the past 20 years.  It turns out all of them were cheaters.  It's an unknown how good they would have been without the juice.  It's pretty safe to say they would not have been as good.  It's also pretty safe to say the teams they led would not have been as good.

I know all of the counter-arguments.  Those three A's players were and are hardly the only players to use performance-enhancing drugs.  (Did anyone believe Sosa's lawyer and his exception-laden statement?)  I know that many of these drugs weren't even against baseball rules.  There are plenty of Oakland players who weren't taking a thing, and they were major contibutors to the team's success.  I know that other drugs, such as amphetamines, have been part of baseball for decades.  And it's not like steroid users invented cheating.  Players on the A's leading opponents were, and are, taking steroids too.  But that is, somehow, a small comfort.

One of the most offensive aspects of McGwire's testimony was his repeated statement that he doesn't want to talk about the past.

Well, Mark, it's not just your past.  It's mine.  I watched a lot of your majestic home runs over the years.  Unlike jrbh, I didn't knowingly joke about the A's steroid use back into the 80s.  I allowed myself to ignore the reality, at least until the mid-90s, because I wasn't there as an investigator but as a fan.

You learn to be pretty cynical about big-time athletics, including at the collegiate and even high school level.  So I'll get over it.  But I won't be able to think about these players, or the teams they led, quite the same way again.  And that, to me, is a sad thought.

As noted in the stories about Canseco, including the one Blez posted from 1985, is something I didn't know or had long since forgotten.

He was a skinny kid without too much pop before 1985.  And then, if his story is to be believed, he started taking steroids and turned into the beefy slugger we remember.

We all have analyzed the old footage of Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa in their younger days.  Canseco was different, if only because he came to the major leagues as a big guy.  He got bigger later in his career, as he devolved into a designated hitter who went for the fences and could no nothing else.  I have long presumed he took steroids, but didn't make the automatic assumption that he was taking them even before he hit the big leagues.

A couple of days before the 1989 World Series, I had a chance to go down on the field and talk to some of the players.  As Canseco, McGwire, and Parker walked around, taking batting practice, I was struck by the size of the team.  It's one thing to see them on television or even from the stands.  It was another thing to stand next to them.  

While I don't want to cast aspersions of any of the A's sluggers from the late 1980s, I think it's naive to assume it was only Canseco on the juice.  Even Tony LaRussa says he suspects three or four players of using steroids, although it's not clear whether any of them (besides Canseco) were on his A's teams.  I respect LaRussa for sticking up for his players, but he's not exactly an unbiased source.  He doesn't want his own record tarnished.  

Steroid use wasn't against baseball rules or even illegal back in those days, and I doubt Jose Canseco and any steroid-using Oakland teammates were the only big leaguers on the juice.  But it's not a happy thought to consider, especially when added to the fact that Jason Giambi was the best player on the A's 2000-2001 teams.

No, we don't know how much steroids helped Canseco or Giambi.  It's one of those what-if thought experiments that has no answer.  But there is plenty of evidence (see Caminiti's MVP season, Canseco's dramatic improvement, Giambi's rise and fall, Bonds' extraordinary improvement after age 35) that it can make a lot of difference.  

1. The A's are rebuilding.  Not "re-tooling" or any of the other euphemisms... rebuilding.  
2. Attendance is going to fall through the floor.  Bay Area baseball fans don't show up when the team isn't a contender and management throws in the towel.  There will be plenty of good seats available.
3. I'll find out more about the players involved later, but this trade makes sense now that Beane has dealt Hudson.  If you can't win in 2005, why bother hanging onto Mulder - who you're probably going to have to trade after the upcoming season?
4. This changes everything.  Byrnes?  Gone.  Hatteberg?  No reason to keep him around as anything but a backup in case Dan Johnson doesn't pan out.  Dotel?  There's no reason to pay good money for a shaky closer when we're not trying to win this year.  Zito?  His fate is uncertain.  As we all assumed he would be gone after 2006 anyway, there's a good argument for dealing him too.  I think Beane would like to sign Durazo to a long-term deal, and now he's got the money to do so.
5. If nothing else, you've got to give Billy Beane credit for guts.  His reputation is on the line here.  If can keep the team competitive and make it into a serious contender by 2007, all of his critics who credited the Big Three for his success will have to shut up.  If not, the critics were right.
6. It must stink to be Jason Kendall right now.
7. I think you've got to be awfully optimistic to envision the A's as legitimate contenders in 2006.  The guys we got in the Huddy/Mulder trades are going to have to pan out quick.
8. I guess the Cardinals' young minor league catcher is supposed to be a promising player, but how many catchers do we need?
9. I am curious what Beane really thinks of Mulder.  Was this another salary dump/rebuilding move, or does he have serious doubts about Mulder based on his injury history and 2004 meltdown?
10. Barton may the best long-term player of the bunch, but Haren needs to be successful for this trade to work.  The A's had a dearth of minor-league pitching prospects.  The trades for Meyer and Haren are designed to rectify that situation.  I hope Beane has made accurate assessments of those pitchers.
11. Boy, am I surprised Zito is the last of the Big Three standing...

It's one thing to know the Hudson trade was going to happen, to know the reasons why, and to talk amongst ourselves about how the trade would eliminate us as a serious contender in 2005.  It's another to listen to Billy Beane confirm our suspicions.

Boiled down, here's what Beane said:

1. The Hudson trade was a salary dump.  He wasn't traded because of his injury history, or because we got an offer we couldn't refuse.  He wasn't traded just because his salary demands would be too high in future years, although that obviously was a factor.  Hudson was traded because his 2005 salary, a bargain, was too much for the A's ownership to afford.  So Beane took the best offer he could get.
2. The A's are too flawed to be worth keeping together even if that were feasible.  And if the team was kept together for one last run, the A's would go into the tank afterward.
3. The A's are rebuilding in 2005.  They might be able to contend in 2006, but the team will have to unload Zito or Mulder after the upcoming season because they will cost too much.

Beane sounded grim.  He used the Bill Walsh analogy about dumping a player a year too early instead of a year too late, but Walsh's theory was based on performance.  It wasn't based on money.  Some of Beane's comments were efforts to justify the trade, but his heart didn't seem to be in it.  

While Beane may be able to juggle and keep the team competitive (85-90 wins?), it's hard to see how the A's are going to be a serious contender anytime soon.  It's possible, I suppose, if all of the high-level prospects (within the organization and those acquired in the Hudson deal) do well.  But I see where we're headed: more trades like this one.  Lower attendance (because we're not a serious contender), leading to a lower payroll, leading to more trades to save money.

Maybe it all works like a charm.  But when the team's general manager tells me we aren't a contender, I'm not excited about Spring Training.  And I can't get too optimistic about the long-term outlook either.

We've all debated the fate of the Big Three once their contracts come up.  During the next few months, we should get our first answer.  I don't know how much Tim Hudson wants or whether he really wants to stay.  I don't know whether Schott is willing to open his wallet.  I don't know how Beane is evaluating all of the various factors - Hudson's oblique, his age, the fate of Mulder and Zito?  

But we know that the parties are saying the right things.  Hudson, in Monday's Chronicle, said:  "Everyone knows I'm happy here and this is the place I want to be.  This offseason we'll think more about that.  It's something both sides would like to get done."

Continue reading this post »

What really happened to Mark Mulder that turned him into an All-Star Game starter into The Worst Starter in Baseball - in a couple of months?

We didn't know at the time.  We don't know now.

The suspects...

An injury -- Mulder has a disturbing habit of late-season injuries.  There is a lot of reason to suspect that in this case, especially because of Mulder's lost velocity on his fastball.  I've said numerous times that I think he has a non-arm injury and is trying to pitch through it.  But I'm beginning to doubt my own theory.  The A's are notorious liars about injuries, but Beane made a reasonable argument the other day.  Why would the A's be so careful about their pitchers and then toss out a valuable pitcher like Mulder, over and over again, if they knew he was hurt?  

Continue reading this post »

As the A's held the lead into the eighth inning, I started thinking about all the fun I might get to have.  I was going to Sunday's game, even if I had to sit in Mount Davis.  How many last-game-of-the-season showdowns do you get to see?  I had my tickets to the second game of the American League Division Series.  I was very cautiously optimistic.

And then, well, things happened.  We don't need to go into all of it, or who's to blame, because I'm not really in the mood.

What's striking about baseball, and wonderful in its cruelty, is the way in which a team's season can suddenly and abruptly end.

Continue reading this post »

So we've got Mark Mulder against Bartolo Colon in the first game of the big showdown.  Both pitchers are obviously vulnerable, but are capable of big games.  The teams are stumbling into the Coliseum with key injuries (Anderson and Durazo) and suspensions (Guillen) and general craziness.

Mulder is the most vulnerable of them all.  He's been horrible.  He's probably got a non-arm injury.  His confidence is shot.  He hasn't pitched well in a long time.  There is no reason, none at all, to expect anything out of him.  The only thing is that he may not have to be perfect, or even all that good.

Because...

Continue reading this post »