SB Nation User Blog: bear88

Why PEDs aren't good for the A's

bear88 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:23:39 -0000

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.

Every discussion of an A's baseball move revolves around the team's payroll. Young, cost-controlled talent is the coin of the realm. The A's simply cannot afford to sign big-money free agents, or even keep their own. And when Billy Beane takes the occasional plunge, it has tended not to work out all that well.

When I think of 2003, I think of that awful division series against the Red Sox. Who were the offensive stars of that team, one with such punch they would win the World Series the following year? It was Manny and Big Papi. And Ortiz was a revelation that season, transforming himself from an ordinary hitter in Minnesota to a fearsome slugger in Boston. Manny Ramirez was always a good hitter, but he's been in another realm - "the best right-handed hitter in baseball" - during his time in Boston and, now, Los Angeles. It turns out they were Boston's version of Canseco and McGwire.

But I won't dwell on what might have been in that 2003 series, one that pitted an A's team without Giambi and Tejada against Boston's steroid-fueled sluggers. I'll talk economics.

People who talk PEDs can agree on one thing. They allow elite players to stay elite long after their skills should have faded. Barry Bonds is the classic example, a great player who turned superhuman in his late 30s. But there are numerous other examples, and it tells me one thing. These drugs make a difference, and they help players the A's can no longer afford.

The small-market success story is a team built on a strong foundation of good, young players who don't cost much. That can be augmented with trades and an occasional free agent. Once the players' clock has run out, the team must - in almost every case - wave goodbye.

We like to mock teams that overpay for past performance, but the steroid era has turned that flaw into a virtue. You could pay big bucks for an aging slugger, one whose performance should never justify his salary, and get a solid return. It's one thing to sign a free agent in his prime. The big-money teams could always do that. It's another to "gamble" that a guy in his mid-30s would continue to perform well, or even improve. The A's have had success in that area once, with Frank Thomas in 2006, but that is the exception that proves the rule. The big-money teams have been able to sign players like that, ones who aren't as clean as Thomas, and reap the benefits.

It's hard enough for the A's to compete with their payroll and other disadvantages. Without PEDs, teams that pay too much for past performance will get the declining player they deserve. And the A's, who rely on young players, will have a much better chance.

What I Fear: Beane's Self-Imposed Trap

bear88 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:22:34 -0000

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.

There isn't anything inherently contradictory about trying to win now and win later. Beane has done this before (see 1999). But I worry that he's pushing his luck this time, and playing with a weak hand.

Let me stipulate that there are some things I don't care about. I'm not concerned about the free agent signings, because most are cost-free even if they don't work out. Cabrera should be an upgrade. Giambi is likely to be the erratic slugger he's been in recent years, and Daric Barton needs more time in Sacramento.

But the Matt Holliday trade has changed everything. If Holliday isn't on the team, I strongly suspect that Anderson and Cahill start the season in AAA or below. That's where they should be, and that's what worries me.

Rushing Anderson and Cahill to the big leagues is the sort of thing that bad teams do. It may be that Anderson is a pitching prodigy, the rare kid who has the poise and the stuff to succeed (on relative terms) in the major leagues at a very young age. If it works, Beane's decision might make sense, even if it means one or bothof them is eligible for free agency or arbitration a year early.

But I look at this team and don't see a contender, even if the division is weak and the Angels struggle. I see mediocre starters, a bullpen likely to regress (to get/stay injured), and a lineup that's still too injury-prone and punchless. The A's are still counting on Eric Chavez to play third base most of the time. I hope it works, but it's silly to count on that.

Meanwhile, those rookie pitchers - the vaunted future of the franchise - are almost certain to struggle. It's not likely that both of these pitchers will be significant assets to the team, and the fast-tracking of them could harm their long-term development.

What's puzzling, to me, is that the pitching issues were entirely forseeable. If you trade your best starters, and in Blanton your most reliable innings-eater, it's no surprise that a team will have trouble putting together a rotation. It's as if Beane decided to rebuild for the long term and then got impatient with it, because he was as bored watching the team as we fans were.

The Holliday trade may not turn out to be a mistake, even if he leaves after - or during - the season. The guys traded for him may not turn out to be anything special. But I do worry that Holliday's arrival has been driving other decisions to the franchise's long-term detriment.

I hope I'm wrong.

Daric Barton - The team's pivotal player?

bear88 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:26:41 -0000

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.

I have been skeptical for a while about Barton, primarily because I like my first basemen to hit home runs more often than he is ever likely to do. He was a pleasant surprise on defense, but that's really more of a bonus in a first baseman. Otherwise, he was a disaster.

The question is what to do when a touted, and still young, prospect comes up to the major leagues and bombs. My natural inclination is to be patient. A lot of very good players have struggled early in their careers as pitchers adjust to them. Miguel Tejada played a more demanding position, but didn't do much in his first year either. Other stat-minded folks have posted more comprehensive lists.

The other problem with signing a free agent is that it effectively blocks Barton from playing his only logical position for at least a year and maybe longer. What if Barton is shredding AAA pitching in April and May? What do you do then?

I can think of a lot of things wrong with the other options frequently mentioned. Jason Giambi is old, has been erratic in recent years, and isn't the steroid-fueled all fields hitter he was in 2001. He's turned himself into a Yankee Stadium pulling machine. Now, I'll concede that Giambi has always hit well in the Coliseum, and retain something of a soft spot for the guy. But how many resouces do the A's really want to devote to trying to a past-his-prime player whose only definite plus as a hitter is his excellent eye. The other options, like Adam Dunn, would be even more expensive.

I'm torn about this because, frankly, I'm not sold that Barton will ever be a productive major league first baseman. If I am right about that, then the A's have as big a hole at first base as they do at shortstop. And the Holliday trade almost demands that the team do something about first base, because there is no particular reason to think that Barton is going to suddenly become really good.

This is where talent evaluation becomes important. We can stare at Barton's numbers, and compare them to other players' stats, for weeks. What matters is whether the team believes in this guy, and thinks he is likely to get his act together this year - as opposed to some theoretical future year. It would be nice not to waste money on a first baseman, and devote those resources to other needs. But if the team isn't sold on Barton, then Beane needs to take action and improve his offense at first base.

On Chavez: Incompetence, denial, and implications

bear88 — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:51:01 -0000

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.

A cheery (if realistic) look at the A's

bear88 — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:09:39 -0000

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.

What worries me about the A's

bear88 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:51:35 -0000

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:

The A's pitching situation is not as dire as it has looked in recent weeks. Dan Haren has been the best starter in the league, and even assuming he regresses, is a legitimate ace. Joe Blanton is a very solid starter when he has his usual control. Chad Gaudin may struggle as his innings mount, but I think he's a find for the rotation. It gets dicey after that, I'll admit, but things should be okay even if Rich Harden never throws a ball again. Loaiza will be back, and next year, will be on a salary drive. He's been very good the last couple of times he was in the last year of his contract. He should be a decent #4 starter. At that point, the team will just need to find somebody to fill the fifth slot, and that's not impossible to fill.

The bullpen has been an injury-riddled mess, with the top three guys from 2006 all missing significant time to injury and/or ineffectiveness. Casilla has been very good, though. Hopefully, the A's get the injured guys back to supplement the healthy arms who have performed well.

The pitching staff, overall, has been very good. And even without Harden, it should be a strength next year.

I'm less sanguine about the lineup. It is increasingly clear that Chavez will never be an offensive star, and he may never be more than an average hitter. Swisher is a good and versatile player, although it's not clear if he will ever be great. I like Mark Ellis a lot, for his defense and general headiness. Jack Cust has been a fun story. But really, the A's lineup bores the hell out of me. The team has too many players on the downsides of their careers (Kotsay, Kendall, Chavez apparently) and decidedly average players who don't hit enough (Johnson, Crosby). It's obvious that one of the reasons people are still mourning Milton Bradley's departure is that he, when healthy, brought a jolt of excitement that only a five-tool player can bring. The A's don't have those sorts of players, or intimidating forces like Frank Thomas last season, and so the team hopes to scratch and claw its way to three or four runs each game - if we're lucky.

There is no quick fix to this problem. Oh, fine. Kendall will leave, and should be a backup the rest of this season unless he's traded. But it's a little much to expect a rookie catcher to do too much. The A's have a lot of holes. I always chuckle when I read comments from team officials about a logjam at this position or that. What logjam? Who's so wonderful that they can't sit on the bench? I suppose we need Swisher, and nobody else can play third competently, so Chavez makes the list by default. But that's pretty much it, and Chavez is somebody I would trade for the right price.

Barton is finally hitting, so I guess we can be hopeful about that, but the farm system doesn't seem to be brimming with prospects. And that brings me to a longer-term concern. The A's farm system seems pretty barren to me. Meanwhile, I was just reading yesterday about the Yankees' AA starters. They all won't be good major leaguers, but the Evil Empire is getting smarter in its free-spending ways. This isn't good news for the A's, who have responded by acquiring a bunch of guys who make Milton Bradley look like the picture of health. That may work out at times (and Cust is a healthy example of that) but it doesn't seem like the most likely way to build a pennant winner.

There's no easy way out of this. Billy Beane faces a stiff challenge in the coming months and years. The good news is that the team should have enough pitching to stay on the fringes of contention. The bad news? They may not have enough to do more than that.

Harden as closer? I'm taking the idea seriously

bear88 — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:28:39 -0000

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.

1) The A's starting rotation is outstanding. Weirdly enough, the A's don't actually need Harden in the rotation right now, and Loaiza will be back later in the summer in case of injury or a falling back to earth by Lenny DiNardo or Joe Kennedy.

2) The bullpen, meanwhile, is populated by guys who are pitching out of their heads. Maybe some of them are for real, but it's not realistic to think that all of them are.

3) Dan Haren is the best pitcher in the league. The A's do not need to hope that Harden gets healthy so he can be the ace of the staff. The team already has its ace.

4) Harden's chronic injury troubles render him useless. Shoot, the A's wouldn't get anything close to good value if they tried to trade him. In the past, I have hoped he would get past his injuries (none of which ever seem extraordinarily serious at first) and have been concerned about the impact of relief work on a brittle guy who hasn't ever done it consistently. Now I don't care, at least not as much. I want Harden on the mound, pitching if he can.

5) Harden's stuff is so dominant, when on, that he wouldn't need to use all of his pitches in a relief role. Maybe that's for the best. Taj Adib makes a specific argument, that Harden's changeup is what causes him problems, in his own diary. I don't know about that, but it is true that relievers don't need as many pitches. It's possible that Harden would not be well-suited, physically or temperamentally, to closer work. But you never know until you try.

In an ideal situation, I wouldn't be too enthused about this Harden-in-the-bullpen idea. The A's would have Street and/or Duchscherer and I would be happy to get what we can out of Harden in his starting role. But Street and Duchscherer are non-factors, and that is unlikely to change. The A's may already be thinking that Harden-as-closer is a risk worth taking. If they're not, though, I think they should be.

Crapshoot: The Cards make Billy Beane's argument

bear88 — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:49:16 -0000

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.

"A total fabrication" - Beane calls Macha a liar

bear88 — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:48:26 -0000

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:

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.
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.

Well, it's going to be a little difficult to square this circle.

The story begs the question of what part of Macha's account Beane thinks is inaccurate, or "a little different," or just a flat-out lie. It's not clear what Beane was talking about, although the implication of the story is that it's the playoff lineup/rotation disputes. Beane may only be saying that it's a total fabrication that he fired Macha primarily because of those disputes, which may be why he includes the comment about memories being "a little different." But the language - "total fabrication" - strongly implies that Macha is lying about everything.

But why would Macha lie? The evidence suggests that he is probably telling the truth, at least about the lineup/rotation issues. We knew at the time that there was disagreement among A's brass about the rotation (i.e. the "5-5 split.") Macha said at the time that he played Kotsay for his defense. This isn't some ancient dispute, subject to faulty memories. It was a week or so ago.

For what it's worth, I think Macha was wrong to play Kotsay in Game 1 against Robertson, but right to play him in Game 3 in Detroit's spacious center field. I thought it unwise to bypass Haren in favor of Harden, although their performances were similar.

But that isn't really important.

It is just plain stupid for Billy Beane to call his former manager a liar when the man is belatedly defending himself when he would have been happy enough to walk away and collect his $2 million. Beane fired him, and from what I can gather, was probably right to do so. But why add insult to injury? Beane already gave at least tacit permission for players to go public with their gripes about Macha. It all looked transparently orchestrated. And who brought an apparently grumpy Macha back in the first place to piss off the players? Beane.

Macha is clearly peeved at Kotsay, whom he regards as a back-stabbing and self-absorbed whiner.

The trouble with Macha is that nobody wants to talk to their boss if they feel disrespected or insulted. It works both ways. Macha made too many caustic comments that struck me as insensitive to players who really were injured. I don't think he did enough to back up many of his players, either on the field or in media comments. (A big exception is Milton Bradley, whose apparent praise for Macha after the wrestling match during the Angels game is yet another reason to like the guy.) Macha wasn't a good enough manager, with unassailable credentials and/or management backing, to overcome clubhouse dissension.

But the real issue here is Beane. He already has a problem being perceived as Al Davis, who regards managers/coaches as easily replaceable parts. But this perception makes it difficult to hire good managers, because who wants a job where you get no credit for winning, too much blame for losing, and players who can plot behind your back?

And even if you hire a good manager, they will be perceived as powerless, a disrespected tool of Billy Beane's. He is only reinforcing that impression by getting into an unnecessary spitting match with a guy he canned.

Elimination games

bear88 — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:24:47 -0000

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...