Anyone in the area?  A's roll through town April 8-10 (Friday - Sunday... home opener, tix are pretty expensive).  I've never seen a game at Target Field and would love to catch the A's, but it's unfortunately that it's the home opener because tickets are particularly expensive.  And I'm the only A's fan i know in the area (at least the only one I know who'd be willing to put down $35-40 for a ticket on the low end).  If that doesn't work out, someone to just catch the game at a bar with would be sweet.

I'm not a HUGE draft junkie except when it comes to big names and Cal players.  The consensus (even after OSU) was that C.J. Spiller is probably the first back off the board, with Jahvid going somewhere at the end of the first or early second.  That might have shifted a bit, at least according to ESPN's top two draft experts.

Todd McShay doesn't have him going in the first round, and in fact has Georgia Tech's Jonathan Dwyer off the board first at the end of the first.

Best has held tight at around No. 18-20 for most of the year on Mel Kiper Jr.'s "Big Board" (which is just raw rankings, not draft projections), but he's fallen off the Top 25 altogether in the last ranking (12/9).  Caveat: Kiper says he doesn't consider underclassmen at that early a stage unless they project in the top 15 or 20, so Best might merely have shifted to 21 or 22.

I suspect Jahvid will shoot back up draft charts if he's back for the Poinsettia Bowl, but if his status come declaration time is still "sometime in the second" instead of "late-first or early-second", I'm curious how it'll affect his decision.  Lot of factors at play here, like his injury prone nature (is that a reason to come back and show teams he can stay healthy, or a reason to go pro so he can maximize the length of his career?), a fear of a Bradford-like season next year, a relatively thin RB class this year, the possibility of a rookie salary cap being instituted in the next CBA, a possible lock out in 2011, etc.

A couple weeks ago it seemed like a foregone conclusion that he goes, but if he doesn't come back for the Bowl Game and have a good game, I would be surprised if he leaves early.  Which you could argue is good (lots of talent at RB next year) or bad (a logjam at RB could potentially to hurt recruiting and/or prompt transfers... DeBo seems like the most likely candidate, given Vereen still has two years of eligibility and Yarnway four).

Thoughts?

Looked back to see if there was anything on this board, found only this, which is pure speculation.

This is in Jerry Crasnik's latest column:

6. Of the following "oldies but goodies" -- Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa or Frank Thomas -- which player is most likely to have a productive, bounce-back season next year?

Responses: Thomas 8, Piazza 5, Bagwell 1, one no-decision.

Thomas was wearing a walking cast and playing spectator when the White Sox swept Houston in the World Series. He became a free agent last week when Chicago declined to exercise his $10 million option for 2006.

Before going down with a broken foot in July, Thomas hit 12 homers in 105 at-bats to give teams evidence that he has something left in the tank. He compensated for a .219 batting average with a .590 slugging percentage.

"Bat speed really isn't a huge issue for him," said a National League scout. "He controls the strike zone and he's going to find ways to get on base. I don't think you're going to get the Ted Williams version of Frank Thomas, but he still can be a very productive veteran player."

While Thomas might fit as a DH in Anaheim or Baltimore -- or even re-sign with Chicago -- his most intriguing suitor could be Oakland. Thomas lives in Arizona and apparently likes the thought of playing for a West Coast club. He's looks like the kind of bold move that Billy Beane enjoys making to shake things up a little.

Now I have heard absolutely nothing about this so it might be pure speculation on Crasnik's part, but he refers to Oakland as one of Thomas' "suitors," indicating that there might actually be something to it (however small).

My gut feeling is that he'll resign with Chicago, but you got to think that if the guy's already guaranteed a $3.5 million buy-out next year, he'll probably be willing to take less from another team.

Thoughts?

Not that many, but trust me, you'll love the last one.

This is Ucla the UCLA Monkey typically...

...but for this particular game against the Angels, he role-played as the Rally Monkey.

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedooooooooooom...

And, the Coup de Grâce...

My friend Donny's AWESOME Scioscia/Mickey hybrid.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=miller_gary&id=2125912

It talks a bit about DJ's fan club in Minny, the effect Crosby has had, but this one is hands down my favorite part of the article:

On a team littered with players suffering back ailments, Joe Blanton was laboring through a recent start, and holding his back at times. Kendall went to the mound to see if everything was all right. When Blanton said his back was fine, Kendall barked at him, "Then why don't you start throwing the ball like it then?" And he did.

Nice.

I limited it to teams within 5 games of a play-off spot and over-.500 records (meaning no Baltimore). These numbers are taken off CBS Sportlines, so apologies if any of them are incorrect.  I didn't factor in games played because I'm lazy and I didn't think it'd have any significant bearing.  If anyone wants to do so, go right ahead.

Chicago
510 RS vs. 413 RA
+97

Toronto
513 RS vs. 444 RA
+69

Boston
570 RS vs. 502 RA
+68

Anaheim
480 RS vs. 421 RA
+59

Oakland*
503 RS vs. 450 RA
+53

New York
567 RS vs. 526 RA
+41

Cleveland
481 RS vs. 443 RA
+38

Texas
558 RS vs. 530 RA
+28

Minnesota
459 RS vs. 437 RA
+22

The only real surprise is how high up Toronto ranks, but maybe it shouldn't be that shocking.  They have a top 4 offense (best outside of the big bopping Boston-New York-Texas trifecta), a top 6 pitching staff in terms of ERA, and they've actually allowed fewer runs than the A's have.  They have the best run differential in their division (pretty amazing considering who they play with).  I'd watch out for them down the stretch if Halladay and Lilly come back healthy... that is a much better team than it appears at first glance.

Yesterday when Hatteberg drove in Crosby, I could have sworn he was Johnson.  I was utterly confused, because the broadcasters kept saying "Hatteberg" and I kept expecting them to correct themselves.  Even when they zoomed up on his face, I still thought it was Johnson until I realized that Hatteberg had shaved off his beard.  They have similar builds (Hatteberg's 6'1", 210 vs. Johnson's 6'2", 220), they both bat from the left-side, and can't say for certain since I haven't seen the A's much on TV this season, but they look like they have very, very similar batting stances.  The only big difference is that Johnson's now sporting some facial hair (which I was unaware of).  It's uncanny.

In Tuesday's game, I was watching on TV in the bottom of the 6th.  Finley's up, no one on, A's up 1-0.  Harden has him in a 1-2 count, then throws a ball.  Now at at this point, without anything resembling a rally in the works, the crowd starts cheering.  And then Finley strikes out.

So let's recap.  Even count, two strikes on their own hitter, no one on base, and they spontaneously start cheering.

Now it might just be that something happened in the stands (maybe some of them beach ballers got particularly rambunctious), but I don't think so.  It wasn't a sudden cheer like when a player makes a webgem or a fan makes a grab grab on a foul ball.  And it wasn't a "let's-go-home-team" kind of cheer either, any real baseball fan should be able to recognize those in a heartbeat.  It was more a building crescendo, like they were actually expecting something to happen now that the count was 2-2 instead of 1-2.  And it ended up sounding basically like they were cheering for Harden to strike out Finley.

Methinks they need to start distributing "How to" manuals at Angel Stadium.

Hopefully they'll remind Angel "fans" to leave those stupid thunderstix at home.

PS What the F*$# is it with Socalers and those freaking beach balls?

I was looking into it, and on John Sickels' site I found in his Top 20 Prospects review:

13. Brian Snyder: Extended spring training, rib cage injury.

And according to the official Minor League Baseball website, he had exactly two plate appearances and walked once for the "AZL Athletics".  It doesn't say when those two PA's were.

It sounds like he got hurt in extended spring training and never got back, but I have to wonder how severe his injury really is.  Unless he actually shattered a rib, I don't see how that kind of injury could keep him out this long.

I was pretty surprised to find that the guy had excellent numbers at Kane County last year, compiling a .905 OPS.  He did strike out quite a bit (80 times in about 360 ABs), but he's young.

Considering who we passed up to get him in the 2003 draft, Daric Barton (heh), Eric Duncan, and Carlos Quentin to close out the first round, I'd like to see him do well and up his trade value (especially since it's looking increasingly unlikely that Brad Sullivan is ever going to do the same).

This thread is inspired by the following comment by some random girl sitting behind me in the LF bleachers last night.

"Doesn't Jason Kendall look like Kevin Federline?  That's why I don't like him."

Wow.  Just... wow.  I have a particular disdain for stupid celebrities, so you can imagine how I feel about people who attain such status by marrying incumbent stupid celebrities.  Bringing that nonsense into the ballpark is just criminal.

The other comment that comes to mind was made by a drunk white guy in the stands at Dodger Stadium, when I went to go see a Freeway Series game a few months back.  All night he'd been throwing out nuggets about how Mike Scioscia's career was alive only because of his play with the Dodgers (which is probably true).  Then he dropped this one:

"Mike Scioscia would be nonexistent without the Dodgers!"

Might be one of those you-had-to-be-there moments, but it was just hilarious with the particular cadence he used and the fact that he was hammered out of his mind.

Anyone with similar experiences?

Not A's related, but I found it amusing:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2107228

"HAVANA -- Cuba's top sports official said Wednesday he doubts the nation will participate in next year's World Baseball Classic, calling the event commercialization of the sport."

...

Words fail me.

BTW, Gammons is now insider only.  Luckily my friend lets me use his account, but still.

The one part that relates to the A's:

"He picked Bartolo Colon over Timlin and Matt Clement for the All-Star team. Did, under pressure, he make a mistake in his clubhouse? Unquestionably. Francona should have picked Danny Haren instead of Justin Ducscherer from Oakland and taken Timlin, a giant the last two Octobers and a man revered by his Boston teammates."

A.) He misspelled "Duchscherer."
B.) I don't think anyone who follows the A's believes that Haren deserves to be an All-Star, at least not at the expense of Duke.
C.) As of today, Duke has posted a better WHIP, a better BAA, a better K total/rate, and more saves than Timlin.  Plus he's pitched more innings.  Granted he wasn't a "giant of the past two Octobers," but it's about what you did this season, not what you might do after the break; elsewise Chavvy would be there every year.
D.) Boston already has four guys at the All-Star Game, and Torii Hunter probably deserves Damon's spot.

I typically have a lot of respect for Gammons, but occasionally he just writes stuff that makes you scratch your head.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=insidedisharundownoftrad&prov=tsn&type=lgns

"The A's have cooled on Rockies lefthander Joe Kennedy, who fell to 3-6 with a 7.22 ERA in Cleveland on Wednesday night. The Rockies initially asked the A's for reliever Jairo Garcia and Class A catcher Kurt Suzuki. The A's, deeming that too high a price, promoted Garcia from Class AAA to the majors on Friday. . . ."

I would be hesitant enough for Garcia for Kennedy straight up... but a solid young catcher as well? That's just crazy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=2083626

"A committee of general managers will revisit recommendations on changing the draft, including the elimination of compensation picks [which tend to help richer clubs that lose free agents], working out a slotting system with the players' association [which the players themselves want], delaying the draft until mid-July and setting a signing deadline for around Labor Day."

I don't know how most teams tend to be affected by compensation rules, but this will definitely be a blow to the A's, who only fit half the profile for the "richer clubs that lose free agents" category.
You take supplemental picks out of the equation, and the A's miss out on Huston Street. This could be big.

I'm definitely in favor of a slotting system. This Stephen Drew/Jared Weaver kind of nonsense has to stop.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=insidedishasnotplanningt&prov=tsn&type=lgns

The A's are one of several teams pursuing a trade for Rockies lefthander Joe Kennedy, raising an obvious question:

Would the acquisition of Kennedy lead the A's to move their top lefthander, Barry Zito?

The answer is no.

A's general manager Billy Beane, while declining to address his current trade discussions, says he is not going to deal Zito.

"Barry's pitched well, he really has," Beane told The Sporting News on Thursday. "I need him. I'm not thinking about trading him."

Zito, 27, is not the pitcher he was when he won the 2002 Cy Young Award, but his 2-7 record and 4.41 ERA are deceptive. His run support is the fourth worst in the A.L., and his ERA is 3.48 over his last 11 starts.

Beane would be in better position to trade Zito if righthander Rich Harden were healthy and the A's other young starters were showing more progress. All of that can change before the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline, but Beane might be better off exploring trades in the offseason. He also could exercise Zito's $8.25 million option for 2006 and trade him at next year's deadline. Or, he could simply keep Zito until he becomes a free agent at the end of next season.

Harden has been out nearly a month with a strained left oblique muscle, and the combined 6.28 ERA by righthanders Ryan Glynn and Seth Etherton underscores the lack of depth in the A's rotation. Kennedy, 26, would add to their collection of promising young starters, and the Rockies are forever in search of affordable relievers.

I have trouble taking this at face value. Beane obvious has a history of feeding the media misinformation if he thinks it will help him.

Then again, if Zito leaves, our most experienced pitcher will be Rich Harden. I don't think anyone is comfortable with that.

I am of the opinion that we need a 35+ year old grizzled veteran with an accomplished past. I don't mean the pitching equivalent of Ron Gant, I mean someone like Wells, Moyer, or Rogers. The problem with that is with our limited payroll, it's hard to get someone who not only has a plethora of pitching experience, but also can contribute something to the rotation performance-wise.

To Dotel bashers: Dr. James Andrews, the third of the doctors to advise Dotel against surgery, apparently changed his opinion after having actually performed the surgery.

This might not affect us in the least, but you never know. Dotel has said that he'd be willing to "play for free" if BB let him back. That's obviously not going to happen (I doubt that that union would allow it even if Dotel did mean it), but OD might agree to sign for the minimum with an incentative-laden contract with us, and we might have ourselves a mighty fine set-up man for cheap.

Or we might lose him after having been footed with the medical bill and not a prospect in return. But you never know.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/09/SPGB2D5RLK1.DTL

Washington -- Octavio Dotel's "Tommy John'' surgery was so successful, the reliever said, that renowned arm specialist Dr. James Andrews told him that he probably will be able to pitch in the majors on Opening Day 2006, easily six to 12 months sooner than projected.

"Dr. Andrews said, 'Hey, you're going to be fine. If you were throwing 94- 95 mph before this, you're going to be really good now,' '' Dotel told The Chronicle a day after having a new ulnar collateral ligament put into his right elbow. "He said, 'If you do all your rehab, you'll be pretty much ready for spring training.' ''

Dotel said that a tendon was taken from his leg and it was so long that Andrews was able to wrap it three times around the elbow, which is unusual. In addition, Andrews took out two large calcifications.

"I'm telling you, they were big,'' said Dotel, who will start rehab a week from today.

Dotel is upset that he was second-guessed for electing to have the surgery after four doctors, including Andrews, advised him to rehab the elbow instead. Dotel felt he was portrayed as if he were shirking his duty by going against the recommendations, but he knew he could not pitch with any consistency because the tremendous pain he was having essentially prevented him from using his slider. The fact that Andrews removed the calcified chunks makes Dotel feel vindicated.

"I asked the doctor, 'Did I do the right thing?' and he said, 'Yes, you did,' '' Dotel said. "The things people said ticked me off -- why would I have surgery unless I had to, especially with no contract for next year? The last thing I wanted to do was stop playing, but I had no choice, I had to get this straightened out.''

A reason the doctors advised against surgery was that MRI exams showed that things might not go smoothly, but, Dotel said, "Once he got in there, everything was different from the MRI. When he saw that, he said I could be pitching in April.''

Steve Phillips did an article about Underrated Players on ESPN Insider, I was shocked to see who his honorable mention was for SS (behind Vizquel).

"Honorable mention: Miguel Tejada, Baltimore Orioles - Nobody who has driven in 150 runs in a season should be underrated. This guy is the best shortstop in Orioles history. Sorry, Cal."

Basically Phillips manages to underrate and overrate Tejada in the same article.  Miggy's only three seasons removed from an MVP award, was one of the premiere signings of the 2004 free agent class, and is the best shortstop in baseball.  If you call him underrated, that just means you haven't been paying attention.  On the flip side, whatever Tejada's done in Baltimore (or hell, in his entire career), he is not on Cal Ripken's level, not yet at least.

Also:
"Catcher: Jason Kendall, Oakland Athletics
Everyone seems to let Kendall's bad contract get in the way of appreciating him as a player. He's being paid like a power hitter but just isn't one. He's a very unusual player at his position, though. "When you look around the majors, there are some very good catchers. Other than Mike Piazza and Pudge Rodriguez, though, not many of them can hit enough to stay in the front end of a lineup. Kendall has a career .386 on-base percentage. He gives a manager and general manager great flexibility when putting together a franchise plan. He also is among the elite defensive catchers in the game. "He's a leader, and on the average he plays more than 145 games per year, which ensures the consistency of a pitching staff."

I've heard Kendall had a good year defensively last year, but calling him and elite defensive player is definitely a stretch. Yea, maybe he teypically throws out a good percentage of runners, but he doesn't seem particularly adept that blocking balls in the dirt and keeping pitches in front of him. Let's hope our "unusual" catcher returns to form soon enough.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2051595

This is the first good player to get caught by the new testing.  Previously Alex Sanchez was the only one I'd ever even heard of (not counting Herrera), and he's nothing more than a bench player.  So superficially, it looks like the program's somewhat effective, I still have my doubts.  

So far, major league baseball has caught a speedy outfielder, a power reliever, and a bunch of minor leaguers.  Not a single major league slugger or established star.  I wouldn't put it past MLB to selectively release information to the media, like the original steroid deal (pre-Congress) allowed for.  Then again, maybe it's just too early to judge anything.  So we'll see.

So lately I've seen a lot of diaries bashing Angels fans, and there seems to be a lot of anti-Giant fan sentiment as well.  Complaints about these people range from the fact that they don't know who's on the roster outside of their big bopper (Vlad or Bonds, take your pick) to them knowing when to cheer to them not knowing anything about baseball period.  While I've been guilty of bashing both camps, there's something I've been thinking about.

We all want the A's to get a new ballpark, pull in some more fans, and keep some of their established studs (instead of just extending the up-and-coming ones).  But where's that increase in attendance going to come from?  It's either going to come from bandwagon fans (people who previously had no interest in baseball) or bandwagon jumpers (people switching allegiances from the Giants to the A's).

So while Angels fans are a pretty extreme example of baseball idiots, if we want more revenue, we are going to have to deal with these people, or at least their Norcal cousins.  People who've never heard of Moneyball and don't know the difference between OPS and WHIP.

It's probably too much to hope it'll be like the Red Sox fanbase.  Red Sox fans are utter douchebags (at least en masse), but I have to admit that they know their stuff.  They know who's on the roster, they know their team's history (as pathetic as it may have been from 1918 to 2004), and if they're bandwagon jumpers, they're at least educated ones.

So I'm curious, how do you guys feel about this?  If we draw 3 million, we're going to have to deal with these people.  Is it worth it?

A's fans are, in my opinion, among the best fans in sports.  But I've never really figured out if it's because of our passion for the game, or simply because we don't have the bandwagon fans dragging down the average baseball IQ.

I was reading yesterday's recep on Yahoo! from the Contra Costa Times and saw this little blurb at the end about Zito after that horrible first:

"Zito didn't allow another run, mixing in a slider to his repertoire."

I didn't see the game yesterday, so can anyone confirm or deny this?  I wasn't aware that Zito was even working on a slider.  I thought his repertoire was curve, fastball, change, and the two-seamer he added last season.

The A's have left at least 10 runners on base in every game except the 11-2 loss to TB.  Twice they've exceeded 20.  In that extra inning loss against TB, they left a mind boggling 25 men (and scored all of 2 runs).  And in the last game of that series (the 6-1 win) should have been a laugher, with 21 men LOB.  So clearly, things are not going their way.

It'd be easy to attribute a lot of that to just bad luck and saying that it'll even out over the aggregate, but least seasons the A's should have scored about 50 more runs then they actually did according to the numbers.  So you can't really cite small sample size, seeing as this is not just the past eight games, but the the past 170.

So my question is: lack of "clutch hitting," bad situational hitting, or just truly, truly horrendous luck?

OMG we're going to be under .500, Zito's ERA is like a million, the bullpen lost the game yesterday and we can't hit with runners in scoring position so it's just like last season, and Swisher sucks!

It's the end of the world it's the end of the world it's the end of the world!

And for the benefit of the dense:

</sarcasm>

Just a reminder that it's a 162 game season.  Don't panic and don't get too excited, at least not yet.

I've noticed in my time at AN that a lot of fans seem to think that the mainstream media disrespects the A's.  Not just in regards to this upcoming season's team (in that sense I can definitely see it), but just an all-encompassing disrespect for the franchise and what the team has done over the past five seasons.  I've seen everything from to off-hand references to some pretty fleshed out conspiracy theories, including one that said that the A's are always placed in embarassing positions in published sports photos for other teams.

Personally, I don't think any such bias exists, at least on any sort of large scale.  The only guy I really notice bagging on the A's with any sort of consistency is Joe Morgan... but Morgan isn't a particularly good analyst and is a pretty horrible commentator, period.  Hall of Famer or not, I don't see why anyone should give a damn about his opinion.

National ESPN columnists like Peter Gammons, Rob Neyer, and Dayn Perry regularly praise the A's front office.  The team in general seems to get an fair share of media coverage, especially when they went on their patented post-All Star break tears.  I mean, SI picked us to win the World Series in 2003.  How is that disrespect?

Now does the media sometimes ignore the A's?  Yea.  But even that I wouldn't call disrespect.  I don't think the A's are ignored to any higher degree more than any team outside of New York, Chicago, and Boston.  If anything, I would say that the A's have a higher national profile than any other mid-market team in America.  How many casual sports fans do you think know the name Terry Ryan?  Or Mark Shapiro?  Walt Jocketty?  Even John Schuerholz?  All of them are highly regarded GMs, that last one has been building division title winners for nearly FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS now, and not one of them has nearly the profile of Mr. Billy Beane.  Everyone with the slightest interest in baseball knew the famed "Big Three."  And how many teams outside of the Red Sox, Cubs, and Yankees have had New York Times bestsellers written about them?

If we were talking about being disrespected by the scouting community or Baseball America, that's something else entirely.  But certain members seem to think that the entire media are positioned against Billy and company, and I simply don't think that's true.

With so much off-season buzz over guys like the Little Three, Swisher, Byrnes, and even Kielty, Bobby Crosby seems like a bit of a forgotten man at the moment.  I was just curious what people expect from him this year.

While Crosby won the ROY award with an all but one of the first place votes, in retrospect it almost seems like he won it by default.  If he'd played in the NL, he wouldn't have come anywhere close to Jason Bay in the overall standings (probably a distant second or third, around Khalil Greene).  In the AL, Crosby's only real competition was Takatsu, and he was basically eliminated for technically being a veteran and also a reliever; if Joe Mauer had stayed healthy or Justin Morneau had started the year in the majors, I think there's a VERY good chance that one of them had taken it.

And really, the ROY doesn't mean that much outside of bragging rights for a particular franchise.  Albert Pujols and Derek Jeter have won ROY's... but so have Ben Grieve and Eric Hinske.  Angel Berroa won it in 2003, but I don't think there's anyone in baseball who'd take Berroa over Hideki Matsui.  So really, the ROY award doesn't mean jack squat means much after that one season.

When I think of Crosby's rookie season, I think of two things: 1.) that brilliant game he had in New York and 2.) slider down and away.  He made some great webgems and had some really memorable hits (particularly his walk-off homer against Seattle), but there were also a lot of times he looked absolutely foolish.   I believe that Peter Gammons called him the successor to the "A-Rod-Tejada-Garciaparra generation of shortstops," but when you look at his season under the microscope... you have no idea what to expect.  I wouldn't be surprised by .280, 30 homers, .880-.900 OPS, around 100 K's; I also wouldn't be too surprised by .250, 20 homers, .750-.770 OPS, 150 K's.

Just wondering what you all think.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBqYzNhMjFyBF9TAzk1ODYxNzc3BHNlYwNsdG4-?slug=citadel-2_35 8424_304&prov=citadel&type=story

I hadn't heard much on how Ellis' throws have been, but the above scouting report looks pretty favorable.  The writer mentions that there's a pretty signficant chance of Ellis reaggravating the injury a la Richie Sexson or Troy Glaus, but as of right now his throws are looking sharp (and of course he's been tearing it up at the plate).  Ellis did make a throwing error today, but it's really hard to tell what that means without knowing context.  If Ellis is healthy and stays healthy, I think it gives he has the inside track for the starting 2B job.

I've noticed that a lot of people on AN say that the A's much-improved bullpen offsets the loss of Mulder and Hudson.  But really, it seems like a lot of you are just assuming that these guys will perform because BB picked them up.

While I agree that our bullpen is almost guaranteed to be better than last year's, I don't know if it'll be good enough to offset the youth and inexperience in the rotation (even considering that the offense is better).  Let's look at it man by man.

Cruz has had one good year in Atlanta after spent three in Chicago scaring the hell out of Cubs fans.  He clearly has the stuff, but there are a plenty of flamethrowing relievers who can either dominate or get lit up on any given night.  All I'll say is that if he were really a sure thing, he wouldn't have lost his arbitration case and he definitely would have been appealing for more than $850,000.

Calero has had two good seasons, but both seasons he's been injured for fairly significant lengths of time.  He never really seems to have played a huge factor in the Cardinals' bullpen despite the good numbers.  From what I read on ESPN, La Russa wasn't even guaranteeing him a spot on the postseason roster.  That might just show just how ridiculously deep St. Louis' bullpen was last year, but that just doesn't sit well with me.  We're going to be counting on him a lot more than La Russa ever had to.

Duscherer?  Again, one good year.  As great as he was for us last year, you don't know what to expect this coming season.

Rincon and Bradford have solid career numbers and are the probably the best known quantities in the bullpen.  Barring injury, their involvement should be scaled back into productive LOOGY/ROOGY roles.  

(Sidenote: I hope that Macha finally figures out what specialists are for.  Last season, Rincon threw against 103 righties last year versus 95 lefties.  I thought that might be a sign of our bullpen's weakness and not managerial incompetence.  But looking back on the numbers from 2003, Rincon pitched against 141 righties and 87 lefties.  Predictably enough, he got roughed up by righties; not too badly in 2003, but he got lit up like a torch in 2004.)

Then there's the A's reliever with the most consistent history of success and dominance... Octavio Dotel.  And while I still like him, he was hardly a slam dunk in the closer role last season.

Finally, we have our seventh reliever.  Most likely it'll be Yabu, possible Street, Etherton, maybe Johnson.  No matter who it is, it'll be someone who hasn't proven anything at the major league level.

So really, the new guys throw hard and the 'pen as a whole have the potential to be something really special.  But it's hardly a given.  I think it'll definitely be a step up from the Rhodes-and-Mecir-filled debacle from last year.  But just mediocrity would be step up from last year's pen.

Just a reminder for anyone who has their hearts dead set on those 94 wins BP projected.  I'm not saying we need to give up on 2005.  I think we will definitely compete this coming season and that we definitely have a legitimate shot at winning the devision.  But I think a lot of AN needs to temper it's expectations a bit.

This is a pretty good deal for the Astros.  The guy has an excellent track record; even the season he was hurt (2003), he put together some clutch performances down the stretch to try to will the Astros into the playoffs.  Last season (20-10, 3.49 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 206 k, 237 IP) was probably the worst season of his career.  I think a lot of guys would be happy with that being their career worst.

Based on what guys like Benson, Wright, Radke, and Pavano are making, it just seems like Oswalt should be getting more.  Although that probably just means that those other guys should be making significantly less.

Link here.

Basically mirrors what we've all been saying and what Baseball Prospectus wrote in a recent article.

It doesn't use any statistical analysis, just good old common sense.  We have better offense, better defense (if Ellis and Thomas play), vastly improved relief pitching, better depth, and our rotation probably didn't take nearly as big a hit as people think.

Anyone else looking forward to laughing it up when we inevitably end up on Baseball Tonight's as one of this season's "Biggest Surprises" simply for being over .500?

So basically in last night's episode, Homer tutors athletes how to be obnoxious with unsportsman-like conduct, endzone stunts, etc.

His comment while watching the highlight reel on "Jock Center":

"Heh heh, I'm the worst thing to happen to sports since FOX!"

Enough said.

Was anyone else getting really irritated by Fox's overhead "actions shots"?  They look great and would be perfect for something like NFL films or replays, but during the actual play, I want to be to tell whether or not the guy got the freaking first down.

And two words: pylon cam.

This on top of all the stuff that Fox is peddling in their sports broadcasts: flaming radar gun readings, Scooter the baseball, Tim McCarver...

Sad.

First, I'd like to point out that this is not a slander piece against the Giants.  I don't like them at all, but this is just my analysis of their current situation, not me arbitrarily ragging on them.

I think it's fair to say that there are not that many hardcore baseball fans in the Bay Area.  I, first and foremost, am a baseball fan.  I'll watch the LCS's and the World Series regardless of who's playing.  The vast majority of baseball "fans" in the Bay Area seem to be fair-weather fans, and the Giants seem to have a pretty good share of those, which is what makes them a relatively big market team and the A's a small market team.

The main reason for this, at least in the past decade or so, is because the A's were horrible in the mid-90s and for the past 8 years the Giants have averaged 92 wins.  When the finally A's found their way back into the playoffs in 2000, the Giants had already grabbed a huge chunk of the market share between consistent contention and a spiffy new ballpark.

As long as the Giants are still fielding good teams, I think it's safe to say the A's are going to be the second most popular team in the Bay Area by a pretty wide margin... but I don't think that'll be an issue for much longer.

The Giants are mortgaging their future right now, gearing up for a short term run at the World Series.  However stupid and extravagant their off-season signings may be in the long term, they make sense in 2005.  They filled the major holes in their team: closer, shortstop, and the No. 5 hole.  But simply in the process, they've made and already old team even older.  They're the 2004 Mariners waiting to happen.  It might not happen this upcoming season, but it'll almost certainly happen within two or three.

Their farm system is completely barren.  I remember last off-season, Sabean signed Michael Tucker before the arbitration deadline (knowing full well the Royals wouldn't offer it), so he could preemptively rid himself of draft picks.  That's going to come back and bite them in the ass sooner or later.  As it is, the only impact talent they seem to have is Matt Cain.  I've heard some good things about Merkin Valdez, but he seems more like a Blanton-like talent: solid No. 3, but probably not a star.  Jesse Foppert and Jerome Williams might still turn into good major league starters, but three great pitching prospects (if you can still call Williams and Foppert that) aren't going to save them unless every one puts up consistent sub-3.00 ERAs within the new couple years.

And help isn't going to come via free agency.  The Giants ownership has proven until this year that they don't feel compelled to spend big.  They brought over Alou for their short term run, but they didn't even make an effort at a younger offensively and defensively superior talent in Vlad Guerrerro the previous off-season.  If it all goes to hell, these guys are not going to delve into Steinbrenner/Wilpon/whoever-owns-the-Diamondbacks kinds of fiscal insanity to spend themselves back into contention.

As we've seen in Pittsburgh and Milwaukee, fancy new ballparks are not enough to get asses in the seats.  The product on the field is what matters above all else, and for the Giants, unless they win the World Series this season or next, they're going to be in deep trouble.

The A's, on the other hand, look primed to stay in serious contention till the end of the decade.  Besides having Chavez for the next six years and Zito for the next two (possibly beyond), they have a core of young, talented players locked up in every facet of the game: the rotation (Meyer, Haren, Blanton), the bullpen (Street, Garcia), the infield (Crosby, Quintanilla, Barton, Johnson, a number of well-regarded catcher prospects), and the outfield (Swisher, Herrera, Robnett, Putnam).  Granted some of those guys were just drafted, but most have a great track record in the minors, have already established themselves in the majors, and a pretty good percentage of them would have to fail for the A's to not be contenders for the next four or five seasons.

I know that the general perception is that the A's have always been viewed as "second-class" compared to the Giants dating back to the move from Kansas City, but looking up attendance numbers, the A's outdrew the Giants from1988-1993, when the A's put together a string of good teams.  I'm not old enough to remember those days, but it seems to me like the A's can fiscally compete when they are playing well and the Giants aren't.

With SF looking like it'll soon regress for the first time decade and the Oakland looking like it'll continue to contend, A's will have their first shot at seriously siphoning off some of the Giants' casual fan base in years.  With proper marketing, that should lead to increased ballpark attendance, better TV/radio ratings, and better media coverage, all of which leads to increased revenue.

I don't think this is going to turn us into the Yankees or the Angels, but I think it might be able to push us into the top 10 or 15 in payroll, maybe to the $80-90 million mark.  That might be enough to make sure like Harden, Crosby, Swisher, and Barton won't have to follow the same career paths as Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, and Mulder.