I won't mince words: I think Oakland will be making a big mistake if they let the A's go.

Sure, it's a lot of effort, land and money to deal with up front, but a new ballpark does a lot more than just give the team a better place to play.  It not only will generate revenue for the city, but I believe it will go a long ways to improve the city in ways that are more difficult to measure in terms of sheer dollars and cents.  For instance, it seems only logical that local businesses will step it up and improve their service if they know that they will have more patrons, likely providing more jobs on a number of different levels.

As a result of investing in a new ballpark, the city will have a new, expensive asset to protect, which will very likely inspire more effective policing of the area and a general "improvement" (in political terms) of the city.  I'm not always a fan of police, but if they (and the message they stand for) are more visible in the community, it can and will likely have secondary (and perhaps unanticipated) "cleaning up" effects on crime, which will in turn increase property values throughout the city, in addition to providing a safer, more friendly community.

I have been reading Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and he discusses the drop in crime in New York City in the 1990s, pointing out that there wasn't just one factor in reducing crime; in fact, it was due to a number of factors working together.

It wasn't just police presence.  It wasn't just a better economy.  It wasn't just a general aging of the population.  It wasn't just the waning crack problem that had plagued the city in the prior decade.  No.  On top of all these things, Gladwell points to something called the "Broken Windows theory," the concept born by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling:

...crime is the inevitable result of disorder.  If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge.  Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes.  In a city, relatively minor problems like graffiti, public disorder, and aggressive panhandling...are all the equivalent of broken windows, invitations to more serious crimes...

Gladwell goes on:

This is an epidemic theory of crime.  It says that crime is contagious-- just as a fashion trend is contagious-- that it can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community.  The Tipping Point in this epidemic...[is] something physical, like graffiti.  The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind of person but from a feature of the environment.

Now, cleaning up graffiti or issuing more citations to non-paying subway riders are not identical to building a new stadium, and one might even argue that they're not even along the same order of magnitude.  But regardless of how one views the relationship between these examples, they are all similar in that they can be very important parts of a positive Tipping Point for Oakland.

Improving a city, however, is not something that one (or even a city as a whole) can do overnight.  It takes time, and as Gladwell makes clear, a number of factors working together simultaneously.  But perhaps an investment of this magnitude (both in terms of money and of space) will "tip" Oakland upwards.  Instead of trying to save Oakland in one fell swoop, our city must systematically improve itself, and keeping the A's in Oakland is a big step in this process.  The money might not come back right away, but aside from the day-trading of 1997-1998, no investment reaps big rewards immediately.

This ties in to what I've never understood about the way cities (and often individuals) operate: they are extremely conservative in terms of making investments and taking risks.  Granted, one cannot invest in everything, and there certainly risks in everything we do, but this does not (and should not) mean that we should sit on our hands as well as our assets.  What it means is that we must consider all of the options and then make the best decision, or decisions, for the city.

At this point it's important to ask ourselves, "How many cities are clamoring for a major league franchise??"  The question is obviously rhetorical, but Oakland needs to appreciate what we have in the A's, and not just say "Well, we've got the Raiders and the Warriors, so who needs them?"  The reality here is that while we do have an abundance of franchises, one can only imagine that as the other Coliseum facilities age more, the Raiders and Warriors will soon be seeking alternate locations to play, from cities that are ready to step to the plate.  And what's more is that the cities clamoring for a franchise are ones that will take any franchise (the Expos/Nationals?!?).  Oakland would be losing a competitive team that many are predicting as possible favorites this year.  Maybe there's an obvious answer to this question, but I can't find one other than "Oakland": What city wouldn't be concerned with losing a World Series contender?

It sure would be irony for you, Oakland, to lose the A's to somewhere like Fremont or SJ and have them win the World Series in their inaugural year.  And it could happen.

I must point out that I haven't lived in Oakland full time for 5 years (and am thus not 100% versed on all of the issues), but it seems that our city wants to improve.  Any city should want to improve.  But the vibe I've gotten from the all of the articles written about the pursuit of a new ballpark is that Oakland (wrongly) feels some sense of entitlement to greatness, or at the very least toward improvement.  It's true, Oakland used to be a great city with booming industry (around the time of WWII), but it's not the case any more.  We were a city full of energy in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but this energy over things like civil rights and equality has now virtually dissappeared in favor of pure crime. Instead of being a rising metropolis, teeming with possibility, Oakland is annually in the running to be the "Murder Capital of the World."  Oakland is not a terrible city by any means, but compared with the Silicon Valley boom, Oakland appears to have fallen from grace.

Oakland didn't really have much they could do about the tech boom of the late 90s and early 00s, but what happened nonetheless was that Silicon Valley began emerging as the counterpart to San Francisco that Oakland had once been.  People know SF and Silicon Valley now more than they know Oakland.

But it's not too late for the city I call home.  A big reason people know Oakland is for the A's.  If we lose them to Silicon Valley (or the South Bay in general), it will just be the next step in Oakland's decline from former greatness, particularly in contrast with the success of the rest of the Bay Area.  Oakland needs to put its money where its mouth is and pony up some cash that will not only bring a ballpark to the city, but will bring a newfound resurgence to the city.  The new park will create jobs and get people out of their houses, infusing the local economy with money that will get spent and respent.  Furthermore, committing to our team will show the city and its citizens that Oakland is serious about becoming the place it once was.  Someone just needs to step up and commit to Oakland, which will show the rest of the city that it is time to do so as well.  It appears, however, that all parties are afraid.  But with certainty I can tell you that if nothing is done at this juncture, Oakland will keep slipping as a city.  Keeping the A's is both good for the fans, as well as for the city.

With all this being said, the Oakland government must end its apathy about the state of the city in favor of a proactive plan; our city must make a splash that is designed not only to deliver the city a high quality product to citizens, but to show the rest of the city that Oakland is serious about becoming a better place.  I've said it before, perception is reality, so if people start believing Oakland is becoming a better place and act accordingly, it will become one.  What better way to demonstrate the vision for the city than making a dedication to a franchise that has brought the city 4 World Titles over nearly 40 years?

The building of a new park, in conjunction with the continuation of city-wide programs like those relating to education and the reduction of crime, could likely serve as a Tipping Point for the city, or at least would be a massive leap in the right direction for Oakland.  A new ballpark would help Oakland far beyond the simple measure of dollars and cents. I hate to say it, but one could argue that the A's deserve much better than they have received from Oakland over the years, and I'd be surprised if Wolff & Fischer aren't feeling this. There is no doubt in my mind that Oakland deserves the A's, but unless they do something to show the franchise this, both the city and the fans will suffer while the A's move on. Step to the plate, Oakland.

OK OK, I know that many of you flocked to my diary armed and ready to say "I AM!! I AM!!" and in your own right, you may be.  In fact, a diary for people to compare the crazy stuff that they've done as an A's fan or to see the A's would be a great diary in itself, so we'll tackle that momentarily.

But what initially inspired this diary were a few videos I found on the net, through Google Video (I searched for "oakland athletics").  What came up were 3 videos, 2 of which were taped game segments from games in 1999 and 2002 respectively, of an Asian guy holding up a bright yellow poster-board sign saying that he was the A's number one fan and he had flown in from Oakland just to see the game.  The first was from Texas, and the second from Comiskey park in Chicago.

The videos were hosted on the number 1 fan's website-- crxchai.com, which I checked out, and actually found 3 more videos of the number 1 fan on TV-- from games at the Ballpark in Arlington and Safeco Field.

So, I was wondering...is the "number 1 fan" aka crxchai a member of AN?  If so, I give you big props for making those voyages and getting on TV...I used to try at like every game to get on Diamond Vision or on TV...ahh, if only we all could be as lucky as this guy.

With all this being said, if crxchai is willing to fly to games all over the country, make bright neon yellow signs and get on TV, all in the name of the A's, how do the rest of us stack up?  Is he really the A's number one fan?  I suspect some people on this site might disagree...so let's hear it:

What makes YOU the A's number 1 fan, as opposed to the guy flying all over the country claiming to be him?  In other words, what craziness have you engaged in that would earn you the #1 position among A's fans?  Or even the #17 position among all A's fans?? (#17 is arbitrary, yes, but still pretty good when you consider how many A's fans there are out there...and growing)

How have you earned your rank among A's fans?  Has anyone...
-Painted his (or her!) chest?
-Streaked on the field?
-Made outrageous signs?
-Come to the park in uniform?
-Started the wave?
-Drummed in Left Field?
-Heckled the right fielder? (IBAÑEZ.......IBAAAAAAAAAAÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑEZZZZZZZ.......)  
-Been to every playoff game?
-Met more that 10 team members? 15? 20? The ENTIRE 40-Man roster + Staff + Front office?

OK, OK, you get the point.  There's undoubtedly more stuff that people have done that I haven't listed here (for space's sake), like spring training trips, seeing the a's play at every 'away' stadium, etc.

So...sound off AN, I want to hear the ridiculousness!  Who is the A's number one fan?

Hi, my name is rungood, and I'm an AN-aholic.
[in unison]Hi rungood...
The past 3 days have been nearly impossible.

I'm on Oslo, Norway now, and the last time I logged on to AN was in Berlin, Germany, where I was kicking it with my friends' band that's currently touring in Europe.

Sure, I've had stuff to do and overall, life is good, but something is missing.  I don't have my computer with me like normal, so I haven't been able to fulfill my daily AN cravings and scour newly posted threads for thrown chairs, Zonis' scary links, and Nico v. Monkeyball pun wars.

This has become my offseason haven for everything baseball (and then some), my connection to California and the U.S., and a nice place to distract me from the dark and cold days of this long winter.

I can't say I've ever been addicted to anything before, but this community is the closest thing to an addiction that I've had, and I don't know if that's a bad thing.

It didn't seem bad when I had Internet access and a computer every day.  But when I'm away from my apartment and my normal life, and I start to miss AN and wonder what's going on that I'm missing, has it gone too far?  Is being an AN-aholic a bad thing?

I guess this is as good a time as ever to come clean.  I can't and won't break myself off completely, nor do I want to, but I can at least begin to come to terms with the fact that I am an AN-aholic-- at least in the offseason.  I've come to love the idiosyncracies of you guys, and even if I don't always reply to individual posts, it's probably cracking me up, wherever in the world I am.

And when even if we get a slew of regular-season-only posters around here, I'll remember these days.  So goodbye to the offseason, and thank you to all who made AN a fun place for me and other AN-aholics when baseball was the farthest thing from reality.  You've helped me deal with my addiction (and have definitely fueled it, though these things are not mutually exclusive).  It's an addiction that I welcome, so not only can I say I'm proud to be an AN-aholic, but I'm glad to be back.

~rungood

Grover and Sal were commenting on projections and stats in the LD yesterday, and I thought this diary was as good a place and time as ever to talk about which sets of information and which ranking systems we think are most appropriate to be trusted.  Because I'm further exploring a discussion primarily based between two people, I'm calling this the first-ever 'joint-diary' on AN.

Moneyball taught us that the A's have been one of the most stat-oriented ballclubs, and it seemed for a while that Stat-Ball was winning out over Old-Ball (gut feelings, hunches, non-quantifiable experience).  But with the recent overhaul of the Dodgers, perhaps the pendulum of baseball ideology is swaying back in the other direction.

Grover commented before that it's a thin line he tread-- navigating the waters of stat-land and mixing in projections.

PECOTA isn't omnipotent and they can't say for certain... because no one can... how anyone will pitch next year. If they were willing to sacrifice their 1st born children if they mess up a projection THEN their data should be given more importance.

All I'm saying is a preseason projection shouldn't have the power to sway opinion on deals from the previous years. Their 2006 performances should be the measuring stick for any such judgement.

And then he says...

The A's have a couple prospects (Putnam and Buck off the top of my head) who should be able to match Barton's current projected production at the big league level. The difference between Barton and those guys is age, Daric's younger so he has more "potential" than the other two.

Sal read it as apathy, and I agree to an extent, but I definitely hear what Grover is saying.  In reality all PECOTA is attempting to do is quantify players' abilities, and create projections about how a guy will perform.  But it's not a perfect science by any means.  In fact, it all boils down to which stat set or method of projection you believe does the best job of doing so.

With this being said, I originally was just going to ask Grover to elaborate on how he handles the intersection between stats and projections and intangibles, but as I was writing my response to his post, I got curious as to how everyone regards this complicated and complex intersection.

In terms of religion, I'm agnostic, because there's no way to know the truth-- like to actually know it.  And I guess I'd term myself 'agnostic' in terms of baseball too.  What I mean is that stats are all we have in order to find 'truth' in baseball, so to disregard them would be foolish, but at the same time, I wonder if statistics and numbers tell the whole story, or what other factors might be in play?

Statheads put their faith in stats because stats most often correlate to results, but perhaps we must step back yet again and consider the idea that something else causes numbers in the first place.  What I'm talking about is basically like the reason that Daric Barton is a professional ballplayer and not, say, me or you.  And that certain players perform consistently better than others.  Some people call this 'talent,' others call it 'potential.'

But I have a lot of problems with these words.  Talent and potential are two things that don't exist intrinsically, or maybe they do, but in reality they are things that can only be measured definitively in retrospect.

Sure, stats tell a lot of the story, but what percentage of the story do they tell?

100%? 99%? 90%? 75%? 50%??

I think most fans will concede that the stats we have tell at least 50% of the 'story of baseball,'  as they provide a quantified history of the game, as well as an up-to-date snapshot of what is occurring in baseball.  

But I have a really hard time believing that we're anywhere near being able to totally quantify the game-- unless, of course, you have a mathematical breakdown at an atomic or quantum level and can completely understand the way particles interact (and if you do, we should talk, because then we can go beyond baseball and revolutionize the modern paradigm of thought).

So, assuming we don't have the second coming of Einstein reading AN, who's ready to apply quantum theory to baseball, we're left with a slew of stat-sets to choose from.  To which do you subscribe, AN?

[And just one last caveat to the uber-statheads who I (and many other AN'ers, I'm sure) admire: there are many people who know less than you, but want to learn.  So if you can classify what is specific to each stat-set, what makes it unique in itself, and why you favor it, I (and countless others) would appreciate it.  Thanks and looking forward to some good discussion!]

Yankees? Red Sox? Giants? Secret option D??

It's a topic I got thinking about from CHFDigital's recent diary about switching allegiances fully from the Yankees to the A's, and hacotton wrote an impassioned post that I agreed with, and it got me thinking about which team I hated most.  I'm also curious who you guys hate most.  And to those who think hate is too strong a word, feel free to replace it with the phrase "strongly dislike."

I lived on the East coast for 4 years and just like hacotton I hated the Yankees before I moved out there and rooted for the Red Sux as the logical alternative.  But I soon realized that I actually liked the Yankees better than the Sox, primarily because sox fans are SOOOO annoying.  I only have 2 or 3 sox fan friends that I can tolerate, because they know their stuff, give love to players that can play and don't just ride the R-sox bandwagon to ride it.

It's this feeling of entitlement Sox fans have that irks me, not to mention all the shit talking people who don't know what they're sayin do.  Yankee fans at least understand that they are to be hated because they spend more, and they relish in the fact.  I've gotten over that.  But the Boston Red Sox are "New England's team" so they draw from like 10 states, and pull in a fan base that includes pink-hat wearing girls who can't tell me anything about the team except that they're better than [insert random team name here].  That's just ridiculous.  Like last year I asked one girl who was particularly loudmouthed when the sox beat the a's in the back-to-back walkoff games in May <grumble, grumble> who the best pitcher on the Sox that year was, and she replied "Pedro Martinez."  I mean, COME ON!!

In reality though, the Sux pay a ton of money for superstars, and steal them from other teams.  I was so happy when the Yankees took Damon from the Sox, and I openly laughed in Sox fans faces when they complained. I said "SEE! Now you know how it feels."  The thing is, less than half the sox fans even knew that Damon came from Oakland, and less than half that knew he had played for Oakland knew that he originally came from Kansas City.

I will concede that the Red Sox do have some fans who know a lot about baseball, diehards in their own right, but the fact is, they are becoming the neo-Yankees.  I understand it on one hand, they feel they must spend to remain competitive with the Stankees, but their fans don't admit this.

Being in the greater-Boston area for the past 4 years was tough, for freaking 3 Patriots super bowls, including the snow-bowl AFC championship with the infamous (cough*bullshit*cough) "tuck" rule, and then the "miracle comeback" that the media worshipped oh so much.  It was these events that solidified my notion that Sox fans are not only bad losers, but they are bad winners.  And it's here that they earn my disrespect as an A's fan.

The icing on the cake was that damn movie Fever Pitch with Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore, where they ran on the field after the WS victory in real life to film for the movie.  DUDE, Jimmy Fallon's originally from Brooklyn!!!!  This is a perfect testament to the bandwagon-ness that pisses me off so about the Red Sox.

I do hate the Yankees, but I can tolerate them more than the Red Sox.  If it were up to me, they'd both lose, even when they played each other.  Or maybe Bud Selig'd allow the game to end in a tie...that'd be fun.

I can tolerate the Giants much more than the Yanks or Red Sox, but I don't actively root for them.  Barroids is a joke; I hope he doesn't take the HR title from Aaron, just so the game's records retain some dignity.  I'll root for the Orioles in the AL East and the Padres in the NL west, but never the aforementioned teams.  I will occasionally go to games at SBC when I get free tix (my sister used to work for KNBR..it was a sweet deal for me), but I always wear my A's gear and try as hard as I can to get on Diamond Vision to display it.

But this is just me.  Aside from the Angels (DUH!), who do you guys hate (strongly dislike) most??

Hey guys,

I don't have much time to make this intro long, but Mychael Urban is on KNBR right now (1:30).

Macha will be on with the Razor and Mr. T at 5:00om tonight as well.

Listen live on KNBR.com!!

This is just a forum for people to post/discuss the on air conversations....especially for those who can't listen.

I'll do my best to transcribe but would love some help, particularly with the Macha interview, which I won't be able to listen to!!

-rungood

ARGH, it won't let me submit because it's under 300 words.  I'm really not trying to skirt the guidelines so I'll begin transcribing right now.

Urban:
It's a low risk, high reward deal.  Less than Jay Payton, who's making 4 million.

Urban thinks they'll get rid of Payton. "Tough to say whether or not he'll be out of Oakland before the season or as more time passes."

OK, on to the diary.

[Update at 2:12pm, 1/27/06 by rungood]: In addition to discussing/recapping Mychael Urban's appearance on KNBR, this thread will serve as a place to post about/discuss Ken Macha's interview on KNBR with the Razor and Mr. T. I can't do it since I'm 10 hours ahead of you guys, but I'd love to read your comments/highlights/lowlights. Thanks!! ~rungood

I hate to be the pessimist in the crowd, but isn't anyone worried about the possibility of a "sophomore slump" for our awesome 2005 rookie A's?  

For the record, I read AN daily--ok, I lied, I come back like 5 times a day-- and I love the optimism we share about our A's.  My optimism runs high today: In the most recent A's fan poll (oaklandathletics.com), I voted that we'll win between 90-100 games next season.  I certainly hope this is the case and I PRAY that the A's stay healthy this year and perform to our potential, and if we can do this, I'm confident that we'll be competitive with the best teams in baseball.

I know many of you feel this way too, which is evidenced by comments like "THIS IS OUR YEAR!" and "Next stop, World Series!" etc., and while I'm SO hoping these people are correct (hell, I've even made a few of these comments myself!), I feel the need to come back to Earth occasionally and be a realist, even if that means being slightly pessimistic this offseason.

Which brings me to my diary topic; something I haven't seen discussed at all around these parts is something I think we've all heard of: the so-called "Sophomore Slump."

Back in April of last year (feels weird to say that!), Hardball Times did a piece on this very topic, trying to prove once and for all, whether or not the 'sophomore slump' exists.  To spare you all the nitty-gritty details (though for people interested, I suggest you check it out!), I'll cut to the chase:

The sophomore slump, in large part, exists.

Looking at 114 of the most recent 118 ROY winners (not including the 4 most recent winners: Huston Street, Ryan Howard, Bobby Crosby and Jason Bay since the research is from April, 2005) in terms of Win Shares,

"-73 declined in their second year (64.0%)
 -37 improved in their second year (32.5%)
 -4 stayed the same in their second year (3.5%)"

But going beyond simply who declined and who improved, if we look at Gleeman's research, he breaks it down by percentage increase or decrease:

"Of the 73 players who declined as sophomores, 54 of them saw their Win Shares drop by at least 25%, 23 of them by 50% or more, and 10 of them by at least 75%. On the flip side, just 11 players increased their Win Shares by at least 25% in Year 2 and only four improved by 50% or more. Only [2 players, John Castino and Dwight Gooden] improved by 75% or more as sophomores:

         Decline     Improve
>75%        10           2
>50%        23           4
>25%        54          11
>10%        66          26"

Now, the reason for bringing this all up?  Well, as any A's fan knows, our success in 2005 was in large part due to our rookies' successes, and in 2006, we're relying on them (albeit to a lesser extent with the acquisitions of Loaiza, Bradley and Perez) in order to have success as a team.

It's not to say that the 'sophomore slump' makes any player that was good in his rookie terrible by any means, but rather, that we simply have reason to suspect a possible drop-off in year 2.  Actually, many of the players who had sophomore declines turned out to be great players (Willie Mays, Rick Sutcliffe for instance) or have at least rebounded after their second year (the jury's still out: Dontrelle Willis, Kerry Wood for instance).

Surely the 'sophomore slump' study isn't perfect, as the sample space is limited to just two rookies a season (and we had 4 great ones on our team last year...and some even count Haren as a 'rookie' given his lack of PT in '04), but I felt the need to throw this into the fold and hear your thoughts, since it seems a pattern has emerged.  If it has the possibility of affecting any team, it's us.

With this all being said, even if our guys do end up being great down the road, do we have reason to worry about a possible drop-off in 2006?  Sound off, AN.

I didn't know where to put this, since no one is gonna look back to Blez' original article about ESPN's bias and the lack of coverage on our acquisition of Milton Bradley.

But anyways I got a letter back from ESPN's assistant to the ombudsman and thought I'd share it with you.  I'm sure it doesn't mean much since it's only an assistant, but it was good to see that other people complained too.  I'm wondering how many others were AN members...

Here is my original letter and the response I received this week from ESPN is below:

Dear Mr. Solomon,
I write because frankly, I was quite dissappointed tonight with ESPN's coverage of the Oakland Athletics' acquisition of Milton Bradley.  It was given practically no airtime on ESPNEWS (in favor of a trade rumor from the New York Post...which in my eyes, is a not a reliable news source), and when it finally was covered, the information provided was inaccurate!

What's up with that?  For the A's, this is a BIG acquisition.  In all of baseball it's a big acquisition!  We gave up only 1 minor league prospect for 2 MLB-ready players!  How is a trade RUMOR bigger news than actual NEWS??

The error in reporting, combined with the lack of attention anyone other than the biggest-market teams get, is incredibly frustrated and reflects a clear bias in your programming.  In my eyes, it takes away from any integrity ESPN has, because it's clear you only focus on the major markets--nothing else.  I'll put it in stark terms: YOUR TOP PRIORITY IS NO LONGER SPORTS, IT IS MONEY.  This is wrong to make clear to fans, even if it is the truth.

Coupled with ESPN.com's shift to the insider service, which completely precludes me from having access to ANY useful information that I previously could get on your site without having to pay, this latest ESPN guffaw is the last straw.  I'm done with you guys, unless you can do something to ameliorate the situation.  I know I'm not the only one that's unhappy and I'll make sure to spread my dissatisfaction with ESPN to all those I know, which is actually quite large considering the voice weblogs give people today.  Then again, I doubt I'll ever hear back from you or anyone else at ESPN regarding my actual opinions on the matter because you're too busy focusing on the Yankees/Red Sox, Lakers/Heat or USC to care about a mid-market contender that won't go away.

Regretfully,
rungood

-----
rungood,

You're certainly not the only one upset about the Bradley coverage. Hopefully George [Solomon] will get some thoughts in his next column. Appreciate your email. Thanks.

--
Scott Goldstein
Assistant to the Ombudsman
espn.feedback@gmail.com
-----

This is hardly the response I wanted, so I'm not going to go away.  I'm gonna keep pestering them.  You all should too if you want to see more of the A's on Sportscenter.

Then again, when we win world series this year, they'll have to talk about us. <knocking on wood>  But first, I expect them to do some good talking when we get Frank Thomas! <increases frequency of knocking!>

Rotoworld's saying that because the Dodgers won the Nomar sweepstakes, they will likely trade or non-tender Hee Seop Choi.

"It appears likely that Garciaparra will play first base, which should lead to Hee Seop Choi being traded or non-tendered by Tuesday's deadline."

Now, can the a's pick Choi up on the cheap?  Even if he is offered arbritation, maybe we could snatch him away from Coletti like we did with Bradley.  This is how i see it going:

"Hi Ned, Billy here. So, this guy, Choi. Yeah, he's OK, I guess. Yeah, OK, I guess we'll take him off your hands. What's that you say?  In return wou want a MOC Dave Stewart Starting Lineup?  Hmm that's a bit steep. We'll give you this nice bag of baseballs, and because I'm feeling so generous today, I'll even throw in an Eric Chavez bobblehead doll, but that's it! Done and done."

Vazquez to White Sox

Looks like Javier Vazquez got his wish and got out of AZ, while the D-Backs succeeded in adding a bit more pitching (though I'm sure they'd like more).  In exchange for Vazquez, the Diamondbacks receive pitchers El Duque and Luis Vizcaino, not to mention outfield prospect Chris Young, who Baseball America ranked at #7 in the ChiSox farm system, and within the farm system was also labeled as the Fastest Runner and Best Athlete.