First off, I admit fully that much of my Chavez-blasting came in the midst of frustration and disappointment, and was aided by a bit (maybe even more than a bit) too much whiskey. Fair. Does Eric Chavez want to win the World Series? I'm sure he does. And as some made sure to say yesterday, he clearly is not out there trying to lose. But even with that said, and with a clear head this morning that I did not have yesterday, it has to be said that, at the very least, his approach in big games is not a championship-caliber, big-time athlete approach. He is one of the highest paid players on the team, and with that comes the responsibility of being a team leader. Team leaders DO NOT get quoted saying the kinds of things he was quoted as saying prior to yesterday's game. Team leaders DO NOT act non-chalant on the bench in what in many ways was a must-win game, a game in which the team was already down two runs. What leaders DO DO is find a way to perform on the field when it matters the most. And Chavez has never done that. A lack of leadership is what has doomed the A's in playoffs past, and I was hopeful the make-up of this team was different, that we actually had some leadership. I think in many ways it is and we do - see Milton Bradley in game 2. But he hasn't been around long enough to wear the mantle of being "the heart and soul" of the team, as one fellow fan couched Chavez yesterday. I hate to say this, but if Chavez is in fact the heart and soul of the team, it really is no surprise that we aren't going to take the next step. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing in the world that I would rather eat next week than crow. So here's hoping Chavez and the rest of the guys have a heaping platter of it waiting for me.

PS - I was right about the fact that we should have started Harden in Game 2. Everything would be looking different right now if we had...

I'm not sure that the A's have made the right decision on this one. Sure, starting Loaiza in game two instead of Harden is the safe move. We can pretty much bank on what we will get: something resembling a quality outing, meaning 6IP or so and something like 3 ER allowed. Loaiza has been solid down the stretch - more than solid in fact; in many ways he led the starting rotation through a sizzling  August.

But to me, this is not a time to go with safe, to utilize one option over another because you feel more assured of what you will get. Opportunities like this don't come around very often, and as a result you must act accordingly. In order to be the last team standing, you need to be able to take risks, to go all in and live with the result. This is the ALCS. This is not a time to hedge our bets, and I feel like that is exaclty what the A's are doing by playing safe and starting Loaiza.

For the past few days, as I have thought about what this upcoming A's-Tigers matchup might look like, as I have considered what the turning points might be and who the difference makers might be, I couldn't help but think about the man named Rich Harden that we have in our back pocket. I have said to a number of people in recent days somewhat increduously that we managed to sweep the Twins without even having to use Harden. And I haven't been able to keep myself from thinking that being able to infuse him into our starting rotation for the ALCS might well be the difference, that Harden might well be the difference-maker.

But now? Loaiza was huge for us in August. But can anyone really envision him being the kind of difference-maker that Harden has the potential to be? Harden has superstar stuff but now he is only going to get one ALCS start. We're hedging our bets instead of going all out and I just can't help but think that this - this decision to go with Loaiza instead of Harden in game 2 and for two starts - might in fact be the kind of turning point that none of us want to see.

Despite never having received any info from the Kansas City locals about AN Midwest Day today, I - as I promised - will be there loudly and proudly today, helping to eradicate the memories of yesterday. That's why baseball is so great, right? because there is always tomorrow. And right now, tomorrow is today. I expect that Zito will perform like the ace that he is and halt the mild losing streak that began yesterday tonight. and when he does, look for me yelling at all the midwest yokels about how superior a baseball team and city ours is. Off to Kaufmann for some A's joy...
Peace my fellow AN bretheren...

I agree completely with what has been said thus far about Sunday's game and the entire series in Texas - to a point. Yes, we are banged up. Yes, the fact that we were competitive in all seven of the games on the raod trip despite our injuries is reason for optimism once we get healthy. But if we don't stop putting free runners on the base paths via the base on balls, we're never going to get out of this rut. Sunday was a case in point. If Saarloos doesn't walk Wilkerson - one of the easier outs in the tough Texas lineup - in the 2nd, Botts' home run nets just two runs. And sure, you can chalk Kinsler's game-winning, broken bat dribbler up to bad luck. But to a certain degree, you create your own luck. Had Saarloos not walked both Wilkerson AND Botts previously in that inning, Kinsler deosn't even bat. Take away the walks, and the A's win Sunday. And maybe Friday. And probably Thursday as well. Forget about defaulting into a mode where we look for moral victories in the midst of a plague of injuries. Even with the DL as long as it is, we are still good enough to beat the best teams in the league if we do the little things right - like not walking guys all the dang time.