Let's take a look at catchers, 1st basemen and 3rd basemen.


As far as catcher, the conventional wisdom is that catchers develop power as they age. However, the development in power and the lifespan of a catcher is such a small sliver of time that it's hard to guess if and when, rather than keep a catcher around for a four-five year span and just hope. Adam Melhuse is a good example. Ken Macha let Jason Kendall write the lineup and rarely allowed himself to take a day off. Meanwhile, Melhuse played the part of the sophomore moved up to varsity only because there was a need. Melhuse has grabbed 516 ABs over the past four seasons. Almost a full season of ABs in four years. Not a lot of fun when you don't get paid to look like a chump and be treated as such.


The A's are clogged at 1st base and it's not by choice. 3rd base is clogged, but not by my choice. If you actually look around, you can find better options. But many A's fans refuse to look at numbers when it comes to Eric Chavez. Specifically his price tag - let alone the defensive statistics that point out that even if he is one of the Top 10 defensive 3rd basemen - that doesn't really matter when you hit like a shortstop making the league minimum who could take your spot and probably be the equal on defense.


Well, here's the list...

CATCHER
Player	Age
Sandy Alomar Jr.	40	A 40 Year-Old catcher?
Paul Bako	34	Nah.
Rod Barajas	31	Nah.
Einar Diaz	33	Nah.
Mike DiFelice	37	Nah. Along with the three above, less than .310 career OBP.
Robert Fick	32	You could do a lot worse for a back-up catcher. Can play some infield, too.
Todd Greene	35	Can't catch more than 50 games for you. I'd lean towards no.
Mike Lieberthal	34	Too expensive, lingering injury issues. Almost retired last season.
Doug Mirabelli	36	Unless you have a knucleballer…
Todd Pratt	39	Fell apart. 39 year old catchers become bullpen coaches.
Chris Widger	35	Nope.
1st BASE
Player	Age
Jeff Bagwell	38	Sadly, no.
Brian Jordan	39	39 year-old cornerbacks don't make for good corner OF'ers.
John Mabry	36	Magic year with Oakland in 2002. But no longer enough production.
Doug Mientkiewicz	32	Leveled off as a better hitter than most thought. But, not enough production at 1st.
Kevin Millar	35	Just signed.
Phil Nevin	35	Injuries, attitude and inflated Texas stats. No.
Eduardo Perez	37	Platoon guy. Not enough room on the 25 Man Roster.
Todd Walker	33	Butcher in the field. Not enough offense to be a DH.
Craig Wilson	29	Yes, for the love of dark chocolate YES!
3rd BASE
Player	Age
David Bell	34	Waning as a hitter. Fall down fielder.
Geoff Blum	33	Nope.
Aaron Boone	33	Still curious how he has lasted this long. No.
Vinny Castilla	39	Still a surprise. Just admire from afar.
Jeff Cirillo	37	This would be a coup. Defensively you can put up with him because of his ability to get on base (.369 OBP). Only 3 points less than Eric Chavez in OPS and 10 points higher in OBP. Also, about $12 Million cheaper.
Pedro Feliz	31	No. Sub .300 OBP
Tony Graffanino	34	Can be a utility player at 2B and maybe OF. Good doubles hitter and gets on base. Not exactly affordable.
Joe Randa	36	No. Sub .300 OBP
Fernando Tatis	31	Remember when he was the 3rd baseman of the future for the Cardinals?

When I go shopping for starting pitchers it's not unlike looking for a good vegetable. Sure, most will do, but if you really want something that is of the best quality and not simply whatever the produce clerks at Safeway wheel out - you need to do some research.


My criteria go toward base runners allowed, hits per innings pitched, strike out to walk ratio, groundball to flyball ratio and pitches per inning pitched. Pretty much in that order. The higher level view is the cost. As an A's fan, you look at a grouping of pitchers that is realistic to even consider. Of course, if were talking about a pitcher like Justin Verlander - you might look at the statistics first, then justify the cost. Either by trade or by free agent signing.


Why am I bothering to look for starters when the A's are 'set' in their rotation? Loaiza, Haren, Harden, Blanton and the other guy. Harden can not be anything other than a question mark and 'the other guy' isn't exactly something you can bank on until the middle of March. Better to sign a guy and bulk up the bullpen.


An inning eater would be great. A frontline starter who can keep the number of runs low and pitch deep would help the A's. With Barry Zito you got the latter. An older pitcher may not be able to go as deep and there's the risk of dramatic drop-off.


When it comes to relievers my criteria varies a bit more; You're looking for a good piece of fruit. Often you don't know if you've really got it until you bite into it. base runners allowed, groundball to flyball ratio, strike out to walk ratio. There's another criteria and that is keeping runners close and the pickoff move. Very hard to quantify, though. I don't care, so much, if a pitcher in a short relief situation gives up a hit, a groundball hit. With runners on base, groundballs mean double plays.


Cost is also a big deal with relievers. Paying too much for a reliever puts a lot of pressure on a manager to use a pitcher. We like to think this isn't true, but we have seen A's pitchers in the past languish in the bullpen. Ron Flores is a good example. Justin Duchscherer had better numbers than Rich Harden as a starter in Sacramento. But it was Harden who was called up first. Duchscherer last found himself in the bullpen and has been, arguably, the best pitcher the A's have had the last three seasons.


Here's my list...

Player	Age	2006 Salary				Player	Age	2006 Salary
Tony Armas	28	$2,100,000	No. There's the injury risk and there are a few options better. Even if the A's could afford to take on reclamation projects.			Doug Brocail	39	$1,000,000	Chair.
Miguel Batista	35	$4,750,000	Too expensive and a gasoline candidate.			Mike DeJean	36	$1,150,000	No.
Bruce Chen	29	$3,800,000	I always thought Chen would turn the corner. And he did at some point. But it was down the wrong path.			Octavio Dotel	33	$2,000,000	Tee hee. Beane made the wrong trade; Carlos Beltran should have been an Oakland Athletic.
Shawn Estes	33	$1,100,000	Estes is coming off an injury. Dunno. The A's aren't desperate.			Alan Embree	36	$850,000	Eh. Rumor has it that Embree might be signed.
Tom Glavine	40	$10,500,000	Yes. Call me a fan of the change-up, but I think with Tom Glavine and Greg Maduxx in the rotation for a combined $15,000,000 you get 400 innings of better than league average baseball. Haren, Loaiza, Glavine, Maduxx, Blanton. Works for me. Yah, you wake me when Rich Harden can throw 200 innings and not miss a start.			Keith Foulke	34	$7,750,000	If Foulke was healthy and took an 70-80% pay cut, this would be a lock.
Rick Helling	35	$850,000	Helling wouldn't be a bad pick up. Good trade bait.			Ryan Franklin	33	$2,600,000	No.
Jason Johnson	33	$3,500,000	Nope.			Aaron Fultz	33	$1,200,000	No.
Jason Marquis	28	$5,150,000	Nope. Too many base runners, not enough groundballs.			Eric Gagne	30	$10,000,000	See; Foulke, Keith.
Brian Moehler	34	$1,500,000	Nope.			Eddie Guardado	36	$6,250,000	Hell no. Nice nickname. Not a good pitcher.
Mark Mulder	29	$7,750,000	Hell no. Not even worth the risk. A's fans who suggest the A's should sign Mulder are the same people who don't understand what Billy Beane accomplished when he traded Mulder in the first place.			LaTroy Hawkins	33	$4,400,000	No.
Tomo Ohka	30	$4,530,000	Hmmm. I'm on the fence about Ohka.			Matt Herges	36	$600,000	Cheap.
Ramon Ortiz	33	$2,500,000	No.			Dustin Hermanson	33	$3,150,000	No. Old starter in the bullpen. Effective but too expensive.
Russ Ortiz	32	$7,875,000	No.			Roberto Hernandez	42	$2,750,000	Interesting.
Chan Ho Park	33	$15,333,679	Hell no.			Ray King	32	$2,500,000	Hell no. Lefthanders are available elsewhere.
Brad Radke	34	$9,000,000	Retired.			Steve Kline	34	$3,000,000	Too expensive. Not effective, a bit of a redass, too.
Mark Redman	32	$4,500,000	Interesting. But hell no.			Dan Kolb	31	$2,000,000	Groundball specialist. Gamble not worth taking at that price range.
Aaron Sele	36	? ? ?	No.			Tom Martin	36	? ? ?	No.
John Thomson	33	$4,750,000	No.			Brian Meadows	31	$600,000	Cheap. Effective.
Steve Trachsel	36	$2,500,000	Maybe. If they needed a long reliever. But they don't.			Kent Mercker	38	$1,550,000	Yes. If you wanted a solid lefty in the bullpen, yes, pretty please sign Merker. He is no longer a starter, but the A's could corner the market on lefties and the market would swing to them.
David Wells	43	$4,075,000	No. Pitching in PETCO covered how bad Wells has fallen.			Jose Mesa	40	$2,000,000	Nah.
Kip Wells	29	$4,150,000	No.			Guillermo Mota	33	$3,000,000	No. Not as good as the TV talking heads think.
Paul Wilson	33	$3,750,000	No.			Jeff Nelson	40	? ? ?	No.
Jamey Wright	31	$500,000	Cheap. Real cheap.			Darren Oliver	36	? ? ?	Yes. Someone screwed up his career by making him a starter and got him away from throwing his sinker. This guy could be a 2-1 groundball pitcher with the right organization backing his best pitch.
						Troy Percival	37	$6,000,000	Nope.
						Arthur Rhodes	37	$3,700,000	Tee hee.
						David Riske	30	$1,800,000	Yes. A good investment.
						J.C. Romero	30	$2,200,000	No.
						Scott Schoeneweis	33	$2,750,000	No.
						Rudy Seanez	38	$1,900,000	No.
						Russ Springer	38	$750,000	Yes. A good investment.
						Mike Stanton	39	$1,000,000	No.
						Tanyon Sturtze	36	$1,500,000	No. Remember when he was a prospect?
						Ron Villone	36	$2,250,000	No.
						Jamie Walker	35	$1,250,000	No.
						David Weathers	37	$1,500,000	Maybe.
						Rick White	37	$600,000	Cheap.

Player	Age	2006 Salary		Player	Age	2006 Salary
J.D. Drew	31	$11,400,000		Jason Schmidt	33	$10,500,000
Julio Lugo	31	$4,950,000		Roger Clemens	44	$20,000,000?
Barry Bonds	42	$20,000,000		Andy Pettitte	34	$16,428,416
Dave Roberts	34	$2,250,000		Mike Mussina	37	$19,000,000
Mike Piazza	38	$1,250,000		Ted Lilly	30	$4,000,000
Ray Durham	34	$7,000,000		Gil Meche	28	$3,700,000
Shea Hillenbrand	31	$5,800,000		Barry Zito	28	$7,900,000
Aubrey Huff	29	$6,916,667		Randy Wolf	30	$9,125,000
Rich Aurilia	35	$1,300,000		Adam Eaton	29	$4,650,000
Kenny Lofton	39	$3,826,421		Greg Maddux	40	$9,000,000
Bengie Molina	32	$4,500,000		Jeff Suppan	31	$4,000,000
				Joe Borowski	35	$327,000
				Vicente Padilla	29	$4,410,000
				Jeff Weaver	30	$8,325,000

Here are the top free agents still out on the market. I'd like to run down some of the A's options regarding this list and then follow up with a few more tomorrow.


Would that be okay?

J.D. Drew	Drew wouldn't be bad. Except he is represented by Scott Boras. The A's have shown an affinity for disregarding Boras clients.
Julio Lugo	This would be a coup. Lugo would represent an upgrade over Bobby Crosby in the sense that he can stay healthy. Lugo has also played 2B and 3B. A nice option to have when your 3rd baseman like to take a few months off every season.
Barry Bonds	If he costs less than $10 Million a year - the A's should lock him up for two years. The ultimate snub to all of baseball. Attendance goes up and the A's can load the contract with incentives. A 100 game DH and 30-35 games in the field.
Dave Roberts	Jay Payton's faster, less powerful match.
Mike Piazza	Yes - Frank Thomas like DH who could also get Jason Kendall out from behind the plate for 30-40 games a and be someone's personal catcher. Cheap, too.
Ray Durham	As a 2B? Not so much. As a DH? Yes. Also relatively cheap for a player who hit more than 25 HR last year with a .360 OBP.
Shea Hillenbrand	Clubhouse issues aside - just doesn't produce enough and doesn't get on base.
Aubrey Huff	His numbers seem to have dipped and I'm not so sure it’s because he has been 'unhappy'. Over-hyped and too expensive to gamble on. He's a DH/Jeremy Giambi OF'er.
Rich Aurilia	Hmmm. 35 year old infielders are generally not a good option. Aurilia is cheap, though and could be a decent block at 3B and 1B.
Kenny Lofton	Too expensive as a CF back up. He's always good trade bait, though.
Bengie Molina	No.
Jason Schmidt	For what the market is doing for position players, it's interesting that Schmidt's name has not come up with the A's. Schmidt would provide the A's a front line starter and take pressure off Rich Harden and Danny Haren. He could also drag Joe Blanton - kicking and screaming, into being a professional pitcher. As much as he would cost - he's a bargain.
Roger Clemens	No.
Andy Pettitte	No (see above)
Mike Mussina	Didn't he already sign with the Yankees?
Ted Lilly	Eh. In this market he's overpriced and as hyped as Barry Zito.
Gil Meche	Suppressed numbers at Safeco doesn't bode well in the rest of the parks in MLB.
Barry Zito	No. Just isn't worth the money for 4th starter numbers. His only positive attribute is eating innings - but he dances a tightrope every night. Doesn't deserve frontline starter money,
Randy Wolf	Yes. The A's have been interested in Wolf for several years and I have a feeling they may trigger this deal by the Winter Meetings.
Adam Eaton	Interesting. A middle class Gil Meche.
Greg Maddux	Yes. The A's could provide Maddux the stadium to continue his groundball work. He could also take over for Curt Young as pitching coach in the next 3-5 years.
Jeff Suppan	Can any pitcher be this overhyped following post season play?
Joe Borowski	Hmm. Due to get a hefty raise if he continues as a closer. As a set-up guy, could be a cheap option and push Justin Duchscherer back to his best used role as a two inning plus pitcher.
Vicente Padilla	I like Padilla as he is gutty. But the numbers just aren't there for this market.
Jeff Weaver	See: Suppan, Jeff.

I'm actually going to step off to the side a moment and point something out:

"The AL's voters couldn't even correctly identify the most valuable Twin, never mind wrapping their heads around a whole league...Joe Mauer was more valuable than Justin Morneau this past season. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the first thing about baseball."


Keith Law - Morneau awful choice for AL MVP, ESPN.com

Law was, of course, a former Baseball Prospectus writer and then assistant General Manager of the Toronto Blue Jays. Is his outrage projected at the AL MVP voting by the Baseball Writers Association of America? No. It's directed at all of baseball. It's been building for some time.


Law could just go after the fact that the Baseball Writers Association of America goes by the acronym BBWAA...where is that extra 'B' coming from? That alone should tell everyone that this group, for the most part, of 'newspaper men' and traditional media are not behind the times, they don't even know that an abstract concept like time could exist.


Law is coming into his own as a writer for the gaggle and slack-jawed yokels that makes up the baseball reader. With BP he had a niche audience and a specific group that would appreciate his knowledge and understanding. With ESPN.com. he's coming across people who still think that 'intangibles' and 'clutch' are what make MVP's. That generic little league knowledge must transfer over to professional baseball, just like schoolyard basketball transfers over to professional basketball and driving in traffic on I-80 is real similar to hitting the Brickyard at Indianapolis.


I've been fighting this fight for a few years.


I'm just reminding myself, here, in this post that I need to write more. I've gotten too wrapped up in work. We've come to the point in the project at work where patients die if people aren't trained properly. Worse, people and the health system could be sued. Worse, at least by the health system's way of thinking. It's not an occupation where you can just walk up to the front of a classroom and 'wing it'.


I am not claiming I am anywhere near Law's knowledge and understanding of the game from a business or a statistical level. But I don't think I'm a novice, either. I wish I had the time to submit pieces to Baseball Prospectus or watch enough baseball that I could swing a piece or two to Baseball America. If you read the fine print of names in the Baseball Prospectus annual where the authors thank people, you'll see my name in there. It's an incredible honor and always a cheap gift to family, just buy them a copy and get a 3M sticky pointing to the page where the name is.


Anyway.


Back to Law and his cast forth rage.


Want to feel the gravity of how funny that post and Law's statements are?





That's right. Some of the 'experts' pissed Law off, too.


Some of the experts who work at ESPN.


One a former General Manager and a few others who just aren't very good at writing let alone understanding sports, not just baseball.


ED NOTE: Ryan Wilkins, another former BP'er has an article at PROTRADE on the AL MVP topic.


Rob Neyer has a similar article, but Neyer has become used to the stupidity of BBWAA and the baseball realm as whole, he's also been smacked down by the authorities at ESPN.com a time or two.

"So again, if you're an intuitionist, you have three choices: Jeter, Mauer, Morneau. If you're an empiricist, you have three choices: Jeter, Mauer, Hafner."


Rob Neyer - Two different debates converge with Jeter, ESPN.com

Ah.


I think post-season awards are nice for people to debate if they understand what they are talking about. But not a lot do and this makes a debate into an argument. Frankly, I could do without awards in general. They drive up the cost of free agents by 15-25% by an arbitrary voting system. SEE: JASON GIAMBI, MIGUEL TEJADA, BARRY ZITO, ERIC CHAVEZ. You don't have to sign then, but when you do...boy do you overpay for them.


But I could go on for a few thousand words on bad free agent signings in the Billy Beane era. And I will.


Just a note that I have a few interviews coming and some of them may require you to hold onto your socks, lest they get blown through your shoes.

Today the A's should announce the hiring of Bob Geren as manager of the Oakland Athletics Baseball Club.


The writing had been on the wall for over a year and a half when Geren was named bench coach. When Ken Macha was dismissed last season, I called Geren the logical choice for manager, then just as I did this week. And the previous week.


Anyway.


Unfortunately the announcement of Billy Beane's best man (literally and figuratively) comes while Beane is facing a family loss. Beane had a rough week, having to sit through the ridiculous press conference only to see to his family. This week was also the Winter General Manager meetings and David Forst is representing the A's.


Good that Forst is getting face time; but Forst is not Billy Beane.


The A's are losing Frank Thomas to the Blue Jays and their Canadian dollars. But the A's are in negotiations to sign Barry Bonds to a one year deal. Will the A's finally have a player who can get on base over 40% of the time?

BLACKADDER: "Trust you to skive off to some cushy option."
DARLING: "There is nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps."
BLACKADDER GOES FORTH: PRIVATE PLANE


Very well, now that that is sorted out then we can return to the business of baseball.


Frank Thomas and his agent have gone skirting for a new deal with the Oakland A's north - the Toronto Blue Jays. Which is odd, all signs pointed to, and rumors persist from the likes of the usual suspects, that Thomas was to resign with the A's. Further, it was Thomas who pursued the A's in the off-season. Is this grand standing by Thomas' agent? Going from retail to boutique shopping?


Never mind the bollocks. Let's just start looking how the A's can replace Thomas' production and specifically refill the DH spot.


One of my major disconcertions with the A's use of the DH over the past seven seasons has been when they have designated a Designated Hitter. When Erubiel Durazo was the A's DH it was passable and forgiven and Ruby seemed to be the only consistent producer at the plate. Thomas, too. But Durazo could play a poor 1st base where Frank Thomas, to my knowledge did not even take infield practice after April.


The lack of a position for a hitter handicaps a team and its roster. Essentially they play with fewer options. Not just a 24 Man Roster, but with an 11-12 member pitching staff it becomes a 13-14 man roster. This is why the A's have traditionally had poor bench production...not enough guys on the bench to come off the bench to produce.


When the A's acquired Ray Durham in 2002 they had the luxury of Mark Ellis. So they bumped Durham to DH as he was an absolute butcher in the field. Scott Hatteberg and David Justice were the DH, but was Hatteberg was forced to 1B - a position the A's were hindered with until late in 2005. Ron Washington worked with Durham and there results were not positive. People seem to forget this fact. Hatteberg was less disastrous than Durham, though.


I've tried to repeat this as often as possible as it was the watershed moment that the A's realized, finally, that a few of their roster decisions had been blowing up in their face. The resolution came in the form of some kid from the Dakotas. In 2002 Mark Ellis bypassed three different players on the 25 man roster and at least five in the organization at the 2nd base position. At the major league level he displaced Randy Velarde, Frank Mennechino and Ray Durham. At the minor league level - Esteban German, Adam Morrissey and FP Santangelo (utility).


In 1999 the A's had John Jaha at DH and this was a fine development. Since the A's were in their 'bait and bash' mode at the plate.


In 2000 the A's went with a rotation at DH with Jaha, Matt Stairs, Olmedo Saenz Giambi and "the Giambi who would not slide". 2000 was a season that is crucial in the A's history and John Jaha's retirement in mid-season was one of the classiest and selfless acts in modern professional sports.


In 2001 it was a tandem of Saenz from the right side and "the Giambi who would not slide" from the left. Saenz was 100 points off "the Giambi who would not slide's On Base Percentage (OBP) in 2001. Thus, entering the 2001 playoffs...


Now, there's not much to argue about when it comes to the production of a few of the A's designated Designated Hitters. But there was also a few players forced into the field that probably would have been better suited to not being on a major league roster. Terrence Long was the "only player who could play centerfield". Long's defense was so awful the A's acquired Johnny Damon. Then moved Long to a corner outfield spot where his offensive ineptitude eventually paved the way for Eric Byrnes to garner a full time job. Byrnes was a solution to the Terrence Long/OF question, but he was never meant to be a long term solution. Byrnes was cheap and effective but limited in his plate discipline - I've covered that in detail many times before.


One might make the argument that the A's inability to develop corner outfielders and corner infielders in the last 10 years has been a major thorn in their ability to generate offense. Why? Corner positions; RF, LF, 1B, 3B historically are where major offensive production come from. Often, some are placed in those positions in the field because of their bat, not their defense. As player age, their defense erodes and many become DH's. 3B become 1B, RF moved to LF to 1B to DH. Jason Giambi; came up as a 3B to replace Scott Brosius but was so bad the A's moved him to left field and he ended up taking up Mark McGwire's shadow at 1st base.




Andre Ethier. Well, he went to the Dodgers in a poor trade decision by Beane and Co. Milton Bradley is a player I hoped the A's would acquire since he was an Expo. But to give up Ethier has taken a See's Candy toffee hammer to the nuts of the A's minor league outfield situation.


Looking back, Adam Piatt was misused by Howe and abandoned by Beane after Piatt ran into a life-threatening illness. This is very similar to the current Dan Johnson situation. A player is thrown under the bus that is not getting regular playing time when the rest of the team is not performing. In classic Ken Macha droll, "Well if we got better production from our bench..." How do you get better production if the bench players never make it to the field and when they do it's a knee-jerk reaction? Get three plate appearances a week and if you don't get on base seven times you're banished back to the bench. When Adam Piatt got regular playing time he tore up the American League. It's hard to single out confidence and/or luck from inconsistent and very few AB's.


Ben Grieve was marketed as the next Will Clark - funny how their careers ended at about two years despite Clark being 12 years older.


Nick Swisher is the first A's 'corner' prospect to make the A's 25 Man Roster. He was a 1st round draft pick so much has been expected of him. In my eyes he has not delivered on that promise and has regressed in his approach at the plate. Many others disagree. Time will tell but hopefully Swisher can at least get on base and not become Hatteberg in the field.


Dan Johnson was an after thought for Billy Beane and has been abused by the A's brain trust. Johnson might be the case that many should point to as the true downfall of Ken Macha.


That's pretty much it as far as homegrown A's corner fielders. Eric Byrnes was a centerfielder and ended up moving around (college catcher, by the way). Long came from the Mets as a centerfielder, "the Giambi who would not slide" came from Kansas City as a caddy, David Justice came in to retire and the recent crops; Bradley, Payton, Kielty, Dye all came from other organizations.


When you start looking deeper at the A's minor league system with pitching; Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Blanton(?), Street - only Hudson was a surprise. Mulder, Zito, Blanton and Street were 1st round draft picks out of college. Hudson was a 6th round pick, but also out of college. Not so much development as it was adjustment to a new level.


Beyond pitching, there is a lot left to be desired in the A's minor league system, as noted.


So. Unless the A's can rebuild Dan Johnson's confidence and assure him they screwed up by hanging him out to dry the A's are going to have to trade to get someone to make up Thomas' production.


Here's who I want to discuss:

• Adam Dunn
- Nick Swisher only more so? Or has he been toiling for a Reds organization who just doesn't appreciate what he can accomplish? Too many K's but consistent HR totals. His OPS has declined the last three seasons...but so has Eric Chavez and not a lot of "A's fans" outside of this site seem to mind.


• Vernon Wells
- I'd like to see Mark Kotsay for Wells and maybe throw in Joe Kennedy. Sign Wells to a long term deal. Wells is probably the most underrated player in the AL and has surpassed Andruw Jones as a defender in center. Wells is an upgrade defensively and offensively over Kotsay and is cheaper in the short term. Kotsay, though wouldn't last on Toronto's turf...so nix that idea unless there is a 3rd team involved.


• Barry Bonds
- Hell, I don't care since, I don't read what the media writes, for the most part, any longer (angries up the blood). Sign him to a two-year deal, stick him at DH and then the steroids vs DH argument for the Home Run record becomes a stalemate. Bonds could probably even eek out 30-40 games in left field without causing to much damage.


• Carl Crawford
- Not exactly the A's cup of tea, but he would be tremendous trade leverage in a three-team deal. Crawford could retool the A's offense, though he does not walk enough and strikes out way too much for a player with his speed.


• Nomar Garciaparra
- Gets on base and as a DH may not spike himself. Also could spell Eric Chavez at 3rd base against lefties. More expensive, but just as expensive as the A's offer to Thomas.


• Frank Catalanotto
- The A's actually had Catalanotto in their system when they grabbed him the Rule V Draft in 1996. They returned him following spring training. Catalanotto would be a good platooner against righties...not so much against lefties.


• Moises Alou
- Not bad if he can stay healthy.


• Craig Wilson
- Good old 'Player B' in my Eric Byrnes argument. He can rake if he can get enough AB's

There are more, and I can go into details on the above and more in the coming days. But I am curious what arguments can be made just from this list. Get on it.

Bob Geren is about to be announced as the A's new manager.


Let's take something right off of face value...Geren was Billy Beane's best man when he got married (to his most recent wife). Do we really need to go over the other candidates?


Jamie Quirk is an interesting guy and humorous. But he does not favor the A's principles of taking pitches and walking and unless he has taken a crash course in sabermetrics doesn't understand those concepts that are the foundation of the A's success.


Orel Hershiser would be a great pitching coach and maybe a great bench coach. I would like to see Hershiser as the A's bench coach when Geren is hired. However, if we judge his abilities by what he says as a broadcaster and on ESPN's BASEBALL TONIGHT then he should not even be considered one of the top three.


As far as Beane being racist for not hiring Washington that's just foolish. The Rangers did hire Art Howe as bench coach - which can be an indication that maybe the Rangers aren't sold on Washington, either. Just a thought. Usually former managers don't come back to be bench coaches unless it is a high profile situation SEE: Don Zimmer.


I think the A's would do fine with Bob Geren as a manager. I would prefer Geren and someone like FP Santangelo as bench coach. But Tony DeFrancesco might be in the running for that position. I think Curt Young should move back into the minor league system and see if Hershiser can infuse Tom House principles with the Rick Peterson and further advance pitching theory into practice.

Most will readily agree that I am distrustful of just about everyone and everything. Lewis Wolff will announce his plans to move the A's to Fremont on Tuesday. Since I am coursing with rage and with conspiracy theories abound I have asked Neil deMause to talk me down from the ledge.

Neil runs the website Field of Schemes with Joanna Cagan and with her co-authored 'Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit'. Neil is a regular contributor to Baseball Prospectus and has written for the Village Voice sports section, New York Newsday, the New York Sun, SportsJones and the Guardian Weekly.





EiO: With the A's announcement coming Tuesday (which might be the worst kept secret since Victoria's) of a move to Fremont, the A's are attempting to move from a small market to an even smaller market and on the fringe of the Giants territorial rights. However, they are attempting to leave a "poor" area and move to a more affluent area in the Bay Area. There have been a lot of ballparks built within the past 15 years, how many teams moved from a "poor" location and landed in a "better" location in the basically the same area?



NdM: Actually, according to Nielsen San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is all one big market, and given the number of people I know who commute from one part of it to another, I'm inclined to agree. Fremont may be smaller than Oakland, but Arlington is smaller than Dallas, and nobody's ever seemed to notice or care. It's about being able to sell tickets (and cable packages) to the large population base, not where your stadium is located.

The other question is nearly impossible to answer, if only because so many new stadiums are planned as part of some sort of reclamation of an urban frontier. Was Pac Bell built in a "good" area or a "bad" area? Depends on when you're asking.



EiO: Usually teams are trying to "rebuild the community". The A's seem to be in a different situation that most other teams when it comes to soliciting for a new ballpark. They have gone against the grain and forgone superficial tomes about improving the community in Oakland or any other site they have been researching. They have laid the groundwork of their claims for the need of a new facility based on their inability to (at least financially) compete in a small market. Doesn't this claim of small market sound rather hollow - with the A's sweetheart deal the A's have with the Coliseum and revenue sharing, don't the A's make a lot of money as it is?



NdM: Every team claims they're losing money - it's part of the playbook. In 1998, Rudy Giuliani declared that the Yankees couldn't possibly compete with the Orioles if they didn't get a new stadium. After that, nothing surprises me anymore.



EiO: Could the A's increase their immediate revenue concerns by negotiating a better TV and radio contract? It seems the A's make very little from their media contract and their reach is far less than it has been. For instance, A's games are not regularly broadcast in Sacramento - a scant 90 miles away. Wouldn't expanding the fanbase by promoting the team via television and radio increase attendance and revenue?



NdM: Sure, but Sacramento TV/radio stations have to be interested. If they think they can do better broadcasting River Cats games or old Rush Limbaugh tapes or whatever, they're not going to throw much money at the A's.



EiO: Over the years I have read Andrew Zimbalist, Doug Pappas and your work. One of the reoccurring themes has been that sports facilities, particularly ballparks, do not improve the economy by creating jobs and relieving areas of urban blight. Basically the idea is; there is a set amount of disposable income in an area earmarked by consumers for entertainment. A new ballpark essentially relocates those funds, at least for a time. "New" money doesn't suddenly appear. Am I off base on this assessment - or could you help me word it better?



NdM: You're on base, and here's how I'd word it: If people don't go to a ballgame, that doesn't mean they take the cash they would have spent and stick it under their pillows forever.

Probably the best evidence for this "substitution effect" is that during labor stoppages in baseball and hockey, there has been no noticeable effect on the local economies in the affected cities. In 1994, the baseball strike was such a boon to other businesses that one Toronto comedy club owner told reporters: "You think we can get hockey to go on strike, too?"



EiO: I imagine Tuesday's announcement from Lew Wolff is that the A's are pushing the idea that the stadium will be built with mostly private funds. But the attachment will come from funding the "ballpark village". This sounds vaguely familiar to the St Louis new/old Busch Stadium situation. The Cardinals were to build a $130 Million "ballpark village" on the site of the old Busch Stadium. But now they are demanding up to $100 Million in tax breaks. Is this the new form of extortion by teams; promote the idea of private funds then seek untold millions in tax breaks on the back end after the facility is built?



NdM: It's not all that new, but it's certainly becoming more popular. The Yankees and Mets are two other teams that claimed to be using private money, but when you looked at the fine print, they were getting all sort of other goodies on the back end (tax breaks, rent breaks, low-cost loans, etc.).

The "ballpark village" concept also helps confuse matters because by the time you finish with all the different revenue streams and subsidies for the stadium and the condos, hardly anyone is going to understand who's paying for what, much less raise a stink over it. So people tend to throw up their hands and say "whatever."



EiO: Recently, Sacramento voted down Measures Q & R with impunity. Sacramento bleeds purple and...whatever other color the Kings are. Litigation had to occur for the actual ransom note that was being passed back and forth from the Maloofs and the city. Once it was revealed that the Maloofs would reap a huge amount of profits with little to no risk or liability the idea of a new arena went up in flames. Are we going to see fewer and fewer ballot measures put in front of voters and more tax break incentives being closed doors?



NdM: I don't think so. Way back in 1997, while we were researching the first edition of Field of Schemes - which will be out in a newly expanded edition in 2008, by the way - Joanna Cagan and I went to a stadium planners conference in New York. And there was an interesting debate between two team officials, one of whom said, "Stay away from referendums, it's easier to go straight to the legislature," while another said, "We actually like referendums, they give us legitimacy, and they're easy enough to win if you spend enough on them."

The Sacramento vote was a train wreck - there was no concrete plan, and even the Kings owners hadn't endorsed the vote. Not that Sacramento necessarily would have voted differently if there had been a concerted push for a "yes" vote, but as it was, nobody was going to support it no matter what color they bled.



EiO: In retrospect, the San Francisco Giants situation of actually paying for Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park with private funds seems a little foolish. Or did the Giants benefit from certain tax breaks?



NdM: They recouped about 15% of their construction costs via free land and some other perks. But by and large, Your Phone Company Park was paid for by the team. Was it a dumb idea? Well, they'd lost four straight votes on public subsidies for a new stadium, so this was clearly the only way they were going to get a new home in San Francisco. The alternative would have been moving to Tampa Bay, so I think they clearly made the right move.



EiO: One of the bombshells you dropped a few years ago was the revenue-sharing deduction. What I got from your article was that the Yankees (or any other team) would to be able to write off building costs for a new stadium and stiff the other teams a large percentage of their revenue sharing. I'm sure there is a better way to word that. With the new CBA, does this process become easier, harder or the same?



NdM: The new CBA hasn't actually been written yet but so far as we know, nothing changes with regard to revenue sharing deductions for stadiums. It's important to note that this is the *only* cost that teams are allowed to deduct - if they sign a new shortstop or spend a bunch of money on an ad campaign, they can't take that out of revenue-sharing. Stadiums, though, are a deductible expense, which means that a chunk of the costs are passed along to the other 29 teams.

Actually, I take one thing back: Under the new CBA the marginal revenue-sharing rate drops from around 40% to 31%, which means the benefit of the "tax deduction" does too. In other words, previously the Yankees could pass along 40% of their stadium costs to the other teams; now it's 31%. Not a huge deal, but probably a difference of $30 million or so.



EiO: At the time of that article, smaller market teams were paying a higher marginal revenue-sharing rate than large market teams. You suggested that this made sense as to why teams such as the Twins (and this year the A's) are not really into selling tickets. With the new CBA, are small market teams still paying a higher marginal revenue-sharing rate?



NdM: Nope, they fixed that. The hope is that this will create an incentive for all teams to increase their own revenues instead of just sitting back and collecting checks from MLB - though as I've written at Baseball Prospectus, I *don't* believe it will mean anything positive as far as getting small-market teams to spend with the big boys on free agents.



EiO: The idea that the A's are staying in the Bay Area, but moving further inland, does not make any logistic sense. Would Portland or Sacramento provide a better "market" or does a Bay Area split with the Giants still the best scenario?



NdM: Even half of the Bay Area market is bigger than Portland, and almost as big as Sacramento. And being halfway between the East Bay and South Bay does open up more potential markets to draw from, though Sacramento suddenly becomes a really long haul.



EiO: There are so many drawbacks with the A's rumored Fremont plans. Primary would be the fact that the city of Fremont hasn't received so much as an application to submit building plans from the A's. Throw in that the nearest BART station is five (5) miles away, the proposed extension to Warm Springs is still two (2) miles away, traditional rail is unreliable and scattered with cargo and passenger trains, there is no parking plan in place, the ballpark village and ballpark on game days would have to be able to service tens of thousands of automobiles. And that doesn't even include that traffic in the Bay Area is already ridiculous. Then there are the political implications of how much Fremont or the A's are going to pay for added police, fire and security concerns along with environmental concerns. What else am I missing or do most of the ballpark proposals have this many tremendous hurdles?



NdM: No, this is an absolutely ridiculous place to put a stadium, from an accessibility perspective. I don't see how they do it without getting a BART spur to the ballpark, though maybe some kind of shuttle bus would work.

It's complete speculation, but one theory is that Wolff will announce the stadium, then let everyone scream bloody murder about how there's no way to get to it, and hope the public pressure forces the city and/or county to spend to improve public transit options. Then he not only has a new stadium, but suddenly his condos are that much more valuable, because you can actually get to them.



EiO: The big bend in the ballpark push appears to be Fremont allowing the land owned by Cisco, currently zoned industrial, to be converted to residential. With all the other concerns about building a ballpark in Fremont, it would seem more practical that a shopping center and condos would be easier to pull off and more profitable for Wolff. Does this plan by Lewis Wolff sound more and more like a real estate deal with a ballpark as a front?



NdM: Right, that's the other conspiracy theory: that Wolff doesn't care about the stadium or the team, and just wants to use the stadium to get leverage to force Fremont to rezone his land so he can build condos. Stranger things have happened, certainly. There's a lot of speculation that something similar may happen in Brooklyn, with the planned Nets arena, where the residential development is the real cash cow for the developer.



EiO: Lew Wolff's ballpark push includes a deal with Cisco. And the move to Fremont would necessitate a name change. Wolff offered "Fremont A's" and "Silicon Valley A's". With the amount of involvement rumored to be involved, could the A's buck the naming convention and just go with "A's" or "Athletics" with no city or area attached? Or even the "Cisco A's"?



NdM: "California A's" probably makes the most sense, and the Angels aren't using it anymore. "G