Nationals Acquire Gio Gonzalez
A's and Nats agree to trade AJ Cole, Brad Peacock, Tom Milone and Derek Norris for Gonzalez.
Tweaked the wording a bit and bumped to front. FYI, Cole and Peacock are RHPs, Milone is a lefty, and Norris is a C. --Rob
5 months ago
JacksTigers
83 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Peacock, Norris, & Cole…3 top 100 guys.. Guess they did ask for Turner, Smyly, & Castellones.. vry…vry glad we took a pass..
by Wolverine119 on Dec 22, 2011 5:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions
So true.
A package containing turner was too much for Gio. A straight up trade for those two was even a bit pricey, IMO….and now this? Billy Beane is a master at his craft.
Tired of generic music??? Exterminate All Rational Thought is here to help!
Keep waiting for some results
For all of his “mastery.”
Getting prospects for a known quantity is so over-rated. Why is it, prospects with an “upside”(which is always tenuous at best)are so highly thought of, and the guy who has actually had success in MLB isn’t seen for his true value?
Beane is such a “master”, he’s been in Oakland for YEARS and his entire outfield last year were one year rentals. Yeah, I call that “mastery.”
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
but he never-
oh. i get it.
(Un)Official President of the Team Jacob Turner Fan Club
Yet Another Movie Blog
by DetroitTigersGeek on Dec 22, 2011 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong craft
What Beane excels at is getting good deals for cheap, which is why he so often trades high and gets prospects. Prospects are as cheap as it gets, and Beane’s wins-per-dollar and WAR/$ are generally solid.
And he does get results — Oakland wins a decent amount of regular season games, though not flukey playoffs. It’s not nearly as good as it used to be, back before every team had a stats guy and knew what OBP was.
Oakland has about zero chance of winning that division
They’re punting this season and hoping it can come together next season. Unfortunately, they’ve been doing that for a long time now.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
Long time? Short memory
Five years ago, they won their division. In 2010, they were second behind a pretty fantastic Texas team.
And again, wins per dollar, Oakland’s been the best for the last decade and a half.
"Wins per dollar"?
Is that what we’re measuring? lol … I’m going to try’n get up to Oakland early next season when they raise their “Wins per Dollar” pennant.
I’m thinking “wins per dollar” is the very definition of ‘moral victory.’
I hope no one is insinuating that if Beane had the Yankees $250MM payroll his ‘wins per dollar’ would remain constant.
Besides, if Beane was as brilliant with his mastery as claimed, he wouldn’t need a bigger budget. I like the guy, but I think his reputation far exceeds his production. And the results(except for the all important ‘wins per dollar’)back that up.
Actual results, that is. Wins, losses, pennants, things like that.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
he'll never get those in oakland
the owner, the giants and the MLB have pretty much butchered the franchise’s future.
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 23, 2011 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that Beane has to bring a knife to a gun fight
But being the perpetual underdog, his reputation gets a boost that so far is not verified by any results.
Again, unless one thinks that “wins per dollar” actually means something. Moral victories can be good, but they are by definition nothing to raise a flag about.
And let’s be honest. If Beane truly thought he had a “better way”, he would have moved on and been hired by a team with a reasonable payroll and the inclination to win. Beane hasn’t done that, and wouldn’t we have to ask “why?” if he was truly interested in building a winner?
He’s beating his noggin against a brick wall. he knows it, we all know it. Yet, he stays. I find that not only odd, but a bit of a statement on his methodology.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
Beane has a minority ownership stake in the A’s. He also works with the San Jose Earthquakes of the MLS to some extent. He’s pretty ensconced and not really looking to move around, I’d guess.
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 23, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
Are you auditioning for AM radio?
“Again, unless one thinks that "wins per dollar" actually means something. Moral victories can be good, but they are by definition nothing to raise a flag about.”
Beane has a record that’s consistently better than other teams with similar payrolls. It’s nice to live in a fantasy land where we can all spend like Cashman, but for teams that don’t have that luxury, wins-per-dollar is a good way to evaluate their relative success.
Seriously, you sound like Joe Morgan bitching about OBP.
Wins per dollar is a good way of explaining that you like someones methodology
But can’t otherwise explain their results.
BTW … the subject is Beane. Not me.
You might consider taking a look past what you ‘think’ makes a GM successful, and what GMs are actually successful. Calling me ignorant by comparing me to Joe Morgan bitching about OPS is’t going to help you in this regard.
First step, I would suggest, is to figure out for yourself how “success” is defined. Hint: it’s not “wins per dollar.”
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
by Singledigit on Dec 24, 2011 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
Hint: it’s not "wins per dollar."
That depends on your goal. If you are trying to do the best with the budget that you have, than the higher the wins per dollar is then the more successful you are. If you are trying to win a pennant than wins per dollar don’t mean anything.
If you are trying to look at baseball as a business than wins per dollar could be a measure meant that helps you evaluate that success or not.
It is like one of you is on the ground saying clouds are up and the other is in a plane at 30,000 feet saying no they aren’t you retard they are down. Unless you define the context of what you are arguing about neither of you is correct.
In the case of how many dollars each win cost for the '11 season
The Rays were the most efficient team. They spent the fewest dollars per win, $458,138.
The A’s? They were 11th. They spent $899,142 per win.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
by Singledigit on Dec 24, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
So they had a bad season
From 98-08 the oakland athletics had a win expectancy of 75.8 wins per year, but they averaged 87.3 wins, this is a positive of 11.5. The best of any team in MLB. From 08-10 they had a total WAR of 101.7, at $1,592,252 per win, good for 4th out of MLB. And for the AL they were 5th in win cost in 2011.
Again, depending on what your goal and business model is this could all be considered successful. Until you define what you consider a success arguing if they were successful or not is futile. Define your argument or just continue arguing for the sake of arguing and not really accomplishing anything other than showing how childish all this is.
At the risk of being "childish"
Are you suggesting that a successful business model is one that is more worried about dollars per win, than actual wins? I’m sure some are, and a team like the A’s prove that might be true. But I’m betting MLB wouldn’t like to hear that nor the fans of the team(s) in question.
As far as “win expectancy” and “WAR”, niether are objective. They are subjective. Presenting them as fact doesn’t prevent them from being subjective.
Other clubs have spent less and been more successful(“success” defined as winning games), other clubs have spent more and been more successful. Beane, despite his reputation as a “master”, hasn’t accomplished much more than many others in terms of actually winning.
And wins/losses are as objective as it gets.
Personally, I think all the defending of Beane with things like “wins per dollar” and “win expectancy” and “WAR” are just people who have a conclusion and are looking(and looking hard)for some evidence. Instead of the other way around, as it should be.
“I think Beane is a genius, and I’ll find some evidence doggoneit”.
Beane was well ahead of the curve in studying and using things like OBP. It hasn’t helped him win, though.
Lastly … if a team outperforms its “win expectancy” by almost 15% year after year? What does that tell you? That’s right, it tells you that “win expectancy” is flawed. Those numbers aren’t proof of beane being successful, they are an indictment on the subjective analysis.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
Actually
A successful business model would be more worried about dollars per win than actual wins, especially when nobody’s going to watch the games anyways.
Seriously, Oakland Colosseum is a sh*thole… they’re not going to draw any fans until they move.
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Dec 24, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
So are you saying that the only way a team can be successful is to win?
If that is the case then there are 31 unsuccessful teams every year and only one good GM every year. The rest are all horrible and shouldn’t be praised at all for anything they accomplish.
As you are saying, you can only be completely successful (winning everything) or a complete failure. That is as objective as you can be.
Also, why would MLB be upset that a team is being ran like what it is, a business? Yes, fans might not like it, but companies do things all the time that the general public doesn’t like. The purpose of MLB is to make money, it isn’t directly about making you or any other fan happy. You being happy is just a means to ultimately make them more money. That is what their goal is and that is how they are going to measure their success of failure.
So my question to you is, how many GM’s do you think were successful this past year? And why aren’t you questioning why all the rest of them aren’t being fired?
Again
Beane’s in a holding position until he gets a stadium in San Jose.
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Dec 24, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention the fact that Andrew Friedman has been a lot better with less money than Beane over the last few seasons. Beane had some good seasons with castoffs (02 and 06 were the most impressive) but he hasn’t been as good as the hype lately.
This Gio trade is classic desperation. Beane shouldn’t be praised for demanding a ridiculous price for his “ace” (which he’s not… unless Max is an ace now as well – they have pretty much identical WAR over the past 2 seasons). Beane simply had the best pitcher who was on the market this offseason (excluding ones like Shields who are only available for all the tea in China), and that always demands a huge price. Look at the haul the Rays got for Garza last year.
by thepartybird on Dec 23, 2011 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
Friedman also had the luxury of five or six top five draft picks all in a row
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2011 11:35 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, I see
You don’t actually care about statistics or expected value as a measurement of management skill, you’re just off whackin’ on some straw man bullshit.
But for a small market team — which Oakland essentially is — wins per dollar is a pretty good way to tell whether or not they’re well managed. Which you’d concede if Billy Beane hadn’t banged your sister or whatever’s set you off on this random jeremiad.
Wins per dollar?
Spend $20 Million and win 20 games and you’ll have a better “win per dollar” than any big budget team.
Yes, wins per dollar
You can calculate an expected wins per dollar for a team each season and be pretty accurate. Beane exceeds that mark, meaning that he’s a better manager than folks with similar payrolls.
No, not really
They’re punting until they get a new stadium in Oakland.
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Dec 23, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
They’re punting until they get a new stadium inOaklandSan Jose.
Fixed.
They’re punting until they get a new stadium anywhere but in Oakland
Fixed again.
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 24, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Derp
Thanks.
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Dec 24, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
So Beane is a master at the 'moral victory'?
That’s about right.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
Did he steal your lunch?
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3816824
This lays out the cost of winning pretty well, and shows that Beane’s exceeded his expected value by more games than any other manager in the game.
Beans 1990's strategy
stopped working when he couldn’t find any more Giambis, McGuires, or Cansecos. With the massive declines in power over the last few years low average high OBP guys aren’t as valuable as they were in days that Oakland was putting up 230+ home runs a year.
I'm wondering which team had a higher payroll total over the last ten years
The Rays, or the A’s? The Rays haven’t won a World Series either, but it seems they do more with less than Beane. And Beane is a “master”. Go figure?
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
Your timing is not right
Actually, Beane became GM in 1997 which is the last year McGwire was with the A’s. Beane traded him away for T.J. Matthews, Blake Stein and Eric Ludwick (listed as one of the worst (ie lopsided) trades in baseball history – http://bleacherreport.com/articles/218289-the-10-bestworst-trades-in-baseball-history/page/2).
You are right
but he worked as the assistant GM prior to 1997 and I have to believe that having guys like Canseco and McGuire for those years affected his decision to focus “Money Ball” exclusively on OBP.
Well this trade just inflated the market.
Gio wasnt worth that package. Beane committed robbery and now, no serviceable starter will come with a reasonable tag in this trade market. That was an assanine ammount of talent shipped to Oakland. It actually looks just as good as the return on Latos and he is a much better pitcher.
Tired of generic music??? Exterminate All Rational Thought is here to help!
Oakland win this trade
The price for such a player as Gio was definitely too high.
There are others, can better invest in a 3B?
Seriously
Is it too much to ask for Roy Oswalt?
"You, on the other hand, make Eeyore look like Rainbow Brite." -johnmoz
"I think of you more as the blue book style essay of sports journalism."-Kurt Mensching
Contributor, Bless You Boys
15 mil seems like a bargain
Considering the cost that guys like Gio seem to be demanding. I agree, but only if it doesn’t take money away from DD’s ‘Cespedes fund’
Tired of generic music??? Exterminate All Rational Thought is here to help!
Roy probably could be had with 10 plus incentives.
Heck why not talk to an Edwin Jackson who doesn’t seem to be getting much attention on the market. Anything but giving up a kings random.
Cespedes...
The guy’s going to cost a ton… White Sox have a good chance IMO with their Cuban background. Or Miami. Or New York. Or… I just no longer am getting my hopes up for this guy. I doubt we sign him. Let’s go get an Oswalt or someone like that. Please.
(Un)Official President of the Team Jacob Turner Fan Club
Yet Another Movie Blog
by DetroitTigersGeek on Dec 22, 2011 6:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
+1
This is obv. The year to buy a jackson..oswalt or Beltran..trade market is just to pricey
by Wolverine119 on Dec 22, 2011 5:35 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
This almost makes we wish we were sellers this offseason.
What kind of haul could we get if we were to dangle Scherzer (for example) in this market?
About the same as what Oakland just got.
They’re very comparable pitchers, with Scherzer being a year older.
by thepartybird on Dec 23, 2011 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
You know why the Tigers couldn't pull off a deal for Gio? Because......
Dave Dombrowski Sold the Farm
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
On that farm he had some arms
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
With a Sanchez here
and a Miller there
Here’s a Ruffin
There’s a Furbush
Over there a Badenhopper
Dave Dombrowski Sold the Farm
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
On that farm he had more arms
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
With Moscoso here
and Humberto there
Here’s a Frenchy
There’s a Jurrjens
Over there an Oliveros
Dave Dombrowski Sold the Farm
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
On that farm he had some BATs
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
With a Maybin here
and a Pena there
Here’s a catcher
and more pitchers
now we haven’t got no players
Dave Dombrowski Sold the Farm
Ee Ei Ee Ei Oh
Just kidding DD. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
"King of Minutiae"
by Tigerdog1 on Dec 22, 2011 6:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I second that (or third it)
and I run the joint, so he has to.
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 22, 2011 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
they definitely overpaid. Glad we passed
Chicks dig me, because I rarely wear underwear and when I do it's usually something unusual
Don't know anything of the sort yet.
In the ‘12 season, chances are outstanding the Nats got the better of the deal by far. We don’t know if the A’s got any value, as they got players who have no success yet in MLB.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
This is true. BUT...
… This is all a probability thing. We pretty much know EXACTLY what kind of player Gio Gonzalez is. We can be pretty sure he’s close to his ceiling now.
The prospects are obviously just that. But if they each have a roughly 50% chance of reaching some of their upside, this is an absolute steal. They may NEVER reach their peak, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the wrong move to trade a solid starter for unproven guys with huge upsides.
Think of it this way: If Gio had been traded straight up for an unknown C prospect that becomes a serviceable major leaguer while Gonzalez gets hurt and never plays again, it would still have been an awful decision for the A’s to trade him. Certainly they got a favorable result, but it still should be considered a bad/lucky decision.
by The Birchman on Dec 22, 2011 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
Of the hundreds that are drafted every year
How many make it to the show…your 50% chance is way to high. 25% would be more likely, in which case they received a future Gio so someone could have Gio today.
That's suggesting that every prospect is created equal though.
These guys are lot closer to making it than 50% of the guys in the minors.
Plus, I think you’re oversimplifying the trade a bit. It’s more along the lines of receiving a future Gio who has a chance to be much more valuable down the line so someone could have Gio — who probably won’t get much better — today.
by The Birchman on Dec 23, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
And in my opinion, that's how receiving teams in trades like this(the A's)get over-valued
It’s a long way from prospect to putting up the last two years Gio has. While that is being obvious and Gio’s last two years weren’t spectacular … the point still stands.
Gving up a ‘sure thing’ for a “haul” of prospects is a good way to never get anywhere. I’m not talking about trading a less than average player, or a prospect for a prospect. I’m talking about trades like this one for Gio, and the one for Cahill. The A’s will be worse in ‘12. So they are already one year behind in potential payoff. Then, they have to hope even one of the players they’ve obtained will rise to the level of the player they traded. If someone put together a list of all lf these types of trades, I’d bet it would lean heavily towards the “haul” never coming close to what was given up.
It’s in style these days to look at prospects and envision what they can become, all while poking holes in the accomplishments of a guy like Gio who has actually done some nice things in MLB. I’m no fan of Gio, and it wouldn’t have mattered that much to me if the Tigers had traded for him. But he has done some things and will do some things that the prospects the A’s have traded for can only hope to do.
And IMO, the better the player the worst the idea it is to trade him in these kinds of deals. A team gets their hands on a Cabrera or Gonzalez, their chance of getting traded equal value in return in the future is practically 1 in a 1,000. The less excellent the traded player is, the better the chance on getting equal value. So chances are better for the A’s concerning Gio, than say the Padres chances were with thier trading Gonzalez. But the chances are still very slim, IMO that the A’s will get anything close to what Gio was and is.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
I think you kinda proved my point though.
The A’s aren’t going anywhere. That’s the constant in all of this. Whether Gio is there or not, they’re not going to be competing any time soon.
How do they get better? By identifying a good player that has significant trade value that they’re willing to part with if the package is right. Gio was that guy. They got a number of players in return who have the chance to be VERY good — some even better than Gio.
All in all, I agree with your point. People overvalue prospects and undervalue low upside guys who are already doing it at the major league level — it’s too easy to take for granted how hard it is to actually make it in the majors. It’s just, at some point, Gio is expendable if the upsides of the players in return (and their probabilities of reaching these upsides as identified by the A’s and their scouts) outweigh his value over the next few years. This is an instance where I think that occurred.
by The Birchman on Dec 23, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Most trades of stars for prospects wind up favoring the team that got the star player.
Of course, the A’s have done well in the past doing this, but they don’t keep the other good prospects that turn out well, either.
"King of Minutiae"
Yes, of course
I just meant that in the now, the Nats gave up a lot. There’s no way of knowing who’s going to pan out and who isn’t.
Chicks dig me, because I rarely wear underwear and when I do it's usually something unusual
Actually "in the now"
They received a #2 starter for a bunch of non-contributors. I see that as a steal. In the future it may be a completely different story.
The Nats aren't playing "for the now" though
They suck and will continue to suck until Harper and Strasburg (among others) mature for another couple years.
by Rob Rogacki on Dec 23, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
The Nats might be closer than you think
A lot of people don’t realize that they only finished one game below .500 last year. That’s without Strasburg for most of the season. Add Strasburg and Gonzalez to the rotation with Zimmerman and they’ve got a great front 3. The young offense should improve and maybe Harper will arrive with a bang. I don’t think they’re all that close to the 102-win Phillies yet, but I can see this Washington team winning 90 games.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
I'm well aware of where they finished
But the problem list is long: Strasburg’s durability, Harper’s maturation, Zimmerman’s longevity, and the development of other role players within the organization (Bernadina, the other Zimmerman, etc.), and so on. Don’t forget that they play in a division with Philadelphia and Atlanta, with what will be an improved Florida squad as well. The NL East might be one of the tougher divisions in baseball next season.
Another solid reason why Oswalt should sign with the Tigers.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
You're right
That’s a real good division now. I would actually pick Washington in front of Atlanta, who has a similar list of question marks.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
I'm not convinced that Washington is better than Atlanta
I still like Atlanta’s rotation better and Washington’s offense leaves much to be desired if Werth doesn’t play up to his contract.
i'd give advantage to atlanta still
2013 could be different tho
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 30, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
The fact that it is debatable
Means that a move like acquiring Gio could put them over the top, and also that they are playing for now instead of in 3-5 years.
I think they are playing for the now
Maybe not this year, but in the next two or three years they will be primed to make their run. Gio was available now and their prospects that they traded probably won’t be at Gio’s level until three years from now, if ever. Philly is getting older, and those pitchers will be moving on, and with the new playoff format 90 wins could easily get them into the second wild card.
That additional wild card makes all these races that much closer.
Darn Slow Dominican Immigration System
One would think the D.R. was a paradise like Arizona or South Carolina. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit is holding all his chips.
by manic in Detroit on Dec 22, 2011 8:15 PM EST reply actions
Well put!
DD’s waiting for the big Cespedes hand before going ‘all in’. Of course, if he can steal a cheap E Jackson or J Jurrjens pot along the way, I’m sure he will.
Jackson might be cheap, Jurrjens wont'
And by Jackson being cheap, we might be talking 3/30.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
Oakland traded away their best player again
They have become just a waste of a franchise. Teams like them should be contracted.
Agree. Along with the Padres.
And I live in San Diego. It’d kill this town to lose the Padres. Not the baseball fans, the downtown merchants. The baseball fans pretty much couldn’t care less.
But if the owers of franchises like this aren’t even going to try, either find an owner who will or contract.
There’s big difference between a frinchise being inept, and one that isn’t even trying. The Mets, the Orioles, the Jays … these are inempt franchises. Hopefully they get better folks in charge who will invest more wisely in personnel.
But franchises like the Padres and A’s don’t even bother trying. I don’t much care to see that in MLB. Enough of that in the NBA to go around.
Justin can now let the fungus grow back on his shower shoes.
Do you know the way to San Jose?
The A’s could be building up pity credits. If they eclipse our 119 losses and have no attendance, the powers that be will be more inclined to let them move. The Giants would have a hard time getting any support to protect their territory from a joke franchise. Diabolical Beane counter..
by manic in Detroit on Dec 23, 2011 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
Lots of LOLs
As someone who grew up in Kansas City, I think sometimes people are, now that Illich is willing to spend, forgetful of what a small-market budget is like. Can you imagine what would happen if Jacob Turner turned into Roy Oswalt, and the Tigers came out and said they can’t afford him, so they’ll just let him walk? I’d be pissed as a Tigers fan, but obviously that’s not a position that they (in the foreseeable future) are likely to be in. Beane isn’t working with that kind of budget.
A lot of analysts are praising the haul he got. I’m not super familiar with these prospects, but I know Norris is someone they’re talking about grooming to replace Suzuki. One of the guys from ESPN (possibly Keith Law) said that they believe one of the pitchers can be even better than Gonzalez.
I think that alone would make this a favorable trade. I’m not saying Beane always deserves the spotlight he’s received either for everything, either, don’t get me wrong. But either way, if you feel like in a few years you’re going to have to pay some guys and he’s not going to be one of them, getting a deal like this is a nice one.
I agree that this was a good deal to make
With Texas and LAA as strong as they are, this is a good year to rebuild in Oakland.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bless You Boys
Related FanShots on Bless You Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
