Tejada an A no more

[Vince]

Story here.

Seems that the A's are going to let yet another AL MVP go...anyone else think this is a bad move? Sure they were good after they lost Giambi, but they're running out of players who are that talented...Chavez is about the only one left after Tejada (not including their SPs), and I don't think he's MVP caliber. Thoughts?

[The Afoci]

They don't have a choice, and in a few year the Twins will lose everyone and have to start over too. That is what is wrong with baseball, small teams have to do everything perfect and will have a 2-4 year window and then back to 60-102.

[JeeberD]

Hmmm, the Astros sure could use a shortstop...

[ISiddiqui]

Afoci is right. The economics of baseball suck. The A's simply cannot afford Tejada, and they couldn't really afford everything Giambi wanted. If they had the money, the A's would be able to keep both Giambi and Tejada.

[Draft Dodger]

reason #65 of why I don't like baseball anymore

[Vince]

I wish there was a way like in OOTP where I could just click on 'Oakland's Financial Report' and see what's going on. It's too bad...seems like Tejada wants to stay as well.

Other than supporting the players union and personal choice, is there anything keeping a player like Tejada from accepting a contract that is obviously less than they deserve, but is all that the A's could offer?

[astralhaze]

As long as they have Beane, the A's will be fine.

[oykib]

The situation in Oakland could be easily solved. If the A's were allowed to movee to San Jose, they would have a better chance to make the revenue that they deserve.

For some strange reason San Jose is in the the territorial region controlled by the Giants, even though it's equidistant from Oakland.

Some of the rules the owners operate by are arcane. Oakland moving to San Jose couldn't possibly cost the Giants more than Oakland staying where they are-- Right next door to the Giants.

[andy m]

the A's will overcome.

[mrskippy]

The problem with the A's is ownership and a horrible city government. One owner wants to invest, the other doesn't. They play in an antiquated stadium and the city won't support a new one. Oakland's government is status quo with the rest of the Bay Area -- liberal as hell, no growth, and a penchant for building more homes for the crack dealers.

San Jose, or more likely Santa Clara, would be a good fit for the A's. The Giants claim that territory as theirs, since they have a minor league franchise there and because they were given that terrirtory in an attempt to move there in the early 90s.

It remains to be seen just how many A's fans really are in San Jose though. There are a lot of fans in that direction (Fremont, Milpitas, Santa Clara). But the question would be how this impacts fans in Oakland, the East Bay and the San Joaquin Valley. It's a key reason why Sacramento also has been an option. It is the #19 market in the nation and has great fan support for sports.

My guess is that the A's get a new ownership and a new ballpark. They've filled the seats in the late 80s. But with shining Pacific Bell Park (soon to be SBC Park) across the Bay, many people choose the experience over the sport. If the A's get a shiny ballpark, the fans will go with the A's over the Giants. They've drawn better historically, prior to Pac Bell.

[mrskippy]

BTW ... I believe the A's will be sold this season. And a new stadium proposal floated to the fine people of Oakland. If both those fall into place Tejada remains an Athletic.

If Tejada is traded he will go to the Giants for Barry Bonds, with some prospects tossed between the two sides. Both players get to stay in the Bay Area. A's save money. Giants spend money. And everyone is happy.

And the Giants will trade Aurilia away at the same time for an OF to replace Bonds.

[Vince]

Hahahaha....do you know how many A's fans would be irate if Barry Bonds became an Athletic? And for Tejada no less? Wow, that would be a terribly unpopular move, in my opinion.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
BTW ... I believe the A's will be sold this season. And a new stadium proposal floated to the fine people of Oakland. If both those fall into place Tejada remains an Athletic.

If Tejada is traded he will go to the Giants for Barry Bonds, with some prospects tossed between the two sides. Both players get to stay in the Bay Area. A's save money. Giants spend money. And everyone is happy.

And the Giants will trade Aurilia away at the same time for an OF to replace Bonds.

For some reason I seriously doubt any of that will take place.

[kcchief19]

Ditto.

[Bad-example]

Bonds is clearly not going to be traded, although Aurilia is a prime candidate to go should the Giants fall from contention.

[mrskippy]

If you remember a few years back when Bonds was up for a new contract with the Giants, there was some talk of him signing with the A's. Bonds is from the Bay Area and wants to stay here.

It was just a wild prediction. The A's being sold is quite possible. One of the owners wants to sell his stake. A new stadium also remains possible, if they can get somebody to fund it.

And if Bonds became a member of the A's, I'd be happy. Bonds is my favorite player.

BTW ... Tejada will probably remain an Athletic, because if they make the same mistake twice ... well, I don't think it will be a pretty picture.

[astralhaze]

They said they aren't going to re-sign him, that's first off. The second important thing to keep in mind was that not signing Giambi was not a mistake, it was done on purpose, and the reason makes a whole lot of sense. The A's are a small revenue club. To sign a single player to the amount of money it would take would leave them with far less money to spread around. Considering that they cleared 100 wins last year, I think it worked out fine. The same reasoning applies to Tejada. They do have a replacement in Bobby Crosby. Even if Crosby is not ready next season they could move Ellis to short and play Menechino or Esteban German for a year. As I said before, as long as they have the smartest GM in baseball, they will keep finding ways to win and prove the people who carp about income disparity wrong.

[Anrhydeddu]

[echo]As long as they have GM Beane, the A's will be fine.[/echo]

[mrskippy]

True about Beane and everything. But he may not be in Oakland forever either. The only thing that screwed the Giambi deal was the no trade clause. That was it. He was signed, sealed and delievered at a bargain $91 million. But the A's wouldn't give him a no trade clause, just in case they weren't in contention, which was sort of dumb considering.

All Tejada wants is job security, not necessarily money. And the A's are against job security.

The problem is that the A's never will have a franchise player and that will doom them eventually. Oakland must eventually take one of its home grown players and sign him to a long term deal.

That said, the A's have said their primary focus is signing Hudson, Zito, and Mulder to long-term deals and they are considered the nucleus of the team.

[Ksyrup]

Tejada's an A for one more year, so why does the title of this thread say something different?

[daedalus]

Uhhh, if I'm not mistaken, Mssr Tejada changed agent this past offseason and went with the esteemed Scott Boras. Somehow that doesn't seem a ringing endorsement for bargain deal to me.

Is Tejada required to give the A's a discount? Heck, no. It's dude's turn to get his. Unfortunately, what it costs to keep a Tejada would completely screw the A's budget.

More importantly, that team lives and dies with the three pitchers anyway. So, uhh, the money would seem better spent on them, especially with a replacement nearly ready in AAA.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Tejada's an A for one more year, so why does the title of this thread say something different?

More dramatic. I thought there was a trade or something, based on the title. Heh.

[ISiddiqui]

The only thing that screwed the Giambi deal was the no trade clause. That was it. He was signed, sealed and delievered at a bargain $91 million. But the A's wouldn't give him a no trade clause, just in case they weren't in contention, which was sort of dumb considering.

If I was the A's I might have done the same thing. What if they weren't in contention and Giambi was taking a substantial portion of the payroll that the team could afford due to baseball's crap economics? It'd be worth it to trade him away for some great prospects.

[sterlingice]

They don't have a choice, and in a few year the Twins will lose everyone and have to start over too. That is what is wrong with baseball, small teams have to do everything perfect and will have a 2-4 year window and then back to 60-102.

It will be after next year (2004). Milton and Radke will be FA's.

SI

[AgPete]

I can't believe how much talent they've traded away. If only they had N.Y. Yankee money.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
If I was the A's I might have done the same thing. What if they weren't in contention and Giambi was taking a substantial portion of the payroll that the team could afford due to baseball's crap economics? It'd be worth it to trade him away for some great prospects.

I do believe that is exactly why they let him go. I think they wanted to let him walk and used the no-trade clause denial as P.R. front to make it look like they actually made an effort to sign him.

[bbor]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
reason #65 of why I don't like baseball anymore

Agreed.

[bigdawg2003]

The Austin/San Antonio market could support a team. The Austin A's perhaps?

[Logan]

This has nothing to do with bad baseball economics.

This has everything to do with ownership.

Oakland can support a baseball team. They support a football team pretty well. There's plenty of money to go around.

You need a new stadium? Pony up some dough, get some investors, do what you have to do. The money will come back to you.

Can't get the money? Sell the team. Simple. Someone will buy it, build a new stadium, and reap the benefits.

[Qwikshot]

I think the A's will be fine...they stay competitve every year...it /is/ the economics of baseball...look at the Phillies, big players this year, but do you expect them to be in the market next year, nope...they'll blew their load to keep the fans interested in a new stadium with a good group of players...but they won't do it again for many years...good players going to bigger teams has been going on for years...I remember reading about the Philadelphia A's selling their good players to big market clubs to make ends meet, so it's no different today than it was yesterday in some aspects.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Logan
Oakland can support a baseball team. They support a football team pretty well. There's plenty of money to go around.

And then maybe we can look at the fact that football has a slightly more decent revenue sharing concept then we can wake up and realize that we're comparing apples and WD-40.

I'd imagine that even IF Oakland or Montreal can sell out every home games, they would STILL be at a signficant disadvantage to a team like the Yankees since they aren't likely to get the same local media packages.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by daedalus

they would STILL be at a signficant disadvantage to a team like the Yankees since they aren't likely to get the same local media packages.

Um - Anaheim won the American League last year. Just thought I would point that out.

[Logan]

Originally posted by daedalus
And then maybe we can look at the fact that football has a slightly more decent revenue sharing concept then we can wake up and realize that we're comparing apples and WD-40.

I'd imagine that even IF Oakland or Montreal can sell out every home games, they would STILL be at a signficant disadvantage to a team like the Yankees since they aren't likely to get the same local media packages.

Like how Cleveland was at a disadvantage when they got their new stadium? How about Atlanta? New stadiums bring in TONS of money.

Stop listening to Buddy Selig. He's lying through his teeth. The numbers are nowhere near as bad as he makes them out to be.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
reason #65 of why I don't like baseball anymore

LOL

I missed this. I agree with you too DD. If I grew up to love one sport the most it was baseball and I too have my own list of 99 reasons why baseball drove me away. Still love the game and its history but pro baseball as we know it may be going down the drain.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Um - Anaheim won the American League last year. Just thought I would point that out.

And your point would be what, exactly?

Originally posted by Logan
Like how Cleveland was at a disadvantage when they got their new stadium? How about Atlanta? New stadiums bring in TONS of money.

I could've sworn the three teams/cities I mentioned were Montreal, Oakland and New York (Yankees). And I'm not exactly sure where in my post you get the fact that Atlanta and Cleveland were or should have been considered "disadvantage" when they got their stadiums. If you won't mind pointing that out to me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

If I recall correctly (Ooh, lookie! Actually reading another post!), you were talking about the fact that Oakland can support a baseball team because it supported its football team. I'm referring to the fact that the Oakland football team isn't on level playing field with the New York football team BECAUSE it's city was supporting it but more because of the system that is in place in football.

Stop listening to Buddy Selig. He's lying through his teeth. The numbers are nowhere near as bad as he makes them out to be.

Now, what, in your infinite wisdom, makes you think I listen to, believe or trust anything that Bud Selig has to say? My audacity to disagree with you?

[ISiddiqui]

Daedalus: Right on!

Football has a wonderful revenue sharing system. Baseball's is horrible. Thus the reason for difference in the Oakland Raiders and the Oakland A's.

[Bad-example]

Originally posted by Logan
New stadiums bring in TONS of money.

Like they did for the Pirates and Brewers?

[Logan]

Originally posted by daedalus

I could've sworn the three teams/cities I mentioned were Montreal, Oakland and New York (Yankees). And I'm not exactly sure where in my post you get the fact that Atlanta and Cleveland were or should have been considered "disadvantage" when they got their stadiums. If you won't mind pointing that out to me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

If I recall correctly (Ooh, lookie! Actually reading another post!), you were talking about the fact that Oakland can support a baseball team because it supported its football team. I'm referring to the fact that the Oakland football team isn't on level playing field with the New York football team BECAUSE it's city was supporting it but more because of the system that is in place in football.

My original point just had to do with my opinion that the people of Oakland would go out of their way to support a baseball franchise--the attendence is there if the A's owners want it.

You're right in that the two different sports' systems make it a different situation. I never meant to appear to argue that. But I feel that in this particular case, its because of ownership that they are in this mess.

As for the Cleveland/Atlanta point, here's what I was going for:

Both those teams were certainly not bringing in money hand over fist. But what happened: Initial Success -> New Stadium -> More money coming in -> Re-signing own players and bringing in other good players -> Sustained success

Don't you think it's possible that Oakland could have followed the same path? If they had Giambi last season (and don't forget, as it was pointed out above, that they had commited that $91 million to him--it's not as if they said all along that they could not afford him), it's very possible that they could have won the World Series, which would surely help an effort for the government to kick in money on a new stadium.

[Logan]

Dola...

Originally posted by Bad-example
Like they did for the Pirates and Brewers?

See above. The Pirates and Brewers sucked before their new stadium, they sucked while the stadiums were being built, and they suck now. Between the two teams, they have exactly TWO good players (Giles and Sexson).

And we don't know that these teams aren't making money off their new stadium. We do know that they aren't spending any to yield a competitive team.

[cincyreds]

Can you say "pinstripes?" Yankee pinstripes that is.

Giambi is already lobbying the BOSS to sign him.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by cincyreds
Can you say "pinstripes?" Yankee pinstripes that is.

Giambi is already lobbying the BOSS to sign him.

Well, the Yanks bench is a little weak!

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Logan
But I feel that in this particular case, its because of ownership that they are in this mess.

They've done a goofy thing or two, haven't they?

Initial Success -> New Stadium -> More money coming in -> Re-signing own players and bringing in other good players -> Sustained success

In a sense, they ARE doing that (sans the New Stadium part). They are doing basically what John Hart did with the Indians: resigning certain players to long term contracts before they hit their free agent years. Except that they went with the three pitchers instead of the position players.

As for financing a new stadium, I don't know that there are many owners with the testicular fortitude or financial strength to finance their own stadium. McGowan is the only one I can think of off hand that's done it in recent time.

[Logan]

Originally posted by daedalus
In a sense, they ARE doing that (sans the New Stadium part). They are doing basically what John Hart did with the Indians: resigning certain players to long term contracts before they hit their free agent years. Except that they went with the three pitchers instead of the position players.

Not exactly. They SAID that their intentions are to sign the big 3 and build around them. But all they are doing right now is paying them what they will receive once they become arbitration eligible. We haven't seen them step up and give them an extension based on what they deserve (like what the Expos did with Vlad a few years ago. They gave him something like a 4 year, $36 million deal. Sure, it cost them more money initially than they would have paid through arbitration, but it saved much more money at the end. A smart move by the Expos--did I really just say that?).

BTW, I'm almost positive this is the case (that these guys haven't been signed to long deals)...if its not, I stand corrected and my argument becomes mush.

Moving along though, let's say Hudson doesn't want to stay in Oakland. He wants to pitch somewhere where he'll be THE man. Now the big 3 is the big 2. Still good, but without that 3rd #1 type starter, you're a lot weaker. Especially since you've said goodbye to two (and maybe three if Chavez leaves) players who are at or near the top of their position from an offensive standpoint.

Getting away from all of this finger-pointing for a second, allow me to say this, and I'm sure it will be echoed by many: The A's were absolutely RETARDED in coming out and announcing that they won't even OFFER him a deal. It makes them look bad. It puts Tejada in a shitty situation, as he has no clue what is going to happen to him in the future--he could be traded tomorrow--which could very well affect him on the field.

The best thing for them to do would have been to find out what his contract demands were, realize they couldn't pay it, trade him away for good young players, and THEN announce that they could not afford to keep him. Don't give me this "Oh, we didn't want to insult him by offering him far less than he deserves" crap.

[Anrhydeddu]

I disagree Logan, it was a great move for the A's. Why have the management and Tejada distracted all season with will he or won't he re-sign? The survived brilliantly without Giambi, they'll do the same here.

[Logan]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I disagree Logan, it was a great move for the A's. Why have the management and Tejada distracted all season with will he or won't he re-sign?

I don't think it would have been a distraction. Tejada was already on the record as saying that he wants to come back to Oakland. Also, many teams have policies that they don't discuss contract extensions during the season (to avoid the distractions, as you pointed out). Don't you think Oakland would have been better off saying, "We would love to discuss a contract extension with Miguel after the season, prior to him becoming a free agent."

Not only that, but if I'm an opposing GM of one of the "two or three teams [that] can pick up a player of Miguel's caliber and sign him to an eight-to-10-year contract and pay him the money he deserves (owner Steve Schott's words)," I'm not going to offer the same deal for him that I would have if I felt the A's wanted him back. If the A's sent out signals that they wanted him back, but would trade him if the perfect deal was out there, then and only then would I trade my top young players for him. But now I know that any offer I give would just have to be better than the 1st rounder I would surrender by signing him.

I was reading an article on what the market is for Tejada. It's smaller than I had originally thought. Think about it: Most of the teams who can afford a big contract already are set at the SS position (Yanks - Jeter, Rangers - A-Rod, Boston - Nomar, Mets - Reyes). The Dodgers are a possibility, but they would need to get out of the contracts for Brown and Dreifort, plus they like Izturis. And if he were to market himself as a 3B, his value would drop. Maybe Colorado and Houston need to step up and get some money ready? So I don't think Schott is going to be proved right with the "2 or 3 teams..." comment.

The survived brilliantly without Giambi, they'll do the same here.

They did so well with the help of a huge season from Tejada. Who will they rely on when they lose him (and then probably Chavez the next year)? And also, yeah...they survived...but as I stated a few posts ago, they could have very easily won it all if Giambi were on the team.

[ISiddiqui]

So I don't think Schott is going to be proved right with the "2 or 3 teams..." comment.

Oh, I think so. An MVP candidate will get some big bucks, and there are plenty of teams that can afford it. I'm sure St. Louis would love someone like Tejada. Same with Seattle.

And who ever thought A-Rod would end up in Texas?

they could have very easily won it all if Giambi were on the team.

COULD! They didn't do anything with Giambi before he left though. And with Giambi, the Yanks haven't won the WS. Could he be the curse?

[astralhaze]

Tejada did NOT have a huge season last year. He had an excellent season, especially for a middle infielder, but an .861 OPS is hardly huge. Barry Bonds had a huge season last year, Alex Rodriguez had a huge season last season, Tejada is a cut or two below that level. Tejada's MVP award was an absolute joke.

[Logan]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Oh, I think so. An MVP candidate will get some big bucks, and there are plenty of teams that can afford it. I'm sure St. Louis would love someone like Tejada. Same with Seattle.

And who ever thought A-Rod would end up in Texas?

Which is exactly my point...Wouldn't you agree that when Schott said "2 or 3 teams" he was referring to those who are thought to spend the most on everyone (ie Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Braves)?

You brought up teams that are not considered huge spenders like those teams mentioned above. Hence Schott being wrong...

Unless I misinterpreted your post, and you're actually agreeing with me ...

[ISiddiqui]

Tejada's MVP award was an absolute joke.

News for ya. MVP stands for Most VALUABLE Player... not Best Player.

You brought up teams that are not considered huge spenders like those teams mentioned above. Hence Schott being wrong...

Who ever though Texas was a huge spender? Just because a team isn't considered a huge spender doesn't mean it won't fork over some dough for a good player.

Oh, and btw, the Braves would definetly jump on Tejada, if they felt they could afford him. St. Louis tends to spend a lot as well.