A's - Chavez Agree to 6 Yr Deal

Neuqua · 03-18-2004, 02:04 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1762400

Third baseman's deal largest in team history

Associated Press

PHOENIX -- The Oakland Athletics finally kept one of their young stars, signing third baseman Eric Chavez to a six-year contract extension believed to be worth $66 million -- the biggest contract in franchise history.

Chavez, a three-time Gold Glove winner and the AL's top power-hitting third baseman last season, would have been a free agent next winter. But instead of allowing Chavez to leave as MVPs Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada did before him, Oakland spent the cash necessary to retain some of its impressive array of young talent.

The deal, announced Thursday, also contains a club option for 2011.

Last season, Chavez led the A's with 29 homers and finished second to Tejada with 101 RBIs. Both totals were tops among AL third basemen. He also led the A's with a .282 average -- hitting .313 after the All-Star break -- while establishing career highs with 166 hits, 94 runs and five triples.

He has 134 homers over his first five major league seasons, establishing himself as a consistent run-producer while surviving the growing pains of breaking into the majors at 20. A first-round pick in 1996, he hit 26 homers in 2000, his first full major-league season.

"If you (consider) all the guys we've lost, I don't want to put that pressure on Eric yet, but I think he's got more upside," A's manager Ken Macha said. "I think Eric has got another level."

In addition to Giambi and Tejada, the small-market, small-budget A's have been unable to re-sign free agents Johnny Damon, Keith Foulke or Jason Isringhausen, to name a few. Others, such as Ramon Hernandez or Billy Koch, were traded before their salaries became prohibitive.

Ksyrup · 03-18-2004, 02:10 PM

I think it's a bit unfair to automatically characterize a small market team's failure to resign their "star" players as being "unable" to resign them. Aside from the fact that every team would take certain guys at a lesser salary level, I think a lot of what the A's have done is posturing, to some extent. I don't really think they wanted to resign Giambi, and they had ready replacements for Tejada and Isringhausen, the Koch/Foulke deal was a slam dunk (Foulke was ineffective for 2 weeks in 2 years, but still lost his closer's job and got traded in the off-season; Koch is a head-case), etc.

John Galt · 03-18-2004, 02:14 PM

And the A's would have been able to spend more money on retaining players if they hadn't pissed so much away on Dye.

clintl · 03-18-2004, 02:47 PM

Quite frankly, the A's ownership team does not seem to have a plan to deal with their revenue problems. They want a new stadium, but they don't seem to be willing to do anything themselves to get one - it's almost like they're waiting for someone to build a stadium (preferably in the South Bay, which, coincidentally, the Giants own the territorial rights to), and invite them to move in. I really don't understand it. When Bob Lurie owned the Giants, he had new ideas all the time for stadium plans, and took several to the voters during his tenure. They all failed, but at least he worked on the problem, and tried to get something done.

Carligula · 03-18-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintl

Quite frankly, the A's ownership team does not seem to have a plan to deal with their revenue problems. They want a new stadium, but they don't seem to be willing to do anything themselves to get one - it's almost like they're waiting for someone to build a stadium (preferably in the South Bay, which, coincidentally, the Giants own the territorial rights to), and invite them to move in. I really don't understand it. When Bob Lurie owned the Giants, he had new ideas all the time for stadium plans, and took several to the voters during his tenure. They all failed, but at least he worked on the problem, and tried to get something done.

Well... the A's are one of the few teams that admits to making money (mostly due to revenue sharing), and they're very successful on the field. Maybe Schott and whoever else actually owns them (it's complicated) don't think there is a problem?

IMO Chavez was the perfect signing of the three - he's the youngest and hasn't (yet

) won an MVP to drive up his price.

clintl · 03-18-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carligula

Maybe Schott and whoever else actually owns them (it's complicated) don't think there is a problem?

If that's what they think, then they should stop complaining about the stadium.

03-18-2004, 02:10 PM	#2
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	I think it's a bit unfair to automatically characterize a small market team's failure to resign their "star" players as being "unable" to resign them. Aside from the fact that every team would take certain guys at a lesser salary level, I think a lot of what the A's have done is posturing, to some extent. I don't really think they wanted to resign Giambi, and they had ready replacements for Tejada and Isringhausen, the Koch/Foulke deal was a slam dunk (Foulke was ineffective for 2 weeks in 2 years, but still lost his closer's job and got traded in the off-season; Koch is a head-case), etc. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

03-18-2004, 02:14 PM	#3
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	And the A's would have been able to spend more money on retaining players if they hadn't pissed so much away on Dye. __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

03-18-2004, 02:47 PM	#4
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Quite frankly, the A's ownership team does not seem to have a plan to deal with their revenue problems. They want a new stadium, but they don't seem to be willing to do anything themselves to get one - it's almost like they're waiting for someone to build a stadium (preferably in the South Bay, which, coincidentally, the Giants own the territorial rights to), and invite them to move in. I really don't understand it. When Bob Lurie owned the Giants, he had new ideas all the time for stadium plans, and took several to the voters during his tenure. They all failed, but at least he worked on the problem, and tried to get something done.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)