The A’s have done more than trade 5 players from their 2011 25 man roster; they’ve slashed their projected 2012 Opening Day payroll by an estimated $12.3 million dollars. Why did the A’s make these moves now and how are they going to invest their money in 2012? The obvious answer would be that Beane traded Bailey, Gonzalez and Cahill now because they were his best trade chips and that the A’s are building its roster to have a team ready to contend with the opening of a new stadium in 2015/2016. The problem is the packages the A’s received in their recent trades don’t fit that model. Oakland received two outfielders in Josh Reddick and Collin Cowgill that are entering (respectively) their age 25 and 26 seasons in 2012. These two do not project to be much more than average MLB starters (if that) and will be in their arbitration eligible years by the time the A’s call a new stadium home. And from all accounts the A’s pressed hard to insure that these two mid-20’s outfielders were included as part of the return. Tommy Milone (I read that he supposedly prefers to be called Tommy) hopes to end up a Dallas Braden clone only with a better medical record. He’s probably no more than a #4 SP but his time table is now; after 148.1 dominant innings in AAA that featured a 9.4 K/9 and a 9.69 K/BB rate (those aren’t typos, folks) Milone needs to show what his 87 MPH fastball and junk ball repertoire can do against big league hitters.
So why did the A’s acquire 3 average-at-best prospects who need to establish themselves as big league ballplayers NOW or risk being labeled AAAA players? Beane’s stated goal is to get ready to field a contender 4 seasons down the road and these guys don’t look like they’ll do much more than be placeholders until the A’s can place “real†talent in their spots. Why not just stockpile a bunch of prospects that haven’t played much (if at all) above A-ball? Is the money saved by making these trades now instead of waiting until July when Beane could try to build a feeding frenzy among play-off hopefuls or even next offseason where barring a total collapse in performance Gio and Cahill especially would have multiple years of team control attached to their performance?
Let’s look at the new CBA and see how it might affect the A’s budgeting decisions. Starting in 2012 the minimum salary will increase from $414,000 to $480,000. A player’s service time affects how much above the league minimum they’re entitled to receive but just sticking with the base figures the new minimum salary was going to increase the A’s payroll by a minimum of $1.2 million. Oakland currently (and by current I mean as of 12/29/2011… don’t ask me what the roster will look like by 1/1/2012) has 16 players earning pre-arbitration salaries, these are the players who’ll be impacted by this wage increase. Powell has been designated for assignment but if another team doesn’t pick him up the A’s will still be on the hook for his $620,000 salary in 2012. Add Wuertz’s $250,000 buy-out and the thousands sent to AZ as part of the Cahill/Breslow trade and Oakland’s big league payroll sits at approximately $35.6 million.
In 2011 the A’s spent approximately $70 million on the big league payroll and signing bonuses for amateur talent. This article says major league sources have confirmed that the A’s lost up to $2 million last season while receiving (low end) $30 million in revenue sharing. I’m not interested in arguing exactly how accurate the numbers are regarding Oakland’s fiscal losses or the size of their MLB check; I’m not an accountant because I don’t find it interesting to see how many ways you can bounce the dollars around to see how they inflate or depress the numbers. What does interest me about those figures is how they happen to reinforce my belief that any time I try to estimate the A’s budget flexibility I need to set the target cap at $65 million. The way I see it an owner who is paying into revenue sharing is going to expect that any team receiving a check from major league baseball will match the amount dollar for dollar. So if Oakland receives a $30 million check then ownership has to kick in $30 million of their own money. That’s $60 million. If $70 million put the A’s in the red last year then meet in the middle and there’s the basis for projecting a $65 million budget to cover payroll and amateur acquisition. This means Oakland has a little over $29 million they can (and almost have to) spend to reach their projected cap. But the 2012 CBA puts new restrictions on spending for amateur talent; let’s discuss that next.
When some of the details on the new CBA came out there was a lot of complaining about the cap on amateur signing bonuses in the draft and on the IFA market. Small market teams need to be able to spend their money in the pursuit of cheap young talent… or so the argument goes. I agree that acquiring amateur talent is important but as I argued here there have been large market/large revenue teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, Nationals and Yankees at or near the front of the pack when it comes to signing bonus expenditures. The Red Sox had a big league payroll over $160 million in 2011 and have spent on average almost $9 million a year in the draft since 2006. Simply allowing the A’s to spend $12-15 million a year in the draft wasn’t going to do enough to make up the gap. So I see the cap as a positive for the A’s as they try to set up for the future; it shields them from large market excess.
The new draft rules are strict. No more big league contracts to draftees and each team will be allotted a specified signing budget based on MLB assigned values for every pick in the first 10 rounds. Teams don’t have to worry about repercussions for paying more than the assigned value on an individual pick but they will face progressively harsher penalties if they spend beyond their allowed budget. So if a team has a $6 million budget they can drop $5 million on one draft pick but they’ll only have $1 million to sign all their other draft picks in the first 10 rounds. And signing your draft picks in the first 10 rounds is important: if you don’t sign one of your picks in the first 10 rounds you lose that bonus allotment from your signing budget.  All draft picks in Rounds 11-40 will have a $100,000 cap with any moneys spent above $100,000 going against the signing budget. If a team spends up to 5% beyond their allotted budget they will be taxed 75% on the overage with the money being distributed similar to the revenue sharing plan. Spend 5-10% more and it’s the same tax rate plus you lose your first round pick in next year’s draft. 10-15% bumps the tax to 100% of the overage and the loss of your first and second round picks in next year’s draft. Anything over 15% costs you the 100% tax and your first round picks in the next two drafts.
So what can the A’s do in the 2012 draft?
Draft spots aren’t cemented yet because there are still free agents to be signed and I haven’t seen a detailed chart showing what the assigned values are for next year’s picks; but based on the A’s current projected draft picks and using MLB’s slot recommendations from 2011 (which were the same as their recommendations from 2010) I’ve got an approximation of what the A’s 2012 assigned signing budget will look like.
| Pick | Millions |
| #11 | 1.791 |
| #34 | .918 |
| #47 | .7398 |
| #63 | .5796 |
| #75 | .4851 |
| #106 | .2997 |
| #139 | .189 |
| #169 | .144 |
| #199 | .150 |
| #229 | .150 |
| #259 | .150 |
| #289 | .150 |
| #319 | .150 |
| Total | 5.8962 |
Why the increase between pick #169 and #199? In the past MLB has recommended a slot figure of roughly $150K for every pick after Round 5. That means there aren’t any charts showing individual slot recommendations for Rounds 6-10 and since I haven’t heard of that rule o’ thumb changing I’m using the old standard to make this estimate. The cap for picks after Round 10 has been set, though. Rounds 11-40 allow for an additional $3 million (30 picks x $100K) to be spent without tripping any penalties although it is doubtful any team will find 30 draft picks they want/need to sign for the full $100K each time. So the A’s could potentially spend $8.896 million on the 2012 draft, rounded down to insure that I don’t cross the 5% threshold on the next part.
Oakland’s specified signing budget (based on the above draft picks) will be ~$5.896 million. A 5% overage would be $294,800. The 75% tax on that overage would be $221,100. We have to stay ahead of the curve and factor the taxes into the A’s budget to see if going beyond the assigned budget is viable.
There is also a new signing cap on International Free Agents that goes into effect next July. (It should be noted, this cap does not impact Japanese players.) In 2012 all teams will be assigned a $2.9 million budget. The penalties are again split at the 5%, 5-10%, 10-15% and beyond 15%. Since there are no draft picks to lose the punishment is a combination of taxes on the overage and the loss of the right to sign players above a certain dollar amount. Read here for a better explanation. So the A’s are allowed to spend $2.9 million next July. The 5% overage would be $145,000. The 75% tax on that overage would be $108,750 which I’ll round up to save myself future decimal places.
| Allocation | Millions |
| Payroll | 35.6 |
| Draft-Assigned | 8.896 |
| Draft-Overage | .2948 |
| Draft-Taxes | .2211 |
| IFA-Allowed | 2.9 |
| IFA-Overage | .145 |
| IFA-Taxes | .109 |
| Total Expenditures | 48.1659 |
There’s an approximately $17 million gap between what the A’s can spend on their big league payroll and acquisition of amateur talent and what I’ve projected they should have budgeted for the season. How are they going to make up that difference if in fact they’re going to do so at all?
Ownership could pocket the money, although I suspect that would cause some problems in MLB circles and most definitely piss off informed A’s fans. They could spend it on veteran free agents, although I think the only player that made any kind of sense for that level of expenditure was Carlos Beltran and he’s already signed with St. Louis. This article says that the A’s are looking to take advantage on one of the few remaining loopholes in the new CBA: the 7 month gap between now and when the new restrictions on IFA signings kick in.  Jorge Soler is a 19 year old Cuban exile who has the speed to play CF but projects to ultimately move to RF. He’s considered a better prospect than current Texas Rangers farm hand Leonys Martin, who signed a 5 year deal worth $15.5 million including a $5 million bonus. Soler is expected to cost more than $20 million to sign; I suggest blowing that figure out of the water. Offer a 6 year, $30.5 million contract to Soler that includes a $12.5 million signing bonus and $3 million a season. Is he worth that much? I’ve got no idea but it’s the most efficient use of the A’s remaining cash that I see. It also has the potential to jack up the price for Yoenis Cespedes, whom the A’s couldn’t afford at his current asking price anyways. Spiteful?
You betcha!
| Allocation | Millions |
| Payroll | 35.6 |
| Draft Total | 9.412 |
| IFA Total 2012 | 3.154 |
| Jorge Soler 2012 | 15.5 |
| Total | 63.666 |
| Grover Projection | 65.0 |
Is this the fiscal plan the Oakland A’s will follow for the 2012 season? I don’t know. Is it a feasible plan based on a $65 million budget? Yes, it is. So why did the A’s make it a point to acquire 3 average-at-best prospects who need to establish themselves as big league ballplayers NOW or risk being labeled AAAA players? Because the cost of acquiring veterans who would project to match a similar level of production would likely push the A’s over their budget. Why pay $1.5 million for a couple Wins when you could pay $500K? There’s also a greater than zero chance that one of the inexperienced guys could exceed expectations and produce at a greater than average level, creating even more value for the organization. It’s not a lot to hang your hat on but if it allows the A’s to fully invest their resources into amateur acquisition over the next 6 months then Reddick, Milone and Cowgill are a worthwhile chance to take.
That sure was thorough and enlightening.
I like the idea of getting Soler and at the same time driving up the price that somebody else over-overpays for Cespedes.
Honestly the idea of forcing an overpay for Cespedes I think is a folly. Basically, in the medium run the increase in signing price will drive up the price of the other talent that the A’s are actually trying to sign. The A’s need a cheap talent pipeline. After the IFA there really aren’t any left.
You might be right, but I’m bitter and I want Cespedes to be an overpaid flop.
Sure. Driving up the price on Cespedes (if it even worked) would drive up the price on any other Cuban exile the A’s were interested in signing.
But the cross-the-board 2.9 million cap is going to slam the Latin America market and do more to slow prices than Cespedes’ price increase could to increase them.
My understanding is Cubans are excluded as are the Japanese.
First exclusion, then internment.
Great as always g…
Excellent.
From Dusk ’til Dawn was my introduction to Salma. I lof that movie.
Same here. Wasn’t a huge fan of the movie. But I remember sitting there with Mrs. Aces and both of us saying “WHO THE FK IS THE SMOKIN HOT CHICK?”
Now that I say that though I probably should give it a rewatch. I saw it and have never watched it through again. I find myself often needing time with certain films, and it always seemed to be a film I should lof.
This was very thorough and awesome.
I am still not sure of the answers to these questions though.
I’ve never heard a good answer either. The only thing I’ve heard is that they can be re-traded after they establish themselves, but Ryan Sweeney seems like a good comp for them and he wasn’t worth much in trade. I’m just not seeing it.
A stronger conclusion is warranted.
I really need a FKing editor when I do this stuff, my brain just ain’t what it used to be.
It’s nice to see you around these parts, WC.
My basic assumption is that great players are usually traded for prospects who could be great players but most likely turn out to be average. And average players are usually traded for prospects who could be average but most likely turn out to be well below.
So I don’t really see the point of getting guys like Reddick and Cowgill to “establish their value” and trade them again. If that’s how we’ll set up the foundation for the likely necessary Next Rebuild, I see it leading to just as much failure as if we gambled on high upside guys and lost.
Post updated.
Thanks LC!
Is it possible that Bailey’s injury future is more bleak than the public would guess it is?
Sure but if he’s worth Reddick who’s comparable in value to a B/B- prospect why couldn’t they insist on a younger B/B- prospect with more upside. Red Sox had Cecchini and Jacobs. I would have forewent Head (waits for laughter to subside) to get one of them instead of Reddick.
I think if you get Head, Reddick is a given.
ASVD
In case anybody is wondering what ASVD means, it’s “Annika Sorenstam Venereal Disease,” or “golf clap.”
Yeah. I should have referred back to that question in the conclusion.
Because it would cost the A’s more to sign vets to give the same projected performance. At least with the young guys you don’t have to sign a Cody Ross type for 2 years and a couple million, plus there’s abetter than zero chance that maybe the new guys exceed expectations. Milone doesn’t have great stuff but FK me if his performance in the upper minors doesn’t demand a chance in the Show.
I am not sure of how much value I place on getting 2-3 WAR performances out of those spots (“same projected performance”) next year and playing the upside lottery with Cowgill and Reddick.
I would rather sign a replacement level vet for the minimum and play the upside lottery with actual upside guys acquired in lieu of Reddick, etc.
‘Tis an option.
Ya me too. I wouldn’t have signed Cody Ross. I’d be satisfied with whomever was left after the music stopped in February….even Gabe Gross.
Let me ask this.
Have the A’s, at this point, earned the benefit o’ doubt when it comes to a pitching prospect that was the 4th piece in a trade? Sure, Oakland could have (in theory) swapped one B- prospect in Milone for another B- prospect in Destin Hood. But they’ve been pretty good finding productive arms and if they feel like milone can do much better than some like Law are expecting then shouldn’t they get some slack?
I can’t paint the same picture with Cowgill and Reddick but with Milone, I think it’s a consideration.
Who would you use as a comp for Milone that the A’s have traded for? Eveland? Smith? Unless you think Milone has a better chance of being a healthy Dallas Braden than Hood has of being….say Hunter Pence, it’s not a good decision.
Stuff wise, maybe Smith. But his minor league numbers are way better than Smith’s ever were.
I did a bit of research to try to answer that question (“Have the A’s, at this point, earned the benefit o’ doubt…”).
These are all the pitchers since the Hudson/Mulder trades who could reasonably be considered to be secondary pieces in the trades that brought them over:
Juan Cruz, Kiko Calero, Jay Witasick, Julio Manon, Kristian Bell, Greg Smith, Dana Eveland, Jamie Richmond, Josh Outman, Clay Mortenson, Trystan Magnuson, Bruce Billings, Jordan Norberto, Ryan Cook, Tom Milone, Raul Alcantara
Judging from these names, I would say that the A’s have not earned any benefit o’ doubt when it comes to pitchers who are the secondary pieces in trades. But of course, the caveat is that Milone has outstanding minor league numbers, as you’ve noted, which are far and away better than those of most of the guys listed.
I also skimmed through and found many unremarkable waiver wire pitchers who were picked up by the A’s; of course, such is to be expected as that is the nature of waiver wire pick ups. But since it’s so easy to remember the successes of the obscurely acquired Moscoso and McCarthy, I think we delude ourselves in believing that the A’s have some special ability to get quality pitching out of thin air. May we never forget the Brad Halseys, Juan Dominguezes, and Ross Wolfs of the world.
But the success of Braden, McCarthy and Moscoso plus the outstanding minor league numbers of Milone are good signs, no? Plus if you go back further than 2005 you get Cory Lidle, Justin Duchscherer, Gil Heredia, Kirk Saarloos, and Aaron Harang who did not have great stuff, did not cost much in trade and still were worthwhile acquisitions. Less successful but still not horrendous were Joe Kennedy, Mark Redman and Chad Gaudin. The really bad acquistions were Esteban Loaiza, Ben Sheets and Sean Gallagher, and they were expensive. I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, which is why it would make more sense to compare Milone with groups other than “secondary pieces acquired in trades” group. For example, comparing him with pitchers with bad stuff but good numbers who the A’s have acquired/drafted sounds intriguing.
Not that I would ask you or anyone else to do it, but wouldn’t you have to really look at what success other teams have had to actually say if they can get benefit of the doubt?
My first thought is with you appear to be saying- that we remember the few times the bets paid off, etc while leaving all the others as “that’s what you would expect” and forgetting them. But when I think of other teams, I can think of very few times a pitcher just got pulled off the “who is he?” pile and turned respectable. I assume though that is because I don’t pay enough attention to them..
Brett Tomko!!!! Boooooooooof!!!!!!!!!
And they were both a lot better than anyone had any right to expect. Bad, sure, but I was expecting excreble
I don’t disagree. I was just adding names to the conversation.
Thats what my piece is going to cover.
I posted a stronger answer to the question. Might steal a little of your thunder.
Does it have a happy ending?
Well, we did get Head.
Hi Im DFA have we met before?
I’m Bloom. I like…um…huh.
I guess I don’t like much of anything these days.
Me neither. We have soooo much in common. Mainly not liking much of anything these days. We should be friends.
What is this… friend… concept?
I’m… not entirely… sure.
I think the most likely explanation is that the A’s truly believe Cowgill, Reddick, and Milone to be better than Sickels and the prospecting community in general. It just doesn’t make any sense otherwise. I’m not sure that the A’s deserve the benefit of the doubt on prospect evaluation, but nevertheless it seems clear to me from various reports surrounding the trades that they targeted those players in particular. Since I generally don’t think baseball teams make decisions for no reason at all, I have to think that they truly believe those players to be particularly good.
The problem though, and Ill elaborate more on Monday, is that the A’s aren’t paying their below value rates, they are paying market value for the player that they have a hunch is better than the market.
I think I know where you’re going with this and I’m not sure it applies to Milone.
But I’ll find out more on Monday, I’m sure.
Honestly I have little problem with the Gio trade. Milone was clearly the last piece of the deal and there wasn’t really anyone better to fill that position. I would have done the Gio trade if I was the GM, though I would have tried to swap out Noris.
Norris for… Hood?
Yeah, I can see that.
its really quibbles.
Personal preference, even.
totally. For instance, I love Norris.
Why?
roundhouse kicks.
Thanks, and go As.
I’m in a motel in Crescent City and my internet is terrible and not letting me look up facts, but hopefully I’ll remember to come back to this later and make my argument.
Note to self.
Crescent City if bereft of facts.
But full of Tsunami Zone Warning signs
In the meantime, here’s something I said in a thread in the Old World that I had open in a tab already:
Donaldson has burned me enough on the MiLB BABIP that im suspicious of the BABIP has to improve argument
I’m not saying it “has to improve,” I actually am in the same boat that I’ve really been starting to get the impression that minor league BABIPs should be taken into account as a skill more than I’ve thought in the past. But that said, he put up a wRC+ of 127 with the bad BABIP. Seeing as his BABIP in ’08 was .321, in ’09 was .337, and in ’10 was .296, I’m willing to assume it’s not unlikely that he’ll improve on a .251.
Thats fair. But also wrc of 127 isn’t that great for a COFer in his second run at AAA
Einstein’s talking about Derek Norris.
Oh shit… sorry didn’t follow the convo well.
good point, EINSTEIN.
Heh.
That sounds true. Obviously I’ll have much more to respond to when I see your post, which I’m looking forward to, but my guess is that they tipped their hand. If they went into negotiations and said “we want Reddick!” that gives up their ability to get him at a lower price. It could just be the way it seems when filtered through multiple media filters, but that’s a guess.
You’re probably right and that’s what I’m afraid of. Someone (I think NSJ) once presented information showing just how limited and underfunded the A’s scouting resources are. And there are thousands upon thousands of players in the minors. Do they really have far more extensive scouting reports on these players than the professional publications and prospecting community? Have they really scouted Tom Milone prolifically months in advance, knowing that they might be trading Gio Gonzalez for him? Or they did simply look up his K/BB ratio on the internetz, like any of us amateur fools could do, and decided he was a guy worth trading for?
My nagging feeling is that the latter is closer to reality than the others.
I’m sure they do more than the latter, since I know at least some teams have dozens of statguys and statguys’ interns and graphguys and that sort of thing, there’s no way that the A’s just go on Fangraphs and pick someone. But I would love to know the details of the answer to that question.
We need to get a spy on the inside.
I’m not doing anything from the Econolodge in Crescent City.
If only we knew someone with privileged access to a guaranteed 100% reliable honest-as-the-day-is-long high-level insider.
banned
NOT A BAN!
You can begin to comment again after a simple email
and a phone call
then you must bring us A SHUBBERY!
How can you tell me I have been banned if you can’t tell me what it is?
Then, you must cut down the mightiest troll on the blog … with … A HERRING!
That reminds me. I need to finish watching Crazy Heart.
Lof.
Also, this just became my sig-line in the OC.
it’s funny-after I thought of this I kept picturing different parts of the movie falling into the OC discussion:
Toonces as Sir Robin bravely turning tail for the first 3 days of the discussion.
Toonces proudly announcing we are all Britons and he is our king.
That guy who I dont remember who has been talking about his ban years ago saying “they turned me into a newt…”
So now I have to go watch again.
awesome. wp, 5aces!
Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
Hey! That’s my job!
Banned.
For slacking on the job!
My login name here is “admin”. Yours is now “”.
Hopefully they have Sickles’ book too.
Hmmm….that costs like $25 bucks no? Maybe after the San Jose move.
gp.
Are we assuming none of that overflow money isn’t going towards a new stadium? We don’t know much about their financing plan so it’s conceivable they might need to cut expenses for a few years heading into the stadium in order to put money into it.
This post is tremendous. Thanks grover.
Any guesstimate on how long Soler would need in the minors? I love your plan, but paying a dude $3 million per year on top of a $12.5 million signing bonus to ride the buses in the Cal League would be pretty…interesting.
The 6 year plan for Soler presumes he’s not going to be ready until mid-2014. That would then cover his first 3 years of pre-arbitration goodness, thus offering a carrot to Soler’s side at being able to take full advantage of arbitration.
Will Soler be ready (if ever) by that time frame? No idea.
Thanks for clearing up some of my questions regarding the drat/IFA allotments. Soler would be a great prize and would actually make sense given the rebuild. The possibilities are truly endless with a nickname of Soler Power.
Good stuff, grover.
Does the same rule for not offering ML contracts to draftees apply to IFA? If not, how are the caps supposed to work?
That’s a great question. No one has stated that to be the case; there has a been a note that Japanese professionals are not subject to the IFA cap. So few Latin American players are signed to ML contracts to begin with, Cespedes will be an obvious exception, that I don’t know if any specific language has been included. Most of the players signed out of Venezuela or the DR are 16, maybe 17 years old. They’d have to be awfully freaking good for a major league club to risk signing a 16 year old to a big league contract and the 40 man roster.
I think ultimately, in the case of Cuban exiles, their agents/advisors will have them establish residency in the US and enter the draft if they want to try and guarantee their clients early millions. Some have commented that Soler wouldv’e been a Top 5 pick if he had been in the 2011 draft. Slot for the 5th pick was $2.52 million. It would be easier for a team to commit $2.5 million out of their $6-7 million draft allotment then to spend the same out of their $2.9 million IFA money.
Very nice. Don’t see fear of outrage from MLB or watchful A’s fans stopping ownership from pocketing any unallocated revenue, though; it’s never stopped them before. dmoas might be right, that any surplus cash might go into stadium planning…not so much actual capital costs, but covering the new annual debt service payment, a la the SFGs.
Great read grover. I read that gap in time before the IFA restrictions kick in and was thinking the same thing about a loophole.
Question is, how many other teams are thinking the same thing – overspend on IFA while you still can?
It is a good time to be Soler or Cespedes.
Comment approved, and welcome to FK!
A 5-Salma post:
oh my.
Thanks, and go As.
Does feed the imagination.
also Katy Perry is single..
RAWR
Thanks, and go As.
And it’s Friday night too.
Wait what?
Perhaps someone should do a side-by-side photo comparison…
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/02/07/0207-katy-perry-splash-credit.jpg
enjoy.
Thanks, and go As.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Too bad her music is shit.
Some of the lyrics are hilarious though.
Thanks, and go As.
Katy Perry rocks.
Women aren’t there to listen to.
Yeah, Katy’s gonna love you.
Whatever, ******.
sorry g. Not for you
ahem.
Thanks, and go As.
so TCA mailed you and wanted to meet you in person, huh?
Yes. Check your email.
As has become normal with him, he’s withheld information and it’s got me FKing pissed off, because now I have to defend myself via proxy.
Thanks, and go As.
check my e-mail or what?!
don´t worry, it´s for the greater cause and this proxy is glad to be there for you
Can I please be in the loop on this?
I don’t mind getting a little bloody…
go to OC
There now.
You might wanna take over, buddy. I´ll try to get some sleep, although TCA´s appearance will make me dream of communist manifestos from an even older country
Sorry — I saw you post and assumed it was a reasonable hour there, but I was too lazy to actually check and see.
Get some sleep.
Thanks, and go As.
I´m only up because I couldn´t sleep and laying in bed and trying to sleep is more tiring than getting up and writing. Especially when our 4yr old niece is kicking and farting in her sleep, God bless her adorable soul.
Don´t be sorry one bit. I am thankful to you, for realizing things that I probably should have realized long time ago.
I feel bad, actually. As much as I like posting and being sarcastic and snarky and generally just putzing about online, I really don’t like being the catalyst for whatever the hell it is that’s happening now.
Thanks, and go As.
Mike, call him. When he picks up. Say “Fuck you.” then hang up. Let us know, then someone can report to the peanut gallery that you did, in fact, call him. If he’s true to his word, he’ll unban you.
Go sleep.
Is that hotmail address valid?
Thanks, and go As.
It is.
Sending now.
Thanks, and go As.
Received.
Gee. I didn’t know you could use the interwebs this way.
It’s new.
Thanks, and go As.
I’d tickle her Elmos.
Yep.
The website of the local fishwrap is presently featuring “Katy Perry’s Christmas Bikini” as its most popular video (not actually a video but it’ll do).
That’s just creepy.
And leaves nothing to the imagination.
oh, I imagine plenty
Thanks, and go As.
ok, how do i fix the height?
Just add height=”200″ (or similar – that’s a reasonable size though) in the image link.
For Katy, that’s reasonable for like.. ONE boob.
Thanks, and go As.
HGH
How does this payroll amoutn jibe with various rebuilding teams.
Are we agreed that MLB doesn’t set a floor or penalize revenue sharing receiptiants?
The “pre-Hanley Ramirez extension” Marlins have got to be the biggest example of that phenomenon, right? I’m not sure where to look, but weren’t they basically the only team that received more $ via revenue sharing than they actually spent on the team payroll for a season?
What happened to them?
Thanks, and go As.
They got a talking to. Shortly thereafter they signed Josh Johnson to an extension.
Basically there really isn’t one as long as its occasional and justified by the contention cycle.
Aren’t the A’s going to have to make some other kind of move, like signing a free agent or something, even if it is just some bullshit move like the signing of Ben Sheets. I just dont see how MLB or the players union is going to let them have like a 30 million dollar payroll.
It depends on how much money they will get from revenue sharing, I think.
Thanks, and go As.
The lowest payroll in baseball last year was the Royals with just over 36 Million dollars…so I guess if our payroll is around 36 or 37 million dollars they cant really bitch….
yeah. I’m pretty sure that like the Marlins in 06 probably got some shit with a $15M payroll but they received $33M in revenue sharing.
Thanks, and go As.
Campaign contributions don’t just pay themselves you know.
The only thing that would make sense outside of Soler/Cespedes would be giving Madson a 2-3y deal and trading him in July.
I could see Madson coming into play if Soler goes elsewhere and the A’s trade away Balfour.
I could also see DFA’s head explode if the A’s actually did sign Madson.
Even more so than other free agents, Madson might be inclined to turn down Oakland and take less money elsewhere. When your future earnings depend on racking up saves, the 2012 A’s just don’t look like an attractive destination.
Why? We’ll win 50 games, and never score more than 4 runs in any of them. We’ll have no complete games, so he could rack up 47 saves with no problem.
Matt Harvey saved 45 games for the 64 win Marlins in their inaugural season. Low win totals don’t necessarily lead to low save totals for the team’s closer. A year in Oakland could help Madson show he can pitch in the “tougher” league.
Its impressive that he still is considered such a good prospect with the Mets all these years later.
You’re thinking of Harvey Korman
Harvey Kietel
Harvey Bristol Cream
Given the rhyming slang, Bristol Cream always seemed like a dangerous (or inspired) name for a sherry.
I think Im missing a joke
grover meant Bryan Harvey
Huh.
Guess you really are the last to know when senility begins.
Try Tim Conway.
I think you mean Lyle Waggoner
It would…. A one year deal Id be down with.
Wouldn’t a 2-year deal (or better yet a 1 + team option) make him more valuable at the deadline? Unless his arm falls off, of course.
Presumably he’d prefer a 1-year deal though, and the Coliseum’s pitcher-friendly confines could be an enticement even if the save chances will be slim.
Not really? If a team’s internal closer is hurt they might not want to commit to the extra salary. 1 plus option would be perferable.
If an option is involved I imagine it would have to be mutual. That way if next offseason’s market is light on closers he could take off and cash in.
Right. Which is why I think a 1 year deal would be best.
With the death of the redevelopment agencies, Lew’s really stretching …
that dude is just nuts.
DIdn’t the US make $1000 bills? I seem to remember staning in front of a million dollars at Binions Horseshe. I thought they were thousand dollar bills
There are actually $10,000 dollar bills too. But nothing bigger than $100 has been printed since the 60’s.
Nixon stopped them in 1969.
Heard about that on NPR.
Added fuel to my “people are stupid” theory that Sal hates.
so who’s gotten a threatening email from ****? since i still don’t have a valid email address is my OLD WORLD profile, i’m waiting to be banned over there too.
heh.
good to see you brother. happy new year.
you too… although I don’t exactly know how “brotherly” I’m gonna look at the next FK tailgate.
sorry, that was not kosher of me. i lof you no matter what
Aw… thanks sweetie.
Kosher? You gonna use a mohel, spwc?
No, was going to do it in a Tospihal.
I did a long time ago, but obviously not anymore. I have a if you want to kiss the ring you can come back edict.
It would be one thing if the ring were on his hand, but what he’s asking for is something else entirely…
Hee
HEY BLOOMIE. SHE LOFS ME BACK!!!!
Thanks, and go As.
she came to your defense big time bro
That’s fantastic.
it really is.
yeah, Bloomie knows.
Pimp
You know, the Goodyear blimp told me this last night.
It was a pretty good day yesterday.
The front page of BRef has some nice tables of currently committed and expected 2012 payrolls for each team (A’s: $56.2M), with the footnoted caveat
The A’s and Rays currently each have 8 players under contract, for $23M & $26M respectively. Could we do a wholesale swap please?
Whoo hoo! We’re gonna (maybe barely) outspend the Pirates!
Get crackin’ on that Suzuki trade, Billy.
and the rays. sad face
They still have Gio, Bailey, Breslow, and Sweeney listed among our arb-eligible players. (Cahill also listed, but it doesn’t look like his salary is being included).
And Devine won’t make anywhere near the arb-3 average of $5.25 M.
So their estimate is high by something like $15 million.
Tampa Bay’s number is truly amazing.
That Longoria contract is unbelievable … with 2 years still to go its going to end up being about $0.5M/WAR!
Yeah, but they’re pretty fucked. They’re in the same piss poor revenue situation we’re in while winning and zero hope for a new stadium in the near future. At best they’ve got a few more years before their house of cards gets too expensive and they max out. They’re somewhere between our ’04 and ’06.
not with their pipeline and ability to make outstanding trades.
I remember when we thought we had a pipeline and an ability to make outstanding trades
Fuck off!
/runs away crying
That pipeline was built on years of sucking while that’s continued based on a good drafting, it won’t take much to throw it off. The better they are at trading, the more likely other GMs will realize it and the harder that will be. They’ll need to be able to do it on a very tight budget, the have next to know margin of error in building their team. It’s not a sustainable model for success. They’ll be fine for another couple of years, but you’re going to see them get progressively worse.