The A's have gone in four years from The Poor Man's Yankees to The Poor Man's Braves, a team trying to hide October with April through September.

That is a really nice turn of phrase. I think the mid-'90s Braves are a very good comparison for these A's (payroll notwithstanding): three big starters, a couple of big bats, and question marks at closer and in the everyday lineup. Change "Ellis" to "Lemke" on the back of the 2B's jersey and you wouldn't be far off the Mark. Mind you, the A's will need to lose a lot more playoff series before they'll rival Atlanta, and more to the point, they need to get to a World Series before they can talk about losing one of those.

I'm not sure what ails the A's. Short series do involve a great deal of luck, and we all know the danger of small sample sizes. But 0-9 in nine series-clinching games? That's stretching it to call it bad karma. The series turner was of course Game Three, when Oakland could have ended it all and instead played terribly. The lack of a killer instinct has taken down better teams in more sports than baseball's A's. But who's to blame? You can't lay this one on Art Howe or Billy Koch or either Giambi brother; next year, they won't have Miguel Tejada to kick around for his utterly brutal playoff performance. Maybe Billy needs to think about blowing up this collection and starting over; I imagine this crew is pretty close to being proactively psyched out of future playoff series. He also needs to purge the small-market martyr thing from his system; it keeps slipping out at bad moments (even JP is prone to this now and then).

I don't pay too much attention to heat-of-the-moment comments and gestures; from what I understand, Lowe was doing some sort of wrestling maneuver anyway (not that I would have the faintest clue). The players will forget it soon enough; it's mostly adrenaline and pride talking. I didn't much buy the Alomar-trumps-Eckersley taunting war in 1992, either. But I will say this: pointing into the dugout after his three-run bomb was a pretty juvenile move by Manny Ramirez. That's the sort of thing I'd expect from a Reggie Miller. I daresay Manny can expect a fastball in his ribs early next year.

All that said, I'll admit I was rooting for the Red Sox this series. Nothing at all against Oakland, but I wanted to see a Yanks-Sox ALCS, and I still hold out some hope for a Cubs-Red Sox World Series. And hey, if Boston does win the World Series, the cataclysms will be so great that the AL East could be tuned upside down (Boston gets self-satisfied and lazy, Steinbrenner goes nuts ansd fires all his good people. It could happen.)

Just to underscore the absurdity of blaming payroll for the inability to win a playoff series, let's note the way the Florida Marlins closed out a 100-win team, while having a payroll roughly equal to the Athletics.

I beg to differ about the closer being a question mark. Bradford had a great series and Foulke might be the best (or second best) relief pitcher in the American League.

I'll second Robert's comment about the A's closer. I think that Foulke was excellent this year and in this series. In my opinion, he had trouble in game 4 because he had to throw 50+ pitches in game 1 and then the very next day had to throw 20+ pitches. Oakland's problem with their bullpen was not the closer, but rather, that the pen only really went 2 deep. In my view, one of the real advantages a team can have in the playoffs in a close short series is a deep bullpen. This sounds crazy (in a short series you should need fewer pitchers). When there are a number of tight games filled with high leverage situations for a bullpen you need to go more than 2 deep.

Fair enough. My comments about the closer situation were tied less to this year's Oakland bullpen, which has been superb (Beane should have been indicted for the Foulke trade), but rather the A's closing situation over the last few years, which has included guys like Billy Koch, Jason Isringhausen and even Billy Taylor, pitchers who are going to give you a coronary or two when they take the mound in the ninth inning. The Braves also had difficulty finding a reliable closer who could have helped nail down numerous key games in the '90s. Or, put differently: if Mariano Rivera had pitched for Atlanta, would it be the Braves or the Yankees with all the rings right now? It's not a perfect comparison, though, and Foulke is certainly the real deal right now; too bad Oakland probably won't be able to keep him long-term.

Isringhausen was rock solid in his playoff appearances for the A's. I'll give you Koch. Taylor was long gone by 2000, the A's first playoff appearance since the Bash Brothers.

"He also needs to purge the small-market martyr thing from his system; it keeps slipping out at bad moments (even JP is prone to this now and then)."

Dare I say a wee bit more than "now and then."

Some us could hear that mantra all season long. For sure the fans will grow weary of it.

Win and they will come.

I truly feel sorry for the A's fans on this one. Wouldn't have been sorry for the Sox at all. After all they relish it.

Thanks for the links Gitz.

I'll second Robert's comment about the A's closer. I think that Foulke was excellent this year and in this series. In my opinion, he had trouble in game 4 because he had to throw 50+ pitches in game 1 and then the very next day had to throw 20+ pitches.


There was no reason to bring Foulke into game 2. There were plenty of guys in the Oakland pen who were capable of protecting a 4 run lead. The damage may have been done in game 1, but Macha exacerbated it by going to Foulke again when he didn't need to.


Oakland's problem with their bullpen was not the closer, but rather, that the pen only really went 2 deep. In my view, one of the real advantages a team can have in the playoffs in a close short series is a deep bullpen. This sounds crazy (in a short series you should need fewer pitchers). When there are a number of tight games filled with high leverage situations for a bullpen you need to go more than 2 deep.


Sure deeper than 2 would be good. But carrying 12 pitchers, like the Giants did, would have been a mistake as well. If they had someone to pinch-run for Snow, they would have tied up game 4 on Hammonds' single.

However, it was how the bullpen was used, not constructed, that ultimately did in the A's.

John Halama and Jim Mecir are perfectly decent relievers, but Macha refused to go to them in tight situations. Even Chad Harville is good enough against righties to warrant using him for a couple batters to take some pressure off the big two (three, if you count Rincon, who was ok as long as he wasn't pitching to Todd Walker).

I'm not so sure about Rincon; saying he was okay while not pitching to Walker is like saying Oakland's base running was fine except for Tejada and Byrnes. I wonder what Rincon's numbers are like in tight situations. I am from Cleveland, and I always had the impression that he was okay in low-tension jobs, but, gave away runners in scoring position from other relievers, gave up key hits, etc.

My main point is to wonder whether Oakland wouldn't be better served if they had some (one or two) veterans from the wars on their team to get in the face of some of the seemingly-playoff-timid players like Tejada and Chavez. Dye doesn't count, he doesn't have the presence of, say, a Paul O'Neill. What do you think?

John

My main point is to wonder whether Oakland wouldn't be better served if they had some (one or two) veterans from the wars on their team to get in the face of some of the seemingly-playoff-timid players like Tejada and Chavez. Dye doesn't count, he doesn't have the presence of, say, a Paul O'Neill. What do you think?

I don't think Chavez or Tejada are lacking in drive or passion, so I don't think a red ass rah-rah type like O'Neill would have helped them much (in fact, he might have made things worse). What they did appear to be lacking in was focus. They both had a terrible series at the plate, and a lot of it seemed to stem from being impatient and excitable.

With that in mind, what the team really could have used was an elder statesman type guy who can lead by example. Someone with some patience and power that is not all that excitable. Rafael Palmeiro and Edgar Martinez immediately spring to mind.

Whether or not Beane and Ricciardi enjoy the "martyr" role, they are handcuffed. O'Neill types and Raffy/Edgar types command big bucks, so you simply can't afford them if you've made any costly mistakes, or inherited any $18 million contracts. The millions they've sunk into Dye and Long is why the A's may be lacking veteran leadership.

Win and they will come.

True enough, Lefty. If only "Spend and you will win" came with a money-back guarantee. Would Beane be certain to win with a $90 million payroll? Not this year, with two-thirds of his aces limping through October. Would the Jays be in the thick of the 2004 pennant race if they spent twice as much? Maybe, unless Doc developed a blister or Vernon twisted an ankle on a seam in that decrepit turf.

Even if you do win once, the cost of fiscal irresponsibility can cripple a franchise for years. Exactly how are the D-Backs going to remain competitive while paying all that deferred money to guys who have declined or retired?

It may be the fate of Jays fans to endure the same tantalizing run of success as the A's have had, complete with near-misses in the playoffs. Or J.P. might avoid spending $10 million on mediocre outfielders, guess right on a free agent pitcher or two, reap the benefits of the much deeper farm system, make more smart trades, and have the stars align properly one of these years. Then revenue will increase, and presumably, so will the budget.

On the subject of fiscal irresponsibility, can some one comment about the Marlins? As a lifelong Tribe fan, the Fishies' 1997 feat of buying a champioinship and then dissassembling the roster seemed particularly galling. But, especially since I pay more attention the the AL than the NL, their resurrection is an intriguing story. So-called small market teams generally can't stay atop their divisions several years running, given, but what have the Marlins done to get back to the threshold so soon? If they were to win it again, that would make them the next-most successful team behind the Yanks since 1995 (post-strike).

"True enough, Lefty. If only "Spend and you will win" came with a money-back guarantee."

Right you are coach. It truly is the age old chicken and egg question. It certainly helps to catch lightning in a bottle. The Marlins are a half decent example of that. For most of the season they were averaging 16,000 odd fans until the stretch drive and have been sold out ever since.

I think Mike Wilner touches on the fans and winning team issue. I believe he's right.

For sure the Jays have to excercise fiscal responsibility but, for sure they have to put enough on the field so that fans in T.O. and coast to coast actually care to show up or tune in to watch the Jays and all the adverts which are also Rogers revenue.

Every team makes some unwise contract decisions which can be called--in hind sight--fiscally irresponsible. You have to manage those decisions on a knifes edge sometimes. The winners are those who make the best decisions in the marketplace with all the available information at hand. Some of the contracts frequently mentioned are those which were signed in a different financial environment which applied to the major leagues just three short years ago. Most if not all contracts signed for a five yr. period were irresponsible, but if you wanted a player, any player for a you started at the moon and went up from there.

what have the Marlins done to get back to the threshold so soon?

In no particular order, brilliant trades, Pudge Rodriguez, and a young, cheap pitching staff. They dumped Ryan Dempster (who was just a little healthier than Mike Sirotka) to the Reds for the improving Juan Encarnacion. They moved Matt Clement and Antonio Alfonseca ($4 MM each) to the Cubs in the deal that brought them Dontrelle Willis. Trading $6,500,000 Preston Wilson for $1,000,000 Juan Pierre may have changed their style, but not their productivity. When you consider they also forced the Rockies to take $7 MM albatross Charles Johnson off their hands and how Ivan has picked up the offensive slack, that move was genius.

Mark Redman (who makes about $2.1 MM) was a steal; the Tigers are idiots. Carl Pavano makes $1.5 MM, Brad Penny and Josh Beckett are also under two million. A.J. Burnett was the highest-salaried starter at $2.5 MM before he broke down, but fortunately, Willis was ready.

None of this is a result of any great vision by the sleazeball Jeffrey Loria or his hatchet man David Samson, who don't deserve the success after their crimes against the fans of Montreal.

Whether or not Beane and Ricciardi enjoy the "martyr" role, they are handcuffed. O'Neill types and Raffy/Edgar types command big bucks, so you simply can't afford them if you've made any costly mistakes, or inherited any $18 million contracts. The millions they've sunk into Dye and Long is why the A's may be lacking veteran leadership.


Coach, "big bucks" is a relative term. While Raffy used to command a big salary, he could probably be had for < $5 million next year. Same goes for Edgar, though he does not want to leave Seattle. Fred McGriff is another old, useful hitter who commands a tremendous amount of respect.

However, as you pointed out, Long and Dye were paid almost $14 million this year, which really cramped Beane's style when looking for veteran free agents before the 2003 season. They are due around the same amount in 2004 as well.

BTW, Raffy must be annoyed about the timing of his last contract -- salaries for premium players went up 50% shortly after he signed his deal. His agent misreading the market probably cost him $25 million.