Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I
posted at 10/3/2012 10:21 PM EDT
In response to iamme17's comment:
In response to moonslav59's comment:
In response to hill55's comment:
The 93-win Oakland Athletics, who shed more than $10 million in salaries with the exits of Kurt Suzuki and Brian Fuentes, should have no problem meeting the modest $2.5 million raise owed next year to 24-year-old ace lefthander Brett Anderson.
Anderson is not a realistic trade target (certainly not for Boston's struggling 25-year-old former No. 4 prospect and its current No. 17, No. 18 and No. 35 prospects, according to SoxProspects).
In theory, yes, but then why did they dump Gio, Bailey & Sweeney last winter under very similar conditions?
Anderson now is not as good as Gio was after last season. It didn't take the Nats that much to get Gio.
My offer may be a bit weak, but I do not think it is way off the mark. I'd consider sweetening the deal as well. It's hard to tell what the A's think about the prospects I listed. I am a firm believer that some GMs think radically different than others about other team's prospects. The A's may not want Lava at all, or they may view him as our top prospect. I'm flexible, and I hope Ben is as well.
[/QUOTE] The difference between last year and this year is the A's win the division this year and stunk last year.After winning this year they will at least want to challenge next year so the chances of trading an important cog for leftovers ain't gonna happen.
Instead of dumping key personel i can see Beane going the other way and actually invest in a high priced free agent....he did it with Cespedes so i wouldn't be shocked if he did it again if he thinks he has the backbone of a good team now.
Yes, they signed Cespedes, but only because they cut more salary elsewhere. The A's budget is over $10M less this year than last. Yes, they may raise the budget now that they are looking more competitive, buit their recent model has shown that they look to trade players who are close to making more than $2M with further arb or scheduled raises in sight.
It's not certain they will trade Anderson. But, I am sure they will entertain offers. Anderson was not even a big part of this season's success, so losing him this offseason does not really weaken the 2013 team as compared to this year's team.
I'm not locked into Anderson. I mentioned his name as a possible trade option for a younger pitcher rather than spending big on older over-priced vets,