Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

A's trade 3B Josh Donaldson to Blue Jays for Brett Lawrie, other pieces


bloodbrother

Recommended Posts

Lol don't blame Beane. Blame their ownership for giving him no financial flexibility at all. He can't keep Donaldson and Shark because he has to squeeze every ounce of value in return because he knows he can't re-sign them

 

It's not a bad trade and the A's are still a threat. They still have 5 above average starters. 

 

Bull... hes hiding behind that now... and when he has made big moves they have failed.

and they were a threat last year with 5 starters and an offense.. now they just have the starters... we still were 11 ahead of them... there is no threat there next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol don't blame Beane. Blame their ownership for giving him no financial flexibility at all. He can't keep Donaldson and Shark because he has to squeeze every ounce of value in return because he knows he can't re-sign them

It's not a bad trade and the A's are still a threat. They still have 5 above average starters.

Beane is part owner, he can and does choose what his budget is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this trade means Donaldson, really one of the A's sole source of a power bat -- gets replaced in the power bat position by newly signed Billy Butler -- who's power has declined and who is still hitting in a tough ballpark to drive the ball out of -- Kauffman Stadium is a pitcher's park -- and the Oakland Coliseum -- well it's a football stadium first -- is a pitcher's park.

 

Donaldson was under club control for at least another season -- seems if Beane is trying to get the maximum for him now.........

 

unless one understands the extremely low budget constraints situation Beane finds himself having to constantly work under, this deal makes no sense -- but a for a Beane deal to get young players under club control plus a SS who can play now -- pretty good Beane trade.........even if Donaldson continues his ALL Star performance at third and at the plate for Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol don't blame Beane. Blame their ownership for giving him no financial flexibility at all. He can't keep Donaldson and Shark because he has to squeeze every ounce of value in return because he knows he can't re-sign them

 

It's not a bad trade and the A's are still a threat. They still have 5 above average starters. 

You cant be a threat if your team cant score runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A's are making moves to compete across a longer scale of time. The AL West will be tough next year.

1. You know SEA will get themselves a couple bats and be in the thick of it.

2. The A's can always pitch if nothing else. That always puts them in a position to win.

3. The Rangers will be healthy. While this likely won't mean 90+ wins I doubt they'll be a pushover again.

4. The Astros keep stockpiling young talent. They look dynamic and improved. 80-85 wins looks like a possibility.

The way I see it, the A's went from an 85-90 win team next year and then a stark drop off to 80-85 win team across the next five. With a few key FA bats, they'll be a menace for another half decade, in part because of the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you almost never see teams go all the way with average to weak offenses. Just ask the Giants and Royals.

The Royals had no business in the ALCS.  If we could score at least 2 runs in a game they likely dont make it there.  They were carried by their pitching.

 

The Giants offense isnt bad.  And they had a lineup with postseason success and experience.  The A's are nowhere near that caliber.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12th in the majors that's better than avg, not so weak at all.

 

The point is that among all the teams that made the playoffs this year, the Giants and Royals were 3rd to last and 2nd to last in runs scored. Neither team had a good offense. They were carried through the regular season as well as the postseason by their pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that among all the teams that made the playoffs this year, the Giants and Royals were 3rd to last and 2nd to last in runs scored. Neither team had a good offense. They were carried through the regular season as well as the postseason by their pitching.

the point is you got owned again and now you are back peddling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that among all the teams that made the playoffs this year, the Giants and Royals were 3rd to last and 2nd to last in runs scored. Neither team had a good offense. They were carried through the regular season as well as the postseason by their pitching.

What do you consider a good offense?  The Giants play in a pitchers park, so their numbers are going to be skewed.  They were 10th in runs scored post all star break, 9th in OPS post all star break, 9th in road OPS for the whole year.  Its pretty safe to say they had a top 10 offense in MLB, and like I said earlier they have a lot of guys who are proven to be clutch and know how to put together good at bats consistently.

 

Which brings me back to my original point, you cant be a threat if you cant score runs.  So im not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

 

And just for good measure KC was also 7th in runs scored on the road, and 8th in road ops for the whole year.  

Edited by QuinlansMinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you consider a good offense?  The Giants play in a pitchers park, so their numbers are going to be skewed.  They were 10th in runs scored post all star break, 9th in OPS post all star break, 9th in road OPS for the whole year.  Its pretty safe to say they had a top 10 offense in MLB, and like I said earlier they have a lot of guys who are proven to be clutch and know how to put together good at bats consistently.

 

Which brings me back to my original point, you cant be a threat if you cant score runs.  So im not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

 

And just for good measure KC was also 7th in runs scored on the road, and 8th in road ops for the whole year.  

 

No it isn't, because they didn't. When it came to scoring runs (which is what your original point was based around), they were 12th in the majors. Not bad by any means, but I wouldn't call it "good" either. In the playoffs, they averaged under 4 runs a game. They won the WS because of their pitching.

 

Your assertion is that a team can't be a threat when they can't score runs. But that just isn't true. The Giants, Royals, and Cardinals are proof of that. You yourself even said:

 

The Royals had no business in the ALCS. If we could score at least 2 runs in a game they likely dont make it there. They were carried by their pitching.

 

So yeah. Any team can be a threat if their pitching is good enough. The A's certainly have the pitching to be a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't, because they didn't. When it came to scoring runs (which is what your original point was based around), they were 12th in the majors. Not bad by any means, but I wouldn't call it "good" either. In the playoffs, they averaged under 4 runs a game. They won the WS because of their pitching.

 

Your assertion is that a team can't be a threat when they can't score runs. But that just isn't true. The Giants, Royals, and Cardinals are proof of that. You yourself even said:

 

 

So yeah. Any team can be a threat if their pitching is good enough. The A's certainly have the pitching to be a threat

Again, you keep bringing up they were 12th in the majors.  Just because they were 12th doesnt mean they werent a top 10 team offensively.  You are cherry picking one statistic.  They play in a pitchers park, did you factor that into your argument?  

 

The Royals werent a bad offensive team either.  Which I showed you in the statistics I gave you.  

 

I find it funny you are going by runs scored over the whole season to make your argument for you.  You havent been watching baseball very long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...