Bradley DFA'd

I figured the post that would bring me back from the brink would be on Bradley. I'm seeing too much naivity as well as first impression reactions that it's making me think people really don't get how this front office works.

Bradley is known for having a temper that causes him to do stupid things that piss off his current orginization. So why would anyone believe what Beane says when he states the issue of playing time as the reason why they let him go? What makes Bradley's past indescretions null if the guy is upset about being delayed two days so that the A's could decide if they need to demote an infielder or pitcher?

Because Bradley bitched about not being activated quickly, the A's could not decide whether they should keep IF JJ Furmaniak or demote one of the extra pitchers they have been carrying. Instead, Bradley's actions caused the A's to have to re-call an infielder when they DFA'd him.

Then there's this: back in May of '06, Bradley was on the DL for a knee injury at which time he was expected back in 15+ days. However, he then suffered a setback and had a shoulder injury that forced his return to be delayed until the All Star Break. According to someone who posted on the ESPN forums, someone who had posted inside information before hand about clubhouse activities, Bradley went on a tirade and injured himself. Flash-foward to Tueday when Bradley had a noticable limp and it's not far-fetched to state that Bradley may have re-injured himself on account of his temper.

Frankly, the A's did the right thing in designating Bradley for assignment; they are able to control what little trade value he has based on his past performance without worries that between activiation from the DL and the days leading up to the trade deadline, Bradley does not do anything to harm his value even further. His athletic potential won't nab the A's a top prospect when he's in a walk year, owed 2 million dollars, and has the type of issues he does.

Walking away but always looking back

So when the A's were supposed to win the division on the hands of a cool-headed Milton Bradley and an ace in Rich Harden, why did I stop posting? Could it be that I was some bandwagoner who was to lazy to talk about how terrible Dan Johnson was for two months of the season? (Actually, it was three months since September when I wrote about his hitting chart)

No, it had more to do with the fact that I was pissed with the A's. For the third year in a row, the A's have underachieved; Macha being at the helm isn't a coincindence. In fact, you could make an arguement that they have underachieved since 1999, but that wouldn't be the case.

They didn't make the big splashes they did the past few years; signing Redman and beefing up the bullpen, trading declining talent for younger, thus better talent, signing Thomas, Loaiza, and trading for Bradley to make an A's run in '06. Oh don't tell that this wasn't "the year." The A's were supposed to go all the way, even the commercials said so. Don't think of some clever cop-out that "A's in '06" meant the A's were going to play durring '06 season. That's like saying water is wet or that Macha sucks; we know, we know.

Basically, I would rather laugh and enjoy to see the A's lose their division lead to the Mariners, that team that sucked ass for the majority of the season but now is right behind the A's for the lead. Perhaps Bavasi should start getting the PR department to make a new "M's in '06" ad campaign. It did wonders for the A's.

It's been a while

It's been a while.... since I have posted.

It's been a while... since Crosby was any good.

It's been a while... since the A's were good.

Just one question, why is Zito given such a long leash when the last time he won a Cy Young was 4 years ago? If Zito's sucking and "not executing on his pitches," he needs to not keep pitching.

I'm back and I hope the A's will be back soon.

Moneyball Movie notes

As of right now, the movie seems to be just at the script/pre-production phase. Clooney had been rumored for the lead role as Beane but there is some history between him and the current scriptwritter, Stan Cheverin. From 1999-2002, Clooney had been trying to make "The Catcher was a Spy" but the film never got greenlighted, apparently for good reason.

RB: Since Moe Berg keeps coming up, is the movie going to be made?

ND: I don’t know, they just keep getting horrible screenplay after horrible screenplay. George Clooney really wanted to make it. And that would be great.

Almost all of Cheverin's scripts are connected to films that were in development hell, a term used to describe films that never got made due to studio, script, casting and all other sorts of changes.

In all likelyhood, it may take the A's winning the World Series for this movie to be made at all least of all true to reality.

What a lil bugga'

Happened to be on the sfgiants.com page (sacrilegious!) and I came across this nugget:

I would be pissed too if I had a damn seal interrupt me enjoying some pizza.

Report: A's interested in MLS team for San Jose

The A's official website, along with AP, are reporting that the A's Management Group is looking to acquire an MLS team should the league decide to expand in San Jose. MLS League Commish Donald Garber is already making it known that MLS will make San Jose their top priority to expand and place a team in San Jose. According to some reports, meetings will take place in January over selecting a new investor and securing a stadium plan which is "essential" in getting a new franchise in San Jose.

Now should this means that the A's can get into San Jose or not, I don't know. All I know is that the A's have already put their notice in that they want a team and such a commitment would also mean that they have some semblance of a stadium plan in order to get Garber to the negotiating table. It may have something to do with San Jose's plan of buying parcels in Downtown...

Another thing I'd like to know, as most people would, what is in the Major League Agreement in regards to whether having a team as an extension to your territory rights. The late Doug Pappas found a 1999 copy of the Agreement and found that it stated the following:

3/4 majority in the affected league, plus a majority of clubs in the other league: expansion, sale or transfer of control of a club (except that control passing to a spouse or descendant requires only a majority vote), relocation of a club to a city not within the other league's circuit (transfers into another club's territory require 3/4 majority in both leagues)

Note that to move a team from one city to another within the team's own territory, there still has to be a vote on it. That is astonishing that if Selig is to be believed that the territories are supposedly so sacred, than why can't a club do what it pleases within their own area? Not only that, but there has to be a simple majority in the other league.

The Giants' territory includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties, plus Santa Clara County with respect to another major league team.

EDIT: A hat-tip goes out to the folks at the Business of Baseball website for having the 2005 version of the Major League Agreement. In that version, the above phrase has been changed to: "provided, however, that with respect to all Major league Clubs, Santa Clara County shall also be included."

What exactly does that last phrase mean? It's not as if it has anything to do with a different sports league because if so, San Francisco would be included on account of the 49ers being there. And the A's have no such term under MLB's definition of their territory. What gets me is that in the 2005 version, it seems as if the Giants have a claim to all other counties except for Santa Clara, unless there is an MLB team trying to move in. Why is it that SC County is not just lumped together with the rest of the territories? There has to be some special rights that the Giants have in the other counties that they do not in Santa Clara.

As additional territorial protection, Rule 52 allows a major league club to block any other major or minor league clubs from playing within 15 miles of its territory without permission.

Are the clubs in question teams that only play baseball? One would assume this has to refer to independent leagues as "other major leagues" and "minor league clubs" as in MLB-affiliated minor league teams. Otherwise, the Astros would probably be objecting to the new MLS franchise in their city.

I hope to get some more answers here because there has to be a reason why the A's made it so pronounced that they were going to get an MLS team. Even if they were going for an angle in which they would be viewed in a positive light by the voters of San Jose for rescuing soccer, it wouldn't help them much even if they got a stadium bond because MLB would have to vote on the relocation matter.

Either there has been a change in the Major League Agreement, Wolff is going to put Selig and MLB in a bad light, or Selig wants MLB to have an affiliation with MLS and this would be the best way of doing so.

A's get Milton Bradley

Mercurial, firery, temperamental, pissed-off, bad ass; in any article you read about Bradley, you're gunna see one of these terms, and for good reason. It's not as if Bradley hasn't earned some of these titles. This doesn't make him a bad person, it's just a stigma that has been following him around since his days in the Montreal Organization.

But that doesn't change the fact that he's one hell of a talent, albeit an often injured, one. All one can really hope is that the birth of his first child will change him as such momentous occasions usually do.

I'll have more in a bit; I am trying to finish up a Loaiza v. Redman post for your viewing pleasure.