Are the A's committed to keeping their biggest star, or is this a "Felipe Alou"-type move?
From the Sacramento Bee:
quote:Mark Kreidler: A's act as if they really don't want to keep Giambi
(Published July 8, 2001)
The only question that anyone needs to ask about the negotiating position of the A's in the Jason Giambi case is this: You guys want to sell tickets or not? Alas, it's also the most loaded sentence around Oakland since Al Davis said to someone a few years back, "So how's the Coliseum looking for football lately?" We're speaking to motive here, and, frankly, the two gentlemen who own the A's couldn't be more suspect if they were wearing radiation suits and space helmets. All those who believe Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman can't wait to pack people into the Coliseum, take one giant step backward. Time to clear your head.
The New York papers last week focused briefly, albeit with the standard blinding glare, on the fact that the Yankees are vitally interested in trading with Oakland for Giambi. This is good news for a Yanks franchise that desperately needs another massively paid veteran on its roster, but it's secondary as a topic of interest here.
No, the better question is why the A's are now rolling into the All-Star break without making a whit of recent progress on a contract for Giambi that reportedly has been in negotiation since spring training. And to find an answer is to take the uneasy trail that ultimately leads back to the two men at the top.
Giambi should have been signed and presented long ago, pure and simple. The contract "hangup" is classic rot, with the A's saying they don't want to give in to Giambi's insistence on a no-trade clause.
This is the same Giambi who is willing to sign for six years at $90 million when the open market would dictate something closer to $120 million; it's the same Giambi who is willing to defer a chunk of that salary to ease the A's cash-flow clog over those six seasons. Doesn't make the man Mother Teresa, but as pro-athlete behavior goes, it's relatively enlightened stuff.
Oakland executive Billy Beane, though, repeatedly has pronounced his side stuck on the idea of the no-trade angle, apparently fearing that the A's might wind up saddled with Giambi's huge salary on some future noncompetitive Oakland team. It's one of those notions that is fine in theory and ludicrous in reality: Does Beane honestly believe that if the A's suddenly go into last-place, rebuild-it-again mode that an All-Star like Giambi is going to stubbornly refuse to allow himself to be traded someplace better?
It's just pure nonsense, and no one who knows the energetic and imaginative Beane would spend a minute assuming that the thought is his. So why the hangup? Or, as a wise man once put it: You guys want to sell tickets or not?
It is becoming easier with each passing week to believe that neither Schott nor Hoffman ever had any serious intention of signing Giambi to a new long-term deal, and that Beane may be operating in vain. It is becoming easier, that is, to believe that the men who own the A's would answer that ticket-selling question as follows: Well, yeah. Nah. Whatever.
I'm not a big conspiracy-theory guy, but I am perfectly willing to postulate that Schott and Hoffman at some point agreed never to look at any portion of baseball-business history. If they did, they'd discover that the best-attended years in the A's history in Oakland came during the days when they (a) won a bunch of games and (b) had fun crowd draws like Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco and Rickey Henderson.
But, then, those A's, under the Haas family ownership, were committed to a future in Oakland. Schott repeatedly has called himself into question on that front, first very publicly looking forward to a year-to-year (rather than long-term) lease at the Coliseum and then openly courting the Santa Clara market for a new facility.
Nothing wrong with the Santa Clara option from here, but Schott had to know -- he undoubtedly did know -- that the obvious flirtation would do nothing to enhance the attendance in Oakland. And you could be forgiven for guessing that such a development suits the owners just fine: With each uninspiring total at the gate, the case for moving the A's gains just a little bit of juice.
It is part of the reason why, despite being in a post-playoff year, the A's are experiencing only a mild uptick in attendance. Given a chance to expand its popular base, Oakland instead is playing mediocre ball, its owners spending their time trying to move the franchise and essentially treating their lone superstar like a common scrub.
Jason Giambi to the Yankees, in other words, makes perfect sense. Just so long as we all can agree that winning baseball games, now and hereafter, isn't near the top of your to-do list.
Posts: 1074 | Location: Springfield, OR | Registered: April 22, 2001
Dave "Soup" Campbell mentioned it on Baseball Tonight the other night and it's got the Chicago radio stations buzzing. One host even said that if the Cubs get Giambi, they're "guaranteed a spot in the World Series." I doubt they'll do it, but maybe they'll surprise us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chicago Cubs -- Back-to-back World Series Champions 1907-1908 EAMUS CATULI -- AC125693
Posts: 719 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: March 20, 2001
Yup. You got it New Yorker... it's a toss up between the Twins and the Cubs for the best story of the year so far... OK, I lied it's Seattle, but these are two great stories.
Woods has looked great, and the team looks like they are weathering any losses with wins. Not exactly the Cubs from the past few seasons.
They get Giambi and they'll win the division hands down.
++++++++++++++++++++ Show me a guy who can't pitch inside and I'll show you a loser. - Sandy Koufax
Surprised? I fully expected the Cubs to have the best record in the NL at the All-Star break. Actually, while all the experts predicted 6th place, I picked 'em to finish above .500, with 90 wins as a best-case scenario (or should I say typical Cubs fan overly optimistic scenario). Really, it's been great. I hope they keep it up. It's been a fun year for baseball.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chicago Cubs -- Back-to-back World Series Champions 1907-1908 EAMUS CATULI -- AC125693
Posts: 719 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: March 20, 2001
I'm a huge A's fan and would love to see Giambi in a Cubs uniform. The A's need a .300-hitting outfielder, with some power. They will probably get this in a 3-way deal with someone, so the Cubs would need to trade prospects good enough to land Oakland a hitter to get Giambi.
Chicago Cubs -- Back-to-back World Series Champions 1907-1908 
Swinging for the fences....
