A's new ownership shows it means bidness

[Providence A's]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...n/13290792.htm

GARY PETERSON: TIMES COLUMNIST


A's show they mean business


One year ago, there would have been no point to this discussion. The A's would have announced the signing of Esteban Loaiza to a three-year, $21 million contract, and we all would have known what was coming next.

Goodbye, Barry Zito. Don't let your $8.5 million walk-year salary slow you down on your way out of town.

The physics of the team's Steve Schott-Silent Ken Hofmann ownership were fairly well defined. For every influx of payroll, there was an opposite and likely over-compensatory outflux. To bring a guy in at an average of $7 million per, you would have had to whack a guy making that much or more. Since there would have been no chance of retaining Zito after his contract expires next fall, well, the logic would have been bullet-proof.

Now, not so much.

We're still getting a feel for the Lewis Wolff-and-friends ownership cartel. First impression: They don't seem the kind to squeeze a nickel for the thrill of watching it bleed.

The in-season extension given center fielder Mark Kotsay last July (two years, $15 million) was noteworthy, in that it didn't seem like the kind of thing the old guard would have done. The Loaiza signing was equally noteworthy, for a couple of reasons.

One, the A's went offer sheet-to-offer sheet with the Giants (and another unnamed suitor) in pursuit of Loaiza's services. Under the old physics, bidding wars were things that happened in other cities. And two, $21 million is pretty generous chunk of outlay for a guy who appears to fit best in the coach section of the A's starting rotation.

As long as Zito is here, he's your ace. Rich Harden, touted as a future Cy Young Award winner, is your second starter. Dan Haren was a 14-game winner as a 24/25-year old last season. Wouldn't you rank him a head of a guy (Loaiza) who was a 12-game winner as a 33-year-old?

And if you would, would you then put Loaiza in the fourth spot in the rotation, where he would relegate promising Joe Blanton (12-12, 3.53 ERA as a rookie last season) to No. 5, where he would get skipped twice a month? And what of Kirk Sarloos?

Those are bar-stool hypotheticals, clearly. You don't sign Loaiza at that rate to make him a No. 5 starter. But that's the point. When was the last time the A's did anything that could be construed, however remotely, as overpaying for talent?

We'll start the bidding at Tom Burgmeier, fall of '82.

This doesn't mean we should prepare Broadway for a parade. The signs are positive, and general manager Billy Beane issued some brave talk at the press conference to introduce Loaiza. "I wouldn't read into this as a precursor to anything else," he said.

Two more points to make. Even if this does signal a C-note change in the way the A's do business, their front office will never be featured on Accountants Gone Wild. Not as long as Beane -- minority owner and star of stage, screen and Moneyball -- is on the job. It bears noting that the A's would more than make up for what they're paying Loaiza should they pass on their own free agents Octavio Dotel and Erubiel Durazo (combined 2005 salary: $9.45 million). And really now, why wouldn't they?

And: While seeing Zito in an A's uniform come Opening Day would be our indication that Wolff & Co. have deeper pockets (or longer arms) than their predecessors, his departure wouldn't necessarily indicate otherwise.

Zito could be dealt for non-monetary reasons. You could go so far as to say it would be a surprise if one of the A's current starters isn't traded. Oakland is pitching rich, and coming off a season in which its offense ranked 11th in the American League in both batting average and slugging percentage.

The bigger the arm Beane dangles, the bigger bat he has a chance of taking back. Either way, he's sitting pretty with at least five quality arms in his rotation, and reigning Rookie of the Year Huston Street as his closer.

No matter what happens, this could be a landmark offseason in Oakland, where the roster may return as intact as it has since the late 1990s, when intact was a bad thing. It's heady stuff to contemplate, but we haven't reached full rethink just yet.

The one thing every A's honk wants is for the exodus of All-Star caliber talent to cease. We won't have a better read on that until we see how proactive the A's are in signing Zito to another contract -- assuming he sticks around until the end of his current one.

The bigger issue, for the moment, is that we can't necessarily forecast the A's next move by scrutinizing their last one. The timing there is perfect -- given the state of the Raiders and 49ers this fall-into-winter, we can use all the thrills we can get.

[General]

Good for the A's. I would love to see what they can do with an ownership willing to keep its veterans.

I've always been a closet A's fan.

[love_that_reefer]

Thye still ****ed the whole market (with the Giants help) by signing Loaiza at 3 yr/$21 mil. No guys like Byrd and Millwood will get grossly overpaid now

[Providence A's]

it's actually 3 @ $18 million with a $3 million signing bonus. The annual salaries are $5, $6, and then $7 million. The Blue Jays ****ed the whole markets w/ their 5 year $47 million deal with BJ "I've only closed for one year" Ryan. The money the A's "added" in Loaiza is actually money they spent on Durazo and Dotel last year, so it's a wash.

[Providence A's]

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NAS...=.jsp&c_id=oak

OAKLAND, Calif. -- The Oakland Athletics Investment Group, headed by Managing Partner Lewis Wolff and also includes A's team President Michael Crowley and Vice President and General Manager Billy Beane, announced today its intention to purchase a Major League Soccer franchise if and when MLS decides to grant an expansion franchise to the city of San Jose in the near future.
This announcement comes in the wake of yesterday's announcement by MLS Commissioner Dan Garber of the league's plans to relocate the San Jose Earthquakes to Houston for the 2006 season. Garber indicated the league would explore the possibility of placing an expansion team in San Jose as early as the 2007 season.

"We would be honored and excited to be considered for future ownership of a MLS franchise in San Jose," said Wolff, who heads up the ownership group which assumed control of the A's franchise on April 1, 2005. "I believe getting involved in another major league sport is a logical addition to our management's skills and interests. I am familiar with the San Jose area and consider the community a great sports market."

Wolff plans to begin talks regarding this matter with Commissioner Garber and his staff shortly after the first of the year.

There has been talk and articles stating that this can be viewed as the A's owners trying to get leverage so they could either get a new stadium in San Jose or force Oaktown's hand to do something there...only time will tell I guess.