Comments on: Matt Cain and Eric Chavez

By: Brad Jensen

Brad Jensen — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:50:58 +0000

Teahan was the guy behind Chavez but the A’s were not high on him. He actually improved quite a bit after getting traded, but although he had the one good year he’s been pretty pedestrian since and obviously doesn’t have the pop to play corner infield.

The ceiling for Crosby was seen as much higher and I think that factored into the decision as well.

By: Oakland Sí

Oakland Sí — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:08:15 +0000

wsn’t Mark Teahan already in the A’s system before they signed the Chavez extension?

By: Brad Jensen

Brad Jensen — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:35:34 +0000

The A’s did not internally have an option for Chavez like they did with Tejada. In hindsight that option was Bobby Crosby but at that time he looked like he was going to be a very good player.

Additionally, Chavez was at the time the best defensive third baseman in all of baseball, and a left handed power threat.

By: Oakland Sí

Oakland Sí — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:06:44 +0000

I agree with you on the Giambi negotiations. I still wish the A’s had at least explored the possibility of keeping Tejada, in view of how important he was to the team at that time.

By: Jeff Fletcher

Jeff Fletcher — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:34:24 +0000

I am skeptical how much the A’s really “negotiated” that whole Giambi thing. I believe the whole thing was a show. The A’s didn’t really want to commit that much money to Giambi and Giambi didn’t really want to say with the A’s. He wanted to see what it was like to be a Yankee, or at least to see what he could get on the open market.

Do you really think that something as small as a full no-trade clause vs. a partial one could scuttle a whole deal, especially since Giambi would have gotten it automatically by being a 10-5 guy in the third year of the contract?

By: Oakland Sí

Oakland Sí — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:29:46 +0000

Good points, yet the A’s did negotiate with Giambi for a six year deal worth around $90 milliom…and if they suspected PEDs for Tejada I have a hard time believing they wouldn’t have suspected the same for Giambi.

By: Jeff Fletcher

Jeff Fletcher — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:39:23 +0000

I think the A’s probably weren’t interested in making any sort of long-term commitment to Tejada, even if he’d signed for $50 million instead of $72 million (which would have been a huge hometown discount). They probably suspected that he was older than his listed his age and/or that he’d used steroids. Weigh those two things against Tejada’s “gritty 100 percent effort” and you can’t blame them for staying away from Tejada. The only thing Chavez had going against him was some borderline self-esteem issues. I’m not saying it was a no-brainer to pick Chavez over Tejada, but the preponderance of the evidence certainly led you in that direction.

By: Oakland Sí

Oakland Sí — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:32:55 +0000

isn’t hindsight wonderful?

Tejada was probably my favorite player on the 2000-2003 A’s. At the time I wished that the A’s would have at least explored what kind of hometown discount that Tejada was willing to accept. Also, I wondered whether the great shortstop prospect Bobby Crosby could be converted to third base, if they lost Chavez….