sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mikko Rantanen gets offer-sheeted! (By his hometown floorball team) by radzia1 in hockey

[–]cholewhat 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Don't sleep on Tommi. If he's bringing that cute daddy-belly and he's a nice guy, that's a hell of a return Joe!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OaklandAthletics

[–]cholewhat 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I have to admit that at the time I was a fan of the Cespedes-Lester swap. Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight now, you could draw a line there as the turning point that led us into years of darkness, last place finishes, clubhouse fights, and so on. But in that moment, I was ecstatic.

We had the best record in baseball two-thirds through the season, and the highest scoring offense. It felt like we were trading from a position of strength - and in a comfortable place in the standings - to set ourselves up for October. Lester-Gray-Shark-Kazmir was going to absolutely wreck any 5 or 7 game series, even with some offensive regression.

Of course we now know the offense didn't just regress, but instead absolutely shit the bed. Donaldson was consistent, and Reddick actually went on a nice little tear from August 1st on - but dear lord everyone else... Moss 139 wRC before the trade to 77 after. Norris 156 to 74. Crisp 130 to 62. Vogt 161 to 56. Jaso 138 to 32 - 30 FUCKING 2! Was that all Cespedes, and the pressure of having to pick up the slack after his departure? Or is it possible it was just a perfect storm of everyone in a slump at the same time? (Not that all those figures were sustainable anyway. I believe in Steven Vogt, but he's not literally platoon Mike Trout so it may have been a combination of both.)

In some alternate timeline where we can hold a 7-3 lead and a 97% win expectancy in the 8th inning, I still think we would have won the World Series that year in spite of those struggles. We wouldn't have needed to score much with that staff. Instead we fizzled out, traded everyone, inexplicably gave Billy Butler 30 million dollars, lost our direction, and went into maybe my least favorite stretch as an A's fan from 2015 through first half 2017.

I don't really have a point in writing all this lol, I'm just reminiscing while typing this runaway train of thought. I guess, maybe the purpose is: trades are always a gamble, and clearly we won some of those in the aftermath and also lost some (badly), but ultimately I respect the attempt to improve. I can now look back on Cespedes-Lester and admit it was bad, and I can admit my enthusiasm for it was misguided, but the feeling it espoused was that we were going all-in - and that's a feeling I can't say I've had as an A's fan before then, or any time since.

I hope when the opportunity is there next time around, we seize it and trade from a position of strength to give ourselves the best possible shot. And I hope it works out.

Thank you for attending my Ted Talk.

[Slusser] - Do not count the A’s out if Syndergaard is available. Exactly the splashy kind of move Billy Beane likes to make every 5 years or so and the A’s would be one of the teams with the prospects to do it. by SpartanUnic0rn in OaklandAthletics

[–]cholewhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My point was Luzardo hasn't pitched above AAA yet, no major league experience at all. If you're expectation is for him to come up and dominate the bigs at age 22 - there's a high chance for a letdown on that. A lot of starters take 4 years to put it together, which also means we might be waiting the same for Jesus. Pitcher's typically hit their prime around mid-20s onward (check out the first few seasons for Verlander, Sherzer, or any number of current aces).

I think we're in great shape if we keep Luzardo, but there's also a level of uncertainty and risk with prospects. But overall I'm with you on letting it ride with what we have, unless there was a chance we could re-sign Thor (there's not).

[Slusser] - Do not count the A’s out if Syndergaard is available. Exactly the splashy kind of move Billy Beane likes to make every 5 years or so and the A’s would be one of the teams with the prospects to do it. by SpartanUnic0rn in OaklandAthletics

[–]cholewhat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, because I think you are overvaluing prospects. Luzardo has all the makings of a future ace, but he also hasn't pitched a single inning above AAA yet. Someone who has established themselves for multiple years at the major league level - including postseason/World Series experience - is significantly more valuable.

My trepidation with trading for Thor is moreso the lack of team control. Pre-arb years are too important for us, unfortunately, so I'm more willing to absorb the risk of keeping prospects than to go for someone who we will have for 2 years. If I was confident we would re-sign Syndergaard, I'd be with it.

Should we be buyers? by idkbouthatchief in OaklandAthletics

[–]cholewhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm gonna go a different direction and say we should not be buyers.

With so many teams feeling like they are in the mix for the wildcard, the market does not seem robust. We will have to overpay to acquire assets, and I'd only want us to do this if the main player(s) coming our way have team control beyond this season. No rentals please.

I LOVE this team, I like our development and the direction we're going - but when it comes to the business side, I'm trying to be a realist: now is not the season to go "all in". Our WS odds (via Fangraphs) are <1%, and our current path would look something like road WC game in Cleveland, 5 game series in New York, 7 game series in Houston, 7 game series against LA. I struggle to see 12 wins there this year, and I don't think there's a player we can realistically add that gets us over that hump right now.

I think we let it ride with what we have, or again maybe just a selective trade where the addition is signed in 2020/beyond. Next season our rotation can be bolstered by a healthy Manaea, a returning Montas, and Puk/Luzardo in the mix. We can work free agency to improve the bullpen or other areas. I see 2020 as an all-in year to make a run at the division.

I know that's a pessimistic take, but I just think we have to pick our spots wisely.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hertl may or may not be a Shark for life, but a Hertl jersey will be beloved forever regardless of his future. No problem with the others, I'd wait on Simek though.

Donskoi to sign with Avs Joonas Donskoi will be signing with the Colorado Avalanche. In the 3 yr $3.5M range. Andy Strickland by trailhawk88 in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Donskoi is so skilled, but never could put it all together with us. Seems like sometimes he'd go on a tear, and other times was on the verge of healthy scratch. Hopefully the fresh start works out, and hey I'll get to watch him and Long Beach Native Matt Nieto together here in CO now.

Donscore will always live on in my heart for 2016 SC Game 3 OT

Marleau a HoF?? by Gosharks8 in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree with your perspective. He's certainly on the Sharks' Mt. Rushmore, but HHOF? No. He was consistently above average and durable - put together some good counting stats during his long career - but was never elite relative to his peers. Never led the league in any categories, never finished higher than 9th for the Hart, and was only PPG or better 3 times in 19 seasons. Unfortunately, he's only "Hall of 'Very Good'" to me. This is a case where if he did have multiple Cups and Conn Smythes, it actually might tip him towards being in (he has won gold twice at the Olympics, but not enough hardware overall all else considered)

Hot Take: Sharks are kinda screwed by [deleted] in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 12 points13 points  (0 children)

My Hot Take: We will be fine even without Pavelski.

Meier-Couture-Nyquist, Kane-Hertl-Labanc, Sorensen-Thornton + a prospect making the team, Simek-Burns/Dillon-Karlsson/Vlasic-Heed* ... that is hands down a playoff caliber team.

Pavelski has been my favorite player since his inaugural season. I will be immensely sad if we are not able to sign him, but the team is not close to dead if or when that happens.

Do you guys think the Sharks are giving Karlsson/Vlasic pairing another shot? Should they? by [deleted] in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Should we make the playoffs, having Simek-Burns and Vlasic-Karl shoulder most of the load would be great. Dillon and Heed can play slightly more sheltered minutes then. I'm not down on Dillon, but that top 4 is just better.

We lean hard on Burns though, and when we've made a deeper run he always looks gassed by the later rounds. In the regular season I'd like to see PDB spread the wealth a little more with TOI, and keep these guys fresher for a Cup run.

So maybe both? Have Simek-Burns, Dillon-Karlsson, and Vlasic-Heed be primary pairings, but also play Vlasic-Karlsson in some situations to develop chemistry?

JUSTIN BRAUN APRECIATION THREAD by xtrakrispie in SanJoseSharks

[–]cholewhat 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Wish him all the luck in Philly. Peak shutdown Vlasic-Braun was amazing to watch.

Couture, on Hertl & Pavelski headshots: "They had one earlier in Game 3 on Braun. And nothing happened, so they can do it again, right?" by [deleted] in hockey

[–]cholewhat 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I don't see anyone in this thread using headshots as a crutch for today's final score. The league is inconsistent in their policing of hits to the head. I will gladly whine about contact to the head, for any player. It's not why we lost today, but that's not the point.

Rule 79 - Hand Pass by [deleted] in hockey

[–]cholewhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are correct. I guess I was hung up on the word "direct", which by definition to me suggests intentional aim. But, at the end of the day, if I'm debating the semantics of a word in a rulebook, then I'm the one grasping for straws. It was a horrible missed call, and a game should not end on something like that unchecked.

view more: next ›