Monday, March 22, 2004


Mike at Barry Zito Forever points out that the Chavez extension wasn't just about the A's choosing Chavez over Tejada, or even Chavez and Crosby over Tejada.

Two years ago the A's still had Eric Hinske in their system, and frankly the choice between playing Hinske and Tejada, or Chavez and Crosby isn't so clear. (Don't let Hinske's injury plagued 2003 fool you. His ROY season was for real.)

If those are your options, however, Beane Co. still made the right decision, and like Mike speculates, it was probably decided before the Hinske-Koch trade.

But if we're going to open that can of worms, why should the question only be framed like that? For a budget-challenged club like the A's, wouldn't they be better off today with both Hinske and Crosby instead?

The Jays signed Hinske until 2007 after his stellar 2002 campaign, and even the last year of his back-loaded contract he'll still me making less than half Chavez's salary. Sure, his glove can't compare, but when healthy his offense is just as good (both hover just below .300 EqA). Wouldn't the A's have gotten something a whole lot more valuable than Koch had they shopped Chavez instead?

And aren't closers overrated anyways? Why not keep all three players, invest in some Bradfordian relievers, shift Hinske across the diamond to 1B, and let Chavez walk away at free agency? Sure, at the time, Carlos Pena was pegged to be the Giambi-replacement, but the fact Beane gave up on him so quickly certainly suggests the club already had their doubts.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?