|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Feb 26, 2019 23:13:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 26, 2019 23:20:59 GMT
bold!
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Feb 26, 2019 23:40:31 GMT
Don't blame them. They don't need a Bryce Harper to win the next WS as far as I can recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Feb 26, 2019 23:54:49 GMT
I'm really going to be sad when they trade away the two Matts a couple years before their free agent year. I think win the A's win, it's despite management.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 27, 2019 5:20:26 GMT
Win what? Selling playoff appearances is a hell of a drug.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Feb 27, 2019 5:41:53 GMT
I'm really going to be sad when they trade away the two Matts a couple years before their free agent year. I think win the A's win, it's despite management. Vogt should be brought back to manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Feb 27, 2019 17:49:38 GMT
I'm really going to be sad when they trade away the two Matts a couple years before their free agent year. I think win the A's win, it's despite management. Vogt should be brought back to manage. The one thing the A's have that is great is their manager. The management sucks balls. Vogt is a SF Giant right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 27, 2019 18:45:19 GMT
I bet if Harper said he do anything to play in Oakland, even sign a multi year league minimum deal, he'd change his tune.
To be fair, The Athletics situation couldn't be worse. Poor (money wise) ownership, poor TV money, ugly stepsister to the beautiful relation in the immediate area and a toilet (literally) to play in. They are the 21st Century St. Louis Browns, except the Browns didn't have to play in a sewer. That the A's aren't continually losing 100 games is truly remarkable. They have to face facts and move. The area isn't going to build a new stadium (an absolute must). Instead, they will make promises and string the franchise along. Time to pack your shit and get out.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Feb 27, 2019 19:01:17 GMT
I bet if Harper said he do anything to play in Oakland, even sign a multi year league minimum deal, he'd change his tune. To be fair, The Athletics situation couldn't be worse. Poor (money wise) ownership, poor TV money, ugly stepsister to the beautiful relation in the immediate area and a toilet (literally) to play in. They are the 21st Century St. Louis Browns, except the Browns didn't have to play in a sewer. That the A's aren't continually losing 100 games is truly remarkable. They have to face facts and move. The area isn't going to build a new stadium (an absolute must). Instead, they will make promises and string the franchise along. Time to pack your shit and get out. except the concept that they have no money isn't true. It's the exact same market that paid big contracts to the 90's A's. They get TV money. They're making more money than they did in the 90s, it didn't all of a sudden become a small market. The owners and management are douchebags and as long as those people run the team, they will never win.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 27, 2019 19:39:18 GMT
I bet if Harper said he do anything to play in Oakland, even sign a multi year league minimum deal, he'd change his tune. To be fair, The Athletics situation couldn't be worse. Poor (money wise) ownership, poor TV money, ugly stepsister to the beautiful relation in the immediate area and a toilet (literally) to play in. They are the 21st Century St. Louis Browns, except the Browns didn't have to play in a sewer. That the A's aren't continually losing 100 games is truly remarkable. They have to face facts and move. The area isn't going to build a new stadium (an absolute must). Instead, they will make promises and string the franchise along. Time to pack your shit and get out. except the concept that they have no money isn't true. It's the exact same market that paid big contracts to the 90's A's. They get TV money. They're making more money than they did in the 90s, it didn't all of a sudden become a small market. The owners and management are douchebags and as long as those people run the team, they will never win. OK, I've never bought into the "we don't have any money" excuse of MLB ownership. The A's have a decent TV deal. But it runs until 2005, so it will be really shitty in a couple years. Similar to the Braves, who went from a free spending team to a shoestring budget. The A's player development hasn't been wht it was but they still do some good things. And they will never be able to keep the big names they do develop in Oakland. They couldn't keep McGwire, Canseco, Giambe, they won't be able to keep Chapman and Olson. Even they offered competitive wages, who the hell wants to play in that shithole? Who the hell wants to spend big bucks to sit and watch a game in that shithole? I can't help but think thing would be better in Portland or San Antonio in a shiny new ballpark. They won't get one in the Bay Area. It belongs to the Giants now.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Feb 27, 2019 22:00:21 GMT
except the concept that they have no money isn't true. It's the exact same market that paid big contracts to the 90's A's. They get TV money. They're making more money than they did in the 90s, it didn't all of a sudden become a small market. The owners and management are douchebags and as long as those people run the team, they will never win. OK, I've never bought into the "we don't have any money" excuse of MLB ownership. The A's have a decent TV deal. But it runs until 2005, so it will be really shitty in a couple years. Similar to the Braves, who went from a free spending team to a shoestring budget. The A's player development hasn't been wht it was but they still do some good things. And they will never be able to keep the big names they do develop in Oakland. They couldn't keep McGwire, Canseco, Giambe, they won't be able to keep Chapman and Olson. Even they offered competitive wages, who the hell wants to play in that shithole? Who the hell wants to spend big bucks to sit and watch a game in that shithole? I can't help but think thing would be better in Portland or San Antonio in a shiny new ballpark. They won't get one in the Bay Area. It belongs to the Giants now.
Been an A's fan since I was a little kid and if they were sold and moved to Portland, I would applaud them. They deserve a better owner and a better place to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 27, 2019 22:06:55 GMT
OK, I've never bought into the "we don't have any money" excuse of MLB ownership. The A's have a decent TV deal. But it runs until 2005, so it will be really shitty in a couple years. Similar to the Braves, who went from a free spending team to a shoestring budget. The A's player development hasn't been wht it was but they still do some good things. And they will never be able to keep the big names they do develop in Oakland. They couldn't keep McGwire, Canseco, Giambe, they won't be able to keep Chapman and Olson. Even they offered competitive wages, who the hell wants to play in that shithole? Who the hell wants to spend big bucks to sit and watch a game in that shithole? I can't help but think thing would be better in Portland or San Antonio in a shiny new ballpark. They won't get one in the Bay Area. It belongs to the Giants now.
Been an A's fan since I was a little kid and if they were sold and moved to Portland, I would applaud them. They deserve a better owner and a better place to play. A's are as close to a 2nd team as I have. I remember the "Mustache Brigade" of Catfish, Blue Moon, Fingers and Reggie, not to mention Sal Bando and Joe Rudi. They do deserve better.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Feb 27, 2019 22:08:46 GMT
Been an A's fan since I was a little kid and if they were sold and moved to Portland, I would applaud them. They deserve a better owner and a better place to play. A's are as close to a 2nd team as I have. I remember the "Mustache Brigade" of Catfish, Blue Moon, Fingers and Reggie, not to mention Sal Bando and Joe Rudi. They do deserve better.
If they hadn't had the worst owner ever, that 70s team could have been great into the 80s. If they had kept Reggie, Catfish, Rollie and the rest, they would have owned the 70s for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Mar 1, 2019 21:15:17 GMT
I bet if Harper said he do anything to play in Oakland, even sign a multi year league minimum deal, he'd change his tune. To be fair, The Athletics situation couldn't be worse. Poor (money wise) ownership, poor TV money, ugly stepsister to the beautiful relation in the immediate area and a toilet (literally) to play in. They are the 21st Century St. Louis Browns, except the Browns didn't have to play in a sewer. That the A's aren't continually losing 100 games is truly remarkable. They have to face facts and move. The area isn't going to build a new stadium (an absolute must). Instead, they will make promises and string the franchise along. Time to pack your shit and get out. Move to Portland?
|
|
