PDA

View Full Version : Teaxs or Oakland


duke of dorwood
12-22-2001, 10:49 PM
Who's better now that Texas has Park, and Damon and Lumbering Ox gone from A's ?

danman31
12-22-2001, 11:25 PM
Texas sucks even with Park. Everett and Rocker will just kill them mentally. They still have little pitching. Then again, little is better than the none they had last year. Oakland lost Izzy, but got Koch. They lost Giambi and Damon. Oakland isn't going to be that good. My conclusion: both suck!

WinningUgly!
12-22-2001, 11:46 PM
It doesn't matter, Texas wil end up in the AL Central next season!

Daver
12-22-2001, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
It doesn't matter, Texas wil end up in the AL Central next season!

Your wrong about that.

czalgosz
12-22-2001, 11:56 PM
The A's will compete for the AL West again, even without Giambi. They still have a potent lineup, and they still have Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Lidle. Their bullpen is still very good. This team would compete if they had the Royals' lineup.

the Rangers, on the other hand, got a little bit better. But not much. They will improve to about a .500 team.

If I had a choice between having the best pitching staff and the best lineup, I'd take the best pitchers, every time. Hitters win MVP awards, but pitchers win championships.

GASHWOUND
12-23-2001, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
The A's will compete for the AL West again, even without Giambi. They still have a potent lineup, and they still have Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Lidle. Their bullpen is still very good. This team would compete if they had the Royals' lineup.

the Rangers, on the other hand, got a little bit better. But not much. They will improve to about a .500 team.

If I had a choice between having the best pitching staff and the best lineup, I'd take the best pitchers, every time. Hitters win MVP awards, but pitchers win championships.

Exactly, Oak still has that pitching staff, although their 'O' won't be as good, the pitching can carry them. Who is the Rangers starting 5 anyway? Park and... the pen isn't that great either. Seattle is a mystery. Will Boone have another career year? NOT! How about that rotation. Its good, but they won't be winning 116 games next year, i can tell you that. My conclusion, it won't be Texas.

MattSharp
12-23-2001, 02:46 AM
I agree that Oakland has some nice pitching. But Dye isn't gonna cut it as the lead man. With Giambi I think he could have been huge. A's really blew it...

As for the Rangers, what did they really get?

-Park: He is coming off 2 good years, and has only had one bad year in his career. BUT his numbers outside of Dodger stadium weren't very good last year (4.83,5-7). This was a prob in '99 too. As long as he can prove its just home field and not Doger Stadium this will prove to be a nice move.
-Rocker: This guy has yet to prove he can pitch in the AL. He has only been a closer three years, and I think he is VERY overrated. But still if he resumes '99 form hes good.
-Van Poppel: This guys coming off two good years as a reliever. He was once thought to be the future A's ace, but hes another overrated guy. Especially since he pitched for the Cubs.
-Burba: This guy has only had two good years in his life, and he just plain sucks.

Basically they Rangers did the same thing as last year. They added a bunch of new players they hoped would help but won't. (See Caminiti, Galaragga, Brantley)

Bmr31
12-23-2001, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by danman31
Texas sucks even with Park. Everett and Rocker will just kill them mentally. They still have little pitching. Then again, little is better than the none they had last year. Oakland lost Izzy, but got Koch. They lost Giambi and Damon. Oakland isn't going to be that good. My conclusion: both suck!

The oakland a's are still a very good baseball team. They far from suck....

RedPinStripes
12-23-2001, 08:03 AM
Nice sig GASHWOUND!!!!!!

Spiff
12-23-2001, 08:20 AM
Why wouldn't Seattle still be the team, especially after Oakland lost Giambi and Damon?

Barring a White Sox-esque injury streak I don't see why they won't win the division again.

czalgosz
12-23-2001, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00
Why wouldn't Seattle still be the team, especially after Oakland lost Giambi and Damon?

Barring a White Sox-esque injury streak I don't see why they won't win the division again.

I think the thinking is that Bret Boone will never put together a season like that again, and that they were extremely lucky last season. I think the Mariners hit over .300 as a team with runners on base, if I'm not mistaken.

The Mariners finished the season with a team OPS of .805, which was very good, third in the league. But they scored 927 runs as a team last season, which was first. They finished behind Oakland in walks, doubles and homers, and finished ahead of them in singles. As Kermit has pointed out, if your team has lots of singles, that means you're a little bit lucky to go along with talented.

The Mariners will be right in the hunt next season, but I don't think they'll run away with it the way they did in 2001.

Spiff
12-23-2001, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I think the thinking is that Bret Boone will never put together a season like that again, and that they were extremely lucky last season. I think the Mariners hit over .300 as a team with runners on base, if I'm not mistaken.

The Mariners finished the season with a team OPS of .805, which was very good, third in the league. But they scored 927 runs as a team last season, which was first. They finished behind Oakland in walks, doubles and homers, and finished ahead of them in singles. As Kermit has pointed out, if your team has lots of singles, that means you're a little bit lucky to go along with talented.

The Mariners will be right in the hunt next season, but I don't think they'll run away with it the way they did in 2001.

Fair enough, maybe they were lucky. But why can't Boone keep it up? I would give him the benefit of the doubt after that season.

Also they've filled two key holes in acquiring Ben Davis and Jeff Cirillo, only giving up Tomko and Paniagua. Plus Oakland will be worse and Texas won't be much better than last year.

kermittheefrog
12-23-2001, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Fair enough, maybe they were lucky. But why can't Boone keep it up? I would give him the benefit of the doubt after that season.

Also they've filled two key holes in acquiring Ben Davis and Jeff Cirillo, only giving up Tomko and Paniagua. Plus Oakland will be worse and Texas won't be much better than last year.

I think we all know the Mariners had some luck last year but if they decline by 16 games they still win 100. That sucks if you're Oakland or Texas. I'm still not sure who'll win that division between Oakland and Seattle but I'll call the loser gets the Wild Card.

foulkesfan11
12-23-2001, 03:33 PM
Remember, the Rangers finished strong too.

Spiff
12-23-2001, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
Remember, the Rangers finished strong too.

:hitless

"So didn't I..."

GASHWOUND
12-23-2001, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Nice sig GASHWOUND!!!!!!

Thanks, but all credit goes to Jer

:jerry
"Thanks, I am good, aren't I."

RichH55
12-24-2001, 04:25 AM
I'll take the A's over the Rangers any day....plus I think Beane is better than Hart, so the A's have some big edges.....Seattle is in-line for a drop off, as is Boone, but Cirillo is a big plus over Bell so maybe that will balance things out

RichH55
12-24-2001, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Fair enough, maybe they were lucky. But why can't Boone keep it up? I would give him the benefit of the doubt after that season.

Also they've filled two key holes in acquiring Ben Davis and Jeff Cirillo, only giving up Tomko and Paniagua. Plus Oakland will be worse and Texas won't be much better than last year.

I'd be willing to bet Boone has a decent drop-off this next year, and I'll miss Jose Paniagua....good old John Bread-and-Water....quality name, though he was a good reliever too so I'm glad he's off Seattle in that way