Brian Snyder, Ryan Webb and Brad Knox

http://as-future.blogspot.com

I'll include a piece so this post doesn't get pointlessly deleted, like last time

AF - Word was that the A's were impressed with how well you did in instructional league, how much do the A's let you know their feelings on your performance?

BS - I think the A's were impressed with playing although I know they were dissappointed in my wieght gain and how i was out of shape. They let you know if you are doing well or not. They are pretty open with letting you know where you stand.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/2/23/1581/39530

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/2/17/104923/585

Though it would be interesting to go back on. Some gems in there for sure

Submit New Entry
One-line diaries are prohibited on Minor League Ball. Give your diary a bit more thought, then give it another shot. If you have nothing to add to your proposed diary, then it probably belongs as a comment under another appropriate thread.

The minimum is 300 characters.

http://as-future.blogspot

an exerpt to meet the minimum post requirement:

AF: Your high school teammate Paul Kelly went just one selection after you, what was that like for the both of you?

CI: I was on the phone with the A's when he was selected. My mom yelled the news from the other room. We couldn't believe it! Has that ever happend before?

I posted this on my blog and thought it was worth posting here.

Ever hear of Gregorio Petit? That's ok, he's an A's prospect and most A's fans have never heard of him.

He's a SS about exactly a year younger than Hanley and he's in Low A. Now, I understand that is a big difference between Low A and AA, so we wont look just at their numbers this season, we'll go back and look at Hanley at the same level.

Hanley in Low A 2003 at 19: 422 AB's, 73 K's, 35 XBH'S (8 hr's), .275/.327/.403

Gregorio Petit in Low A at 20: 287 AB's, 44 k's, 23 XBH'S (9 hr's), .289/.349/.446

Yes, Hanley was 1 year younger, but he was also a little more experienced entering that season than Petit was entering 2005. It should also be noted that Petit is considered one of the better defenders at shortstop in all of the minors.

After 2003, BaseballAmerica had Hanley as the #19 prospect in all of baseball. Now after 2005, they might not even have Petit in the top 20 of just the A's system.

Why, because Hanley has "tools"? How about a little production?

Please keep in mind that I'm saying we should hear more of Petit, just that we should hear less of Ramirez and he should hardly be the key to a deal for a good starter.

with so many posts in the first thread some opinions get lost. Here is mine:

What people need to understand, is that there is no difference mentally for a rookie coming up now as opposed to the start of the year. If anything, it's harder for a rookie to start the year because if he struggles he has to go back 6 months since his last success. If Barton were to come up and struggle he would only have to go back 2 weeks to go "oh yeah, I was pretty good". I understand that guys up the whole season have more of a chance to play off struggles but at most that simply evens out the first thing I said.

The A's let their rookies and youngsters struggle. Swisher did. Blanton did. Haren did. Crosby did. Harden did. Mulder did. Tejada did.

I'm sure the A's trust their rookies to know that struggles are simply a part of the game. The trust their rookies to know that the A's will stick with them through thick and thin (the rare Jose Ortiz aside).

Barton SHOULD BE ON THE A'S RIGHT NOW. Why? Because he would be an upgrade over what they had now. To whoever said the thing about the A's DH's right now combining for a .800 OPS...Well, if they could, then stick with them. The problem? They CANNOT put up an OPS of .800. They haven't to date and they wont from this point.

Barton being up will help the A's in their quest for the playoffs and he'll help in the playoffs if they make it. And he'd play for the league minimum with no effect on his arbitration years. Barton not being up is stupid. End of story.

To avoid getting lost in the 266 comments from Saturday's game thread, I'm posting a diary on the subject of Chris Shelton.

I was extremely offended by the comparison Blez made between Chris Shelton and Sloth from The Goonies. And before some of you start thinking I'm a tight ass, I assure you that I'm not. I sometimes come to AN to read about baseball, not to read hateful (different from just 'you suck') comments from the person in charge of the site.

That same person in charge deletes posts that say "The A's suck". While we can't say the A's suck, I guess it's OK to make hateful comments about a ball player as well as make a joke about a disfigurement.

I know there are some who felt the same way.

After tearing his esophagus before Thursday nights game. He choked on a grape in the clubhouse. He had to be rushed to the hospital. I wonder if he almost died.

Sucks for the A's and especially for Putnam. Hopefully he's able to come back healthy and at full strength soon.

And it's still not 300 characters? Am I close? I don't think so. So uhh, be careful when you're eating grapes.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/at100.html

Hmm, I have to fill up another line and get up to 300 character, so..

1991. 1. Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics
      
1992. 2. Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics
      
1993. 7. Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics

I like 1996 too, A's had #'s 84, 85, 87, and 88. In that order it went John Wasdin, then Brad Rigby, then Steve Cox, and finally Miguel Tejada.

from rotoworld:

The Angels gave first-round pick Jered Weaver until midnight Wednesday to accept their offer of a $4 million signing bonus, but Weaver turned it down.
A source close to the Angels said that any offer the team makes in the future would be lower. Weaver has until June 7 to sign or he will re-enter the draft and the Angels will lose his rights. Mar. 3 - 8:42 am et
Source: Los Angeles Times