The continuing evolution of your Oakland Athletics

by kirbyk on Dec 11, 2004 11:07 AM PST Comment 21 comments

Like many of us, I've been ruminating on the potential, inevitable departure of one of the big three. It might not happen this year, but it will happen, and it will be the end of an era.

... Which is what we said when Giambi left.

... Which is what we said when Tejada left.

And Damon, and Isringhausen, and all those players that got expensive and we didn't keep.

But see, that's where the real genius of Billy Beane comes into play. Yes, I'm not happy about seeing Hudson or Zito or Tejada playing in anything other than the green and gold for life. But we're not trying to sell loyalty to individuals here - we're trying to win ballgames.

Every year, we lose at least one key player. Every year, there's much gnashing of teeth. And the bottom line is, we do about as well on the field anyway.

Can it end? Sure. It's all about the minor league pipeline producing cheap superstars to replace the ones we just lost. Or be enticing in trades for the parts we need. And if there's one thing to be hopeful about as an A's fan, it's our minor league system. It's stacked like a lifeguard from Baywatch.

Beane operates largely from the strategy to make the best available team, not any particular kind of team. With the Big 3 + strong supporting pitchers, we've been heavily defense based. If they leave, maybe our pitching trends back towards league average - but while that's happening, Beane's bringing in some more offense.

Weep not for the departed. We are a constantly evolving unit, optimized for victory. Some leave, some stay, but there's always a plan, and it works. The era is not about to end, just yet.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Our Farm System

Our farm is NOT stacked. The upper minors are avg at best and we have no starting pitching prospects. The lower minors are stacked. With that in mind, we have an above avg farm system which would rank about 10th out of 30 teams.

"obsessive" is what lazy people call the "dedicated"

by Beanecounter on Dec 11, 2004 11:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

2 comments

one I think our farm system is pretty solid. I dont know how well we rank with other clubs, but I would say top 8 easily, second, if pavano goes for 4 years 40 million meaning 10 million a year, well then shouldn't Huddy go for the same, but with a hometown discount he should be in the neighborhood of 8 to 9 million a year...

by KINGKONGKINGMAN on Dec 11, 2004 11:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You are wrong, Kingman

Kevin Goldstein of BaseballAmerica said that the A's best starting pitcher prospect after Blanton is Windsor who just got out of college. Beane knows he need some good pitchers to replace the big three.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cheap, good pitching

We've been spoiled.

Look at the value general managers place on good pitching. Guys with Jaret Wright (two good seasons since 1997) or Carl Pavano (one really good season) are rewarded with huge contracts.

The A's have never had to pay that much for a starting pitcher. Blanton had better be good, because as you note, the cupboard is pretty bare. And the pitcher we get for Hudson had better be cheap and good. And here's hoping Windsor and some of the other pitching prosects in the lower minors pan out, or else 2007 is looking really grim.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the problem

The whole system is dependent on the farm system not just being productive, but being extraordinarily productive. The success of the A's is built on those late-1990s drafts (The Big Three, Giambi, Tejada, Chavez). Subsequent drafts have produced some promising players (Harden, Crosby) but no breakout stars - yet.

If our farm system reverts to the mean, the A's are a mediocre team. No amount of Beane's trading wizardry will stop the slide. And it can be argued that the team has been on a slow but steady downslope since 2001. The impending loss of Hudson is likely to accelerate the decline next year.

We better hope that more than a few of the promising propsects in the lower minors develop into stars, because that's what makes Beane's system work.

Of course, it's not perfect. Number of playoff series wins in the Beane Era: zero.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 11:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

THE MINORS

WE ALL KNOW BASEBALL AMERICA CAN BE VERY INNACURATE, JIM..I ALSO DIDNT SAY BEST PITCHING STAFF OR EVEN MENTION THE PITCHING STAFF IN THE MINORS...I AM TALKING AS THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE..REGARDLESS IF WE HAVE A GOOD PITCHER CATCHER, 2ND BASE ETC, IN THE MINORS WHATEVER POSISTION THEY MAY BE, WE CAN ALWAYS TRADE FOR ANOTHER POSISTION PLAYER IN THE BIGS TO HELP US

by KINGKONGKINGMAN on Dec 11, 2004 11:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

Lately, our high draft pick pitchers haven't panned out. Blanton has done well and we have some good relievers, but otherwise we've come up short. Sullivan, Fritz, Rheineker, even Mario Ramos, were all considered to be top prospects at one time. None have performed well past high A. Or new crop of hitters may pick up some of the slack though. If they pan out, having Crosby, Swisher, Johnson, Street, Garcia and Quintanilla for $350K each gives you a lot of wiggle room to go out and get a starter to fill a hole until the next crop of youngsters comes up. That's the beauty of our system. It's how our payroll balances. One strength covers a weakness. Every now and then we'll have one year when all those strengths come together (2001) and we make a serious run, but we remain consistently competitive in the meantime.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 11, 2004 12:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

High level prospects

The A's minor league system is one of the best. It's a fact. A minor league system is judged by the number of player that make the majors and the quality of those players. We've had Rookie of the Year after ROY. We have gotten Cy Young contenders.

A few years ago, Hudson, Mulder, and Zito all came up back to back. We'll have several pitchers who will be ready within two years, including one (Windsor) who is Ace material. We have one starting pitcher that's major-league ready (Blanton). We have a Long Reliever that could be turned into a good spot starter/ #5 starter. It will be at least a year before one of our other prospects are ready to step into the rotation, but that's to be expected. You don't grow a rotation overnight!

In about a year, we'll have a bumper crop of catchers ready. We've got some promising high level outfielders. We have one player who might jump to the majors after less than 1 full year in the minors (Street). Mark Prior has heen the only one (recently) to pull that off successfully. That's fantastic.

Don't forget about the Latin American front. We've got highly skilled scouts scouring the area for the next big thing sitting under a mango tree. We've got a few Latin American players who could be ready within 2 years.

Our farm system has been THE best in the past few years. It has 1-2 starting pitchers, a reliever, and a couple of hitters ready now. The future is very promising, but only if you're patient.

For comparison, the Braves (who might have the second or third best system) have a bunch of outfielders, a catcher and no pitchers ready for the majors. Their farm system hasn't turned out a great pitcher in a while and their best pitcher in there is still at least a year away. There are a number of other factors that have helped the Braves succeed, but their farm system has helped them out. True, they have retained a nucleus of core players (Smoltz, Andruw and Chipper), but they've adapted after the loss of some key players.

Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz were the original Big 3 and they were only able to keep 1 of them. Did they surrender hope? Hell no! Their payroll has been stagnant at around 80 mil for a couple of years now, but they have stayed competetive and even gave the Astros (a club that had a hell of a lot more talent than them) to the brink.

Clay

by Capt on Dec 11, 2004 12:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The farm system

While I agree that the A's minor league system is not as bare as some have stated you have gone too far the other way. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

Unless Blanton takes a big leap forward he's likely to end up a #3 starter. Windsor is further away but his realistic ceiling is also as a middle of the rotation guy and not an Ace. He too could make the quantum leap that Hudson made but that is up to the Baseball gods to decide. There is at least a one year gap between Blanton and the next minor league starter with the potential to pitch in the bigs.

The bumper crop of catchers you mentioned will not be ready in a year. It is looking less likely that Brown or Baker will ever be big league starters, although both could funciton well in a platoon role. They still have time to become more than just part time players but it remains to be seen if it will happen. Suzuki and Powell, whom I believe are the unnamed reasons for your optimism, are both more than a year away. The earliest realistic timetable for either should be a Sep. call up in 2006.

The same can be said for the OF trio of Putnam, Robnett and Herrera. Jason Perry needs at least a full season in the upper minors before he's ready to contribute in Oakland. "Q" is in the same boat as Perry... he needs more time.

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

While BA certainly looks more at the potential of current prospects, as opposed to track record of developing solid big leagues, when evaluating farm systems, I must speak out and rain down on everyone's parade when they say the A's are "stacked". We're not "stacked". We're average, but we do have a great player development program that has produced good players from otherwise lackluster prospects. That is my hope. However, right now the cupboards do seem a bit bare past this year's crop. We have a few guys in the lower levels who seem like they could be special, but we all know it's a long way to go from A-ball to the majors.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 11, 2004 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The latest batch looks good

Swisher, Blanton, Johnson and Street will all be on the 2005 Opening Day roster. It's just the next wave is a little murky.

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea

But i mean what can you say. We can't have prospects ready to step in every year can we? We aren't god. But the point about not having any pitchers till Jason Windsor, Michael Rogers brings up another one. This is why it would be good to trade Huddy for a starter we can have at least two more years. For instance, getting Edwin Jackson would solidify the rotation, leaving it intact until 2006 when Zito and Mulder are free agents. Getting like a 27 year old "proven" who could be a free agent in 2006 also does nto bode well. Which brings me back to the same idea of getting fringe prospects ready to contribute who will be with us for a long time.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't understand what average means

Most farm systems suck.

You can generally put farm systems in 3 categories: consistently productive, not productive and in between. The Twins, Braves, and A's have the only systems that are consistently productive. Other teams, like the Cubs, are fairly productive in only pitchers, for example. And then there are the ones that flat out suck (like the Royals and Yankees).

Clay

by Capt on Dec 11, 2004 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Though

To me, how the royals farm system sucks is unbelievable. They should have at least a couple top prospects. I mean they suck ever year.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Royals

They've almost always gone after uber ceiling guys and those types don't pan out as often.

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Royals vs. A's

The Royals' system is a great contrast to the A's. They usually have top draft picks and as such have quite some talent coming into the system, but most of it is lost along the way, with nearly nothing coming out. Zack Greinke being an exception. This, coupled with the fact that alot of their young pitchers have gone down due to injury, suggests they have a poor player development program. Their drafting might be average, but their track record of developing players is abysmal. The jury's still out whether the A's drafting strategy is optimal, but we know that our player development program can make the most out of what comes into the system.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 11, 2004 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In defense of the Royals...

One of the reasons their farm system is rated so bad is because they have several players are no longer considered prospects (John Buck, the catcher they got from the Astros for Beltran, and Zack Greinke, their Ace junkballer). They also had an excellent draft class this year, partly because they were able to sign great players for cheap. But their development is pretty shitty. Greinke, from what I understand, is his own pitching coach. Buck was developed by the Astros.

Clay

by Capt on Dec 11, 2004 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

KC stinks

They drafted Colt Griffin in 2001 because he threw 100 MPH in a HS game. He wasn't anywhere near a 1st round pick until he threw that fastball. He's done absolutely nothing since then, and going into the 2004 season he was still considered one of their top 5 prospects.

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't get me started on the Royals.

UGH!

by Jennifer on Dec 11, 2004 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OaktownTribesman

You've made this point a number of times now, that the A's are rather ordinary in the number of prospects they acquire but extraordinary in how well they develop those prospects.

Where do you get this? It's an interesting distinction, and I want to believe that the A's are special in developing players (and it's the kind of edge you'd expect from a smart organization), but I don't have enough data to make my own judgment. Do you have more? Has someone really studied this? Is this just your impression (not that there's anything wrong with that), or do you have something more to support it? Please tell.

by Faust on Dec 11, 2004 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Coach K

In this context, I think Beane is a lot like Mike Krzyzewski at Duke: he operates under a fairly severe institutional handicap in comparison to his peers (Duke's relatively genuine "scholar-athlete" bona fides eliminates a lot of top high school recruits from consideration); he knows that every year, more and more of his top players will move on to more lucrative opportunities; and he's building a loyal cadre of former players and coaches who are spreading his methodology and value system around the league.

And yet he keeps contending year in and year out, and keeps figuring out a way to attract and retain top talent.

And, in a further parallel, he's turned down opportunities himself to cash in and move up to the big-money slots.

by monkeyball on Dec 11, 2004 9:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs