Is 2007 an evaluation year?
It's been a strange offseason for the Oakland A's, and the growing restlessness among the faithful at AN is obvious. What is Billy thinking? How can we compete in 2007 when we lost Thomas, Zito, and Payton and replaced them with Piazza, (insert favorite in-house candidate for 5th starter), and an injured and inexperienced Ryan Goleski? Has Billy lost his touch? Does Billy care more about his role as corporate darling than fielding a winning baseball team? At some point this winter, most of us have probably raised these questions to ourselves. After getting tired of arguing with the voices in my head as to what I believe, I have decided to present my current theory and let the wise folks at AN attack it.
My theory of 2007 is this: the question marks surrounding the team in 2007 are simultaneously the major cause of concern for the folks at AN and the justification for Billy's offseason. I have a feeling that Billy views 2007 as an evaluation year: a year to find out what we have in an effort to deal with the large shadow that the Angels will cast upon the AL West over the next 4-5 years.
Prior to the 2005 season, Billy was fond of saying that the A's were a young team that was going to get better and better as the years went by. Of course, GMs and owners always say shit like that; Allard Baird, Cam Bonifay, etc. have made careers out of promising future growth in the midst of dwindling talent. In Billy's case, though, his 2005 optimism was based on reasonable assumptions. Rich Harden was a rising superstar who had not begun his Mark Prior impersonation. Chavez was a super talented player who was entering his prime and appeared ready to join the superstar class. Dan Meyer was one of the best left-handed pitching prospects in baseball, and Dan Haren was a good young pitcher who had just pitched really well in the postseason at a young age. Our up the middle defense/offense was very strong, led by a healthy Kotsay, a budding star in Crosby, and newly healed Ellis to go along with a catcher coming off a .395 OBP in 2004. At that time, our minor league system was still considered solid, and the sky appeared to be the limit for the future.
Fast forward to this offseason, and many of these reasonably based optimisms have not turned out to be true. Harden is a huge question mark because of his health, Crosby is a question mark in a medical sense and a baseball intelligence sense, Ellis has been brilliant defensively but erratic on offense, Chavez has been hurt and has now declined offensively for three straight years, Meyer has become a sad reminder of why stat guys say TINSTAAPP, Kotsay appears to be in an irreversible decline because of chronic back problems, and Kendall had a horrific 2005 followed by a mediocre 2006. To add insult to injury, our minor league system is now considered weak by every major prospect expert.
Of course, despite these crushing blows, good things have happened. We were competitive in 2005 despite Ratto's "expert" predictions. Haren, Street, Swisher, and Duke have surprised. In 2006, we leveraged a year of Thomas, solid pitching, and a bit of luck into an ALCS appearance.
Faced with the question marks created by the failure of reasonably optimistic assumptions about players to materialize, what does Billy do in 2007? Does he give up a 2007 season and rebuild for 2008? Billy has never been willing to tank a season, and it was not reasonable to expect that he would do so in this offseason. However, Billy is willing to risk a season to find out what he has, 2005 showed that Billy is willing to "reload with risk." I think this is what Billy is doing in 2007. Billy is willing to risk the A's 2007 season in an effort to see what he is going to get in the future from Crosby, Chavez, Gaudin, Kennedy, Ellis, Johnson, and Harden.
Is this a smart strategy by Beane? For 2007, it is a risky option. We are basing a lot of our season on players that are large question marks for 2007. However, it seems to me that the A's may benefit in the future from this strategy. The one nice thing about this offseason is that we have not taken any steps that limit our future options. We have signed no players to long-term contracts, and we have not traded anyone who was a part of our future. If the disappointing players continue to disappoint in 2007, I believe we will see a housecleaning prior to 2008. For this year, I think it's a reasonable decision on Beane's part to buy time while assessing what we have. The weakness of the AL West still gives the A's a fighting chance to compete in 2007. It's not what I wanted going into the offseason, but I can accept this strategy if no major moves are made prior to Spring Training.
0 recs |
82
comments
Comments
good stuff
by xbhaskarx on Jan 24, 2007 5:53 PM PST 0 recs
What happened to your poet friend?
by grover on
Jan 24, 2007 6:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
We will all miss his wit and prose
-Nick Swisher
by kaweahkaweah on
Jan 24, 2007 7:03 PM PST
up
0 recs
no idea
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 24, 2007 8:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
That is exactly how I feel...
Although I am expecting big things from Harden, Crosby and Chavez next season... Not so much from DJ, and Kielty... So I hope they surprise me.
by SD Erik on Jan 24, 2007 6:37 PM PST 0 recs
Sums up my thoughts quite nicely
Although, assuming a Worst Case Scenario, the housecleaning could start in July 07. It would take amazing seasons to boost Kennedy and Bradley into Type A FA status (and if we have amazing seasons from those two we probably aren't in a WCS) and since the Type B class have lost much of there value I would expect Beane to trade those two if it looked like the A's were in for a rebuild.
by grover on Jan 24, 2007 6:50 PM PST 0 recs
What do you think
by carp on
Jan 24, 2007 7:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm not sure modest exists in this market
I don't believe in paying money to players I can't count on to play when I want them to.
by grover on
Jan 24, 2007 7:13 PM PST
up
0 recs
I see your points...
by carp on
Jan 25, 2007 7:29 AM PST
up
0 recs
i say we try to lock him up
by methodrampage on
Jan 25, 2007 7:04 AM PST
up
0 recs
Good points
by BlameChannel53 on
Jan 24, 2007 7:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yes, indeed
http://athleticsnation.com/comments/2007/1/24/103313/873/29#29
As we all get a little frustrated waiting for the next genius Beane move, I am kind of hoping he waits for the deadline. For one thing, we have little of value to trade right now that we aren't already counting on if we are good. But even if Beane was able to whip up a classic and get 2 or 3 guys that we are all thrilled about, it would probably be at the expense of the farm and then the axis of injury (Harden/Crosby/Ellis/Bradley/Kennedy/Kotsay) could all go down at once and we would have traded some good future pieces for nothing but a failure in the present.
If Beane waits until the deadline to decide, the picture will be clearer. We could either be in a position to fill a desperate need on a contender, or we could be in a position to get a heck of a lot more for a guy like Blanton than a 21 year old outfielder with a bad attitude that will probably demand a trade when someone tells him he can't steal bases. Heck, as desperate as it looks like the Mets will be for pitching by then, we probably could have gotten a gem prospect from them for Saarloos if we had waited. (No offense, David Shafer)
by broaklyn on
Jan 25, 2007 5:53 AM PST
up
0 recs
The Axis Of Injury....
by Shippee33 on
Jan 25, 2007 7:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
In a related thought...
http://www.minorleagueball.com/
by grover on Jan 24, 2007 6:56 PM PST 0 recs
Yes
by BlameChannel53 on
Jan 24, 2007 7:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
Trades
by Threepwood XX on Jan 24, 2007 7:11 PM PST 0 recs
nice diary, but:
i think with a healthy chavez, a healthy harden, a healthy crosby, bradley going into a contract year, haren and street one year more experienced, a better balanced bullpen and a team playing for a new manager, this '07 team is a 100 win team... EASY. This team will win the west next yr....comfortably.
as for trying to understand "what billy is thinking?"-don't. my guess is you'ii never figure it out. you see, the greatest trick billy ever pulled was convincing the baseball world he didn't know what the hell he was doing. And like that...poof, he pulls a fuckin' a trade. :-)
by bigelephant on Jan 24, 2007 7:13 PM PST 0 recs
Unfortunately BigE
Larry Davis is still the trainer and I believe Hannibal Lector is the team doctor.
by grover on
Jan 24, 2007 7:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
oh, yea of little faith!
by bigelephant on
Jan 24, 2007 7:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
<sigh>
by grover on
Jan 24, 2007 8:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
should make AN Quote of the Month
by carp on
Jan 25, 2007 7:29 AM PST
up
0 recs
QOTM?
by grover on
Jan 25, 2007 4:43 PM PST
up
0 recs
Don't steal our fun
As to your optimism for 2007, the large amount of qualifiers in your 100 win prediction is exactly what we're talking about. I would love to assume that all of those good things will come true, but they didn't come true last year, and there's no way to know whether they will this year.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jan 24, 2007 7:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
well, exactly my friend
by bigelephant on
Jan 24, 2007 7:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Agree
by BlameChannel53 on
Jan 24, 2007 8:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
we have a good shot to win the AL west next year
if i had to do an oaktoon-like pulling of numbers out of some orifice, i'd say:
angels 50%
a's 40%
rangers 10%
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 24, 2007 8:10 PM PST
up
0 recs
sounds about right
Angels 50%
A's 45%
Texas 5%
But I'm just orifice pickin' as well.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jan 24, 2007 8:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'd say
A's: 35%
Rangers: 10%
Mariners: 0% (accurate to 0.0%)
by mikeA on
Jan 24, 2007 8:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
35% is too low
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 24, 2007 8:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
he's got something to prove
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 24, 2007 8:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
LOL
by oblique on
Jan 24, 2007 9:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
whoa, that's how i originally had it
and really that makes it 47% to 53% because we all know the rangers will tank in the summer and finish with 82 wins, as they do every year.
really shouldn't we be satisfied with a 47% chance of winning the division? add our 6-10% chance of being the wild card, and i'm quite satisfied with our current team.
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 24, 2007 8:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
Texas is revitalized
by Charlie Brown on
Jan 25, 2007 3:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
and...
by peoples27 on
Jan 28, 2007 7:25 AM PST
up
0 recs
I would revise those rankings
Angels 40%
A's 32%
Rangers 26%
Mariners 2%
Point is that the Rangers are revitalized with Ron Washington and management willing to spend some money to get him the team he wants.
by Charlie Brown on
Jan 25, 2007 4:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
mine
A's 30%
Mariners 10%
Rangers 5%
...I think the Mariners have a better chance than the Rangers of finishing last also; they just have some talent that, if all goes well, could materialize into something of a contender, despite Bavasi's well-earned recent ranking as the worst GM in baseball. With Ichiro in a contract year, Beltre perhaps showing signs of life in the second half last year, Ibanez, Sexson, a healthy Vidro (bigger if than a healthy Crosby), Jojihma, decent middle IF, and Jose fucking Guillen (potentially the best player on the team), they're likely the best lineup in the division. What they lack in OBP they make up for in SLG. Still, no easy outs there, unless Hargrove gives Bloomquist 400 AB's again, which would be nice. I predict Felix competes with Harden for the Cy this year, the bullpen is solid...if they get any pitching from 2-5, they could win 90 games. More likely that they lose a lot of 8-6 games and finish 75-87.
OTOH, Texas is like guaranteed to finish within 5 games of .500...
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 4:26 AM PST
up
0 recs
so, how 'bout some last place %'s
Rangers 28%
A's 17%
Angels 5%
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 4:35 AM PST
up
0 recs
random sportsbook AL West odds
A's 2:1
Rangers 5:1
Mariners 12:1
Most people here would probably like those 2:1 odds for the A's...I almost do. M's at 12:1 almost appeals to me.
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 4:41 AM PST
up
0 recs
translated into percentages:
A's 2:1 = 33.33%
Rangers 5:1 = 16.67%
Mariners 12:1 = 7.69%
No, I am not betting on the Angels, despite what the numbers would suggest, heh
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 4:50 AM PST
up
0 recs
my bad...
So yeah, now I'm definitely not betting on them. And I was kind of wondering why the sportsbook was being so generous...with my previous percentages, the numbers added up to a bit under 100%, which would mean no juice, and in fact a little overlay for the bettors. Now the sum of the percentages is about 116.
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 4:56 AM PST
up
0 recs
Angels' computational error
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:09 AM PST
up
0 recs
last step
Angels: 50.28% (I guess the real bet here is Angels or the field...)
A's: 28.73%
Rangers: 14.37%
Mariners: 6.62%
heh, despite rounding to the hundredth place, that adds up to exactly 100%.
So that's what the sportsbook I consulted is "predicting" (more accurately, what the bettors on that sportsbook are predicting with their bets) for the AL West. These are the useful figures for comparisons with our predictions; if you're going to bet, obviously, the previous ones are the useful ones. The juice makes all the difference for whether of not I would bet on the A's...given any credibility for my 30% projection, I would bet on them without the juice, seeing as I'd have a SLIGHT advantage over the house's projected 28.73% chance. But with the juice, the 33.33% chance gives me, in betting parlance, a -EV (negative expected value), of 9% to be exact.
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:07 AM PST
up
0 recs
other divisions' odds
Yankees 4:9
Red Sox 2:1
Blue Jays 6:1
Orioles 100:1 (lol)
Devil Rays 100:1 (lol...c'mon, 80:1 for the D-Rays)
Seeing as the Yankees' odds are predictably skewed, I think betting a good amount of money on the Red Sox AND Blue Jays here would be really smart. Two ways to do this. First, say you put a grand down on both, two grand bet total. If the Red Sox win the division, you win two grand...you get your money back. If the Blue Jays win, you get six grand...a 3:1 payout.
But if you're like me and think Boston's 2:1 odds are what you really want to cash in on (anyone want to argue with me that they're the best team in the league?), then bet six times as much on the Red Sox as you would on the Blue Jays. For example, 1800 on the Sox and 300 on the Jays. If the Jays' well-balanced squad overcomes the Evil Empires and prevails, you get 1800, your money back. If the Sox win, as you would expect, you double up to 3600. Note to self: remember this.
AL Central:
Before I even click on this division...if ANY of the 4 contenders here have odds significantly below the other teams, that's the bet.
White Sox 9:5
Tigers 9:5
Twins 3:1
Indians 4:1
Royals 75:1 (I think they forgot a zero or two)
Give me a small bet on the Tribe, please. With each passing day I'm getting more and more convinced that they're the best team here...but say for argument's sake that all 4 teams are even bets to win the division, then they should all be 4:1. So there's no real value in betting much on the Tribe. Thank the juice for that.
NL East:
Mets 2:5
Phillies 4:1 (I guess people are buying into Jimmy Rollins' recent prediction that they'd win the division...I certainly don't. This 4:1 bet is way worse than the Tribe's.)
Marlins 6:1
Braves 8:1 (um...$$$$$$$)
Nats 50:1
I'd wait on this one. If the Mets don't add an SP by the beginning of the season, Braves are a good bet at those odds. Besides, you'll have more reason to cheer for Hudson.
NL Central
Curious to see how the Cubs' flurry of deals has affected the betting lines...
Cardinals 7:5
Cubs 7:5 (oh boy)
Astros 7:1
Brewers 7:1
Reds 12:1
Pirates 35:1
wow. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to throw money at some team in this division (and you'd have to do that to get me to bet in a 6-team division stacked with mediocre teams), I guess I'd take a flier on the Pirates paying off big, like I did for the NFL this year when I took the Cards at 25:1 odds to win the entire NFC (heh...looks dumb now, but if Leinart started earlier, they probably win the division, then who knows...they sure showed they could beat the Bears during the regular season). Mind you, that was for $20. Wouldn't even waste that on the NL Central...
NL West
Dodgers 7:5
Padres 5:2
Giants 3:1 (lol)
Diamondbacks 6:1 (should be odds for the Giants, too)
Rockies 12:1
Given the gun-to-the-head scenario for this division, I think I'd let you shoot me and hope for the best.
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:40 AM PST
up
0 recs
thanks for the odds
by apilgrim on
Jan 25, 2007 9:16 AM PST
up
0 recs
my pleasure
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
mullet once again breaks his own record
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 25, 2007 10:57 AM PST
up
0 recs
heh
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:13 PM PST
up
0 recs
is this correct?
by xbhaskarx on
Jan 25, 2007 11:00 AM PST
up
0 recs
from the bettors' perspective, yeah
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
with juice though...
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
confirmed
by methodrampage on
Jan 26, 2007 9:07 AM PST
up
0 recs
one error
If you have the funds and have no qualms about making bets (whether it be philosophical opposition or whatever other reason), I would strongly recommend betting heavily on this. As things stand, I look to (finally) be making an income soon, with an Internet venture being launched next month that AN will be hearing about, but...it will take about a year to determine whether that's boom or bust. In the meantime, I'm going to have to part with a Tiger Woods SI for Kids card that inexplicably (to me...it's a fucking cutout card...but it's considered his "rookie" card, and it's valuable, so I'm not complaining) is worth anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000+ depending on the condition of the card, which I need to have professionally graded. So the moral of the story is that I'll probably just have a little bit to throw at this bet, but if I had more, I'd use it to essentially bet against the Yankees winning the AL East.
by Cutthemullet on
Jan 25, 2007 5:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
Dan Johnson will indeed
by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 9:16 PM PST 0 recs
You know
by grover on
Jan 24, 2007 9:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yeah, I forgot to mention that
by Nico on
Jan 24, 2007 9:31 PM PST
up
0 recs
Thanks for the clarification
by grover on
Jan 25, 2007 7:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
2007 as an evaluation year
by grover on Jan 25, 2007 5:32 AM PST 0 recs
true grover
by bigelephant on
Jan 25, 2007 5:56 AM PST
up
0 recs
I agree 2007 will be an evluation year...
by Miggy on
Jan 25, 2007 8:24 AM PST
up
0 recs
health evaluation
by methodrampage on Jan 25, 2007 7:14 AM PST 0 recs
Evaluating Health
- Swisher and Chavez as the cornerstones. Harden, Haren, and Street on the bump. These guys are locked up for 3+ Years.
They BELIEVE they have the right prospects filling key positions over the next 2-3 years:
- Buck (07-08), Barton (07-08), Suzuki(08), Herrera (09), Mellilo (08-09)
They BELIEVE in the young pitching prospects they drafted the past few seasons:
- Cahill, Lansford, Mazzaro, Italiano, Ray, Webb
I don't see things getting BAD all of a sudden. I don't see things getting BAD gradually. Some things never change. Death, Taxes, and the A's in contention in the AL West.
by Colorado Fan on
Jan 25, 2007 7:46 AM PST
up
0 recs


