Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Bullish on Oakland 08

Oakland_tiny by Blez on in News

Now that the 2007 baseball season is officially over (someone needed to tell the Rockies that it wasn't over after they beat the D'Backs), I just wanted to share my opinion on the A's looking forward.  Keep in mind that this can change quite a bit depending on what happens with the other teams in the AL West this offseason.

But I honestly really like the A's chances in 2008 as of October 29, 2007.  Without even thinking about what PECOTA projects for the A's players for the 2008 season, I do think the A's will benefit in 2008 for the misery they experienced in 2007.  Billy Beane and company are aggressively looking at the health issues and how to improve them, although many of the injury problems have been freak accidents like Crosby and Piazza.

I think all the injury issues gave the A's the opportunity to do really important things like get Kurt Suzuki some much needed experience, give Daric Barton and Travis Buck a shot and find a fantastic DH in Jack Cust.  The A's offense is not going to look like the Yankees, but if you have a lineup with Buck, Barton, Suzuki and Cust then you're starting with a pretty good foundation.  Throw in a healthy and rejuvenated Eric Chavez and Denorfia in center field more often than not and now we're talking about a team that can win a good share of games because the starting pitching is excellent.  

Granted, there is some hopeful thinking in that.  The team will be dependent on a lot of young talent and young talent usually is pretty inconsistent.  But it isn't anything new for this franchise to be depending on young talent.  

I'll say it again.  A lot can change between now and opening day in April next year.  But as of right now, I'm a lot more bullish about the A's in 2008 than I ever was about them in 2007.

How are you feeling right now?  Am I the only one that likes the green and gold in 2008?

Poll
How are you feeling about the A's 2008 season with the team as it is currently constructed?
  • I like the team and think it will be competitive.
  • I don't like the team and think it needs a lot of help.
  • I'm just meh about the A's in 2008.

  840 votes | Results

0 recs | Comment 129 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

We certainly have huge question marks,

but I'm also bullish on the team for '08.

I'd rather not speculate in general, but, if the team stands pat, we'll have to make the most of our in house options – sort of a "Watch and Wait '08." The extent to which the A's have to retool for 2009 will greatly depend on who's healthy this season. Hopefully, the 2009 team is super similar to the 2008, because that would mean our guys stayed healthy and had nice seasons. And so long Kotsay!

I find your lack of Faith disturbing...

by rebus on Oct 29, 2007 11:59 PM PDT   0 recs

yeah, just a little hopeful thinking ;-)

but hey, we're fans!

I'm looking forward to getting my 2008 season tickets soon.

by OaklandSi on Oct 30, 2007 6:39 AM PDT   0 recs

Bearish on 2008 (and 09, 10, 11...)

We've put a worse offensive team on the field every year since about 2002.  The runs scored may go up and down, but the quality of the players getting AB's has declined every year.  Marco Scutaro got almost 400 PA's this year.  Shannon Stewart got over 600 PA's.  Blame the injuries, but even with the penciled in starters, this team was bound for mediocrity.  

Billy has been a genius at making patchwork solutions year to year, but the team as constituted cannot hang with Boston/LA/NY/Cleveland/Detroit.  While I am excited about Buck, Barton, and Suzuki, the team lacks that core group of star hitters that characterize playoff winning teams.  The top teams in the AL (above) all have a stable of young stars-to-be to go with their 9-figure payrolls (ex Cleveland which actually spent less than us this year).  

The mediocrity cannot be replaced easily as it requires a wholesale shift in long-term strategy.  While I would welcome a radical rebuilding, I feel Billy will go for the band-aids again and hope to get lucky.  Delaying the inevitable pain of rebuilding usually just makes the rebuilding more difficult and lengthy.  

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Oct 30, 2007 6:42 AM PDT   0 recs

glass mostly empty huh?

I don't see that the offense has been worse and worse since 2002.   I do see that the offense has been mediocre since 2002. Excepting last year's white flag job, we've been the same team every year.

runs per game rank by League average
2002 8th
2003 9th
2004 9th
2005 6th
2006 9th
2007 11th

Of course, playing in a pitcher's park skews these numbers somewhat.  But whatever.

When you say you favor a radical rebuilding, do you mean that you favor trading Blanton, Street and Haren for prospects?  That's about the only radical thing I can see us doing. And Swisher I guess.  

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 10:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yup

and the worst part is that the A's are just a tangential asset to a real estate scheme which looks to have a big possible downside, if it really gets moving at all.   the team is going to pay the price for the losing business schemes and half-baked political posturing of the ownership for at least a few more years.  

of course, this is all just my opinion and speculation...

by notah8er on Oct 30, 2007 10:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

off topic,

what does your screen name mean?

I was watching Conan O'Brien last night and he made a bet with Jason Buck to say, "Jub-jub" during the WS broadcast and O'Brien would donate $ to his fav charity. They showed the clip when Buck found a way to include the word and it was too funny. He also made another dare with Charles Barkley to say it tonight during the TNT basketball broadcast. Looking fwd to seeing how the Chuckster includes it in his broadcast...

Dear Raider fan, Please, please, don't sell out this Sunday's game! I want to watch the Pats/Colts game on TV. Thanks.

by sf drift king on Oct 30, 2007 2:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My best guess

Jub Jub is the name of the pet iguana owned by Marge Simpson's sister Selma, as featured in the episode in which Selma serves as a phony beard wife for fish-enamored actor Troy McClure (whom you might remember from such self-help films as "Smoke Yourself Thin!" and "Get Confident, Stupid!")

Well I used to live the night life, but now the night life's living me.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 30, 2007 4:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I love the A's

and the positivity, Blez, but there are just too many question marks and too much competition for me to feel the A's have much of a shot next year.

I'll be there when the season opens, though, cheering as loudly as always.

by Brian in 317 on Oct 30, 2007 7:10 AM PDT   0 recs

I'm bullish too,

but when am I not when it comes to my team? I think it'll take us until June next year to see where we are going. If the injury bug is still plaguing us next year, we're sunk. If we're healthy, across the board, we're in the Series next season. :)

by Gromit1025 on Oct 30, 2007 7:17 AM PDT   0 recs

I think they'll be fun to watch.

Buck and Barton will be a lot of fun to watch, and maybe even be on base enough to be exciting.  Cust is always fun to watch when he connects.  A healthy Chavez at third, if it happens, is a thing of beauty.  And Ellis, of course.

But competitive?  I don't know; even with Buck/Barton/Cust/Chavez (IF Chavez is healthy) there's just not a whole lot of run-driving-in potential in the lineup, and the good-but-not-great pitching staff can't really make up for it.  

The team needs a star -- I don't think the A's will be competitive unless/until one star shows up at either the SS or OF positions, either by trade or by coming from out of nowhere in the minors.  I don't think Denorfia's that caliber of player.  And I don't think Chavez, even when healthy, is a star (though I think he'll have a very good season in '08 -- 33 HR, .270 AVG, maybe even a decent OBP).  I think that's why some people were so riled up when Bradley was let go -- he's the closest thing this team has had to a star (as a position player) in a long time (and he's not very close at all).

"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 7:23 AM PDT   0 recs

+1

I like the team, but the odds they'll be good are pretty low.

by MrIncognito on Oct 30, 2007 7:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

closer than Frank?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 30, 2007 9:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No, I thought about Frank

who is certainly closer to superstardom than Bradley when looking at actual performance.  I think it was the perception though that Bradley, when on the field, had the potential to be an all-around phenom.  This is a perception I don't share.  I think there was also an excitement about Bradley that wasn't there for Frank because optimists would've like to believe that Bradley had the potential to turn the A's into contenders for years to come, while Frank's emergence, though spectacular, was clearly temporary (as an asset to the A's, in any case) even when it was happening.

But I'll modify my statement to say "one of the closest things" if it'll mollify people.

"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 11:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I would feel much better with MB in CF.

That is, the 2006 version 1.0.  I really wonder about the weight he gained between seasons -- whether it was pudge or PEDs, either might've contributed to his new and improved injury problems last year.  

Oh well, he's once again cheap and available (and hurt).  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 4:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's the really comical thing

For all the grousing, complaining, and just plain silliness put out by the Bradleyites earlier this year, the only thing trading him "cost" Oakland is a worse draft position. He's now a free agent. The A's could obtain a few months of Bradley for a couple million bucks next season while still keeping Andrew Brown, who'll be (write it down) a key piece of next year's team, either as a setup man or possibly even as a starter.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 4:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Sounds like a job for

Su-per-boy  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wha?

... I'm sorry, I have literally no idea what this means.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 5:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It means Billy can't do it. Too much ego involved

He needs his trusty sidekick to go down there and talk it out with Milton.  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 5:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it would help

if I had any idea who the guy in the picture was.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 6:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Looks like Riley Finn
from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I'm guessing I'm wrong about that.

"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 6:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ah

I was thinking it was DePodesta.

Heh.

Yeah, I have no idea how they'd work things out. Maybe put a no-chair-throwing clause into the contract?

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 6:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

But really...

Riley Finn
Forst
"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 6:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

When in doubt, right clicking the image ...

... and checking Properties will usually indicate something about the subject.  

As in: ...athletics.mlb.com/oak/images/front_office/forst.jpg

Sheesh.  I know that, and I'm old.  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 6:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Pre-UFO Kucinich?

Here's a link in case that's too obscure.  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 1, 2007 10:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it might go something like this:

DF:  Hi Milton, Dave Forst.  Say, I'm in the area and wondered if you're free for a beer.  I don't like how things ended up last year, and I know Billy feels terrible about it, too.  Tough year, especially with that asshole Winters.  Whatta jerk, eh?  So, I just want to check in on you, see how you're doing, how that rehab is going, and whether you might, you know, want to think about returning to the planta--err, the Athletics in 2008.  Milton?  ...  Are you there? ...  

Actually, I think any contact would start with his agent.  I'd keep the Principals away from each other 'til a deal was pretty well done and both could look forward.  Anyone know if the Pads have indicated their intentions?    

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 7:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

As I understand it,

he's out 'til July or August.

by mikeA on Oct 30, 2007 7:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe they can just work out a sensible

visitation plan: Beane can be in the dugout Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and Bradley can be in the dugout Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. They can alternate Sundays, and Matt can have them both on Hollidays.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 30, 2007 7:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think you're allowed ...

to alternate days on the DL ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 31, 2007 6:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Buck this year was above average

offensively for corner OF. So was Swisher. Suzuki was above average for catcher, and average when compared to all hitters. Assuming Cust regress to an OPS about 850-870, that's still above average. Ellis was above average for 2nd, and above average when compared to all 2bs.

Chavez last had > 30 HRs in 2002, though he came close in 2003 and 2004 with 29. If he produces at the levels of those years, that's around a 125-130 OPS+. That's well above average for a 3b.

If all the young(ish) players: Buck, Swisher, Suzuki, Barton, Cust don't regress too much, and Ellis doesn't regress too much, a Chavez circa 2001-2004 would make the offense well above average.

Pitching looks like more of an issue.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2007 10:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's a lot of ifs

for a lot of young and/or injured and/or otherwise historically inconsistent players.

I could make a similar case for the pitching; if Street and Calero have overcome their injuries, if Haren and Blanton don't regress, if Duke adapts well to the rotation and Gaudin gains some stamina, then the pitching's above average too.

My point is just that in both cases, across the team, we could use a proven performer or two.

"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 11:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Expecting players

like Buck, Swish, Suzuki to match what they did this year is IMO, not unreasonable. I don't see much reason why any of those 3 should regress, assuming they stay healthy.

Cust, if he regress to an 850-870 OPS is still above league average.

Ellis, while he had a good season, did not have a career season. With a slight regression, he would still be above average offensively for 2b.

I'm not assuming that Chavez is going to be healthy. However, if you are assuming that he is going to hit 30 hrs, that's well above average.

Gaudin, unless you believe he is a pitcher who has some ability to control hits on balls in play, is IMO, going to regress. If he regresses to his peripherals, he is a below average starter. Still useful, yes.

Similarly, Haren, unless he has developed some ability beyond what is indicated by his K / BB rate, GB rate etc, is also probably going to regress.

Duke hasn't been a starter since when? I don't believe that it is reasonable to expect him to be a 200 IP league average starter.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2007 3:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't disagree
The point is that the performance of every single position on the roster is subject to at least a medium amount of conjecture, both on the pitching and the hitting side.

Teams need an anchor and/or a nucleus to build around -- that means one or more at least very good players whose performance they can be pretty confident in.  I don't see that we have that right now; hence my statement about stars.

"Female ass are strange creatures. They come and go as they please." -- Sigourney Weaver

by oblique on Oct 30, 2007 6:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Swisher OPS+: 101, 125, 127

Haren ERA+: 117, 108, 137

Seems like a decent nucleus to me.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 6:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Decent ...

But if those are your best players ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 31, 2007 6:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hard to say

If Harden gets healthy or Gaudin keeps lowering his walk rate, they could be better than Haren. Likewise, if Buck or Barton develops a home run stroke, they might be better than Swisher, because they're better contact hitters.

Still, Haren and Swisher are two guys who now have an established track record of performance at significantly better than average levels. I'd call them a nucleus, whereas I'd call the other guys merely high-potential.

Not that I'm saying the A's are going to be awesome next year. They need help, as currently constructed.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2007 7:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There's always hope

We've have the potential for a very strong pitching staff if we can keep Harden in 1 piece.  Can you imagine either Haren or Harden as a #2 starter?  Blanton as a #3 is very very strong, and Gaudin as a #4 and Lenny D at #5 are at least average.  The bullpen should be better than last year.  A full year (fingers crossed) of Buck, Barton, Cust, a heathy Chavez.

Mix in a little Beane magic, and the possibility of Barry Lamar splitting time in LF (a painful thought) and at the plate (a sweet thought), and I'm big-time bullish on the A's

Come February/March and the injury news starts to come in, I'll start changing my tune!

"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey

by JJ on Oct 30, 2007 7:43 AM PDT   0 recs

I don't know what to think

I feel like the second-half team (which scored an average number of runs but gave up a ton) is actually closer to the true team than the first-half team. The A's lack rotation depth. The team currently has 3 reliable starters, plus Harden, who won't even make it out of spring training. There's some significant talent in the minor leagues, but it's all at least a half-season away.

I really don't like the notion of "praying for DiNardo to stay lucky and Braden to suddenly become awesome," but right now that's what we're looking at. That, or converting relievers to starters. I don't like Duchscherer's chances of staying healthy whether he's relieving or starting.

Basically, right now the team has three holes (SP, SS, CF) and enough money to fill one of them. Unless that one hole-filler is "getting A-Rod to play shortstop," I can't see the team as currently constituted being competitive. Somehow some straw needs to be spun into gold between now and April.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 8:05 AM PDT   0 recs

I should add

that if the Angels sign A-Rod, all bets are off. If that apocalypse happens, the A's need to sell off everybody getting paid more than the league minimum except for Haren and Swisher. Street, Blanton, Embree, Duke, even Gaudin. By the time the team will be competitive again, they'll all have hit free agency.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 9:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that doesn't make sense to me

If you think that our team has no shot, then those players you mentioned are the ones we need to jettison.
That's the kind of player you can trade for high quality prospects.  And I don't see that happening.

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That was poorly worded

What I meant was, the only players I'd hang on to would be Haren and Swisher. The following would be gradually (or not so gradually) sent out the door:

Ellis
Gaudin
Blanton
Street
Embree
Duke
DiNardo
Lewis
Calero
Scutaro
Chavez
Kotsay
Crosby
Harden

because there just isn't any point in holding onto them.

Needless to say, I'd rather go to the barricades to stop the Angels from signing A-Rod than jettison half the roster.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 11:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

to what end?

I mean Ellis might get you something this off-season, but he's still cheap and we'd for sure be taking a hit there.  It'd almost be like throwing up the white flag right away.  After that, he walks if we wants to (and the A's would get that prime draft pick for him probably).

Gaudin is type of pitcher we should be looking to acquire.  Ditto Blanton.  If there is some team that values them more than we do then fine.  But I still think you get a better ROI for trading Haren for a true premium price.

Harden, Crosby, and Chavez maybe net you something in return.  Probably not much though.  And you probably have just a good a chance at keeping all of them, figuring ONE of them has a big first half of the season and then maybe you can get something more like retail for one of them.  Kotsay is similar, but without the same chance of upside.

Street, Embree, sure:  always can try to extract value from solid pen arms.  Duke probably needs to show something through spring training to garner any value back.

I have no idea if Calero and Scutaro will be retained.  Funglible.

Dinardo is a perfect cheap keeper, on a great team he could be the 12th pitcher.  On a mediocre team he becomes a 5th starter/swingman.  He won't bring much back.

If we really want to do the blow-it-up thing, we trade Street, Haren, Swisher, and Barton (and more pen arms if we like the offers).

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 12:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Barton would still be around

when A-Rod starts declining, as would Swisher, and Haren's worth a long-term extension to achieve the same thing.

The rest of them would either be overpriced or out the door by the time the Angels are catchable, making them expendable assets.

I'm not literally suggesting that the A's auction off the parts of the team in one huge fire sale. That's a recipe for disaster. Just that they seize the opportunity to deal any of those players if the return is enough high-ceiling prospects, even if those prospects are single-A guys.

My argument is basically that if the Angels sign A-Rod, the A's need to start building the 2011 team immediately, because there's no realistic way they're competitive before then.

It sucks, but it's strategically correct to "throw up the white flag" if the Angels get A-Rod.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 1:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He's just saying that if we do that

Haren, Street, Swisher, and Barton are the most logical people to trade, since they actually have value and we don't need them anyway if the team is getting blown up.

Haren is #1 on my list if we go into full rebuilding mode.

by mikeA on Oct 30, 2007 1:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I can't envision any scenario

in which a rebuilding team would trade away a top prospect who's got 15 days of MLB service time.

Seriously. None. That's completely illogical.

Haren and Swisher are justifiable, but I think you need to keep some players a. as a gesture to the fans, and b. because they're signed long-term enough that they'll form the core of the next contender the way Zito did in 2006.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 1:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Carlos Pena

2002

Look.  I don't believe we should trade these guys, but you can get a pretty big haul for a clearly ready rookie hitter.  If you can get say, a really young but promising guy like Andrus or Tabata along with a Adenhart or Kershaw (probably too good but...) for your  ready for prime time 1B (especially considering that it is an easier position to fill), you might do it.  

Would the Yankees do Ian Kennedy and Tabata for Barton?  It could make sense for both teams.  Just saying...

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 2:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Que?

The 2002 A's weren't rebuilding, they were in the third year of a 4-year playoff run.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 3:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

the A's getting him from Texas

He was BA's 6th best prospect or something like that.  Texas had been awful in 2001 and it dawned on management that despite Arod, they still had a bad team.  They traded Pena to us for many spare parts, none of which turned into much.

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 3:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh, I see

Well, that didn't exactly work out well for Texas. Not that Pena was any great shakes here, but at least he later turned into part of Ted Lilly.

I think it's safe to say that I'd prefer the A's not go that route if they rebuild.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 3:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed...

In the IMO very unlikely event we go into massive rebuild mode, it is only logical that the two untouchables would be Haren and Swisher.  In the most basic of terms, the As need to sell seats.  They want a new stadium and if there is no demand, it is going to make things difficult.  I disagree with an earlier statement about holding onto Joe.  Don't get me wrong, I like him too but he should be the first to go.  There is no need to go through arby, etc with a guy that will not be of use once we become competitive again, will be very costly, and can be replaced as a #3.  Joe's trade value is at his highest and even more so with the weak FA market.  Danny's value is always going to remain stable as he is now seen as a cheap ace.  It is exactly the Zito situation as Paul mentioned, he is our vital staff leader.

However, the problem with the sky is falling theory is that we have to play in Japan next year.  This is the opportunity to gain national and international exposure.  In no way are we going to field a AAA plus Haren and Swisher team.  

We have a potentially competitive team on paper right now.  A good 1-2 punch, young hitting core, good back of the bullpen, etc.  There is no need for BB to be in a rush to make a move and I think that's what he is leaning towards.  Going with the team planned opening day 2007 and answer the what if.        

However, I think the plan is and will be to remain competitive in 2008.  There is just too much, although of course there is room for improvement, to work with now.  We have already gone through a small rebuilding to set up the team to be competitive next year.  

by AsWin on Oct 30, 2007 4:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Just to make it clear,

I don't currently think the sky is falling. I'd only advocate a total rebuild in the disastrous A-Rod-to-Anaheim scenario.

AW is quite correct in stating that the "partial rebuild" for 2008 (the primary acquisitions of which were Cust, Hannahan and Denorfia) has already taken place.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 4:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

what mikeA said

is what my meaning was.  

But early rumors are that Arod sweepstakes is starting with LaDodgers, Giants, and Red Sox. (via Fitz on KNBR).

I don't see Brandon Wood playing shortstop.  I think he is a 3B.  And I'd be surprised if they bury Wood with Arod.

by jakarta on Oct 30, 2007 1:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I voted meh

I just don't know how to feel about this team for 2008 and beyond, and I don't know how anyone else could have any real confidence that is based on anything other than wishcasting.  

Could the A's make the playoffs in 2008 with their current team?  Of course they can.  I would expect that PECOTA will projected the A's as currently somewhere around 81-81, and an 81 win team can turn into a 88-90 win team pretty quickly with unexpected health and a few standout performances.  

Will the A's make the playoffs in 2008 if they stand pat?  Probably not.  The Angels are unlikely to get worse anytime soon, and they may get significantly better.  

The A's have some young talent, but so do the teams we compete with.  The Angels, Red Sox, Tigers, Indians, and even the Yankees have have as much or more young talent as we do.  In order to compete with those teams in the near future we will need to outspend them (ha ha), outdraft them, or find some real gems from the freely available talent pool.

My real concern for the A's in the next few years stem from four factors:

  1. Teams throughout baseball have grown smarter.  Many of the inefficiences that Beane exploited have become more efficient.  
  1. The A's did not discover some magic key to drafting as Michael Lewis predicted in Moneyball.  The A's are not bad at drafting, but they are not significantly better than other teams we compete against.  The draft remains a crapshoot for teams, and the A's simply cannot compete long-term if they cannot outdraft other teams.  The draft is the only place where a small or mid market team can acquire stars other than the occasional lucky bounce.
  1. Other teams have begun to do something the A's have refused to do; teams are using over slot draft bonuses as a method of acquiring additional talent through the draft.  The A's missed their opportunity by not employing this strategy when few teams were doing it. If the A's employ the strategy now they will be doing nothing more than keeping up.
  1. Corporate strategy appears to be increasingly intertwined with baseball decisions in the A's organization.  As much as I disliked Schott/Hoffman, I liked their ownership style better.  They were cheap bastards, but they set a budget and gave Beane largely unfettered discretion within that budget.  Now that Billy is an owner, and shares ownership with a more active owner in Wolff, I am not sure that all baseball decisions are made with baseball goals (winning) in mind.  I really don't know what goes on beyond the scenes in the A's organization, but I see more and more moves over the last couple of years that awaken my inner C & C Music Factory.

As always, I will cheer for the A's players, and I will eagerly await this offseason to see if Beane has a plan to bring in more talent.  In the meantime, it's hard for me to be anything more than "meh" on our prospects for 2008 and beyond.  There are just to many questions that I don't have answers to, and I cannot figure out what plan the A's are executing.    

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 30, 2007 8:08 AM PDT   0 recs

I like this analysis

I also voted "meh".  When the Athletics got Johnny Damon, I really felt they had completed all the pieces for a championship. I didn't foresee the "human psychology" factor that would negate this acquisition.   For 2008, more than ever, the "mental part" of this roster is too shaky IMO.

I mentally compare (not heavy numbers, mind you) the Athletics players, position-by-position, with many of the teams. The A's just don't come out ahead, in sum.  Not just contenders, but all teams.

For some reason, Athletics players are inconsistent compared to their peers, just IMHO.  After pitching "lights out" in the first half of 2007, every pitcher seemed to degrade noticeably after July 10, usually for 3-4 games in a row.  Hitters were incredibly streaky.  How can you project a "consistent performance" in the coming season (even if it's a .240 average for Crosby) when inconsistency is the defining characteristic of this team?

It all gets back to a philosophical puzzle I always return to: if the season is sixteen "ten game sets", what is it about a team that creates more 6-4 records for those sets than a 4-6 record for those sets?  Two games out of ten make the difference, month in and month out, to the sum result of 91-71 instead of 71-91.  Nice to muse about.

I'll be cheering, following every Oakland game, but I'll probably give up early on the low/no scoring ones,  and so miss all the "late inning heroics" comebacks (all six of them!)

With the thought in mind that Bill James described Jason Kendall's futility in the first sixty games of 2007 as "historic", I'm hoping that an above-average leadoff job by TBuck will lead to a reversal of last year's April May offensive ineptitude, which, I submit, caved in the season for the A's as much as the injuries.  Individual as each at-bat may be, I think certain intangible carry-overs affect the whole team, good and bad, from each guy's AB.  The further the result is from expectation, cumulatively, for important players, the greater the effect on the team.

I foresee a 85-77 result.  At the July 15 mark this summer I said 79 wins, then raised it, then dropped it in September back to 78.  I see improvement, but I think all of MLB is finally putting the "expansion" of the 1990s finally behind it (Tampa Bay the exception, but an example of "intangibles" putting a team into a "can't win no matter what" status.)  The level of ability for each player on average is better, and this makes Beane's job tougher.  Plus, with video, players can correct hitting flaws if they are the right type of person.

Other teams have more of those "types" than the A's, and that is the diff nowadays.

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Oct 30, 2007 10:53 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

armchair psychology

"Plus, with video, players can correct hitting flaws if they are the right type of person.

Other teams have more of those 'types' than the A's, and that is the diff nowadays."

What are you basing this on?  How do you know enough about the personality types/work ethic/professional approach/discipline/whatever else would be relevant for being the "right type of person" to make proper adjustments, even for A's players, let alone players throughout the league?  The players that I would guess you had in mind would be Crosby (this is an easy one: slider low and away), Chavez (not so easy; playing through injuries has clouded the picture about his ability to make adjustments from some of the horrible ABs he took last season), and Harden (his detrimentally stubborn commitment to weightlifting).  But even if I concede that your quasi-analysis applies to those guys, that's only three players.  There are veterans throughout the league that have reputations for this weakness or that--is their inability to correct their flaws due to not having the right "personality type", or because of actual athletic limitations?  Given those options, I'd vote the latter in most cases.  Anecdotally, Jacque Jones has worked hard with Tony Gwynn to hit left-handed pitching better--hasn't shown in the results.  Moises Alou is 40 years old, and he's made a pretty good living hitting lots of fastballs.  I could go on.  

Now, it's probably disingenuous to imply that those two alternatives (personality type or physiology) are mutually exclusive, but then it was pretty disingenuous, if not outright false, for you to say what you said in the original post.

Also, the ten-game set thing is neat in theory, but other systems of divvying up the season may be more relevant for following the A's.  Beane claims to divide the season into thirds for his purposes; he certainly isn't looking for the team to dominate any particular sixteenth of the season.  The A's recent history suggests dividing the season by half--average first-half team, great second-half team.  And of course dividing by 162 is the best approach for players and managers to take.  

by Cutthemullet on Oct 30, 2007 9:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I reached that conclusion

by seeing what the team hit compared to other teams, and worked backwards from there.

There is barely a ML hitter out there that doesn't say, "It's all about adjustments."  Some teams score more runs because they get more hits, or at least make "productive outs".  You see Duane Kuiper on the broadcasts make note about Crosby being far off the plate, and you hear Ty Van B (second or third-hand) say the same thing, and you see ANers comment on it.

Every hitter has some weakness relative to their strength, and maybe the A's lineup is such that it is easy for a pitcher to  get in a groove to exploit  those weaknesses versus other lineups.  All I can say about these speculations is that (1) baseball is 90% mental, and the other 50% is physical (Yogi Berra) and (2) players who say, "It's all about adjustments" and then cannot make adjustments, must not be able to do it for mental reasons.  And included in this "mental" aspect is something like not being able to see because of an accident with sun-block and not telling anyone you "cannot see" (Dan Johnson) for 12 months after the fact!

Jacque Jones is still playing, but dozens of others who had "weak spots" are not in the Majors.  You didn't mention Kendall's historically-poor 2007 with the Athletics.  Why did it happen?  Then he began hitting with the Cubs?

I submit, "total runs scored" and "team BA" is the result you work backward from, and psychology is the explanation (at the MLB level.)  And, in making adjustments, all the talk about "hitting is contagious" is valid, because what is in your mind ("everyone is hitting, I should be getting a knock here too!") is as much about adjustments as anything else.

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Oct 31, 2007 9:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It would be lovely if this blank-slate,

"you-can-do-it-if-you-try" philosophy actually was true, since it would mean that players at the major league level actually were all hard working, devoted players.

Unfortunately, it's completely wrong. A lot of MLB players are lazy as hell, content to coast on incredible natural talents. The role of hitting talent dwarfs the role of everything else when it comes to baseball.

The A's simply don't have as much of this as other teams do, because they can't afford it. Therefore, their batting average is lower. To some extent, it can be made up for with other skills (like pitch selection and power).

Adjustments play a very minor role in hitter performance. If they didn't, we wouldn't be able to predict how well guys will hit with anything like the accuracy which we can manage. I'd guess probably not more than 2-5% of hitting is adjustments. The rest is natural skill and dumb luck. (And, BTW, hitting isn't "contagious." I don't know how to put that in any stronger terms. That's just a false statement.)

Generalizing from life experience: Psychology is almost never the explanation for anything. People invent psychological explanations to explain away luck.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2007 10:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't know who I disagree with more strongly...

you, or One won lost won.  I'm leaning towards you.  Now, I criticized OWLO because I felt his amateurish pseudo-psychological observations were presented far too strongly (and I feel they were in his response, also).  Conjecture based on limited observation and second-hand speculation is dubious, to say the least.  And I disagree with the underlying premise that all or most MLB results stem from the abilities of individual players to make adjustments.  But by no means do I completely dismiss psychological factors as irrelevant.  Jason Kendall may have improved his hitting after the trade/salary dump because of measurable factors like moving to an easier league and a more hitter-friendly homefield, but that doesn't paint the entire picture.  Why did he start getting more extra base hits, which are not so easily attributable to fluctuations in luck?  You can incorporate many variables into your hypothesis, but I'm going to argue that being enthused (I'll avoid the somewhat trite word "rejuvenated" here) by the idea of a fresh start and being involved in a playoff push in a exponentially more lively atmosphere deserves mention, perhaps as the foremost factor for his initial resurgence.  

Speaking of Kendall's new team, how about Alfonso Soriano's refusal to bat anywhere but the leadoff spot, even though the numbers indicate he would have best been utilized anywhere from third through fifth?  Before the season even began, I was reading projections about how many runs the Cubs were going to waste by batting Soriano leadoff, as they planned.  Well, when Piniella tried to make the statistically sound managerial move, Soriano resisted--he believes he can only hit at his highest level when batting leadoff, even if the power he exhibits there would best suit him for a spot in the heart of the order.  But it's likely he would not display that same power in a role he would not be comfortable with.  

Next let's consider Milton Bradley.  Do I even need to provide an argument that his performance is affected significantly by his volatile temperament?  He was arguably the best player in the NL when healthy this past season.  Think his lingering anger over the abrupt end to his tenure with the A's had any impact on the focus and intensity he displayed with the Padres?  On an even smaller, more specific scale, think the provocations of the hecklers in Philly inspired him to hit, what, a 430-foot home run in the late innings?  That's no apocryphal anecdote--with MB, the pattern is predictable: anger-->increased intensity-->better, sometimes spectacular, play.  Some players (and people in general) would react exactly the opposite when consumed by anger--it's a matter of PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKEUP.  I forget which, but either Albert Belle or Darryl Strawberry would LOOK FOR AN EXCUSE to get angry before arriving at the ballpark, because they performed best when angry (not that Belle needed contrived circumstances to become angry).  Your downplaying of psychology in human affairs is...probably quite indicative of some of your own psychological "traits", for lack of a better term.  As best as I can tell, you're an overly stubborn empiricist, with quite a lot to learn about the complexity of that which has yet to be quantified.