Calling B*llsh*t on Billy Beane

The demands of real life have kept me from AN for about a week, and now I've spent the better part of this evening reading the zillion hot warm stove diaries I missed during that time. Most of them are too old to reply to, but I see that I made NSJ's list of posters who need to write more diaries, so here you go.

Nearly all of the discussions of the team's future are centered around the idea that the team has come to a point of major decision: either we can contend in 2008, or we can't so we may as well "blow up" the team. Here at AN, the debates rage on about how much to blow up, whether we can contend after all, how various moves by the Angels affect our decision, etc, etc. It's all we talk about now.

It's no mystery where this idea came from. It's straight from Billy Beane himself. As quoted by Tom Verducci in Sports Illustrated, Beane said,

We're at a fork in the road. ... We're either going forward and going for it or cutting it down and rebuilding. There is no middle ground in our market. When we hit the bottom, small market teams like us don't bounce."

Now, wait a minute. Since when is there no middle ground in our market? That's not what Beane has said before. Just last year he was telling us exactly the opposite.  He said he believes in reloading, not rebuilding. For as long as he's been the GM he's always said he believes that the A's need to be competitive year after year. Indeed, he has even cited the team's particular market situation as a reason for that.

So why has he suddenly changed his tune? Why are the A's now a candidate for a Marlins style fire sale? Is it just because of one losing season? In the SI article, all Beane offers for a reason is that he's "monitoring the health and rehabilitation status of several key players". The article names Chavez, Duchscherer, Harden, and Kotsay. How does that make any sense?  I'm not saying the health of these guys won't make a big difference to the team's success in 2008 (well, the first three anyway...), but what exactly does Beane expect to learn about Rich Harden between Nov 7 and Dec 3 that's going to tell him whether he needs to blow up the team?

It's remarkable to me how quickly and thoroughly we've all bought this line, both the fans here on AN and all commentators throughout the sports media. Has no one noticed that this is a complete 180-degree change in philosophy by Beane? Are we so enamored of the idea of rebuilding and "blowing up" the team when you can't contend, that when Beane -- for the first time ever -- shows accord with the idea we just push away his entire history and breathe a sigh of relief that he has returned to the fold of orthodoxy?

The more I think about this, the more fishy it seems. You know what? I don't think Beane has changed his philosophy at all. I think he still believes in reloading, not rebuilding. I think he still believes you make the team as competitive as you can year after year, rather than take your best shot at the World Series before breaking up the team for a new batch of prospects. I think this new line about a "fork in the road" and "no middle ground" is grade-A Billy Beane bullshit.

So why would Beane say such a thing?  Two reasons come quickly to mind.

First, the winter meetings. Beane loves to trade players, regardless of whether his team is "contending" or "rebuilding". He has always said no player is off the table and he's always open to any trade suggestion that will make his team better.

But Beane has a reputation, and it has gotten harder for him to make good trades. No GM wants to be caught having made a bad trade with Billy Beane. With another GM you might take a chance, but because of Billy's reputation, there's a stigma attached to being swindled by Beane that isn't suffered when one makes an equally bad trade with, say, Jim Hendry.

Beane's greatest successes have always been with the unfamiliar names -- minor players he's gotten as "throw-ins" in larger trades. But other GMs are wary of that now. If Beane is talking to some other GM about, say, Blanton, and he asks about two obscure minor leaguers that the GM has never even heard of, that GM is going to say "Whoa, who are those guys and why is Billy Beane so interested in them?" By the same token, if out of nowhere Beane starts showing a willingness to trade Dan Haren, GMs are going to ask themselves, "Why would he trade away his star pitcher? Is there something wrong with him? What does Billy Beane know that I don't know?"

I don't think there's anything wrong with Dan Haren. But maybe Beane senses the possibility that he's overvalued. He wants to see what offers are available and if one is good enough that it could improve the team, he'll go for it. Not because the team can't contend, but because he's always open to any trade that might make the team better.

Beane's new line about rebuilding gives him valuable cover in these conversations. If he asks about some obscure low-level prospects, it's just because he needs to restock his depleted farm system. If he offers up a good player like Haren, Blanton, Ellis or Street, it's because he's blowing up the team. If Kenny Williams or Omar Minaya is on the verge of making a big trade with Beane, instead of worrying that he's about to be swindled, he can take smug satisfaction in the idea that Beane's team is in the dumps so it's time to cash in on the fire sale.

The second reason is for the players. How must Joe Blanton have felt in the second half of the season, seeing his name thrown around in so many trade rumors? For that matter, how must the other guys on the team have felt, seeing that Beane was willing to give up one of their best starters? Was he giving up on the team?

This line about the "fork in the road" makes it possible for everyone to feel reassured. All the guys on the trading block are up there not because Beane doesn't value them, but because they're good players who shouldn't be wasted on a team that can't contend. More important, if it turns out Beane doesn't hear any offers he likes and all the players don't get traded, then the message will be that we've decided we can contend after all, so everyone can take that extra boost of confidence into the new season.

And what's the downside for Beane for pushing this line? None that I can think of. I think it's pure win-win bullshit. The fans are buying it, and the press is buying it. Will the other GMs buy it, too?  I hope so.

--

Three other thoughts about the diaries I read tonight. They're unrelated to the main topic, but it's my diary. You can think of them as special bonus topics.

One. Someone mentioned the idea that teams don't trade within the division. I think this is a canard. It's easy for us to believe it here in Oakland because it so happens that two of the other three in our division won't trade with us, but I don't think it has anything to do with being division rivals.

Some GMs just won't trade with Billy Beane. I believe Bavasi is one of them, and many sports journalists seem to agree. Bavasi made one trade with Beane, in 1999. In his last major trade as GM of the Angels, he sent Omar Olivares and Randy Velarde to the A's at the trading deadline. Since he took over in Seattle, Bavasi has done no trades with Beane, and as far as I know they've never even discussed any.

Some GMs trade a lot, some don't. Bavasi trades a little but not a lot. Bill Stoneman hardly traded at all with anyone, so it's no shock that he never traded with Beane. Maybe the new guy will be different. I don't know. But I don't think it has anything to do with being in the same division.

Two. I see that the debate about the team's budgetary process for player payroll rages on. The next time someone interviews Beane, can we please have some serious questions about this? Unlike so many topics we're tempted to ask Beane about, this is one where he could actually provide some meaningful information. Obviously he's not going to come out and say "I'm not allowed to spend more than $75 million this year," but he could shed a lot of light on the process that would make our discussions here more informed. How fixed is his budget? Is it directly tied to revenues? How separate are player salaries from other player development expenses? If there's a target budget for the year, how much flexibility does he have to exceed it if an opportunity warrants it? Conversely, if there is a target budget for the year but the opportunities really aren't there, does he still spend the money the best he can, or does he prefer put it back into the company, whether to retain as capital or distribute as dividends?

I'm not saying he's going to tell us all the details about how the company is run, nor give out any real financial figures, but it seems to me there's quite a bit he'd be happy to discuss if only someone were to ask the right questions.

Three. Our former interest in Lastings Milledge. Yeah, I wonder if that was bullshit, too. Since when is Beane interested in guys above the radar? He's notorious for expressing phony interest in popular names in order to better hide his interest in the under-the-radar guys he truly wants. Not just in trades, but in the draft, too. Remember Nick Swisher.