The Greek God of League Average
by RayRay59 on Apr 12, 2007 9:18 AM PDT
83 comments
I just wrote a long comment in the "let’s fire the hitting coach diary" and I thought it might make an interesting diary of its own. Since Oaktoon no longer posts here, I figure that somebody needs to be the AN Pessimist, and I’m happy to give it a shot. So here goes. By the way, please be gentle, I think this is only my second diary.
In the let’s fire the hitting coach thread, somebody pointed out that the A’s have had three different hitting coaches in the last three years, and in each of those years, the hitting has been less than stellar. The question then becomes why? While it’s easy to blame the hitting coach, or even Geren, I’m not sure that is the answer.
I think the honest answer is, by any objective, or even subjective measure, the A’s hitters are just not that good. It sucks to type that, but unfortunately, it’s true. I mean, would a single hitter on the A’s crack the Yankees starting lineup? Probably Swisher, though only because the Yankees, rather uncharacteristically, are weak at first base (though some of you may remember my slight admitted Josh Phelps fetish, which I’m now in counseling for). Also, maybe Milton, maybe. That’s probably it. Now admittedly, the Yankees have one of the best lineups in the league, but isn’t that the point? Run through this exercise with a couple of other teams. Hell, run through it with the Rays, it’s not a pretty picture. I'm not sure a single regular in our lineup would crack the Brewers starting lineup. In fact, I'm relatively positive that they wouldn't. The Brewers. Who last made the playoffs in 1982 or something. This is, needless to say, a problem.
There is another problem. It’s one thing to have a lineup full of league average (at best) players. It’s another to have a lineup full of league average players that can execute the fundamentals of baseball. I don’t mean Joe Morgan fundamentals of baseball, well, mainly, because only Joe Morgan can even see when those fundamentals are executed properly or not, I mean the obvious stuff. Moving runners over, hitting a sacrifice fly, getting the bunt down on the rare occasion that you’re asked to bunt, taking a pitch against a struggling pitcher, touching home plate instead of getting up and pushing the catcher, running all the way to home plate instead of stopping halfway (ok, those last two were cheap shots, but c’mon!!). The A’s just are not good at these things, either. Stranding Buck at third a couple of nights ago was unacceptable. It actually made me mutter "Sometimes, I hate the A’s." Who watching the game was confident that we’d get Buck home? Exactly.
Where does the blame lie, though? I’m not sure, but I’m starting to think it must properly lie with Beane. You cannot be mad at a player for not being that good. I’d love to be a professional baseball player. I’m not that good, though (not even close). It would seem odd if I sat at my desk all day made at myself for this. If you want a depressing exercise, think of all of the best hitters in the league, and ask yourself, how many of those players could you see the A’s either drafting or signing and then developing? Any toolsy somewhat raw hitters are probably out, right? The A’s have what, one, in their system in Javi Herrera. This is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the A’s shy away from guys like Beltran, Crawford, Reyes, Soriano, etc. A category that overlaps with this category would be Latin American players. The best are expensive to sign, see Miguel Cabrera, and the A’s don’t seem particularly astute in this area, whether it be lack of resources, or something else. This hurts our team. Period. By not taking chances on these types of players, the A’s will never have superstars of that caliber. We certainly cannot sign them as free agents. Another category of impact bats are the high draft pick, expensive, high school kids. I’m not even sure that I need to discuss this, as it seems self-evident that the A’s don’t draft Griffeys, ARods, Uptons, or Delmon Youngs. In my mind that pretty much leaves one category, the "lucky" guys. The Albert Pujols, the Mike Piazzas. Obviously, the A’s have a shot at these kinds of guys, heck, Giambi probably was one these types of players.
Referring back to the Bible, I mean, Moneyball, illustrates my point. There’s a player that Beane loves. That he covets. That he was unable to acquire. Man, he really wanted this guy. Who was it? ARod? Nope. Beltran? Nope. Kevin Youkilis? Yep. Don’t get me wrong, Youkilis is a solid baseball player. Hell, he may even be a pretty good comp for our "top" prospect, Daric Barton. I will say this with 100% certainty: Kevin Youkilis is not a superstar. He’s probably not even an all-star. Beane’s other "Holy Grail:" Erubiel Durazo. We saw how that worked out. These kinds of players are probably good additions to a lineup that has a Giambi or Tejada already, but the A’s don’t. Furthermore, there’s none on the way. I like Buck and Barton, and I’d rather see them out there than about half of our current hitters, but I’m on the record numerous times with my preference for young players over league average (or worse retreads).
So, to sum up. I think the A’s need to take some chances in the draft and/or in signing young foreign players. Why let players like David Wright slide past us, due to signability? Why not draft a toolsy outfielder every once in awhile who might end up being Carlos Beltran or Carl Crawford? Ask yourself this, would the current Beane regime have drafted Rickey Henderson? I’m not so sure. Is that a good thing? I’m pretty sure that it’s not.
0 recs |
83 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nicely written
I disagree with you a little I think the A's have some good players Piazza is a good hitter, Chavy can be a good hitter when he is not being a moron. Bradley has a lot of talent. I think that it is more approach such as not swinging for the fucking fences with 2 strikes Swisher.
by 3Chavy3 on Apr 12, 2007 9:26 AM PDT reply actions
Good Pt, take the Yankees, they are ..
.. very disciplined in their hitting .. they work the count, don't swing at many bad pitches, and take what the pitcher gives them. They have the bad boy rep as the bronx bombers but when you look at them more closely, they are more than that, they are very professional in their approach ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 12, 2007 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
yes they have a lineup full of great hitters
by 3Chavy3 on Apr 12, 2007 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I like this diary...
you get a rec from me.
Yes!!
My life is now complete. Thanks.
I was bored this morning and a little depressed about the A's. Not sure if that really showed through in the Diary.
A point you're missing
Who was it? ARod? Nope. Beltran? Nope. Kevin Youkilis? Yep.
How many of these players are available to the A's? The A's run extensive programs in latin america (See: Tejada, Miguel or Hernandz, Ramon). They also will take high risk HS players if they like them enough (Chavez, Italiano). Beane coveted Youkilis because he was undervalued, not because he actually thought he would outperform A-Rod. Youkilis makes $424,000 this year, as opposed to the $22,708,000 A-Rod is pulling down.
It's really easy to come up with a list of players the A's should want. It's much more difficult to design a plausable scenario in which the A's improve drasticly.
+1
for stating what should be the obvious
Your point is obviously true, but
I think it misses my point, by just a little bit. I like Kevin Youkilis, I really do, but he's not an impact player. He's solid. But he's also the stereotypical kind of player that Beane covets, irrespective of price, it seems.
My point is that there are tons of players undervalued by their own teams. Why not take chances on the guys that could become superstars? Off the top of my head, like Elijah Dukes last year. Or maybe Matt Kemp. Or maybe any of the Tampa outfielders right now. I don't think toolsy players are the be all end all, by any means, but when you look around the league, the superstars and true impact players tend to be four or five tool guys. Sure the burn out rate on those guys in the minors is higher, and they may not be a tradeable commodity quite so soon, but Beane seems to avoid them, and I think this limits us to a team of low ceiling players.
I don't think the small market/payroll team excuse works, because while I did mention the Yankees, I think the better point is comparing our lineup to the Rays, or Brewers, or even Marlins. These teams have lower payrolls and arguably much better hitters. You may argue that their pitching isn't as good, and I'd agree, but it's not like we tie up all of our resources in pitching, thereby forgoing offense. We have a very cheap pitching staff, as well (except for Loaiza).
The front office is risk averse. With risk also comes reward. We are forgoing the possibility of reward by not taking risks. Just my opinion.
and your point is STILL no point
was a-rod? obviously, he was #1.
was matt kemp? 90s.
delmon young? #1.
carl crawford? 50s.
rocco baldelli? #2.
bj upton? #2.
that's not within their organizations, but in the whole fucking league.
why doesn't beane trade for alex gordon?? what an idiot.
I think what he's saying is...
To get a prospect who makes it to the top ten prospect in the whole league, you need to take a risky pick in the draft, a HS player who is raw but has a lot of potential. The A's don't seem to do that though in 2005 they did seem to have a "paradigm shift" at least when it came to pitchers. Rather the A's normally focus on the more easily predictable, less likely to collapse college players.
I think this is a very legitimate argument, I recommended the diary.
we didn't draft youkilis
beane wanted "the greek god of walks" because he thought he could get him from the red sox for cheap, in other words, that he was undervalued.
barton 28, swisher 24, crosby 32, blanton 43, carlos pena 5, jose ortiz 34, mulder 12, zito 41, chavez 3, greive 1...
if taking risks is such a good idea, how come the devil rays have done so much worse than the a's over the last decade, despite having much better draft picks due to always sucking?
i think what you all are not getting
about youkilis is that he wasn't a top 100 prospect, yet he's been a halfway decent major leaguer so far.
yet somehow beane's ability to spot undervalued talent in this case is somehow a bad thing, because youkilis doesn't have more upside? that doesn't make any sense.
think of it this way
You could have a tremendously undervalued little leaguer.. but in the end he's a little leaguer. he's twelve and cant hit breaking balls to save his dog scruffies life.
I agree with the author that this is a debate. (though i think youkilis is more of a highlight of michael lewis than beane)
I think that you could argue that beane was scared to go to boston. because, like the playoffs, his shit doesnt work lots of money. undervalued players dont really exist in that world of cash. Its obvious who's good. When you shop at the bargain basement you can find some great deals, but great deals can only take you so far. All of name brand talent has to come from the farm and that is very very hit and miss. some teams dont have a single farmkid on their team.
Toronto is an interesting case of also being able to buy the big boys.
Umm...
It's impossible to undervalue a player with no value. There's nothing less than zero.
risk-averse
for a risk averse organization, we've drafted quite a few high school pitchers in the last couple years. how do you explain that?
Fair enough,
but I was using Youkilis more as an example of the type of player (skill set) that I'm talking about. And, as I said in my post, I think Barton is a very similar player, though without the defensive flexibility. I'm pretty sure Barton is highly regarded by BA, I don't feel like looking up his actual rank, but I think he's in their top 50.
Why don't you tell me all of the toolsy potential superstars that we have in our system. The only person that comes close to that description is Havi Herrera, and maybe Jermaine Mitchell (though I don't think his ceiling is considered superstar level). I just don't think one could make a credible argument that these are the types of hitters that the A's focus on. We used a first round pick on Cliff Pennington, due almost exclusively to the fact that he was "close to ready." Who was the last potential superstar in the A's minor leagues? Giambi? No. No one thought that at the time. Tejada? Nope. Maybe Chavez. I'm not sure if he ever made it into the upper echelon as a prospect.
Almost every other system has, at all times, some high ceiling prospects. We don't. Just right now, I bet I could name one from almost every other organization: Maybin (Detroit), Tabata (NYY), Martinez (MYM), Adrus (Atl), McCutcheon (Pit), etc. It's a far smaller list of teams that don't. There's the A's, the Nationals, the Phillies, and maybe Baltimore, though I like Nolan Reimold. While, I'm probably forgetting some teams, the point stands, I think.
Drafting the HS pitchers was a bit of a paradigm shift for the A's, which I applauded, and still applaud. However, drafting four of them seems to still show risk aversion, in that they hedged their bets, to some degree. We've done a little better with going after some raw, high ceiling pitchers. I never argued that we hadn't.
Herrera
Herrera is an excellent example of the toolsy players the A's try to acquire through their latin american scouting.
You seem to forget that the A's had the reigning Texas League MVP last year. They traded him for Bradley.
Of the 6 MVPs since 2000, the A's developed two. Four of the ROY awards have gone to players the A's had in their farm system, the other two going to veterans of the Japanese league. We have another possible candidate in Tracis Buck with the team now.
I'm afraid your point is just bad. The problem is definately NOT that the A's fail to develop players, the problem is they can't keep them.
Alright, listen
I've been trying to avoid this point, because Giambi and Tejada are two of my all-time favorite A's and favorite players, but I don't know how much credit we can truly give the A's for them. Neither were expected to be MVP caliber players as prospects, and there's a fairly substantial and credible body of circumstantial evidence that neither player achieved what they achieved entirely naturally. Also, I'm pretty sure both were acquired under the previous regime, though I could be wrong about Tejada, so I don't think they really belong in this discussion.
Lastly, as much as I like Ethier and Buck, I think most people would agree they are fairly love ceiling prospects. Useful players, but I don't think either are going to be the type of players that this offense is missing. Obviously, Huston doesn't count, as I'm not talking about pitchers, and Crosby, well, he's Crosby. Actually, Crosby probably comes the closest to the type of player that I'm describing, it's just too bad that he looks like he will fall on the risk side, instead of the reward side.
All this has what to do with the original post?
So, to sum up. I think the A’s need to take some chances in the draft and/or in signing young foreign players. Why let players like David Wright slide past us, due to signability? Why not draft a toolsy outfielder every once in awhile who might end up being Carlos Beltran or Carl Crawford? Ask yourself this, would the current Beane regime have drafted Rickey Henderson? I’m not so sure. Is that a good thing? I’m pretty sure that it’s not.
I think in the discussion, it's come out pretty clearly that the A's do sign young foreing players, and that they do draft toolsy prospects out of HS if they think there's good value to be had.
As for David Wright, the two players the A's took ahead of him were Bobby Crosby, who you already inentified as the type of player the A's should pick, and Jeremy Bondermann.
And for Rickey, Beane would take anyone he thought would post a .400 OBP in a heartbeat, so yes the A's would draft Rickey.
"I don't feel like looking up..."
= "It doesn't matter what the data say, because my argument will be the same regardless of the factual evidence."
He's number 66 on BA's top 100
I'm not sure how that affects my point, if anything it seems to reinforce it. He's our top prospect, and he's not really an elite prospect. It seems most believe his best case comp is John Olerud, without the glove. That's fine, he'll be a useful player, but a DH/1B that hits 15-25 homeruns is probably not the missing link to a Championship. Do you disagree.
Now, a DH/1B that might be the next Manny Ramirez, ie, Billy Butler, might be.
I'm not really sure my argument could be proven wrong by data, as it's really just more of an opinion, and one that is based upon a point that I think most would agree is true.
pennington
--
but maybe it actually makes sense to draft a "close to ready" 2b when mark ellis has just missed the entire year with an injury??
This is a fair enough point,
though generally drafting for need is not the greatest idea, given all the variables and uncertainties of drafting baseball players. I'm also not sure that we drafted Pennington to replace Ellis, as Pennington is a SS, but I guess we can probably assume that he could shift over to 2nd.
SS often move to 2b or elsewhere
and of course crosby only managed to stay healthy for 84 games in 05, and even his rookie year wasn't that impressive. maybe pennington was supposed to be the backup plan in case crosby turned out to be injury-prone or suck (or both).
or maybe since scutaro refused to walk back then and was giving us around a .300 OBP, pennington was supposed to be his replacement as backup middle infielder.
the bottom line is, there can be very good reasons to draft mlb-ready players without great upside, especially for a team like the a's that is competitive EVERY YEAR and not rebuilding.
Chavez
Chavvy was the top prospect in all of baseball the year before he came up. Well, him or J.D. Drew.
by yarky on Apr 13, 2007 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Great point
Overall, just really nice work in this thread. The acquisition strategy of Beane's you're discussing is excellent for an outstanding low-budget team. It's not a good one for an average-good team of any resource level.
I do think Beane realizes that we're late in our success cycle and that the situation calls for a changing approach to player acquisitions (especially through the draft). See our last two, maybe three, drafts for examples.
by yarky on Apr 13, 2007 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
We do well for they payroll
On a league average payroll, the team has pretty consistently put up a league average offense and above average pitching. Result: winning seasons every year, entering every September still in the race, and occasionally making the playoffs.
I say Beane is doing a very good job. He's maybe not quite the supergenius The Book makes him out to be but he's an excellent GM. It is interesting that he seems to have done better on the pitching side than the hitting side but he's no slouch there. Like, remind me who signed Frank Thomas last year and how that worked out?
by matthias on Apr 12, 2007 12:52 PM PDT reply actions
So far so good
But the question is: Is Beane preparing us for future success?
by yarky on Apr 13, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions
that would be...
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
WOW
thanks to the intervention of the Greek god of the Internet, I was able to select either "preview" or "post" in my last reply...for one post I re-lived the glory days.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
"slight admitted Josh Phelps fetish"
In the meantime, I'll enjoy another opportunity to bypass the preview option...
WMP = Weapons of Mass Potential
Just some advice
Whenever you're on the same side of the debate as Jim Bowden, just know that you are wrong. Seriously. Any debate. Everything will be okay, once you've come to terms with that, I think.
I guess my disease...
is easier to treat than yours...I just have to come to grips with having agreed with Bowden, whereas with Phelps, you have about 4 different GM's who have taken fliers. But then again, Epstein did trade Bronson Arroyo for WMP...I don't know if this recovery is going to be as easy as it seemed. Your post might have given me false hope...
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Trust me, I understand
but the first step to recover is understanding that the only thing in this analysis that matters is that you agreed with Jim Bowden. There's your answer. Let's work from there. That Theo Epstein suffers from the same affliction just means that you are both sick. Healing may take time, but I'm confident that you can work through it.
If that's the case,
I'll give you co-authoring credit. We haven't had enough "The Sky is Falling" or "Blow them up" threads lately. I thought I'd start us out.
You get the next one.
Blow 'em up, that was classic!
But your attitude is all wrong. You've got to get that "It's so obvious I'm right, it's just unfathomable that you all don't agree with me that you're all idiots and I'm a genius and I can't understand why that upsets you and you all attack me for no reason ans wow you people have issues." thang going.
Only my first attempt
With practice, I think I can pull that off. I forgot to work in a Kool-Aid reference too. D*mn. Maybe next time.
Actually, if people don't start agreeing with me soon, I may have to get a little medievil on everyone's as*es!
Oaktoon wasn't a pessimist
He was a bipolar neurotic with a tendency towards fixation on bizarre abstract ideas. Your writings are far too reasonable to be placed in that category.
QOTM!
"He was a bipolar neurotic with a tendency towards fixation on bizarre abstract ideas."
LMAO!
by kaweahkaweah on Apr 13, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
You are behind the times
Defensive statistics are the newest realm of statistics being advanced and the A's have had one of the best defenses the last few years, combine that with a pitcher friendly home park and you've got pitchers looking better than they really are. These pitchers can be used in trades to bring in valuable players (or to get the biggest pitching contract in history). Our home park also hurts the hitters and makes good hitters less effective.
Oh, I think the A's have done great work with D
I don't see that point and mine being mutually exclusive. The only way that would be true is if the A's were by passing the kinds of bats that I think they should be attempting to acquire, in lieu of superior defensive players. I don't think that holds true, though. Also, the kinds of hitters that I'm advocating tend to be very good defensive players, so it looks like there is a disconnect between what we are talking about. The Coliseum tends to play fairly neutral, as far as being a hitters or pitchers park, so I think that the park effect is a little overstated.
Also, I don't think you can win if defense is the be all end all. 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 losses are all still losses. There has to be balance, and I would argue at certain positions you should probably give up a little defense in order to help the offense, namely 1B, LF, and RF. I'd say catcher, as well, but I know that is an unpopular opinion on this board.
I'll tell you who I think the A's should try to acquire: Joel Guzman. First, he provides defensive flexibility, as he can "play" ss, 3B, 1B, RF, and LF. I put play in parentheses because he was moved off of SS due to outgrowing the position, but he could probably play there in a pinch. He's a raw, toolsy talent, that has fallen out of favor with two different organizations, but nobody doubts that he has, potentially, a ++ bat, and he has a great arm. Would Beane go near him? Probably not. He has questionable plate discipline/strikezone judgment. He currently strikes out a lot. Risk v. Reward.
Sound like Richie Sexson w/an attitude, offensiv
Punctuation po-po
had to bring it up because it made me smile ... ;)
as he can "play" ss, 3B, 1B, RF, and LF. I put play in parentheses
umm ... no you didn't.
Try framing the debate as an experiment.
Question: Is it possible to put together a competitive offense without a superstar hitter. (IE Vlad / ARod / BBonds 2003)
Is it better to have a balanced lineup where nobody shines as the super threat, or to have a definite 'heart' of the lineup.
Last year does not exactly count, as The Big Hurt was the wild-card that ended up being feared. But in this lineup, who would you IBB? (except for whoever bats before Kendall.)
I like your last point.
And clearly the answer is (if you're Ozzie Guillen): Travis Buck.
More seriously, we don't really have a feared hitter in our lineup. I'm sure that someone is going to say, well, what about Piazza? While it looks like Piazza is our best hitter, I don't really think he's at the elite level. The reason teams would or might IBB him has more to do with the rest of our lineup. Now, Piazza circa 1996, now that's what I'm talking about.
To get back to my original point, I think we need better hitters. Period. We can quibble over the best way to get them, but it is going to be very hard to have sustained success when your lineup is worse than your opponents most nights. The beginning of this year has illustrated that point. Our pitching could not have been much better, but the offense has let the team down.
It does seem like the A's have shifted
in the direction of higher risk/higher reward hitters lately. Milton Bradley was one example, Frank Thomas another, along with the recent trend towards drafting high school talent. But don't look for an end to the era of Hattebergs, as cheap players who do certain things well (at the expense of being great all-around) are essential to a low-budget team--they make the more expensive players possible.
The elephant in the room
I won't waste time rehashing the criticisms others have stated other than to state that your biggest mistake is assuming because Billy doesn't draft or trade for someone does not mean he does not covet them, it just means that they are too expensive or unattainable because others draft them first or are unwilling to trade them.
However, despite the errors in your diary, you have some valid points about Billy's risk aversion. Billy has been a great GM and anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention, but he has his faults. Failing to take more risks, being penny wise and pound foolish in the draft (and being outsmarted by the Angels, Red Sox, & Yankees in understanding the value in signing late round picks for first round/second round money), and consistently failing to take advantage of the available talent at 1B are fair criticisms of Beane's tenure.
The biggest problem on this team right now, though, and the thing that really has to be blamed if we fail to make the playoffs this year and for the next few years if the Angels become the monsters they could be (eventually Stoneman might stop screwing up the huge advantages Moreno and Eddie Bane provide for him), is the large money we have spent while getting limited production. Two things a small market team has to do if it wants to compete is develop talent through the draft and spend wisely. Beane has not spent wisely in many cases, or has spent wisely but had bad fortune.
The A's have a payroll of roughly $70 million, and a huge chunk of that is eaten up by a few players. Chavez, Kendall, Piazza, Kotsay, and Loaiza are taking up $41.5 million in payroll this year, and we are not getting anywhere near $41.5 million of production from those five players. The other 20 players are only making $29 million, or less than a $1.5 million. For $1.5 million you get old reclamation projects like Stewart and Walker or young players (which you mostly have to draft to have on your team despite the occasional lucky bounce like Mitchell or Gaudin.) If the A's are to remain competitive with the current payroll, Beane has to spend his money more wisely. This is particularly true given that pitchers like Street, Haren, Harden and Gaudin are only going to become more expensive every year.
BTW
I recommended your diary even though I don't agree with most of what you said, interesting diary that has sparked discussion.
by BlameChannel53 on Apr 12, 2007 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions
of those five contracts
i think piazza, chavez, and loaiza still make sense. the chavez contract looked great at the time and because deals are going up in value so fast, it still doesn't look too bad. kendall wasn't a mistake, it was taking on a bad contract (so the mistake was in the previous bad deals). only kotsay was an obvious mistake, even at the time.
but i think it's clear that no matter how much money the a's have in the future, they should spend it primarily on draft picks and cheap players from within the organization. free agent signings should be limited to a few cheap reclamation projects, hometown discounts, etc.
Agree mostly
I wasn't criticizing each of those deals, it's just that in the aggreggate we are spending $41.5 million and not getting back $41.5 million in production. It takes a lot of smart decisions and a lot of luck to be competitive when the rest of your roster averages $1.5 million per player.
Piazza is an interesting situation, because although he looks like he is going to justify his $7.5 million contract this year, spending $7.5 million on a DH is something of a failure by Beane. DH is the one spot on the team (followed closely by 1B) where Beane should be able to find a cheap player that gives good production. This year, Beane was unable to do that and spent the money on Piazza. Piazza's deal is not the problem, it's the fact that we could not use that $7.5 million elsewhere that hurts us.
I'm not sure I agree completely with your suggestion for spending money. I do agree that the A's should spend more money on draft picks and retaining their affordable players, but I would not mind the A's signing an elite free agent. Elite free agents are actually relatively good risks, it is when teams mistake good players for elite players (Zito) that bad things happen.
by BlameChannel53 on Apr 12, 2007 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Easy to find DHs
I agree with you that THEORETICALLY it should be easy to find a cheap DH, as every player can DH; however, most players appear to not like to DH. With some exceptions like Hafner and Papi, many great hitters, even though they are awful defensively, seem to not want to DH.
spending money
are elite free agents a relatively good risk? i don't know about that, it seems risky to tie up so much money in one or two players. also see comments below.
other good ways to spend money: how about doing the rule 5 draft thing reguarly? i really like $100k for the #1 pick.
it didn't work out this time, but if goleski had hit like buck in spring training (or like josh hamilton, or if we had drafted josh hamilton and HE had hit like himself), he could be in our OF right now and buck could still be in AAA.
FA superstars
So, in your opinion, even if the A's are a rich, big market team, they shouldn't sign stars like Carlos Beltran?
free agency just seems inherently inefficient
unless it's a cheap reclamation project or a hometown discount, you're essentially only signing players who you overvalue, or at least value more than 29 other teams (or 13 other teams for designated hitters, which might be why we ended up with thomas and piazza).
an exception might be to fill a specific need short-term, in order to stay competitive.
So, you believe that a
superstar like Beltran was overvalued by the Mets?
I agree that a good player like Richie Sexson, for example, is often overvalued.
With superstars though, I would argue that their value is "increased" by the fact that they are rare commodities, which means that you get a player with rare combination of skills, and your opponents don't get him. Also, a superstar whose skills decline is still a very good player, whereas a good player whose skills decline, say Jason Kendall or Mark Kotsay, not so much.
The problem is
there are more Sexsons and Zitos than Beltrans and it's not that easy to tell what you're going to get.
So, the solution
is to not sign anyone? Instead of better scouting and better analysis?
what?
like every team isn't constantly striving to have better scouting and analysis?
Which is my point
That the solution is better scouting and analysis. I AM NOT criticising Beane, BTW, in case you're reading my posts that way.
The solution is to
not take big risks by signing huge contracts when you have a low payroll. You can't scout whether a player will get hurt or tank 3 years into a contract. I think every team has scouts.
I'd say that approach has been working pretty damn well, with 8 straight 87+ win seasons.
My original post
was a question as to what the A's should do if they are "a rich, big market team".
but they never will be a rich big market team
so how is that relevant?
i was thinking the same thing ..
.. but didn't want to butt in ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 13, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
How is that relevant?
As mental masturbation maybe? As just something to talk about?
still a good player?
mo vaughn, mike hampton, chan ho park, albert belle, darren dreifort, jeff bagwell, juan gonzalez?
every player, whether it's kendall or vaughn, can suck.
every player, whether it's kotsay or hampton, can get injured.
every contract is guaranteed money.
In what world
are Chan Ho Park, Hampton, Dreifort and Vaughn superstars? In what world are Kotsay and Kendall superstars? I mentioned Kotsay and Kendall as counterexamples. Those are precisely the players that a team should not overpay for, since when they decline, they suck.
Bagwell was signed when he was 34, I believe, with known chronic shoulder injuries. So while he was a superstar, he had significant problems.
Yes, Belle fell of the cliff. Juan Gone also declined fairly swiftly.
Yeah, every player can get injured, and every contract is guaranteed money. That includes the contracts of players like Crosby. Are you suggesting that big money teams should be run like the Florida Marlins?
based on the money they got paid at the time
hampton got 120 million, so zito only got 6 million more all these years later.
since we're talking about free agent contracts, that's a superstar-level deal, based on the money.
it's easy now with hindsight to differentiate between actual superstars (those who end up performing, like manny and a-rod) and those who don't like vaughn and park.
Ok, But you're missing my
point. My point was that only players who perform at a superstar level should be payed superstar salaries.
As for hindsight, Hampton's contract, IIRC, was criticised when it was signed. Park was a good pitcher aided by his home park. Park's contract was criticised almost universally the instant it was signed. Vaughn was overweight and had two average years, OPS+ in the 110s, when the contract was signed. Not exactly a Manny or ARod or Beltran type superstar.
Vaughn
Big Mo signed his Big Contract after 1998. He was coming off five straight years with an OPS+ of 145 or better, and had won one MVP and been in the top 5 two other times. He was a way better hitter than Beltran at the same age, though perhaps Beltran's defense and speed have made him more valuable overall.
It may seem easy in retrospect to predict his decline - he was already overweight and not particularly athletic, and had the type of skills that often don't age well - but he was very much a superstar.
(On a personal note, I always had a soft spot for Vaughn. I lived in Boston for his first two and a half seasons, and though I disliked the Red Sox, he was the one guy there that I liked. Great personality and a fun player to watch even before he broke out in the third year.)
OK, my bad
Being a Mets fan, I forgot the period before the trade with the Mets.
Yes, seen from 1998, as opposed to 2001/2002, he was a superstar, albeit a fat, 1 dimensional superstar.
DH: in the case of thomas and piazza
they're relatively cheap reclamation projects, the deals are very short term so it won't hurt if it doesn't work out, short term means there's incentive for the players to perform to get their NEXT contract (from another team), DH means only 13 other teams are potentially interested, and it fills a need (good hitter, not DH) for a team that's trying to stay competitive.
We are actually in complete agreement on this one
I like that the A's stay out of the free agent rat race, for the most part. I hope that trend continues no matter what the teams financial situation looks like.
I also like the short term deals for Thomas and Piazza. Though, I do wish we had been able to develop a 1B or DH, instead of having to sign a free agent.
Look at the Yankees
Big dollar FAs often are great the first few years of the contract, but by the time you start paying $15-20 million for a decline phase player, they're likely to really hurt your team.
The Yankees are a perfect example. They have great hitters, but they're stuck with the contracts. As players age their defence declines, pitchers are injured or lose effectiveness, and pretty soon you have a $200 million payroll, terrible pitching, and still aren't much better than teams spending half as much.
by MrIncognito on Apr 13, 2007 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
it makes sense for the yankees
the closer your payroll is to being infinite, the more sense it makes to spend big money on free agents.
if johnny damon gets injured or sucks, they'll just sign andruw jones.
Sure, a player will decline
as he gets older, but, firstly teams could, and do account for that. If a player provides, market value or above market value for the first few years of his contract, it will make up for him providing below market value for the last couple years of his contract.
It depends on how you define big dollar FAs. For example, both Carlos Beltran and Richie Sexson were signed as big dollar FAs. I would argue that Beltran was a great signing, whereas the decision to sign Sexson was, while not awful, wasn't exactly wise.
Also, teams like the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Mets, are not competing to be the most efficient team in baseball. They can afford inefficiency if it increases their chances of winning.
Furthermore, the A's also have some bad contracts, that are not the result of signing FAs.
You've a long way to go to reach oaktoon's
lofty standards.
I agree with your general principle of singling out Beane as being the responsible party here but you seem to have missed certain aspects of the GM's decision making process.
You're right that Beane has appeared to earmark players like Durazo and Youkilis even though they aren't, and were never projected to be, "stars". What Beane was seeking was consistency, not splashes of greatness. To paraphrase Moneyball: 9 Hatty's would have out-performed the best offense (the NY Yankees) in all of baseball. Billy had the numbers to back this theory up. And his track record for player acquisition (until very recently) was to go after "consistent" ballplayers. When drafting, that means focusing on less projectionable players.
The current problem isn't that Billy Beane pursues solid, consistent ballplayers its that his current roster doesn't have enough of those types already! Whether you blame injury or ineptitude, most of the line-up features erratic bats. That's the real problem.
And just so you know, the A's did not pass on David Wright because of signability issues, no he pretty much signed for slot value, it's just that the A's were enamored with the LH arms of John Rheinecker and Neil Cotts. They also had a 3B that they believed would end up being a better hitter than Jason Giambi, so 3B wasn't a priority.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
