Looking Down the Road, Who's the Competition

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 9:09 AM PDT Comment 56 comments

This is an admittedly dangerous exercise, given the vagaries of the sport which thankfully don't match the NFL's volatility. Let's assume that in 2-3 years the Beane retooling has borne fruit and the A's are a legitimate playoff contender. Who is likely to be battling us for those four spots?

1. Texas?? Josh Hamilton is a nice anchor-- but the rest of that lineup is a bit iffy. Young may be in a decline phase. Bradley will likely be elsewhere. And where is the pitching? NO

2. Seattle?? So much to do, so little time. Too much deadwood. What is the everyday lineup nucleus to build around? NO

3. Kansas City? Here's where it gets interesting. Anyone notice they started to actually play well this year? Now within their division there is one team that constantly contends despite generally being written off; another team that spent everything on a veteran team which flopped and with an increasingly shaky rotation; a third team that curiously tanked this year and while it has some good young talent all of a sudden seems very iffy going forward; and a team that made the playoffs-- barely-- with past their prime players at nearly every position on the diamond.

I'm going out on a MoneyBall limb and say that the Royals, plus one other team in their division-- most likely the Twins-- will be playoff contenders in 2-3 yrs and that the big swagger troika of Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit will all be down;

4,\. Baltimore?? How can they in that division?

5. Toronto?? i think next year may be their window of opportunity. The Yanks may still be in transition-- Tampa Bay may be worldbeaters but might also have the team equivalent of a sophomore slump-- the Red Sox are still very good but have some creaky parts-- Ortiz, Varitek, Schilling, Wakefield, Lowell. But in 2-3 years I see JP's gang getting trumped again by brutal competition.

Which of the other three AL East teams will more likely be a pretender in 2-3 years? I think the obvious answer is New York. Yes they have a wad of cash-- maybe it lands Sabathia, maybe not. But look at their key parts-- 1. Pitching: Chamberlain and Wang. Mussina will be history; so probably will Rivera in 2-3 years. Will their young studs progress? And if not, recent history tells us that their big dollar bets on starting pitching are as likely to go haywire as succeed. 2. Hitting: Posada may be through in 2 or 3 years. A Rod and Jeter will be in definite decline. Giambi will be gone. There is some doubt about Cano. Damon is past his prime.

6. LAAAAAA?? Sorry to say but of course they will be competitive, even without Vlad and KRod. Too much talent in their system, too much money; too much pitching.

So for argument's sake, I would rank the other teams in the AL-- circa 2010-11-- this way:

1. Boston

2. Tampa Bay

3. LAAAAAAA

4. Minnesota

5. Kansas City

6. New York/Toronto/another Central Team

9-13 Rest of Central, Orioles, Texas, Seattle in some order

0 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Kansas City always has sucked, they suck now, and they always will suck

(OK, I’m exaggerating a little bit, but for the foreseeable future, it’s the case.)

KC has a poor farm system and a poor MLB team, on top of a tiny payroll. Where’s the upside here?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, here goes

First I think Boston and Tampa are clearly the two best teams on this list. Both will be capable of winning 95-100 games in any year in the forseeable future.

I think the Angels peaked this year, partly due to out-of-whack Pythagorean numbers—and that they, the Twins and Royals (and the A’s, we hope) will be closer to 85-90 win teams come 2010-2011.

So how can the Royals win 90 games? The first and most obvious reason is because I think the in-division competition will regress or at least fail to improve. Chicago is headed for a fall, and I’m not sure either Cleveland or Detroit is going to dig them selves out of their current holes all that easily. KC has a nice two year improvement streak going of 62-69-75 wins.

The second is overall youth, beginning with the pitching staff. They have 7 or 8 pretty key performers at 26 years old or younger all at or above league average, thus promising even more improvement in the future. Gil Meche- he of the bloated contract— is now the old man of the staff at 29 and he is a creditable AL 3rd man in a rotation. But the likes of Hochevar, Greinke, Davies, Soria, Nunez are all pretty darn good. And they have a top prospect in Cortes waiting in the wings.

Alex Gordon and Billy Butler are the first legit prospects to hit the bigs since Beltran— and this time I think their ownership and front office will not so easily let them go. Outside of a fill-in at 1B— Ross Gload— and Mark Grudzielanek on his last legs at 2B, the entire everyday lineup is basically in its mid 20s or younger and thus likely to improve, perhaps substantially, over the next 2-3 years. Moustakas is one of the top middle infield prospects in the game and should be at the big league level by 2010.

And I guess I am assuming that after years of bad decisions— a la Tampa Bay— they are finally in the process of getting smarter. They have two more drafts to supplement their current roster with— and as we have seen, a low payroll hardly dooms a team— they might even be able to make a strategic signing or two to fill in some of their holes. I see a team approaching .500 (or better) next year with a real shot at a 85-90 win team in the two or three years beyond. They will never be a serious candidate for league supremacy— at least the regular season variety— but I think they’re going to get pretty good.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Getting smarter" would preclude them from giving a big, multi-year deal to Jose Guillen

by thejd44 on Oct 7, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, gee, what did our genius do?

Traded away Ethier for one+ year of Bradley, who was then unceremoniously dumped.

Signed Loaiza, Kendall and Kotsay to multi-year deals.

Jose Guillen isn’t the worst move you can make on the road to respectability

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Guillen deal is exponentially worse than any move you just mentioned

Andre Ethier is not better than Bradley. And Bradley wasn’t dumped. Andrew Brown is part of what makes the A’s bullpen one of the best in baseball.

The Loaiza deal in no way hurt the A’s. It was a fair-market (probably below-market) deal. Loaiza was a fine 5th starter in 2006, was a bit of lost money in 2007, and then the Dodgers paid the rest of the contract.

Kendall not only yielded Jerry Blevins, but Billy Beane didn’t sign him to an extension. The A’s paid Kendall $10 million in 2005, $11 million in 2006, and between $6.5 and $7 million in 2007. While he didn’t live up to that money, he was a .400 OBP guy for the two seasons before he joined the A’s.

The Kotsay extension wasn’t a good one, but Kotsay brought the A’s Joey Devine. Again, a minor mistake was fixed with a shrewd deal.

Jose Guillen was absolutely a terrible, backwards-moving move. It’s pretty close to as bad as you can get.

by thejd44 on Oct 7, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, let's wait two more years for judgement, OK??

After all that’s what you are doing with Beane.

Andrew Brown is not much above a dump for a guy who is likely to finish in the top 8 in the MVP voting this year.

Loaiza hurt the A’s from the standpoint that I can think of a lot of better ways to have spent that money. He gave us part of one good year.

Kendall “not only yielded Jerry Blevins”!!! Forgot that we got the 2nd coming of Sandy Koufax for old 5-4-3— the fact is that we paid nearly 30 million for a player who quickly became just about the worst offensive everyday player in the game.

Kotsay was good for one year, and less so for the next two. All these “minor mistakes” have contributed to two sub .500 seasons in a row— just because Beane is pretty adept from recovering from them doesn’t mean they didn’t exact a price.

And we haven’t talked about the Dye deal after he broke his leg in 3 places.

If Guillen reverts to his pre 2008 form— and maybe in a drug free world that is asking too much— he will have an OPS of 820 or so and help Kansas City’s offense improve with the likes of Gordon, Teahen and Butler. Yes 12 million bucks a year is too much but who’s to say that the Royals won’t pull an iron out of the fire a la Beane if some contender needing offense comes calling this year?

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Stop. Just stop. The truth-twisting here is worse than those godawful Presidential debates. The A’s would have gotten an MVP year out of a player who was a free agent? Kendall “quickly” became something in the third year of a three-year commitment?

Good lord.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point is

That it would have been nice to have had Andre Ethier the past 3 seasons and possibly for 2-3 more. He’s been a better hitter than anyone we’ve had in the outfield since Bradley left. Kendall’s decline was evident in Year Two and then worsened in Year Three.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This thread

is like one of those ridiculous legal complaints where they posit like five different alternatives in the desperate hope that one of them sticks.

The doctor was negligent. And if he wasn’t negligent, then the nurse was negligent. And if neither of them was negligent, they didn’t get my consent to operate. And if they did get my consent, they didn’t tell me of the risks. Etc etc etc.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who appointed you God??

That’s preposterous

I said the Royals may be in the process of getting good.

OK— some of you disagree— it’s a free country.

Someone threw Guillen in my face— my retort was an accurate one— Billy Beane made several fairly bad contract/free agency decisions in recent years. Whether those 4-5 decisions outweigh the Guillen decision is probably in the eyes of the beholder. But to use your analogy, if someone wants to argue that the A’s didn’t sprain their ankle (ethier/Bradley), Break their leg (Kendall), cut their chin (kotsay) and twist their knee (loiaza), boy I’d really love to hear about it.

Then you decided to play referee, adding nothing to the discussion. So I’ll ask you a simple two-part question:

Would the current A’s be better off with Andre Ethier or Andrew Brown? And if the answer is the former, do you really believe that Beane handled Bradley correctly?

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not playing along, sorry

Maybe shifting your ground constantly and taking liberties with the truth are part of debate as you learned it, but I don’t enjoy that game.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll only respond to the very last part, because you've been soundly beaten on the rest

And I’m not even going to waste my time anymore.

It is completely and utterly ridiculous to play the “the trade was essentially Ethier for Brown” angle. That’s BS and you know it. At least I hope you do. Are you forgetting 2006? Are you forgetting that Bradley, the guy who like to remove from the equation, was a key part of the A’s making it to the ALCS? It’s quite convenient to omit the value he provided and just look at what it took to acquire that and what they got after the value was no longer there. It’s that sort of argument that works with the stupid. Unfortunately for this argument, AN is not filled with the stupid.

And, another thing, since Bradley is your new focus: Citing his MVP credentials in 2008 is flawed on a couple levels. First, the team that should be criticized (if any) is San Diego, since they were the ones who let him go for nothing. And, second, even if the A’s had not traded Bradley for Brown in the middle of last season, there is no guarantee he would’ve survived the 2007/2008 off-season with all the roster turnover and rebuilding. One can make an argument that the only reason Bradley eventually found his way to Texas where he was able to DH a lot, stay relatively healthy, and put up gaudy offensive numbers was because Beane got rid of him when he did.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be crystal clear

I’d trade the productive half-season of Bradley in 2006— knowing that might have cost us a postseason appearance though I think it probably wouldn’t nor would it have cost us the victory over the Twins— for 5-6 years of Andre Ethier. Can you seriously argue against that??

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In hindsight, of course not

But the A’s don’t get to the ALCS in 2006 with Ethier. Just because they all slumped for four games doesn’t make it a bad move.

I also don’t think Ethier will end up better than 3 or 4 of the current A’s outfielders.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, I can't agree with that

Ethier is really quite good. I don’t think there’s hardly any chance of the A’s current crop producing 3 guys with EqA’s over .288. One or two, maybe.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 8, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Because I think there’s a better-than-average chance that Cunningham, Buck, Sweeney, Cust (does he count or no?), and Gonzalez all can do that.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really consider Cust an outfielder...

As for the rest, while I agree that all of them except, maybe, Sweeney are CAPABLE of posting that level of offense, it’s a far cry from saying that they PROBABLY will. If each of the four has a 50% chance of being that good (which I find optimistic) then there is only a 5/16 chance that three of them end up better than Ethier.

Keep in mind, an outfield with three players with EqA’s of .288 is about 5 wins better than average. (Just eyeballing the numbers here, mind.) That’s more than halfway toward making you a playoff team without even evaluating any other position. Or to put it another way, it’s a frigging exceptional outfield unless the players are awful at defense (which the A’s outfielders are not).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 8, 2008 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Odds are still against them

I rated the Royals this year as having the top draft in baseball, but that won’t do them much good in 2010-2011. The young players they do have that will be on the team in 2010-2011 are not likely to be enough to make them any sort of competitor barring some unforeseen rapid development.

The Royals do have some young talented players who could be traded to set up a run for 2012-2014, but it’s really hard to see them being competitive prior to that time, and they are going to need to draft, develop, and trade well and spend their limited free agent money well in order for that to happen.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 7, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who are these "young players" with upside?

Mark Teahen?

Joey Gathright?

The only reason they’re playing young crappy players is that they cost less than old crappy players for the same effect. Either way, you’re playing crap. You need actual talent to succeed and the Royals have very, very little of it. Butler and Gordon are seriously underwhelming given their defensive deficiencies. David DeJesus is ok. Mike Aviles screams “fluke season”. There isn’t a single competent hitter on the rest of their major league roster.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

check with me in 12 months, or 24

It’s interesting. Hardball Times just published a number. There has been at least one team, and sometimes two, that has improved by at least 16 spots in their Hit List standings the past 3 seasons, the most dramatic, of course, being Tampa Bay from 2007-08. Would think that someone is going to do same next year— why not the Royals?? (Cincinnati is another prime candidate) and speaking of “competent hitters”, have you looked at our major league roster lately?? (LOL)

They have most of a pitching staff that is 25 yrs old or younger and are already performing better than league average— I’d say that is some serious upside.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Ray were stacked with "real" talent

that’s how they went from worst to first so fast. They have serious hitters in sprinkled throughout their lineup (Pena, Floyd, Upton, Longoria, Crawford) that far surpass anything the Royals players have. Even if you take their absolute ceiling and apply it to next year, there is no way they will have a lineup as effective as the Rays. Add that to the fact that the Rays had a seriously good rotation with Kazmir as the ace, Shields as a 1a, Garza as a solid 2 (maybe 3), and the good (albeit slightly lucky) seasons from Sonnastine and Edwin Jackson, and presto, you get a good team, no matter what division you play in. The crazy thing is that they also Elijah Dukes too, whom they traded for some lesser talent. The Royals, on the other hand, cannot boast nearly as an effective rotation as that. Greinke is good, but not Kazmir good. The same can be said for Meche. Hochevar could be decent, but again he’s not an ‘ace’. He’s more of a bonafide 2 as a ceiling since his minor league stats aren’t dominating and he’s not exactly super young (24). Lastly, you can’t tell me Davies is going to be anything special. I’d say at best, their rotation is solid but not spectacular, and thats with everyone having good seasons. Their lineup going to be in the bottom third of the Majors, although moustakas will help. Maybe in 3 years they can get to the playoffs if they make a good trade or two, get lucky with a few pitchers in the rotation, make a lucky signing, and have a rookie play way above his head, but I don’t see them getting their solely on talent.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 7, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I said

Boston and Tampa Bay will be the elite— I never claimed the Royals’ upside is anywhere near the Rays. It is somewhere near the A’s, however.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well OK.

Since you appear to be randomly picking teams as likely to improve tremendously next year, why not the Giants? Or the Indians?

The Royals pitching staff might be just barely above league average. Their hitting is horrendous. That’s some hope, yes; it’s not serious upside. Serious upside is the Rays of the last few years, who stacked their system with high picks, a lucky trade, and some good moves.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 7, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This argument makes no sense whatsoever

Teams’ improvement is not random or decreed by some act of the capricious gods. It’s because they add good players to their roster. You can do that by buying them, trading for them or promoting them from the farm. The Royals have no money, no tradable assets to speak of, and very little on the farm.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I overstated this

They do have some tradable chips (especially Grienke). But the players they are likely to get back for those chips are going to take time to reach MLB readiness, if indeed they bother to trade them at all. I also have no confidence that KC’s front office would actually locate the correct players to trade for.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and one more thing

I know it is a small sample size and at the end of the year when some teams are mailing it in, but when a team closes a season 13-3 and outscores their opponents, two of which were the teams that tied for the division title— 97-44 in that span, I for one sit up and take notice. Davies won 3 straight starts, including wins over both Liriano and Gavin Floyd.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's funny that you mention the 13-3 run to close the season

I was going to mention the same run as a reason why I am skeptical of the Royals’ chances to build a contender in 2012-2104, and you stated my reason for concern. Here’s the thing about bad teams that play above their talent for a period of time: they end up making stupid moves based on false hopes. If the Royals have any real goal to build a contender in the next 3-4 years, they should be trading marketable players that won’t be a part of their next contending team.

Guys like Grienke, Soria, and DeJesus are only helping the Royals strive for mediocrity, but would have real value for a team that is contending right now. The Royals as an organization lack talent, and it is going to take a sustained period of good drafiting like the Rays had to build through the draft. Trading marketable players to bring talent in the organization will speed that process.

The hopes of Royals fan for some actual plan towards contending depends upon the Royals front office’s (and the owner’s as the ultimate decision maker) willingness to trade players fans like for prospects that most Royals fans probably never heard of. Sadly for Royals fans, I doubt that the Royals’ brain trust has the balls to further anger its fanbase, and will likely opt for current mediocrity over future contention, and will use a meaningless 13-3 run as an opiate for a fanbase that has very few reasons to care anymore.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 7, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, Joey Gathright can jump over a car

He’s awesome!

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to pick the Royals to improve dramatically

at least analyse them correctly.

Gil Meche’s contract is no way “bloated”. You’re grossly underrating him. He’s not a #3 starter. More a borderline #1 / #2 starter.

Conversely, you’re overrating Hochevar and Davies. Neither of them is “pretty damn good”. Hochevar was an overdraft, drafted over Lincecum and Kershaw, and Max Scherzer, and Travis Snider, who’s a decent prospect, and can become a decent / good pitcher. Davies is not “pretty damn good” either. You’re way overrating 113 innings of 112 ERA+. His K / BB was still pretty damn mediocre. He might become decent pitcher.

Also, useful young(ish) players from the WS: Danks, Swisher, Quentin, Ramirez, Jenks.

Royals: Grenkie, Soria, Aviles. Gordon / Butler / Hochevar / Davies have all not done much of anything.

Also, the “legitness” of Gordon’s prospectdom has decreased quite a bit. Aside from his offensive issues, he also appears to have defensive issues, and might not be long for 3b.

Also, the “hole” Cleveland are in is an 81 win hole. The “hole” the Royals are in is a 75 win hole.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 7, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Furthermore,

the Yankees demise is grossly exaggerated.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 7, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, but I think a team has problems

when their only regulars or semi-regulars under the age of 32 regressed to 710 and 645 OPS this year, and when the only two starting pitchers who threw over 125 innings are 39 and 36 years old respectively.

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees still won 89 games.

The Royals won 75 games. Wang Chien Ming’s injury, by all indications was a fluke injury, so you’re overstating their pitching issues, or putting way too much emphasis on one year.

And a guy like ARod might not be as young as Alex Gordon, he’s also miles better than Alex Gordon, age or not. And the Yankees have a humongous payroll, and the willingness to spend that money. Any long term projection of them that ignores their payroll is worthless.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 7, 2008 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But the Yankees can always just spend some money to patch up a hole

The Royals spend money on Jose freaking’ Guillen.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

just for the record...

I said pretty “darn” good

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All those pitchers you list

were above league average in ERA+ last season— maybe none of them will be great— but they do have a chance to become “pretty darn good”

by windyfelix on Oct 7, 2008 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hochevar was above league average?

You seriously consider 12 innings in 2007 as above league average? His career ERA+ is 87.

And like I said, you’re putting way too much emphasis on Davies’ 113 innings of 112 ERA+. He still didn’t strike out many, still walked to many.

And there’s a difference between being “pretty darn good” now, and having a CHANCE to be “pretty darn good”.

Many young pitchers have a chance to “pretty darn good”. Many never become “pretty darn good”, due to various factors like injuries, failure to develope additional pitchers, failure to improve command and control, etc.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 7, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

let me clarify

“last” means 2008. The season which just ended. Sorry. Should probably have said this. OTOH, you should have known better than to think I would use 12 innings to judge anyone.

The arrogance around here is staggering.

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate whne people who are losing debates claim the other side is "arrogant."

Not everybody is arrogant just because they happen to be right. Next I half-expect you to start calling people elite as if that’s a bad thing.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

The other definition of arrogant is the inability to recognize it.

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is the term "losing debates"

I find many people on forums such as this to be abusive of the format. And in a way that really discourages alternative thought or open discussion. The use of word “losing” is key.

here’s the way this one— and a lot of others— transpired.

Person A (me) said something a little bit outside of conventional wisdom— i.e, that the Royals could be a contending team in 2 or 3 years.

Various Persons B then said, in essence, that I didn’t know what I was talking about.

I now have three options: 1) just agree and say “my bad”; 2) just agree to disagree but since I am unwilling to offer any evidence of my view it seems pretty weak and, oh by the way, what’s the fun of that?; or 3) put up a defense.

Which I then attempted to do. Now here’s the real rub of the problem and I would hope some of you would be capable of some self-analysis. Once I launch that defense, some of you insist on belittling it, disproving it or refusing to even accept it. OK— that’s your perogative. But if I do not then immediately cease and desist rather than, in this case, poke a little fun at our GM when the Guillen contract was mentioned, some self-appointed judge, jury and executioner like Paul Thomas comes along and now goes way beyond the boundaries of the “debate” with condemnatory remarks. And arrogant ones as well because the implication is that once Person A has “lost” or “been defeated”— and I never knew it was such blood sport— he should simply skulk away, I guess.

So most Person As will either never say another word or will secretly harbor some pretty bitter feelings toward the dominant view of this board— or both. Some— like me— will call you on it. But meanwhile the board shrinks into itself— and that is not a good thing.

So no hard feelings— I’ll simply say that differences like these are why they play the games— and we’ll see by 2010 or 2011 who was right.

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I cannot figure out where this persecution complex is coming from

Seriously, feel free to point out where anyone was “belittling” on this thread. People responded to your argument with substantive logic. Your reply was to make a bunch of irrelevant, annoying and fallacious criticisms of Beane— which wasn’t even the topic of the thread THAT YOU YOURSELF STARTED! If you want to make a “Dayton Moore is better than Billy Beane” thread, feel free (though, fair warning, you will get intellectually pulverized for doing so). As far as I can tell, it’s not relevant to the question of whether KC will be good soon.

It is not arrogant to point out that someone’s arguments are poor, and it is not belittling to say that, at some point, it’s not worth one’s time to dispose of them. It’s just a fact. Take liberties with reality and people start taking liberties with viewing you as someone whose opinion needs to be seriously evaluated. Credibility matters.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 8, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for proving my point

I’d say your “doctor” response was the essence of “belittling”.

If one believes, as I do, that BB can succeed at a rebuild (he’s done it once already, afterall) even though he may have botched a few contracts or pickups, then I’d say that is relevant to the proof offered that Kansas City cannot do the same because of the Guillen signing. “Annoying”?? again, who elected you God? “Fallacious”— I’d get your dictionary out, friend.

You my friend are the spitting image of exactly what i am talking about— insufferable may be a better word than arrogant. And if and when the Royals win 90 games sometimes in the next few years, you will never accept for a second that you might have been wrong.

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I try not to get personal here, though sometimes my frustration may take over a bit. I think your argument here, quite frankly, is a terrible one. And I think I (and others) have proven that. I’m not saying you are stupid. Hell, I don’t even know if the argument is “stupid.” I just think it’s flawed to the point of being incorrect. It’s not arrogant or rude or anyway inappropiate to develop legitimate arguments if we disagree. And, of course, we exepct and want you to explain why you feel a certain way. Nobody’s mind may be changed, but at least we’ll understand the other perspective.

Also, it’s pretty silly to say the last thing you said. You have no basis for saying that PT or anybody else won’t admit that certain Royals players developed beyond their expectations.

And finally, a person can lose an argument or a debate. It happens all the time. Every argument is not equal.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you didn't get personal-- I agree

The other guy said “truth twisting” and ridiculous legal debates using an example about five different desperate arguments and then “taking liberties with the truth”

I stand by my reaction to that. OK?

by windyfelix on Oct 8, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of one's opinion on whether calling someone a liar is a personal attack--

and I would argue that it isn’t— I didn’t even go that far. All I said was that your arguments on this thread were made in total disregard of the facts, a position which I stand by.

Meanwhile, you proceed to implicitly call me a hypocrite by suggesting, totally without merit, that I wouldn’t own up to mis-analysis if I turn out to be wrong. If there’s any personal attack on the thread, you made it. Who’s the more arrogant— someone who believes in their analysis, or someone who believes they can pass judgment on a person they’ve never met?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 8, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the "never met" part I only partially agree with

I’ve never personally met anybody who posts here, but I do feel I have a good grasp of the personalities of more than a handful of regular posters, and I’d have no problem calling one of those people out for a hypocritical point of view or something like that.

Also, I pass judgment on all the STICKOUT fanposts. Maybe that makes me wrong, but I’m probably not going to stop doing it.

by thejd44 on Oct 8, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Morgan says they're due

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 7, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They just need to be more consistent

like Derek Jeter.

by thejd44 on Oct 7, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cleveland will be up IMO

The injuries to big guys and the implosions of certain players (all of them being in the pen) hurt the Tribe a TON. That is what caused the Tribe to trade CC.

The Tribe played very well second half, even without the CC. Nice young core to build around.

Now with 100% more Canuck.

by Blicks on Oct 7, 2008 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't just outright dismiss Texas yet.

They do have pitching in their minors. And apparently that pitching is pretty good.

The thing with Texas has always been that they end up trading that good pitching before its ready, and watch it bloom somewhere else (Chris Young, Edison Volquez, Jon Danks, etc…)

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Oct 7, 2008 7:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, their pitching depth in the minors is probably second only to Oakland at this point

They probably actually have more legitimate prospects numbers-wise, but a lot of them are so callow that you have to expect many of them to burn out (whereas the Oakland players are older and at higher levels of play).

I expect Oakland and Texas to battle for the division from 2010-2012.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs