I’m not sure I agree completely with your team identity assessment, but you did present some interesting ideas and I enjoyed reading your fanpost. I do, however, share your concern about AN being dominated by a small group of pseudo-GMs. It’s refreshing to see fanposts like this one that address the things that interest regular fans.

There are a few douche bags that have joined AN over the years, but for the most part this site has changed very little since I joined in 2004. The biggest differences are all cosmetic, and have made the experience on AN and the SB Nation as a whole much more enjoyable. There have always been little clicks on here but they kinda come and go, and most of the names change after awhile. Even some of the recent douche bags still contribute very meaningful post’s and information, if you can get over their self important attitudes.

we have changed (record-wise)… and yes, that does alter the perception of our team. we do not, however, lose our place in history because of a quiet/unfortunate string of seasons. we are still the quirky, unconventional squad from the bay’s 2nd city. we are still the only team rocking white cleats and boasting the biggest foul territory in the majors. we still share a stadium with the raiders. my point: we are the same team, we have not “lost” our identity… it has just taken on unfavorable compenents. these are correctable.

Me for Ervin Santana is a very good deal for the A’s.

amidst amongst whil[e]st

And both often take a back seat to laziness.

Laziness: the reason we have modern language.

Towards/backwards almost bugs me as much as ending sentences in prepositions.

Make that shit actually happen. I just did. And you can, too. it’s easy, ya know. It’s a very good point of view and deserves to be green.

I’m focused on this new core that we will talk about in the future…WC calls it and you can read the optimism seeping through:

…with the real talent in the minors.

This really spells out the issue at hand. When you just look at the past few years on their face value, it seems we have lost direction. But the real issue goes back to injuries and a few decisions that went in different directions. The early years, IIRC, we didn’t have nearly as many key injuries, and every move seemed to work out (Giambi). But then the tables turned, and we had a lot more injuries and decisions that turned out way worse than anyone would have thought (Crosby). All this time, the FO sees a team that still can get over the hump if they “add a piece and stay healthy this year”. So, with the attitude of still being in serious contention, the moves were designed to get us over the hump, rather than starting to set a new table.

was an extraordinary event – three cost-controlled #1 starters gives a team enormous flexibility elsewhere.

To me (and others – this is hardly a new observation), the real Moneyball question has always been the extent to which the team’s success in the first half of this decade was due to this, and how much to Beane’s exploitation of market inefficiencies elsewhere. Unfortunately there is no real control case, since in the post-big3 era the inefficiencies have also become much more marginal as other teams have become smarter.

You couldn’t have explained it better. Thank You, bills.

I’m sure we’ve argued this before and will argue it again, but I’d say the 2002 draft wasn’t so bad. Because of its notoriety, there were unrealistically high expectations. The reality is that most draft picks never make it, even in the early rounds.

Out of that draft came two solid starters, another major leaguer who was pretty good for a while, two more who made it briefly to the bigs but didn’t accomplish anything, and an asterisk whose cup of coffee is a quirky footnote in baseball history. That’s not great, but it’s not bad either.

(And that’s not counting two excellent relievers drafted out of high school who chose to go to college instead.)

I distinctly remember getting my Baseball digest and thinking “well, if Ray Burris and Steve McCatty have big years, maybe we have a shot”.

They were the first teams I actually followed during the year. I remember the ’81 team, but it was mostly hearing my parents mention them and sort of watching the playoffs. Around ’83 I got my subscription to Baseball Digest and began listening to games on the radio.

What amazes me is how we have just been scratching the surface with that fantastic pitching staff. We haven’t even begun to bring up the awesomeness that is Bill Almon and Dan Meyer (the other one).

Here is the boxscore. (I do remember that game though). I had a scrapbook of the entire ’83 season that got lost in my many moves.

0.2 IP for Cod, 8.1 IP for Burgy.