which is to say, I generally figure guys are who they are and there’s not much you can do to change them. The best thing you can do is put them in a position to succeed and then get out of the way.

The A’s have had to draft guys based on the probability of them making it to the majors. They’re not the Red Sox, who can develop one good player a year and be happy about it because they can buy the rest of their roster anyway. So the team is stuck hoping that they get lucky and someone exceeds his perceived upside.

Three other things: first, the lack of expenditure in Latin America and Asia in the last 5 years really was a grave strategic error that set the team way back; second, I think the team has focused, specialized to some extent if you will, on developing pitching because of the park and because it’s more expensive to buy in free agency, which is a valid thing to do; third, as lame as baseball’s draft is at predicting who will make it to the bigs, the first few picks are overwhelmingly more likely to be stars than any other players, and the A’s haven’t had a pick that high since Mulder (who worked out OK).

BTW, maybe I’m just jaded, but the title sounds like a Pontiac commercial.

There are three problems in drafting guys like you describe (and really, that’s the primary method of getting them other than “lucking out” in foreign scouting).

1) Those guys are high risk sorts, for every one that makes it, many don’t pan out.

2) They’re expensive to sign. Most guys with this sort of talent will demand high signing bonuses that the A’s can’t afford to give. Reason the A’s can’t commit themselves t to that is, as PT mentioned above, they need to maximize their major league potential in each draft which results in fewer high reward guys and getting a bunch of lower risk guys who won’t necessarily wow you, but have a much better chance of reaching the majors.

3) These guys get expensive quickly. Aside from the bonus, when these guys perform to their higher level, they cost a lot more to sign long term (and all the dangers that entails if they fold and/or get injured). And when/if they reach arbitration they can unpredictably cripple your budget. The A’s can’t afford that risk, so they load up on mid-level talent and try for a balance of above average, non-great players to fill their offense, with the typical focus on undervalued talents that can be exploited while costing less.

I’m talking about guys that have only been in the league a few years like Matt Holliday, Jeff Francoeur, Justin Morneau, Ryan Howard, Miguel Cabrera, Chase Utley, Mark Teireira, Alex Rios, Hanley Ramirez, David Wright and Prince Fielder.

I see a lot of very average players in Crosby, Buck, Denorfia, Sweeney, Hannahan, and Barton. These guys are still young and I have a lot of hope, especially for Buck, Barton, and CarGon. But this still doesn’t change the fact we haven’t had a real star come along for about 6 or 7 years, and even then, Giambi and Tejada’s success is somewhat tainted due to the steroid allegations.

I don’t think your comparison is fair here. Where is Swisher? Swisher, and NOT Buck / Barton / Sweeney / Patrol Craft is really the fair comparison to the players from the other teams you have listed. He was drafted around the same time as them.

Furthermore, you’re overrating some of your players there. I like Francoeur, Brave though he is, and even spend time occasionally defending him, but he projects as really nothing all that special. His lack of plate discipline is a huge liability, even the progressive improvements that he has made. At this point, he projects maybe as a Vernon Wells, without the D. Swisher is bettter offensively, better defensively, and is likely to be better in the future.