Younger. Healthier. Deeper.
by Taj Adib on Jul 9, 2008 7:22 PM PDT
Email
PrintLook, I'm not going to take a side on this Harden/Gaudin trade. I'm not going to say if I think Beane won this swap or Hendry did - and it's probably counter-productive even if I did, as user iglew points out that it's probably best for everyone involved if both GM's come out looking good here. No, I'm not going to even attempt to predict how Chicago will benefit from this trade on the field or how the A's will, since we really won't know that until the end of this season - at the very earliest. I'm not going to compare Rich Harden's first start in Chicago on Friday to Sean Gallagher's first start in Oakland stat-for-stat and immediately anoint a winner Friday night. And I'm most certainly not going to argue with anyone about the merits or flaws of players that I've never seen play and of players I'll never see play in Oakland ever again.
My main question here is: why did Billy Beane, the great talent evaluator, make this trade when, at first glance and to many experts, he traded more talent for less? After a little fuming and thinking, I dug up a few reasons why Beane made this specific trade and it all revolves around Beane's desire to make the A's 40-man roster younger, healthier and deeper.
1. Younger
Not younger in terms of actual age. Patterson is 25 and Murton is 26, both just as old or older than the two guys they were traded for. But younger in terms of major league service time. Everyone knows that young players are valuable because they are cheap, especially in their first 3 years on a major league roster. Next season Gaudin and Harden will likely command about $10 million in salary ($7 million option on Harden and arbitration increase on Gaudin to around $2.5 - $3 million) while Patterson, Gallagher and Murton, even if they all made the Opening Day roster or play the rest of this season in the major leagues, will cost around $1 million total in salary. That's about $9 million in salary savings for a 2009 team that was likely a piece or two away from being truly championship-caliber anyways. For some perspective, that $9 million could be used to:
- Court and sign two more Michel Inoas.
- Offer a well-earned two-year deal to Justin Duchscherer that will buy out his last 2 arbitration years for a team-friendly price.
- Offer a competitive 2-3 year extension to Mark Ellis.
- Allow the A's to go well over-slot and sign 7th round 2008 draft pick Brett Hunter (who, if healthy, could develop into the next Rich Harden - or if healthy, then eventually injured)
So the financial savings of this trade, while not gargantuan, could still end up being the catalyst for a very popular move or moves that will occur in the near future. But this trade was more complicated and involved too many big names to be a straight salary dump.
2. Healthier
It's no secret that A's management took great pains (pun intended) to try to remedy the A's dire trend of incurring regular, season-altering injuries to players throughout the organization. It's obvious that a small market team, no matter how talented, cannot hope to contend, especially long-term, with several injury risks taking up salary and roster spots. Beane simply couldn't continue to build rosters and base playoff hopes on "what ifs". That's exactly why he blew up the team last winter and paid over half of Mark Kotsay's 2008 salary to get rid of him...and it's probably a big reason why he traded Harden (and to a much lesser extent Gaudin) for players that aren't as talented as they are.
For Beane, I think the process of team-building and planning for the future is a lot easier when he is working with dependable, healthy, known quantities. I think that may be one reason why he values Joe Blanton and Mark Ellis so much. Given the choice, you've gotta believe that he'd probably rather have a team composed of Joe Blanton's in the rotation and Mark Ellis's in the field than having a team full of Rich Harden's and Travis Buck's. The latter guys might have pound for pound more (a lot more) talent than the former guys, but Blanton and Ellis are dependable and steady contributors that have proven they can stay healthy and relatively consistent year after year after year. That type of consistency is invaluable for a small market team.
As far as I know, none of the guys Beane got for Harden and Gaudin are high injury risks. Gallagher has averaged nearly 150 innings pitched per season in his four year minor league career. Murton has stayed on the field to average over 400 at-bats per season in his career, ditto Patterson and Donaldson hasn't been a pro long enough to get seriously injured. And when you look at it, that's a definitive pattern in Beane's recent trade activity. With the exception of Joey Devine (who had a well-documented medical history and was an interesting throw-in more than anything else) and Fautino de los Santos (who got injured after coming into the A's system) every other prospect Beane has acquired over the past year has had a solid medical history - Gio G has been rubber armed throughout his career, Swooney has suffered minor injuries but he's a battler and is staying on the field and producing, Cunningham bounced back from a freak wrist injury to shine in Midland, Smith and Eveland look like mid-rotation innings-eaters, Cargon has recovered from his two hamstring problems quickly, Brett Anderson just missed a couple starts due to a minor injury and Jamie Richmond leads the Kane County Cougars in innings pitched this season.
So I think it's obvious that Beane is placing a premium on health going forward. And he just exchanged a major health risk (Harden) and a slight health risk (Gaudin) for 4 guys without any documented health risk at all. That's peace of mind that can't really be quantified.
3. Deeper
Once again this season, the A's have been forced to use the extent of their 40-man roster and then some. Once again, the guys 2nd or 3rd on the positional depth chart are not really impressing anybody. At some point, Beane must have realized (probably after the successful 2006 season showed how important depth was) that building a useful bench at the major league level and stockpiling a solid batch of young, cheap productive players on the 40-man roster and at AAA were essential steps in building a consistent winner (rather than just trying to trade or develop a superstar at one or two positions and rolling the dice with the rest).
Nobody's going to confuse Eric Patterson with Chase Utley as an everyday 2nd baseman - but what if he's versatile enough to be more like Chone Figgins-lite? Then he would be a pretty valuable player relative to cost, considering the A's could probably cut Rajai "one trick pony" Davis loose. Nobody is going to confuse Matt Murton with Jason Bay, but what if he's more like Xavier Nady - without Boras as an agent and the multi-million dollar salary. That's pretty valuable too. And Sean Gallagher is not and is likely never going to be as good as Rich Harden. But even if he never improves from where he is now and turns into another, younger Joe Blanton...Is a career-above-.500 pitcher with a 4.21 ERA that is sure to pitch 180+ innings a season such a bad thing to have on the roster? Especially when he's making less than $500K for the next three seasons?
Basically, I'm extrapolating from Beane's comment over the offseason where he said something along the lines of, "If we're going to rebuild the right way, we're not just going to need good, young players...we are going to need a lot of good, young players."
Well, Beane just got four more good, young players into the system. It's up to them and the rest of the A's to see if being a team of largely younger, healthier and cheaper players than the two more talented guys they were traded for eventually leads to more sustained success for the organization. I don't know for certain if that's the case, but I can at least see why Beane is giving it a try.
84 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like your analysis
It seems to be more or less in line with a lot of the good minds I have read recently.
One question though: Everyone assumes billy made this trade; would anyone be surprised if frost was the one behind this trade?
"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."
I think Frost wrote about this trade
Something about 2 roads, a wood, and picking the road filled with bench bats and 4th starters.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That explains going younger -
“I took the player less traveled…”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Something there is that doesn't love...
...a ball going over a wall.
Putting the "N" in "NRAF" from Leipzig, Germany!
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jul 10, 2008 4:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Some of the reports
specifically mention phone calls between Beane and Hendry.
Forst does a lot, but I don’t think he did this.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I can't even see the Forst for the Tres.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That’s my joke!
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
This seems to imply quantity over quality as a strategy
not that I’m really opposed to this…we’ve had 3 black holes (with revolving identity as to who those holes were) in the lineup for years now.
Agreed...
When I first heard about the trade I had a similar reaction, Harden is an incredible talent, but he has been so frustrating to be a fan of. Before this season I had given up all hope that he would ever be healthy for more than a few starts, and thought the idea of making him a relief pitched made the most sense. Now Beane has turned a guy who has not pitched one full year of pro ball into four question marks, and people are upset? Look at Sweeney, a throw in from the Swisher trade who has been consistent offensively, look at Brown who most (inclduing me) thought would’nt have success on this team. Questioning Beane is fine, but this trade fits in perfectly with the direction the organization is headed, and even if none of the prospects pan out I still appreciate this decision, hopefully we are all pleasantly surprised!
Very good
read….I like the fact that we are stocking up on pitchers, we can always trade from a strength and pick up what we need later. And if we’re gonna stock up on any position, pitching, is by far the best one to stock up on.
ohio roots
"Look how far this is from your ‘Moneyball’ theories a couple years ago," Buckley said. "They were drafting all college pitchers. And now who’s the team that got the 16-year-old? Oakland." Chris Buckley, the Cincinnati Reds’ scouting director.
stocking up on pitchers?
BB traded away 2 quality sp’s and only got 1 sp in return. If anything, he should have asked for another pitcher in the deal.
by sf drift king on Jul 10, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
nice but you forgot 4. Cheaper
4. Cheaper
I prefer the A’s to be the lowest payroll in baseball, but I’ll settle for where they’re currently at, which is in the bottom 4. The A’s don’t do well when they waste money on overpriced players who don’t care about anything other than getting a paycheck except in their contract year where they need to have a big season in order to get the big bucks the following off-season.
Poor teams rule!
Rich Harden will get hurt again, mark it down. The A’s don’t wanna pay an injury-prone player, unfortunately they gave Harden that contract.
by Virgil Chevalier on Jul 9, 2008 9:42 PM PDT reply actions
If you read the post....
It was clearly stated as a motivating factor, as ‘oakinboston’ has stated.
Taj, great analysis on the trade. It makes 100% sense in theory, regardless of who agrees or not.
I find it very solid reasoning and like the direction of the franchise. Now if we can only get a new stadium, better attendance and a media plan (one where the greater Sacramento area, not too far away and home of the AAA franchise, can actually see the games!)
Good post
Unfortunately, it is much too level-headed and reasoned for most of the knee-jerkers on this site.
"There's m'fn sprinklers on the m'fn infield!'" - Ice Cream (AN), 6/13/08
It got 4 recs in like 3 hours... during a game
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That's because all the doom-and-gloomers were in the game thread
"There's m'fn sprinklers on the m'fn infield!'" - Ice Cream (AN), 6/13/08
Not me : /
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The only thing about younger is
extending Ellis doesn’t fit with that part – unless he’s only 8 in Unicorn Years!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This is a longer and deeper post
than I could write, which is why I’m usually a lurker. But I agree with the main points and have been frustrated with most of what people on AN have been writing so far about this trade. I remember the initial comments and posts about the other off season trades Beane made and I just laughed when I read what people were saying. Did anyone ever mention Greg Smith and Dana Eveland winning this many games this year? And it’s only the first half of the season. All of this hate against Gallagher has no basis and is similar to the first reactions of the Haren/ Swisher trades. Who are these players and what have they done? Well look at what has happened so far this season. Sweeney is basically replacing Swisher’s spot with more speed (+ def. IMO) and a little less power, Smith and Eveland are more than replacing Haren ( IMO) + Car Gon. That means we are actually better off with these ‘rebuilding moves’ than without them so far. I feel the same about the current deal. I have no doubt that Gallagher will be a stud and Harden will get hurt ( I hope not). I should post comments from last year ( but I won’t) about how Harden basically will never pitch to his potential and can never stay healthy. If I remember right people wanted to get rid of him last year, but because he couldn’t stay healthy he had no trade value…. Well he got a little bit of trade value while helping us win some games and now we got some decent prospects to help us in the now/future.?.? I can keep going on and on, but my last comment is about Murton and his kinda similar reception as Sweeney. Even though Sweeney was projected higher earlier on, nobody thought Sweeney would be this good for the A’s this year (correct me if I’m wrong), Murton is an OK prospect with a little power (from what I have read) and could do very well with our AAAA Outfield. My opinion is … who knows how this deal will pan out and I expect it to be better for us in the long run than the Cubs.
Never mind the stress here's the Dank ~RIP~Justin Huff
In essence, Beane must have timed the trade well
because A’s fans are unhappy – that means they can’t remember how fragile Harden is and do remember how great he can be. Which is exactly when you have to unload him if you want to get someone with as much potential as Gallagher in return. More just wasn’t going to happen because GMs have better memories than fans have.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
true
None of us are GM’s and I hope none of us are getting paid as much as the other GM’s to evaluate this trade. We all know Billy got enough of what he wanted or he wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. He had the ball in his court.
Never mind the stress here's the Dank ~RIP~Justin Huff
Agree about the timing; it's like the stock market
A lot of novice traders don’t have the nerve to buy when a stock is on the decline and tend to hang on to non-blue chips while they’re on their way up. I think you are right; Beane wanted to unload Harden while he’s looking good.
I’m sure that it’s this kind of thinking that inspired Moneyball, a business book which happened to focus on baseball.
The fumes have died down a bit.
Thanks Taj.
Maybe it’s the last five years, but this trade had no affect on me. Although, I was expecting to read Marmol was included at the expense of Gaudin. I have a feeling there is a market out there for Murton/Patterson, or one of the other pieces down on the farm that can be turned into the ever elusive Right Handed Power Bat. Not necessarily this year.
"These Boston People Are AWFUL"
Harden shelved this weekend?
Looks like those of us who had “Faith” in Billy might be getting our redemption! Whoa!, sorry, didn’t mean to use Faith and now redemption out of context!
What!, Upon further review and analysis of the trade it does look like it was used properly in a previous post! If and when Harden is shelved on the DL for the long term you will see the Light! WOW!, see the Light? Another Faith based reference! Looks like based on one applicable word used in the title of a post, I will be known as the Pope!
By the way PT, if you go over Beane’s past trades and truly did the analysis you will see that Faith should be shown in Beane because his track record speaks for itself! Patience is Virtue! Alright that’s it! Just call me Moses!
Shane F. Wray
Not like anyone needs another trade comment
But here it goes anyway.
It struck me only today, something that may have happened. I am an attorney. I deal in a lot of negotiations. Everyone has an approach. Some people try every time to fleece the other party. Zero sum negotiation. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. I subscribe to a different approach. I try to accurately evaluate my asset, then ask for value back. I dont puff. I dont omit. I am candid and share informaiton. I put everything on the table and expect the same.
And maybe Beane was doing the same. Maybe for the same reason. No one wants to get a reputation as a dealer who passes off damaged goods. Something tells me that not only do the A’s have more information on Harden than anyone else, but if I am in Beane’s shoes, I tell the other teams. I give them our medical reports. There are 30 GMs and he cannot make deals if no one will pick up the phone. I would not pick up the phone if the guy on the other end has a reputation for misrepresentation and fraud.
I think maybe Beane was candid with the Cubs about Harden’s risk. I think he might have been offered more, but felt a duty to disclose what he knew. All of it. I would not be surprised to learn that he shrank the deal. thats what I would have done. Even though we like the idea of our GM fleecing other GMs, its bad business. Value for value is best for the long term.
And that explains why the Harden market was smaller than we fans hoped. Because Beane had superior knowledge about Harden’s health, and so did the rest of the league.
We traded high risk, high upside, for low risk, low upside. And I am ok with that. Or maybe we should have held out for a top pitching prospect, a top reliever and a great center fielder, like Meyer, Cruz and Thomas. You never know.
by mikedaviswhereareyou on Jul 10, 2008 2:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Outstanding Post!!!!!
I encourage all of you naysayers who have trashed this trade to read, and then reread this post to understand what I and others are saying! Very well thought out, and exactly what I believe also happened!
I believe we got what we could for Harden at this present moment in time. I also believe that if Beane wanted to make other deals in the near or not so near future that he has to deal with other GM’s with an eye toward making trades work for both teams, so as to have the ability to continue to deal into the future! Once again, outstanding post! Indeed!
Shane F. Wray
Cruz and Thomas were never a top reliever and great CF. They were throw-ins.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 10, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions
In contrast to Mike Davis himself,
you, my friend, are very good at your job. Great post.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
To be fair Cruz was a reclamation project...
...with a top reliever or very good starter ceiling.
Sort of like Sweeney.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
You nailed it man!
I was thinking something similar last night, although I am not an attorney. I know how to negotiate, though, and sometimes you have to know when to press and when to lay low. It’s part poker, part good business, but the negotiating part is essential to get anything done.
That’s what makes this trade such a puzzle for many A’s fans. Personally, I am looking forward to watching Sean Gallagher pitch tomorrow and at some point seeing Murton and Patterson at some point as well. Not sure about Donaldson sticking or if he is just another pawn for a different trade down the road.
a few comments at odds with what you say
First, “the Harden market” did not exist. The Cubs wanted Harden. There was only ONE team that wanted to trade for Harden, before Harden’s dominant Philly game, and before the last two “five and out” games. So your premise about “medical info not available” etc. does not hold, because this was no “farmer with wheat to sell”. Beane wasn’t “selling Harden”. He had no reason to move him. Or anyone else. Except for one thing: Beane has always said, every player on the roster, is available, at all times, to be traded. Every one. But, some will take a ridiculous deal, or they won’t be traded.
Would Beane trade Forst for Cashman? Probably, if the YES revenues were somehow involved..
So, Harden…Cubs come to Beane in May 2008, and DO NOT ask, “What pitching do you have?” They ask, “What will it take to get Harden?” Answer: “Sean Gallagher. For one.”
“No…no … no deal” say the Cubs. In May 2008. IMO, the Sabathia deal moved the Cubs to relent.
So, who is “Sean Gallagher”? Well, he threw his first bullpen for Geren and Young, yesterday. “As of this moment, ” said Geren, “Gallagher has the best fastball on the Oakland A’s staff.” Now, that is saying something about a player who is 22 and just arrived. Quite the unequivocal endorsement. Was it the movement? Speed? Accuracy? I don’t know, but it shows you the large and unspoken intelligence that goes on before the A’s make a trade.
As far as sharing medical records, deals have been reversed when a player was found to not pass a physical, so all the “would he (Beane) reveal all? Is it in his best future interest to reveal all?” is kind of a moot argument. Kind of like saying a coin dealer should always sell authentic coins…it kind of comes with the territory, and you cannot escape the general consequences of selling bogus coins, because, not only would you not last as a coin dealer, any specific trades would be negated, by lack of “performance” by the coin dealer. In my opinion, you spent a lot of writing on this ‘Beane Trade Scruples’-topic that was superfluous.
The Cubs’ GM Hendry pretty much confirmed that Gaudin was thrown in because Hardin might become non-performing at a future date…say, end of August, and the Cubs would have no recourse. So the A’s”built in” a guarantee by adding Gaudin. The fact that besides “Harden for Gallagher”, Harden also commanded three other players makes it look like the A’s scored more on this deal, not to mention as Taj has pointed out, the salary considerations, roster health, and age of roster considerations. Gaudin was simply the insurance premium.
It may seem to some observers that Beane and Forst move players to simply move players because they can, but I believe that they would readily embrace a LA Dodger situation, where Cey-Russell-Lopes-Garvey stayed intact for many many years….if they could get all those players together at age 24!
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Jul 10, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Not much of a surprise that he has the best fastball
considering that they just dealt away the two guys who they themselves acknowledged as having the “best stuff”...
I’m sure it does look like the A’s “scored more”, if you exclude Gaudin from your considerations.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Younger by service time also means getting hitters in their prime years cheaply
A 25-26 year-old hitter with 1-2 years of service time is going to be cheap when he’s 27-31. That may be more valuable than a 22-23 year-old hitter with the same service time. Good call Taj!
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
In my business, past is prologue.
Rich has 35 wins in 5 1/2 years.
I think the other factor is the differential value of arms vs bats. I think Billy’s continuing to stockpile.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
Beane knows what CYA means
Think about it. If there is any team in MLB that can assure prolonged stints of DL time for Harden it’s the Cubs. Everybody is going to base this trade on Harden’s ability to stay healthy, so why not trade him to a team that is notorious for riding great young arms into the ground? By trading Harden to the Cubs Beane will save face and gain peace of mind knowing that looking back tha this deal will look, at worst, like a wash.
CYA
Is that why he didn’t trade for Lastings Milledge?
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
Copy and Paste
I think one thing that isn’t being discussed much is the difference in park factors between Oakland and Chicago. According to B-R, Oakland has a multi-year park factor of 93, and a single year park factor of 89. That multi-year park factor is the second lowest in baseball, behind San Diego. Chicago, meanwhile, has a multi-year park factor of 104 and is at 107 this year. Only 3 teams in baseball (COL, ARI, BOS) have a multi-year park factor above 104.
Gallagher has a 4.45 ERA, which is a 100 ERA+ for Chicago. A 100 ERA+ for Oakland this year would be a 3.82 ERA.
Let’s say Harden would have put up a 2.50 ERA in 90 innings for the rest of this season—which is an optimistic figure. The difference between a 2.50 ERA and a 3.82 ERA over 90 innings is 13 runs. If the A’s replace Brown with Murton and Davis with Patterson, I think they’d make up most of those 13 runs.
There’s a drop-off in the bullpen from Gaudin to Braden, but the drop-off would likely have very little effect on win-loss records given the low leverage situations Gaudin was pitching in. There’s also the difference in league quality, so I guess Gallagher’s ERA+ would be a bit lower in the AL.
Can't help but think.
Was the market for Harden really that bleak? I guess we may never know, but it’s still frustrating for me thinking about Murton, Patterson, and Donaldson. If Murton and Patterson aren’t flipped here in the coming days, what is their purpose? The A’s will hardly be benefitting from more average punchless hitters, today, or in the future. To me, it’s a little discouraging that we lose our best pitcher, and don’t receive any bats that could possibly have future star potential.
Maybe Gallagher turns out to be a stud, but I still would’ve preferred a bat. The offensive woes aren’t just unique to this year. The offensive has been pitiful for about the last four years. It would be nice for once, to know that somewhere in our farm system there is a guy with the upside of a Hanley Rameriz, Longoria, Bruce, or Rasmus.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
There are guys like that "somewhere in the system"
although I grant you that they are not all that likely to come to fruition. It’s less a question of whether they are in your system and more a question of where they are in your system—and in the A’s system, they’re all at the A level (or rookie level).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Cargon.
I guess there’s one on the MLB team too. Regardless of where they are in the system, it’s disappointing Harden was apparently not worth one.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
The driving force behind the trade
was Hendry, not Beane. Beane was not shopping Harden, Hendry wanted Harden. The only thing Beane insisted on was Gallagher, and Hendry wouldn’t part with Gallagher until the Sabathia trade went down. When he finally relented on Gallagher it was Hendry who insisted that another pitcher be included in the event Harden got hurt, Beane offered Gaudin. All the other players were window dressing. If Harden plays out his career injury free then it is a terrible trade in all probability, if not, then it is essentially Gaudin for Gallagher. People who are supposedly experts think Gallagher is very special, time as always will be the determinate factor in whether this was a good or bad trade. I personally am glad it was done, every time Rich Harden pitched I was waiting for that pause on the mound after a pitch, and then the trainer, Curt Young and Geren running to the mound, and Harden slowly walking off the mound and into rehab.
My first thought:
This was just going to be some kind of penile enlargement spam. ;-)
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
Beane "The Great Talent Evaluator"
I’m really not convinced this statement is entirely accurate. Pitching talent evaluator, yes. No one can dispute that. But seldom has his evaluation of offensive talent produced an impact bat. The only player that really comes to mind that he guessed right on was Swisher, and even he had his shortcomings.
Yes I know you can point to the coliseum being unfriendly to hitters. And yes we were unlucky with Jermaine Dye and his health. But we haven’t had an exciting, all-star calibur player since Tejada (whom Beane did not draft).
I just think the fans are craving an exciting hitter and as long as the team is devoid of one, we’re going to see mediocre attendance and lackluster fan support. Its been a glaring weakness in the organization for 5 years and thats why fans are so disappointed with this trade.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 10, 2008 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I've said it before
I’ll be saying it again
A huge reason the A’s always do such a great job of “finding” pitching and not hitting is that they have a super-pitching friendly park (and the best defense in MLB). It takes a rare offensive talent (roid-era Giambi) to consistently deliver offense, and those players don’t come at all cheap. It takes a league-average pitcher to post a sub-4 ERA, those players do come cheap.
That's a partial explanation at best
You’d think that someone in our system would develop into that type of player over the course of 5 years.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 10, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed. +1
Our offense has been terrible since 2004. It’s somewhat astonishing given all the talk of Beane being a genius he has never landed a star position player. It would be nice for once to not have a lineup of struggling overachievers and to have just ONE guy to put some faith in that just rakes, a la Chase Utley, Lance Berkman, Dan Uggla, Hanley Ramirez, Josh Hamilton, Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols, Mark Teixeira, Jason Bay, David Wright, Justin Morneau, Ian Kinsler, or Xavier Nady. There are plenty of them out there that have been drafted and developed since the Beane era. Heck I’d even take a guy like Brian McCann. And as my friends here in ATL like to remind me, is a better hitter than anyone currently on our team.
I swear, Beane is not stupid, he can’t be. It’s just that it’s like he is more obsessed with proving people wrong, and that he can win with guys other teams miss, rather than just taking an obviously good player. It’s like one of those fantasy baseball “experts” that get on BBTN and make these bold predictions, and is always out to prove their cleverness and genius. More and more it seems like that is the way Beane runs this team.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Comparative advantage
If you’re good at developing pitching, develop pitching. You’ll have a good team and you can trade it for good hitters from other teams. As long as your GM isn’t a Sabean-level idiot at actually realizing the profits from those pitchers, it’s one of the best ways to develop a winner.
If the Giants ever replace Sabean with competent management, they’ll have a winner within three years because they can consistently develop good pitchers.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That all makes sense
The problem is that if you’re not good at recognizing hitting talent then you probably won’t be good at getting offensive talent in return for your good pitching via trade.
Furthermore if you’re really committed to that school of thought then there’s no reason to not take a pitcher in the first 10 rounds of the draft, develop them, then trade them for offense once they get good. The A’s don’t do that, which tells me they are trying to develop impact bats and failing.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 10, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think that's true.
I’m not a MLB scout, but I can tell you that Pujols has hitting talent.
If we have 10 great arms, we can trade for obvious hitting talent. If we have a super low payroll, we can buy it in the offseason.
A great talent evaluator
Recognizes talent before it becomes obvious
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 10, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Hence PT's original point
That if what you can evaluate is pitching, stockpile it and trade for obviously talented offensive players (CarGon being only a recent example)
There are a variety of wrong assumptions here
First: if you can’t draft hitting talent, you can’t trade for it. Well, no. Why? Stats. If a guy is hitting .300 at age 22 in AAA, he’s probably going to do pretty well in the majors whether you’ve scouted him well or not.
Second: No reason not to take all pitchers. Again, no. You may be willing to take a pitcher who is slightly weaker than a given hitter because you think you can make him a better player, but if all the clearly best players around are hitters (as was the case this season) you take a hitter.
Third: If your focus is on developing pitchers, it makes sense to focus your hitter development on a large number of decent hitters (easier to acquire in late rounds) rather than on a small number of “impact bats”. Then if need be you buy the impact bats in free agency (eg Bonds in 1993/1998/2002).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Beane's trade history.
I was looking at this xcel file I downloaded from MLBrumors from last week. It’s pretty interesting in light of this conversation. Aside from Carlos, I don’t think Beane has ever traded for any kind of player that was projected to be an impact bat. At first glance it doesn’t look like we’ve ever really had one to trade either. Ryan Ludwick maybe?
I hate to question Beane, and have never really second guessed him, but thinking back, our offense has been awful since 2004. The big guys we had before then, Tejada and Giambi, Beane didn’t even draft, and the one FA he did keep (Chavez) turned out to the worst of the bunch…
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Those were my thoughts as well
In Regards to the 2 posts above:
Speaking of assumptions, I believe the assumption that our strategy to develop pitching and trade it away is wrong. If that was the case then why don’t the A’s ever do it?
Yes we did it in the Haren deal for CarGon, but that was the only time. And it was a part of a trade that featured 3 more young pitchers.
In the Hudson, Mulder, and Harden trades (arguably the 3 best pitchers the A’s have developed under Beane) the centerpieces were pitchers (Meyer, Haren & Gallagher)
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 10, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Hudson and Mulder were not pitching-for-hitting trades though
They were trades that were semi-forced by their impending free agency. The primary goal of the team there was replacing them on the roster. (Although you could argue about whether Barton or Haren was the “centerpiece” of the Mulder group. Certainly I’ve heard Barton described as such.) You could sort of argue the same about the Harden trade… although it’s really unclear what the point of that trade was so far.
Harang for Guillen was unquestionably pitching-for-hitting—and we might be hailing it today as Beane’s master stroke if Eric Byrnes had remembered to tag home plate. Or even if Guillen hadn’t been a roid-raged ass and the A’s had reupped him.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yes, I agree Harang for Guillen was a good rental.
Saying it was a bad trade is being too results-oriented, and ignores the fact that we didn’t really miss Harang too much.
Mulder had 2 years left, but was clearly on a decline, he had totally broken down in the second half of 2004, had a reasonable 2005 with fairy dust and pitching against the crap that was the NL Central of the time, and then totally broke down. I think that trade was a sell-high for value trade regardless of free agency.
One thing I have wondered about Mark is the famous “S” word. He came up with a 5.00 ERA, then got really really good after hurting his back and hitting the weight room. “S” word testing started, and he totally brokedown, lost velocity and started getting injured.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
guillen
was awesome. that was definitely a good rental. you also bring up a good point about byrnes…
when discussing beane’s track record, remember how close we were to some big-time success for a few years. horrible, HORRIBLE (can i make the text really big to emphasize my point???) baserunning did us in twice (byrnes and jeremy giambi not sliding or lowering his shoulder) and it seemed like every year either hudson or mulder was hurt going into the playoffs (or just didn’t show up). billy beane put the A’s in a position to bring home some rings at the beginning of this decade, only to see the guys on the field (and art howe and ken macha probably to some degree) choke it away under the bright lights. we were up 2-0 twice and couldn’t close it out, brought the yankees to game 5 another time, and then just stunk up the joint against the twins. billy proved he was willing to and adept at trading for talent in season with dye, damon, guillen, etc., and put us in position to win.
Nothing has ever stuck though
I suppose you can say Billy has been a little unlucky (Dye, Pena, and to some extent Guillen). But that excuse is only going to last for so long. Billy & Co have yet to put a consistent offensive force on this team. If you’re a “great talent evaluator” , then that shouldn’t happen.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
targets via trade (off the top of my head)
Prospects:
Barton (not lookin’ so hot right now)
Carlos Pena (run out of town on a rail, almost run out of MLB, resurrected in Tampa)
Established MLB’ers:
Thomas
Dye (only the fracture and the debatable extension mar this choice)
Piazza
Karros
Justice
MSweeney
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
I should say, trade/waiver/FA
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Jaha-Berroa Instruction Guide
The A’s were fortunate to get amazing production out of John Jaha and Geronimo Berroa, so they have attempted that route over and over…aging hitter gets new life surrounded by condusive teammates. Worked with FThomas, too, but Karros, Piazza, and couple of others…not so hot.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Jul 10, 2008 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Hardball Times crew
(including the inimitable salb) mostly hate this trade for the A’s too.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I dunno ... I think they're all being a bit hysterical
Matt Carruth sums it up in a nutshell:
It’s smart, but underwhelming from an excitement perspective.
I don’t want “exciting” trades, I want “smart” trades.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Hysterical?
Most of these people are not A’s fans, you know. I doubt there’s a whole lot of hysteria running around.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Younger, Healthier, Deeper, Cheaper
What is it’s just a plain salary dump for a club that doesn’t really care that much about what’s on the field pre-Fremont?
Then I'm wrong
As are many others on this site, and the vast majority of those in the business of analyzing these things
The Glass Half Full explanation
Harden is most useful to a team that’s likely to make the postseason with or without him, and really wants a pitcher capable of multiple post-season shutouts. That means either the Cubs, White Sox, Red Sox, Angels or maybe Rays. Of those the Cubs and White Sox are the most likely to pay to win THIS YEAR. White Sox have no prospects. Ergo Cubs are the best bet.
Gaudin is about to hit arbitration, has below average peripherals as a starter and a recent injury history.
Beane expects Gallagher to be a 105-115 ERA+ guy for a few years without extraordinary health issues. Right now the only guy in the A’s rotation like that is Blanton.
(waits while laughing subsides)
Patterson is an “excellent” 2B prospect (according to Nate Silver) and Ellis is about to hit FA. Signing a non-superstar, especially a 2B, to 3+ year FA deal in his 30’s is historically a bad idea, even if he’s a really nice guy and really wants to be here (see Kendall, Kotsay)
Murton is already an average corner OF who is about to hit his peak years and is cheap for the next 4-5 years. Plus he’s a righty. Buck has health issues.
Donaldson is a guy the A’s had scouted heavily before the 2007 draft, and just may be the high upside guy in this deal. Catching prospects are hard to get.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 10, 2008 12:34 PM PDT reply actions
first paragraph is a really important insight
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Ellis is a superstar 2B
Not in the media sense, but in the “wins above average” sense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
As to Ellis
PT is right, it’s no accident that the A’s always seem to have the best defense in baseball.
If Beane knows Ellis is going somewhere else, Patterson is a good piece to the trade.
If having Patterson makes the A’s less interested in keeping Ellis, I switch from being fine with the trade to hating it.
I think you're right
I just wrote in the ESPN reference post that I believe Harden is hurt and won’t make another start anytime soon.
That said, the move is indeed an effort to get younger and healthier.
Furthermore, I have to believe there is a budgetary aspect to the trade, and that owners did not want to increase salary this year unless the A’s were going to justify it in revenue. Beane doesn’t truly think the A’s can compete this year, so he took Harden and Gaudin’s salaries and gave it to the Dominican kid. I hope he’s right.
I didn't read this yet
but i don’t think oakland fans are made that harden got traded. I even like some of the players in the deal. However, i do think that a guy like vitters should have been in this trade. We need bats but our biggest need is for bats is at third and short. These are the two spots that we really don’t even have a promising prospect at. I get trading harden but a promising prospect at third or short should have been required.
In short, why the A’s are always successful with a low budget:
1. Pitcher friendly ballpark
2. Great pitcher development
3. Great defense
This holds true for other sports:
Example – In the NBA, the Spurs / Pistons are boring to watch in the FInals, but they’re there consistently thanks to defense. This year, the Celtics followed the same formula: team defense.
Now our pitcher friendly ballpark does two things: helps pitching & hurts hitting.
Hitting is costly due to its value/dollars across Baseball
Being a small revenue team & having a friendly pitching stadium, it makes sense to focus on developing pitching and defense. It allows a small market team to have a home field advantage. We’re consistently a good home team (this year 30-22 vs 20-20 on the road) and it is not by accident.
We are consistently in ball games thanks to our pitching and defense. You can’t ask for much more with our budget to keep the games close, exciting and give our team a shot to win.
Every once in awhile, the horrible offense does what it did today: comes from behind to win.
Now I would love to have a line up full of Frank Thomas caliber hitters, but that would obviously take away from our defense, and thus hurt our pitching. There aren’t any 5 tool players who are cheap once developed so you have to pick your poison (and get used to the rare gems we do get to be traded away / compensation picks before capitalizing on their big payday: ie Giambi, Tejada… and eventually CarGon)
During our recent run of successful campaigns under Beane, we have capitalized on what variables we have and continually put out a winning team.
Err, you say that hitting
is costly? And pitching isn’t? If hitting is costly, it makes more sense for a small budget team that develope hitting inhouse and buy pitching.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
