Have we been suckered, or are we just suckers?
by UncleLeo on Aug 3, 2008 12:18 AM PDT
Email
PrintEverybody's frustrated right now. I get it. So am I. There's a very stark contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm that was prevalent here in the early part of the season, and the despair that is common right now. That early excitement and enthusiasm wasn't unwarranted, but I do feel that it is time to take a step back and try to objectively assess what is happening and where this team is going and when.
Rebuilding - some thoughts about various aspects of this rebuilding and observations I've made of the team and the fans...
Was it necessary? I'm not entirely sure it was, at least to the degree that it's been implemented, but at the same time I realize that this team does have fiscal constraints that other teams don't and cannot just go out and buy what they need, so I'm on board. And no, I'm not into feel-good euphemisms and hyperbole like "reloading". It is what it is... rebuilding.
Is the excitement and enthusiasm misplaced? Will this team be like the forever-rebuilding Royals or Pirates, or the rebuilding Marlins that can pull off the occasional coup and get a world series title out of it? I'm hoping against the former, but I'm having my doubts. History isn't encouraging in that regard. Rebuilding itself is most often a never-ending vicious circle. Lowell Cohn almost nailed it when he said "...Beane’s philosophy is like communism. It never ever works in the present but it will work in some far-off mythical moment that never comes.", though I don't think it's Beane specifically, but rather the unavoidable nature of rebuilding itself. How many teams pull off what the Marlins do? Seriously, how many? For every rule any contrarian can point out exceptions to the rule, and the Marlins are an exception. Most teams who win consistently don't rely on consistently reinventing themselves, they have a plan and/or the money to make it happen and keep it happening. The A's did well at building a team 10 years ago... their record with rebuilding has been less than impressive.
What happened last time? Losing players like Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, etc., got us players like Swisher, Blanton, Haren, and other serious prospects as either draft picks or in trade. How did that work out? How many have actually panned out? A few, but the ones who really did, the one's I mentioned, are now gone.
Which brings me to my next point... Six years. So many people keep talking about how we're going to have these new guys for six years. Are we, really? Why do we say that? Did Billy Beane say we would? I don't recall him saying that, but even if he did, weren't we led to believe that about Swisher and Haren and Blanton, et al? We were supposed to have them (cheaply) for six years, also. To paraphrase Dr Phil, How did that work out for us?
Which brings me to yet another point... What happens if (read: when) all these great prospects don't pan out? Think about it, what's the success rate for prospects? I don't know exact percentages, but it's not anywhere near the excitement I read on these boards. To hear people here tell it, this team is going to be so great when ALL these guys mature. We'll be damn lucky if as many as half of them actually pan out and only half flame out. Referencing the trades and draft picks above, we should be worshiping Barton and Meyer now, but we're not. Why is that? What happened to half those guys in that great draft that everybody was oohing and aahing over several years (2002?) ago? Sometimes it's unforeseen injury, but sometimes it turns out they're not really as good as projected. I feel good that we have many legitimate pitching prospects, so if only half of them succeed we'll still be doing well. I am not so confident about hitting. We have so few, that if even one fails, this team will be in a world of hurt, offensively. This organization has HUGE holes at various positions. Rebuilding only works when needs are filled.
Last point... I didn't believe we'd make the post-season this year, but I thought we'd be serious and respectable. Some great young players playing and learning how to play and how to win. Something to build on. I was excited about our prospects for 2009. I thought we had a legitimate shot at the post-season for next year. Now, I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with trading Harden and Blanton. I feel, given the overall pitching situation, that we could afford to let them go. I am disappointed, though, that immediate and short(er) term needs weren't addressed in those trades. Instead of getting a return that could help as soon as 2009, everything was pushed back even further. Just as a good mid-season trade can inspire a team I feel that a questionable trade can deflate a team, and that's at least part of what I think has happened to this team in the last month. They were told, in essence, wait another year.
Maybe the title of this post should have been... Rebuilding: It's always a day away.
186 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well said.
The scary thing for me is that Beane has never drafted or traded for any kind of prospect that turned out to be anything above average offensively.
The thing you mentioned about having the new guys for six years is also worrisome. It’s funny when we talk about locking up or having control of young guys like Harden, Blanton, Street, or Swisher. It’s another thing to trade them away before you even get to their FA year. I’m still baffled by the Harden trade. The only way it can be viewed in a positive light for the A’s is if Harden gets hurt. Murton and Patterson are awful, and Gallagher is no where near as good as Harden. The only way Gallagher could ever outperform Harden is if he is stuck on the DL. Plus if Harden’s value was so low that those three guys were the best return, then I don’t see where the A’s would have had any trouble signing Harden to an extension if his value is that questionable with the injuries.
I sure hope some of these younger guys pan out. Watching Cargon, Sweeney, and Suzuki has been refreshing. They may struggle and look absolutely terrible for a week at a time, but they rebound, and give hope just as quick. The rest of the team, not so much. Those guys are what you look for in a rebuilding year. Not Hannahan, Murphy, Cust, Brown, Ellis, and Davis. I still have high hopes for Barton, but that pool injury was just dumb.
Something else that you don’t hear much in this rebuilding is how the Angels, Rangers, and Mariners will be in two years. We know the Angels aren’t going away, and even if their farm system isn’t as stacked as ours (I don’t even know if thats true) their owner still cares enough to go out and spend money on free agents to restock the team. The only way we contend with them is if they have a down year. Seattle has the same resources, and it’s only a matter of time before they improve significantly. We also can no longer count the Rangers to be consistent bottom dwellers. The AL west is improving everywhere, not just with the A’s.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Beane has never drafted or traded for any kind of prospect that turned out to be anything above average offensively
What about Carlos Peña?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Uh Huh.
Eric Chavez was drafted in 1996, Beane became GM in 1997.
Jack Cust, well I think he is terrible. Thats a difference in opinion. No one is going to change anyones mind in that regard on the Cust subject. Judging by the playing time Arizona, Colorado, Baltimore, and San Diego gave him it doesn’t seem like he impressed them much either.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
No, it really isn't a difference in opinion
Jack Cust isn’t terrible. That’s a factual statement.
I mean, I could say the A’s pitching has been terrible, because I think every A’s pitcher is terrible. Mulder, Hudson, Zito, etc—all terrible. Would you agree with that? Would you call that a “difference in opinion”? Of course not. It’s idiocy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If your mind can't be changed in the wake of overwhelming evidence
then, like, you’re the exact type of person that makes this world such a shitty place. Seriously. I can’t even comprehend what kind of mental deficiency causes a person to REFUSE to listen to arguments and possibly have their mind changed. Why are you so set in your ways?
This bothers me more than anything else in life. It’s people who just won’t listen to arguments, won’t take into consideration all the evidence, etc. It’s one thing to be aesthetically turned off by a player who strikes out a lot (or whatever it is about Cust that annoys people). It’s another to completely ignore the actual data. It’s a lot like people who refuse to accept scientific theories because they have deeply held beliefs that they refuse to abandon despite all the evidence to the contrary (or they simply don’t understand the definition of “scientific theory”).
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I go for the duality...
I believe in science and faith.
I believe Jack Cust rocks and sucks.
"All managers are losers, they are the most expendable pieces of furniture on the face of the Earth."- Ted Williams
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 3, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, the issue of how good Jack Cust is
is not “factual,” it’s open to quite a bit of interpretation. To claim otherwise is, well, breathtakingly preposterous!
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
Jack Cust is not "terrible"
It’s an idiotic assertion.
The issue of how good he is is debatable
But the spectrum is between “above average” and “very good”
Similarly, you can debate how many wins the A’s will have this year, but 52 is not an option.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
The way things are going,
I fully expect the A’s to find a way to lose their current game and one of their previous ones.
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
If the Mendoza line is average ...
then, absolutely, Jack Cust is “above it” ... barely.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Learn to analyze baseball players
Then I’ll respond
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Hey man, just sayin ...
you can trot out as much analysis as you want … but if a guy’s hittin’ .200, he damn well better have a ton of HR’s … Cust doesn’t. I’m not saying Cust is horrible … if you play major league ball, you’ve got talent … but please stop trying to make me think Cust is DiMaggio/Bonds/Mays wrapped into one.
Please also remember that because you can work a calculator and check your thesaurus before you post - this doesn’t impress me. Several of you seem to think that your “high intelligence” gives you the right to be assholes. It doesn’t . I understand that you probably got picked on a lot in school - I can see that, and I understand completely. But all of your statistical analysis doesn’t add one ounce of grace to your posts. So please be a little more patient with those of us who actually played sports and, as a result, aren’t as smart as you.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Learn to analyze people who got picked on in school
Then I’ll respond.
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
You would describe DiMaggio, Bonds and Mays
as “above average to very good”?
I would describe them as “three of the 20 or so best baseball players in the history of humanity.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Cute, but sad
1. I’m not going to defend myself against your bizarre personal attack other than to say you’re way off base.
2. Jack Cust does have a lot of HR. He’s #9 in the AL with 20. Carlos Quentin is leading the league with 28. How on earth is top-10 in the league not a lot?
3. Cust is not DiMaggio/Bonds/Mays wrapped into one. He’s between "above average" and "very good" as I said in the post RIGHT ABOVE your first comment.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
you must have played A LOT of sports
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Nick Swisher
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Murton and Patterson are awful
you’re basing that on his 10 a’s at bats and not his .989 ops in sacto?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
And their performances in Chicago.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Matt Murton's ~800 OPS?
Eric Patterson’s 50-odd at bats?
Ok.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Patterson being 25, never coming close to showing he can hit major league pitching
are two pretty good reasons why people doubt him. I don’t think Eric Patterson will get 1000 major league at bats.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, he has never come close to showing he can hit major league pitching
in 56 ABs. You may be right about him (I don’t think he’ll be a particularly useful player), but your criticism is way over the top based on his performance.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I still have hope for Patterson,
but after seeing him overmatched by a great fastball (Greinke)...and then overmatched by Gil Meche’s merely “good fastball”...I am a bit concerned at how easily he was overpowered by a basic major league pitch. He looked rather Hannahanny in his first 10 ABs.
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
Hannahanny! LOL!
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
i agree
i was sitting diamond level, and meche blew a 92 mph fastball by him late in the game. it was sad to see.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
The positive side of that would be
that there are plenty of guys in AAA with “good” fastballs, and he does not appear to be overmatched by those. So I think he’s better than he looked. But he doesn’t seem to have much defensive value, and small and fast guys should make sure to put the ball in play. He is probably better suited to be a slap hitter, but he takes big cuts.
Another positve take would be: he has a short swing, while Hannahan has a problematically long swing which I think is why he has problems with good fbs.
The A's colors are green and gold.
His quick swing did impress me
He just seemed to…miss the ball.
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
Well, that's the irony of bat speed
It’s necessary to hit the ball hard, but the faster your bat moves, the shorter a period of time it’s in the strike zone.
This is one of the major reasons why good hitters strike out more than bad hitters.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It's also possible that he was pressing
To impress the new team (and try to stick since he was getting such a short audition).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Which is precisely why all the calls to
“dump _ now!” after a couple bad games are such a bad idea.
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
Yep
It would have been nice if he’d had a great cup of coffee, but the fact he didn’t is almost completely meaningless.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
If you think a great cup of coffee is meaningless,
then you’ve never had a fresh brew of Peet’s.
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
Depends
Did I get any sleep the night before, or were there several goats keeping me awake?
If the latter, the coffee is miles from meaningless.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Did they keep you awake? Sorry.
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
Please
like you could pull more than one goat at a time.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Nico pulls so many goats, they put the shift on for him
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It's a pretty good gambol.
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
Farm Systems
I think it’s fair to say that the top 2 systems are the A’s and Rays (in some order) followed by Texas at a real gap.
I’ve made the same point in comments you make about failure rates. People get so excited to figure out what the 2012 A’s look like, and there’s just no way of knowing which prospects will pan out.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
What about Jermaine Dye
He broke his friggin leg. We would have been in much better shape if he hadn’t
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
It's amazing how much that freak injury hurt the A's
Imagine all our teams since with a healthy Dye added.
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
Not to mention it started the whole "can't win a 5-game series" thing
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
2000 started that
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
IIRC, when his contract was up, he declined an offer to re-sign with the A’s for approximateky half what he had been making with them for the previous three years… then went out and signed with the White Sox for pretty much the same as what the A’s offered, and began producing again.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Dye
Dye has had an odd career. His post-prime years with the White Sox are easily his best, and healthiest. The thing about Dye is that he was a decent, but not special, corner OF before he broke his leg. Even if somebody said Dye would be mostly healthy for 4 years with the White Sox, I would’ve said they’d be getting below average, and possibly even below replacement, production by now. I’m amazed the guy can still play, mostly because he wasn’t anything to write home about for most of his career (with the exception of a season or two) before.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions
That's not true that he was "decent but not special"
with KC. He was a 30/30 guy – that’s special.
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
I would take a middle view
He had one “special” year wit KC and one “very good” year (KC is a pitcher’s park). He was having a fairly bad year for them before being traded to the A’s. Before those excellent years, he was not particularly good, but he was called up at a young age. It was unexpected that he would do as well as he’s done for the WS, but not really a huge surprise. It’s far from unheard of to have a career year at 32.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I find it genuinely amusing
that people think they can judge how well a rebuilding programme is going by how well the MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM does during that year. When the team was winning (somehow, no one could really figure out how) in the early part of the season, it was “wow, what a great job.” Now the team looks like crap and everyone is saying “oh, man, this sucks, we’re doomed forever.”
Get a grip, people. Somehow a rebuilding period that, as of me writing this, is now about 8.5 months old, has undergone an alchemical transmogrification into a Pirates-esque slump of futility. It’s no longer necessary to actually have a failing franchise to vent one’s neuroses—all it takes is an overactive imagination and some intense pessimism. No 15-year slump? Just imagine a 15-year slump, and you can wail and tear your clothes as much as you want.
The fact of the matter is the team has a great amount of talent in the minor leagues, particularly in highly fungible pitching, and a ton of money for the MLB payroll. It seems pretty likely that several more blue-chip prospects will be reeled in by the draft signing deadline. The cynicism is easy, but it’s also simpleminded. If you aren’t optimistic about this farm system, you will never be optimistic about any farm system at all—and that’s ridiculous.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2008 1:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think your defense of the farm system is a little too enthused
Pitching wise, the A’s farm system looks better then it has in a long time… maybe better then it ever has. Position prospects are another story.
Where’s Chavez’s replacement?
Hell, who’s Ellis’ replacement?
Can we please replace Crosby? Could a combination of Petit & Pennington do that? What if they can’t?
Will Barton and Buck, two guys A’s fans were counting on in big time 2008, bounce back in 2009? And if Barton doesn’t get his act together how long until Doolittle or Carter is ready?
When are the A’s going to get some good hitters in the line-up? Are the A’s going to have to trade some of their pitching prospects for hitters?
Beane has traded Haren, Swisher, Blanton, Harden and Gaudin. Trade that many guys and you shouldn’t have so many questions about the line-up.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think Carter is Beane's 3rd Base Choice.
he has been playing there a lot lately.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
I was very happy to see tonight's 3B for Stockton
Josh Donaldson
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Aug 3, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
That works too if he can keep it up.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
They're all moving around
Spencer’s been playing mostly 1B, but can play OF. Carter’s been playing 1B and 3B. Donaldson’s been playing C and 3B. Cardenas just started playing some SS after starting out at 2B. I love it.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Aug 4, 2008 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Just keep in mind
that just because a team plays a guy at a different position doesn’t mean he can necessarily play that position well.
A-ball is the time to experiment, however.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Apparently, catcher and 3B have joined
“closer” and “base coach” as positions subject to change without notice.
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
Who's Mark Ellis's replacement?
Eric Patterson, followed by when they are ready; Jemile Weeks or Ardian Cardenas.
facepalm.jpg
I still think we can sign Dunn in the offseason
To answer the “great hitter” question.
To answer the replacement questions, we can trade some of our pitching for those players to the extent they aren’t in the system already.
Finally, we have a lot of well regarded offensive prospects too. Certainly our system looks skewed towards pitching because we have so many arms, but go back to PT’s ranking post and you’ll notice a lot of hitters on that list getting pretty good grades.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That would be stupid, but fun...
Stupid Fun!
"All managers are losers, they are the most expendable pieces of furniture on the face of the Earth."- Ted Williams
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 3, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Every farm system has weaker areas
Who’s Iwamura’s replacement in Tampa? What about Carl Crawford? He’s not doing so hot right now. What about first base? Catcher?
That is the acknowledged best system in all of baseball, and it has sizable holes at certain positions. You will not find a system where there is a great player at every position. Ever. Not going to happen. Teams don’t have enough draft picks for that, and frankly if you had that much talent tied up in your farm you probably would be well served to trade some of it for MLB upgrades anyway (as the Rays have indeed done).
Saying “trade that many guys and you shouldn’t have so many questions” is tantamount to saying “never trade for low-level prospects, ever”, because if Cardenas, Carter, Cunningham, etc are not “answers”, no prospect will ever be an answer unless he’s OPSing 1000 in AAA. That’s absurd and unrealistic.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Look at the pretty meatball someone left over the plate
Iwamura and Crawford are signed through 2010. Catcher Dioner Navarro is hitting 309/366/415 and isn’t eligible for FA until after 2011. 1B is an issue if Carlos Pena doesn’t bounce back. ‘Course, don’t forget even Pena is signed through 2010.
The A’s look like they need a replacement for Chavez at 3B immediately and Ellis is most likely gone in 2 months.
No, I can’t tell you with certainty who’ll replace Iwamura and Crawford in 2011. However, I’d say the A’s have a more immediate need then the Rays have, wouldn’t you?
Saying "trade that many guys and you shouldn’t have so many questions" is tantamount to saying "never trade for low-level prospects, ever", because if Cardenas, Carter, Cunningham, etc are not "answers", no prospect will ever be an answer unless he’s OPSing 1000 in AAA. That’s absurd and unrealistic.
I tried to come up with a polite way to respond to this but I failed.
What a load of crap, PT.
Cardenas and Carter are in A-ball. They won’t be ready until 2010 at the earliest and that will only happen if they fly through the upper minors next year. (BTW, Crawford and Iwamura will still be on Tampa’s roster unless the Rays choose otherwise.) Cunningham is in AA, but he’s also an outfielder. Did you fail to notice that I was talking about the holes in the infield? So while you’re accusing me of being absurd and unrealistic you are COMPLETELY IGNORING THE ISSUES I BROUGHT UP.
Ergo, a load of poo.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's very simple
Either you think Carter and Cardenas and Donaldson and their ilk are answers, or you don’t. If they are “answers”, there isn’t a problem here—the A’s find a short-term solution (eg Russell Branyan) for next year and then they’re basically OK. If they are not “answers”, in your mind, then Beane’s task was hopeless to begin with, because there was no plausible way he could obtain “answers” while also rebuilding the overall talent base.
I don’t really understand why you insist on judging the 2009 team 8 months before it takes the field. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that the A’s are going to make a trade for an infield prospect, and it’s quite possible that they will sign a free agent “solution”. That’s OK. It gives the team more time to evaluate the players it already has, more time to figure out what Chavez’s health status next year is likely to be, and so on.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
You know what I can't figure out.
Some poster will come on whom you’re clearly a notch above and he’ll say something that isn’t right and you’ll correct him. If he argues with you you’ll hammer him.
I come in here and disagree with you and you run straight to double-talk.
I’m going to lay this out all nice and neat for you.
The A’s still have to play the 2009 season. They have an immediate need to replace Ellis and Chavez (and Crosby if you think he’s a scum sucking pig). Barton’s rookie year has been less then impressive.
If the A’s sign a FA or trade some of their arms for players who can fill these positions next year then my concerns fade away. Until that happens the problems still exist and sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting la-la-la-la-la isn’t going to help.
I have no idea what’s going on with Chris Carter’s defense at 3B this year. I know in the preseason everything I read on the matter said he was going to have to move to 1B or DH. If I see something that suggest Carter can stay at the hot corner then I’ll consider him a possible long term solution, but until then, just because he’s spent some time at 3B doesn’t mean he can play it well. (For an example of this phenomenon, see Crosby at SS.)
For any and all talk about moving Cabreras to 3B, he has not played a single game there since moving to the A’s system.
Both Cabreras and Carter are at least two years away from contributing at the big league level and that’s assuming they don’t struggle in the slightest, they stay healthy and they actually have what it takes to make it to the Show. Elsewhere you were talking about the attrition rate of minor league pitchers. Same general rule applies to hitters and right now the A’s need almost all their top infielders to hit if they want homegrown solutions to their problem areas.
That’s not likely to happen.
So as things stand now, one of the Top 3 farm systems in baseball does not have the talent to directly fill the big league team’s immediate needs. The A’s need bats who can help the line-up and they need glove men to play the infield and it would be great if the farm system could provide players who could handle both roles.
The monster at the end of this blog.
OK
Again, simplifying. The A’s system has weaknesses at the moment. Unfortunately those appear to match up with weaknesses at the major league level, because Chavez is hurt and Crosby sucks. This does not affect two rather salient facts:
1. The quality of a team’s farm system is not related to the team’s major league team. You don’t get “bonus points” for playing a position of need, and
2. it’s a lot easier to trade players who are generally talented for answers at a specific position than the other way around.
So that explains why I’m generally optimistic about the farm system. Regarding your specific “issues,” well, they just aren’t issues. The 2008 team is out of things, and it’s hardly clear that winning games is even a good thing at this point. The 2009 team is 8 months away. Nothing is going to happen transaction-wise for another 3 months. Howzabout we, you know, actually see who’s playing third on April 1?
I don’t really understand why you’re so obsessed with “solutions.” You’re acting like these are profound, unsolvable problems, when in fact they’re extremely solvable. They aren’t reasons to be pessimistic about the team.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Unless I'm misinterpreting you...
...you’re saying that it pointless to plan ahead for 2009, and that 2009 is better dealth in 2009. Yet, you base your enthusiasm on 2010 and beyond precisely because the team is planning ahead by taking the hit now and rebuilding.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think he's excited about 2010 because we have exciting players coming up
To be a good team you need some very good / great players, I think we’ll have those soon (Like, for example, CarGon).
Holes, on the other hand, are easy to fill when you have plenty of pitching to trade (and plenty of money to sign a FA).
He’s saying it’s useless to get too worried about the holes now, because they won’t be able to be filled for several months (and they won’t be too difficult to fill with, at least, short term answers). I think he’s right.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but...
...it presumes that 2009 was to be sacraficed as a rebuilding year regardless, and until just recently, I wasn’t convinced that that had to be the case. Now, I am, but only because the team made it so.
Yes, filling a hole could be done in the off-season. But, why couldn’t that hole be filled sooner with someone who will be here next year as well if the opportunity were present?
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
...what?
If you fill a hole this offseason, that hole will be filled in 2009.
That’s not “sacrificing” next season. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
As for why not do it sooner, the obvious reason is “because the right deal wasn’t available.” Faced with the choice between making a sucky deal to get “a solution,” and waiting until the offseason when waiting isn’t going to cost you anything of consequence, you wait until the offseason.
As for your first post… well, feel free to show me where I said a team should not have a plan. Of course they should have a plan (and I think they do have one). There’s a major difference between “have a plan” and “have an anointed successor at every position.” What if the plan is “see how the guys we have do for the rest of the year, then sign an FA (or trade for a prospect) if they can’t cut it”? Seems like a perfectly legitimate plan to me.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Uhhh...
If you fill a hole this offseason, that hole will be filled in 2009.
That’s what I said.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Quite.
As for why not do it sooner, the obvious reason is "because the right deal wasn’t available." Faced with the choice between making a sucky deal to get "a solution," and waiting until the offseason when waiting isn’t going to cost you anything of consequence, you wait until the offseason.
Hence my words, ”...if the opportunity were present”.
Geez, dude, try to keep up.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think the issue of 2009 is that
if the off-season deals produce a “major league ready” 3Bman or SS or power hitter, like Haren and Gonzalez were “major league ready” talent, 2009 looks like 2005, which is fine (by me). But if the deals produce guys like Adrian Cardenas and Chris Carter, who might be really good but are more than a year away, then it’s a rebuild strictly for 2010 on.
And if the player needs some major league time to struggle before being useful, then it would be nice if he were playing in the major leagues somewhere now, or at least at AAA. But it doesn’t have to be with us.
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
While I agree that if the A's make no moves in the offseason
then 2009 looks like another rebuilding year, that can change in a hurry if the A’s sign Furcal, trade for Tejada, and sign Giambi as the DH.
Which is more or less my point. It makes a lot of sense to use 2008 to evaluate what the team has right now, followed by moves in the offseason to fill the positions where it doesn’t look like the high minors have an acceptable alternative. Maybe there’s only a 30% chance that Jeff Baisley is a solid 3B, but you may as well give the shot to him rather than peremptorily assuming he can’t do it. If that’s the plan the A’s are following, and it might well be, then I’m on board with it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It can't be made sooner because the trading deadline has passed
And I don’t think any kind of real answer would clear waivers.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Thread's buried but I owe you a reply
In response to your point #1.
What are you on about? I called them “one of the Top 3 farm systems in baseball” and the only reason I gave myself that much leeway is because I haven’t kept up with most of the farm systems in baseball. Why are you acting as if I’ve slighted the A’s farm system?
Point #2.
Congragulations! You reached the place I’ve been at for months. The next step is, of course, for a deal that addresses the identified areas to actually happen.
See, the thing you’ve got to remember is that these issues were in play long before Haren and Swisher switched jerseys. So several moves have been made, involving some very talented players leaving the A’s, and still the problems remain.
Here’s a reality check for you regarding 3B. Cardenas, whom many (myself included) have suggested could be a long term solution at 3B has yet to actually play the position since arriving in Stockton. Donaldson was 11-22 heading into last night’s game but had caught the previous 5 games. They didn’t want to lose such a hot bat so they slid him to 3B for the night, I doubt he’s leaving the tools of ignorance behind. Carter seems to have more glove issues at 1B then 3B but I haven’t seen one scouting report that says Carter might be able to stay at 3B.
Believe me I want to find that scouting report!
So be as optimistic about the farm system as you want, I’m rather happy with it myself. But that does not mean I’m going to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are still long term issues to address at 3B and after trading 5 big league players the best options the A’s have to replace Bobby Crosby are the same exact options they had before they made the 1st trade.
The monster at the end of this blog.
"Cabreras" = Cardenas?
Or did we get a Cabrera I don’t know about?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
pitching
There are questions about lineup?
But are there almost two pitching staffs worth of pitchers?
The one that is active on the Big team, yet is mostly made of young 25 year old players that have good futures
Smith, Gallagher, Devine, Blevins, Street, Ziegler, Castilla, Eveland…..
and then a staff on the way in
Cahill, Simmons, Rodriguez, Demel, Carignan, Anderson, Gio, Outman….
No one in the MLB has a deeper young staff, I would guess.
Great list
Which of those guys are going to play 3B next year?
How about 2B?
SS when Crosby blessedly leaves?
If the A’s trade some of their arms for position players who can fill the holes in the line-up then the problem has been addressed. Until that happens, the problem still exists.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Fair enough
There is currently a potential problem in 2009. There is also no chance that problem will be solved until November (since I hope “the answer” wouldn’t clear waivers).
So you’re right that for now the speculative problem still exists.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
agreed on all the holes at position players Grover
I think Billy is gonna have to deal some of the riches of the pitching in the minors to either:
A)Trade for an established bat that has a reasonable contract with option to extend for more years etc…
or
B)Sign some big bats via free agency in the off season.
Personally, with the payroll flexibility as it stands along with the depth of pitching (and apparently 2nd base prospects) I think the A’s could filltheir gaping holes by using both methods. Either way, I do not look forward to another season of dead weight in the lineup.
Go A’s!
Infield prospects are really crappy. They have no choice but to re-sign Ellis.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
If you had been paying attention...
...and it’s obvious that you have not… you would have noticed that I’ve been saying many of the same things here and there throughout the entire season. I can’t speak for others, but mine is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. Besides, it’s not the rebuilding I’m worried about per se, it’s the fear of falling into the perpetual rebuilding trap. The fact that the last rebuilding effort was abandoned half way through shouldn’t be a legitimate cause of concern. It wasn’t overtly named as such, and it wasn’t as deep as the current version, but it was a rebuilding effort nonetheless. Some success, yes, but apparently a quick crash-and-burn, as evidenced by the need to do it again so soon.
Is faith in bright-and-shiny prospects any less simple-minded than perceived cynicism? You (conveniently?) didn’t address the eventual success rate aspect. Granted, you didn’t come right out and say in so many words that every blue-chipper will work out, but the implication is clearly there that they will.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
So Soon?
We have the second most wins of any team in baseball (NYY) since 2000. That many years is about all any team is good for without making some changes.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Since the Hudson & Mulder trades...
...and other associated moves. That was the last rebuilding era, albeit on a smaller scale. Yes, “so soon”.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
And we've been pretty good since then
But for waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than our share of injuries, we wouldn’t be doing it again so soon (and we had 2006 in spite of all the injuries, which was nice).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Injuries certainly have played a part, absolutely
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Since the Mulder and Hudson trades...
... the A’s have gone to the ALCS. Like, 2 years ago.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
...and did they sustain that success?
Are you saying you’re satisfied with that one year?
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think the 2007 A's were a World Series team if, like, anybody would've been healthy
I also think this year’s team would still be in contention if everybody didn’t get the plague again..
Rebuilding isn’t supposed to include using 50 different players because guys can’t stay on the field.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
I am happy with 2006. I’m also happy with every year prior in Beane’s record. If you’re asking whether I’m pleased with the “sustained success” of this team as run by Beane, I say “yes,” since the only clunker seasons have been this year and 2005. Many teams have it worse, and even more have it worse with a poor sense of direction.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
"Faith in bright and shiny prospects"?
Give me a break. If the A’s prospects work out at even a moderately pessimistic rate compared to their current perceived abilities, the team will be in very good shape in 2010.
There’s a real difference between “faith” (or ignorant cynicism, which is really just the inverse of faith) and informed prognostication. I’m fully aware of how often prospects fail. I’ve already taken it into account in my assessments.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Informed prognostication... ummm, yeah.
So, enlighten us, what exactly is a “moderately pessimistic rate”. What can we count on, or at least hope for? You seem to take great pride in being better read and better informed than the unwashed ignorant masses, and like you say you have already made the necessary “assessments”, so you must have something that resembles a definitive answer.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Not to put words in PT's mouth
But the A’s have around 10 pitchers who all project to have MLB careers. And pretty good ones.
If 30% of those guys live up to their potential, the A’s will have an amazing 1-3 in the rotation. And that doesn’t take into account, some guys “failing” and turning into bullpen guys, some guys being traded for other players, some dark horse guys (like Ziggy) stepping up out of nowhere.
As unrealistic as it is to expect all the prospects to make it, it’s equally unrealistic to think that none of them will make it.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
You might try
reading the 3000 words or so I wrote on—coincidence of coincidences!—exactly this subject about 2 weeks ago.
Or you could read the highly informative and helpfully put together depth chart that Zonis posted at minorleagueball not long ago.
In a very short period of time (probably tomorrow) John Sickels will be posting his midseason review of the A’s top prospects. You will find, when he does, that many if not most of them have had very strong seasons that have improved their stock.
As for “moderately pessimistic rate”... well, right now the A’s have about 15-18 players who would grade as at least Bs on the Sickels scale, which basically means that they look like they will be good players. Normal rate of “making it” is probably around 50% for prospects of that caliber. Pessimistically dropping that rate to 33% still yields 5 to 6 good players—and I’m not talking about crap filler, I mean guys who are playoff caliber and above—from the farm. The A’s will probably get a few more out of the lower-level guys. That’s enough to turn the A’s into a good team in a few years with more help en route.
If the farm actually turns out players at a better than normal rate, and certainly the A’s have done that with their pitching prospects of late, they should have easily more than enough talent to fill holes on the MLB roster through trade.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Oh yes, I remember your thread now.
It was quite good, and I enjoyed it immensely. I learned alot from it. I’m not sure it speaks to “exactly this subject” per se, but it does speak to the quality of the prospects, and that’s the key word… “prospects”. Nowhere am I doubting that we have all these great prospects. One of the things that I am questioining is some people’s over-enthusiasm in acting like they are all going to succeed. That’s why I titled the thread as I did… is it the team pulling a fast one on us, or are we fans reading more into this than will actually be there when all is said and done?
I agree with your expectation of 1/3 to 1/2 making it as serious contributors. That’s the range I was thinking. There will probably be a couple that won’‘t even get the proverbial cup of coffee.
I also agree wholeheartedly that they should have enough talent to fill holes via trade, and this is where I start to get a little nervous. Beane’s history in obtaining and/or developing impact position players hasn’t been a total zero by any means, but it’s not anywhere near as impressive as his ability with pitchers, either.
You also do not address the 5-6 year plan thing. On the one hand, Hudson/Mulder/Zito were kept for essentially the full term (or close). On the other hand, Haren/Swisher/Blanton, who were supposed to be the next 5-6 year wave of success, were shipped out early for more prospects. It could be legitimately argued that Beane’s historical record in sticking to a plan is 50/50 in this regard. Granted, there are other factors that sometimes intervene and dictate, but it’s a legitimate question.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think Beane will keep a player until his value in trade exceeds his value to the team
whether that period is six weeks, six months or six years.
It’s simply a fact of life that players on crummy teams are worth more in trade, relative to their value to their own teams, than players on good teams are. It’s a consequence of the playoff structure—all wins are not created equal. In the early 2000s, the team was extremely competitive. There was probably no point at which Giambi’s trade value equaled his value to the A’s. So he never got traded. Last year, the team was an injury-riddled mess, and in Beane’s mind the value he could get for Haren et al was higher than the value they were going to provide to the A’s.
So my answer to the question “Is Beane going to trade them before the full six years are up?” is “Tell me what the team’s record is in 2013.” If it’s good, as I expect, then they won’t be traded. If it’s bad, they probably will be.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Now, we're getting somewhere.
I like that answer. ;-)
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
"Granted, there are other factors that sometimes intervene"
That’s exactly what happened here. With the Hudson and Mulder trades, Beane tried the very tricky maneuver of rebuilding on the fly. For a variety of reasons (Meyer got hurt, Chavez got hurt and stayed hurt, Harden developed a pattern of getting hurt after being healthy through the minors, Crosby failed to develop, and you could name plenty more reasons) it didn’t work out in a sustainable way (although it did get the A’s to the ALCS in 2006, which is nothing to sneeze at). So – change of plan.
Beane could have “gone for it” again this year, certainly. But with the win totals trending downwards from year to year, many of the key players fighting continual injury problems, the talent base in the farm system at a low ebb, he felt he was swimming against an increasingly strong tide. “Going for it” throwing more resources into a high-risk and short-term plan that, if a lot of things went right (for a change) just might get us over the top. More sensible to not rely upon a slim hope but to build a solid foundation where you could have not just hope but a well-founded expectation of success. Remember Beane’s mantra that if you hold on too long and hit bottom hard, it’s too late and then you’re going to have to take 5 years to put things back together (e.g., the A’s in the ‘90s). You really need to have the guts to make that move before it’s obvious to everyone that the ship has sunk. But a consequence of that is that you’ll take a lot of flak from people who say you’ve bailed too early, are too cheap, aren’t trying to win, etc.
One more point – it’s not valid to compare the A’s to perpetually “rebuilding” teams like the Pirates or Royals. Those teams haven’t been rebuilding at all – they’ve been floundering. It’s just that clueless GMs of floundering teams never say (for obvious reasons) “We’re floundering here.” They always claim to be rebuilding. The casual observer can’t easily tell the difference, since both floundering and rebuilding involve losing some games. But Beane really is rebuilding (and I’d have to say that, after many, many years of pure floundering, the current regimes in Pittburgh and KC appear to be doing some true rebuilding as well).
/End of excessively long post.
by Faust on Aug 4, 2008 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pittsburgh seems to be rebuilding
although they’re so f*ed up right now it’s hard to see any hope for them no matter what they do. I think they targeted the wrong guys in their moves the past few weeks—the team as it stands is a total tear-down. They should have gone for more talent lower on the minor league ladder.
KC? They’re still floundering. Gil Meche? Jose Guillen? The Alex Gordon situation? They lucked into a couple of good hitting prospects and confused it for a farm system.
Any way you look at it, the comparison doesn’t wash. The A’s came into the rebuild in a much better situation than either of those franchises.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I was being nice
But you’re probably right. I have more belief in Pittsburgh’s process than in KC’s, but they, as you say, are in such a deep hole it’s hard to see any light – no way to turn it around quickly, and after umpteen losing years, fans are understandably impatient and cynical about 3- and 5-year plans (I mean, look at all the screaming and rending of garments around here after a vastly briefer run of on-field ugliness). They’ll look a lot better if their bet on Tabata comes through. I agree, though, if I’m a Pittsburgh fan I’d rather have seen more low-minors upside and less 4th-starter-type bridge-the-gap adequacy when trading my big chips.
The problem isn't that we transmogrified
It’s that we chose “Pirates” instead of “Red Sox”
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Is this the transmogrifier gun?
Or the box? I prefer the box, although I don’t want to end up an owl…
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Aug 3, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Great point on the payroll
There are many reasons for optimism for the immediate future. The farm system is a positive, some of the guys on the current team are another. However, the best thing, in my view is the low payroll. The A’s could probably add 15-25 million to the payroll for next season and still be in the range of what they were in 2005-07 (probably even lower). They could go out and sign a free agent infielder or two (not going to debate on who) and solve some of the concerns about the weak hitting and holes in the organization at 3b/ SS.
If you look at it the team is in a bad shape right now because they are getting no hitting from 1b/3b. The A’s were counting on Chavez and Sweeney. They reasonably thought that Barton and Hannahan would be decent back-ups/ platoons.
Now, if next season the A’s continue to send guys like Brown, Hannahan and Crosby out there and pass on available free agents then I think the fans would have every reason to be angry with the team.
Your last statement
I agree to a point. Here’s the thing. 2009 is not supposed to be the year either. Obviously, there needs to be improvement in certain guys and steps need to be taken to gear up for a long run as a playoff team. But 2009 is not the year they have to win, necessarily, so I’m ok with a guy like Hannahan (not really Hannahan because I think there’s like 6 other guys who could be doing what he is, if not better) out there as long as he’s just a stopgap for a not-quite-ready prospect. The problem will be if those replacement-level players are still playing not because the A’s are grooming a prospect in AA or AAA, but because they just ignored the position. That’s bad. But there’s no point in spending a few million on a veteran guy who they’ll just need to move once a prospect is ready anyway.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a terrible fanpost
First of all, yes it was necessary, unless you want a team thats just average in the AL west.
Second point Swisher, Blanton and Haren, led us to the 06 ALCS. The furthest the A’s had gone in the playoffs in over 10yrs.
I don’t think the excitement or enthusiasm are missplaced, sure alot of teams rebuild, but other big market teams blow tons of money with nothing to show for it (Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, Yankees) I don’t think one system works, which is why small market teams have done well in the playoffs recently and so have big market teams. What about the Rockies who rebuilt for years, kept a few of their stars. Then got into the playoffs by beating SD in a one game playoff and they went to the ws. So it’s not out of the question for this to happen to other teams, besides the Marlins.
We kept both Giambi and Tejada for 6 years, and Chavey for alot longer than that. So it’s not out of the question if were in contention.
One thing you failed to mention is that, the A’s this year (before going 2-13 in their last 15) weren’t really that bad. Their pitching was among the top 3 in the majors the entire first half. The thing that absolutly killed them, was the injurys to Big Hurt and Mike Sweeny. Who aganist lefties were are 3, 4, hitters. Taking the two best batts out of the lineup would have sunk any team. And that is exactly the same reason were rebuilding….. FOR DEPTH!
If you want to watch a team “address short term needs” watch the Giants look how their rebuilding is going.
Actually the A's
still have the best ERA in MLB. How much better will the pitching be in the mythical future than what could have been this year??
Just think if they had added instead of subtracted…instead of trading Haren (who leads the NL in ERA) and finding cheap aging hitters who are injury prone, let’s say they spent some money on real hitters and took a shot THIS year??
Oh right, they don’t have money…well…where will the money come from in 2 years or 3 or 10?? Without increased spending the future looks a lot like the present.
What’s even worse is that the A’s are killing the fan base in a year when the Giants suck and they had a great chance to build the fan base. That’s one part of the future the A’s don’t seem concerned about…where the fans will come from. Winning will help, but even with the big 3 attendance wasn’t great and they could not afford to keep players.
Haren had an option for 2010…why did he need to be traded now?? Because maybe his trade value would go down?? Well it looks like Mr. Beane whiffed on that one. The A’s could have taken a shot this year and THEN started the rebuilding.
The A's already have the best ERA
as you mentioned. Do you think that by adding one hitter to the mix that would’ve made a significant difference especially when guys like Thomas and Chavez have been missing from the lineup for the majority of the season? And what available free agent would have suggested they sign? Unless you were talking about signing multiple bats and I’m not sure they were there.
And Haren had a bit of a Mulder-esque end to his year last year. Not quite that bad, but he kind of went in the tank at the end of the year. Beane got a fantastic return on Haren. It could possibly turn into his best trade ever even if Haren continues to pitch like he has this year just because of everything he got in return in that deal. Granted Eveland has gone into the tank and Smith has been the Nibbler, but he got so much in that deal you have to consider it a success.
Beane is fond of saying that when they hit bottom, because of their market, they don’t bounce. I’d rather have had Beane do it 100 percent than think that the A’s could’ve taken down the Angels this year. I just didn’t think they could, so why not go 100 percent into re-building this team? I don’t understand what about Beane’s deals were so bad. I’m not sure I would do Swisher for Sweeney straight up now and the A’s got other crucial pieces out of that deal. The Harden deal doesn’t look great right now and may never look great, but I think Beane was tired of the uncertainty surrounding Harden so that minute he proved he could pitch and remain healthy at all, Beane was dying to move him. Getting anything for Blanton seemed like a wise move at the time.
Beane isn’t stupid. He realizes the needs of the team and will address them and I’m expecting that this team will compete faster than people think. Possibly even 2009 simply because the young pitching is a lot closer to being ready. All this team needs to get is a league average offense and it will be very, very good. That’s what good pitching will do for you and Beane realizes it better than anyone.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Aug 3, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
You say alot of what I am trying to convey.
I think that the D-Backs’ GM’s butt is going to hurt over the Haren deal for many years to come. I’m surprised Beane hasn’t been charged with rape.
There’s always been something about Haren that made me stop short of considering him a stud. He’s good. Very good. Just not quite stud status.
I think Smith will develop into a fine pitcher. A bit of learning and experience to be gained, but I think he’s shown positive signs of being willing to do what it takes to learn and adjust and I’m excited for his potential.
Eveland will never be anything more than a journeyman. Redman -> Saarloos -> DiNardo -> Eveland -> (insert next year’s name)... there’s one almost every year. He’s the weakest of the trade, IMHO.
I agree about Harden. I suspect Beane was tired of the constant injuries, and I don’t blame him. I have no problem with trading Harden. I wish the return would have been different, though I feel that Gallagher will develop into a fine pitcher in his own right. This trade, as is, will be fine in the long term. My thing was that the long term was addressed in the off-season and this could have filled other needs instead.
No, Beane isn’t stupid by any measure, but he does seem to be establishing a (well-earned) reputation for evaluating and developing pitching talent better than offensive talent. Back in the late 80s and early 90s the A’s couldn’t develop a pitcher to save their lives. Stewart, Welch, Moore, Davis, et al, were all obtained from other teams. Curt Young was the only decent home grown starter, and he was just decent, not great. But, boy, could they produce some bats at the offensive positions! Today, it’s the opposite.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
The beauty is
that pitching is always a hot commodity because there never seems to be enough of it. So Beane stocked up on the greatest commodity and can now pick and choose who to keep and build the franchise around and use the others to acquire a big bat or two. Or even better, use all the available money to sign one.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Aug 3, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
This is true...
...and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a pitcher or two eventually flipped for a bat or two.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
If Eveland is the weakest part of a trade that nets 6 players
That’s an amazing deal for the team that gets him. I don’t think Eveland is special. I think he’s serviceable. He’s just a guy, but you need those types, especially if you aren’t going to have a $100+ million payroll. You don’t want a team full of them, but he’s just fine as a fifth starter, long relief guy, etc. And that’s why that trade was so good: Eveland probably is the worst of the 6, and he’s still a useful piece. Most of the time you’re lucky if you can get 1 or 2 guys who are useful out of a big trade.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I hear ya.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Beane also saw Eveland as not “special”, but did see him as kind of a fill-in starter for a year or two.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
You actually make my point...
...yes, Haren and Blanton and Swisher led us to the ALCS in ‘06, and where are they now? Gone, because there was an immediate crash-and-burn and the need was felt to rebuild from the ground up. Fine, but these players were sold to us on the idea that they were the next 5-6 year wave of success and then were traded for yet more prospects only about half way through that time period. If that six year window of building on great players didn’t apply then, why do we blindly believe it will apply this time?
Your point about the Rockies is an interesting one… especially when you say “kept a few of their stars”. We’re not doing that anymore. I’m sure the change in draft rules plays a part, but relying on all new players to magically come together all at once, with no established nucleus like the Rockies had, isn’t reassuring.
And no, the Giants’ model is the last thing on my mind. Every team that desires to contend has legitimate short term needs, the Giants’ problem was that they addressed only those while ignoring long-term needs. I think it was/is possible to do both at the same time, and that’s what I’m advocating.
What some people seem to miss in my original post is that I would have been fine with success starting in 2010 if everything had gone according to schedule. But, it didn’t. It went better! So good, in fact, that I began to see 2009 as a realistic possibility, and thus saw no reason to “settle” for 2010 anymore. I don’t feel that trying to win in 2009 would have negatively affected the longer-term success of the team.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
They may have been sold to us as the core of the future, but clearly the future
wasn’t that bright. They had to rebuild from the ground up.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
But they would have been but for the nfl-esque injury rate
I don’t have to go through all the crazy injuries here, but if they hadn’t all happened like that we likely would have continued our run of success in 2007/2008 and not have had to make these trades.
I, for one, am not willing to blame anyone for unforeseeably awful injury rates.
If no one in this next batch of players can stay on the field either, we won’t have any success and we’ll wash/rinse/repeat. If we hadn’t had Chavez/Crosby/Ellis/Kotsay/Harden/Gaudin/etc struggling to stay healthy we were a World Series Contender in 06/07 and going forward because we wouldn’t have made the same trades.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Was it necessary? I’m not entirely sure it was, at least to the degree that it’s been implemented
i’m not sure how anyone can even think that based on how things have gone this season:
1) haren and swisher would have the team at just about the same W-L record
2) beane decided to rebuild because he wasn’t sure chavez would be healthy… and chavez is out once again.
Instead of getting a return that could help as soon as 2009
uhh, gallagher, patterson, murton? come on, people can’t complain that they’re not prospects AND that beane didn’t trade for players who could help right away.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
If he had concerns about Chavez...
...one would think he’d have headed off those concerns at the pass, so to speak. And even if Chavez did come back healthy, his contract is up in a couple years so somebody should be somewhere in the system as his heir apparent. That person doesn’t exist as yet. Simple planning ahead would dictate this, even without rebuilding.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Carter has been transitioning to 3B
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Any word on how that's going defensively?
It hasn’t hurt his hitting at all – how’s he looking at 3B?
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
No idea at all
My wild guess would be badly since it’s a much harder position than 1B, but if they A’s minor league guys think he can do it I trust them.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I wonder if they "think he can do it"
or “hope he can do it – why not try?” There is a log jam at 1B and dearth at 3B. That doesn’t mean Carter can play 3B – but it also doesn’t mean he can’t.
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
I wish there were somebody...
...in the organization who would give a straight answer, but we all know that no matter the truth it’d be spun positively for public consumption.
“Oh, yeah, he’s great. We’re really high on him. He’s got alot of upside.”
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think you're exactly right on this
Why not see if Carter can play third and Cardenas can play short? It’s not like you have anything to lose by trying. And if they work out defensively at those positions then you’re getting plus offensive players at those positions. I mean, hell if Eckstein can play short, why not Cardenas?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Aug 3, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Is that the equivalent of...
...throwing some s$!t against the wall and seeing if any will stick?
Not saying these players are s$!t, just making the anaology about the process or forethought.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
He hasn't been committing a bunch of errors at 3B
So that’s a plus. I’m anxious to read some end o’ the season stuff on his defense at the Hot Corner.
The monster at the end of this blog.
uhh, gallagher, patterson, murton? come on, people can’t complain that they’re not prospects AND that beane didn’t trade for players who could help right away.
Sure they can. I’ve seen complaints like this all over the site lately. All you have to assume is that all of them suck horribly as players, and then you can complain about them all you want.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
In earlier posts...
...you hated the Harden trade. Sounds like you’ve changed your mind.
No, not really
I still think it wasn’t a very good return. The fact that I think Murton and Patterson weren’t a great return for Harden certainly doesn’t mean you can judge them on 30 MLB at-bats.
The point I’m trying to make here is that whatever your opinion on those players was at the time of the trade, it really should be the same right now, because we haven’t seen jack sh*t to tell us otherwise. In my case that opinion happens to be “decent role players without a lot of upside.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It could well turn out that Donaldson
is the one who turns the trade from “ok” to “good”. He may be something the A’s sorely need: A guy who can really hit.
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
Before we get too worked up over him,
it’s worth noting that his OPS for the season is still only about .750 even with the ridonkulous run he’s been on since joining Stockton.
He’s resurrected his prospect status but he’s still a question mark at this point. He’s still the #4 chip in that trade, although I agree his upside is higher than that of Patterson and Murton.
(Random thought: was this the most Irish trade ever? Chad Gaudin is the only player in the group without an Irish last name.)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I do know that so far as grover and I were concerned ...
... acquiring Kendall was the most ire-ish trade ever.
Greed and fear cause over-reactions in both directions. @('.')@
Yes, Irish was my first thought when I saw Patterson. LOL!
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
What's not to like? Nothing.
Was it necessary? Yes.
Is he doing exactly what he said he would, more effectively already than most? Yes.
Did we have an unexpectedly long run of contention This Year? Yes.
Was it fun? Yes.
Was it gonna last? No.
Is rebuilding finished? Not yet.
Can many A’s fans see beyond the end of their … nose? It seems not.
Am I sick to death of all this whining? You betcha.
Will it stop, please? Probably not.
Will the whiners have been on-board all along, and invented the team, even, when it does contend again? Stay tuned.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
But...but....but.....
Whining is all I have left!
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Then you get to sit with Doug and Wendy. ;-)
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Aug 3, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
My take is that fans (like me) are upset that
the A’s appear to be rebuilding for 2010 instead of 2009, and fans tend to be impatient. That doesn’t mean Beane is doing it wrong, just that truly rebuilding – which often means not being any good for three years in a row – sucks for fans. Until one day it doesn’t any more.
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
I don't agree that a team has to be terrible during rebuilding
Unless you went with an entire team of rookies/ prospects, most teams like the A’s of 2008-09 will have some veterans. I think that the A’s would have been fine this year if they went out and signed either a) more free-agents or b) better free agents.
I don’t have a free-agent list from 2008 but its possible that a better OF might have been signed instead of Brown. Also, take the money spent on Foulke and give it to a guy who could have been an upgrade at 3B/1B.
I believe that the team in 2009 could be very good (and keep building for the future) by going out and spending some $$$ to replace guys like Crosby, Brown, a guy who can play 1b or 3b, maybe a starting pitcher. The payroll is very low right now, even if the team spent some money on raises for some of the guys I would think they could add a couple of good hitting free-agents. Sprinkle the young talent around some decent veterans and we will be a winning team. Probably another year until they get to be like a 100 win team but it could be fun.
The only bad part about signing Foulke
Was that he was on the DL on July 31st, when a team surely would’ve been interested in him. He’s had a very good year, he just hasn’t been able to stay healthy.
by thejd44 on Aug 3, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
He has an ERA of 3.81
which is mediocre for a reliever in Oakland.
Meanwhile, his FIP is over 5.00.
What part of that is “very good” again?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The part where a lot of his deep fly balls
were caught at the warning track for a while..?
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
Some by Cust
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I've been on board with the rebuild since
last August, and nothing in the intervening year has changed that opinion. However, your post (and Mr. Cohn’s Soviet metaphor) raises a really good question: when does the Beane approach culminate, if ever? The cold-hearted analysis of your roster as fungible parts was clearly born of a low revenue mindset…but the A’s have plenty of cash now. Had they so chosen, they could have kept Haren-Swisher-Harden-Blanton-etc and still afforded another hitter or two. I didn’t and don’t advocate that in 2008…but the rebuild was a decision based on current talent far more than on current finances.
They want to steal the land papers which is why they have tried to break in. But they had to give up after being bitten by Chhotu.
I am hoping that the plan is to acquire players
the A’s will keep as part of a new Fremontian philosophy of keeping more of your own players. Carlos Gonzalez would be the first of that generation of players you can build long-term success around. Other candidates would include Suzuki, Cahill, and B. Anderson.
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
Fremontian?
I’m sort of curious. I think when Wolff took over there was a lot of talk about how he would be willing to spend a little more money to retain and attain players. So my question is, does he have the financial ability, and desire in the franchise to invest in some major players? Does he just not spend money because we are in Oakland? Will this team’s payroll be approaching the 100million mark once the ownership has confidence in the city and attendance?
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
easy answer
Beane has been pretty explicit about this. When/if ground breaks for the Fremont stadium, then you have a known time frame with which you can plan the ramp up of payroll.
Beane has also said that Wolffisher have been willing to spend more money than Beane has been accustomed to.
The team has certainly spent much more money on minor league/draft/free agent signings, and we’ll know in a couple of weeks whether we really shot the moon to sign Coleman, Hunter, and Elgie.
It's not that we haven't kept our players...
...it’s that we’ve rarely had players worth keeping. I made a fanpost regarding the feasibility of locking up pitchers to long-term deals, so my opinion on that subject is already known; as for hitters, who’s been worth keeping? Giambi? We tried…when we finally offered him the no-trade he said no. Tejada? No one could’ve foreseen him turning into a consistent AVG hitter at the time. He was coming off a fairly poor season by his standards in his career year. Chavez? At the time, it made sense, and we DID lock him up. Who else was there? Damon sucked in Oakland. Dye, as mentioned earlier, spurned our money to go to Chicago. It’s not that we missed the opportunities, it’s that the opportunities never existed in the first place.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Aug 3, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Reality is an illusion created by a shortage of alcohol........
............. but get real anyway.
The A’s are an AAAA team. Always will be until they move to a new location. They play in the 4A league with the likes of Pittsburgh, KC, Washington, and San Diego. You could throw in the likes Baltimore, Cleveland and Toronto, although their problems are as much poor management as anything else.
The baseball playing field is not equal. Every now and then an Oakland, a Minnesota, a Tampa Bay arises out of the ghetto and has a good season only to be eviscerated and kicked back downstairs again. Watch the Rays next two years.
The name of the game is mass media and the A’s ain’t got none. Does Oakland even have a radio station? Just one? No media, no bucks. No bucks, no players.
I gather most of the whinybirds in here are going through puberty. Sitting all day in front of the TV and computer desperately waiting for their testicles to drop. They weren’t even born when Charlie Finlay owned the team but ask them, and the majority of the older mensa members that hang here, what they think of Chalie O, and to a man (boy?), they will say ugh! eeewwww! he was a bad, bad guy. Terrible owner. The worst.
Ask them why and they don’t know other than the media types said he was. (Charlie and the media didn’t get along – bad, bad, Charlie). Unable to reason for themselves, they believe wholeheartedly in the Word of the Media, even if its San Francisco media. So Charlie the Terrible brought the A’s to Oakland, and put together a team that won five consecutive Division pennants and three world series. How horrible. Incompetence should be made of sterner stuff.
You see, what Charlie did to incur all that wrath was dis-assemble that team with the advent of free agency. Cheap, cheap Charlie O – except Charlie wasn’t cheap, he just didn’t have the deepest of pockets and the thought of going broke ran counter to his nature.
And most of all Charlie was smart enough to realize that major league baseball was heading for a combination of major and minor leagues. And Oakland with its small fan base, and its bigger neighbor across the water sucking up all the media oxygen was destined for the minors. He probably realized too, that Oakland/Alameda County with its continuing line of political hacks, crooks, and cronies would never provide anything other than vast quantities of apathy. You want despair? There’s despair.
But don’t let reality intrude upon your fantasies. Go on believing that its the fault of Beane, or Schott, or Wolff, or Macha, or Barton or Geren, or, or or…..........
You want a winner? Forget about the 4A farm teams, go root, root, root for the Yankees, or the Bostons, or the Angels, or the Giants.
And baseball? Fergeddit – it doesn’t matter.
That's an..um..interesting perspective
I’m guessing Tampa Bay will be fine in two years, but that’s just me.
Ooh, my testicles just dropped. Smoky, could you do me a favor and pick them up? Thanks.
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
After Finley came the Haases
The A’s were near the top of the league in attendance, and the Coliseum was a great place for a baseball game. By ignoring the Haas years, you’re forgetting that the A’s could be a viable baseball team in the Bay Area. What happened was that the Giants got a new stadium and Barry Bonds became (under whatever circumstances) the best player in baseball. And the Coliseum was destroyed by corrupt politicians who played Monica Lewinsky to Al Davis. It didn’t help that Schott and Hoffmann didn’t have the money to promote the team properly.
This doesn’t address your comment about AAAA teams (because you could well be right), but get your facts straight.
The Haas family was, or I should say is, incredible
I can’t overstate it. True community-minded philanthropists who knew how to build a winning baseball team.
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
For all their faults...
...Schott & Hoffman deserve some credit. At the least, they were fine caretakers. They kept the team in Oakland until a more interested owner came along, and that should not be discounted. It wasn’t a done deal the team would have moved, but they made sure it didn’t happen.
Second, they allowed the team to be competitive. Remember all those years the team made the playoffs in the early 2000s? That didn’t have to happen. Their basic instructions were “don’t lose money”. It very well could have been “don’t spend any money and deposit the profits in our bank accounts”.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Or "don't spend any money and deposit the profits in Nico's bank account."
I’m still mad they didn’t choose to go that route.
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
Thanks for the message
The players left because they all hated Finley (and he traded some of them first because he knew they’d sign on a cold day in hell).
Thanks for stopping by, please be on your way now.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Charlie O was a mixed bag
He was sharp and competitive which are good. He was abrasive and abusive which are not good. He assembled a great deal of talent but did just about everything a man could do to disrupt it and keep it from developing into a dynasty. I am thankful Charlie Finely brought American League baseball to Oakland, I am thankful he allowed us to enjoy some great teams. I am still pissed that his pettiness led to the early demise of his dynasty. It bothers me a great deal that he treated some of baseball’s great gentlemen like children and made them want to leave Oakland.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
As stream-of-consciousness idiocy goes...
... I like Bill Murray’s performance in Caddyshack better.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
Charlie Finley was an interesting character in so many ways
Kind of a “brilliant idiot”, if you will. He saw the value in promotions ala Bill Veeck, yet lacked Veeck’s charm to pull them off. His players hated him, but when you hear them reminise today you can tell there’s a grudging admiration for him. If any human was ever complex, it was Charlie Finley.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
He also had a great ass
I miss that damn mule.
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
I'm glad you clarified that
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
One thing to consider. This team is being built through pitching
and defense again. BB knows that he can win with those two commodities. Fans should brace themselves for low scoring games for years to come. If they win their share of those games then I don’t really care how exciting the team is from an offensive standpoint. FA hitters are very expensive and the higher payrolls always seem to outbid the smaller market teams. The Texas Rangers have a great offense and it has taken them absolutely nowhere. I don’t care to go down this avenue even if we could.
It still baffles me that we are never “lucky” enough to develop power-hitting but I can live with the fact that BB is very capable of building a team that is strong in 2 out of 3 of those categories. I am convinced that ‘09 could be a very good year but not necessarily an exciting one for offensive-minded fans.
Looking forward to Spring Training and the hope of another World Series title.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 3, 2008 4:45 PM PDT reply actions
I like the Rangers' chances in 2010-11 over the A's
They have some good pitching in the minors, and lots more offensive talent currently on the club. They’re core offensive players are also pretty bad on defense, though, so they’ll need a lot of good pitching to make up for that. But I wouldn’t assume that pitching+defense>offense. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t….
The A's colors are green and gold.
I do assume that good pitching and defense will beat a good offense
unless it doesn’t :-) It should be interesting to see if the Rangers find some pitching that can hold up in their ballpark combined with those terrible summers. The craziest thing to imagine is the Rangers ending up with great starting pitching while the A’s develop into an offensive powerhouse.
Looking forward to Spring Training and the hope of another World Series title.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 3, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd say great pitching will beat great hitting,
but that great hitting will beat good pitching. Good pitching against good hitting? They’ll split a lot of four game series, I reckon.
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
Agree
Hence the usual All-Star game scores.
Does Texas really have all that great of pitching in the minors? Only one that comes to mind is Eric Hurley, and he’s not all that special.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Aug 3, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Not to underestimate them overmuch, but I'll believe they can develop a good pitcher when I see it
This isn’t like the Rays of last year, where a solid core of pitching was masked by a bunch of comically awful filler. The Rangers don’t even have the beginnings of a quality pitching staff.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
They develop good pitchers -
why they’ve developed Danks, Gallaraga, Duchscherer, and Chris Young and the White Sox, Tigers, A’s, and Padres thank them.
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
Volquez is very mad at you
He’s thinking of throwing his extra “n” in a fit of pique.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
True - I guess I overlook him because
the Rangers cannot regret acquiring Josh Hamilton – they should make that trade again even though they have too much hitting and not enough pitching. That and the missing “n”.
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
Kevin Brown and Kenny Rogers were pretty good
I guess Ron Darling
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Let's pique Torii Hunter and Jacoby Ellsbury, too
Maybe they’ll throw their extra “i” and “y”.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Low scoring games are fine...
...but if those low scores are 2-1 loses then not only will they continue to lose, but they’ll be boring doing it.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think the Coli explains some of our offensive woes....
all the foul territory, the heavy coastal air, etc. It’s a pitchers park by a long shot. It would seem that the Coli would be responsible for a lot of “good” hitters being rated as mediocre just by dent of 81 of their games being played there.
It makes sense for Beane to build the team based on pitching with this in mind. But even so, we are still going to require some effective offense. Pitching will keep you from losing a game, but it won’t win it for you.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Reality is an illusion created by a shortage of alcohol ...........
“The minute you walked through the door
I could tell you were a man of distinction
A real big spender ….......... “
That the Haas family was, and is, as philanthropic as you could want is an undoubted fact. However, what philanthropy and baseball have to do with one another is very debatable, particularly when you consider ‘philanthropy’ is an euphemism for ‘charity’. Should professional sports franchises be considered as valid charity cases? Are they worthy of such munificence? Its an interesting question.
Nonetheless the Haas’ saw Oakland and the A’s as a ‘philanthropic’ cause and certainly they contributed to it. They paid for good players, and the attendance figures were further boosted by their generosity – all kinds of ticket price subsidies that kept the turnstiles clicking (Oakland does not have good attendance figures at market rates. Oakland does not support teams unless they win big.)
The charity cost them, according to what I heard, in excess of two hundred mill and though they recouped a fair amount from the sale of the franchise the final bottom line figures were still decidedly red.
And they sold, not to recoup, but because they became tired and disillusioned with the cause. Greedy players and their shark agents, an ungratefull, unresponsive, group of city fathers, and a fan base that dwindled as the subsidies and the championships faded. Even charity has limits. They sold and were glad to get to hell out.
If you are an optomist maybe you can believe another owner, full of philanthropy, will come along to pump a small fortune into this team, and its decaying stadium in a down-at-heel town. Right.
Thank God for the late Walter Haas and his family. But if you are dependent on charity for your daily bread, you’re gonna have a long wait until the next one comes along.
The Haas family sold because Walter was dying
not because they became tired and were “glad to get the hell out.” Further, they did not lose in excess of $200m, and their final bottom line was not decidedly in the red. Ultimately they broke about even for their 15 year run-better, if you factor various tax advanatges they enjoyed-and they would have done better had they not sold at an artificially low price to buyers who’d keep the team in Oakland.
There is a case to be made about not dependaing on owner philanthropy. Unfortunately, your account is fiction which does a disservice to all involved.
They want to steal the land papers which is why they have tried to break in. But they had to give up after being bitten by Chhotu.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 4, 2008 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
It was always my impression...
...that the A’s was one of Walter’s primary passions, and that most of the rest of the family wasn’t into them to the same level of dedication that he was.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I think Walter wasn't all that thrilled
with buying the team. His son and son-in-law persuaded him to make the purchase, but only after agreeing to run the team for him. He took a role as a “super fan” and left the organization in their hands.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
You are correct...
...in that he didn’t want a role in actually doing anything, but I believe he did relish the superfan and community involvement aspects.
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
damn, I'm sorry I missed this one...
I would have had a lot to say.
Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb
"Suckers" = ones who suck
Yeah, that would be us.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
it seems to me
that posts like these are largely being written because of a post-ASB 2-15 run.
i didn’t see any of them 1.5 months ago, and the only change (arguably) that made us immediately worse since then has been the Harden trade. thats not to say we dont suck right now. we do suck. but, then, i was one of the few “wet blankets” that was saying we sucked 2 months ago.
you have to look at the minors to judge our rebuilding. and for those that look, but dont like our lack of position (esp infield) players, which is legitimate, i think the point is that we have so much pitching coming up, and so much freed up money, it doesnt take too creative a mind to envision how the FO intends to fill those holes, and that’s assuming none of our infield guys amount to anything.
more knee-jerk reactions imo.
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.
