A season in review: Why does it seem like we lost our way?
by thinwhiteduke on Sep 9, 2008 12:02 PM PDT
60 comments
Ok. I'm going to preface this by stating that I believe Billy Beane and his staff to be bright, capable and forward thinking individuals who have a long-term rebuilding plan for this team. I haven't lost the faith. But...
...it doesn't seem like it so much lately, huh? The last couple of months have seemed more like, "Let's throw something out onto the field and see what sticks." Yes, several (more) injuries to those few veterans still left in town has played a part in this second half debacle. But so, too, has Billy & Co.'s decisions to rush several prospects who clearly were not ready for the show. The question is why did they do this? The A's front office's stance seems clear. They believe that since the season is a wash anyway, why not start building up the experience for these players at the Major League level now. And I agree that this kind of experience has no substitute, that most young players do in fact go through some growing pains. But I also believe that you should choose to bring a player up when, and only when, he is properly equipped to face a Major League lineup or pitcher. And while there is ample evidence that no matter how mature a young player may be physically & mentally, a time of adjustment is usually still needed, there is also ample evidence that rushing a player can hurt his development and confidence. There have been other possible misteps along the way as well, so without further ado, I'd like to re-examine our 2008 season.
This offseason I felt Billy was at his best. The hauls we got back in both the Haren & Swisher trades were well thought out and the talent impressive. Not only did we get some true "blue-chip" prospects, we also importantly received some lesser talented but Major League ready players, too. It showed a masterplan. Everything started out well enough. Eveland and Smith in the rotation. Check. Sweeney and Denorfia in the outfield mix. Check. The idea was that these guys, while maybe lacking a ton of upside probably wouldn't embarrass either. Let them play, and the best of them would still have a job as a 4th outfielder or back of the rotation starter once the "kids" were ready for primetime. The Davis aquisition was another such move. Fast forward to the Blanton trade. This deal, too, made sense to me. Blanton, while an innings eater, was still only a major league average pitcher. He certainly has value, but his time under our control was coming to an end. The main player we received back was a promising young middle infielder, a spot where we still lacked front-line talent. Unfortunately, Adrian has struggled since coming into the A's system, but that doesn't change the fact that the deal made sense at the time (and Cardenas still has plenty of time to turn things around). Everything was copasetic. Then the wheels came off.
Since that point, I think the front office has made a lot of questionable calls. And yes, I know hindsight is 20/20. But I honestly felt that these were mistakes at the time, too.
Mistake #1: Bringing up Cargon. This actually occurred slightly before the Blanton trade, screwing up my timeline a bit, but, whatever. Carlos has a lot of natural tools. What he doesn't have is a great mastery of the strike zone. There was no dire need to rush him along. We had no shortage of outfielders, and besides middling/stopgap outfielders are a dime a dozen anyway. Injuries paved the way (or at least proved the excuse) to bring Gonzales up. But it wasn't like we had to. He had not seen significant time at AAA before the promotion. His production at Sacramento was not so noteworthy it "forced" a call-up. He clearly still had/has much to learn. So why risk turning the guy into Corey Patterson? And why use up valuable service time to a season where, (despite the hot start) we had no realistic reason to believe we would contend.
Mistake #2: The Harden trade. It was clear that Harden, after proving he could make a few healthy turns in the rotation, should be dealt. By the time we were ready to contend again he would be entering free agency. He was a high-risk, high-reward player, and those guys are better served on a team with playoff aspirations. The Cubs were a nice enough fit. But the returns were befuddling. To point:
Murton: Yet another A's corner outfielder with middling power. Not a tremendous asset defensively. No longer young enough to reasonably expect vast improvement. If you need a guy like this (which we didn't) you can go dumpster diving and turn one up. A few years ago he had some value on the trade market. By the time of the trade he was approaching throw-in material.
Patterson: Offensively, showed fairly well-rounded skills in the minors. But, lacks a true position and does not have the upside to warrant carving out a spot just to keep his bat in the lineup. He's the perfect example of a baseball tweener, and he had no natural spot for a position of opportunity on this team (like third base maybe?). If the A's truly believed he could legitamitely handle second base, they should have immediately dealt away Ellis while he still had some return value. Instead they hedged their bets, and luckily so, as Eric's struggles at the Big League level have made him look like even more of a suspect than a prospect. It doesn't look like he'll hit enough to warrant a corner spot in the outfield, and he isn't strong enough with the glove to play a premium defensive position. But then, that was what all the scouts were saying about him before the deal was made, so this hardly comes as a surprise. But I ask you, if the team didn't really think he could take over for Ellis, and they had no need for another outfielder, why acquire him in the first place?
Gallagher: Sean is the best chance at salvaging this trade. His arsenal is pretty impressive, he just needs to harness it better. He's still young enough to fulfill the potential there, but I don't think he is an ace in the making. There are also some health concerns.
Donaldson: A wildcard. He mashed last year, struggled at Peoria, but went back to mashing in Stockton for the A's. There are apparently questions about whether he can stick as a catcher. If he can, he probably has a Big League career ahead of him.
Gaudin: WTF? Why was this guy included in the deal? He could have immediately slotted into the spot left vacant by Harden. He was still under team control for a couple of more seasons and if he didn't have much trade value (evidently the case) why wasn't he allowed to remain here as a place filler until our young guns were ready? Now we are left with trotting out the likes of Dan Meyer just to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is not, in fact, a Major League calibre starting pitcher and that, yes, the Hudson trade was indeed a full-blown disaster.
Mistake #3: Rushing Gio Gonzales. He, like Cargon, was seeing AAA for the first time this season. And like Carlos, while his performance wasn't bad, it did not warrant a call-up. And Gio, too, has trouble controlling the strike zone, only from the pitching end. I just cannot see the wisdom of placing a 22 year old with only a 2/1 IP to BB ratio in the minors on your active roster. Yes, he showed improvement in Sacramento as the year went on, but again, not to such a degee as to force a move. I am also of the Earl Weaver school of thought that it is better to work your young starters into the rotation by first letting them get their feet wet in a relief role. I think a smarter play would have been to call up Gio in late August and have him work out of the pen for the rest of this year. A DiNardo or Saarloos type filling in rotation gaps for the rest of the season may have left some screaming for the youngsters, but the wiser course of action would have been to let them scream.
Mistake #4: Not trading Huston Street. I love the guy, but he should have been dealt. His slump and minor injury just before the deadline did not help matters, but we really should have traded him sooner than that anyway. You just don't need an experienced "closer" on a rebuilding ballclub. And we have plenty of additional firepower in the bullpen to fill the hole created by his absence. Even if the return was less than exceptional, I would have made a move, or perhaps packaged him with Harden since it would be a contending team most interested in his services anyway. In our present state, Gaudin had more value to the club than does Street, IMO. Again, it is unfair to look at what has happened since as a way to justify my present position. But the fact is, Huston is no longer even the closer on the team, and that has to diminish his trade value in the offseason even further.
Mistake #5: Holding on to Emil Brown. Why is this guy still on the roster? He should have been dealt or DFA'd long ago - especially once the Harden deal was made and we had such a logjam in the outfield. Brown clearly is not in our long-term plans. Maybe Murton, Davis, Denorfia and Patterson are, maybe not, but why not maximize the opportunity available to all of of them to prove something at the Major League level this year? We now have so many outfielders in the mix for possible September playing time it's almost comical.
And so that pretty much brings us up to the present day, and I'm feeling rather glum about the future, instead of excited. This seems strange based on all the young talent we have acquired. But this season has seemed to raise more questions than answers, and I can't help but feel that the team lost the proper direction somewhere along the way. Then again, perhaps the perceived chaos is all just a part of Billy's master plan. After all, he's a heck of a lot smarter than I am.
0 recs |
60 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
To answer the title question:
It seems like “we lost our way” because the team started losing in the second half of the season after doing well in the first half.
Assume identical production from all the players, reverse the halves, and suddenly the team is “growing” and “making progress” and crap like that. Which is hogwash, to be sure. But apparently it’s a psychologically soothing brand of hogwash.
I’m really interested (that may not be the right word) to hear this argument for how Gaudin could possibly have “more value to the club than Street”.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Simple argument really
Because Gaudin would have helped bring some stability to the rotation for the next couple of seasons while our top tier pitching prospects are still developing & refining their game. Street, at best, would just be closing out (near) meaningless wins. When you are a bad team, the concept of someone there to maximize the wins you don’t “blow” at the end has little value in of itself. By the time we are contenders again and need a “legit” closer Huston will be too expensive to keep anyway.
by thinwhiteduke on Sep 9, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Those just aren't relevant issues
“Stability” isn’t really an important consideration. Teams that juggle their rotation around heavily don’t really do any worse than ones that don’t. The Cubs are about to make the postseason with a rotation in which the (arguable) top two pitchers weren’t factors last year and the ace of last season has been injured and ineffectual for much of this season.
Bottom line, a run saved is a run saved, and Huston Street is better at saving runs than Chad Gaudin.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
With due respect, that's not what I meant by stability, really
Not stability in the sense that you have the same player out there one season to the next. Stability in the sense that you know the guy you are throwing out there is ML ready, has a pretty good chance to keep you in the game, and let’s you plan your bullpen use patterns in a fairly consistent manner. That, as opposed to what we have been subjected to with the likes of Gallagher, Gonzalez and Meyer, who have all been pitching like ticking time bombs.
Just to nitpick a bit further. If a run saved is indeed a run saved, then let’s say Chad Gaudin would have had 180 IP and given up 80 runs for the A’s this season if given the opportunity, but his various possible replacements give up 100 runs in the same amount of innings.
Meanwhile, hypothetically speaking, Huston Street pitches 80 innings this year and gives up 27 runs. Meanwhile, his replacements would have given up 40. Even though Huston is the more effective pitcher, Gaudin saves you more runs over the course of the season.
Of course, a run saved is not just a run saved. In a blowout an extra run means very little, but it a tight contest it can mean everything. This is where Street’s value really comes in. But when you are in rebuild mode, he is a luxury you really can’t afford. In my opinion, when rebuilding the team it is important to be competitive as much as possible, but wins/loses are secondary to the developmental process. In this sense, Gaudin would have proved to be a useful bridge to use until players with greater upside were indeed ready for a major role with the big club. That to me has value.
by thinwhiteduke on Sep 9, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree that (most vaguely decent) starters will provide more value above replacement than Street
It comes with the job description. However, I’m fairly sure that Street will provide more value above average than Gaudin, and for a realistically contending team that’s often more important. Street is a more scarce talent commodity than Gaudin. Whether the team would have won 74 or 75 games if they had traded Street instead of Gaudin is more or less an academic issue, because neither total was going to get the team into the playoffs.
The real question is which one had more potential trade value, and there it’s pretty clear that Street did. At the time, of course, he had very little trade value, because he was (probably) hurt and pitching like crap. It would have made no sense to dump him for pennies on the dollar when there was no urgency to it. He’s not going to be a free agent anytime in the near future (2 years for relievers is a very long time).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
this is one of the better posts
for a first post with no comments. i hope you stick around.
"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
Some pretty good points in the post, though I don't know they should all be called "mistakes"
Mistake #1: Bringing up Cargon. – I agree with this, and basically for the reasons you stated.
Mistake #2: The Harden trade. – I agree, but not because of the return from the Cubs. I still think that Harden is too good of a pitcher to not let finish the season. If he remains healthy and only misses a start or two, he’s got IMMENSE trade value in the offseason, given that he’s dirt cheap for the performance you get. If he gets hurt again, you still have him at a decent cost for 2009. In short, there was no pressing need to trade him when he was dealt.
Mistake #3: Rushing Gio Gonzales. – I’m torn on Gio. He’s gotten off to slow starts basically everywhere he’s gone, and then became dominant after getting adjusted. Personally, I would have let him finish the year in AAA and given him a September callup to make a start or two and get a few relief appearances, then give him a shot to crack the rotation in ST next year. As it is now, I think he starts 2009 in Sacramento.
Mistake #4: Not trading Huston Street – I absolutely disagree with you. Mark me down as somebody who is convinced that Street has not been remotely close to 100% healthy for some time now, which has been the reason for his decreased velocity and effectiveness. I don’t know where the blame lies, if it’s Huston not saying he’s hurt or the training staff not realizing that losing 4mph on your fastball may be cause for concern (duh?), but his last few outings he’s been back up at 93-94 and getting guys out consistently. To me, that means he’s fully healthy. As far as his trade value, it was absolutely awful at the deadline because he wasn’t getting anybody out and blew a handful of saves right in a row. If he continues to have solid innings and/or gets moved back into the closer role and notches 5 or 6 saves without issue, IMO that’ll be enough for other GMs to be confident in his health and ability and he’ll have much more value in the offseason.
Mistake #5: Holding on to Emil Brown. – Again, I agree. Frankly, there’s no reason he should be in Oakland instead of Murton.
Agree on #5.
I was certain that acquiring Matt Murton meant the end of Emil Brown, and I was really, really disappointed that it was not.
by VORP is too nerdy on Sep 9, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Bad time to trade Huston
He’s had some nagging health issues this year, and his performance in June/July really wasn’t very good. The A’s are probably better served waiting for him to pick his performance up for awhile first.
by VORP is too nerdy on Sep 9, 2008 1:23 PM PDT reply actions
The last couple of months have seemed more like, "Let's throw something out onto the field and see what sticks."
Well, yeah … that’s what you do when you’re rebuilding — evaluate players while you wait for more talent to come along.
1. CarGon was brought up because the team was still in contention and BB was hoping to catch a little bit of lightning in a bottle. It didn’t work out but did it really hurt anything?
2. Discussed ad nauseum …
3. From mid June through his call-up, Gio was flat out dominant —striking out 1.2 per inning, and only allowing a hit every other inning, good for a 2.62 era. Granted, he still walked too many guys, but that’s often okay. Tim Hudson, for example, was also walking way too many batters in AAA before he got called up.
4. Now that Huston is healthy and around 90 mph again, he’s been excellent again over the last few weeks. BB should be well rewarded for waiting.
5. Not that I disagree … but this would basically just be one more example of “throw[ing] something out onto the field and see[ing] what sticks”
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Your point on Gio
was the point I was going to make: Gio was dominating the PCL at the time he got called up. Therefore, he pretty much had nothing left to prove there, so of course you move him up to the next level. Leaving him in AAA could have stagnated his progress; he had to be promoted in order to progress.
About Cargo, you say calling him up early didn’t really hurt anything…but if he still had things to learn in the minors, then they really shouldn’t have called him up, right? I think calling up a prospect too early can hurt, as it forces him to focus on new challenges when he hadn’t mastered the previous challenges he’d been put up to. It’s kind of a philosophical view point however, I’m not sure if it has much baseball merit.
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
by Philip Christy on Sep 9, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
CarGon actually played fairly well for a young rookie ...
Seems to me we wasn’t not ready — he just needs to adjust to the new level — which additional minor league time wouldn’t help with. He had a terrible month of august — posting a .432 OPS over the 28 games before his demotion — but up until that point he was putting up slightly better than league average numbers.
If we’re waiting for Carlos to show above average patience before we promote him, we’re probably going to be waiting a long, long time.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Fair points, all, devo
A few arguments in return:
1. I’d say that trying to catch lighting in a bottle shouldn’t constitute part of one’s rebuilding plan.
3. Tim Hudson in AAA before callup: 11.20 K/9, 3.85 BB/9
Gio: 9.36K/9, 4.46 BB/9
But it is fair to note how dominant Gio had been recently and the strides he made as the season wore on.
4. I hope so. They should let him close again though to maximize his trade value.
by thinwhiteduke on Sep 9, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
1. Sure, but it wasn't ...
I assume they thought that he was close to being ready (and he was — he played well up until the last month before his demotion) and that the upside of calling him up exceeded the risk. I don’t see any real problem with what they did, even in hindsight.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Definitely much better than the usual first post stuff people have put up lately
Agree with some, not so much others, but interesting.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Yes, that has to be noted
I’ve critiqued the logic, but it’s nice to have actual logic to critique. Good first effort.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What was the A's biggest mistake this season?
starting off so well. .500 was going to be a great year. still is.
owner of a lonely tarp
Mistake I didn't make #1- Reading this fanpost
I scanned it for two seconds. You may have some great points, but why would I want to read a list of all the mistakes the A’s have made authored by someone who just signed onto this site two days ago? How about earning your negative remarks by hanging out in the threads for at least a cup of coffee before posting a diatribe about the rudderless and drifting wreck that is the Athletics right now?
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
Was this supposed to be satirical?
If so, it was in somewhat poor taste.
If not, you’re being a jerk.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Seriously
That’s part of why I think it’s important to actually make a point of identifying when a new poster bucks the trend of posting idiocy from the start.
Buck may not be interested in reading the remarks of a newbie, and I could understand that mentality, but he’s going to miss it when someone new actually writes something that’s thought out even if it’s not exactly a new set of opinions others haven’t expressed in other posts.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Buck, it's fine that you feel that way...
…however, why take the time to post your little diatribe? But, since you did, let me make a couple of remarks on how silly I think your attitude is.
First of all, you know absolutely nothing about me. I could be someone who has posted here numerous times before and changed usernames, I could be a closet Giants fan out for some kicks, or I could be a frustrated David Forst venting some frustration. All you know about me is my perceived “newbie” status, real or unreal.
The fact of the matter is that I am a newbie of sorts in that I did, in fact, just sign up for a username. But I have been a fan of Oakland since I moved to CA in 2000. I’ve since moved again, but remain a loyal follower. I have read Bill James since I was a teenager, Baseball Prospectus since near its inception date, and since I’m now in my 30’s that has become quite a while. I also hold a Master’s degree in Sports Management. I have enjoyed visiting this site as a “casual visitor” for what must be several years now, but seeing as I was active in other discussion forums, I never really had the desire to post anything here before.
But even all of this personal info is basically irrelevant. The judgment of my opinions should be based soley on their merit and how effective I was at conveying them. It wouldn’t matter to me if someone had only followed the A’s for a week, if what they had to share about them was interesting to me I would read on, if not, I’d move on.
by thinwhiteduke on Sep 10, 2008 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
well said
this response pretty much expresses what i was trying to say about AN elitists in another thread.
amazingly, there actually are hardcore A’s fans who either don’t have 5,000 AN posts over several years to their credit. some A’s fans actually don’t post on AN at all! iu’m sorry, i should have given a warning before i said that. a few heads might have exploded at the mere possibility that the A’s Nation extends beyond regular users of this site. it’s a big world out there… there is no reason to let somebody’s user stats influence what you think of one of their posts.
Yep, I was probably being a jerk
As PT intimated.
I have seen so many of these A’s suck posts by folks who have never participated in the blog other than to write a negative fanpost. Frankly, the issues you raised have been addressed ad nauseum. So my crappy reaction.
Sorry for that bad welcome to the site. However I can’t agree with anything you said, except for dfa’ing DFA, but that really would not solve any problems now or long term.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Sep 10, 2008 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
New blood
It’s nice to have some new blood around here on AN. Thanks for taking the time to post a well thought out critique thinwhiteduke. My thoughts on your thoughts…
- - I actually enjoyed the CarGon call-up. He may have been called up pre-maturely but he came in at a time when we needed a solid fill-in and we were still competing. He contributed nicely and showed he can handle centerfield with ease. He also showed that he can handle that bat well but, like all young kids, the book came out on how to pitch him and he’ll need to make adjustments. He wasn’t the season long fix that was needed at the time but didn’t lose any games for us and after watching him play for an extended period I’m confident he will be very good for quite some time to come.
- - I’ll take it a step or two further and say it was not only the worst trade of the Beane era but the worst trade in Bay Area sports since the Warriors gave up Parish and McHale for someone nobody can remember. Harden finally healthy and we didn’t reap the rewards of waiting for it. Adding Gaudin to the trade was ludicrous for all the reasons you pointed out.
- - A no-brainer. Calling up Gio was uncalled for. No upside for him at this point in his young career and no upside immediately on the field for the A’s. This experience won’t do much for his confidence. I do think he’ll be good down the road.
- - Not for the Street trade either. He infuriatingly blew a couple of very huge games just before the all-star break which would’ve had us 2 games back. But he’s still young, extremely talented, and, when healthy is very good. Dealing him during a time of injury (or not at a 100 percent and struggling) would bring back no where near what he’s worth.
- - Brown… don’t hate the guy the way almost every other AN’er does but I am indifferent to his contributions. He wasn’t gonna make a huge difference on whether the A’s could compete this year for a full season. What made the difference was Beane trading the pitching staff away at a time when he should’ve kept those guys and brought in a couple of bats at the all-star break. We could’ve contended for the wild card spot with a Harden, Duke (not knowing he’d get injured), Gaudin, Blanton, & Eveland (or Smith, or Braden) staff if we added a couple of bats.
My problem is that Beane quit on a season that we had a chance at if he would’ve made some immediate, shrewd, on-field additions. Something I think he could’ve done without sacrificing the future “plan”.
To quote Arthur Dent,
“What, a chance? You might as well lower haystacks off the boat-deck of the Lusitania!”
The A’s are like 14 games out of the wild card right now. There is no way on God’s green earth that any combination of players would have been a 14-game improvement in half a season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Your logic is a little fuzzy
The A’s were 4.5 games back of the wild card at the all-star break. Keeping the strong staff and adding a couple of bats could’ve most definately kept us in contention (without sacrificing the future plan).
except for the part where
our offense sucked, and trading our bright 2010 for a chance at maybe getting the WC in 2008 with a mediocre team was decided to not be worth the risk.
"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
put me down for +20 on this
I’m not sure who exactly the A’s were realistically supposed to bring in that would have kept them going. They got off to a huge start because all the pitchers were healthy and pitching over their heads (particularly the young guys). As has been stated repeatedly, other than Cahill and Anderson, the A’s have a lot of B+ guys in the minors which is great, but they would have had to send a lot of those guys to say, the Red Sox to get Manny because the A’s won’t take on any salary. So now in the truly American way we’ve thoroughly mortgaged the future in the hopes that everything holds together for this one year and we sneak into the playoffs by beating out one of the Angels, Red Sox, or Tampa Bay, which didn’t seem particularly likely this year.
2010 won't be bright without a ton of pitching help and some bats.
Why not bring the bats in now (assuming we had kept the pitching) while the young guys mature. Wouldn’t have to mortgage 2010. You can compete and build the future at the same time.
Easy to say
Difficult to actually demonstrate. I’m waiting to hear who this magical hitter was, that would have immediately boosted the A’s, not cost too much in prospects, and remained through the foreseeable future. I think he’s made up.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Dan Johnson
he does have 1 HR in 2 ABs… and is the topic of like four fanposts since that HR.
with 150 post-ASB ABs… thats about 75 HRs give or take 5 for a slump/streak.
which would have given us the AL West title where we would have swept the Rays/Angels/Cubs in 11 post-season games and the whole 2008 Oakland A’s roster would have been enshrined in Cooperstown Nov 1st.
And led to a Yankees/Red Sox fire sale in hopes of finding the next AAAA player to lead them to victory.
I said a couple of bats, not one magical bat.
We needed to get some power at third base, first base, and left field (therefore moving Cust to DH). I will avoid specifics here on who (in your words – “the magical hitters”) should be only to avoid a whole new slew of debates that will get off subject (but off the top of my head see what the Dodgers and Angels did at those positions, then, go down from there and check other teams rosters for more moderate earning players if you think we should give Lew Wolfe a pass for not spending money at the major league level – which I don’t).
It is the GM’s job to check around with other teams and see who could fill those roles and then work some good deals. I’d say a majority of the teams in the league have a power hitting first baseman, and/or power hitting third baseman, and/or a power hitting left-fielder that would have improved this team enough to make a serious run at a playoff spot. We should be able to, say, trade 6 players to get 3 impact players. If three of those players we gave up were minor league prospects, and that cost would be too high, then our minor league system is not nearly as deep or strong as many people say it is.
If Billy Beane is a genius then, surely, he could have worked some trades to fill those needs. Even filling two of them could’ve perhaps been enough. That’s his job and he should be creative and smart enough to compete at the major league level and at the same time keep the minor league system strong. He should’ve never thrown this season (and probably next season) away by getting rid of the pitching staff. Now we are left with less than average offense AND less than average starting pitching on the big league team. And, oh boy, has it been fun.
I stopped reading after "I will avoid specifics here"
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Of course you did.
That’s why you’ll remain a blind-sheep Billy Beane follower.
Yes
I feel the need at all costs to avoid having my faith shaken by your carping, generic, basically ridiculous criticisms.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
One snide comment gets another.
Your criticisms look just as ridiculous to me as apparently mine do to you. Stating that the A’s would need “a 14 game improvement” after the all-star break when down only 4.5 games at that time is not only ridiculous but illogical.
The team would have to be 18.5 games better to currently be tied for the Wild Card ...
keeping Rich Harden would cover maybe 4 of those wins … I’ll generously say that Blanton adds a win too. That leaves us 13.5 wins — which, over half a season, is 2 MVP caliber players … over replacement, not over average …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
You don't start from where we are now.
You start from where we were then (4.5 games back). Hindsight doesn’t apply here and you know it. You don’t know how many games Harden, Blanton, and Gaudin would’ve won. You do know that they would’ve won a ton more games than any of the left-handed rookies we were left with.
Adding bats would energize the underachieving team and give them a chance to win even more games. The whole complexion changes when you decimate the pitching staff.
What was Beane thinking? “Hmm, let’s see, we’re 4.5 games back here and what we really need is some offense to put us over the top. I know, I’ll decimate the pitching staff and won’t bring any offense in at all”. Genius.
Street's value was at an all-time low at the trade deadline
1. Rauch had gone for Bonifacio, which somewhat “set the market” for relief/closers, and Fuentes/Sherill weren’t going anywhere.
2. Street had a high ERA and had blown some critical appearances around that time.
I see the future. I see cake.
+1
"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
It would have been silly to trade Street if he wasn't getting valued for what he is
which is a very very good reliever, rather than what he was at that particular time, which was a pretty bad injured reliever. And nobody was going to value him at his true level given that at the moment he was pitching poorly. I “wanted” them to trade Street because you’re right, a stud closer isn’t hugely valuable to the team at this point, but only if you’re going to get a fair deal on him. Otherwise you’re just enriching another team at your own expense. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him go this offseason though. But who knows.
A couple of points if I may
and I promise to keep the “quotations” to a minimum :).
I see some people put huge energy and time into a blog entry, and, heck, knock yourself out. Usually I am enlightened..at least I modify my thinking, depending on the facts presented.
AthleticsNation is merely a sports blog, and no lives are being lost because of anonymous analysis, as would be the case of some mediocre Pentagon analysis that overlooked the possible construction of IEDs in Iraq. I believe critiques about the posters, rather than the facts/opinions presented by the posters, should be kept in the “fun” mode, as is done during almost every running game commentary. If you think someone writes BS, try, try, try, to let it go, and simply comment on the facts presented, whether the post is written by a 12-year-old Nigerian, who then asks for you to deposit a check, or written by a departed poster presented posthumously. The internet has a unique inability to convey many important facets involved in human communications, and the written word on the internet seems to distill those messages of arrayed photons, into stinging rocks that rattle in one’s head long after they’re read.
Just be aware.
In my own opinion, I think something happened mid-season, in the midst of the 2-19 run, that would make interesting background in developing a theory of “hitting contagion” and “not-hitting contagion”. There is something about the confluence of a certain type of player with other players, that lead to either a lack of droughts in hitting, or a running, grinding drought that moves to the extreme edges of probability. Consider how the Detroit Tigers started the year, with what some called one of the most formidable lineups in recent history, yet it stunk, scored few runs. Later, it caught fire, but the damage had been done.
What is it that flips a ball club’s switch “on”, and what switches it to “off”? What kind of player makes hitting happen across the lineup (Dye in 2001), or kills everyone with his own failure? (Kendall in 2007). Why?
The post-ASG A’s were an extreme case, but it is the extreme cases that reveal the real insights. Regardless of what moves Billy Beane made, the fact that so many players failed to hit was above everything else the primary reason for the mid-season “collapse” of this team this year.
I do not believe they overperformed in the early going; they simply got good pitching but it was not unusually good. Merely to expectations.
Runs Please. A lot of them. The rest of the season. Thank you.
by One won lost won on Sep 10, 2008 4:07 PM PDT reply actions
People HAVE developed a theory of hitting contagion.
It doesn’t exist. None. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. Players have no effect on the hitting of other players, period.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
2 out of 3 isn't bad
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I like apple pie too
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Sep 10, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I meant America
I don’t like pie, period.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If your hypothesis that hitting contagion doesn't exist were true
then it would manifest itself in the number of no-hitters per season. Games in which a no-hitter was thrown would be as numerous as shutouts, year in and year out.
Runs Please. A lot of them. The rest of the season. Thank you.
by One won lost won on Sep 10, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Huh?
Hitters don’t affect each other = no hits is as likely as no runs? Those two statements have virtually nothing to do with with one another.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Lighten up a little.
Your statement is a bit too sweepingly broad. Players do have an effect on the hitting of other players. Have you ever heard of a great number 4 hitter in the lineup to protect a great number 3 hitter? You know, the number 3 hitter can’t simply be pitched around because the next guy up is just as dangerous. Hitter number 3 see’s more good pitches therefore does more damage. This is only one of many examples of how players have an effect on the hitting of other players. I could go on and on but I think the point has been made here.
Sure I've heard of protection
It’s fake. Made up. Doesn’t exist. That theory in particular has been comprehensively exploded on multiple occasions.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on AN.
And that’s saying a lot.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
