Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: On Hazards And Hulks And Tigers, Oh My!

We have such a long way to go...



We have such a long way to go...

Star-divide

          This past weekend I had the chance to catch some of the Rays-Yanx series on TV. My wife got tired of the snow in our beloved Lake Tahoe, so I was relocated against my will to sunny South Florida, where in addition to alligators, hurricanes, and huge, prehistoric bugs, there is a baseball team that is really worth watching. The Rays are what our Athletics could aspire to become, if only we could have the top pick in the draft maybe five years in a row.

          While the Yankees busily spend their way to the top, the Rays have taken the other route. They have literally lost their way to the top, compiling so much talent from the top of the first round that Kurt Suzuki is the only current A's position player that could hope for playing time on this loaded team. The Rays have a stacked rotation, a solid bullpen, speed throughout the lineup, and fantastic defenders at every position. They have four guys that can play solid, MLB-quality shortstop, and four CF's, too...and they'll only get better, because only a few key players on the roster are in the prime of their careers--the rest are still improving. 

         The Yankees, on the other hand, have just a few players developed in their system, with the rest cherry-picked through FA to create a cyborg mercenary superstar team that represents all that is evil in the universe. When the few home-grown talents (Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte) outlive their usefulness, they will be replaced by the next wave of mercenaries plucked from "The Real NYY Farm System", the rest of MLB. It has been this way since I was a kid, when Catfish was the first to join the Dark Side, and it will always be this way. We cannot expect change (until, perhaps, MLB adopts a salary cap...?).

          Sadly, we know how this will end for Rays fans. They will have a 3-4 year window with their young stars, who will then all sign with the rich teams, leaving poor TB to start all over again. As Oakland fans, we know the script. I am very disillusioned as an A's fan, because the thinking seems to be that we are maybe one or two decent players away from contention. Actually, we are perhaps two decent players away from being REMOTELY WATCHABLE. The current roster (in terms of position players, at least) is horrifyingly bad. The young pitching is very intriguing, and should be the backbone of the team in the years to come, but this lineup is just awful.

          In order to be competitive, a team should have perhaps four or five key players in the peak years of solid careers, with maybe 2 being true All-Stars. The Yankees have Teixeira, Sabathia, Cano, Pay-Rod, and Swish as examples of this. Philadelphia has Halladay, Utley, Rollins, Howard, Werth, and now perhaps Oswalt that could be classified as their "cornerstones". On the A's roster, I count only five players in the "prime" of their careers--the trouble is, when all is said and done, I doubt anyone will describe any of these players as "All-Stars" or even "solid". The five are, in my opinion, Cust, Kouz, Braden, Davis, and Wuertz. How sad--our "cornerstones" are the Strickout King, a forgettable middle reliever,a 4th OF, an ispirational 4th starter, and a marginal MLB 3B. All our other players are either on the downslide and in the last year of their deals (Ellis, Crisp), or still trying to figure it out (Barton, Suzuki, Pennington, Sweeney).

          Granted, Cahill has come a long way this year, with Gio and Bizarro not far behind, so the future looks very bright for our rotation (with Anderson likely to be the best of all). Suzuki is a huge plus too. Now we only need to worry about the other SEVEN positions on the diamond. It is laughable for us to think that we can truly compete with teams like NYY and TB with our "Solid Core" of Rajai Davis, Jack Cust et al. The disparity in talent between our roster and the rosters of the top teams is simply immense. We need a lot more than "two decent players" to become competitive again. Two solid players might make us relevant again, even slightly intriguing--but not quite competitive.

           I truly feel that for the next A's dynasty to rise into being, four players are absolutely crucial. I think at least three of them need to fulfill the promise they have shown, and perhaps BB can trade for a fourth or even a fifth. Players like Barton and Sweeney could be very valuable to us as "the supporting cast", but I think the next "cornerstones" must come from the group of Anderson, Cahill, Carter, and Taylor. If two or more of these guys end up being busts or surgery victims, I think the road ahead is bleak for our Green and Gold. So what do you think, AN? Are these the Anointed Ones? Could it be someone else further down the pipeline? How many will we need in order to rise again and become "The Next Rays"? 

Poll
How many of the group of Anderson, Cahill, Carter, and Taylor must become stars in order for the A's to bring the WS title back to the Bay?
0
2 votes
1
1 votes
2
6 votes
3
38 votes
all 4
90 votes

137 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 53 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think Anderson and Cahill ae pretty close to stardom. We’re almost half way there.

by duballers23 on Aug 3, 2010 11:00 PM PDT reply actions  

I'd say if Anderson and Cahill can stay healthy,

Carter can contribute somewhat and stay healthy, and we sign a good FA bat (Crawford) and something to replace the sludge that is RF, we could be a serious contender next year. If our pitching stays close to as good as it’s been this year, we won’t need that much offense to compete.

Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM

by travdog6 on Aug 3, 2010 11:26 PM PDT reply actions  

Sure

But staying healthy will be big for Cahill and Anderson.
And Carter, if called up, will need to contribute fast.

by chavez247 on Aug 3, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also

It will be tough to bid against the Yankees and other big money teams for Crawford.

by King Billy Royal on Aug 4, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's also not good when prospects

Leave games on a cart clutching their legs ala Josh Donaldson last night.

Jon Miller - "Meanwhile, Joe has found the garlic fries in the booth, and I don't think we'll hear any insight from him for a while."

Orel Hershiser - "Is that really such a bad thing?"

by MrMoneyBaller on Aug 4, 2010 12:49 AM PDT reply actions  

The A's have played .500 ball in about 110 games

You’re going way too far to say that a team with that record is two players away from being “REMOTELY WATCHABLE”. Not remotely watchable teams are this year’s Mariners, or any year’s Pirates. Yes, the A’s’ offense is really bad, but the pitching is great (and very young) and the defense is very good, too. They are a very watchable team.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 7:28 AM PDT reply actions  

Yes, the A's have played .500 ball this year...

…which is more a testament to how many truly awful teams there are this year in the AL than it is to the strength of the A’s. If you can beat up on SEA, BAL, KC, CLE, etc., you’ll finish at about .500. I’m not jumping for joy.
      If our “solid supporting cast” included Suzuki, Barton, Cust, and Pennington, we would have a decent team. Instead, they are our BEST PLAYERS. If that’s the best our team has, our team is neither good, nor exciting, nor watchable. If not for the pitching, this team is the Pirates.

by kitoko on Aug 4, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

"If not for the pitching, this team is the Pirates"

So? If you take Morneau, Mauer, Delmon Young, and Liriano off the Twins, they’re the Pirates. If you take Lincecum and Cain and Sandoval and Posey off the Giants, they’re the Pirates.

If the A’s didn’t have a young pitching staff putting up the 2nd-best ERA (4th best with park adjustments) in the AL, then they’d be unwatchable. But they do have that pitching staff, so they’re not.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

You are entirely correct

The A’s pitching is very watchable, so I guess that means that while we’re on the field, the game is watchable. Too bad we have to go out to the garage after that, because the lineup is so brutal and punchless. We don’t even have one player that would make you say “OH! Player X is up this inning! Gotta catch his AB!”
     This lineup reminds me of the ‘79 A’s—just 9 hopeless stiffs in a never-ending procession of drudgery and ineptitude. What made that year more painful for me, though, is the still-fresh memories of the glory years before Charlie dismantled the team. At least now it doesn’t hurt so much, because my expectations are more realistic. This team has not been special in any way for quite some time, and we have a ways to go before we become special again…and as you point out, the rotation will guide the way. Their upside potential is huge.

by kitoko on Aug 4, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

The 1979 A's went 54-108

scored the fewest runs in the AL, and had the 2nd-worst ERA (in a great pitchers park). The 2010 A’s are at 53-53. If they win today, then win of Friday, and then lose every single game from then on til the end of the season, they will still end up with a better record than the 1979 A’s did. This year’s A’s have the 2nd-best ERA in the AL, and they’re 4th-from the bottom on offense (much closer to league average than to Seattle, who are the worst).

1979 AL average runs per game: 4.67
1979 A’s runs per game: 3.54
Difference: -1.13 runs per game

2010 AL average runs per game: 4.50
2010 A’s average runs per game: 4.17
Difference: -0.33 runs per game

There’s no way in the world those two offenses are similar to each other. One was abominably atrocious, the other is just run-of-the-mill bad. Obviously, the A’s called up Rickey at the tail end of 1979, and nobody the A’s can call up will come close to being Rickey in any way. But the vast majority of the A’s offense during nearly all of 1979 was way beyond the mediocrity of this year’s offense.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

I guess the similarity is not statistical...

…but rather in the degree of hopelessness I experience every time one of our stiffs steps up to the plate…

by kitoko on Aug 4, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Eh...give a little room for the author to embellish

Sure, maybe remotely watchable wasn’t the best choice of words, but our lineup is pretty unwatchable.

by Billy Frijoles on Aug 4, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

The hitting is pretty unwatchable, yes

but this team was built on pitching & defense.

It would have been nice to have gone out and gotten a replacement COF for Sweeney though, that was really a careless move by Beane. Dellucci, Sheffield or Dye cant be worse than the Matts, and thats literally the scrapheap, im sure theres a AAAA guy out there, a Shelley Duncan type who could stand in LF or RF and OPS 725 for us.

-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.

by PL78 on Aug 4, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

You mean like Buck, CoJack, or Gross?

No way are you going to get a free agent to start the season in August and contribute, not in Oakland. You think they’re all just holding out for a .500 team with a crappy hitting park and no money?

by Sacred#24 on Aug 6, 2010 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

The difference between mediocre

(which the A’s are) and being a contender is less than I think this post implies. Look at the 2006 A’s. They had OK pitching, one big bopper at DH , and one guy with pop at 3rd; they managed to win 93 games. Now they have better pitching and no big boppers and will win about 80.

It’s unlikely that Cahill, Anderson, and Gio will be as good as the “Big Three,” but if they stay healthy they’ll be close. Add two guys who can drive in runs hey can be a 90 win kind of team.

by rovingralph on Aug 4, 2010 7:42 AM PDT reply actions  

Right, they need All-Star OF in LF and RF and they're a contender

But that would require some serious spending and/or dealing.

I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters

by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2010 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

The 2006 Oakland A's...

…were a bizarre and intriguing statistical anomaly. They went something like 17-2 against Seattle, and I think they were below .500 against the rest of the league. Seattle was about .500 against the league, but 2-17 against Oakland. To say that the ‘06 A’s were some kind of juggernaut is a stretch. They were an average team that just had Seattle’s number that year. Once they got to the playoffs, they actually won a series—due primarily to the fact that the team they played had only one decent pitcher (Santana) and Frank took him deep.
     In a way, I wish the 2006 season had never occurred, because I think it tricked all of us into thinking we were closer than we really were, and it seemed to trick BB into thinking all he needed to to get All-Stars is to comb through the debris of the aged and oft-injured, just because he caught lightning in a bottle one time with Thomas. Since then, he has done nothing but piss away progressively larger piles of cash on progressively less productive players. Piazza, Giambi, Nomar, Sheets, Crisp, Duke…the list grows every year. That list represents over $50 million dollars for the priveledge of having each of these zombies sign the deal, cash the check, play in 9 games, and go on the DL for the season. That’s just great. If Wolfie and BB really had nothing better to do with that cash, they should have donated it to worthy charities (Shriner’s? Boys&Girls Clubs? Red Cross?) instead of feeding those useless retreads. Really, his moves just seem to be getting lamer and lamer. He seems to be flailing a bit….he needs to pull off one of his patented “F’-in A!” trades to get his mojo back… :-)

by kitoko on Aug 4, 2010 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Wow. So true, and yet I don't wish 2006 hadn't happened.

I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters

by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

No not a juggernaut

but the A’s of 2006 were contenders. If a team can win 90, it has a chance (better if it can win 95) of making the playoffs. The “Big Three” teams had more talent than the 2006 team no doubt. Great pitching. Great hitting infield. And they won 100 games.

Right now I’d be happy if the A’s spent some money and got two boppers. They’d need more to win 100 games and be a true powerhouse. Once a team makes the playoffs, though, anything can happen.

by rovingralph on Aug 4, 2010 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

Totally understand, and even somewhat agree, but...

…I’d still rather have had 2006 than not. We do need to be careful how to view it, though.

In a way, I wish the 2006 season had never occurred, because I think it tricked all of us into thinking we were closer than we really were…

Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.

by UncleLeo on Aug 4, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

I guess if anything, 2006 validated Beane's "the playoffs are a crapshoot" line more than ever

Of their playoff teams over the past decade, the 2006 team was the one least likely of staying together as a whole, the team least likely of getting back the next year and the year after that with the chance to win not just one but multiple championships. Of course, the 2006 team was the one to win the ALDS where the others failed, and in a sweep no less. Then came the ALCS sweep to Detroit.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Aug 4, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

But in fact, Beane really is right about the playoffs being a crap-shoot

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, and thats why we should never give up, like we are right now.

Im really steamed we did not get a replacement for Sweeney to play in a corner OF spot. That was a terribly shitty non-move by Beane.

-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.

by PL78 on Aug 4, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

I can see the “crapshoot” theory… to a point, but I do not accept total randomness that some seem to.

Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.

by UncleLeo on Aug 4, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not totally random, obviously

but look: the A’s themselves have this terrible reputation as chokers, but if Eric Chavez waits a tiny fraction of a second longer on Mussina’s inside fastball in game 3, he hits a booming, 3-run HR and the A’s sweep the Yankees. If they get a bloop single against Lowe in Game 5, they win that series. If Billy McMillan’s bases-loaded, soft liner goes over the 2B’s head instead of right at him, they would have swept Boston earlier.

In so few games, the better team often doesn’t win, and the team that plays better often doesn’t win. From the point of view of a GM — who’s just there to design the basic layout of the roster — it’s all completely beyond his control. That’s what, “My shit doesn’t work in the playoffs” means.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes and no.

The same stuff happens in the regular season all the time, it’s just evened out due to the longer schedule. In a short series the same one or two anomalies are magnified and will have much greater impact because there’s not enough time to compensate or even things out. The only difference is time.

Agreed the best team does not always win. But, in your Yankee example above, were the A’s the better team? Probably not, so even though the A’s could have won… and probably should have won, given the events up to that point… the end result argues against ‘crapshoot’ because the better team did eventually win.

Don’t mistake this as a total repudiation of ‘crapshoot’, but I do see some CYA by Beane regarding this also. He does have some control as it is still his job to put together the best team possible to win regardless anything else.

Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.

by UncleLeo on Aug 4, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

The better team wins playoff series like 52% of the time.

Remember when the Angels traded for Teixeira a few years ago when they were like 10 games up? I said at the time (correctly) that it was a total waste of the talent they gave up (though admittedly that wasn’t much) because they were going to win the division anyway, and the difference between Casey Kotchman and Mark Teixeira, over a series that small, is probably less than a single run.

Think about that. You upgrade from Casey Kotchman to Mark Teixeira, and what that buys you in a 5-game series is less than the equivalent of starting game one up 1-0.

There’s literally no argument that the playoffs are not a crapshoot.

Arthur Dent: You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford Prefect: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur Dent: I don't know, I didn't listen!

by PaulThomas on Aug 4, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

How do we define the "better" team?

Bob Geren... Jackie Moore without the personality.

by UncleLeo on Aug 4, 2010 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would argue that the better team wins 100% of the time

but that’s just my silly, non-statistical mind rationalizing again.

by Sacred#24 on Aug 6, 2010 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

it is odd that they beat seattle so much

but that happens. it is not an anomaly. its not magic. I don’t believe it has any analytical value.

its akin to saying they won x number games when they scored 5 runs or more. sure, and we can form an opinion about the offense or the pitching based on the number of games, but not on winning and losing.

they were a good team. 2007 lost thomas and then was crippled by injuries which haven’t stopped

"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes

by Future Ed on Aug 4, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

2003 Marlins - There is Hope

They had young pitching and a terrible OF…

Brad Penny 25 v. Mazzaro
Carl Pavano 27 v. GIO
Dontrelle Willis 21 v. Cahill
Josh Beckett 23 v. Anderson
Mark Redman 29 v. Braden

That rotation looks pretty comparable to what we can throw out there for the next 4-5 years. The A’s bullpen will be much stronger next year than the Marlins combo of Looper, Tejera, Almanza, Spooneybarger, Urbina.

OF:

LF: Todd Hollandsworth v. Chris Carter
CF: Juan Pierre v. Rajai Davis/Coco
RF: Juan Encarnacion v. Sweeney/Co-Jack/Taylor

Wow, the Marlins OF was pretty terrible that year…

IF:

C – Pudge vs. Suzuki
1B – Derrick Lee v. Daric Barton
2B – Luis Castillo v. Ellis/Rosales
SS – Alex Gonzalez v. Pennington
3B – Mike Lowell v. Kouzmanoff

Other: Miguel Cabrera v. Taylor

This is the A’s biggest weakness. Lee and Lowell had 63 HR’s combined. As a team, The Marlins hit 157 HR’s…

Anyways, I don’t think we are that far off. Our pitching is going to keep this team above .500 next season. It’s time for the bats to wake up and win the other 20+ games.

by Colorado Fan on Aug 4, 2010 8:21 AM PDT reply actions  

So the A's are the 2003 Marlins without Miguel Cabrera, and an even worse OF? OK

Then they’re also like the Twins without Joe Mauer or the Rangers without Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz or the Padres without Adrian Gonzalez. Imagine how awesome they’d be if they had Cabrera, Gonzalez, Mauer, Hamilton and Cruz!

I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters

by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2010 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Cabrera was a mid-season callup

He was 20 years old. He had 314 AB’s in 2003. Not nearly the player he is today… He was 4 for 24 in the World Series. I think Chris Carter could go 4-24 in a World Series.

by Colorado Fan on Aug 4, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Cabrera

For the 2003 Season, he had a 793 OPS = 106+ OPS

The Marlins didn’t do much after this season because of Injuries to their pitching staff, and because players like Lowell, Lee, and Pudge were getting really expensive.

by Colorado Fan on Aug 4, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's a valid and hopeful comparison...

…if we can somehow conjure up some OF’ers next year to smack HOMERUNZ, we are right back in the mix…it really aids our cause that we play in a 4-team division where none of the other teams is anything special…

by kitoko on Aug 4, 2010 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

I kinda think the Rangers are something special

I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters

by WaddellCanseco on Aug 4, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

I dont

He runs his SPs into the fucking dirt, and he does lots of cocaine. I dont want a guy like that running this team.

-Yeah, I just posted that, but my opinion is apparently "wrong" a significant portion of the time though, so take it as you will.

by PL78 on Aug 4, 2010 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't know if this is Nolan Ryan or Ron Washington
He runs his SPs into the fucking dirt

Ryan talks about modern pitchers being “babied” all the time.

Needs moar dingerz.

by Blicks on Aug 4, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know, the funny thing about Ryan's own, personal experience

is that he managed to get himself “babied” when he was in his early 20s because he couldn’t hit the side of a barn from 10 feet with his fastball, so he never threw all that many innings. In the four seasons between ages 21 and 24 he threw 134, 89.1, 131.2, 152 innings. That’s a very modest workload during that crucial period. Then, at age 25, he zoomed to 284. Then he threw over 300 in consecutive seasons, got hurt, and after a year under 200 went back up close to 300 for 2 seasons.

By that time he was 31, and he spent the rest of his career with elbow problems that limited his IP.

His personal experience isn’t a bad case study in the virtues of limiting IP until the mid-20s, and then of the dangers of really extreme overwork.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 4, 2010 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

What are you talking about?

Age IP
31 234
32 222
33 233

By my count he threw over 200 innings 14 times, including four times in a row starting at age 40.

by Sacred#24 on Aug 6, 2010 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Beane needs to hire an offensive assistant GM

This is really why we still have a long way to go.

It’s time Beane gets out of denial (if he is in it, maybe now finally he’s being honest with himself regarding his complete lack of both feel and stats based offensive player evaluation, i don’t know for sure because i don’t know him.)

Thank nature pitching is more important and a team can hover around .500 with great pitching and bad O, but not the other way around (although, maybe that’s bad news since we won’t get a high pick, ala TB all those years, leading to their greatness today, but i move on.)

Whether it be drafting vanilla hitters with little upside for a decade, to trading away difference makers, to simply not seeing what a good hitter is, Beane has done it all.

I look at a guy like Delmon Young. Minny gets it. There was a former #1 pick who for whatever reason took a bit longer to work out. Minny wasn’t scared by what scares Beane in such a player: lack of discipline etc. They took a chance that this difference making slugger would figure it out.

Why doesn’t Beane try that? He seems stubbornly hooked to the idea of sticking to his hitting beliefs and coming up with one of his types of hitters instead of realizing it is not working.

(And just while i’m at it, really, what again was the purpose of Sheets? I said it before the season too, ok. It’s one thing for a team without a bevy of injury issues already, it’s quite another for a super injured, year after year, team that is already on a strict, low budget to pay a guy like that, with those question marks.)

I’ve defended Beane for years. I still like him. Again, he’s great, truly, at finding pitching. But it’s time he just handed over offensive player evaluation to others, preferably someone new who’s proven himself elsewhere who doesn’t think the “A’s way” when it comes to hitting.

It may have worked in the juiced era with HRs and BB, less running. But now it’s plain to see Beane’s offensive philosophy is a blind one.

by supersugarCrisp on Aug 6, 2010 12:54 AM PDT reply actions  

you realize the Twins were trying to trade young last off season right?

The team needs good hitters. Whether or not they're power hitters is irrelevent. - lenscrafters and many others.

by designatedforassignment on Aug 6, 2010 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

addendum before i get killed here

It’s not the philosophy per se that is a “blind one,” more Beane himself being blind as to how to get the players to run that philosophy, or any successful one regarding hitting. He just doesn’t have “it” when it comes to O, and should give it up to someone else.

by supersugarCrisp on Aug 6, 2010 1:08 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A's relocation option from a legal expert on the issue
Oakland_athletics_team_logo_photofile_small
Prospects 1Q Report

Recent FanPosts

100_1536_small
My new smarts on the Fanpost, and Mr. Offseason is born, and getting to know me
Small
GOG 2012 #18: The Twins have a shiny new park, and not much else
Small
Gotta Be Their Pitching
Hardly-boys_small
Minor League notes on Major League Day Off
Small
Cespedes Upate?
Small
The SF Warriors, the LA Raiders and the Oakland A's
Photo__11__small
COG #17 - Yankees vs. Athletics or Spank me! Spank me!
100_1536_small
What to do? What to do?
Small
Fans Should Buy the A's
Reg3_small
Tom Milone's Nickname

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Sb_nation1_small ahhall

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late