Moneyball Part II: Billy Beane Shocks the World. Again.
I write my own baseball blog, called Baseball's Economist; and I figured I'd share my post from the other day about the A's signing of Yoenis Cespedes with the Athletics Nation community:
Does Billy Beane know something that no one else in baseball knows… again?? How could baseball’s smallest market team put up a figure that scared off all the big market teams, including the craziest spenders of this off-season, for a player who has never stepped foot on even a minor league field in America? This week, Yoenis Cespedes signed a 4 year/$36 million contract with Beane’s Oakland Athletics. Kevin Goldstein rated Cespedes the 20th best prospect in baseball coming into 2012, and he has put up some incredible numbers against baseball’s elite, albeit in a small sample size. In six games during the 2009 WBC, Cespedes hit 2 home runs, drove in 5, and hit .458; good for an OPS of 1.480. This move by Oakland came completely out of left field (pun intended), and brings up many interesting questions; I’ll attempt to answer three of them.
1. Does this deal make financial sense for Oakland?
This deal does make financial sense because to be worth $9 million a year, Cespedes will only need accumulate a WAR of 8.0 (based on today’s current market). Also, the contract does not push Oakland’s 2012 payroll over $60 million. Id be shocked if Cespedes wasn’t worth 2 wins a season over the next four years. The outfielders who had around 2.0 fWAR in 2011, were Coco Crisp, David Dejesus, Seth Smith, and Josh Willingham… all who are ironically connected to Oakland. I’m not a scout so I can’t truly analyze his ability, but from what I’ve read Cespedes will likely be more productive than those five players. I’m sure Beane feels the same way, or else he would not have made Cespedes his highest paid player for the upcoming season.
2. Can Cespedes reach his maximum potential, and if he does what does that mean for Oakland?
Based on Cespedes' 2011 numbers in Cuba, Clay Davenport projects a major league line of .245/.311/.469 for the Cuban outfielder. A .780 OPS is solid and similar to the offensive numbers put up by outfielders, Adam Jones, Marlon Byrd, and the 2007-10 version of Hunter Pence; which would be serviceable to Oakland, but not the superstar Beane seems to be hoping for. Oakland's front office must think that Cespedes will reach his lofty potential, and be a powerful corner outfielder along the lines of Jay Bruce. Over the last two seasons, Bruce has produced an average of 29 home runs and an OPS of .832. Bruce is projected (by Bill James) to have an OPS of .859 and hit 32 home runs, in 2012. An outfielder in his late twenties, who is able to put up those kind of numbers would be an extremely valuable asset, and make this signing an incredible one.
The question is if Cespedes will be used to bring in another stock of prospects to continue Oakland’s rebuilding, or if his production will have Oakland competing during 2014 and ‘15 seasons. Beane has traded almost all of his valuable assets away this off-season (Trevor Cahill, Gio Gonzalez, and Andrew Bailey), for a stock of young players that have added to Oakland’s youth. Oakland won’t be competitive in the A.L. West in 2012 or 2013. But, they have an interesting young pitching staff, and Jemile Weeks is a ballplayer, so by 2014 when there will be two wild cards teams, it would not be outrageous to think the Athletics will be a playoff contender. Waiting through two more non-competitive seasons may be a little depressing for Oakland fans, but there is definitely some glimmers of hope.
3. Is cleaning house at a certain position and then acquiring a massive surplus at that position in the same off-season, the new "Moneyball" strategy?
On December 31st, Oakland’s outfield consisted of Ryan Sweeny, Michael Taylor, and Jermaine Mitchell, …. Who?? Since then, they have traded for Josh Reddick, Smith, and Colin Cowgill, and signed Crisp, Cespedes, and Jonny Gomes. The moneyball concept used to be acquiring players with high OBP’s, that concept now seems to be all about converting a weakness into a surplus. Let’s say you lock in Crisp in center and Cespedes in right, that leaves Oakland with four outfielders, two left-handed and two right-handed all competing for left field. I’m not sure if Beane has a plan to trade some of this stock, or just wants an incredible amount of depth. Cespedes, Smith, Reddick, Cowgill and Crisp are all under team control for at least the next three years, so it seems that Gomes is the most expendable. This amount of outfielders leaves me as confused as Scott Hatteberg must’ve been when he was told that he was going to replace Jason Giambi at first base in 2002. I honestly cannot come to any conclusion on what Beane expects to do with all of these outfielders. My best guess is that he hopes Gomes gets enough at-bats in 2012, to have some value at the trade deadline, then trade Smith either before 2013 or during, and have Crisp, Cespedes, and Reddick as a lethal outfield in 2014. I’m not sure if Beane’s strategy for the future is the right one, but the last time he thought outside the box like this, his team was a perennial contender.

24 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not so much moneyball.
I think it’s more Beane doing what he can given the budget and the circumstances. He has always been more of a look to the future guy rather then a here and now guy. He is a very outside the box thinker so the way he goes about things are a bit unconventional. Also he has his mind set on player and eventually gets them. The A’s had their eyes on both Cowgill and Cespedes for years now, and they found a way to get them.
Great post.
I think the past couple of years, Beane has been in “acquire assets” mode. This leads to some gains (HRod for Willingham, Mazzarro for DeJesus). None of them are real game changers. Yes, he won those deals. He also won the Scott Sizemore for David Purcey deal. You can say him grabbing Guillermo Moscoso was also a win.
Unfortunately, all those winning deals merely beget incremental gains. None of them are game changers. Improving by .5 WAR at each position and each spot in the rotation still only gets you 7 wins ahead. If our record was 82-80, adding 7 wins would be fringe contention, but unfortunately it was far lower.
It looks like this stockpiling is really about taking that incremental gain and trying to make it a much bigger gain one year in the future. So instead of immediately realizing that half-win improvement, he is trying to go for a 1-2 win improvement at a position, but that improvement may not be realized until 2013.
I believe that is what he is looking at with Seth Smith and Josh Reddick, basically trying to win trades (I think one or both will be flipped for players with more potential that will be more relevant in 2013). Gomes will likely stay because having a cheap backup OF who can hit lefties is useful off the bench. Cowgill could either be flipped or simply be kept as a backup OF, representing a marginal improvement over Ryan Sweeney.
I think that his trading of Cahill and Gio is taking that to an extreme level, i.e. improving marginally over marginal players isn’t really that great. But what about improving greatly over already great players?
In 2013, it’s quite possible that Parker will be better than Gio and Peacock (or Milone) will be better than Cahill. And then they still have Cowgill, AJ Cole, Milone (or Peacock), and Derek Norris. If 2012 wasn’t a contending year, why not try to leverage your assets into vast improvements in 2013? You also still have Miles Head and Raul Alcantara left over from the Bailey trade.
Paying the money for Cespedes represents a desire to improve by more than 1 WAR at an OF position, again 2012 could be a rocky start and an adjustment period. But by the end of the season or 2013, he should hopefully be reaching his potential, representing a huge improvement over any current OF the A’s have on their roster or in the minors.
By 2015, I think the idea is that at the very least we would have improved at all OF spots by at least 1-2 WAR (with better backup OFs) and we would have improved at least 3 spots in our rotation by the same margin. There is plenty more that can be done for the infield as well. So yeah I think the idea is to simply win trades even more, and seemingly superfluous moves are done with an eye to winning a future trade.
If by "the new Moneyball strategy" you mean
something that Beane does opportunistically because the situation randomly presents itself and then afterward journalists try to invent a grand unified theory to explain it, then the answer to question #3 is yes.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
by iglew on Feb 16, 2012 1:52 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Everything the A's do from now until the end of the Beane era
will in some way be connected to Moneyball. I’ve come to grips with this.
Yeah, this isn't moneyball.
Yoenis Cespedes and Seth Smith aren’t market inefficiencies. It seems more like Beane is still incredibly competitive and had some money to burn, so why not put a decently entertaining team on the field?
Speaking of moneyball, though, I have been thinking about the number of undersized RHP that Beane’s drafted or acquired over the past year.
Nathaniel Kilcrease is 5’6" and posted a 1.95 FIP with Vermont last year.
Tanner Peters is 6’0", 150 pounds and posted a 2.26 FIP with Vermont.
Andrew Granier is 6’0" and posted a 2.03 FIP in rookie ball and a 3.45 FIP in Vermont as a starter.
You also have Gray, who is 5’11", and Peacock and Milone, who are both listed at 6’1". The first four were all drafted last season, and Peacock and Milone were obviously acquired a couple months ago. Six players isn’t enough to make a positive statement or anything, but it’s a curious “trend.”
73": The new market inefficiency!!!
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
trading up
ever hear of the guy that had a paper clip, and he kept trading for one thing and then trade that for another until he eventually got a house? I think Billy is trying his version of that. Always getting a little bit more value than before, not letting his immediate need dictate the trade, which means you trade from strength.
slide! jeremy slide!
Wanna buy a paper clip?
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'll trade you a paper clip and 2 broke girls
for your house and one modern family.
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
#3
Remember when we were all puzzling over McPhereson, Fox, and Chavez all penciled in to play first? That didn’t work out so great.
#3
So at first you have sucky outfield. And your best prosects who should replace sucky outfielders are also sucky. What do you do? Play the sucky prospects to give them time to definitively prove they suck?, Or go out and get a bunch more mediocre outfielders (and now one pretty good one in Yo), throw them in the cauldron of spring training and play the 3 best ones.
I don’t understand why every one is sooooo confused over this.
slide! jeremy slide!
Right, but the only negative is that Beane probably would have acted differently if he had known he was getting Cespedes.
Getting what, five other outfielders before that move seems an unwise use of resources now.
true,
but that is being highly critical. The cespedes move came out of no where, probably even surprised billy he was able to snag him. So yeah, that is going to alter plans a bit. Oh No! now we have a glut of outfielders because we unexpectedly picked up one the best available ones!
Doesn’t seem unwise at all, just fortunate.
slide! jeremy slide!
You also need a lot of OFers to get through a season
Having 7 good OFers is a glut. Having 5 really isn’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 think the real genius of the move was offering the same money for less years.
If it turns out he sucks the money is wasted anyway so the years of the contract aren’t important. If he’s actually any good, not only did you win with your low bid, you’re in a great position to negotiate an extension if it turns out he’s good.
"When you find your way. Then you see it disappear."
You don't think if 6/38 would have gotten it done because it was the best offer,
that wouldn’t have been better for the A’s? Because then they’d have him under contract through 2017 and if he tanked they’d only have to eat $2M more to cut their losses.
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
At some point you don't want to eat $2M more.
I think there is a marginal utility argument here somewhere.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 20, 2012 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, but for that $2M you have him for 2 more seasons.
You only eat $2M if he’s bad. If he’s good, you get him for $1M/year for 2 more years.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
2million isn't much in baseball
Didn’t the A’s pay Jack Cust 2mil just to play in AAA for half a season?
by Bender Bending Rodriguez on Feb 27, 2012 9:38 AM PST up reply actions

by 


























