Long-Term Outlook
by notsellingjeans on Feb 4, 2012 12:03 AM PST
Email
PrintI wrote Lew Wolff a short note Sunday morning and dropped it in a box, but did not hear back. Here was my comment/question, paraphrased:
"Do you plan to keep payroll at $40-50M over the next four seasons, and then splurge with a major-free agent acquisition right as a new stadium opens, pushing payroll to $80M+? If so, I'm very excited about the team's vision and future. Thank you for your contributions to this franchise."
This is probably a different comment than Wolff is used to hearing from fans, and that's part of why I made the drive over the bridge and hoped that it would find it's way to him. The loudest voices are the ones in opposition, and perhaps rightfully so. But they aren't the only voices.
(To Wolff's credit, he probably focused his one-on-one Q and A's with Oakland partisans, not people who wanted to pat him on the back).
Here are some of my thoughts on recent developments and future developments, in bullet-point/quick hits style:
#1 The A's received about $32M in revenue sharing in 2011. The new provision in the CBA requires teams to spend 25% above what they receive in revenue sharing, which means that we can expect the A's to operate with above a $40M payroll from this point forward (since we can assume the game will remain quite healthy and revenue sharing money will remain robust).
#2 I think that first point plays at least a small role in the A's decisions to bring back Coco Crisp for $7M+, trade for Seth Smith ($2.4M), sign Bartolo Colon ($2M) and Jonny Gomes ($1M).
#3 The rebuttal would be, "Then why did they trade three of their best millionaires and most recognizable faces, if they face pressure to keep up a minimum salary?" Because Bailey, Cahill, and Gonzalez were all assets that were going to rapidly depreciate over the next two seasons, and the A's had to get something of value for them before they did.
#4 I don't think the age of the prospects acquired in the Bailey/Cahill/Gonzalez trades really matters. Ultimately, those three guys simply needed to yield future assets - not necessarily assets that all coalesce right around 2015-2016. Millone will pitch well for 2-3 years, hit arbitration, and then be traded for his minor-league, league-minimum salary clone.
#5 Related to point #3: If you're on board with this plan as much as I am, the position player you might want to root the hardest for this season is Kurt Suzuki. He's the only offensive player locked up long-term, and perhaps the best candidate to be traded in the next 12 months. Because the A's are not a playoff contender, and are building for a playoff season years away, their best-case scenario is that Suzuki has a breakout season that makes his contract a very attractive asset to the rest of the league. If Suzuki re-establishes the defensive rep of before and hits 20 bombs, he is suddenly a very attractive alternative to teams that don't want to face the sticker shock of Yadi Molina in free agency next offseason. I think Molina will get a very large free agent contract that ends up making Suzuki look like a comparably attractive alternative to several teams. And I think Zooks will be dealt.
#6 So, that's how you perpetually keep payroll at $40-50M the next few years. Trade Suzuki, then eventually Seth Smith and Grant Balfour, replacing their salary with low-cost FA's and the wave of young guys who hit arbitration.
#7 Could Brandon McCarthy actually yield a draft pick? The new CBA has a provision that guarantees any player offered arbitration a salary that is the average of the top 125 players if he accepts. This will come out to about $12.5M. Think about how well Brandon McCarthy pitched last year. Let's say puts up another terrific season, and, since he's the opening-day starter lined up for 34-35 starts, he actually throws 200 innings of top-10-in-the-league FIP and xFIP numbers again. He has to get a three year, $30M offer at that point, right? Given his injury history, I say that he would turn down an arbitration offer from the A's if he has another great season next year. He would want to enter free agency and get multi-year security, knowing that Edwin Jackson is a worse pitcher than he is and Jackson had a three-year, $30M offer in hand. Brandon McCarthy having an outstanding season and turning down an arbitration offer is another scenario you are rooting for if you have this 2016 A's vision, because it would yield two high draft picks for the A's in the 2013 draft. And those high draft picks may indeed contribute to the next A's playoff team.
#8 Wolff recently said that a more realistic target for a San Jose stadium opening is the 2016 season. This coincides with two other key pieces of info: a.) The new CBA has a provision that states that the A's and 14 other large-market teams will no longer be eligible to receive revenue sharing...with the special asterisk that the A's are exempt from this if they don't have a new stadium in place by 2016. I think that target season is significant, and I think the rest of the league is desirous to get the A's off the $32M-per-season revenue sharing teat permanently. b.) The Giants are done servicing their stadium debt after 2017. MLB has delayed this process long enough that the Giants will be practically done paying off their "new" stadium by the time the A's have one of their own to pay for.
#9 I would like the A's, right now, to start thinking and planning long-term about the players they'd like to acquire once they finally are a desirable destination. Let's say Bryce Harper does indeed win the right field job in Washington this season, and sticks in the big leagues. That would put him on pace to be a 25-year-old free agent after 2017, if he isn't extended (which is perhaps unlikely, as a Scott Boras client). It's easy for me to dream about the left-handed hitting Harper hitting tape-measure shots over the collonnade, out of the ballpark and onto Autumn Parkway. But a gorgeous new stadium that Harper has had a chance to view firsthand during the 2016-2017 seasons, and a San Jose A's perennial playoff contender with newly deep pockets, would make that dream more feasible than it is today.
#10 If Harper isn't your fancy, you could attach that same vision to Jason Heyward, or Mike Stanton, or Mike Trout - pick your favorite slugger that's 5-6 years away from free agency. That's the first time that we can hope that our favorite team will be a viable candidate to sign a true star, as the Giants did when the signed Bonds and transformed their franchise in '93. I would like for the A's to do the same, and they can start budgeting for it now, if they have the discipline to simply keep payroll in the $40-$50M range now, and make a dramatic jump in payroll to sign one of the game's best players after the stadium has opened. Personally, I think the West Coast-bred Harper is the perfect guy to patrol right field in front of the expensive collonnade seats, sandwiched in the lineup by righties Grant Green, Michael Choice, Norris, and Michael Taylor or Chris Carter. It will probably require a $25M-per-year, $200M-plus investment by that point, but again, if the team perpetually trades off it's best arbitration talent for prospects as it has done for years, it will be able to afford that type of commitment once a new stadium opens.
[Note: That's the type of conversation I would've loved to have had with Wolff if I'd had the chance, so I thought I'd write it here instead. Please bear with and go easy on me for the lack of links and citation of sources. I love the discussions but have little time to write these days (and you guys know the fact-checking and links take the most time). Hope these bullet points are fodder for conversation here; your feedback is my favorite part of the writing].
107 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great post.
My only disagreement would be Gio Gonzalez’s value “rapidly depreciating over the next two years,” but that’s about it.
I would have like to see you touch on the logjam we’ve created and continue to worsen at COF/1B/DH. Are we just looking to see if guys like Barton, Gomes, Crisp and/or Smith can catch lightning in a bottle and up their stock as trade bait before taking a more legit look at the real potential pillars? Long-term, I see no positive to acquiring the last three, as anyone they’re blocking is ML-ready.
Oakland Athletics * St. Bonaventure Bonnies * Green Bay Packers * Buffalo Sabres * New York Knicks
If value is the what you get for the price you pay,
then if he’s showing the same skills, however great, the value drops as the price you pay goes up. Maybe that’s all that the author meant? Gio’s price was going up….
Yup, price going up and # of years of control going down is enough to lower value...
It’s clear that was one of the Nats considerations, knowing where Gio is at right now, they were able to lock him up for relatively long-term. If Gio was 1 or 2 years away from free agency, that would be a lot harder to do and make him less attractive as a trade target.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 3, 2012 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
Unless the production increases with the price tag ...
… which, in Gio’s case, I believe could be true.
Also, even if the production stays the same, Gio would still have been a bargain by big league terms. Can we not afford players beyond their initial three years? If that’s the case, we might as well close up shop right now. Wasn’t that the whole point of buying out their arby years? So this wouldn’t have to happen?
Oakland Athletics * St. Bonaventure Bonnies * Green Bay Packers * Buffalo Sabres * New York Knicks
by RyanFromBonas on Feb 4, 2012 4:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think buying out arby years can also be
to make them more attractive in a trade (because their upcoming contract numbers are known and are usually more team-friendly than arbitration numbers usually end up being).
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 didn't want to create a whole fanpost, because I don't have enough thoughts on the subject, but I wonder
now that the NFL has paved the way for a Santa Clara county stadium, does Bud now do the same, hoping to see more excitement for 2 pro teams in that area? Now would be the best time for his announcement.
On point 4
You’re right – the prospects don’t need to debut in 2015/16, they just need to be around for 2015-2017 to have a core to build around for those years and beyond. All these guys we aquired except maybe Reddick will be under contract through at least 2017, hopefully giving us a couple of seasons where we’re really good and don’t need a ton of FA help.
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
Smith won't be around. Milone won't be as attractive in his arbitration years. I think 2016 will be Reddick's final arbitration year?
Cole and Parker are the only ones who will be under contractual control through 2018, and that’s if they don’t start their service clock right away.
Fun fact: under their current contracts Cahill and Gonzalez have options through 2017 and 2018, respectively. So, I agree that these precise trades weren’t about 2016 in a direct way. I think the A’s must have either a lot of faith in the guys they got in return, or not very much faith in Gonzalez and Cahill. I can’t figure out which one it is.
don't forget
miles head and raul alcantara, and colin cowgill will also be under contract until around then (of course, head and alcantara under past then)
Snoochies
*if they even make it to the show
- also we’ll have a few more years of draft picks to bring an influx of talent to the minor leagues
From the trades we also have Peacock and Norris
plus the two guys we got from the Bailey trade. Those guys plus Choice and Gray makes me very hopeful if not confident that we’ll be good in 2015-2017. We were only going to be mediocre in the meantime by spending 70M, so why not save 20M and still be mediocre while at the same time gathering prospects?
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
interesting post
I disagree about trading Gio, and I would rather have signed Willingham in August (would have been even less than the very affordable deal he signed with the Twins) but both are old news now.
One point: in managing his injury issue McCarthy himself has said not to expect 200 innings a season from him. 160-170 might be a more reasonable expectation.
sometimes that is the best course
I don’t personally believe it was in this case, since now the A’s seem to be grasping at straws for some power in the lineup this year.
You never know how draft picks will turn out.
You don't sound excited about Manny Ramirez and Magglio Ordoñez.
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
Does it show?
Of the two I’d be less unexcited about Magglio, assuming he recovers fully from his ankle injury.
by OaklandSi on Feb 5, 2012 11:40 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Same here.
If it has to be one or the other, I’ll take Magglio. If it’s up to me: Neither, i.e., Carter, Cowgill, Allen, Taylor.
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
So THAT'S why I keep not winning.
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
"They forgot to knock on his door"
Oopsies.
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
What happened to signing Justin Upton?!
I was re-reading some 2008/2009 pre-draft notes from Keith Law the other day because my job is boring, and I came across this nugget which I had since forgotten about:
13. Oakland Athletics
Mike Leake, RHP, Arizona State: Some chance they take Mike Trout or Grant Green, but Leake seems to be the preference, and it’s likely at least two of their three choices are there for them. They could call an audible on Tate if he falls here
We seriously considered taking Mike Trout in 2009. Ooof. And I say that as someone who still likes Grant Green.
It's particularly painful since Green is now playing CF
but on the other hand, it wasn’t like someone else jumped on him immediately. He fell all the way to the slegnA at #25. In fact, after the A’s took Green, the Dbacks and the White Sox both picked OFs before Trout was taken.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Great post, a lot to think about in here!
I really wish you actually got to have this conversation with Wolff.
Some thoughts:
1) I think we can all agree that it is going to be very tough to compete with the Rangers and Angels for the next 2-3 years. Beyond that is hard to predict as you never know what will happen, but it is doubtful we will finish higher than 3rd in the division at any time between now and 2014 (I won’t say impossible…)
2) That said, I like your idea because it’s not a pure “tank until 2015” concept (although it might turn out as one in effect). Basically let’s get the most value out of the players we have, just limit the payroll so the ownership will have years worth of profits piled up, ready to reinvest at the right time. It’s not based in a pie in the sky hope that we get a top 5 pick and that pick doesn’t turn out like Todd Van Poppel. The more value we get out of Suzuki and McCarthy and any other veteran, the better placed we will be to grab the players that we need for 2016-17.
3) Something that will help if/when we execute this plan and get rid of higher priced players in a few years is the many high picks we have in this year’s draft. I seriously hope we hit on at least one. Also the young Dominican and Latin American prospects we’ve started to pile up will hopefully be near MLB level around 2017.
4) However, there will be a point where we have (hopefully) Carter, Choice, Gray, Parker, Milone, Weeks, Sizemore, etc…basically a bunch of young players that would be a great team. I think that point is around 2014 or 2015. At that point I simply can’t see the fire sale happening. I certainly can’t see Beane ever getting rid of talent if he thinks there’s a realistic shot at the playoffs (with 2 wild cards, that shot gets better).
5) So, basically, I support this plan with some reservations, the main one being that if we have a pile of young, cheap talent, and we are actually playing well in 2014, and a new stadium is under construction, there’s no point in doing the Gio trade all over again. I think we will have enough in upcoming draft picks, guys like AJ Cole, and international signings so that our minor league system will stay healthy even as we call up these great prospects. I think a free agent will be more likely to sign knowing that there is already a serious contender in the works and they are the missing piece to AL West dominance.
6) Lastly – if some of young players turn out like Cahill (who basically was a league average SP), then I say yes, do the Cahill trade again and re-up according to your plan. I feel like we probably lost nothing going to Parker from Cahill, and we got a useful player in Cowgill. So I’m not calling for a complete halt on trading young talent if we have a nice nucleus, but I wouldn’t trade a Gio-level young talent, that would likely be necessary to maintain a competitive team post-2014.
It's Strange To Think
That Suzuki is trade bait now after he was a young, up-and-coming catcher who had been locked up long-term and was supposed to be an untouchable.
History has shown...
…that a long-term contract does not equal “untouchability”.
A hot dog at the ballgame beats roast beef at the Ritz.
~Humphrey Bogart
According to this article,
right here, the A’s have drafted the 3rd most WAR over the past 10 drafts, with 72.5. They trail only the Red Sox (99.2) and Dodgers (83.0). Huh.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
I think the AN community in general has grossly inflated expectations of what a normal draft ought to yield. The A’s have drafted pretty well over all.
I think part of the perception problem is there are fluctuations over the years, and the A’s, after having several good years earlier in the decade, had a downturn around 2007-2009. Memory of the good years set expectations unreasonably high, and then the bad years were perceived to be even more dismal than they are.
2007 really was a complete bust, but it’s just a one-year blip. There’s no such thing as worse than zero, and having a zero year is not all that uncommon. Take a look at the Angels’ or Mariners’ 2007 draft — they’ve got little or nothing to show for it either. (The Rangers had a great 2007, but their 2004 was crappy.)
These things happen. But A’s fans have blown it out of proportion and falsely extrapolated into a general pattern of the A’s being bad at drafting. They’re not.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
Especially
when you consider how low they drafted up until 2008. It’s even more impressive still when you realize this data gives more credit to older drafts when the A’s were drafting in the high 20s, since those draft classes have been around longer and had more time to accumulate WAR.
by BWH on Feb 3, 2012 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Jonah Keri's article on Beane was pretty harsh...and concluded that the A's problem is failure to draft talented players
Kind of ridiculous. I am going to greatly enjoy watching Weeks this year.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 3, 2012 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Nope, he was right on the money. I hope to enjoy Weeks too, but he's just one guy
and he isn’t a superstar or anything.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 3:40 AM PST up reply actions
Would you care to go through the past 7 or 8 drafts
and list all the guys taken in the first/sandwich rounds you would take over the guys we took? It’s not a long list. Given where they’ve drafted they’ve done pretty well, especially recently.
Also below, you point out Price and Longoria as being stars, which they are. However they were drafted 1st and 3rd, so it’s expected that you take impact guys there. Also, the Rays (whose balls Jonah Keri was so vociferously washing in that article) massively screwed up in 2008 by taking Tim Beckham first overall, in front of Posey and Hosmer (and hell, even Weeks looks better).
I'll make a list because I'm bored
Start in 2010:
Michael Choice is better than anything taken after 10 in the 1st/supplemental round. Hell, after the top 3 of Harper, Taillon and Machado he could be the best prospect in that draft.
2009
Grant Green is behind Mike Trout, Tyler Skaggs, Brett Jackson, and Shelby Miller. Miller was asking for a huge signing bonus, so you can’t fault them for passing there. Otherwise it’s hard to blame the A’s for taking what looks to be the 4th best prospect available to them at that spot.
2008
Weeks looks like a hit. Ike Davis and Brett Lawrie were still on the board, but no complaints about that pick.
2007
James Simmons was a bust mainly due to injury, but at 26 you can’t be expecting a star. Porcello was still on the board, but asking for way too much money. Travis D’Arnaud, Brett Cecil, and Tommy Hunter are the only other guys of value who were on the board.
2006
We were scheduled to draft 22nd that year, but gave up the pick for Esteban Loaiza. After 22, the only productive players taken were Daniel Bard, Chris Coghlan, Joba Chamberlain, and Chris Perez. In the 2nd round that year, only 3 decent major leaguers were taken: Brett Anderson, Trevor Cahill (! by us!) and Justin Masterson.
2005
Cliff Pennington at 21, and Travis Buck at 36. At 21 we could have had Ellsbury, Garza, Buchholz, Rasmus, and Jed Lowrie.
2004
They took Landon Powell at 24, Richie Robnett at 26, Danny Putnam at 36, and Huston Street at 40. After 24, the only decent players taken were Blake DeWitt (liberal use of the word “decent” here) and Gio Gonzalez, taken 38th. And Huston Street is probably the 4th or 5th best guy in that round, after Verlander, Jered Weaver, Gio, and maybe Stephen Drew.
The point here is they really haven’t missed that much with their top picks in recent years. Either there was nothing great left when they drafted, or they got one of the top 4 or 5 guys available to them in hindsight. It’s unreasonable to expect any team to get the very best player at their slot every time. In perfect hindsight, at best they’d have drafted:
Mike Trout instead of Grant Green
Travis D’Arnaud instead of James Simmons
Jacoby Ellsbury over Cliff Pennington
Gio Gonzalez over Danny Putnam
That’s it. That’s given the completely unrealistic expectation of taking the best guy at every spot. They’ve done pretty well with their picks, it’s not like there was an avalanche of talent that they passed up on at any point.
by BWH on Feb 7, 2012 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Nice job.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
Now there's a hell of a mixed metaphor.
Vociferous ball washing?!?
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
No, no, don't take it back.
I was celebrating, not criticizing.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
A standard ball washing is $50.
You pay extra for the vociferous.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
yeah, what BWH said.
In all seriousness though you pose a really good point below with regards to drafting at least one superstar. We haven’t drafted a Jeter or a Pujols or someone like that. I guess Giambi or Chavez would count, but were those guys even drafted by Beane?
Still, I think Beane has done better than most GMs in the draft given the A’s general draft position. One has to hope that Michael Choice is That Guy…otherwise if he is a typical 2.5-3 WAR player…it doesn’t get us anywhere.
Even though all the larger market teams buy players at will, it seems like the good ones have at least developed 1-2 superstars from within. So yes, there is something to be said about that and it can be looked at as a failure from that standpoint; but it might be a failure in player development as much as it is in drafting.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 7, 2012 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, the AN community understands the positive aspects of the draft
Everyone knows the A’s have been superb in picking up pitching (except for Simmons) in the draft and through trade, and developing pitching both at the minor league and major league levels.
The complaint is about position players and how, for many reasons, development has been slow to non-existent.
Lots of conflicting statements here and in prior threads about the A's drafting:
To paraphrase:
1) Draft is a crapshoot. The crappy drafting is not Beane’s fault.
2) A’s are 3rd best in drafting, implying that Beane led front offices are good at it
3) A normal draft is not going to yield much. Expectations are too high.
Which is it?
1) Is the draft skill or luck? Saying “both” is a copout. Everyone knows it’s both. Which is more important?
2) Have the A’s actually been successful/lucky? The statement that 72.5 WAR is 3rd best 2002-2011 seems wrong unless I’ve misunderstood. Rays seem to have more than that just 2002-2006.
3) Measurement differences aside, and assuming the A’s are somewhere in the Top 10 in WAR drafted and signed over the past 10 years, is that a good way to measure success? For example why leave out the value of the current roster? Evan Longoria is only 4 WAR better than Nick Swisher since 2002. Is that representative of the difference in quality of the two players? Similarly Joe Blanton has 18 WAR to David Price’s 10. Does that mean Blanton is going to end up the more valuable player over the course of his career than Price? Rather than taking the WAR over the past 10 years, why not add the current value of the drafted players to value of draftees over the past 10 seasons? That way you don’t overrate teams who drafted polished but mediocre talent.
4) What the heck is a “normal” draft? If you mean “average”, then who cares? The point isn’t to aim for mediocrity. It’s to do well enough to be a World Series contender. It’s pretty clear that the A’s have not drafted well enough to do that at least since 2001 when they drafted Harden. Why should our expectations be for anything other than “good enough to be a World Series contender”. Obviously they won’t make it every single year, but in my mind, and the mind of all A’s fans who don’t attend games when the team doesn’t win at least 85 games or so, they’re not doing well enough.
5) I’m still going to keep bringing up the fact that winning teams have a core of good to great players – the five AL teams in 2011 who contended for the World Series title averaged about 5.5 WAR from their Top 6 players. The last player the A’s drafted who’s had more than one 4 WAR season is Rich Harden. That means that since 2002 they’ve drafted zero players who would even be about the 5th best player on a championship team except in a career year.
I really have a problem with the Beane attitude that marginal improvements in aggregate WAR of cheap players is relevant to putting together a championship team. For example I don’t care that Nick Swisher gave the A’s 10 WAR in 3 seasons at very low pay. That’s still only a very slightly above average player, and not someone who would be among the core of a championship team most of the time.
Peak matters. It matters in HOF voting — which is why Sandy Koufax (54 WAR) is a HOF and Chuck Finley (54 WAR) isn’t and should not be. It also matters in winning championships. That’s why “Pennants Added” was invented.
If you replace WAR with Pennants Added and include the value of the current rosters and farm, I bet you’d get a very different answer than the A’s have been the 3rd best drafting team over the past 10 years.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 3:39 AM PST up reply actions
My take is this:
The A’s have, in fact, been successful at drafting pitchers and it has offset (statistically) their inability to identify good hitting talent. So if you look at it as a whole, the A’s have been fine, but if you’re looking for some position players to brag about in order to balance out a team that can also hit…good luck.
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
The notable pitchers over the past 10 years -- Cahill, Bailey, Blanton, Braden --
don’t seem all that much better than the position players — Swisher, Ethier, Suzuki, Weeks. It’s true they’ve made the majors sooner.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
You know that I would go a different way with this, WC.
But I heartily agree with the underlying starting premise here, ie, that we can’t get very far in a discussion of how good a team is at drafting until we define what makes a draft “good”. That will vary subjectively, depending on what a person expects from a draft, which in turn is function of what one wants from a baseball team generally (and also on which part of that one chooses to identify as “the draft” as opposed to subsequent trades, development, etc).
It appears that the study in question did some sort of summing of career WAR. That’s one way of looking at it. Certainly not the only way. Probably much closer to my view than to yours, though not an exact match for me either.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
This is true. Basically all I want from drafters is to get 1 superstar every 10 years
plus 3 perennial 4+ WAR players. Then you’re more than halfway to the core of the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Rangers and Tigers.
I’m guessing that you probably do place a higher value on a 74 win season than I do, but if I’m Beane I don’t care specifically about WC or iglew as we are just 2 people, and 2 NRAF at that. I do care which approach will help the most in generating revenues. A’s fans have shown that they show up at about the same rate for all losing seasons but there is a jump around .500 and another around 85 wins.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not getting that article as I'm not an Insider, but there seems to be something wrong there
I have the Rays with more than 73 WAR just from 2002-2006.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 3:04 AM PST up reply actions
Only if you give them credit for not signed players.
Which is definitely a position that is acceptable but you can see both ways as being right.
by Rio on Feb 7, 2012 5:24 AM PST up reply actions
With a quick calculation from b-ref for 2002-2006
OAK 121 WAR / 101 WAR with unsigned players
TBD 82 WAR / 61 WAR with unsigned players
by Rio on Feb 7, 2012 5:37 AM PST up reply actions
the article only gives credit for WAR accumulated with the drafting team
by NRC on Feb 7, 2012 8:51 AM PST up reply actions
Really, in that case they're underrating Swisher, Blanton, Ethier....Here's my rough estimate
just using players that spent substantial time in the majors (from fangraphs):
Athletics:
2002: Swisher, Blanton, Teahen, Baker – 46
2003: Ethier – 16
2004: Street, Suzuki, Braden – 29
2005: Pennington, Buck – 9
2006: Cahill, Bailey – 9
2007: Nothing
2008: Weeks, Ross – 3
2009: Nothing yet
2010: Nothing yet
2011: Nothing yet
Total WAR: 112
7+ WAR Seasons: 0
4+ WAR Seasons: 3
Rays:
2002: Upton, Hammel – 29
2003: Young, Jaso – 5
2004: Niemann, Sonnanstine, Davis – 12
2005: Hellickson – 2
2006: Longoria, Jennings, Cobb – 30
2007: Price, Moore – 11
2008: Nothing yet
2009: Nothing yet
2010: Nothing yet
2011: Nothing yet
Total WAR: 89
7+ WAR Seasons: 2
4+ WAR Seasons: 8
It looks to me like the A’s have done a better job of drafting a greater number of polished players with average major league (so very good) ability, while the Rays have done a better job of drafting stars (Longoria, Upton, Price) and future stars (Jennings, Moore)
I personally believe the latter is more important than the former in putting together a championship team, while the former is more important in avoiding 100 loss seasons.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Again, position.
the Rays have done a better job of drafting stars (Longoria, Upton, Price)
Longoria: 3rd overall
Upton: 2nd overall
Price: 1st overall
Congrats to the Rays for drafting guys we had literally no shot at. I proved above that there were virtually no stars available to us whatsoever.
Similarly, the Yankees have gotten more out of free agency than we have, so they must be better run than the A’s right? Or, realistically, we are prohibited from the talent that’s been available to them through free agency, just like we’ve been prohibited from the kind of draft talent that’s made the Rays an elite team.
by BWH on Feb 7, 2012 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Yes it does prove that. Kotsay, Kendall, Chavez, Loiaza, Rhodes, Redman, etc
were not good uses of dollars for players in their FA years.
Similarly, the Yankees have gotten more out of free agency than we have, so they must be better run than the A’s right?
Not sure why you’re so intent on making excuses for Beane, but I’m not buying it.
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
BTW, congratulations on conveniently omitting Moore and Jennings
tko bira, masturbira -- Croatian proverb quoted by elcroata
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 7, 2012 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
I'm making the point that you can't just assume everyone has the ability to acquire talent equally.
The Yankees can spend more money than us, so they should be judged differently. The Rays had top 10 picks for like a decade, so they should be judged differently. And yes, the Rays have hit on a pair of guys who could be stars in rounds 5 and 8, respectively, but they also completely botched the first overall pick one time under the Friedman regime so it’s not exactly rainbows and lollipops in that front office either.
by BWH on Feb 7, 2012 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
This is a very interesting discussion you two are having!
I don’t know anything that would tip scales one way or another, but I do recall having my heart sort of warmed and broken at the same time reading last year’s piece on Kei Igawa in the NY Times. The Yankess dropped $46M for no return. Well, ok, some return. Brian Cashman got to say:
"He does things his own way." Like commuting to and from Manhattan. "Yeah, he’s passed me on the drive down to Trenton," Cashman said. "He drives faster than his fastball."
Point being, Yankess take some bad bumps as well as scores on the FA market. I don’t know if there are other big wastes of money.
Yankesssss....
I noticed I misspelled that nasty team’s name more than once in the same way: sort of a Voldemortian hiss that I quite like, even if it was an accident!
If only they didn't flick $46M off their arm like I do a pesky mosquito.
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, right.
The point is they’ve gotten better players through free agency because top notch talent is available to them due to their payroll. My understanding is that WC is saying that Beane and company are bad at their jobs because the A’s don’t have a star, elite level player.
There were 24 players who put up 6+ WAR last season. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll say that those who cost more than $10M are priced out of the A’s range. Excluding guys who were drafted before the A’s had a shot at them, and excluding guys who were too expensive, the list dwindles to 8 guys.
Jacoby Ellsbury
Matt Kemp
Jose Bautista
Dustin Pedroia
Ian Kinsler
Curtis Granderson
Joey Votto
Ben Zobrist
There just hasn’t been the opportunity to acquire this talent. Having a bottom third payroll and a bottom third draft position is not an easy circumstance. Also, these guys were all drafted a long time ago. Of the 6+ WAR crew, only Kershaw and Longoria were drafted after 2005, and both of them were top 7 picks.
by BWH on Feb 7, 2012 8:55 PM PST up reply actions
well..........
at least let us keep one player who’s jersey we can buy……
one major problem the A’s have had is one a client of mine posited the other day….“used to go to ballpark, but after a while I just didnt know who played for them anymore….”
always treating players as analytical data hasn’t done much for attendence! at some point these mad player movements that seem to get more and more frequent by the year need to stop at some point…..
I am sorry but trading proven major league talent in their early 20’s for more prospects is getting quite old…prospective stadium we have been hearing about for a decade or not
by amadorjon on Feb 4, 2012 1:33 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Weeks is a pretty good lock to stay around a while
And if you’re willing to wait, Choice.
choice...
not sold on Choice yet….that said, if these guys did turn into superstars, Beane would just trade them away anyways…ya know 23 year olds for 13 year old prospects for that stadium decision that should be coming sometime around 2022!!!!
let’s not kid ourselves…I know there are a lot of Beane defenders on this site, but the poor performance on the field and the poor attendance in the coliseum can be directly attributed to Beane’s terrible decisions!
after 5 years of abject mediocrity, why arent we in better shape? and arbitrarily blaming it on the stadium doesnt work for me anymore….that dog don’t hunt!!!!!
I feel you on everything, but
Choice is an absolute beast, if you’ve ever seen him play, the kid plays like he belongs and will be a star at the next level for years to come. There are a few things will have to work on, but he’s demonstrated that he’s willing to do what it takes to improve. His K rates went down exponentially (from 30.3 in 2010 to 15.8 last year) and his power is for real. I do understand you wanting to see more before being totally sold, but this kid is the truth!
Hopefully we get this stadium so we can see some of these
kids retire with us, or at least play well into their primes. I really feel like once we have the money they’ll at least lock up the core. Then, the only question will be who do they value as core members and who’s expendable.
Exactly right. The plan is to keep some of these guys long term,
IF the stadium issue is finally solved. And then like you said, the question is, “Who’s worth committing to long-term and who 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 know your allowed to have your own opinion, but I just don't agree with you
1. Choice is for real. Great power, great speed, solid defense, solid average, and his high K rate is evened out by a high walk rate
2. Billy doesnt trade our prospects once they become superstars just for the hell of it. Every time he does, he knows that we’re not in a great position to win the WS the next year (and the stadium situation sucks).
3. You cant really complain about only 5 years of mediocrity. It stinks as a fan, but on the outside looking in, there are plenty of teams who have had longer years of failure. When was the last time the Pirates had a winning season? Look at the Astros terrible organization. The Orioles and Blue Jays haven’t made the playoffs since the 90’s. Look at the Nationals, the Mets, the Marlins… A 5 year playoff drought while still having 9 WS titles (4 in Oakland alone) really isn’t so bad if you think about it
I was expecting
the at least we aren’t the Pirates defense…………
the guy has had 5 years to produce at least a .500 team….and he can’t do that!
to say now, after 5 years of .500 or worse baseball, that it is the ideal time to rebuild does not fly with me or most A’s fans, in case you haven’t noticed the poor attendence in recent years!!!!
the stadium is no longer a viable excuse….poor drafting and terrible trades…Beane is no genius and the sooner there is turnover in the front office, the better it will be for A’s fans
soon beane will be trading for unborn fetus’ of major league players for the impending stadium opening in 2038 and there will still be a certain segment of A’s fans defending him…..
sorry I refuse to any longer!!
Actually we were 81-81 in 2010...so we did have a .500 team 2 seasons ago.
I think on paper a lot of us thought the 2011 team looked better than the 2010 team, we actually had a slugger in Willingham, an above average OF in DeJesus, a great rotation, beefed up our bullpen with Balfour and Fuentes, etc. On paper I feel like we should have had a winning season last year but it just didn’t work out. It happens.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 6, 2012 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
I know
we were .500 in 2010….is that the new playoffs for us under beanes tenure??
if you look at my comment it acknowledges that by saying “after 5 years of .500 or worse baseball”
I was responding to "the guy has had 5 years to produce at least a .500 team...and he can't do that!"
I get your point and your frustration. But this is far from Beane’s fault.
These are the teams I would consider “small-market”:
Baltimore (maybe)
Cleveland
Tampa Bay
Kansas City
Minnesota
Oakland
Florida
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
maybe Arizona
Florida had some success years ago, but they traded away all their good players.
Milwaukee has had some success lately but they let their best player, Prince Fielder, leave in free agency. They let CC Sabathia leave in free agency. And they completely sucked ass for 20 years before this latest run of mild success.
KC has sucked as long as I can remember. Same with Baltimore (I guess ever since the Jeffrey Maier b.s. home run play).
Cincinnati has been ok lately but I can’t remember the last time they did anything significant
Cleveland let go of all their good players because they couldn’t afford it and sucked for a long time. Now they might be good. But they had a few players play out of their mind last year(Masterson,Hannahan, etc.) and still couldn’t really compete.
Tampa Bay was completely horrible until these past few years. And they have gotten rid of some great players like Garza, Crawford, etc. They have had a good run recently but this was after a very long period of suck.
Minnesota has been better.
As you point out teams like the Pirates have gotten rid of all their good players as well (from Bonds/Bonilla/Drabek to Giles to Bay etc.)
But there’s no other team on this list that has been able to compete without having a crappy team for a long time (and many of them have had crappy teams for a long time and still haven’t put anything together).
And even some large market teams like the Nationals, Mets, Astros, and others have been even worse than the A’s.
You judge him against the big market teams with double the budget, it’s not a fair comparison. If he had $70 million more to play with every season I bet he would keep a lot more players and even sign big free agents (if they would be willing to play in our football stadium).
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 6, 2012 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
also,
the Twins opened brand spankin new Target Field in 2010 which will allow them to spend a lot more and get way more attendance…they had worst record in AL last season but still broke 3 million attendance mark.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Feb 6, 2012 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
sorry
but I have come to believe that billys incessant trades and not keeping any players that fans can get behind are reason number 1 that the stadium is empty and we have no money!!!!
treating players as analytical stats rather than assets that fans follow and enjoy watching and getting behind has emptied the coliseum
That is a valid point
Of course people get turned off when the players they like don’t stay on the team for more than a few years. However, how do you expect to retain players when you’re basically asked to keep the team profitable? As far as I know, Wolff/Fisher are not going to let Beane lose money in any given year. Which means he is handcuffed in taking risks.
That is one reason I am glad they still have Kurt and Coco. Some continuity is a good thing
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 6, 2012 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps without meaning to
you have nailed the problem: we have really really bad, uncommitted owners. Sure wish Arte Moreno and Nolan Ryan were committed to “not lose money in any given year.”
It's not Nolan Ryan
Its the rich oil billionaires and TV deal that allow him to not lose money in a given year.
Yeah I don't really like the ownership at all.
I think better owners would have built a new stadium already instead of whined for 10 years. But that’s not Beane’s fault.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 7, 2012 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
It really frustrates me
to see the continuous meme “Oakland is a small-market team.” Oakland is in the FIFTH-LARGEST MLB market. Period. The fact they’ve not parlayed that into a competitive TV deal, or team, or attendance, is pretty much on ownership, not Mt. Davis. They’ve drafted badly, and each time they recognize their farm system is (once again) crap/depleted they trade away great players for great prospects. BUT WE’LL BE REALLY GOOD IN JUST TWO-THREE-FOUR YEARS!!! until it becomes apparent we won’t be and then it is time for Groundhog Day.
Here, again, for the reader's edification
the market size rankings:http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml
From the link posted:
“I’m so confused I’m not sure anymore what exactly constitutes a large and a small market. I used to hear that the Philadelphia Phillies were the largest potential single-market team in baseball, but the Phillies’ management has spent year after year whining about poverty and how they need a new stadium in order to compete. (Compete, exactly, with who? The only other team in their market area was the A’s, and they moved nearly half a century ago.) Now, the proposed new stadium will make the Phillies a big-market team again. But what if they continue to win without it? Does that mean they were simply a big-market team all along that was poorly managed? Is that what makes a big-market team big? A new stadium? Or good management?”
So 10 years ago,
the Phillies were a “small-market team” and today they have one of the highest payrolls on baseball and a legitimate shot year after year after year.
Did Philadelphia grow exponentially, so they can afford that pitching staff? Or Jason Heyward? Yadda Yadda?
"small market" when discussing baseball teams isn't just limited to population
It doesn’t necessarily refer to size of the population; it has to do with the baseball market.
For example, the NHL has determined that Winnipeg is a larger hockey market than Atlanta. Nobody would say that Atlanta is a larger market.
Competition obviously is a factor as well. Beautiful new ballpark that is very close to Oakland (and for some east bay folks actually quicker to get to) makes this much more complicated.
Since the 1970’s Oakland hasn’t drawn that well, except for a few years. I don’t pretend to know what percentage of the blame lies on ownership, what percentage lies on being in Oakland, what percentage is based on the size of the baseball market in the Bay Area in general, and what percentage is based on the Giants’ ballpark and presence in the area.
I still maintain that even if ownership maximized the full potential of their stadium and the market, they still would not be anywhere near the Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Phillies, etc. in revenues.
I do agree that they have not come anywhere close in maximizing that potential though and they could do a hell of a lot better.
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 7, 2012 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I see what Wolffe is doing...
and frankly it stinks!!!! I called into the Fitz & Brooks show on Friday because they were discussing the stadium issue. I wanted to voice my opinion, which is the same that I’m seeing here as well;
How about keeping some of our star players so we can build not just a good team but a freaking winning team that will compete to start with in our new stadium?
Unfortunately though Bob chose to scream over me to defend the poor lil billionaire Wolffe, whose just trying to sqeeze a measley $30 billion in profit outta we the paying public for a new stadium with more expensive seats and other crapola of course!!!
Also the fact that most of those who live in San Jose are already el Gigante fans and wouldn’t pay to go see the “minor circuit DH league games”!!! So why bother with the expensive new stadium if he refuses to field a real MLB team anyway!?!?!?!?!?
My thought was a simpler and less expensive alternative of taking over the Raley Field stadium from the RiverCats. The owner just passed away (my condolenses to his family!!) but the timing could be perfect for the A’s!
Buy the stadium and expand by adding outfield seating, close in the bowl so to speak. Add more seating on the baselines and some luxury boxes to get it up to the MLB required 35k+ seating and you have a beautiful downtown ballpark ready to go by 2015 or even earlier of they start right away.
But good ole Bob screamed about the Sacramento area not being able to support Pro sports “look at the Kings and the Monarchs!!”. Whatever BOB!!!! Sac town is a baseball city not a basketball city. Look around BOB!!! How many baseball and softball facilities do you see in and around and near the Sacto metro area? My best guess is at least 25 or 30 easy, and that they host tournaments almost year round due to the great weather.
So sorry BOB!!! The A’s need to stay with the fan base in NorCal because the Southbay would only be a brief rest stop that will eventually lead to the A’s moving somewhere else in less than 10 years and probably out of California!!!
We want our A’s right here in the Northbay where they belong with we the loyal fans!!!
GO Athletics!!!
Rod you’re still okay but Bob is just a “rich-guys-butt-kisser”!!!!
How do you work with that guy?
I think you're mistaken with this post.
Was this supposed to go on bleacherreport.com or the mlb.com site? I think you’re dead on that Wolfe is “trying to sqeeze a measley $30 billion on profit outta we the paying public…”
Business man by day, fearless couch guardian by night.
Rivercat Stadium
cannot be expanded. There are engineering reasons why it won’t work. There has been discussion about this on AN before. They’d pretty much have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild. Adding seating isn’t an option there.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
i believe
there is a foundation in that park to support the construction of an upper deck, not that I actually think sacramento is an option (even if I wish it were so)
There was supposed to be a foundation to support another deck,
however the weather was more rainy than expected and they had to switch materials and change the design slightly in order to get the stadium built on time. It essentially made a second deck not possible without rebuilding the foundation.
The A's should build a second deck,
move the team to Sacramento, and then tarp off the second deck.
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
by Nico on Feb 6, 2012 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
People would be offended and complain that the cheap seats were removed.
They should just tarp the first deck.
Shawn Duinekerk
looks like he’s gonna be pretty good. Anyone have any info or scouting reports on him? Thanks a bunch!
Just curious:
how dow you know he “looks like he’s gonna be pretty good” when you don’t have any info or scouting reports on him? As he is just now 17 years old, and he’s not gained the attention of say, Bryce Harper, how did you come to the conclusion that he “looks like he’s gonna be pretty good?”
...probably should've been more clear,
I wanted more because what I’ve read is that the former “star” of his Aruba Championship team, had raw power and a great feel for the game, and should be able to develop 4 or even 5 tools. I’d already read that scout.com article, was just looking for more. Doesn’t take a genious or superscout to see that 4-5 tools equal to "looks like he’s gonna be pretty good. Assumptions are the mother of all…!
yeah it would be nice to read more about him but frankly how much is there to know about high schoolers from another country?
Do you have any idea where he might start the year?
by Billy Frijoles on Feb 8, 2012 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
My money's on him starting and probably finishing the year in the DSL.
I mean he’s still awfully young at 17 and he only played 9 games there collecting all of 31 ab’s. Expect the A’s to be patient with him as they figure out whether he’s a pitcher or someone who could possibly occupy a corner outfield position. Should be interesting seeing him and Yairo Munoz play on the same team.
i sure hope you are right
Because I am tired of the As being a farm team
Check out my Cycling blog http://cyclebee.blogspot.com/
by Athletic on Feb 5, 2012 7:29 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Here's even more reason to be excited about the "Long Term Outlook" of the team.
4 of Toronto’s top 20 prospect’s came out of last year’s draft. 2 of them coming from the second round and 2 coming as compensation picks. We have 5, one of which being the 11th pick, which could turn into Victor Roache. If we play our cards right we could very well end up having a top 3 system and more importantly a complete monster taking the field in 2015-16, as Cisco Field become’s the newest ballpark and the A’s baseball’s shiny new thing. Anything with name Cisco in it, is bound to be techonologically sound. Faghetaboutit!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
