Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NHL Trade Rumors: Do You Make A Move For Rick Nash?

I have a confession

Dear Athletics Nation,

I hereby inform all that I no longer find myself able to believe. Yes it is true. I can no longer say, truthfully, "In Billy I Trust".

Too much of the team has gone down hill. Our ideals have been thrown to the wind. And if Billy Beane is not the one making all these moves, then David Forst must be arrested, and Beane must be untied and released from Ken Macha's closet.

I am serious when I say this, Billy Beane needs to take a step back and re-evaluate how he is running things.

The organizational strong point, the Farm System, is in tatters. Of top prospects, Barton, Herrera, Windsor and Buck, only Barton was a first round draft pick, and not even by us.

Of those four, all project to make it to the Majors (but then again, so did Dan Meyer) but none of them as superstars. In fact, our best prospect projects to have a peak of John Olerud, not bad but not good enough when you compare it to our arch rivals.

Why is Southern California drafting so much better then us, ten fold. It can not just be the money. We have 1 blue chip prospect, they each seem to have ten. Even if we use the excuse of calling up most of our system to help us in the majors, the draft board has to do its job better.

The trades of late have been absolutely horrible. Only the Dan Haren trade has helped us, the rest have been outright horrendous. Tadano is terrible. Dominguez is stinking it up while John Rheinecker is holding his own in Texas of all places (someone whom I've always felt had the potential to be a Left Handed Justin Duchscherer). The Hudson trade was terrible. The Kendall trade was terrible. The Ginter Trade was terrible. The Bradley trade has been terrible as well.

Only the Chad Gaudin and Cruz/Halsey trades seem to have worked out.

And when we do get money to spend, we spend it where we KNOW we should not. Beane has gone against his PRIMARY rule of law: Do not pay large sums of money for average or below average talent, when someone who can do the same job is languishing in the minors for free.

Mark Kotsay, who has been at best average both on the field and at the plate, was given a large sum of money. (.243/.297/.358/.655)

Jay Payton is being paid $4 million as our 4th outfielder, for above average defense and very little offense (.279/.299/.404/.703), but because of the Bradley trade, is basically our starting Right Fielder.

Now, even taking this example, I would rather have Payton as our everyday starting Centerfield then have Kotsay on the team right now. Payton is outperforming Kotsay at the plate, even with his pathetic numbers, and can hold his own on the field. Kotsay's back has made his defense suffer greatly, and it looks like he will only decline.

Then we have Esteban Loaiza. Signing Esteban Loaiza really does make no sense. Not then. Less now. Loaiza is the exact example of the the of player that the A's have always preached you should never sign. A Player coming off a seemingly good year while playing in an extreme pitchers park in a pitchers league, and giving him a huge sum and a long term contract. You give an aging, average pitcher a contract like that and you know you will regret it.

Why do it, especially when you already have Kirk Saarloos as your 5th Starter already.

And the Signing that does make sense? Its the one that was back to form with everything he did during the golden years: Frank Thomas. A hitter who can get on base, hit for power and on the cheap.

I know this organization likes to look at its philosophy as taking the undervalued and making then succeed. But they have lost the path that has made them successful.

No longer are we spending money wisely.

Even if we are focusing on defense, our hitters are terrible. They can no longer get on base, they can no longer hit for power, and they do not even have the A's philosophy of patience that was supposed to have been drilled into them.

The A's are stressing contact, maybe so much so that all we seem to see are weak ground balls, which is why we have so many double plays. We have Kotsay and Payton swinging at the first pitch every time. We have Crosby chasing anything outside and either striking out or grounding out, not even daring to take a step closer to the plate to get better bat on the ball. We have Dan Johnson who is trying to pull everything.

The A's can no longer use injuries as an excuse. They can no longer say "When we're healthy", as we've already seen that it might never happen. We can not say that "well, once June and the summer comes we'll get hot and dominate", because that is dismissing the flaws of our team. Just because it happened in the past does NOT mean it will happen in the future. I thought we all learned that from Sabermetrics, that the past is simply a guide to the future, but not a guarantee.

Like going to the edge of a map, what lies beyond and forward does not have to necessarily correspond with what you passed. Just because you passed four or five oasis in the desert when you were about to die of thirst, does not always mean there will be a sixth.

The A's have seemed to lose many key figures from our front office. Fuson, DePodesta, Peterson.

We have also seemingly taken a turn for the worst for injuries on every level.

It is time that that Beane takes a step back, look at where the organization is right now, and decide what to do. See what has gone wrong, and fix it.

And as far as the Major League club is concerned, I think we really have only two choices: We can either go out and spend some money and acquire the RIGHT guys for the job, the guys whom this team needs to get its offense back up to league average instead of battling for the Royals for the bottom, or we need to go the route of the Florida Marlins and have a firesale. A Smart Firesale. Trade all of our overpriced veterans for good prospects, and make a team that in a year or two will put is back in 2000.

Otherwise, we will just continue to weaken, while the Angels reload from their farm system and take off. Or the Mariners from theirs. Or the Rangers with their 3 pitching prospects, DVD.

Have the A's forgotten what helped them build this ship? Have they forgotten that it matters not if your pitching is good, if the offense can't even get a hit? That the players and fans alike give up if two runs are scored against them? That 5 Runs is considered a "Big Game" offensively?

This team needs to look at itself and, even if it costs money, go back to its old style of play.

Because screw the defense, if we had Adam Dunn in Left, Carlos Lee in Right, Swisher in Center and Craig Wilson at First Base, I think we'd be doing quite a lot better right now then with the gloves we have at each position right now.

Because what good is it if your staff can hold the opposition to two runs, if your offense can barely struggle to get one.

But frankly, until Beane starts paying more attention to Baseball again instead of Soccer, this team will be in trouble.

Comment 84 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Understandable
And as someone who has never said "In Billy I Trust" I want you to know that I am fully on your side.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 8, 2006 9:21 PM PDT reply actions  

I agree with all that.
I guarentee someone will say..."chill out man, we're in first". Not for long. Can't use that excuse anymore. Something has to be done.
Nick Swisher...is he amazing?

by Daveed on Jul 8, 2006 9:23 PM PDT reply actions  

j/k?
Is that you, Jason Kendall?  Or are you Joe Kennedy?   In any case, caligirl, I think you should change your password.
Day to day

by oblique on Jul 8, 2006 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

now
Jason Kendall i don't mind being compared to.

by californiagirl on Jul 8, 2006 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've never been a "IBWT" type
Beane has had some brilliant moves, and some real stinkers

by OaklandSi on Jul 8, 2006 9:41 PM PDT reply actions  

re
I can't fault Beane at all for the way the present team is constructed.  It looked great on paper.  That's why so many were picking us to contend for the World Series, stathead and beat writers alike.  Beane doesn't have mystical abilities to foresee Crosby, DJ, Ellis, and Blanton putting in garbage performances.  He couldn't predict or expect Chavez turning into a physical wreck.  That's the difference between a 2 game lead and a 10 game lead.  I put this season's struggles firmly on those four guys. Beane can only assemble the team, not play for them.

You make some good points, don't get me wrong.  Kotsay and Loaiza?  Yeah, he should have seen those coming (though not to this degree). The drafts have been borderline disastrous the last few years, and the trading hasn't gone as well as it used to.  But that's the way shit rolls in baseball.  This isn't one team in the league that hasn't made multiple bad moves in its recent past.  The sport is too difficult to evaluate to get it right every time.

by 31Boots on Jul 8, 2006 10:00 PM PDT reply actions  

The Doctor is Right
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here, DrVanNostrand.

The A's DID look great on paper in March. Not only did it look like we stole Bradley, but the Dodgers threw in a middle infielder who just hit .297! Yeah, we overpayed for Loaiza, but he was being plugged into the fifth starter slot on a World Series Contending Team!!!!

Nobody could guess Ethier would be so much more valuable than Bradley and Perez would hit half his weight. We all assumed Crosby and DJ and Blanton would progress. And this was supposed to be the year Chavez finally lived up to his potential -- because Billy got Chavvy some low-risk/high-reward protection in Frank Thomas.

You can't fault Billy for the makeup of this year's team. But baseball is played on the field from April until October, not on paper in March.

That said, I've always felt Billy was innovative and smart, but got a little lucky. Let's face it: the strength of the A's in the last playoff run was having three number one starters being paid WAY below market value. Yes, Zito and Mulder were first round picks, but the chances of three young pitchers being that good that young are remarkably slim. Find one other example of it in baseball history.

And Hudson was a sixth round pick -- so we can agree that him being an Athletic was more by good fortune than by design.

That those young pitchers developed at the same time as homegrown talent like Giambi, Tejada,  Chavez and Ramon Hernandez was a lot like catching lightning in a bottle.

But Billy made some smart moves that affected the margins. The Moneyball strategy of finding value where it is overlooked added to a successful core -- but it didn't create it. The only Moneyball draftee who looks like a regular contributor is Swisher.

But here's where I contradict myself: the A's current state is due to Billy moving AWAY from Moneyball.

I was in the vast minority on the site when I was urging Billy to trade Kotsay last year to one of the big market teams that coveted him. He seems like a great guy and he's a super centerfielder, but you don't sign a player with back problems and an average bat to a three-year $21M deal unless you're the Yankees. Just like trading away Hudson and Mulder were the right moves, we should have traded Kotsay when his value was at its peak. Very un-Moneyball.

Same with Loaiza. Nowhere in The Book does it say you pay inconsistent 34-year-old pitchers to big contracts. It looks like we paid him for past performance -- in a pitcher's park -- instead of his potential. Very un-Moneyball.

The second half could play out to either extreme -- and we'll all claim we saw it coming. But the way this team was out together last winter isn't the problem.
 

by Eck on Jul 9, 2006 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Money and power
It's a lot easier to squeeze every drop of efficiency from a $40 mil payroll than $65 mil. At $40 mil, you have to be ruthless, and you're more willing to accept players with serious shortcomings because they're cheap. Once your payroll goes up to the $65 million range, it's a lot easier to feel more comfortable with Kotsay than take a gamble on Byrnes, or to bring in Payton as a just-in-case $4million backup.

Beane's played it very very safe the last couple years, which is very un-Billy.

by MrIncognito on Jul 10, 2006 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

got to disagree, Doc
Players with demonstrated histories of injuries contributing to poor performance: Chavez, Crosby, Ellis (who knows whether that shoulder is contributing to his subpar hitting), Bradley, Thomas, Kotsay, Harden

Players significantly more likely to have regressed than progressed in '06: Blanton, Saarloos, Street, Loaiza (given his on/off historical perfs y/y)

50/50 progress/regress projectors: DJ, Swisher, Kendall

So, that's the core of the team fragile (and, as many have pointed out, core defensive players with indifferent hitting profiles and health issues makes for a lousy roster), and other key contributors likely to at best perform at '05 levels.

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2006 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Beautiful
As much as it hurts, theres serious problems with this team and we can go season after season pretending well get better. When do you lose hope? when you say "well we could alway bring up...." and you cant finish that sentence. When you can barely utter the words "well get better after (fill in event of choice here)" without feeling like someone is going to laugh at you. Im with you on this one buddy, all through this season chants of "Fire Billy Now" have been ringing through my head. You cant say that here cause its blasphemy but its true, Billy has a lot to do with the team being in pieces right now, we can blame batters for not hitting but there are structural problems there that should not have happened or better yet, fall under the direct responsibility of BB.
"Who needs a significant other when you've got baseball highlights on ESPN?"

by Amnesiac727 on Jul 8, 2006 10:01 PM PDT reply actions  

Amen
I'm not saying we should Fire Billy Now, but he sure is a more-sensible scapegoat than the much-maligned Macha.  That is, who is really more responsible for this team's level of play?  

We're still treading water, and our team is prone to such unexpected streaks that it would be stupid to do anything midseason.  But I'm guessing that everyone in the A's front office is hoping Milton Bradley comes back strong, because right now that trade, plus the Loaiza acquisition, aren't making anybody look good.

by rubin sierra on Jul 9, 2006 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree that it's annoying to watch
But I think the rest of July and August will be good for us.  We'll have three days for our players to recoup and get a little healthier.  And maybe enough time for two pitchers and a hitter to get back or get close to back.

As for our offense, help is on the way.  Billy sees our weakness, he may be able to get something.  Oh, and a nice line from Sac: 4/6, 3 R, 6 RBI, 2 HR.  That was MB's line!

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Jul 8, 2006 10:20 PM PDT reply actions  

A 4-6 MB night in Sacto will translate to an 0-4
night in Oaktown. He ain't the savior. Sorry....

by DeeWayne on Jul 8, 2006 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

If your comments weren't always
negative, Dee Wayne, your negative comments might have some credibility. As it is, they have none.
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 Jul 9, 2006 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

In that case,
I think you're lousy at the latter, and average (that is, just like every other negative user) at the former.
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 Jul 9, 2006 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Alright, I'd love to hear your analysis of the
"Gamer" (love the irnic nickname) and how his presence in the line-up will turn around this moribound offense. I'm obviously overlooking Bradley's future impact by analyzing his past impact with the Indians and Dodgers.

by DeeWayne on Jul 9, 2006 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

My point to you wasn't specifically
about Bradley, but rather that you only seem to post negative commentary. A pessimistic or negative comment is fine, but if it's all you ever have to share, one tends to disregard the content and just go, "Well, that's Dee Wayne commenting, so, whatever."

As for Bradley, he is regarded around baseball as a legitimate "5-tool talent" who is in his prime years. He has not reached his potential due to a combination of physical injuries and anger issues. The anger issues appear to have been solved by finding a compatible clubhouse, so if he returns at 100% health there is reason to hope he might produce to his potential--which appears, even conservatively, to be perhaps a .290 average with a .370 OBP, and above-average power and speed.

Or maybe he'll return, rusty, hit .215 and be back on the DL before long. Who knows? But given his talent and our needs, there is reason to look forward to his return with a certain sense of hope and anticipation.

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 Jul 9, 2006 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm just calling it the way I see it. It's tough
for me to remain positive when so many of the position players are underperforming. I can't be one of these people, who after Crosby goes 0-3 with 3 K's and on his last AB grounds out weakly to the 2nd baseman on an outside slider, says "I loved that last AB by Crosby, he's really starting to turn it around by going the other way!". Sorry
As for my solutions to this underperformance, I say scrap '06 (i.e. trade Zito) and be competitive (serious WS contenders) for '07 and beyond.

by DeeWayne on Jul 10, 2006 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Actually, the mistakes
started when BB got more money from the owners.  We were better off when BB had to let guys go and get guys on the cheap, guys with things to prove.  WE had to have a minor league system and had to draw from them and by and large they worked out, but then Schott and now the new owner gave BB more money and he has made the same kind of mistakes other GM's do when they have money, they spend far too much on players who don't produce, rather than going to the minors.  If BB had not gone for the Bradley deal we would have Ethier playing every day and Swisher at first, two guys who would be around for another 5 or 6 years instead of having find another outfielder in a year.  There was no need for Loiza, we had Sarloos and at least could have tried Rheineker who is a lefty.

by china bob on Jul 8, 2006 10:36 PM PDT reply actions  

Bradley deal
You know, I liked it then and without the benefit of hindsight I'd do it again too. I figured Putnam or Barton would be ready to help by now and trading Ethier for Bradley's potential and Perez seemed wise.

Of course I should have factored in Macha's complete inability to mix his people and give his bench ABs, thus causing Perez to rot on the pine.

But I digress.

Huh, whatta know, I'm done.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 8, 2006 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

BB's drafting genius left when Fuson walked...
As far as veterans he obtains he listens to much to guys like (cough) Kendall.

Frank is having comeback player of the year production but the vaunted A's nucleus is the worst offense in Major League baseball bar none. Why "bar none", because our guys are nearing or at their peaks.

If it wasn't for all the unearned runs we would be at the bottom of this division. The plate umpires poor vision has been timely in favoring the A's or the real facts of how bad this offense is would be reflected with 4th place in the division.


Trivia Questions;

  1. How many wins off UNEARNED runs so far?
  2. How many wins off walk-off walks so far?
Beane's greatness is quickly reducing to pluck and luck in the regular season and Agonizing death to all playoff pretense and aspirations.

Every season the A's are sold short for lack of one player.

New Stadium? For this uninspired organization? Why? Better to tarp off the second deck and seed those two upper decks to become hanging gardens. 10,000-15,000 seats should do nicely for this ownership. Psst! Hey Fremont, ...caveat emptor! Beware of the White Elephant! Save your tax monies and land in case GM or Ford make comebacks someday.

Last thought;
The A's owners are very very rich. The Fishers alone are worth maybe $3 billion. Why would Zito or any player give billionaires a discount? Shouldn't Zito hire Boras just to be on equal footing with these power brokers?

Point being; If you play for the rich and miserly how does that effect your outlook? Do you play as hard as you would for someone strapped for resources? for say Schott? ...Probably not. Don't forget, Uncle Sam helps the Fishers with a nice percentage of players salaries for the first 5 years. So far, the players salary increases, plus a little more, are on our generous uncle, not the Fishers/Wolff assn.
Again,if this is your employer, how does this affect how hard you will push yourself? Do you wake up each morning eager for the day or are you simply aimed at that magical day of free agency?

Good night AN
Maybe tomorrow morn we will find a hitter has been placed under the GNG tree.
...and maybe not.

"-18 is our runs margin after 88 games, ...when does the monster second half kick in?"

by A s Eh on Jul 9, 2006 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Macha
Here's what I don't get: Macha was actually doing an excellent job the first month or so mixing position players in and out of the lineup. While some folks complained about the multitude of lineups game in and game out, I for one thought it was necessary to balance playing time, optimize platoon differentials, and keep players fresh and healthy.

As soon as the injuries started, though, Macha seemed to freeze, and he started to rely much more on a consistent 9-10 starters.

Now, part of this was due to non-DL player "unavailability," and hence beyond Macha's control.

But Payton and Perez (and Melhuse) have been healthy all year -- and Kotsay and Chavez are worn out (and Kendall's still Scutaro minus ISO at the plate).

It's not the overall roster management, I think, that's Macha's shortcoming, but his inability to rest the most highly paid position players.

And I have a strong suspicion that that's not entirely Macha's call.

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2006 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Rheineker...
i didnt hear one person upset when we let that guy go.  Hindsight is 20-20.

by SwisherSweet33 on Jul 8, 2006 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

re
46 lucky innings don't mean dick.  Rheinecker is worse than every pitcher on our staff, except possibly that shithead Loaiza.  Rheinecker's ERA is in no way sustainable.  His component ratios are awful.  There isn't one good pitcher in baseball with ratios like that.  Probably isn't one in history. He's due to get hit very hard as he regresses to the mean.  We should be thankful the Rangers took him and put him in their rotation.  His destruction will be our gain in the coming months.
That trade was the right move to make.  

by 31Boots on Jul 8, 2006 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

But consider
Rheino is pitching in the Bigs and the guy we traded for is in AAA pitching like he belongs in AA.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 8, 2006 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

re
Not to be too flip, but so what?  Rhino is pitching at a AAA level in the big leagues; he's just happened to be very lucky so far.  Dominguez has been no prize, but we weren't going to get a better player for Rhino/Bynum. They were useless parts to us (with almost no trade value); neither was close to making our roster, and Beane went fishing with them, just like the Gaudin trade.  That one worked, this one didn't.  No sweat.    

by 31Boots on Jul 9, 2006 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Go ahead and be flip, be my guest
But the fact is Beane traded three players in Ethier, Bynum and Rheino and received three players in return (Bradley, Perez and Dominguez) that have added more ballast than production to the A's line-up.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 3:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

re
The Bradley/Ethier deal is another matter.  The Rhino deal was essentially nothing for nothing.  I repeat, so what?

by 31Boots on Jul 9, 2006 3:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

OK, we'll set Ethier/Bradley to the side
Rheino has helped the Rangers win ballgames. Koronka (for whom Texas traded Bynum to the Cubs for) has helped the Rangers win ballgames.

The A's are up one game over Texas in the AL West standings.

The A's were knocked out of the 2004 playoffs by one game.

That's what.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

re
Well, I suppose for now you have a point.  Rhino has helped the Rangers.  Koronka has a bit too.  But, I'll bet you a $1 that by September you won't have a point anymore.  And I look forward to those bombs going off in their rotation.  

Results of the trade are still up in the air.  But results oriented thinking will get you killed in baseball in the long run.  The trade was the right move, no question.

by 31Boots on Jul 9, 2006 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

The way the A's look right now
come September we won't give a damn about Rheino or Koronka or even the 2006 playoffs. We'll be looking ahead to 2007.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Stop it with the rear view mirror vision...
...you weren't upset when Rheineker was traded so you have no room to complain.  Enough already.

by SwisherSweet33 on Jul 9, 2006 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

No I wasn't upset
I thought it was a non-issue. I was wrong. Unfortanetly so was Beane and he's supposed to be smarter than me.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

exactly! thats why he gets paid the big bucks!
"Who needs a significant other when you've got baseball highlights on ESPN?"

by Amnesiac727 on Jul 9, 2006 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

All that Kool Aid!
...bad for the teeth
"-18 is our runs margin after 88 games, ...when does the monster second half kick in?"

by A s Eh on Jul 9, 2006 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

At the time we were down to Kennedy
as the only lefty in the pen.

Rhino ended a season hot and began the next season just as hot when he added another pitch.

BB had a left handed version of Duke making $330,000 per year.

Halsey would have stayed a starter and Saarloos would have been back in the pen quicker to take over long relief with Rhino.

That one non-move could have reduced the major pen disaster to a yawner with both pitchers doing long relief.

Sending Rhino for Dominguez was a mistake for that single reason if no other. $330,000 is peanuts and we needed lefties after Rincon left.

I was hoping BB saw something in Dominguez to short the pen of lefties like that. But it must have been an illusion.

Obviously I was for keeping Rhino.

"-18 is our runs margin after 88 games, ...when does the monster second half kick in?"

by A s Eh on Jul 10, 2006 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Stuff I read on Rheino
seemed to say that he didn't have the pitches to be a situational lefty. 'Course he's holding LH hitting to a 163/265/163 line, so what do I know? :)
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 10, 2006 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

i have that sweatshirt.
always remember . . the billy moves in mysterious ways.

by LuvGinter06 on Jul 8, 2006 10:38 PM PDT reply actions  

ZONIS .... AMEN BROTHER
I've been thinking exactly what you've been thinking for the last few months, but have been to busy/lazy to spend such a great amount of time writing such a lengthy and detailed analysis.

I've been wondering this.  Was Billy Beane/our approach (as logical as the High OBP - search out undervalued items of value) the reason for our success or did our success just kind of happen upon us by luck?

What trade outside of the Mulder trade has really worked out for us in the long run?  We are great/had been great at being able to pull off that midseason aquisition but we aren't able to keep any of them.  Our Minor Leagues are depleted etc.  Spend some money and resign these players - winning brings the fans. See - anaheim angels for prime example one.

Our offense since the departure of Miggy has been atrocious with the exception of that one to one and a half months in the summer where we catch fire.  It is pitiful that if our pitchers give up more than 3 runs we will lose in all likelihood.

To be quite frank

by SwisherSweet33 on Jul 8, 2006 11:09 PM PDT reply actions  

Just a theory
The A's don't draft players that other teams like, they haven't since drafting Jeremy Bonderman in 2001. The famed Moneyball draft was all about drafting the misfits that nobody else liked, so when it came time to deal Beane was left with a roster full of players that no one else appreciated. Beane has been drafting scraps ever since, because he didn't have anyone that (to steal from Moneyball) other teams could dream about.

For crying out loud, back in 2002 Beane was able to trade for Ray Durham and cash for Jon Adkins! Adkins! Why? Because he could throw hard.

A lot of people try to pinpoint the start of the A's decline on the loss of an individual player, whether it be Jason Giambi or Miguel Tejada of Keith Foulke. I think the tide changed during the Moneyball draft. For all the crying about the lack of funds the team has to spend on its big league roster, I think the real crime of the Schott/Hoffman era was giving Beane $9.5 million to spend on the 2002 draft. The A's had 7 1st round picks and if Beane had been able to draft strictly on talent...

Who knows where the A's would be today?

What would have happened if Beane had been given double the funds? He could have still gotten the guys that came from Depo's computer after the first few rounds and he would have been able to spend money on 1st round picks that other teams coveted, players that other teams would have psuhed for in later years via trade.

Beane actually followed this plan during the 2004 draft. Everyone pegged Street and Putnam as the guys the A's were going to draft in the 1st round, and that's just what he did... only he waited till the Supplemental 1st Round to do it. He used his 2 regular 1st round picks on higher touted prospects in Richie Robnett and Landon Powell. Beane didn't have to go cheap in the 1st round of the 2004 draft and it's paid off fairly well.

I have to give credit where it's due, and Beane has done his best to stay ahead of the curve. Teams started to go overboard on college talent and Beane took the A's back along the high school route. I think the A's have been a lot unlucky with injuries in the minor league system this year, but for the most part the injuries are the type with excellent recovery records. Don't get me wrong, the A's have dug themselves a hole regarding their minor league system, but I think the potential is there for a rapid recovery next season.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 8, 2006 11:43 PM PDT reply actions  

Dammit!
This line in the 1st paragraph "Beane has been drafting scraps ever since, should read "Beane has been trading for scraps ever since".

Sorry for any confusion.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 8, 2006 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

i completely agree
There have been a few unexplainable collapses by some high profile draft picks; namely Putnam in Pennington. The system has been wrecked by injuries but as you (IMO) correctly stated, there is potential for a rapid recovery.

Other than that, Zonis' post is the exact example of spoiled. He is mad Beane hasn't found a star in the draft in three years! You people were spoiled by the drafting of the Big 3, and than Harden. You were spoiled by the drafting of Eric Chavez. What about Swisher, Zonis? He's slumping, but he certainly showed us potential, and if he continues to develop he'll be a star.

Do you realize most teams waste their first round picks consistantly? The draft can be hit or miss, despite odds in favor of higher picks.

July 11th... My.....Space?

by ohad on Jul 9, 2006 2:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Spoiled, perhaps
But you're not going to win a World Series without drafting a superstar unless you're the Yankees or Red Sox. That's the standard elite GM's are held to. That's what we, as fans of a team supposedly driving for a World Series, rightly should expect. Do we have it better than fans of the Royals, or Orioles? Obviously, but that doesn't exempt Beane from criticism when he's had such poor drafts as of late. Not when the Angels and Dodgers and Diamondbacks and other teams are building elite systems around us.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

ummm
No star players drafted in 3 years? What about Huston Street drafted 2004, in the bigs in 2005.

by Athletics Fan In London on Jul 9, 2006 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

another example
That adds to my point and takes away from Zonis'.
July 11th... My.....Space?

by ohad on Jul 9, 2006 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Huston Street's a very good player
It was a fantastic draft pick. A real credit to Billy Beane. But, again, I'm takling about plucking a superstar that can drive us towards a World Series. That is the standard ELITE GM's are held to. I'm not calling Beane bad, I'm questioning whether he belongs in the elite given his recent track record, and whether some of these questionable drafts have left the franchise a bit thin overall.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think we have to draw a line here at some point
Beane should definitely take blame for the disaster that is our farm system right now. His drafts, aside from the Street draft, have been downright atrocious. Maybe it was losing Depo and Fuson, I don't know; but Beane has got to either get his ability to assess college and high school talent in line or surround himself with new people, like Fuson and Depo, who can do it for him.

Beane should definitely take some blame for putting together a team that was injury prone (a proper backup plan for Harden would've been helpful, not trading for Bradley and relying on his health too) though not a ton, because even the best medical soothsayers probably couldn't have predicted this much physical deterioration amongst a group of elite athletes.

Where Beane doesn't deserve blame, though, is the ridiculous regression a lot of our talent suffered on the field. I would love to find one person who thought the likes of Crosby and DJ and Chavez who, as they enter and go through their peak years, would actually ALL manage to decline. Was giving Ellis an extension after one now likely fluke season misguided? Probably. Was the Loaiza deal completely misguided? Certainly. Perhaps Bradley too, although it's arguable. (The people who I saw, on other sites at least, argue against it at the time noted Bradley's injury risk. This was the proper argument against it, and as much as it hurts to see Andre Ethier hitting .350 over in L.A., NOBODY could have foreseen that. Nobody.) Blanton and Saarloos were certainly due for regression, but what they've posted is perhaps regression overkill.

But overall Zonis is absolutely right. Beane needs to step back and do what it takes to get this team back on track. He cannot stand by and accept mediocrity, assuming it will go away. If that's the position he ultimately takes then he's ultimately failed.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 2:39 AM PDT reply actions  

Calling his drafts atrocious is overkill
How could you call 2002 atrocious with Blanton and Swisher on board the current roster? Teahen is doing OK in KC and both Ben Fritz and Jeremy Brown have the potential to contribute (albeit in limited roles) next season.

2003 was the closest thing to a disaster, although Andre Ethier was part of that draft class.

2004 had Street.

2005 is too soon to judge.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 2:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nobody?
This was the proper argument against it, and as much as it hurts to see Andre Ethier hitting .350 over in L.A., NOBODY could have foreseen that. Nobody.

He was the Texas League MVP last year, the A's Minor League Player of the Year, a Texas League All-Star AND All-Star game MVP.  .350 maybe wasn't foreseeable, but the prospect of some success certainly was. All that said, looking at the trade from the Dodgers' side at the time, I thought Beane had snookered Colletti. In hindsight, it may be the reverse, but let's not forget that there's still half a season to play yet.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Jul 9, 2006 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm omitting 2002
Which was obviously a very fine draft. But it's also now four years behind us. It's probably not exactly fair to exclude it but I'm trying to examine Beane's immediate track record with the draft, which has been hardly exmpemplary (although, as you point out, atrocious probably is a tad overkill.) However, I think that you listing 2 players among three drafts basically makes my point for me. There are others, certainly, but there's a reason the farm system is in tatters.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 3:04 AM PDT reply actions  

Let's be clear about this
The upper minors is in tatters, particularly the AAA team. AA and down has talent, it's just that none of it is ready to help Oakland this year. Two years (I'm talking the 2004 draft) is rarely enough time for a player to develope into a big league player.

2003 was a disaster, and Ethier is the only name I can think of that has a chance. There may be more but they don't spring to mind.

2004 produced Street but it also includes the likes of Kevin Melillo, Kurt Suzuki, Jason Windsor, Richie Robnett, Danny Putnam and Landon Powell. We should also keep an eye on Conor Robertson.

2005 needs more time to shake itself out but Jared Lansford, Vince Mazzaro, Jason Ray and Jimmy Shull (before TJ surgery) all hold promise. And lets not forget Travis Buck who is currently playing well in AA.

The farm system could be ready to produce major league talent as early as this July (Windsor) and should have 2-3 players ready to contribute by this time next year. That's not bad for a tattered system.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 3:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

The ChuckyT, Hererra setbacks
caused the OF and 1B to degrade.
  • "06 OF plan; (ChuckyT/JP) + Kotsay + MB + Kielty #4  
  • Swisher to 1B
  • '07 OF plan; ( ? )+ Kotsay + MB + #4 Kielty
  • Swisher to 1B
"-18 is our runs margin after 88 games, ...when does the monster second half kick in?"

by A s Eh on Jul 10, 2006 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

In My Personal Opinion
Any plan that involved ChuckyT in the Oakland OF was fucked to begin with.
Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 10, 2006 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

A lot can happen
On the way from A to AAA. A whole lot. Look at Melillo's numbers. Robnett's numbers. Putnam's health and Powell's previous health. Lansford has troubling ratios and the Italiano/Shull tandem are both experiencing arm problems.

Promising talent, of course. But like I said, a lot can, and has and will, happen on the way from A to AAA to the majors.

The upper minors is where you draw your talent from. They have to start somewhere, I know, but the reason  the team's like Anaheim and L.A. and Arizona have such highly rated systems is because the talent they've accumulated has made it through the minors and are ready to be called upon. Ours isn't at that level, and unfortunately, given the volatility of minor leaguers turning into major leaguers, it's not exactly a given it'll get to that level.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 3:37 AM PDT reply actions  

A lot can happen
between your front door and the grocery store.

Hell, a lot can happen to a baseball player even after he reaches the Show. See Chavez's health and Harden's health and DJ's numbers and Blanton's numbers. Ugh.

Maybe all the prospects I've mentioned bomb. That can happen to a prospect, even one in a higly touted system like Anaheim's or LA's or Arizona's. The A's built their deepest team in years in large part because Beane siphond off his top AAA talent last year. Funny thing is, the Angels did the same thing when they earmarked Dallas McPherson, Casey Kotchman and Jeff Mathis (three highly ranked upper minor league talents from one of the best farm systems in the game) only to watch their guys crash and burn.

This is one thing that has always amused me about the way people rank a team's farm system. The Angels have a great farm system, OK, well how many productive ballplayers do they have on their roster that came from said farm system? They added Santana last year and two guys (Napoli and Weaver) this year. K-Rod and Lackey came a few years back. The Braves are always touted as having a bevy of arms in their system. How many quality big league pitchers have you seen that system produce in the last few years? Not many yet still they are proclaimed to have a loaded system.

And how have the A's done over the last two years? Blanton, Street, DJ, Swisher, Ethier in LA and Windsor any day now.

The A's don't have a lot of talent in AAA this year, I recognized that at the beginning of the season. But the system isn't barren and by this time next year should be ready to produce more big league players.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 9, 2006 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well that's where we must simply agree to disagree
I'm looking at our lower minors and finding a lot of question marks who nonetheless are intriguing. You're looking at our lower minors and finding a number of guys who should be earmarked to be quality major league contributors.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

What's more
is that if we're going to be looking at the Mathis' and McPherson's and Kotchman's as failures, why on earth are we looking at the Crosby's and Blanton's and DJ's as successes? Look at the production those three are giving us.

Again, my point is that if you're an elite GM unworthy of criticism you need to be drafting IMPACT talent that makes it's way to the majors and finds success. Billy Beane is a VERY good GM, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his share of criticism lately. Could I do a better job? Absolutely not. But again that doesn't mean the criticism isn't warranted.

by walk off bunt on Jul 9, 2006 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Last I checked Mathis, Macpherson and
Kotchmann were all in AAA, so not matter what they do, Blanton, Croz, and DJ are all helping more than those 3

by theblackpearl on Jul 9, 2006 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mathis is in AAA
but McPherson and Kotchman are injured (Why arn't they A's by now?).

But then look at Napoli, who would easily be the best hitter on the A's!

And even if you discount Kotchamn, Mathis and McPherson, the guys who are a grade above them are the ones who really matter and they will soon be there. How about Wood and Kendrick? Saunders? Weaver has already arrived.

Another thing that I find sort of strange is that the A's have not really gone after any foreign players much as of late. We drafted a guy from Puerto Rico, and we still have Herrera, but I can't think of any others, and Herrera is from what? 2001?

Oh Wolfe, please oh Please go after Daisuke Matsuzaka.

by Zonis on Jul 9, 2006 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Billy Beane should step back . . .?
I totally agree with the entire thrust of this diary and ensuing comments.  My only problem is suggesting that all Billy needs to do is step back and take a look at what he's done, and make changes to correct the situation.  Unless he changes his approach, he will continue to make the same mistakes.  But how can he change his approach without changing his mindset?  At this point, I don't know what that mindset is, strategically, but I do know it is not working, and he needs to get some good advice from solid baseball people to change that mindset.  

We all have harped for the past several seasons that the A's need more offense.  So what did Billy do?  He spent a ton of money on players like (one homer wonder) Jason Kendall and Esteban Loiza, neither of whom add directly to the offense.  The only deal that fit in with strengthening the offense was to acquire Frank Thomas.  But even there, the Big Hurt is a huge liability on the basepaths if he does not hit a home run.  Witness his getting thrown out yesterday at first base by the Angel's center fielder.

All I have asked for is some consistency in Billy's approach.  We hear that the approach is to get on base and wait for the big bop.  The only problem is that the A's are not committed to acquiring and keeping enough big boppers for this approach to be successful.  If they were, they would have found a way to keep Miggy.  Aside from Thomas, the only bopper on the team right now is Nick Swisher (and Chavy when he's healthy).  But will the A's keep Swish at free agent time?  Probably not.

To get back to my original point, Billy needs to consult with others if his "stepping back" is going to work.  His nerdy approach is not good enough.  A friend of mine recently told me that the genius behind the Moneyball approach, I believe his name is Bill James, does not even believe in the concept of clutch hitting as a factor in evaluating a hitter's strength.  I guess his computer programs just don't understand what goes on in the real world of baseball.  

An interesting question in this regard is:  Do the A's have any clutch hitter on the team at this time?  I see only one:  Frank Thomas.  Tied for second place are Nick Swisher and Jay Payton when they're on a hot streak.  Otherwise, forget it.  Between the strike outs and the ground balls hit into double plays, the A's cannot hit in the clutch.

Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

by bigfanjohn on Jul 9, 2006 10:19 AM PDT reply actions  

You lost me at the 2nd to last paragraph
Bill James has said that there is no proof supporting the idea of Clutch Hitting (and likewise, there is also no proof denying it).

"Clutch Hitting" is not our problem, our problem is the lack of good hitting.

And the point of taking a step back and looking at where you are IS to change your philosophy and outlook. To fix where you have gone wrong, and right the ship. I thought that was inherently obvious?

by Zonis on Jul 9, 2006 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

In theory, Zonis, I agree . . .
It's just that Billy seems to be a very stubborn person who does not listen to others.  This came out very clearly in Moneyball.  So, stepping back in order to listen only to himself, with no input from others who can give him some solid advice, will not work.

I also agree that the lack of clutch hitting is not the complete problem, but rather the lack of overall good hitting.  I just used clutch hitting as an example of one area where the overall hitting is weak, and made my point about Bill James to suggest that Billy's approach, if it's based on Bill James's theories, may never factor in clutch hitting as a strength to be considered.

 

Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

by bigfanjohn on Jul 9, 2006 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

re
James has reversed his position and now does believe  in "clutch hitting".  He hasn't figured out how to measure it though.

by 31Boots on Jul 9, 2006 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, last I checked
he re-evaluated the way he looked at the evidence. He said that before we looked at the absence of evidence and said that it did not exist. Now he says that the absence of evidence means not that it does not exist, but that we don't know if it does exist or not.

That is not the same thing as believing in it.

by Zonis on Jul 9, 2006 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

How to Define "Clutch Hitting"
Perhaps my thoughts are too simplistic for the Moneyballers, but I would measure clutch hitting by looking at a player's batting average with men in scoring position, as a start, and especially with men in scoring position with two outs.  Good hitting is opportunistic hitting, which is hitting that actually produces results and doesn't just raise one'e batting average.  Some players thrive on the extra pressure of having RBI opportunities, while some others choke or simply do not rise to the occasion.  "Money" players, like Derek Jeter and "Poppy" Ortiz among others, separate themselves from the rest of the pack by rising  to the occasion in these situations and producing when you really need it.  I call that "clutch hitting," and don't know what's so complicated about it.  One problem for Moneyballers is that they don't appreciate the concept of the batting average, which is clearly reflected in the way the A's are currently playing.

The current issue of Sports Illustrated has an article by Tom Verducci, in which he selects his 2006 "All Star Team."  In the American League, at shortstop, he picks Miguel Tejada, and says the following:  "True, Tejada is a 363 hitter at home and a 268 hitter on the road, but he remains one of the fiercest at bats in crunch time, hitting .423 with two outs and runners in scoring position."  Obviously, those numbers are meaningless to nerdy Moneyballers who get so hung up on their weird, mavaricky formulas that they lose touch with the real world of baseball, much like the scientists years ago who used to say that a curve ball really doesn't curve, and that its all an optical illusion.

Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

by bigfanjohn on Jul 9, 2006 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

that's a bit arbitrary
Over the last 3 years, Tejada's numbers (avg/obp/slg):

Overall: .298 .348 .507
RISP:    .310 .368 .548 in 200 ABs

Those are slightly better numbers, but nothing that's outside the normal variation in performance you could find in most any random 200 AB sample.

Consider what he's done with the bases loaded:

.208 .242 .453

Why can't he produce with the bases juiced?

Or our favorite clutch player Derek Jeter. He's hit .307 overall the last 3 years, and .288 with RISP. His OPS drops from .825 overall to .785 with RISP. Choker!

We can define clutch to mean BA with RISP, but is that really meaningful? We obviously don't want Tejada up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th... or do we? I would be very pleased to see him at the plate because he's a very good hitter. Overall, good hitters tend to, well, be good. I'm not opposed to the idea that some people don't respond well to pressure (Chavez comes to mind), but overall the problem the A's have isn't usually non-clutchness so much as a lack of ability.

by MrIncognito on Jul 9, 2006 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good points, MrIncognito (whoever you are).
However, what I had in mind was not so much comparing a player's statistics with other statistics of his own, but one player's statistics in a given category against other players in the same category.  In your example, I would compare Jeter's .288 average with RISP against other players, and would not be too concerned if that average is a little lower than his own overall average.  I would much rather have him at bat in crucial situations than a batter with a .250 average with RISP.

As to Miggy's hitting with the bases loaded, I have no answer.  However, since batting with the bases loaded occurs less frequently than batting with men on second and/or third, I would be much more interested in how he does in those latter situations as I evaluate him.

As I said earlier today, I'm not focusing only on clutch hitting, but overall hitting and, like you, agree that the A's seem to have a problem across the board.

Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

by bigfanjohn on Jul 9, 2006 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

The whole "Clutch" Argument has to be
the player vs himself. The argument is that some players play better when the pressure is on, so you can only compare them to themselves.

You can't compare a .300/.400/.500 player in "clutch" situations to a .200/.300/.400 player.

by Zonis on Jul 9, 2006 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Where are the A's
I have an alternative theory to offer:

The A's are on the decline. Billy knows this.

He doesn't have enough cheap talent on the team to build around for the long term. The days of Giambi/Tejada/Hudson/Mulder/Zito all making peanuts are gone. He finds himself having to compete for talent in the open market. He may find this aspect or that being undervalued by other teams, but the price is going to go way up. Let me give an example. Payton at $4 mil isn't a bad contract. He has some pop, and plays killer defence in CF. However, it is probably more than the A's can afford to invest in that type of player. Either because of trades or because the A's have been advancing their players to the majors very quickly for the last four years, our farm system is a little thin.

It's not that there are no useful prospects, it's that there aren't enough to fill out our roster. It's going to take time to restock with premium talent, and it's going to take time to restock with useful talent. Given that scenario, what's a GM to do? Start taking HS players in the draft. HS players aren't going to make a difference for 3 or 4 years, but if you take a bunch of really young players, a few of them might work out. One you see you have a good draft class, you take a bunch of college players so everyone hits the bigs at the same time. That's what gives you the financial flexability to buy whatever pieces you might need. Unfortunately, while those HD players are developing, you're going to have some tough years when the talent just isn't there. Like next year.

We still have some really good players. Beane saw a last chance to push for the playoffs. He traded Eithier knowing that by the time he has the talent to build on, Either will probably be making big money. Bradley helps us this year, and I still think Perez would be a good, inexpensive player if Macha could remember his name. Kendall was supposed to help us now, and his contract will end by the time we're ready to start again.

The one guy it will really hurt to lose is Haren. If we lock anyone up to a big contract, it should be him as he has the potential to stick around long enough to lead the next good A's rotation. Unless we are in a good spot to get to the playoffs at the end of the year, I wouldn't be surprised to see Zito shipped for several A or AA level prospects.

People are worried about 2008. We should be thinking more about 2010.

by MrIncognito on Jul 9, 2006 10:39 AM PDT reply actions  

Good diary, Zonis
Like grover said, as someone who has never actually claimed "In Billy I trust", this diary is spot on and reflects much of my own opinions. It's also well put together and works logically. Recommended.
"I've heard the hangovers are worse." -Zito on high altitude

by Squeaky on Jul 9, 2006 12:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Draft comments
I wanted to look at this comment a little closer:

Why is Southern California drafting so much better then us, ten fold. It can not just be the money. We have 1 blue chip prospect, they each seem to have ten. Even if we use the excuse of calling up most of our system to help us in the majors, the draft board has to do its job better.

Some of this has to do with where the A's drafted five years ago.  They were on top of the world and regularly the team to beat.  You don't get high picks that way:


Year    1st round picks
------------------------------
2000  - none -
2001  25th (Bobby Crosby)
      26th (Jeremy Bonderman)
      37th (John Rheinecker)
2002  16th (Nick Swisher)
      24th (Joe Blanton)
      26th (John McCurdy)
      30th (Ben Fritz)
      35th (Jeromy Brown)
      37th (Steve Obenchain)
2003  25th (Brad Sullivan)
      33rd (Omar Quintanilla)
2004  24th (Landon Powell)
      26th (Ritchie Robnett)
2005  21st (Cliff Pennington)
      36th (Travis Buck)
2006  - none -

Outside of 2002, Oakland has picked no higher than 21st every single year, and two of those years they had no picks at all in the first round! This came to mind because I was thinking particularly about Jered Weaver and how he fell to the Angels in the 12th overall pick.

But then, the Angels were bad in 2003. The A's haven't been truly bad in a while, which explains part of their problems.  On the other hand, they're also missing guys like Nick Adenhart, who the Angels pounced on when everyone else decided he was unsignable and injured anyway. I'm using examples from the Angels system because that's what I'm most familiar with, but you could also write a book about the Dodgers prospects the A's have missed out on, guys like Matt Kemp who were available in the sixth round.

It seems to me that the A's most recent draft recognizes some of these issues; the A's weren't afraid to take some prep pitchers in high rounds for the first time I can remember.  It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Jul 9, 2006 10:18 PM PDT reply actions  

The problem with "unsignable"
is that it has nothing to do with the GM - it means that the owners aren't giving enough money to this club to sign those players deemed unsignable, especially due to money concerns. That's why they fall to teams like the Red Sox (like this year), Yankees, Halos, etc, etc, whose owners spend money.

Completely different point, but for Smoak is it possible that MLB stepped in and said a 16th round pick can't get that kind of bonus? They set a rule on draft-and-follows this year, IIRC.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 10, 2006 5:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Smoak
The rumor was he wanted $1+ million to sign. The A's decided they didn't want to spend that much on him and liked Travis Buck almost as much and drafted him in the 1st round instead.

Buck signed for $950 K.

So $50 K kept the A's from signing the guy at the top of their draft list? That doesn't sound smart.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Jul 10, 2006 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

No it doesn't,
and it would also explain why the A's aren't getting good talent in the draft.

Of course, this is more the owner's problem than the GM's, since it is the owner that decides how much can be spent, and if the owner doesn't want to shell out that 50K, then the owner doesn't have to shell out that 50K... but then you see the result.

Problem with the baseball draft is that talent costs money.  That's why Boston can get someone like Lars Anderson with the 553rd pick: even with the money demands that he brings, they have the ability to pay that much. There is no chance a Kansas City or a Pittsburgh can do that.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 11, 2006 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Take a step back
This diary certainly feels right and true, yes.

But we have to realize that you are writing it at an absolute low point for the franchise. Save Frank Thomas and some of the pitching, everything since the 10 game streak ended has gone wrong.

So wrong that it just doesn't feel like it can change.

Obviously, if the team keeps playing the way they are now, they'll finish in last place. No team can hit this badly and win.

But I think things will change and the feeling you and others have about the team will change, too.

Consider last year. At one point the A's went 40-10. Then, in September they were just toast.

I'm hoping this time right now is last year's September and that the team is destined to hit better than they are currently, which has just been as bad as hitting can get.

by RLangford on Jul 10, 2006 11:46 AM PDT reply actions  

I just look at it as
"In Billy I May As Well Trust"--because unless I think my accurate level of trusting can affect the A's chances, that's pretty much what it comes down to.
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 Jul 10, 2006 4:53 PM PDT reply actions  

given our struggles in that month ...
... shouldn't that be "In Billy I June As Well Trust"?
He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2006 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

OOYY
ÃÀÅ®µÌåͼƬ
»ÆÉ«µçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
É«ÇéµçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
³ÉÈ˵çÓ°ÏÂÔØ
»ÆÉ«µçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
¼¤ÇéµçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
ÐÔ¸ÐÃÀŮͼƬ
ƯÁÁÃÃÃÃͼƬ
×ö°®Í¼Æ¬
ÃÀÉÙÅ®
ÈÕ±¾avµçÓ°
ÇéÉ«µçÓ°
¼¤ÇéÊÓÆµÏÂÔØ
Ã÷ÐǶµãͼƬ
Ð´ÕæµçÓ°
Òõ²¿Í¼Æ¬
È鷿ͼƬ
Ã÷ÐÇÂãÕÕ
ÐÔ°®ÊÓÆµ
͵ÅÄͼƬ
·òÆÞµçÓ°
ÔÚÏß»ÆÉ«µçÓ°
ÔÚÏß³ÉÈ˵çÓ°
ÔÚÏßÉ«ÇéµçÓ°
ÔÚÏß¼¤ÇéµçÓ°
ÊÓÆµÁÄÌìÊÒ
ÂãÌåÊÓÆµÁÄÌìÊÒ
btµçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
ÐÔ°®Ð¡µçÓ°
ÃÀ¹úaƬ
ÃÀ¹úëƬ
ÐÔŰ´ýµçÓ°
ŮͬÐÔÁµµçÓ°
ÄÐͬÐÔÁµµçÓ°
´¦Å®×ö°®Á÷ѪµçÓ°
ÃÀÅ®Íβ¿Ð´Õæ
ÃÀÅ®ÐØ²¿Ð´Õæ
͵ÅÄÅ®È˵ÄͼƬ
18 Ìù ͼ ̨Íå ³ÉÈË
ÑÞÎè
¶¡×Ö¿ã
Ãâ·ÑµçÓ°ÔÚÏß¿´
³ÉÈËÂÛ̳
»ÆÉ«ÂÛ̳
18½û
³ÉÈË
³ÉÈ˵çÓ°
³ÉÈ˵çÓ°ÍøÕ¾
³ÉÈ˵çÓ°ÏÂÔØ
³ÉÈ˽»ÓÑ
³ÉÈËÊÓÆµ
³ÉÈËÊÓÆµÁÄÌìÊÒ
³ÉÈËÉ«Çé
³ÉÈËÍøÕ¾
³ÉÈËСµçÓ°
³ÉÈËÐÔ½ÌÓý
º«¹ú³ÉÈ˵çÓ°
º«¹ú»ÆÉ«µçÓ°
º«¹ú¼¤ÇéµçÓ°
º«¹úÇéÉ«µçÓ°
º«¹úÉ«ÇéµçÓ°
º«¹ú͵¿úµçÓ°
º«¹úÐÔ°®µçÓ°
»ÆÉ«
͵¿úµçÓ°
»ÆÉ«µçÓ°ÍøÕ¾
³ÉÈ˵çÓ°ÏÂÔØ
»ÆÉ«ÊÓÆµÁÄÌìÊÒ
»ÆÉ«ÍøÕ¾
»ÆÉ«Ð¡µçÓ°
¼¤Çé
¼¤ÇéµçÓ°
¼¤ÇéµçÓ°ÍøÕ¾
¼¤ÇéµçÓ°ÏÂÔØ
¼¤ÇéÊÓÆµÁÄÌì
¼¤ÇéÊÓÆµÁÄÌìÊÒ
¼¤ÇéÍøÕ¾
¼¤ÇéСµçÓ°
¿ÉÊÓÁÄÌì
ÂãÌå±íÑÝ
ÂãÌåµçÓ°
ÂãÌåÃÃÃÃ
ÂãÌåÃÀÅ®
ÂãÌåÄ£ÌØ
ÂãÌåÃ÷ÐÇ
ÂãÌåÅ®º¢
ÂãÌåÉÙÅ®
ÂãÌåÊÓÆµ
ÂãÌåÊÓÆµÁÄÌì
ÂãÌåÉãÓ°
ÂãÌåͼƬ

by 435ffgg on Jul 14, 2006 12:58 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

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Hahaha_small
Let's Make Some Nicknames!
Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

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

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late