And the teardown continues
If you, like me, wondered if Beane was going to have the energy to tear down the A’s and rebuild this off-season, well… this just goes to show us, O we of little faith.
Gio Gonzalez is a top-tier pitching prospect, and they also got RHP Fautino De Los Santos and OF-L Ryan Sweeney.
They may move into the new park is ready to reel off another series of pennant runs.
Annoying fantasy story: in the recently-deceased DMB league I played in (with Dave and Jason!), I drafted Swisher as a minor leaguer and worried that he was going to be a guy who couldn’t hit enough for first or a corner outfield spot or play defense to stick in center. So I traded him for Zach Duke, which looked great, then okay and then increasingly horrible as Zach’s arm disintegrated, leaving me knowing way too much about both players’ careers. Anyway.
Mat, I know you know “championships†aren’t a good way to measure success in baseball.
Isn’t that the ultimate goal? Even understanding that the playoffs are a crapshoot, I wouldn’t dismiss the frustration of a fanbase whose team comes up snake-eyes every time it reaches the postseason.
Actually, hub, calling the Marlins a small-market team is an affront to the A’s of the world. (I don’t remember where TB’s market size fits in, and I don’t have time to dig up the data; but Miami’s a great market.)
And to second Pete Livengood, on-court, there’s a lot of reason for hope in Sonics fandom. Given the work of Brian Robinson and others, I think there’s a lot of reason off-court too, but that’s still uncertain. What isn’t uncertain is that we finally have a FO that really knows how to build a successful team, and that has the guts to pull the trigger when it needs to. As a Sonics fan with Presti in charge (and for that matter, as a Seahawks fan with Ruskell running the show), it’s encouraging to have the confidence that the people building my teams know what they need to do and how to do it, and that as a consequence, things are moving in the right direction. From that perspective, the Sonics’ current record is merely growing pains, the seeds of future success. The M’s . . . not so much.
If you narrowly define “ultimate goal”, I guess winning a championship might be it. But Yankees fans are frustrated, too, because they haven’t won a WS in 5 years. Braves fans are frustrated because they only won 1 WS despite all those division titles. Toronto and Tampa Bay fans are frustrated because they’re in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox. In fact, the only fans who aren’t frustrated at the moment are the fans of the team who just won a WS: the Red Sox. I’d say, though, that in the grand scheme of frustration, it’s way more frustrating to be an M’s fan, knowing that the FO does not know how to build a competitive team with a *chance* to win a WS, than to be an A’s fan, and know that the FO has a plan that will give the team a chance.
47 – Their attendance is bad, but there is a reason they are getting a new park.
Not only is the Coliseum a hole, but that entire area is like the Armpit of America. I grew up near there, and aside from Stockton, it was my least favorite place to go to.
It is very much a football town. I don’t want to generalize too much, but the Fremont crowd fits baseball a lot more than that of the greater Oakland area.
Larry Stone is indeed â€Official Seattle Sports Writer of USS Marinerâ€, but I have to say it is nice to have Geoff Baker around to fill in the gaps during a long, quiet off-season.
oh, and Gold-Glove Winner Eric Chavez weighs in on the rebuilding in Oakland…
You know what would be interesting, if Dave did a made up scenerio of what he would do if he had the chance to rebuild the Mariners? I would like to see who Dave would trade and who he would keep. I know the Mariners organization would never want to rebuild, but I would be interested seeing what would happen if they did.
“Actually, hub, calling the Marlins a small-market team is an affront to the A’s of the world. (I don’t remember where TB’s market size fits in, and I don’t have time to dig up the data; but Miami’s a great market.)”
I recognize your point. My post was referring about their “small-market-like payroll”, not their potential baseball ‘market’ in general. The media often lumps the A’s in with teams like the Rays and Marlins, in regards to payroll spent. They should not.
57:
That would be impossible to accomplish with any realism unless we pretend it’s the off-season prior to 2010. That’s when Beltre, Batista, Washburn and Vidro come off the books. That would also be the best time to move Silva and Putz. Silva would still have two full seasons left and his annual salary could be a decent alternative for a club who needs as starter but doesn’t want to spend money/years on a free agent. Putz would essentially be a one-season rent-a-closer for a contender as his contract kicks into high gear for the final year in 2010, but he would still have to be one the premier closers in baseball at that time.
As for Ichiro, he would have three years left and getting prospects for him would be easy provided he still had plus speed. Convincing the Seattle faithful that trading Ichiro is the right move however would be tough, even during a massive reconstruct.
In terms of rebuilding now, the majority of players Seattle would need to move lack the value in terms of money/years/performance that other clubs are willing to trade prospects for. Swisher had a favorable contract which extends through his peak years (26-30) and his high OBP was especially appealing to the White Sox who ranked dead last in that category in 2007.
[hijack was intended, deleted OT]
Mat, I know you know “championships†aren’t a good way to measure success in baseball.
I would say that WS championships aren’t a good way to determine the best team in baseball. However, a WS championship is still the ultimate goal in the eyes of, what, 95% of all fans? More than that? I mean, I agree that we shouldn’t be judging GMs by the number of trophies in their case if we’re talking about who should keep their job and who should lose their job, but in terms of team success (“on-field success” as it was put originally), championships are certainly part of the picture. I imagine if you ask Braves fans which season they remember most fondly over the last 17 years, many would probably tell you 1995, even though that may not have been their best team from that period.
And I’m also pretty sure you’re aware that the Yankees are the ONLY team with a better W-L record than the A’s over the past 10 seasons
Not true. Over the last 10 seasons, the Red Sox are 916-703, which might not beat the A’s by much, but still beats them. Over the last ten seasons, the Braves are 945-675. The Cardinals went 894-724, which is within a win per season of what the A’s did. So sure, the A’s did well, but it’s not like their success was unparalleled.
By any reasonable measure, the A’s have been extremely successful on the field in recent memory. If A’s fans are depressed by that, then they need to find a new sport to follow (as I understand many of them have?).
The A’s have been extremely successful on the field in the Beane era. I agree with that. However, I can still see how the current situation facing the fans would be discouraging. In the hands of a talented GM like Beane, there’s probably a good chance that the A’s will be successful again and fairly soon. But rebuilding is not without risk. A couple of bad breaks here or there, and you’re stuck in rebuilding mode for 4-5 years, even with a good GM. If we define the Indians’ rebuilding period as the post-Thome period, then three of those five seasons they’ve finished with a losing record, and it took them until this year to make the playoffs. And I think it’s fair to say that Shapiro is up there with Beane as one of the top GMs in the game.
So the A’s have been good, but during that period of success, didn’t reach the ultimate goal, and now face what (to me) seems likely to be a painful rebuilding process. It might not be a kick in the nuts, but I can see why they’d be discouraged.
Obviously, higher payroll = higher chance of success, all else being equal. I’m surprised so many words have already been devoted to making this point.
I would devote that many words to the subject because of sentiments similar to JSully’s (#42), that seem to be rather dismissive of payroll advantages that certain organizations have. In many quarters there seems to be a sentiment that simply because some teams can make the postseason with a low payroll, this somehow implies that we should expect the same amount of success from a franchise with a low payroll than a franchise with a large payroll.
Their attendance is bad, but there is a reason they are getting a new park.
Certainly, more things than on-field success go into determining a team’s attendance, but it seems pretty likely to me that they’d have better attendance if Beane had a larger budget to work with. So I don’t think it’s particularly accurate to claim that “Oakland fans are tough enough to take it.”
#5 – The headline should read “World Series Titles: Kenny williams 1, Billy Beane 0.”
I find it compelling that people still think that a new stadium in Fremont somehow solves all of the Oakland A’s ills. Has that happened for Seattle with SAFECO?
The A’s are not ‘poor’ and they certainly are not ‘small’ market. Their payroll has been in the midrange of MLB for many years now. The free agent deals and extensions they have signed have been terrible (Chavez, Kotsay, Crosby, Loaiza). Throw in some bad trades as well (Jason Kendall, Octavio Dotel).
The A’s have paid big bonus money to their high draft picks. They have drafted and failed to sign several top prospects under Beane (Papelbon, Toweles, Smoak) as well.
The idea that Billy Beane is anything other than a fortunate GM is somewhat silly. 2006 the A’s were very lucky – the win/loss record with the Mariners gave Oakland the AL West.
Beane is now part owner of the team. Hard to fire yourself even when letting the minor league system become one of the three worst in MLB.
But with these recent trades the A’s have as many legitimate OF prospects in their system and possibilities at starting pitchers (TNSTAAPP) than they have had in the last 10 years combined. That points to a failure at the cheapest way to win – draft and develop players.
Beane needs to overhaul his scouting and player development.
Well, we’ve clearly run out of important things to argue about, because the discussion has turned to whether or not A’s fans are or should be discouraged. If anyone actually thinks that it’s a bad idea for Beane to be doing what he’s doing, or that the trades themselves have been bad, I’d like the hear why. To me, it’s a no-brainer. If you don’t have the money to rebuild and contend simultaneously, you need to tear down.
The idea that Billy Beane is anything other than a fortunate GM is somewhat silly.
Mmmm… bait. Beane’s clearly made some moves that didn’t work out, but do you honestly attribute the last 10 years of A’s success to luck?
“They have drafted and failed to sign several top prospects under Beane (Papelbon, Toweles, Smoak) as well.”
Come on. The A’s had zero chance of signing those guys. They drafted Papelbon in the 40th round, Towles in the 32nd and later in the 23rd, and Smoak in the 16th. That’s where high-caliber players get drafted when they tell teams, “I’m going to college so don’t draft me unless you are willing to give me first round money.” Guys like that still get drafted regardless because you never know . . . if the college they are commited to is destroyed by a meteor, cha-ching. If the family dog needs a prosthetic leg but doesn’t have insurance, cha-ching.
If anyone actually thinks that it’s a bad idea for Beane to be doing what he’s doing, or that the trades themselves have been bad, I’d like the hear why.
I think that the choice to rebuild given the circumstances is reasonable (though I don’t think he got a great return in this trade for reasons I stated above), but I just think we’re all too willing to accept the circumstances. Baseball seems to feel it has this problem under control, but it still seems like a significant problem to me. The 2002 CBA was a good step forward, but as long as the luxury tax threshold is set so high and the luxury tax rate is set so low, there’s very little to stop the Yankees from continuing to appear in the playoffs year after year. In the meantime, fans of other teams are expected to just sit back and be happy with what they get. As a non-Yankees fan, I guess I’m not too thrilled about that arrangement.
“Come on. The A’s had zero chance of signing those guys. They drafted Papelbon in the 40th round, Towles in the 32nd and later in the 23rd, and Smoak in the 16th.”
…so, the A’s drafted a guy TWICE they had no chance to sign? Or wouldn’t sign? Smoak wanted $1 Million. They gave more than that to John McCurdy in 2002 as a bonus.
They point would be if the A’s are going to draft someone they might as well sign him – otherwise it is a waste of a draft pick.
Can we agree teams like the A’s can’t afford to waste draft picks?
It would be interesting if there was a ‘signing cap’ with the draft as opposed to a ‘payroll luxury tax’. Draft picks aren’t covered by the CBA until they sign – or am I off in a field?
Even a 16th round pick isn’t really “important” enough to make it a bad idea to take a flyer on a guy whose signability concerns are the only thing pushing him down that far.
Exactly. Nearly every player deemed “unsignable” gets drafted regardless of how adamant he is about not signing or how outrageous his demands are, and nearly every major league club drafts a few of these guys each year. I made light of the “you never know” scenario, but it’s true. You never know when a player might change his mind and ask for a reasonable amount of money. You also never know if a team like the Yankees will swoop in and draft an unsignable player in the 17th round and throw him 3rd round money. If you have a chance to block that scenario from happening in the 16th round, doing so is a good strategy if you believe the next cluster of players on your target list will still be available with your next series of picks.
The fact is, not many guys drafted after the first 5 or 6 rounds pan out to have major league careers or even make significant contributions at the major league level. In fact, over 90% of drafted players never sniff the major leagues. The last 30+ rounds are generally used to fill out specific needs at the lower levels and to keep the salmon ladder running smoothly and on time. This is why teams, even the A’s, can afford to burn draft picks on unsignable players during the middle/late rounds. Teams still draft players they believe have the best chance to develop, but they might also draft, for example, several pitchers who have no chance to reach the majors but are durable enough to eat up a significant number of innings down at single-A for a year or two. It’s nice to think that all minor league players have a shot at the major leagues but most of those guys are filler.
We have a short-season A club here in my hometown and it’s very rare that any prospect with a shot in hell sticks around for more than two weeks. Matt Sulentic, a solid LF prospect with the Oakland A’s, was one of the very rare exceptions I saw last season. His approach was light years ahead of every other player on the field and he stuck out like a sore thumb. There must have been a good reason why a hitter of his caliber was still kicking around in short-A (injury rehab, defense, reconstructed swing). The rest of those guys are simply living the dream.
Re 56’s link,
I’d just like to say that those comments are amazing. Every single one of those players buys into the Beane philosophy so much that they’re not insulted when Beane says the team has “no chance to contend”, and they’re incredibly understanding of the needs of the team over their own.
That’s just astounding to me. No negativity, just business. Maybe I’m jaded over superstars calling out team ownership as being symbolic of “leadership material”, but I just can’t help but think that Beane has done an excellent job making sure the organization knows the ropes.
Reasons why Billy Beane has been able to dismantle the A’s without fear and why Bavasi can’t with the M’s:
1. He is part owner. It would certainly be odd to fire yourself for doing a bad job (example: Isiah Thomas, Knicks. While not owner he is President, GM, and Coach and good friends with the owner)
2. He has a long track record of success. Only 2 losing seasons in 10 (Beane’s first season in Oakland and an injury plagued year last year) is a very good trend. This gives the owners confidence in Beane to make the right moves.
3. The A’s have a dim future. With a mediocre team and little help in the minors it would take a miracle for this team to become a quality team through the farm in the forseeable future. The A’s also have a limited budget which hinders their efforts to sign free agents and retain their own players.
4. There are few fans to piss off. The A’s dont have to be overly concerned about negative reaction of their fans bacause there arent many of them to begin with. Its not like they were playing in front of sell out crowds for the past few years.
The M’s and Bavasi cant tear down and rebuild because of these factors. There are too many casual fans that would be turned off by a perennially bad team (1 year of respectability in 4 just to turn around and rebuild again would give the M’s that label).
Bavasi doesnt have the same success as Beane has had. While Bavasi has improved the farm system and the W/L record, that should not allow him to rest. Unfortunately that mentality has also lead to him making poor decisions in the FA market looking for quick fixes.
The M’s future is not as bad as the A’s. Many of you may not agree with this statement. The M’s have more talent throughout the system than the A’s and have a higher payroll with a strong fan base to add more revenue. They dont feel the need to make that drastic of a move, however misguided the M’s front office thinking is.
In 2010 the M’s will have only 4 players signed to a contact (Ichiro, Betancourt, Lopez, Silva) with an option on Putz. Thats pretty good. The reality is that the M’s are almost there.
72 – “The M’s future is not as bad as the A’s. Many of you may not agree with this statement. The M’s have more talent throughout the system than the A’s and have a higher payroll with a strong fan base to add more revenue. They dont feel the need to make that drastic of a move, however misguided the M’s front office thinking is.”
Payroll has nothing to do with anything. Good players and highly paid players are not the same thing. Also, the A’s future has a significant advantage because Billy Beane is a brilliant GM.
Just because a team has a GM that is highly respected throughout baseball does not mean that team has a ‘significant’ advantage when that team has less assests. Billy Beane is an asset to the A’s, but he does not trump the financial and player development advantage the M’s currently hold.
With Armstrong and Lincoln, he does.
Also, the assumption is that when the A’s enter their new stadium, their payroll will go up significantly. At that point, one would expect any advantage the M’s have in that department to go away.
A wee bit jaded I see
and no, this comment does not contibute substantially to the discussion
4. There are few fans to piss off. The A’s dont have to be overly concerned about negative reaction of their fans bacause there arent many of them to begin with. Its not like they were playing in front of sell out crowds for the past few years.
The M’s and Bavasi cant tear down and rebuild because of these factors. There are too many casual fans that would be turned off by a perennially bad team (1 year of respectability in 4 just to turn around and rebuild again would give the M’s that label).
I hate to point this out, but that’s the M’s, and the M’s didn’t suffer that massively in terms of fan turnout: they essentially went through the Indians rebuilding cycle except they spent massively more money and aren’t as well set up for the next couple of years.
The M’s fan base has proven unexpectedly tolerant of failure.
When does that turn? If we win 72 games this year (the low side of my best guess)? Or have we turned into the Cubs, where the fans are happy no matter what the team’s doing? I don’t want to follow the Cubs.
Just saw this article and thought some of you might find it interesting. Some valid points are made in regards to so called “Moneyball” approach.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/265412.html