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.
Comments
USSM uses and recommends
The saddest person has to be Swisher himself, who now will see far less ABs against the Mariners’ cupcake starting pitching.
What is the feeling on Swisher’s ceiling now? Will he ever become a consistent star, or is he looking like a safe bet for perennially streaky with flashes of brilliance?
I’m sure playing 81 games in a launchpad (after playing his home games in McAfee Cavern) and getting to face the Royals 19 times a year will help Swisher feel a whole lot better.
He’s moving into a nice hitter’s park, so he’s probably not all that disappointed from a baseball perspective.
It’s hilarious how Ken Williams thinks that the White Sox are primed to win it all again in 2008.
The headline should read…
Kenny Williams, Moneyball dupe, trades for Swisher, Moneyball hero.
Wow, the A’s are going to be pretty bad next year. (I’m not making a comment on the wisdom of the moves for the future — no doubt, Beane is positioning his team well for their move in 2010 to Fremont.)
No Haren in the rotation. Probably no Harden.
No Bradley. No Swisher. (Barton looks to be the real deal, though.)
The path to the AL wild card out of the AL West just got easier.
There are not many front offices with the balls, smarts and needs to pull off a true tear-down rebuild like this, with the real plan to win in the future. It’s what people talk about, but you rarely see it executed. It’s pretty cool to watch, actually.
I suppose anything can happen, but I don’t think a weaker Oakland in 2008 would do very much for Seattle’s wild card chances so long as Detroit, Cleveland, Boston, and the Yankees don’t fall off a cliff. A few wins at Oakland’s expense isn’t going to close that gap.
I suppose anything can happen, but I don’t think a weaker Oakland in 2008 would do very much for Seattle’s wild card chances so long as Detroit, Cleveland, Boston, and the Yankees don’t fall off a cliff. A few wins at Oakland’s expense isn’t going to close that gap.
I agree that it is not a likely scenario, but, nonetheless, the path did get easier.
It’s an interesting challenge, in a way, that Beane is essentially throwing at Oakland fans. He’s saying, basically: “Don’t fall in love with individual players the way most teams encourage you to — fall in love with winning, and the build-up to winning.” It’ll be interesting to see if fans adapt to that in the same kinds of numbers they support the more traditional relationship between an organization and its community.
On a talent level, Oakland clearly made the better deal. And Chicago … I sure hope Ken Williams isn’t fooling himself into thinking Nick Swisher is the missing piece that’s going to help the White Sox keep pace with Detroit.
I’m tremendously impressed at Beane’s willingness to do what has to be done however much he’d like to tell himself “If only Harden and Crosby are healthy and Daric Barton is rookie of the year and . . . “.
How many other GM’s out there should be similarly realistic about their chances but aren’t?
Also play in a full-keeper DMB league (on The Sports Attic). I recommend joining a DMB simulation league to anyone who is tired of ROTO and wants more realism in their fantasy games.
The Mariners are screwed in the short term because of the Angels.
The Mariners are screwed in the long term because of the Athletics.
The Mariners are screwed in the short and long term because of the front office.
As a fan of baseball, it has been easy for me to become an A’s fan (as well as an M’s fan) because the A’s front office does all the “baseball/nerd” things you want your favorite team to do.
The A’s front office looks at stats, they make trades to make the club better, and not make themselves “look” better. They are in a complete tear down mode right now, and it will be very interesting to see how good or “bad” they are going to be in 2008. How can you not be a fan, or at least pull for the A’s? Can anyone imagine the M’s front office to have the vision and imagination to do what the A’s are doing?
I’m an A’s fan and I absolutely love the fact that Beane has the conviction to trade away Haren and Swisher. If *everything* broke Oakland’s way in ‘08 they would have been in the neighborhood of contention but still left with nothing in the minor league pipeline. I laugh every time someone complains that Beane always allows “fan favorite”-type players to leave. Really, since when was 8 consecutive winning seasons and five playoff berths a bad thing?
I think it would be really difficult to be an A’s fan right now. To everyone complimenting Beane’s resolve, conviction, and foresight, would you REALLY enjoy forsaking the next 2 seasons completely by trading away your most marketable and best performing players?
How stong can your fan attachment really be, heading in to spring training knowing that you’ve got no chance, because your really smart GM already announced this fact?
And if Beane’s so smart, why is he having to completely restock his farm system in one off-season?
That seems a lot easier than knowing your team’s not going to be competitive indefinitely. At least there’s hope and things to look forward to if you’re an A’s fan.
I’d also disagree that they’re forsaking the next two seasons completely, but that’s a different argument.
“Our status quo as we stood going into the season was mediocrity at best,” Beane said. “That’s my opinion. If anything we’re taking a step back with the idea we have a chance to build something very good for a long time. … The cost of indecision for us probably would be a bigger mistake.”
I love Billy Beane because he does not see mediocrity as being good enough. He just had a streak of 8 winning seasons snapped and immediately set to building for another streak.
If only Bavasi knew when to fold the cards and build for the future.
I love Billy Beane because he does not see mediocrity as being good enough. He just had a streak of 8 winning seasons snapped and immediately set to building for another streak.
That’s it exactly. It would be a whole lot easier for me to accept mediocre teams and the occasional horrible season if I knew the management was working to make things better in the long run. And of course, had the ability to pull it off. As a baseball fan, it’s hard not to like the A’s. As a Mariner’s fan, it’s a whole different thing.
“And if Beane’s so smart, why is he having to completely restock his farm system in one off-season?”
Several reasons…all of which you already know but I have 15 minutes to kill:
1) Billy Beane is not God. I sometimes like to think he is because the afterlife would rule, but even when a team retains and nurtures its best talent its system can still be weak on multiple levels due to key injuries and prospects not panning out. Overall, his body of work is still excellent.
2) Teams like Oakland can’t afford to pay the mega prospects so they don’t draft them. Other teams can afford them but they are afraid to join the party. This is how teams like Boston, New York, Detroit, etc went from having dried up orchards to fruitful bounties seemingly overnight. Beane has made a career out of letting other teams pay the high signing bonuses and then trading for those players only after he knows they are adjusting to pro ball. During his playing days, Beane’s struggles with the mental side of the pro adjustment were legendary. This is why he applies high value to that particular attribute in players he drafts and targets in trades, but I digress…
3) When you don’t have the monster payroll winning has to be cyclical. You go for it, you rebuild, you go for it, you rebuild. Several years ago Beane developed what he believed to be a contender and traded a few key prospects (Harang, Teahen, etc.) and spent most if not all of his top picks on near-major league ready college kids to seal the deal as soon as possible. Had he been loading up on high school prospects, chances are the system would be richer at this point.
I agree that the casual A’s fan will have a tough time swallowing the pill Beane is feeding them but I assume the more sophisticated A’s fan is excited about the impressive talent being stockpiled for a legitimate, low-budget run that should start in two to three years. I know that if the Mariners were in the A’s position I would love to see our GM doing what Beane is doing. Unfortunately, it rarely happens because most GM’s don’t have his job security and most owners are terrified of making less money.
And if Beane’s so smart, why is he having to completely restock his farm system in one off-season?
A decade of competitiveness with a budget in the bottom 1/3 of baseball, plus a few mediocre drafts. Honestly, if Beane’s track record isn’t enough to convince you he’s smart, and a good GM, then you’re not paying attention.
It’s worth noting that the A’s received 6 prospects for Haren, whom they received in exchange for Mark Mulder. And they drafted Mulder, right?
It’s hilarious how Ken Williams thinks that the White Sox are primed to win it all again in 2008.
I sure hope Ken Williams isn’t fooling himself into thinking Nick Swisher is the missing piece that’s going to help the White Sox keep pace with Detroit.
Williams has said some oddly optimistic things lately, e. g., “All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us.”–Ken Williams on the Tigers’ trade for M. Cabrera and D. Willis:
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/685060,deluca120607.article
Just watch the A’s finish ahead of the M’s while they’re “taking their lumps” next year.
What makes this another great move by Billy Beane is that he recognizes the realities of his situation, and makes the moves that make the most sense in that context, with no hesitation or half-measures.
He’s going into full-bore rebuilding mode because he recognizes that the best way to generate long-term success for the team is to make sure that as soon as they hit the new revenue-generating stadium in Fremont, they can put a good young team on the field right away, and then use the added revenue to fill in talent as needed.
As Mariners fans, we should all be terrified of what will happen when this plan comes to fruition. Especially if we don’t have a smarter strategy in place by then to keep up.
Dan W. Wrote:
This may not be true for many others, because Cash-us Clay Bennett’s machinations have ruined the comparison and taken all the fun out of the Sonics’ season for all but the most hard-core, but it struck me when reading this that the situation you describe is exactly the situation the Sonics were in this past year. They were an OK team that underperformed the previous season, and might have been able to contend for a low-end playoff spot this season with all of the same parts and an interesting addition or two, if things broke their way. But they weren’t really in a position to compete for an NBA title or even a conference championship. So they tore it down . . . and you know what? For me, they are more fun to watch this year than they were last year. Like Derek said, there is hope for the future. The only thing that sucks is that the team’s ownership makes it very clear that future isn’t in Seattle, at least if they get their way.
For hard-core fans, rebuilds aren’t that hard when done properly. They’re kinda fun.
He may well know. He’d have to somehow convince Howard & Chuck of it, though.
[deleted, metacommentary]
16: Would you rather be Baltimore? Houston? Chicago (AL)? … Seattle?
The alternative here is not that the As turn into Detroit or New York or Boston or even Cleveland.
The A’s will be fine IF the new stadium is well done. I grew up with the A’s, World Series winners. Their park is an abortion. Their fans are a nightmare. And the overall experience of going to an A’s game is the rough equivalent of heading to the south Bronx in NYC for a little fun pre-Guilian.
I went early last season; went to a suite for 16, cost less than a $K. Took weapons, carry permitted, but still…to the ’suites’? Paid for food I wouldn’t feed my dog; watched baseball played on a football field; In front of 13,000 apathetic fans.
Yanks won.
As baseball experiences go, it’s slightly above catching a line drive in my crotch in little league.
Good for Billy, good for Fremont, and good for the A’s.
skipj
I don’t think that Sweeney/Gonzalez/De Los Santos really gives the A’s a whole lot. I see a corner OF with no power, a pitcher with big control problems (Gonzalez), and a pitcher that I don’t really have an opinion about given the sample size I have to look at (De Los Santos.)
Maybe Sweeney will develop power, but it sure wasn’t last year, and maybe Gonzalez’s control will continue to improve, but that all seems far from certain. I would’ve thought Beane could get more for Swisher, but I guess maybe not.
I think Beane may be looking better to non-A’s fans than he is to his team’s supporters at this point.
If you’re an A’s fan, hearing all of this talk about how your GM is a genius and he’s great at finding undervalued talent and making great trades and all of that, I think you would eventually like to see that translate into more on-field success, since the A’s have had bad luck even when they’ve reached the postseason in his tenure. The Angels have a very good farm system and a lot of cash, while the Rangers seem to be further along in the prospect-acquiring process. Where do you fit in?
And I think that as an A’s fan you would also know, in the cold depths of your gut, that other teams are doing what you do (arguably better), only with a bigger budget.
Not to try to defend Bill or anything, but claiming he doesn’t know when to fold the cards and rebuild because of what we’ve seen thus far is not a fair assessment. Maybe it was his decision to have the team “rebuild on the run” instead of rebuilding in the traditional sense. Maybe it was dictated to him by a couple of gargoyles with no baseball sense. In either case, if he thought that he had to tear the team down NOW and start over, there’s no way he’d be allowed to do it and still save his job.
We just have to accept that as long as Howard The Chuck are still here, we’re going to have a mismanaged baseball franchise.
Well, Willie Bloomquist might still have a roster spot due to having compromising pictures of Mariners executives.
It’s pointless to speculate about factors we might not know about.
Until we have evidence to the contrary, we need to assume that Bavasi has his hands firmly on the steering wheel.
If you’re an A’s fan, hearing all of this talk about how your GM is a genius and he’s great at finding undervalued talent and making great trades and all of that, I think you would eventually like to see that translate into more on-field success, since the A’s have had bad luck even when they’ve reached the postseason in his tenure.
Tough to imagine more on-field success than the A’s have had… In the past 10 seasons, the A’s have 2 losing seasons – last year and 10 years ago. Their overall record is 901-718. Here is how they’ve done:
1998: 74-88
1999: 87-75
2000: 91-70
2001: 102-60
2002: 103-59
2003: 96-66
2004: 91-71
2005: 88-74
2006: 93-69
2007: 76-86
THAT is impressive, and for team that has consistently been in the bottom 1/3 of payroll, I would say it’s unprecedented. For those who wonder about the man-crushes on Billy Beane, that’s the reason, and it’s tough to argue with.
If you’re talking about post-season success, say so, and I’m sure someone will explain why it’s basically a crap-shoot.
Tough to imagine more on-field success than the A’s have had…
Not difficult, actually. From ‘98 to ‘07, the Yankees have had 985 wins against just 631 losses, made the playoffs every single year, have three WS titles, were AL champs two other times, and made it to the ALCS one other time.
Billy Beane is good, but Brian Cashman is good and has a massive payroll. Advantage: Yankees.
I think the point stands that as an A’s fan it could be depressing to know that even though your GM is really good, you don’t win any trophies for the most marginal wins per marginal dollar spent.
2007 payrolls for the two teams you’re comparing:
New York Yankees $ 189,639,045
Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940
2007 payrolls for the two teams you’re comparing:
I’m sure that’s really comforting for all of the A’s fans whose team missed the playoffs this year. Everyone knows the Yankees have a massive payroll advantage over everyone else. The point is that it’s an advantage.
No, the point is that it’s such an advantage that it’s pointless to try to compare Billy Beane with Brian Cashman based on won-loss record.
No, the point is that it’s such an advantage that it’s pointless to try to compare Billy Beane with Brian Cashman based on won-loss record.
I wasn’t comparing Beane with Cashman. I was comparing their on-field success. Beane’s good, better than Cashman, but Cashman is still good With a good GM and a large payroll, the Yankees have had more on-field success than the A’s.
From a fan’s standpoint, the point isn’t to have the best GM–the point is to win the most games and/or to win the World Series.
Yes, Mat, but you claimed that while Beane is good, Cashman is nearly as good and has a massive payroll advantage. The second point is obvious; the first isn’t. It is at least debatable that payroll is Cashman’s only advantage over Beane. Cashman’s record has many holes that only the ability to keep spending has covered.
Everything else you say, while true, just points out how unfair (to fans, at least) baseball’s economic model is.
#40:
Comparing Beane’s success to Cashman’s isn’t really an apples-to-apples comparison for reasons that Pete Livengood laid out. While Cashman has a massive payroll advantage in terms of his major league roster, he also has the same advantage in signing draft picks. Beane has to contend with having a smaller budget AND trying to stay on the good side of the league office in order to get a stadium built. You don’t think Beane would rather give Joba Chamberlain a few million dollars to sign than Shannon Stewart? Baseball’s draft is one of the few places to find undervalued assets, and Beane would almost certainly exploit this if he was able to. Spending the money on Rick Porcello just makes too much sense when $5 million gets you one year of David Eckstein.
#41:
I disagree that baseball’s economic model is. There have been seven different champions in the past eight seasons. Parity is prevalent in baseball these days; the biggest problem is that bad teams (Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc.) remain bad because they refuse to innovate. Bad management will still lead to a bad team every time.
If I ever do switch teams because I just can’t take it anymore, it will be the Athletics.
Cashman’s record has many holes that only the ability to keep spending has covered.
Cashman gets to sign contracts/make trades knowing that he has that safety net. It would be silly for him to make the same decisions that a team with a $70M payroll would make. We can’t know how he would fare with a small payroll just the same way that we can’t know how Billy Beane would fare with a large payroll. Other teams with large payrolls have foundered because they have made stupid decisions.
Everything else you say, while true, just points out how unfair (to fans, at least) baseball’s economic model is.
That’s the main point. Consider this part of Bermanator’s comment to which CCW was responding:
And I think that as an A’s fan you would also know, in the cold depths of your gut, that other teams are doing what you do (arguably better), only with a bigger budget.
As an A’s fan, or the fan of any team with a small to medium payroll, at some point you have to accept that your team is at a real, genuine disadvantage. Fans of (for instance) the Blue Jays can grouse about how they would have done this thing or that differently, and that things could have been optimized a bit better, but then Yankees fans can make the same claims that this thing or that could have been optimized better. Given two equally talented GMs, but unequal budgets, on average the team with more money is going to win more games.
I think that Bermanator is getting at something important here. If Beane is a great GM (and I think he is), if Cashman is chopped liver (though I think he’s reasonably savvy), and the A’s can’t match the success that the Yankees have had, isn’t the obvious, rational reaction to be supremely discouraged as an A’s fan?
Just because it has been shown that it’s possible for teams with small payrolls to win the WS doesn’t mean that it’s very likely that your particular small-budget team will win the WS. Heck, if we’re using CCW’s arbitrary 10-year window, I can say that half of the last 10 WS have been won by either the Yankees or the Red Sox. That doesn’t paint an especially bright picture for the future.
The very fact that it is a smart idea for Oakland to rebuild while the Yankees and Red Sox essentially can just re-spend and never really need to rebuilt is borderline insulting to A’s fans and fans of small budget teams everywhere. Is your team unable to spend $120M to $190M on payroll? You’re sentenced to (at least) two hopeless seasons every ten seasons. Thanks for your support!
From what I’ve heard, the Oakland fans are tough enough to take it.
While Cashman has a massive payroll advantage in terms of his major league roster, he also has the same advantage in signing draft picks. Beane has to contend with having a smaller budget AND trying to stay on the good side of the league office in order to get a stadium built. You don’t think Beane would rather give Joba Chamberlain a few million dollars to sign than Shannon Stewart? Baseball’s draft is one of the few places to find undervalued assets, and Beane would almost certainly exploit this if he was able to. Spending the money on Rick Porcello just makes too much sense when $5 million gets you one year of David Eckstein.
So you think that it is smart for Cashman to use his financial advantage in every aspect of roster construction? Good, then we agree.
Moneyball, to the extent that it exists as a philosophy, is based on taking advantage of market inefficiencies. If the teams with the largest budgets make smart decisions, then those inefficiencies vanish. Basically, Moneyball works a lot better when Dan Duquette is calling the shots for the Red Sox than when Theo Epstein is in charge.
From what I’ve heard, the Oakland fans are tough enough to take it.
All 23K/game of them? Impressive.
I love this quote from Beane:
“I got off the plane from the winter meetings, I said to David, ‘Who are we kidding?’” Beane said. “We can’t let hope be our strategy here. That’s what we’re doing. … We can’t waste another year. If this needs to be done, it needs to be done.”
If only we could set Lincoln and Armstrong in a room with this quote and burn it into their brains Clockwork Orange style . . .
“Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940″
When can the media officially stop calling the A’s a ’small market payroll’ team? Its an afront to the Rays/Marlins of the world.
Mat, I know you know “championships” aren’t a good way to measure success in baseball. 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 (by the way, I could have arbitrarily chosen 8 seasons, which would have made the point even better, but I didn’t because I wanted to focus on the Beane era). 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?). Despite significantly worse on-field performance, we M’s fans spend more time complaining about the fools in the FO than we do about the M’s actual performance.
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. There have been a few comments implying that Beane is overrated. It was to those comments that I was primarily responding.
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 ”Official Seattle Sports Writer of USS Mariner”, 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