Columnist of Fail.

This is awesome! My guess is that Cohn spends a lot of time at Athletics Nation or something as, based on attendance, there aren't as many Beane-o-philes as he thinks, which is part of the reason why they're tearing things down and trying build something that will be more than just competitive, but something that will capture the imagination. There's a good chance it will fail spectacularly, but it's fun to watch the attempt. Why non-A's fans continue getting their panties in a bunch about this is just a source of amusement.

Where is the stud superstar, the Manny Ramirez, the Vladimir Guerrero?

What, hasn't this guy ever heard of Emil Brown?

But if Beane really has surrounded himself with a bunch of running dogs, wouldn't it be fair to criticize him for that? I don't know if he has or hasn't though. Plus, I'm sure most management types do that anyway, so even if he has done that, it still might not be a very fair criticism.

Beanophiles? Is this the reprise of the naked Beano Cook thread?

Is this the same guy who had a column/blog post with his son a few months back arguing that Sabean was a better GM than Beane?

What? I'm here!

Is this the same guy who had a column/blog post with his son a few months back arguing that Sabean was a better GM than Beane?

Might be. Cohn has a real hard-on for Beane.

I can sort of see where this criticism of Beane comes from (Beane really has managed to change his fandom's expectations), but I should point out that the A's did just go for broke by outbidding everyone else for the services of that Inoa Dominican kid.

Yup, it's him. Enjoy. I was mistaken regarding his son - that was a blog post on who was a 'gamer' and who wasn't, which FJM targeted leading to an e-fight.

My guess is that Cohn spends a lot of time at Athletics Nation or something as, based on attendance, there aren't as many Beane-o-philes as he thinks,

Meh. If Cohn actually spends a lot of time at A's Nation, he'll note that there aren't as many Beanophiles as he thinks. He should have seen the reaction to the Harden trade. And most people there are unhappy at the pathetic offense. And really are not looking forward to the trades of Duke and Ellis.

Excellent parody of some of the posters from this thread, Mr. Cohn. Well done.

Connie Mack and Charlie O. are impressed with the maintainence of a time honored Athletics tradition.

HES NOT a genius tony la russa is the genius/!!1 get a life billy.

The link to the Cohn column doesn't work for me, but I found it here (fyi, in case someone else has the same problem).

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080721/NEWS/346116111

I am looking forward to the trade of Huston Street, but that is just me probably.

Well that was a wasted five minutes of my life. What a dumbass.

Sabean made the daring, unpopular trade of Matt Williams for

Jeff Kent, which set up the Giants for years. Beane never makes trades like that.

This is from the other Cohn article. It speaks for itself, really, so I'll just let it hang here on the virtual wall of BBTF as a work of art.

I am looking forward to the trade of Huston Street, but that is just me probably.

Me, too, but he looked hurt in the Yankees game. If I were another gm, I wouldn't take Street now.

there aren't as many Beane-o-philes as he thinks

Not nearly as many as there used to be, anyway. He certainly still has his "In Billy We Trust" diehards, but the cult diminished greatly in size once the A's stopped making the playoffs with the regularity they used to.

Needless to say, those of us who have been around here for a while remember what it used to be like 4-5 years ago.

Not nearly as many as there used to be, anyway. He certainly still has his "In Billy We Trust" diehards, but the cult diminished greatly in size once the A's stopped making the playoffs with the regularity they used to.

Yeah, it's been near forever since they made the playoffs.

A’s fans root for a uniform and an economic business model.

I will be the first to admit, I do LIKE SOCKS. Did anyone notice Ellis was showing his socks again in the Yankees series? HOORAY.

So he's right there. The rest of the column is nonsense.

I love Bean-O

For the record: I'm as big a fan of the A's operational model as you can find (well, okay, outside of Shooty). But the point about who will tell Billy he's full of it is well taken.

I have to say I have trouble understanding how anyone can support these white flag trades... I mean they are as bad as the orginal whitesox versions fom 15 years ago.

I have to say I have trouble understanding how anyone can support these white flag trades... I mean they are as bad as the orginal whitesox versions fom 15 years ago.

Except that they're not the same. If he had traded Duke and Ellis instead of Harden and Blanton, then I'd agree with you.

I have to say I have trouble understanding how anyone can support these white flag trades... I mean they are as bad as the orginal whitesox versions fom 15 years ago.

You mean the one that jettisoned a chance at being a mediocre division winner for Foulke and Howry, key parts of an actual good division winning White Sox team 3 years later? 4 of the 6 players the Sox acquired in that trade were flops and it still worked out.

I have to say I have trouble understanding how anyone can support these white flag trades... I mean they are as bad as the orginal whitesox versions fom 15 years ago.

On the other thread, you just said the Angels are the favorite to win the World Series. What percent chance do you think the A's had of outplaying the World Series Favorite Angels by 5 or 6 games over the remaining ~70 games if they hadn't made the trades?

At the time of the first trade, I didn't think the Angels were the favorites to win the WS. Their is some correlation to the A's giving up and my opnion on the Angels as favorites... a pretty large correlation. I mean if they made the trades now after droping what 8-10 games back then OK, but they were what 3-4 back when they did?

I also think they probably (but not for sure) play better if they didn't send the we don't care if we win or lose message to the team...but you probably know better than me. And yes you read that right... you probably know better than me.

When the A's traded Harden, they were 6 games behind the Angels (and 2.5 games ahead of Texas) with 73 games remaining. What do you think their chances of outplaying the Angels by 6+ games over the final 73 games were?

For the record: I'm as big a fan of the A's operational model as you can find (well, okay, outside of Shooty). But the point about who will tell Billy he's full of it is well taken.


Apparently not by many of the die hard Beanebags.

Cohn is right, the real magic of Beane is his ability to pull the tarp over the eyes of most A's fans.

For awhile, they were convinced their losses were the result of bad luck. Then when the Alderson core left, they have always been "2 years away from a dynasty". (It always seems to be exactly 2 years too.)

Another theme is overrating their 1b and thinking their 1b are catchers. You don't have to go back to far to hear the hosannahs for Drederick Barton.

Needless to say, those of us who have been around here for a while remember what it used to be like 4-5 years ago.

Yes, the big difference is that Beane has in large part lost the saberists. You go back that far in time, the only real saberist voices were Joe Sheelan and Rob Neyer. THey were giving us "Economic Illiterate B1tches" and "Beane Count" in their fellating of Billy.

Now there is much more of a voice that will say: (1) Signing Kendall is not a good thing and (2) Here is a bunch of math.

The Beanebags have tried to keep a foothold. They have claimed that there were market inefficiencies from everything from defense to young injured players. The problem is that running out the Chris Smellings of the world just help you lead the league in DL visits. The A's stronghold on junk stats have also vanished with the Alderson core. No more 3rd order pythogorean pennants for the team no one sees.

Then the Beane sprouts started changing the blame for their misfortune. It was no longer the luck fairy; the injury gremlins were now the cause.

And that is the problem. If the real hard core Beaney Babies really want to measure Beane objectively--why don't they put their money where their math is. The claimed this was going to be year 2 of the second A's dynasty. The one that featured: Bing Crosby, China Doll Hardin, Oakland Vice Dan Johnson, Dan Meyer, Eric Chavez, Joe Blanton, Drederick Enders, that fat moneyball catcher, Nick Swiffer, etc. Why can't we measure Beane on this cast and the players he used to fill in this core like Smelling, Travis No Luck Buck, etc.

Then the Beane sprouts started changing the blame for their misfortune. It was no longer the luck fairy; the injury gremlins were now the cause.

As opposed to you, who rag on Beane nonstop for years and finally, the one time you're actually right, you crow about how great your crystal ball was. Lyndon LaRouche has a better record at winning the presidency than you do predicting what happens with the A's.

As opposed to you, who rag on Beane nonstop for years and finally, the one time they actually play poorly last year, you crow about how great your crystal ball was.

I said nothing of the sort, unless you are referring to the actual bet that was made and the final result.

No statheads predicted the A's would be a good team this year. ZiPS, of course, is infamous for the 89 win projection, but even I said at the time I didn't buy it and thought they were more a .500 team.

Yep, its like I said, Beane has lost the saberists. He's down to just a few A's fans and Neyer bringing his apologetia.

What do you think their chances of outplaying the Angels by 6+ games over the final 73 games were?

It's not an either or. You don't need to bet or fold, you can check.

As opposed to you,...

I should also mention that is a favorite tactic of Beaners as demonstrated on this thread.

Cohn breaks out a valid complaint that there is no oversight, or other voice besides Beane. That is not met with any discussion on whether this is good or bad. Its met with a bunch of attacks on Cohn. Usually, there will also be some claims about Beane's record, but that is a little hard today in these thin days.

Likewise, instead of judging the Crosby/Barton generation on the merits of their accomplishments, its easier to divert the attention somewhere else.

It's not an either or. You don't need to bet or fold, you can check.

I agree. Aren't the Beaneys the ones that use to talk about Beane's success because he:

(1) Made the playoffs, err
(2) Had 90 win seasons, err
(3) Stayed competative.

How was that admirable back then, but blowing up a team because you don't have a chance to win it is admirable now.

It's not an either or. You don't need to bet or fold, you can check.


But there's opportunity cost, so it's not like that. It's more like the A's were trying to draw a runner-runner flush and out of position, with the Angels betting heavily and dangerous cards on the board. Beane's choosing to use his resources on his best hand, which isn't the 2008 hand.

My complaint with Beane was holding on too long. Obviously Harden would have been a tough winter trade, but Blanton should have been traded before the season. He called a pre-flop bet with K3s.

I for one hope after all these trades are done that if/when they get a new ballpark, they will run out of excuses not to be able to keep their young talent. If they continue to do this even in Fremont, then I will not be able to pay my money to see a bunch of laundry.

It's not an either or. You don't need to bet or fold, you can check.

Beane kind of did ... by getting back Gallagher and Murton for Harden and Gaudin, it was defensible on a 2008-only basis, trading defense for offense.* Blanton has pitched like poop this year, so it's not like that's exactly a punt either.

* I would not have traded Harden, but I wouldn't put more than 2:3 odds on him being more valuable than Gallagher for the rest of this year because of injury history. Gaudin for Murton is perfectly fair on the undercard.

Likewise, instead of judging the Crosby/Barton generation on the merits of their accomplishments, its easier to divert the attention somewhere else.

Crosby and Barton are different generations. Crosby's in his 5th year of indentured servitude, can already be judged a flop, and will be gone as soon as the team has a viable alternative. Barton's in his first year, and is still plan A for the future.

Cohn breaks out a valid complaint that there is no oversight, or other voice besides Beane. That is not met with any discussion on whether this is good or bad.

I wondered reading the excerpt - does Cohn really think it would be awesome having a self-important superstar second guessing the front office all the time (look at the rumours of Ichiro's negative influence in Seattle)? Sportswriters hate those guys. Manny and Vlad are weird examples, too.

Sabean made the daring, unpopular trade of Matt Williams for

Jeff Kent, which set up the Giants for years. Beane never makes trades like that.

This is from the other Cohn article. It speaks for itself, really, so I'll just let it hang here on the virtual wall of BBTF as a work of art.

What's wrong with this?

BL: Do you need the "smellings" etc.? Your point is strong, why lose people on tone?

Deliberate misspelling of people's names is really childish. EDIT: what Eraser-X said.

I wondered reading the excerpt - does Cohn really think it would be awesome having a self-important superstar second guessing the front office all the time (look at the rumours of Ichiro's negative influence in Seattle)? Sportswriters hate those guys. Manny and Vlad are weird examples, too.

See, Cohn doesn't care if it makes the A's better or not, he just wants to see the mean ol' stathead have to be "It" in a game of Smear the, uh, Person of a Differing Sexual Preference.

I agree. Aren't the Beaneys the ones that use to talk about Beane's success because he:

(1) Made the playoffs, err
(2) Had 90 win seasons, err
(3) Stayed competative.

How was that admirable back then, but blowing up a team because you don't have a chance to win it is admirable now.


Is this last part supposed to be sarcasm? Because I would say that with sincerity ... ride the talent as long as you can, and then punt when you can't. That seems to be what Beane's done. The execution has been mixed (still more good than bad, I think) but the principles seem exactly on point.

HES NOT a genius tony la russa is the genius/!!1 get a life billy.

It's going to be weird coming back to this place in 10-15 years and seeing Beane get the same treatment that La Russa gets now.

Seems to me, that this is just a really poorly executed fantasy baseball gambit. It's the type of move DMB or Fantasy owners make when their is no difference between in the playoffs and out. When real life is much more nuanced.

Cohn is right, the real magic of Beane is his ability to pull the tarp over the eyes of most A's fans.

Maybe, but I think you could make a pretty good argument that it isn't working that well. The A's fans are increasingly voting with their feet by not showing up.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a picture of 30,000 empty seats and a Tarpaulin of Shame is worth a novel.

Your point is strong, why lose people on tone?

That's been the question for half a decade.

What's wrong with this?

The irony is that Cohn is criticizing Beane for making controversial trades aimed to improve the team long-term, but then in the same column says Beane would never make a controversial trade aimed to improve the team long-term like Sabean did with Kent.

Seems to me, that this is just a really poorly executed fantasy baseball gambit. It's the type of move DMB or Fantasy owners make when their is no difference between in the playoffs and out. When real life is much more nuanced.

Too bad Beane is missing the nuance.

I wondered reading the excerpt - does Cohn really think it would be awesome having a self-important superstar second guessing the front office all the time (look at the rumours of Ichiro's negative influence in Seattle)? Sportswriters hate those guys. Manny and Vlad are weird examples, too.

I don't know whether Cohn thinks this specific element would be a positive. I don't think having a Kobe influence is an overall positive.

Nevertheless, the issue is not the lack of a diva, but the lack of any voice whatsoever to counteract Beane.

Most teams have something to hold their GMs accountable. Most often, it is owners, fans, players, saberists, and sportswriters. For the longest time, Beane got a pass from everyone. Now, he is a part owner, which could reduce the amount of oversight he has to face from ownership. Some saberists are starting to hold him accountable and realizing, we can't just say its all bad luck. But is an odd situation when the majority of A's fans actually try to defend Beane moves as acts of genius rather than really evaluate the effect they have on their baseball team. They have become more concerned with junk stats, 3rd order pythogorean pennants, and winning trades than winning baseball games.

There is one A's fan on this board that still claims the Hudson trade was a "win" for Beane. If you look at Mets fans on this board, they get heartbroken when their team trades an overhyped prospect. They are actually emotionally vested to players that are only potential Mets. A's fans will bark about Harden being a Cy Young candidate for the next five years, until Beane trades him for a couple of rosin bags. Then he was all done. Just look at their reactions about Chavez and Tejeda.

Beane kind of did ... by getting back Gallagher and Murton for Harden and Gaudin, it was defensible on a 2008-only basis, trading defense for offense

I don't see it. Murton had little value. Gallager's mean production might be the same as Hardens, but a team in the A's situation should be long vol, as the risk is asyemtric.

It's the type of move DMB or Fantasy owners make when their is no difference between in the playoffs and out. When real life is much more nuanced.

Except that wasn't Beane's choice. It wasn't playoffs or not, it was 10% chance of making the playoffs vs. helping the team for future seasons where they have a better than 10% chance.

Too bad Beane is missing the nuance.

I don't really believe that, which is why I don't really understand what the hell is going on here and I would be real pissed if I was an A's fan.

I would be real pissed if I was an A's fan.

I doubt Beane's going to be sacrifice long-term winning for a fanbase that barely showed any interest in the players when they were winning 100 games and hadn't lost anyone yet. The fans didn't come out to see Harden or Blanton or Haren when the A's did have them, so how seriously should Beane take whining that they're gone?

Except that wasn't Beane's choice. It wasn't playoffs or not, it was 10% chance of making the playoffs vs. helping the team for future seasons where they have a better than 10% chance.

I see no reason why it was only a 10% chance. Heck, BP STILL says the A's have anywhere from a 12% chance to a 20% chance of making the playoffs depending on which report you used after time has ticked off the clock and they have played really poorly for a week, at least. Yes, ironic I'm siteing this report after saying I didn't buy it early... not because I believe it is accurate, but because I don't believe that 10% number is remotly close.

I'm not saying the A's should have stood pat. I'm saying the A's should have waited until closer to the trade deadline at least on Harden, as that deal wasn't so good you had to take (though you do risk Harden getting hurt).

Partially, because the entire time they were crying poor mouth. The A's brand is built around Billy Beane, and it's not selling all that well.

I'm not trying to be hyper-critical of beane in this thread, most of your very strong defense, has me taking a position much stronger than I want to take. I could very well be wrong, I don't think it's clear cut.

I guess I'm confused as to why people consider the last four major trades (Haren, Swisher, Harden, Blanton) Beane has made to be so utterly wretched as to be worth so harshly criticizing them (and people who support them)

1. Haren - Yes, Haren has pitched extremely well in Arizona, but the A's got both Smith and Eveland to fill out their rotation, and Gonzalez, and they added Anderson, Cunningham and Carter to the prospect pile. I'm not seeing how that's a particularly bad move either in the short-term or the long-term.

2. Swisher - Perhaps some potential criticism here if Swisher recovers (and IIRC he's got a good line drive percentage and I think he'll improve, personally), but the A's got Sweeney performing well in the majors, Gio Gonzalez, who has been pitching more effectively in AAA and is still quite young and FDLS (we'll see). Nothing too awful from my point of view, again.

3. Harden - The closest to a "punt" of the four, I guess. Still, the A's got a younger pitcher who has stepped right into the rotation as well as a potentially useful part (Patterson) and a catching prospect who was very highly rated coming into the season. If Donaldson doesn't pan out, too bad, if he does, then it's a real boon.

4. Blanton - Blanton's a pretty valuable pitcher, but he wasn't helping the A's this year and they got a really good prospect out of it (Cardenas) and a pretty good one in Outman. Even if Spencer amounts to nothing (and that's where I see him ending up), did the A's really "punt" that much with this? Blanton had all of a 77 ERA+ after all.


If you're going to criticize Beane for punting - I think it's much more logical to criticize him for deals he didn't make - to improve the hitting. Naturally, this mostly depends on what talent was and is actually available, as well as what's being asked for it - sure it'd be great to pick up a Jason Bay, but at what price? It's not improving the offense that has hurt the A's, not trading away Haren, Harden or Blanton, or even Swisher (so far).

--------------

@ 49

That quote referencing Sabean is from a different article, although the ridiculousness remains.

I see no reason why it was only a 10% chance. Heck, BP STILL says the A's have anywhere from a 12% chance to a 20% chance of making the playoffs depending on which report you used after time has ticked off the clock and they have played really poorly for a week, at least. Yes, ironic I'm siteing this report after saying I didn't buy it early... not because I believe it is accurate, but because I don't believe that 10% number is remotly close.

I asked you several times what chance you thought they had at 6 games back with 73 to play, and you refused to respond. So, what is it?

And it's not as if the trades took them from a 10% chance to 0%--it's more like it took them from 20% to 10%.

I'm saying the A's should have waited until closer to the trade deadline at least on Harden, as that deal wasn't so good you had to take (though you do risk Harden getting hurt).

You answer your own question. If Harden gets hurt--and everyone knows he's a big injury risk--the A's lose that same % chance at the playoffs and get nothing in return.

I'm not saying the A's should have stood pat. I'm saying the A's should have waited until closer to the trade deadline at least on Harden, as that deal wasn't so good you had to take (though you do risk Harden getting hurt).

Well, remember, I wasn't crazy about the take in the Harden trade. I'm talking more about the idea of trading Harden than the results.

Beane is a popular lightning rod but given that most of the post-trade front office media quotes have come from David Forst rather than from Beane, I'm not convinced of the "Beane wields 100% power" meme, to say nothing of supposed yes-men or flunkies.

Partially, because the entire time they were crying poor mouth. The A's brand is built around Billy Beane, and it's not selling all that well.


Yes, that is correct.

Heck, BP STILL says the A's have anywhere from a 12% chance to a 20% chance of making the playoffs depending on which report you used after time has ticked off the clock and they have played really poorly for a week, at least.

Precisely. Moreover, I doubt the A's had even a 10% chance last year, with the same core, presumedly with the same types of projection. Yet, Beane didn't blow it all up then b/c he convinced his fanboys that all you have to do is make the playoffs---then its a crapshoot.

Billy is pulling the Upgrade/Stand Pat/Blow it up decisions out of his ass with no real view toward the reality of the league around him. If its based on chances to win, he should have been blowing up teams that had to face the Yankees-that-were and the Reverse-the-curse-Sox.

I can sort of see where this criticism of Beane comes from (Beane really has managed to change his fandom's expectations), but I should point out that the A's did just go for broke by outbidding everyone else for the services of that Inoa Dominican kid.

Um...actually, that would be incorrect...

Dallas Morning News: Rangers, not A's, submit high bid for Inoa.

I don't really believe that, which is why I don't really understand what the hell is going on here and I would be real pissed if I was an A's fan.

I'm an A's fan and proud of it. I would be bummed if I were I Giant's fan, but then the REASON I'm not a Giant's fan (and I live in San Francisco) is because the A's offer a more interesting alternative. Sure it's somewhat frustrating when our beloved free agents move on, or our soon-to-be free agents are traded, but at the same time, it's exciting to have young up-and-coming players to root for, and surely we all understand that players are underpaid until they reach free agency, and overpaid once they reach it (and sign that big long contract). Now, I happened to cancel my season tickets this season, but NOT because Beane traded Swish and Haren over the winter. I canceled my tickets over the move to Fremont.

asked you several times what chance you thought they had at 6 games back with 73 to play, and you refused to respond. So, what is it?

I refuse to respond because it would be as meaningless as your entire flipping point. See now, you have me getting aggressive, when I'm trying to have a nice reasonable conversation and your getting stuck up on something that is unknowable.

You answer your own question. If Harden gets hurt--and everyone knows he's a big injury risk--the A's lose that same % chance at the playoffs and get nothing in return.

Agreed, and this is where it gets kind of interesting. Let me ask you an unanswerable question, since your so dman caught up in trying to get me to answer one. What are the odds Harden gets hurt in the what 5 starts? Prior to July 31? By no means am I saying they shouldn't have traded him. I'm saying the timing was really bad.

it's exciting to have young up-and-coming players to root for

Who exactly is more exciting that Linecum and Cain? Heck, even Sanchez on the A's?

How the hell do I always get dragged into these threads!

I asked you several times what chance you thought they had at 6 games back with 73 to play, and you refused to respond. So, what is it?


That is another Beane fanboy tactic. Asking for alternatives on a bad decision WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION TO THE SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT GOT THEM TO THAT POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Beane does limit the number of disaster decisions he makes. There are a few Hudson deals, but they aren't that many.

What he does do is make a portfolio of decisions that reduce the chance to get value. Or, in my old words, he leaks VORP.

This set of blowups is the direct result of the transactions involving Kendall, which were the direct result of the poor decisions regarding Tejeda.

More important, the A's fans will always value the trade by undervaluing the lost person and greatly overvaluing the "prospects" they get in return.

In the dump of the Alderson core, Beane got back only one all star level player. You can be as excited as you want about the Bartons, John-Ford Griffiths, Teahans and Charles Thomases. Its likely that anyone you get above average ML performance out of, is going to be somebody you ship to another organization for some other promise of the future.

Billy keeps crying poor-mouth and then keeps selling the A's the future based on hitting the Numbers. Its a scam where only the house wins, but it will keep perpetuating as long as the fans buy it.

I refuse to respond because it would be as meaningless as your entire flipping point. See now, you have me getting aggressive, when I'm trying to have a nice reasonable conversation and your getting stuck up on something that is unknowable.

Meaningless? It's your entire point. You claim the A's made "white flag trades," which implies they're surrendering a shot at the playoffs. But giving up a 5% chance at the playoffs versus a 50% shot at the playoffs makes all the difference in the world. You state that "10% is not remotely close." So what would be close? Give a range if you're not comfortable giving a single percentage.

More important, the A's fans will always value the trade by undervaluing the lost person and greatly overvaluing the "prospects" they get in return.

In the dump of the Alderson core, Beane got back only one all star level player. You can be as excited as you want about the Bartons, John-Ford Griffiths, Teahans and Charles Thomases.

Ford-Griffith and Thomas, yes (although most A's fans don't seem to have considered him more than a 4th/5th outfielder at best). Was anyone really that excited about Teahan though, at least before 2006, when he had 393 good at bats for KC? I recall people were unhappy he got traded but it wasn't anything irrational as far as I can remember.

As for Barton, at best you're subjecting him to some hindsight bias (assuming he never gets any better than he is this year) - he was a very highly regarded prospect by more than just A's fans, and claiming otherwise is simply wrong

Billy keeps crying poor-mouth and then keeps selling the A's the future based on hitting the Numbers. Its a scam where only the house wins, but it will keep perpetuating as long as the fans buy it.

Well, Beane has also done a pretty damn good job of running the team, and with the signings of Inoa and several of their riskier draft picks (i.e. Rashun Dixon), it's pretty clear that they actually are opening the purse strings somewhat. Given the amount of talent that Oakland has in the minors, I'm not particularly convinced it's that much of a con game to point to 2009-2011 and on as the "real" contending years, certainly not to the level you claim.

Asking for alternatives on a bad decision WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION TO THE SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT GOT THEM TO THAT POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Lots of people analyze the decisions the A's have made. Others use adolescent nicknames and hurl insults to mask their lack of knowledge regarding the specific decisions and players involved.

As for Barton, at best you're subjecting him to some <i> hindsight bias (assuming he never gets any better than he is this year) - he was a very highly regarded prospect by more than just A's fans, and claiming otherwise is simply wrong </i>

LOL.

Its a scam where only the house wins, but it will keep perpetuating as long as the fans buy it.

Do you really believe that Beane is maintaining a treadmill instead of trying to win? That's a pretty serious accusation that you don't have any evidence for.

Also, it's a little early to equate Barton with John-Ford Griffin.

Who exactly is more exciting that Linecum and Cain? Heck, even Sanchez on the A's?

Agreed, those guys are good, and young, and exciting, especially Timmy. He's freakishly awesome.

It was exciting watching Buck and Barton last year. It's been exciting watching Kurt Suzuki and Carlos Gonzalez this year. I'm excited to see Gio Gonzalez, Trevor Cahill, and Brett Anderson coming up.

So does BL actually think Mark Mulder was drafted by Alderson, or is he just too lazy to come up with new trolling taunts?

LOL.

Baseball America considered him the #1 A's prospect coming into the season, #32 overall prospect in 2005, #28 in 2006, #67 in 2007, 48th in 2008.

I'm not sure what "LOL" is supposed to represent other than an inability to admit you were wrong - Barton was/is not an example of A's fans overhyping someone. If he ends up being a bust, basically everyone overhyped him (and the A's would still have gotten Calero and Haren (and out of Haren, Smith/Eveland/Carter/Cunningham/Gonzalez/Anderson). All for one year of Mulder.

What are the odds Harden gets hurt in the what 5 starts? Prior to July 31? By no means am I saying they shouldn't have traded him. I'm saying the timing was really bad.

I put the chance of Harden being injured at 10% per start, so... 50%.

Seeing as they traded him before he went down again, the timing was pretty good.

Lots of people analyze the decisions the A's have made. Others use adolescent nicknames and hurl insults to mask their lack of knowledge regarding the specific decisions and players involved.

Googling up Sim stats and trying to have someone else commit to a Pennant Lost Percentage is not analysis. At best, that is trying to "win" an argument. It doesn't matter if you manage to get someone to re-characterize a move as "white flag" or not.

The fact is that Beane has traded a vast majority of anyone with any value over the last couple of years. He's gotten back some prospects that are just as shiny to you as Barton was a few years ago.

I don't know if its you or other A's fans that are yapping about the fact that losing Blanton and Gaudin doesn't effect the team b/c of the other pitching depth. If that is the case, and you really ahve that kind of depth, then you really didn't need Eveland and Smith for this year, and having an ace like Haren would make a difference. If its not the case, then losing pitching depth in the middle of the season hurts you.

You can't have it both ways. Is having Haren/Harden/Blanton/Gaudin better than having Eveland/Smith/Gallagher. (also, it wasn't too long ago that Blanton was being claimed by A's fans to be the next great thing). If so, then the move damaged the A's chances and the hope is all those shiny things you got in return turn out a little better than the Charles Thomases of the world.

I'm not sure what "LOL" is supposed to represent other than an inability to admit you were wrong - Barton was/is not an example of A's fans overhyping someone.

It means its pretty normal for this site. You are accusing someone of having "hindsite analysis" when they have consistently said the same things about Barton on this very board on the day the trade was made.

That was just like Szym's little aside about crowing, when I don't think I've said anything about the A's. It means that in your mind, you feel like that anyone who has a different opinion must commit some fallacy that you have made up to pigeon hole them in, so you are going to accuse them of that fallacy regardless of whether it even remotely resembles the truth.

Its like with Danny. It doesn't matter how long you have the discussion, because its always going to be how great the A's are going to be in the future. And then when the future comes, he is going to count on no one remembering what really happened.

And if reality doesn't work, you can always try to make up positions or google up non-existent facts to win an argument and lose site of the real issue. Their has only been a few posts on the series of transactions made by Beane. There has only been one post on Beane's accountability. Instead they want to make it personal about Beane's critics.

As stated many times, for many years. Beane's performance is parabolic around the Alderson core. He had an unexpected blip of success in '06; otherwise, its almost a perfect parabola. There are no "market inefficiencies." There was a good set of young players; Beane did a nice job of building around it, but not good enough to win a world championship. Those little micro strategies don't work when you have to build a whole team. Beane tried it, and now he has to blow it up.

That is not really a problem except for A's fans, who prefer to cheer Beane than the team on the field, and have a blind faith in some garbage that Beane is selling them. The "Moneyball" crop was a bust. The "market inefficiency" is just the baseball version of "synergy"--an empty buzzword devoid of meaning.

I just looked who the A's got for Tejada, it was Huston Street. They got Blanton for Giambi. Seems like those two "deals" worked out well.

I don't know what to make of the A's right now. There's a lot of young talent, but I don't have any idea if they can turn it into a contender within the 6 year period where it becomes expensive.

The A's made the decision to rebuild over the winter, when they traded Swish and Haren. They conceded the 2008 division at that time.

You can't have it both ways. Is having Haren/Harden/Blanton/Gaudin better than having Eveland/Smith/Gallagher.

You missed a few of the players that came back in the trades. The purpose of the rebuilding effort, as explicitly stated by Beane and as understood by common sense, is to improve the team in the years after 2008.

So does BL actually think Mark Mulder was drafted by Alderson, or is he just too lazy to come up with new trolling taunts?

I must have missed that post. Are you really that desperate Danny. Are you so unable to talk about this series of moves, you are going to resort to not only trying to trap a poster into a percentage, you are going to make up an irrelevant fact, put it in the mouth of another poster, and then try to claim victory because the fact was false? You may as well google up how Zach Gallagher finished in your sim league to show how Beane "won" that trade.

Why not forget about WHO is posting or writing the articles and deal with WHAT they are stating as an issue.

Also, it might help if you don't project a bunch of minor leagures to MVP and Cy Young awards, because if we went by your hype, Harden/Meyer/Blanton would have eclipsed Glavine/Maddux/Smoltz in accomplishments; Barton would be some combination of Bench and Piazza; and Crosby would be the next coming of Honus Wagner.

This iteration was a failure. There was no Dynasty part two. The second version did perform a little better in the playoffs, but that is just because the A's previously used a softball strategy and eschewed baserunning instruction.

The Lord of No Rings still has only golf and green day shows to look foward to in the fall.

The purpose of the rebuilding effort, as explicitly stated by Beane and as understood by common sense, is to improve the team in the years after 2008.

That is irrelevant as to whether thay are white flag deals, and is also the EXACT same load of garbage that was sold in obtaining that same cast of characters. If improving for the future means looking forward to later dealing Gonzalez for some overhyped A ball pitchers and dealing Gallagher for a set of new tarps, then I think living for the moment sounds like a much better option.

Hmmm... Backlasher I am beginning to think your misspellings are not deliberate after all.

That is irrelevant as to whether thay are white flag deals

Dude, I'm saying they hoisted the white flag already, over the Winter. Danny's point is well taken. The A's have done much better than expected in 2008, but still have only a small chance to catch the Angels, so it would be foolish for them to reverse direction and become buyers.

Cohn used to write for the SF Chronicle, I believe.

By the way, I have two words to say about this article. A and Men.

I'm a little late for this thread, but Backlasher says it well in the last post.

I just looked who the A's got for Tejada, it was Huston Street.

Wouldn't they also have gotten Hutson Street for Chavez without having to endure the nightmare that is Bobby Crosby? Couldn't they also have gotten Street just by losing Foulke, without having to endure the blown save machine of Octavio Dotel? Couldn't they also have gotten Street without losing anybody?

It means its pretty normal for this site. You are accusing someone of having "hindsite analysis" when they have consistently said the same things about Barton on this very board on the day the trade was made.

Very well, rather than your arguments being suspect because of hindsight bias (I'll assume you did consider Barton a terrible player or something), the points you actually use are weak at best.

You chose to compare Barton to John Ford-Griffith and Charles Thomas, centering your argument around the following two quotes

More important, the A's fans will always value the trade by undervaluing the lost person and greatly overvaluing the "prospects" they get in return.

and

You can be as excited as you want about the Bartons, John-Ford Griffiths, Teahans and Charles Thomases. Its likely that anyone you get above average ML performance out of, is going to be somebody you ship to another organization for some other promise of the future.

Your first argument is wrong for the reason I stated - Barton was a highly regarded prospect by basically everyone. That you may have thought otherwise might be a point in your favor, but it's incorrect to claim a broader point than that (not to mention that Barton is in his first full year and still very young) regarding A's fans.

As to your second point - again, your claims are not really accurate. For one, Barton came along with Haren and Calero. Haren was then turned into several players, three of whom are already contributing at the major-league level. It's not as if they A's traded a whole lot to get Barton/Haren/Calero anyway - they gave up a year of Mulder pitching pretty well before he fell apart. I'm not seeing how turning 1 year of Mulder into three years of Haren, 2 good years of Calero and Barton can be anything but a good thing, even leaving out the haul from trading Haren. Yes, people were excited about Barton, but (1) that wasn't really unreasonable and (2) they were excited about getting Haren and Calero too.

That was just like Szym's little aside about crowing, when I don't think I've said anything about the A's. It means that in your mind, you feel like that anyone who has a different opinion must commit some fallacy that you have made up to pigeon hole them in, so you are going to accuse them of that fallacy regardless of whether it even remotely resembles the truth.

This is just silly.

I disagree with where you criticize Beane and the manner in which you do so, not the fact you do it in the first place.

I pointed out that I think Beane's failing, this year at least, is not the trades he has made, but rather the trade(s) he hasn't - he didn't upgrade the offense nearly enough, partially because he incorrectly relied upon Chavez and Crosby and Sweeney, etc. Maybe there wasn't a good enough trade out there, I don't know, but if I were to go after Beane's recent record, that seems to be a lot more of a justifiable target than trying to use Barton as a point against Beane - the Mulder trade really isn't at all something that serves as an anti-Beane point.

The A's made the decision to rebuild over the winter, when they traded Swish and Haren. They conceded the 2008 division at that time.

I don't see it as so clear cut. If it was, why didn't he trade Barton and Street at that point as well? Clearly you hold onto Harden, as he had more value when they traded him, than then.

If I'm the A's and the fan base is as elastic as you all seem to think in terms of wins then #### it I dump the entire kit and caboodle and really try and rebuild and spend two seasons being bad enough to get some real talent at the top of the draft instead of having to settle for far less valuable picks in the teens.

Since they didn't do that, call it the Marlin way, rather they choose to reload so when they reloaded and they played probably better than expectation instead of seeing where it would go or trying to buy and get the team better, they instead sell again... once again being stuck in the teens for picks and spending more money then they really needed (I can't believe I'm saying the A's are spending too much money)...

If it was, why didn't he trade Barton and Street at that point as well? Clearly you hold onto Harden, as he had more value when they traded him, than then.

Actually, I think he should've traded Street at that point. Barton, however, is 22 years old and with just a sliver of service time in the winter and is still the type of player the A's should be acquiring (though he really needs to be back in the minors).

Dan, I meant Blanton.

Is having Haren/Harden/Blanton/Gaudin better than having Eveland/Smith/Gallagher.

For this year, no. For the next 6 years, almost certainly. In terms of payroll, absolutely.

Good, bad or otherwise, the A's committed payroll next year is down to about $25 M (Chavez, Crosby, Street and whatever Duke gets in arb) and possibly less by the time they stop trading. Add in 21 guys making the minimum. Maybe I missed some other arb-eligible guys but basically a payroll of about $35 M max.

Can you compete for the World Series with that? It's bloody hard and very unlikely with the talent the A's have on hand. Will the A's pump the payroll back up to $80 M, adding a lot of talent this offseason? Probably not and who's available that's worth adding, but they'd be a pretty good team if they could find the right players. Is the 2008 team as it stands now substantially worse than they were before? No, a couple wins. Is the 2009 team better? Probably not, but then Harden and Blanton would be gone after that anyway. Is it cheaper? Hoo-boy yeah.

Whose idea was it to chop payroll? None of us know the answer to that any more than any of us know whether Beane is surrounded by yes men. There's no good reason I'm aware of to think that Beane isn't spending as much as he's authorized to do (at season's start) ... though as part-owner, presumably he has some say in how much (and profits from cutting payroll).

It's interesting -- before the season the naysayers were laughing it up about how bad the A's were going to be. Why they might even compete with the Rangers for last place (good prognostication all around). Most of us "beane-o-philes" thought they'd be pretty sorry as well. Instead they've "overachieved." Rather than say "crap, we were wrong, maybe Beane knows more than us and does know how to build a contending team out of crap", the naysayers now question his competitiveness and say he's throwing in the towel ... and doing it in a way that will keep them from competing in the future to boot.

This is still a franchise that has had only 1 below-500 season in the last 11 and even that was 76 wins. 4 division titles, a wild card, 4 90-win seasons, 2 100-win seasons.

I keep getting told to judge Beane and the A's by their performance. Well, there ya go. Looks pretty good to me. Pretty much right in line with, oh, the Cardinals.

And what's the big deal about the Kendall trade? Between the payroll they shedded and the money the Pirates kicked in, he cost them about $5-6 M a year extra. Not a good deal but not a back-breaker. And it's not like they were gonna get anything for Redman and Rhodes anyway and it's not like either of them would have made any difference to the A's teams they would have been on (Rhodes had 43 good innings and theoretically could have brought in Jason Michaels -- woo hoo! Redman of course was a disaster). In an alternate universe, you can concoct a trade of Redman for, oh, Yorvit Torrealba and the A's would have been better off but for all his suckiness, in 20/20 hindsight, Kendall was worth a lot more to the A's than Redman and Rhodes would have been.

If you want to ascribe this to a single move, it was the Dye extension.

Many of Beane's recent moves have been puzzling -- particularly Haren and Swisher. Those are good, cost-controlled, young players -- they're the types of players from which Beane and the A's have extracted the most value over their successful seasons. That is those top A's teams were competitive because almost every arb-buyout contract Beane signed paid off substantially (Terrence Long is the only one that worked out badly and that one was pretty cheap). And with Haren and Swisher, he had two more very good-looking contracts. Haren, at essentially a 6-for-1 deal is hard to pass up -- I'll always wonder whether Quentin for Carter was because Beane preferred Carter or did the A's-DBacks now start talking seriously until after that was done. The Swisher deal? Meh. Not a fan. I am not a fan of trading cheap, young players; I am a fan of trading prospects for cheap, established, young-ish players (e.g. Choi-Lee).

But yes, the A's look at best mediocre over the next 2-3 years and if only 1-2 of these prospects pay off, I expect it to be a long time before they're good -- unless the new stadium pays off and they stop being cheap bastards. But I don't buy the implication that the present was particularly rosy either.

Ironically, they are in this position in part because they didn't make "white flag" trades in the past. They let Giambi and Tejada walk rather than getting prospects in return -- I don't know who those draft picks turned into but they obviously didn't turn into much. They let Zito walk two years ago -- too soon to tell what those picks will turn into. Trades of those guys at or near their peak value would have gone a long way to replenishing the A's declining system (for which Beane clearly shoulders much/most of the blame).

Dan, I meant Blanton.

Wasn't Beane asking for Cueto, Votto and someone else from the Reds? That's what I found on a quick google at least. I also found this from February

I would think a package of Carlos Carrasco/Josh Outman, Adrian Cardenas/Jason Donald and maybe Wes Helms could work.

He had 2/3 right, not bad!

The word was that Beane was looking to trade Blanton over the winter, but he didn't like the offers. It's pretty tough to say whether that was a good or bad move without knowing what the offers were. If he knew Blanton would put up a 77 ERA+ in the first half, I'm guessing he would have taken one of them, though.

Googling up Sim stats

Damn, BL. I know you have a long memory, but I cannot believe you pulled this out.

I recall the big Winter trade rumor was Haren or Blanton for Lastings Milledge. It's not hard to imagine the Mets wanted Haren but Beane would only offer Blanton, but I don't know.

Ironically, they are in this position in part because they didn't make "white flag" trades in the past. They let Giambi and Tejada walk rather than getting prospects in return -- I don't know who those draft picks turned into but they obviously didn't turn into much. They let Zito walk two years ago -- too soon to tell what those picks will turn into. Trades of those guys at or near their peak value would have gone a long way to replenishing the A's declining system (for which Beane clearly shoulders much/most of the blame).

As AROM noted earlier, Giambi's compensation picks netted Blanton, and Tejada's turned into Street. Damon's compensation pick was Swisher.

Anyway, the A's made the playoffs in Giambi, Tejada, and Zito's walk years.

Damn, BL. I know you have a long memory, but I cannot believe you pulled this out.

Really? His entire posts are nearly verbatim from 2005.

as I posted earlier, it was Street and Blanton as compensation for Giambi and Tejada.

I don't think that's significantly different than the return in trade for Mulder and Hudson, which is Haren + Calero with the jury still out on Barton

As stated many times, for many years. Beane's performance is parabolic around the Alderson core. He had an unexpected blip of success in '06; otherwise, its almost a perfect parabola.

So, in other words, you were right other than when you were wrong?

It's interesting -- before the season the naysayers were laughing it up about how bad the A's were going to be. Why they might even compete with the Rangers for last place (good prognostication all around). Most of us "beane-o-philes" thought they'd be pretty sorry as well. Instead they've "overachieved." Rather than say "crap, we were wrong, maybe Beane knows more than us and does know how to build a contending team out of crap", the naysayers now question his competitiveness and say he's throwing in the towel ... and doing it in a way that will keep them from competing in the future to boot.

This is exactly right.