The White Sox gave up the few trinkets they had left for Swisher. Who can they offer for Street?

SI: Heyman - Two teams eyeing Oakland’s Street

If you know what I mean?

*facepalm*

Why should I bother rooting for a team with 22 blown saves and no intentions whatsoever of fixing that problem?

Oh well; guess I'll learn to enjoy seeing my team crap out 9th inning leads like clockwork. Keep sucking, Izzy and Franklin.

Why should I bother rooting for a team with 22 blown saves and no intentions whatsoever of fixing that problem?

As much as I hate the save stat, the blown save stat is worse.

Players that pitch in the 6th, 7th, 8th inning get blown saves all the time. Basically players that never get saves, or never would get a save, are chalking up a huge portion of the blown saves. In fact, it is not uncommon to have multiple blown saves in a single game.

You might as well hate wins and losses while you're at it.

Is Blown Holds the stat that is ruining your fantasy team's season? Or just another crusty porno-DVD in that box in the attic?

The Brewers scouts gave Street a thumbs down. Not surprising given how he has pitched of late.

The Cards have 21 one-run wins. Until St. Louis blows a dozen or more 3-run leads that result in losses don't come to me with any sad bullpen stories.

The 2007 Milwaukee bullpen, now THAT stunk. 16 blown leads of 3-runs or more. In fact, I recall a few Cards fans here gloating more than a time or two as Turnblow and Co. imploded time after time.

Gonna have to keep my hankie in my pocket for now.

Jenks is off the DL and back with the club but hasn't pitched in the last two games yet.

Linebrink hasn't pitched since July 8th and is rumored to have a shoulder issue.

Masset could possibly move into a starting role if Contreras keeps pitching poorly.

Assuming Bobby is 100% from his left scapula bursitus and the Sox still traded for Street I imagine Ozzie would use Huston in the 6th, 7th and 8th innings and leave the closing to Jenks.

If the Sox really want Street, they might be able to pull off a deal centered on Fields, the forgotten man.

If it makes you feel any better, Craig, I've heard that the Cards are in on Marte.

So, why exactly are the A's rebuilding in the middle of a season where they had a legitimate chance?

The 2007 Milwaukee bullpen, now THAT stunk. 16 blown leads of 3-runs or more. In fact, I recall a few Cards fans here gloating more than a time or two as Turnblow and Co. imploded time after time.

Interesting that the overall stats for Brewers' relievers in 2008 are almost exactly the same as 2007. There are some other differences, though. Last year the W-L record for relievers was 23-32, this year it's 17-15. The starters have brought their ERA down by a half a run, and are pitching a higher percentage of innings too. That probably helps as much as anything.

So, why exactly are the A's rebuilding in the middle of a season where they had a legitimate chance?

They did? I know the Angels aren't great but few people picked the A's as contenders coming into the season and Beane clearly didn't buy into their quick start. I think he'd know better than most.

I'm not an Oakland fan (and frankly, I wonder how many BTF posters would be Oakland fans if Oakland was run like, say, the Twins - great traditionally run organizational also on a small budget), but I will say that it would be pretty damn illogical for Oakland NOT to trade Street after trading away Harden and Blanton in-season.

(if you want to amass cheap, controlled young talent, then by all means go all-in).

They did? I know the Angels aren't great but few people picked the A's as contenders coming into the season and Beane clearly didn't buy into their quick start. I think he'd know better than most.

Well, one week ago they were all of five games out. This is a bit like punting at the opposing team's 20 yard line. Not trying for a field goal. Punting.

Well, one week ago they were all of five games out. This is a bit like punting at the opposing team's 20 yard line. Not trying for a field goal. Punting.

Not to quibble, but a better analogy would be punting it on 3rd down and 20 on the opposing team's 45 yard line. You probably weren't going to get the first down, but why not play it out and see what happens?

Not to quibble, but a better analogy would be punting it on 3rd down and 20 on the opposing team's 45 yard line. You probably weren't going to get the first down, but why not play it out and see what happens?

And of course, punting then probably (but not certainly) leaves you in a better situation for a future possession.

Not to quibble, but a better analogy would be punting it on 3rd down and 20 on the opposing team's 45 yard line. You probably weren't going to get the first down, but why not play it out and see what happens?

Yep, that is a better analogy.

I think Beane is really pushing the envelope in rebuilding during the season while they still have a decent chance.. Even the 1997 Marlins were at least wise enough to keep the team together long enough to win the World Championship before dismantling.

The 2008 A's are acting like another 1997 team, the White Sox.

As has been mentioned previously, the changes encouraged by Ted Simmons (as stated in the paper over the past 6 weeks) have had a subtle but positive impact. Keeping the rotation on a regular pattern versus making adjustements to keep one pitcher on exactly five days rest, using a reliever for more than an inning (shocker!), not keeping a rigid reliever insertion pattern (so and so does this inning versus that inning) and shortening the leash of loyalty have all paid dividends. Toss in starters who are more effective over the past six weeks (3.38 ERA/208 K's vs. 81 BB's) and Yost isn't placed in the situation of having to mix and match.

It's pretty clear that the team approach is to minimize the use of the bullpen in the second half. With 3-4 guys worthy of trust the team has to control the innings as much as possible.

And of course, punting then probably (but not certainly) leaves you in a better situation for a future possession.

Except that the opposing team now has possession of the ball, forcing you to play defense.

I just think that the A's are not being very intelligent in the whole way they are handling this situation. They ##### and moan about their stadium being the reason why they're not bringing fans out, but the truth of the matter is that most people want at least some familiarity with the players. As I and others mentioned before, the A's and Giants are polar opposites in that regard.

And of course, punting then probably (but not certainly) leaves you in a better situation for a future possession.

And of course, that future possession may never come.

I understand success cycles, and how some teams should be developing talent for the future instead of trying to go "all in" with their current players. But sometimes you CAN have success going all in with your current players, even if no one else gave your team much of a chance (ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 Chicago White Sox).

-Has Billy Beane been so discouraged by Oakland's post-season play that he's afraid to compete at that level?

-Is it really fun to be a fan of a team that is constantly playing for the future, instead of playing for today?

How simple it would be to become a GM beloved by statheads -- just trade today for tomorrow (a roster full of potential Hall of Famers), and if tomorrow doesn't pan out, you can just start the process over and trade tomorrow for the next tomorrow. Nothing ever comes due.

I think Beane is really pushing the envelope in rebuilding during the season while they still have a decent chance.

Beane started rebuilding before the season even started, by trading away Swisher and Haren. One wonders what their season would have looked like if he hadn't made those trades.

As an A's fan, I'm conflicted about this turn of Beane's. I dislike the Harden deal because while cheap Murton/Patterson type players can be valuable to a small-budget team like Oakland in a not embarassing yourself kind of way, ultimately, they don't do a lot to make you elite. That's my main criticism of Beane lately--he seems more interested in cheap, average-ish players than in taking risks on trying to hit it big with a star.

In theory, however, I thought trading Harden was absolutely the right move, as was dealing Blanton (a deal I liked, btw), and now's the time to trade Duke too if you can get a deal worthy of a perceived 3.00 ERA pitcher--but the return better include a potential star hitter. Same for Street, though if anything, he seems undervalued at the moment, not overvalued as closers often become, and there's no rush to trade him anyway.

I'm sympathetic to Interesting's argument... I don't see how you can argue that the A's performance to this point is a '07 Mariners-esque mirage that the team management ought to ignore, when they are three games ahead of the Angels on Pythag. But sometimes if contenders get panicky, you can get more for players down the stretch than you can in the offseason when the alternatives still look plausible. I think it's possible that the A's felt that these deals were as good as they were ever gonna get for guys they were going to have to trade anyway. If they felt that way, then I do think they had to pull the trigger regardless of when the offers came in. But if the A's just thought these were good but not truly exceptional offers, then I agree that at least the Blanton trade, where you got nothing back that could even conceivably help you in the '08 race, should have been held off on.

I'm surprised Street hasn't been better than he is. For him to come up at 21, perform so well, and show so much poise and intelligence... I thought he'd be comparable in value to what K-Rod/Papelbon/Soria turned out to be. Don't get me wrong, he's pretty good, but still.

Beane started rebuilding before the season even started, by trading away Swisher and Haren. One wonders what their season would have looked like if he hadn't made those trades.

Sweeney's playing comparably to Swisher, they would have to dig up a 5th starter of uncertain quality if they had just Haren rather than both Eveland and Smith, plus Carlos and Gio Gonzalez still have time to make a contribution. I'd say chances are they wouldn't be any better, if not actually worse.

I see Street blew another save yesterday, and his ERA+ on the year is now below 100. His trade value is sinking like a stone the way he's going.

"but the return better include a potential star hitter"

Seriously. It's one thing if you want to trade all of these pitchers, but can't Beane figure out how to solve some of these problems on offense?

A's first basemen: 680 OPS

A's second basemen: 697 OPS

A's shortstops: 684 OPS

A's third basemen: 715 OPS

A's catchers: 680 OPS

A's center fielders: 678 OPS

A's right fielders: 694 OPS

A's DHs: 703 OPS

Playing in a different ballpark would help the A's hitting woes. League OPS in that ballpark is .724 with a 1 year park factor of 89. The A's OPS+ is 93, actually better than the Angels' 91.

The A's seem to only be interested in ensuring future mediocrity.

Beane started rebuilding before the season even started, by trading away Swisher and Haren. One wonders what their season would have looked like if he hadn't made those trades.

I have been wondering about this. Beane has been building this team over the last few years, and now everyone was pretty much at a good age to make a competitive team. Seems like if he hadn't started rebuilding during the off season, the A's would be competing for a playoff spot. This could have been a wild-card team, or possibly have competed with the Angels this year. Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen.

So why start over and build for an uncertain future when you have a shot now? Particularly when you have a shot with a team that you have been building for awhile? What is the A's plan now?

The A's seem to only be interested in ensuring future mediocrity.

This is it exactly. You guys have the A's all figured out. I'm now going to rethink my fandom and become a fan of a team that goes about things the right way like the Braves or Cardinals or Twins or Angels. It's only taken almost 30 years for it to settle in, but I've finally see the light Now, which team to choose. Hmmm.

So why start over and build for an uncertain future when you have a shot now? Particularly when you have a shot with a team that you have been building for awhile? What is the A's plan now?

The A's had just finished 18 games back of the Angels. Since then, the Angels had signed Torii Hunter and traded an excess shortstop for Jon Garland - both moves expected to make the Angels better for 2008. Yes, a lot of things had gone wrong for the A's in 2007, but it was looking like an awful lot would have to go right for the A's to win the AL West in 2008. The minor league system wasn't likely to provide any help, and the window for the 2007 team before it would require an awful lot to go right for it to be even mediocre was one or two seasons.

Now, in fact, an awful lot has gone right for the A's this season (and gone wrong for the Angels) so maybe it was a miscalculation - but at this stage, with the odds long and getting longer, it's understandable to keep on with the rebuild of the minor league system, which seems to be going well.

Also, keep in mind that the team they are chasing is one of the teams best able to be buyers at the trade deadline. Even if they tried to make a run, the Angels would likely have improved themselves.

akrasian gets it right--everyone (myself included) thought the A's were a .500 team or worse and if a few things went right, they could maybe challenge a flawed Angels team in the West. They had Haren, a star pitcher who looked like he had been pitching a little over his head in 2007, a minor star corner player in Swisher, a good innings eater in Blanton, an injured former star in Chavez, an is-he-for-real?is-he-a-fluke? Jack Cust, a promising Daric Barton, a few other solid parts, and nothing in the farm. This was a team that was never going to be more than mediocre, never more than a if-everything-goes-right kind of team, particularly in the AL. And even that was only going to last until Haren et al became free agents.

Beane had to do something, and once he decided to punt the season, it made sense to go all out. And even then, neither of the deals make the team obviously worse this year (Blanton sucked) though, of course, they did significantly limit their upside by trading Harden, which is going to make it tough to catch a better Angels team. I don't necessarily agree with all of his decisions (though only the Harden deal strikes me as a mistake), but you're all wildly oversimplifying the situation.

I have been wondering about this. Beane has been building this team over the last few years, and now everyone was pretty much at a good age to make a competitive team. Seems like if he hadn't started rebuilding during the off season, the A's would be competing for a playoff spot. This could have been a wild-card team, or possibly have competed with the Angels this year. Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen.

So why start over and build for an uncertain future when you have a shot now? Particularly when you have a shot with a team that you have been building for awhile? What is the A's plan now?

I think he put the team together for 2007, not 2008. Almost everything that could have gone wrong with the 2007 A's did, and he recognized that the roster as it stood last offseason wasn't going to compete with LAA. I think the problem right now, and the reason he's gearing up for a strike in '10 or '11 rather than sooner, is that there's too much dead weight to build around. Bobby Crosby will never be on a championship A's team, and sadly, neither will Eric Chavez. Unless Ellis gets re-signed or Barton really does become a stud, it's possible that Beane will need an entirely new infield. Same can probably be said for the bullpen, and if you look at the 2006 pitching staff it's clear that process is already underway in the starting rotation. I think that's why he's trading for guaranteed roster-filler mediocrities. The guys being acquired now aren't necessarily the guys intended to bring in a pennant; they're the guys intended to bring in the guys to bring in the pennant. Maybe I'm too much of a Beane apologist, but I do think that at least there's a plan in place here.

Playing in a different ballpark would help the A's hitting woes. League OPS in that ballpark is .724 with a 1 year park factor of 89. The A's OPS+ is 93, actually better than the Angels' 91.

According to Baseball Reference, the A's have the exact same OPS on the road as they do at home so far this season: 696.

In any event, Billy boy may as well go ahead and trade away the rest of the team now, because they're finito, Benito, schmigeggio. The A.L. West race is over like Grover.

According to Baseball Reference, the A's have the exact same OPS on the road as they do at home so far this season: 696.

Well, that only goes to prove the point. Teams hit better at home than they do on the road. So the A's better home performance is mitigated by their park.

akrasian gets it right--everyone (myself included) thought the A's were a .500 team or worse and if a few things went right, they could maybe challenge a flawed Angels team in the West. They had Haren, a star pitcher who looked like he had been pitching a little over his head in 2007, a minor star corner player in Swisher, a good innings eater in Blanton, an injured former star in Chavez, an is-he-for-real?is-he-a-fluke? Jack Cust, a promising Daric Barton, a few other solid parts, and nothing in the farm. This was a team that was never going to be more than mediocre, never more than a if-everything-goes-right kind of team, particularly in the AL. And even that was only going to last until Haren et al became free agents.

Again, the A's were only a few games out when they made the decision to punt the season.

There is a reason why games are played - you are never fully sure as to what is going to happen. What if Vlad got hurt? What if CarGonz suddenly converted his doubles to homers? K-Rod hits a sudden slump and the Angels scramble for cover, etc. etc. A lot of 'what ifs', mind you, but nothing that hasn't happened before.

Who cares if the team wasn't supposed to contend? To throw out a relevant cliche, if the doorbell rings, you answer it. You don't throw bricks at the knocker.

Again, the A's were only a few games out when they made the decision to punt the season.

Which of the trades punted this season?

Harden had been pitching well - until the couple of starts before he was traded. If he went down, the team was out of it anyway. And Gallagher has replaced him capably.

Or was it when Blanton was traded, along with his ERA+ of 78? And frankly, if trading a pitcher with an ERA+ of 78 is punting the season, then the team's hopes weren't very good anyway.

Which of the trades punted this season?

Well, the Harden trade for starters. Gallagher has had one good start and one OK start, but I don't believe for a second that his upside is greater than Harden's. The fact that they just sort of threw in Gaudin in that trade isn't very promising for this season.

While Blanton has been ineffective in 2008, he had been OK in the past, and at the very least is an innings-eater. The players the Phillies dealt were, uh, let's just say, "not memorable".

And the fact that the A's are apparently looking to deal Street, Duchsherer, and Ellis, while there are no such rumors saying the A's are looking to acquire somebody like Teixeira are an indication to me that the Oaklanders are punting the season.

If the A's suddenly turn it around and contend from here on out, well then you can state that I'm full of it. Unless that happens, I'm going to stick with my opinion that the A's are throwing away an opportunity on many levels.

Well, the Harden trade for starters. Gallagher has had one good start and one OK start, but I don't believe for a second that his upside is greater than Harden's.

It doesn't have to be. I suspect the A's had doubts about Harden being able to last the season, and Gallagher's upside is likely greater than any in house replacements for Harden. Maybe not the right move, but not necessarily "punting the season".

Blanton is an innings eater - but had been an ineffective one all season long. I don't see that as being much of a loss - if any - for this season. That they got at least one prospect with significant upside is impressive.

I suppose IF Harden stayed healthy all season, and Blanton improved noticeably, the A's would have been better off not making the trades. I doubt both would have happened, and the A's really needed both to be legitimately in it. But the team's future was likely significantly improved by making the trade, while probably not actually worsening the team this season. Harden wouldn't have been an A past 2009. The A's don't have the payroll to commit to a significant injury risk. I'm not sure if Blanton would even have been offered arbitration after this season.

In any case, if getting rid of an injury risk as soon as he had any trade value (and getting back a quality replacement) is punting the season, then the season was pretty much punted already.

They ##### and moan about their stadium being the reason why they're not bringing fans out, but the truth of the matter is that most people want at least some familiarity with the players. As I and others mentioned before, the A's and Giants are polar opposites in that regard.

Yes, the fans turned out in droves to see Chavez, Crosby, Street, Blanton, Haren, et al the last few years. How will Oakland deal with the loss of fanbase?

The problem is you are in essence arguing that Beane should drive over to his uncles house to get a lottery ticket and scratch it off to find out if he's hit a one in millions chance to make a million dollars, rather than go to work today and earn a certain few hundred dollars.

Beane understands math. The A's were probably 3-1 to make the playoffs, and even if they did, around 5-1 to make it to the world series. So about 7-1 to win a playoff series, 15-1 to make the world series and close to 30-1 to win it. I don't think Billy cares about squeaking into the playoffs and getting booted in the first round, it's not going to do anything to build the teams fan base beyond what previous playoff fizzles did.

I think Billy wants to build a team that's a favorite to win their division, and a favorite in the playoffs, and not just for a single year, but for 3-4 years running. That's how you get to the world series.

So I don't think that making future teams worse by passing up what Billy perceives as max value deals for guys who won't be part of that future, all for a very unlikely shot at playoff success makes much sense at all.

And more teams should think this way. The worse thing that happened to the Arizona Diamondbacks in the last two years was making the playoffs. This led ownership to conclude the rebuilding was over, so they re-signed an over-rated 4th outfielder to a big contract that blocked the team's best talent, handcuffed the GM, and forced that talent to be shipped out. They compounded it by trading for another top starter and gutting their farm system. Now the team is bereft of any good outfielders or any position player talent in it's farm system and is just a very good pitching staff with a collection of AAAA level position players.

Hopefully the Dodger comeback today will trigger the Diamondbacks ownership into doing some soul searching about how much more talent this team needs to develop and acquire to have any chance in the playoffs.

They got to the NLCS last year, and weren't as good as they are this year.

Yes, the fans turned out in droves to see Chavez, Crosby, Street, Blanton, Haren, et al the last few years. How will Oakland deal with the loss of fanbase?

Sarcasm aside, A's fans did show up back in the day to watch the likes of Canseco/McGwire/Rickey/Hendu/Stewart/Welch/Eck/Steinbach etc.... See how the names just roll of my fingers, even though it has been over 15 years? It's harder to do that when the roster is constantly changing.

In fact, A's fans did show up back in the day to watch the likes of Tejada/Giambi/Chavez/Hudson/Mulder/Zito/Isringhausen etc....

Beane understands math. The A's were probably 3-1 to make the playoffs, and even if they did, around 5-1 to make it to the world series. So about 7-1 to win a playoff series, 15-1 to make the world series and close to 30-1 to win it. I don't think Billy cares about squeaking into the playoffs and getting booted in the first round, it's not going to do anything to build the teams fan base beyond what previous playoff fizzles did.

So, you're essentially giving the A's a 10-1 chance of winning the World Series IF they make the playoffs. Without opening a spreadsheet, I can tell you that their chances of winning the World Series without making the playoffs are zero.

And there is definite value to just making the playoffs.

Sorry for prematurely submitting the previous post without completing my thought.

I think Billy wants to build a team that's a favorite to win their division, and a favorite in the playoffs, and not just for a single year, but for 3-4 years running. That's how you get to the world series.

A team gets into the World Series by first making the playoffs and then winning two series. Making the playoffs four years running does not guarantee a place in the World Series (see Atlanta), although it does increase one's chances of making it OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. It DOES NOT increase the chance of making the World Series in any particular season.

And more teams should think this way. The worse thing that happened to the Arizona Diamondbacks in the last two years was making the playoffs. This led ownership to conclude the rebuilding was over, so they re-signed an over-rated 4th outfielder to a big contract that blocked the team's best talent, handcuffed the GM, and forced that talent to be shipped out. They compounded it by trading for another top starter and gutting their farm system. Now the team is bereft of any good outfielders or any position player talent in it's farm system and is just a very good pitching staff with a collection of AAAA level position players.

NL West jokes aside, the Diamondbacks are still tied for first. They have as good of a chance as the Dodgers of winning that division, and we all know from previous playoff series that all a team really needs to do is make the playoffs in order to win it all.

The idea that Beane's A's always trade away the present for the future is baseless. From 1998-2004, the team didn't trade away any of its stars for prospects. The only guys they traded away who could have been considered stars were Grieve and Koch, who they traded for Damon and Foulke. They did, however, trade a lot of prospects for major leaguers (Damon, Dye, Koch, Durham, Guillen, Appier, Durazo, and others).

That worked pretty well for awhile. They went the playoffs each season from 2000-2003, averaging 98 wins per year. Then they collapsed down the stretch in 2004, going 10-17 to end the season 91 wins--one game behind the Angels and out of the playoffs.

Rather than press on with a declining core (Hudson and Zito had relatively poor seasons, Mulder collapsed in the second half, Dye was a free agent), they decided to rebuild by trading away Hudson and Mulder. They were surprisingly competitive in 2005, as Haren, Blanton, and Saarloos admirably filled the holes in the rotation.

In 2006, they decided to go for it a bit again. They signed Loaiza and Thomas, and they traded for Bradley. During the season, they traded for Kennedy, Witasick, and Payton. They ended up winning their division and reaching the ALCS.

In 2007, everything went wrong. Injuries and suckiness plagued the roster, and the A's dropped to third place and below .500 for the first time since 1998. Instead of making another run at it with the same squad sans Thomas, they traded Swisher and Haren (and gave Loaiza to the Dodgers).

Now, I'm not saying these were all good or smart moves. That's far from the truth. I'm saying there's nothing to suggest they "seem to only be interested in ensuring future mediocrity." If anything, the opposite seems true. As soon as they sense mediocrity coming, they rebuild to avoid it lasting.

Beane understands math. The A's were probably 3-1 to make the playoffs, and even if they did, around 5-1 to make it to the world series. So about 7-1 to win a playoff series, 15-1 to make the world series and close to 30-1 to win it. I don't think Billy cares about squeaking into the playoffs and getting booted in the first round, it's not going to do anything to build the teams fan base beyond what previous playoff fizzles did.

I think Billy wants to build a team that's a favorite to win their division, and a favorite in the playoffs, and not just for a single year, but for 3-4 years running. That's how you get to the world series.

But, as Beane has said in the past, the playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot. Really, the best plan to win a World Series is to get to the playoffs whenever you can. We always site the Braves as an example of a team that reached the playoffs many times where they didn't make the World Series, but they did win it all in 1995.

I think that if the A's had taken a different approach in the offseason, they might be right in the race this year. Look at their pitching staff from last year. Good at both the front end and the back end. If guys are healthy, you can win with a team like that. Make a good move or two in the offseason, and now your 3-1 odds of making the postseason improve a bit.

Winning it all takes a mix of good players and some injury related luck. A couple of guys having career years at the same time. Take a look at recent World Series teams. How many of these teams were considered to be juggernauts going into the season? The Red Sox, Yankees, and Cardinals were, but who else?

I am not an A's fan. I am a baseball fan, and I would like to see the A's putting a bit more pressure on the Angels.

Doing these moves in the offseason for the sake of injecting life into the franchise is not what I have an issue with.

My main problem with what Beane is doing is that he is rebuilding DURING THE SEASON when the A's still have a legitimate shot at the playoffs.

A team gets into the World Series by first making the playoffs and then winning two series. Making the playoffs four years running does not guarantee a place in the World Series (see Atlanta), although it does increase one's chances of making it OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. It DOES NOT increase the chance of making the World Series in any particular season.

Your chances of making the world series increase when your team gets better. By taking a wild stab at making the playoffs with a mediocre team this year, you not only have a long shot, but you hurt your chances in the future at building a multi-year contender.

NL West jokes aside, the Diamondbacks are still tied for first. They have as good of a chance as the Dodgers of winning that division, and we all know from previous playoff series that all a team really needs to do is make the playoffs in order to win it all.

But once again, the DBacks hurt their chances of building a dynasty that competes for three or four years. They brought up Justin Upton too soon and will lose a year of his services when he's at his peak. They put all their discretionary money into a 32 year outfielder who is going to decline and wasn't that good except for a half season in 07. This forced them to trade their closer to save payroll. This cost them the AL MVP who now plays for the White Sox. This cost them another 28 year old outfielder who has a 129 OPS+ playing for San Diego.

And this year DBacks team is worse than last year. Starting pitching has been better, but the bullpen is a disaster. OPS+ is slightly better, but over the last two and half months has been much worse so it seems likely it will end up worse. And the farm system has been gutted with no position players left who can contribute to fixing the team.

Beane's got a lot of depth and is saving enough payroll to get a star or two in either free agency or from a mediocre team with a guy who has a big contract. He's the only GM I know of in baseball with the job security to hatch and follow through with this plan right now.

I think people are overestimating the A's chance at making the playoffs. Regardless of the pythag records involved, I think it's pretty apparent looking at the rosters that the Angels are a better team and likely to have extended their lead in the division. I think the bigger race would have been with Texas for second place. The Rangers have been pretty damn good since starting 7-16. And even if they had made the postseason, the A's offense is nowhere near good enough to have given them even a 30-1 shot of winning the World Series as of the day before the Harden trade.

The 1988 Dodgers are supposedly one of the worst teams to win the WS. Team OPS+ of 97, ERA+ of 113. The 2008 A's come in at 93 and 112.

My quibble with the Harden and Blanton deals is the accumulation of more low ceiling talent. The 2bman they got from the Phillies is the only potential impact player they seem to have acquired. Beane has become very concerned with depth after the recent rash of injuries, but he may be taking it too far.

The plan I am completely in agreement with. The execution, not so much.

My main problem with what Beane is doing is that he is rebuilding DURING THE SEASON when the A's still have a long shot chance at a likely first round playoff exit.

FYP.

I haven't given up on the A's making the playoffs. All they need is four more wins this month and they'll be at 55. Two 19 win months in August and September give them 93, which makes them a solid contender. That's not an impossible task. They've done similar things before.

The crappy offense can be addressed by:
1) Return of Thomas on August 1, maybe Chavez at some point later to spell him

2) Improvement by Barton

3) Trades of Duchscherer, Ellis, Crosby, Street and maybe Buck plus other parts (Braden, Mazzaro, Doolittle) to bring back hitters especially 3B and a OF (Buck and/or Murton could be half the solution)

4) A good 1/2 season from Patterson

5) Gio Gonzalez doing a 2000 Zito

6) A 100 ERA+ 5th starter from the trade booty or maybe Simmons or Cahill

I understand that a dispassionate observer may give this scenario low odds, but as I fan I'd much rather bet on this than the miraculous health of Harden and Chavez and Duchscherer and Crosby and Buck. Especially since even if they fall a little short (I'm having trouble admitting that this is possible), they'd still give us a lot to hope for for the next 3-4 years. Isn't all that we as fans can ask for?

I was a lot happier with the Harden trade than the Mulder and Hudson trades (I hated those because it meant punting 2005) because I didn't see Harden as having any significant chance to win 20+ games the rest of 2008 and 2009. Getting his replacement in Gallagher and Ellis's potential replacement in Patterson, plus a high decent upside guy in Donaldson didn't seem as horrible to me as it seemed to Szym or some others here.

My main problem with what Beane is doing is that he is rebuilding DURING THE SEASON when the A's still have a long shot chance at a likely first round playoff exit.

Funny. Just like the 2006 Cardinals, 2003 Marlins, 2002 Giants, 2002 Angels, yada yada yada.

I understand that a dispassionate observer may give this scenario low odds.

Uhh, yeah, that's probably the biggest understatement I've ever read here.

Regardless of whatever their Pythag is right now, I think there's a better chance at this point that they're finishing under .500 than there is that they're making the playoffs.

In case you hadn't noticed, Beane is completely dismantling the team and starting over for Pete's sake. There's probably more trades for prospects to come in these next ten days.

Funny. Just like the 2006 Cardinals, 2003 Marlins, 2002 Giants, 2002 Angels, yada yada yada

These teams all declined the following year, and mostly were not able to build a legacy of sustained success. This years A's aren't likely to win 99 games like the 2002 Angels, or 95 games like the 2002 Giants, or even 91 like the 2003 Marlins. They are on pace to win 85 games which would make them like the 2006 Cardinals. Which means the A's chances are substantially lower than the Angels, Giants and Marlins were.

Yes, I always bet on horses at 100-1 because I read that one actually won once in this decade. Brilliant managerial insight. You want the A's to damage a realistic opportunity at building a team that can compete in the playoffs for many years, in order to pursue a single long shot chance this year. It's the kind of brilliant thinking that already cost the Mets at least one world championship within the last three years (Scott Kazmir?).

In case you hadn't noticed, Beane is completely dismantling the team and starting over for Pete's sake. There's probably more trades for prospects to come in these next ten days.

We've noticed. The A's are rebuilding. They said so over the winter. Expect them to stick to the plan.

So, why exactly are the A's rebuilding in the middle of a season where they had a legitimate chance?

Good point. There is no reason why the As can't act like the Twins, they manage to contend and rebuild.

Not to quibble, but a better analogy would be punting it on 3rd down and 20 on the opposing team's 45 yard line. You probably weren't going to get the first down, but why not play it out and see what happens?

Because Billy Beane is SO SMART, that man is just so smart.

I haven't given up on the A's making the playoffs. All they need is four more wins this month and they'll be at 55. Two 19 win months in August and September give them 93, which makes them a solid contender. That's not an impossible task. They've done similar things before.

The crappy offense can be addressed by:
1) Return of Thomas on August 1, maybe Chavez at some point later to spell him

2) Improvement by Barton

3) Trades of Duchscherer, Ellis, Crosby, Street and maybe Buck plus other parts (Braden, Mazzaro, Doolittle) to bring back hitters especially 3B and a OF (Buck and/or Murton could be half the solution)

4) A good 1/2 season from Patterson

5) Gio Gonzalez doing a 2000 Zito

6) A 100 ERA+ 5th starter from the trade booty or maybe Simmons or Cahill

Geez, imagine if the A's did all this and won the World Series. Their World Series ring budget would be blown on 75 players, they would hand out rings by Fisher Price. At that point, it just ain't worth it.

There is no reason why the As can't act like the Twins, they manage to contend and rebuild.

Fer reelz! The Twins only finished 17 games back last year. Hung right with 'em, just like they did when they were 16 back in 2005. And don't forget 1993-2000, those were the real glory years.

Fer reelz! The Twins only finished 17 games back last year. Hung right with 'em, just like they did when they were 16 back in 2005. And don't forget 1993-2000, those were the real glory years.

Way to come strong polock. 1993 was 15 years ago. I am referring to this season. Didn't the Twins just say bye, bye to T Hunter and J Santana? And they still manage to compete. Beane hasn't figured that one out just yet. But he is SO SMART!

Way to come strong polock. 1993 was 15 years ago. I am referring to this season. Didn't the Twins just say bye, bye to T Hunter and J Santana? And they still manage to compete. Beane hasn't figured that one out just yet. But he is SO SMART!

Yea, he hasn't figured it out but he's still in 2nd place just like the twinkies. And the A's are five games ahead of the twinks in 3rd order wins.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

But it doesn't matter much because neither team has much hope of making the playoffs, the As are far back in the real world, and third order wins predicts the Twins are due for a brutal correction back to .500. At least the A's are accumulating valuable prospects, something the Twins neglected to do in their trades.

At least the A's are accumulating valuable prospects, something the Twins neglected to do in their trades.

Delmon Young? Yea, he isn't a valuable prospect. Get lost.

Lots of inter-division games for the Twins, against a crummy division, though. The correction might not be fatal if it happens at the same time as a similar one for the White Sox (of course, theirs will be similarly cushioned by the division).

Haren bought the A's two decent starters and a good outfielder; that trade makes them better this year than they'd be otherwise. We'll see about the Harden trade, but they got a decent pitcher for him--it's unlikely to cost them more than a win at this stage of the season. Blanton isn't any better than other pitchers they had laying around, so he's no loss. Hence, the A's "rebuilding" moves have not cost them any wins, and may have gained them a small number.

Everyone seems to throw out the Twins as the anti-A's -- the team the A's could be if Beane wasn't such a jacka** -- but the Twins haven't had any more success than the A's over the last 10 years. The A's have acted like the Twins (and vice versa), so I just don't understand the argument.

Delmon Young? Yea, he isn't a valuable prospect. Get lost.

Delmon Young all by himself represents an accumulation of prospects. Ok, moron.

Delmon Young all by himself represents an accumulation of prospects. Ok, moron.

Not to mention Delmon has almost a full year more service time and is being paid about twice as much as the guy they traded...

I'll believe Delmon's destined to become a star when I actually see it happen.

In fact, the A's beat the Twins to win Beane's only playoff series. Did the Twins get to the ALCS? I honestly don't remember.

Ah, yes, in 2002.

Delmon Young is a bit better than an average major league hitter, based on OPS+. He is also 22. I don't know that he projects to be a star, but I would expect that he should be a solid major league player for a number of years. That provides a lot of value.

The Twins should compete over the next few years. Some front line hitting talent, loads of pitching depth, and only 1 player of any real significance is over 30 (Joe Nathan). Cuddyer is 29. (Livan Hernandez is 33, but I would prefer that he not be on the team. So I try to ignore him.)

Alexi Casilla is playing much better than expected. He may not maintain his current level of success. But he is 23, so it is also possible that he has developed as a player.

I think that the contrast in approach between the Twins and the A's is generally overstated. Both teams need a good supply of young players to stay competitive. Both teams go about this in the same way: trading major league players and through the draft. Are they looking for different types of players? Sure, they seem to be. But the basic approach has been the same.

I think that the early 2000's A's were a better team than the Twins, but at this point I suspect that the Twins have better hope going forward.