Dallas Green?

City and Colour?

What are the chances that either the author of this article or the former GM have actually read the book?

Steve Phillips really needs to learn to keep his mouth shut.

For some people, Moneyball has become a religion and you just can't expect rational discussion when it comes to anything or anyone related to the book. It's the Members Only jacket of current baseball discussion. That said, I wish I knew about this site when the book came out. Those must have been interesting times. I also wonder how I would feel about the book and the reaction to it if I wasn't an A's fan. As an A's fan, I think having the team I follow constantly interpreted through the lens of Moneyball is annoying, but not without it's comedy. Without Moneyball, we wouldn't have nicknames like Jack Crust afterall!

What are the chances that either the author of this article or the former GM have actually read the book?

I have no idea, but the piece seems pretty fair, and is even somewhat complimentary about the recent moves.

I have no idea, but the piece seems pretty fair, and is even somewhat complimentary about the recent moves.

Yeah, I thought it was even handed. I think the article matches the conventional wisdom about the moves here--that the A's were a decent team with an outside shot at the post-season with no changes, but the farm system was thin and greatness was not in the works. Beane made the tough call to tear it down and start over and, from what the scout boys are saying, he's getting a lot of good, young talent to rebuild with.

Just to add, I think Billy's legacy is going to be what happens to the team after this offseason. If the team rises from the ashes in 2009 or 2010, then only the real anti-Moneyball fanatics will be able to bash him. If the prospects flounder and the A's become a permanent second division club, then a lot of folks will be saying I told you so. It's going to fun to watch play out.

Great first comment

Whether it can be called Money Ball or not, the game has gotten a little tougher since Beane spilled the beens (yes, that was intended) on his little secrets.

Without Moneyball, we wouldn't have nicknames like Jack Crust afterall!

Few things on this site frustrate me more than reading Backlasher's "analysis" of the A's, but that's a damn funny nickname.

Here's a question I want to ask BTFers? Do you think we tend to overrate the importance of GMs? Because in all honesty, it really does seem like of all the factors required to win championships, money and luck seems to be more important in my eyes.

Because in all honesty, it really does seem like of all the factors required to win championships, money and luck seems to be more important in my eyes.

Baltimore had money and pissed it all away. You can't claim bad luck for them. Maybe the lesson is that really bad GMs (or perhaps bad owner interference) can reach the tipping point that overrides money and luck.

Dallas Green?
Nah, the GM has to be Schuerholz.

Just to add, I think Billy's legacy is going to be what happens to the team after this offseason.

People said the same thing when Giambi, Damon, and Izzy left after 2001. They said the same thing when Tejada left after 2003. They said the same thing (in droves) when Hudson and Mulder were traded after 2004.

His legacy isn't set in stone, of course, but he's already written a good part of it.

Baltimore had money and pissed it all away. You can't claim bad luck for them. Maybe the lesson is that really bad GMs (or perhaps bad owner interference) can reach the tipping point that overrides money and luck.

Of course, one could argue that the Orioles are a "smaller" market team than their payroll indicates when you consider the payroll of the Red Sox and Yankees. It just seems that a big market team with a competent GM will almost always defeat a small market team, no matter how brilliant the GM.

#13 THIS TIME IT COUNTS! I LIVE FOR THIS!

Few things on this site frustrate me more than reading Backlasher's "analysis" of the A's,

Why?
That's like getting frustrated at Mike and the Maddog's "analysis" on anything.

Or that guy on ESPN Radio in the afternoon who used to defend Isiah Thomas... (I don't listen anymore does he still do that?)

BL hates: Billy Beane; Michael Lewis; and fans of MoneyBall. Although he is capable of reasoned discussion and analysis, he loses all reason and accountability when discussing anything related to those three topics.

Actually my "favorite" BL tactic is when he simultaneously insists on misstating your position* while passionately complaining that others are underhandedly doing the same to him.

If BL says "Joe Blow has done a terrible job as GM", and you say, "BL thinks Joe Blow is a bad GM", he'll deny that and accuse you of misstating his position, in essence he will claim that anything less than an exact word for word reproduction of what he wrote is a twisted mis statement of his words.

(Actually I used to find it exasperating, then I merely found it to be funny)



* I think it was his insistence on repeatedly misstating Jim Furtado's positions that lead to his temporary banishment rather than his calling him "Nellie" - Jim was wrong to banish him in any event imho

Of course, one could that the Orioles are a "smaller" market team than their payroll indicates when you consider the payroll of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Being lazy and not looking it up, I don't think the disparity was that great in the late 90s when the Os faded from contention.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general thrust, I'm still mulling it over but I think that there is a tipping point. Steinbrenner meddling as pseudo-GM in the 80s is another example of a team that should be in the mix fell badly short.
Certainly 2005 and 2006 fall perfectly into your postulate.

Being lazy and not looking it up, I don't think the disparity was that great in the late 90s when the Os faded from contention.

The estimates at bbref have the Orioles with the second highest payroll in the AL in 1999 and 2000, about $6 million behind the Yankees in '99, $12 million in '00. Then in '01 the Red Sox pass them and they and the Yanks both go over $100 million, while the Orioles stay just above $80 million. The Orioles got bad before they got badly outspent.

FWIW, I think Jim Callis put it perfectly on how the A's offseason has went: (free content)

"Both Haren and Swisher are young and productive, and they're signed to easily affordable long-term contracts that lock them up for at least the next three seasons. In short, they're exactly the type of cornerstones a rebuilding club would want to rebuild around. But Oakland's farm system had fallen into such a state of disrepair that the A's decided they had to shed Haren and Swisher to bring in some minor league talent for the future.

Billy Beane has proven himself to be one of the game's best general managers, but how he escapes blame for the collapse of his farm system is beyond me. Yes, big league promotions have thinned out Oakland's store of minor league talent, but with 19 first-round or supplemental first-round picks in the last six drafts, there's no excuse. Funny, I seem to remember reading a book a few years ago about how the A's were revolutionizing the draft.

Secondly, there's no guarantee that prospects will pan out. I love prospects as much as the next guy, but unless the three best pitchers Oakland acquired (Brett Anderson from the Diamondbacks, Gio Gonzalez and Fautino de los Santos) all pan out, I don't think the trades will significantly upgrade the A's in the long run. And we all know what injuries and attrition can do to pitching prospects. "

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/265412.html

Joey B (#6) and Shooty (#7), the reason I doubt the author has read the book is that he explicitly states that the book is all about the value of OBP, rather than finding undervalued talent in general.

The ideas put forth in the book are neither living nor dead. They're facts -- observations on strike zone discipline, home runs, strikeouts and walks -- that teams can choose to give however much attention they see that... What the A's are doing now, though, has nothing to do with Moneyball. It has everything to do with a limited payroll and a tired roster that needed to make way for youth.

Also, I would hardly consider Haren and Swisher to be "tired" players.

Because in all honesty, it really does seem like of all the factors required to win championships, money and luck seems to be more important in my eyes.

Of course, one could argue that the Orioles are a "smaller" market team than their payroll indicates when you consider the payroll of the Red Sox and Yankees. It just seems that a big market team with a competent GM will almost always defeat a small market team, no matter how brilliant the GM.

Payroll != market. I'd be quite willing to believe that willingness to spend money is a huge factor, but doesn't the GM have a large hand in that?

I'd be pretty surprised if there were many GMs operating outside the confines of a budget set by ownership.

Also, I would hardly consider Haren and Swisher to be "tired" players.

No, but much of the rest of the roster is - and they were the two players with the most trade value. Between them they were valuable enough to basically turn the minor league system from a poor to very poor one into a good one, jumpstarting the rebuild. Only a couple of other players on the team are valuable enough to bring back good or better prospects.

but with 19 first-round or supplemental first-round picks in the last six drafts, there's no excuse. Funny, I seem to remember reading a book a few years ago about how the A's were revolutionizing the draft.

Aside from Beane, is there anyone left on the A's now who was involved in drafting and scouting from 1995 to 2004 or so?

Aside from Beane, is there anyone left on the A's now who was involved in drafting and scouting from 1995 to 2004 or so?

Sure.

Eric Kubota took over as SD in 2002. He's been with the team from 1992 to today.

Ron Vaughn their National Crosschecker has been with the org for 17 years.

There are 4 area scouts who are still with Oak who were part of the 2002 staff - Rick Maganate (CA, 12 yrs w/Oak), Ruben Escalera (PR, 11 yrs), Rich Sparks (MI, 11 yrs) and Kelcey Mucker (LA, 7 yrs).

The rest of the staff are generally short termers with more limited scouting experience. The A's have one of the smaller amatuer staffs and I'd guess have had more turnover than you'd expect from an org that hasn't changed its GM in forever.

but with 19 first-round or supplemental first-round picks in the last six drafts

Now why did he pick six years I wonder?

Now why did he pick six years I wonder?

While there's probably some cherry picking aspect to that - 6 years is a decent development time. If a player hasn't either made the majors or at least is a good prospect by them, he's unlikely to ever be more than a scrub (and yes, there are exceptions, but relatively rare I'd think).

Paging Philly ... given where they drafted, have the A's drafts of the last 6 years been worse than expected? Substantially worse?

I'm not a prospect maven so the following focusses on MLB return.

Nick Swisher came out of the 2002 draft, as did Blanton and Teahen (who didn't pay off for the A's directly of course). That's nice return even if some of the other picks flopped.

2003 didn't pay off but the best players selected in the 1st/supp round after the A's selections are Barton (who they now have), Murton (who they could probably get) and Carlos Quentin (who, rightly or wrongly, they apparently didn't want as much as Carter). Oh wait, sorry, confused Salty with Simontacci, OK, he's better. So some evidence the A's screwed that one up but still none of those guys have yet paid off hugely at the ML level.

2004 produced Street, another nice payoff. The A's highest pick was #24 and the only guy who's paid off at all yet after that is Taylor Tankersley.

2005 did produce Buck but to grab their #21 pick, they did pass on Garza, Ellsbury and Colby Rasmus (who even I have heard of) so some demerits there.

2006 they didn't have a 1st/supp pick -- ouch! Who did they sign to lose that? Was that the Loaiza signing?

Man, that 2006 draft is off to a great start -- Lincecum, Chamberlain, Hochevar, Kennedy, Longoria, Kershaw.

Akrasian- I absolutely agree - which is why when evaluating current minor league talent it's probably too long a timespan - it smacks of being cherry-picked to support his criticism. Combined with the overly flip dismissal of the amount of graduated talent his statement doesn't exactly look great.

I would say much more valid criticisms are taking a bunch of high school arms in 2005(I think) whose stock is now pretty low and losing a draft pick - and is much more relevent than the number of picks in 2002.

I absolutely agree - which is why when evaluating current minor league talent it's probably too long a timespan - it smacks of being cherry-picked to support his criticism. Combined with the overly flip dismissal of the amount of graduated talent his statement doesn't exactly look great.

Another reason is that Oakland has been drafting pretty low in the first round have refused to compensate by going over slot on draft bonuses. While the latter is a questionable strategy, the former is a direct result of - gasp! - wins at the major league level.

People will always find a reason to ##### about Beane, but he and his management team - yes that includes his scouts - have produced/signed/traded for enough talent to finish over .500 for 8 of his 10 years as GM, including four division titles, one wild card, 6 90+ win seasons, and 2 100+ win seasons. Payroll limitation aside, that's a pretty good track record of success and one that speaks for itself.

In just going back to see who the A's actually spent a lot of those picks on, I just noticed that they did draft someone who went on to become excellent, but who apparently did not sign with them - Jonathan Papelbon. In 2002, the infamous moneyball draft, round 40. I'm assuming he wasn't mentioned in the book.

Papelbon was drafted again by the Sox in 2003 in round 4.