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.

Of course the irony of this comment is that the other "blip of success" is this year -- almost everyone thought the A's would be horrible, and they've been above .500 and close to the Angels almost the entire season -- and yet Beane is being blasted in this thread by those obsessed with his every move for giving up on this great success. If this season is part of the "perfect parabola," isn't he doing the right thing by moving forward with the rebuild?

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

Johnny Clash meet maths, maths meet Johnny Clash: the answer is 40.951% of getting injured.

I wouldn't get overly carried away with how successful the A's have been so far this season.

The way they're going, they're probably not going to be over .500 for too much longer.

I've stated it here before, but while I'm in general a fan of Beane, the problem occurs when he makes these moves for the future IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENNANT RACE, even if several posters here don't want to acknowledge that the A's in fact had a decent shot at taking the AL West.

What I think needs to be developed is some sort of discounting of Future Value. Now I realize that Win Shares don't inflate, but on the other hand there has to be some formulation that a win today is worth slightly more than a win tomorrow. Perhaps there is somewhere....

I put the chance of Harden being injured at 10% per start, so... 50%.
Johnny Clash meet maths, maths meet Johnny Clash: the answer is 40.951% of getting injured.

This is the real world, do you think five significant digits are warranted? After all, I did just make up the 10% number. Five times ten equals fifty is plenty close enough for this kind of estimate. Point being, Harden has been very injury prone in the past, which suggests he will be injury prone in the future.

The way they're going, they're probably not going to be over .500 for too much longer.

I've been hearing that for how long?

Hilarious that Backlasher attacks the mythical legion of Beane fanboys for never criticizing a single Beane decision, yet he holds himself up as the only unbiased analyst when he's never met one Beane decision he would't rip.

This and his continued reiteration of the hoary old saw that Beane inherited all his success from a guy who left over 10 years ago, and who relied on Beane to make many of his decisions in his last years, are the funniest things I've ever read.

Oh, that and Least Interesting Troll's continued shrill insistence that an 85 win team has as good a chance of winning a world series as any team, and that single year mythical world championship should be chased at all costs detrimental to building a team that can average 95+ wins over a three to four year period.

Oh, that and Least Interesting Troll's continued shrill insistence that an 85 win team has as good a chance of winning a world series as any team, and that single year mythical world championship should be chased at all costs detrimental to building a team that can average 95+ wins over a three to four year period.

Hey, you can call me uninteresting if you choose to do so, but don't call me a troll when you seem to pop up whenever I speak on this subject.

Just a reminder: The 2006 World Champion Cardinals, 83-78

The 2006 World Champion Cardinals, 83-78

The A's wore the Tigers out. ;)

I've stated it here before, but while I'm in general a fan of Beane, the problem occurs when he makes these moves for the future IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENNANT RACE, even if several posters here don't want to acknowledge that the A's in fact had a decent shot at taking the AL West.

And what was the decent shot? And how much did their chances for this season get reduced by their moves?

As others have pointed out, the change in on the field personnel has not been the huge downgrade that you are claiming. Trading Harden is a downgrade - assuming he stays on the field. Which is a significant assumption. Blanton was not a good pitcher for the A's this season. Any claim that the A's have significantly downgraded their chances this season needs to be defended. Which you have not done.

You also need to defend the idea that a slight downgrading of chances in a pennant race where the odds are already long(if that has indeed occurred), with the upside of a large improvement in future chances, is a bad strategy. I mean, it's silly to think that when the A's made their moves they were anything but longshots to make the playoffs. They were far behind the Angels, they were behind significantly in the wild card race with enough other teams close to make them longshots to win the wildcard. They traded a player in Harden who they had no confidence in staying healthy (in exchange for a young pitcher the team obviously likes a lot, plus other stuff). They traded a guy who was pitching around replacement level for a very good prospect, an okay prospect, and a longshot. How is that the folding that you have repeatedly claimed?

"the exception that proves the rule"

Just a reminder: The 2006 World Champion Cardinals, 83-78

Only two sub 90 win teams, and only one sub 87 win team wins a World Championship in 20 years proves your point or mine?

And what was the decent shot? And how much did their chances for this season get reduced by their moves?

Two days before the All Star Break, the A's were 5 games behind the Angels. I don't need to remind you of all the teams in history that have made up more ground in less time.

If the Harden move were the ONLY future-leaning move the A's were going to make, I'd probably reluctantly accept it, but the Blanton followup and the rumored Duke/Ellis/Street deals have got to be demoralizing to the rest of the team, not to mention it ticks off the fans, which many don't seem to get on this site.

Listening to the A's broadcasters today (on 106.9 FM - but that's another thread), it's clear that the broadcasting team of Korach/Vinny C/Ray Fosse are more than a little frustrated with the direction the team has gone in. How the frig are fans supposed to get fired up and support the team for the rest of this year? If it seemed as if the A's were at least TRYING to win, the fans may get frustrated if they fall short, but will in general appreciate the effort.

The 2006 World Champion Cardinals, 83-78

That was Barry's walk year. There was a lot of speculation that Beane would trade Barry during the season, but the A's were - somewhat unexpectedly - in the race and they held onto him.

Only two sub 90 win teams, and only one sub 87 win team wins a World Championship in 20 years proves your point or mine?

1) Given that the A's were 51-42, they only needed to go 39-30, or percentage points better than they had been to achieve your 90 win plateau.

2) How many teams are actually going to achieve 90 wins this year anyway? It wouldn't be surprising if we only had about four.

3) 3 out of 20 is still 15%, which is 15 points more than if you punt the season as the A's are doing.

The uninteresting troll is going to get some shuteye. Enjoy.

Two days before the All Star Break, the A's were 5 games behind the Angels. I don't need to remind you of all the teams in history that have made up more ground in less time.

And how many didn't?

Again, what were the actual chances of the A's before the Harden trade? They were long shots. You are acting like they weren't. And you are acting like trading a guy with a huge history of injuries for a pitcher that the A's really liked, who is already a solid major league pitcher without a long history of injuries, is a huge downgrade - even with the addition of several position players who could be useful to the A's this season and will be useful to the A's in future years.

the Blanton followup Yet again - Blanton was pitching at a replacement level. Yes, a lot of innings at replacement level, but still at replacement level. How is that a big loss to the team?

the rumored Duke/Ellis/Street deals Ah, so trades that have not happened are also why you are blasting the A's? By that standard, ANY team can be blasted, because fictional trades can be blasted for every team. Forgive me if I don't think you are making any sense.

Come back when trades are actually made, and discuss the actual trades, not hallucinations of trades to come.

Incidentally, since you and others started to blast Beane over trades, the Angels have gotten hot, reducing the A's chances of making the playoffs independent of any Beane moves. And as I've pointed out before, if the Angels felt that they were in danger, they are one of the teams in the majors best situated to make moves to help them this year at the trade deadline, between their minors and their ability to pick up payroll.

But please, actually answer the questions that have been asked - what were the A's chances before the Harden trade? Any discussion of the A's punting is meaningless without at least some idea of what chances they had. You've been asked repeatedly, by myself and others. It is NOT an irrelevant question. In fact, it is a vital question to the discussion. And once you've answered that, please answer the repeated question - how much did the Harden and Blanton trades actually hurt their chances - that is also a relevant question you've ignored. Guesstimates are fine - but ignoring the question while continuing the same discussion makes your responses themselves irrelevant.

3) 3 out of 20 is still 15%, which is 15 points more than if you punt the season as the A's are doing.

Wow. You actually answered part of something for somebody else. Of course, your answer assumes that trading an injury prone pitcher and a replacement level pitcher reduces the A's chances from 15% to zero. Which is absurd. If the A's prior to the Harden trade had a 15% chance of making the playoffs, they did not drop down to zero after their trade(s). They picked up a capable replacement for Harden in the trade, plus two guys who can provide depth this season. And despite your postings, Blanton had pitched at or around replacement level all year for the A's - and they have others who can do that for them.

When my friend moved into a new neighborhood, he had to go door to door and tell everyone he was a Beanophile.

^ (that was a big lebowski joke)

"16 year old prospects, dude."

Only two sub 90 win teams, and only one sub 87 win team wins a World Championship in 20 years proves your point or mine?
(snip)
3) 3 out of 20 is still 15%, which is 15 points more than if you punt the season as the A's are doing.

You are asking and answering the wrong question, I think. While 3 teams which had win totals in the 80s (or between .493 and .549 in 1995) have won the World Series, that is not the right question. The a better question would be "Given an 80-something win team, what are the chances of winning a World Series?" The answer to that one is 1.2%. Another better question would be "Given an 80-something win team, what are the chances of winning a World Series when there is a better team in our division?" The answer to that one is 0.39%. Of course this is artificially high; these arbitrary endpoints include the two-division 1987 Twins. If you want to include that team, you really should include every team back to the start of the two division playoff system in 1969. Without taking the time to count (I'd rather get back to the Tour de France off-day highlight show, my TiVo dropped a few episodes because I was triple recording), I'd guess that would drop it by about 30%, given the number of teams and years.

I was looking at Carlos Pena recently and was thinking it would be nice to still have him or Ryan Ludwick or Jeremy Bonderman. Even Gerald Laird is a decent catcher. All these players passed through the A"s through a series of trades that had the A's ending up with Bobby Kielty for Ted Lilly.

I've been hearing that for how long?

I have absolutely no idea. But have you seen how that lineup has been performing lately? Oof! They were pretty good early on, but now they look like maybe the worst offense in either league.

When my friend moved into a new neighborhood, he had to go door to door and tell everyone he was a Beanophile.

######' Quintana... that creep can roll, man.

If Harden and Blanton were a slugging shortstop and thirdbaseman the argument would be much stronger. Or if the argument was that the guys they got back weren't offensive stars but that's not reasonable to expect when trading starting pitchers to contenders.

IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENNANT RACE

I don't really disagree with Beane's moves from that angle, in the sense that I didn't see the A's as a serious contender for a playoff spot in 2008 even at 51-44. But I am reminded of something I heard about 10 years ago--some guy--I think a reporter--was talking about Bobby Valentine. Someone else said that a lot of Valentine's moves seemed "strange" and the first guy said--quite seriously--that Valentine was SO smart that he was always 2-3 innings ahead of the rest of the world, and no one could ever understand how smart he really was.

With Beane, it seems to me if you have some good, cost-controlled players in their 20s, like Haren and Swisher, you hold on to them and take it from there. The hoary old KISS maxim--(a lot of potential Gene Simmons/whore jokes there) exists for a reason.

So, I guess I think, to use another cliche, that in some ways Beane is being "too clever by half" in what he is doing.

OTOH, maybe ownership has simply ordered him to cut payroll, and that is all that is going on.

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

Johnny Clash meet maths, maths meet Johnny Clash: the answer is 40.951% of getting injured.

Specifically, we know that the answer of being hurt after 5 games isn't 50% for the same reason that if Harden were to pitch 10 games, each with a 10% chance of getting injured, we know he wouldn't have a 100% chance (i.e., a guarantee) of being injured by the end of the 10th game. And Harden wouldn't have a 110% chance of being injured if he played 11 games. And so on.

There are two ways of approaching the problem.

The hard way:

Probability of being injured after 1st game = .1
Prob of being healthy after first game = .9

Prob of being injured after 2nd game = (prob of healthy 1st game)times(prob of hurt 2nd game) = (.9)(.1) = .09
Prob of being healthy after 2nd game = (prob of healthy 1st game)times(prob of healthy second game) = (.9)(.9) = .81

Prob of hurt after 3rd game = (prob of healthy first two games)(prob of hurt 3rd game) = ...

Bleah.

Add up the probabilities of being hurt after the first, of being hurt after the second, of being hurt after the third, and so on. that'll give you the probability that Harden is hurt after five games.

That's the ugly way.

The nicer way of figuring out the probability is to note that he's either going to be hurt after those five games or he's going to be "not hurt" (i.e., healthy). The probability of being hurt plus the probability of being "not hurt" = 1. So...

Figure out the probability that he's going to be healthy after five games:
(.9)(.9)(.9)(.9)(.9) = .59049.

Then subtract that from 1:
1 - .59049 = .40951

Convert to a percent and you have your answer:
the probability of Harden's being hurt is 40.951%.

...assuming that he really does have a 10% chance of being hurt in any game in which he pitches (which might be a fairly big assumption, of course).

OTOH, maybe ownership has simply ordered him to cut payroll, and that is all that is going on.

I find this to be a much more plausible explanation for what's happening as opposed to 'building for the future'.

The nicer way of figuring out the probability is to note that he's either going to be hurt after those five games or he's going to be "not hurt" (i.e., healthy). The probability of being hurt plus the probability of being "not hurt" = 1. So...

Figure out the probability that he's going to be healthy after five games:
(.9)(.9)(.9)(.9)(.9) = .59049.

Then subtract that from 1:
1 - .59049 = .40951

The math checks out, given that the chances of him getting hurt in any start is 10%, and is independent.

With Beane, it seems to me if you have some good, cost-controlled players in their 20s, like Haren and Swisher, you hold on to them and take it from there. The hoary old KISS maxim--(a lot of potential Gene Simmons/whore jokes there) exists for a reason.

So you don't think one should consider--for example--what the other team is offering or what talent one has within the organization?

Convert to a percent and you have your answer:
the probability of Harden's being hurt is 40.951%.

You forgot to add the probability that his alarm clock has a song he doesn't like and dislocates his shoulder trying to turn off John Mayer waiting for the world to change at 10:30AM on gameday.

So you don't think one should consider--for example--what the other team is offering or what talent one has within the organization?

Of course not. But I am not convinced what the A's got back is all that great. I don't think any of those Ps will be as good as Haren. Beane should be adding OK Ps without moving Haren. The Swisher deal does look OK so far, but I think Swisher has some bounceback in him. He is only 27. Yes, Harden may get hurt again next week, but I don't think the talent they got back is decisive and adding Gaudin to the deal was questionable.

I don't see many of the guys they got as key pieces to a 95-win team. And I am in general not a believer in adding depth in big trades by trading front-line talent. I think you add depth through the draft/cheap FAS/small deals--and trade for front-line guys.

But I may well be wrong and just don't get it. A lot will depend on how good Carlos Gonzalez really is.

I was looking at Carlos Pena recently and was thinking it would be nice to still have him or Ryan Ludwick or Jeremy Bonderman. Even Gerald Laird is a decent catcher. All these players passed through the A"s through a series of trades that had the A's ending up with Bobby Kielty for Ted Lilly.

Eh, the only guy in there I miss is Pena. Suzuki is probably a better catcher than Laird, Bonderman is out for the season and has a career ERA of 4.74, Ludwick never got even 200 ABs in the majors until the fifth season and second organization after he was traded from Oakland, probably because in the first three of seasons he put up OPS+ numbers of 66, 93 and 74 while in the majors.

one thing is that it just might could be that the oakland fans are first and foremost billy beane fans and want to see him doing all these trades - it's just like fantasy ball

but i sure would love to see a summary of all of billy's trades/signings since, say 2003 and look at every single player, minors and majors and look at even something like a win shares total of players with the As and players traded away

but it bugs me that i don't never seem to hear As fans criticizing billy for doing really stupid stuff like signing redman/loaiza/rhodes to close/dotel to close - or trading ethier for bradley then getting rid of bradley for nothing - or the really REALLY lousy haul he got for hudson (i coulda told him charles thomas was teh sukc and that you shoulnd't NEVER take a pitcher from the braves because only 3 of a kabillion haven't been awful)

billy has made some REALLY stupid trades/signings

I could go for having Harang back though.

But I am not convinced what the A's got back is all that great. I don't think any of those Ps will be as good as Haren. Beane should be adding OK Ps without moving Haren.

You can look at Greg Smith and Eveland and figure that having 2 pitchers around a 3.75 ERA is better than one with a 3.00 and another at replacement level. But if the A's had kept Haren, they wouldn't be going replacment level, they would have had room for Chad Gaudin in the rotation. Sure, they got some other good prospects in the deal, including one outfielder with a lot of ability but whose current production is nothing special.

The A's with Haren, Harden, and Swisher wouldn't have much of a farm system right now, but they would probably still be neck and neck with the Angels, and send the race down to the final weekend like 2004, or at least the final week like 2005 or 2006.

But it doesn't bother me if they want to surrender and let the Angels trot to the division title.

I could go for having Harang back though.

Damn forgot about Harang. Yeah, I remember arguing about the Rhodes deal a few years ago and being told to look at his numbers and ignore that he was/is a head case. I agree that Bonderman should be better pitching in that park but we will see if he can come back from his injury.

one thing is that it just might could be that the oakland fans are first and foremost billy beane fans and want to see him doing all these trades - it's just like fantasy ball

Except, of course, for the fact that the vast majority of A's fans were A's fans before they had ever heard of Beane. You're listening to the wrong people (person).

You can look at Greg Smith and Eveland and figure that having 2 pitchers around a 3.75 ERA is better than one with a 3.00 and another at replacement level. But if the A's had kept Haren, they wouldn't be going replacment level, they would have had room for Chad Gaudin in the rotation. Sure, they got some other good prospects in the deal, including one outfielder with a lot of ability but whose current production is nothing special.

The A's with Haren, Harden, and Swisher wouldn't have much of a farm system right now, but they would probably still be neck and neck with the Angels, and send the race down to the final weekend like 2004, or at least the final week like 2005 or 2006.

But it doesn't bother me if they want to surrender and let the Angels trot to the division title.

Sweeney and Gonzalez have outplayed Swisher thus far. Do you really think the difference between Haren/Gaudin (ignoring that Gaudin actually did start some games for them) and Eveland/Smith is ~9 wins over 90 games?

No, but less than 2 weeks ago it was 4 games. Maybe with Haren it would have been 2. Don't know how much those players would have helped avoid the recent slump.

Had they played harder for 2008, would they be tied with the Angels? No. Would they be equal favorites going forward? Probably not. But they'd have a chance, and I'd expect them to make a good race of it.

Right now? There is no fear.

danny,

- grinning

yes i do luuuuvvvv me some BL, but do remember that in spite of what joeyb thinks, i really AM a grrrrl (you know, the kind of human who BOASTS of having the smallest dick EVAH) and you oughta know by now that the probability that any grrrl will listen to one man and agree to repeat whatever he sez is like zero...

but i been coming here since like oct 02 and i remember the old days when it was absolutely ANYTHING billy did was pure GEEEENYUSSSSS.

but i think that billy is a man like any other man and when it comes to men you gotta take the good with the bad. and unfortunatley thre were waaaaayyy too many people who really wouldn't never admit that billy ever made a mistake

and there comes a time when you have got to add up every move he has made to evaluate it. and so far i haven't seen a real evaluation of any kind since, like i said, about 03

but i said what i said because it seems to me like billy seems to have an awful lot of fans who put a lot higher value on guys who might could become good players than guys who already ARE good players - just because the might could bes are younger/cheaper...

I shouldn't have to remind you that the 2005 Angels were up 8 games on July 18th. Less than a month later, they lost it. The A's and Angels were last tied on September 15th before the Angels pulled away.

I think the Haren trade was pretty clear evidence that the A's were punting 2008, the Harden trade showed that Beane wasn't going to let actual on field results interfere with his "plan". The Blanton trade is almost meaningless after the 1st two, especially because Blanton isn't pitching all that well.

He is trading almost like a keeper league fantasy baseball owner... A more extreme example of that is Florida, but pretty much everyone accepts that Dombrowski and Beinfest had little choice if they wanted to try to win every now and then.

I think if you have a really cheapskate owner and seriously want to win the WS one of these years- you have to periodically reboot the whole organization.

Billy's problem is that his last re-boot stalled, guys like Swisher and Haren and Harden and Blanton and Street were supposed to form the core of a competitive team... It almost looks like he started tearing down prematurely.

If the strategy works perfectly, you get Florida, sneaking into the WS on their upslope before tearing down to start over- if it doesn't, if you skip a beat- it looks like you are aimlessly floundering...

Personally I think Beane is punting every season until the new ballpark... If I was an A's fan I don;t think I'd care too much for that. As a fantasy baseball player I find the A's one of the more interesting organizations to watch, since the apparent willingness to wholly disregard today for tomorrow is not a tactic you see too often in MLB

What is the A's win curve?

The Marlins have won more than 83 games twice. Ever.

The A's have won fewer than 87 games once since 1998. I don't think they're comparable franchises.

And if the A's were punting until the new stadium, they wouldn't have gone for so many MLB-ready or near-ready players in the Haren, Swisher, and Harden deals.

since the apparent willingness to wholly disregard today for tomorrow is not a tactic you see too often in MLB

It is pretty rare. Part of it is having better job security. Compare to the Phillies - I think they gave up too much value in 6 years of Cardenas for 2.5 years of Blanton, but what reason does Pat Gillick have to care? Even if it works out for him, at his age he's probably not going to be the GM 6 years from now.

danny,

the main difference between the marlins and As is that the marlins have won 2 WS

the As haven't even won a PENNANT

what is the point of finishing first in your division every year if that is all you can ever do?

- and isn't the new ballpark at LEAST 5 years away?

cardenas hasn't even made AAA yet. isn't it a little too early to start comparing 6 years of him in the MAJORS to 2 1/2 years of blanton?

The playoffs are a crapshoot.

yes i do luuuuvvvv me some BL, but do remember that in spite of what joeyb thinks, i really AM a grrrrl (you know, the kind of human who BOASTS of having the smallest dick EVAH) and you oughta know by now that the probability that any grrrl will listen to one man and agree to repeat whatever he sez is like zero

Or not...

Personally I think Beane is punting every season until the new ballpark... If I was an A's fan I don;t think I'd care too much for that.

They don't, as shown by the attendance numbers, which have been on a fairly steady downward trajectory since '03, and next year will quite likely be approaching Pittsburgh Pirates territory.

danny,



i guess you know some grrrl who is different, but you had best believe that sure as HECK i am not the grrrrl to believe everything ANY man sez. let alone repeat it.

- well, i might could agree to repeat something my husband wanted me to - but the boy best REALLY give me some serious incentive. don't no man here got that kind of power trust me on this

besides u know VERY well i don't even agree with everything BL sez about billy beane and i didn't never do that

crispix,

yeh i know all about small sample size, but really how often have there been really REALLY serious upsets? the better team usually wins

and joeyb,

the pirates usually draw decently and they draw a LOT bettern the As unless the yanks/redsux/giants are playing

the pirates usually draw decently and they draw a LOT bettern the As

Not really, B-Ref shows that the As regularly outdraw Pittsburgh by a healthy amount, although they are trending downward as Joey B noted.

The most important things I learned from this thread are:

1) Beane's self promotion skills have given him the job security to do stuff that guys like Cohn will criticize him for and not care that guys like Cohn are criticizing him for it.

2) Backlasher's confrontational demeanor have drawn enough attention to this thread to keep it on the front page for two or more days than it otherwise would have


but it bugs me that i don't never seem to hear As fans criticizing billy for doing really stupid stuff like signing redman/loaiza/rhodes to close/dotel to close - or trading ethier for bradley then getting rid of bradley for nothing - or the really REALLY lousy haul he got for hudson (i coulda told him charles thomas was teh sukc and that you shoulnd't NEVER take a pitcher from the braves because only 3 of a kabillion haven't been awful)

You're kidding right? In no particular order:

I don't think I've ever kept quiet about getting rid of Bradley for nothing, and hating the Hudson and Mulder trades at the time since it meant punting 2005.

I also didn't understand the Lilly for Kielty trade, since I believed Kielty to be mediocre.

I've also been irritated with the constant emphasis on obtaining "undervalued" players rather than the best players, and with the corollary emphasis on Wins per Payroll Dollar rather than World Series Championships.

On a related note I hated the spending of $30MM of FA dollars on "solid veterans" like Kotsay, Kendall, Loaiza and Piazza, while simultaneously whining that we can't afford Ichiro and A-Rod due to our "small marketplace"

I also hate the fact that the A's seem to have brainwashed their fans into believing the SF Bay Area is a small marketplace, when it's among the Top 5 in the country in Gross Metro Product. To me, Crowley doesn't get nearly the scrutiny he deserves. I still don't understand how he got a partnership stake.

I too didn't understand the praise for the Redman/Rhodes for Kendall trade, since I believed Kendall not worth his salary and that they'd have been better off spending that money on Hudson. I thought Littlefield did a far better job of jettisoning Redman and Rhodes than Beane did.

I was skeptical about Redman, Loaiza and Rhodes, but understood the arguments for signing them individually, although not collectively.

I liked getting Bradley for Ethier because I believed him to be a better player.

I didn't mind Dotel because he had been a good reliever and the A's really needed one. On the other hand it seemed like the Astros got the best player in that deal by far and didn't give up a lot more than the A's.

AN in general didn't like the Swisher, Haren and Harden trades at the time they were made. A's fans are likely not to like impending trades of Duchscherer and Ellis. AN generally hates major leaguers for prospect trades because they've gotten attached to their favorite players.

I'm not sure where these Beane apologists to which you allude are but they seem to be few and far between. I wrote a very critical post of Blez on AN for what I considered a sycophantic style in his last Beane interview, especially Part I. The reaction to AN on my post was mixed, but no one attacked me for posting it.

A's fans are generally willing to give Beane the benefit of the doubt because we're happy with the job he's done overall, but I just don't see the widespread irrational fanboyism that you are describing.

This is easily the longest post I remember ever posting sober.

but it bugs me that i don't never seem to hear As fans criticizing billy for doing really stupid stuff like signing redman/loaiza/rhodes to close/dotel to close - or trading ethier for bradley then getting rid of bradley for nothing - or the really REALLY lousy haul he got for hudson (i coulda told him charles thomas was teh sukc and that you shoulnd't NEVER take a pitcher from the braves because only 3 of a kabillion haven't been awful)

This is easily the most ridiculous comment of the thread.

OTOH, maybe ownership has simply ordered him to cut payroll, and that is all that is going on.

I find this to be a much more plausible explanation for what's happening as opposed to 'building for the future'.


If that's the case and this is all about cutting payroll and not building for the future, Beane's dumbest move was signing Michael Inoa for $4.25 million. Also, drafting players like Brett Hunter, who wants $2 million, is another big mistake.

I shouldn't have to remind you that the 2005 Angels were up 8 games on July 18th. Less than a month later, they lost it. The A's and Angels were last tied on September 15th before the Angels pulled away.

You mean the part of the 2005 season when the A's won 80% of their games?

If that's the case and this is all about cutting payroll and not building for the future, Beane's dumbest move was signing Michael Inoa for $4.25 million. Also, drafting players like Brett Hunter, who wants $2 million, is another big mistake.

Funny. Of course, maybe Beane was told he could sign those guys IF he dumped some og the guy on the MLB Roster making "big" money. Maybe he really traded Harden for Inoa.

but I just don't see the widespread irrational fanboyism that you are describing.

All it takes is one poster to defend Beane or praise Beane ONE TIME and BL is typing away attacking the imaginary hordes of Beane worshippers.

I used to think that BL attacked Beane because Beane was a fave of statheads - now I think his anti-stathead animous was secondary to his anti-Beane sentiment, he also has a clear bias against Oakland itself (fans and team) that seems to be at least partially independent of his anti-Beane feelings.

I think he's an angry man, and like more than few other posters uses the internet to vent.

(i coulda told him charles thomas was teh sukc and that you shoulnd't NEVER take a pitcher from the braves because only 3 of a kabillion haven't been awful)

rough count I found over a dozen pitchers that left the Braves and had good seasons for other teams since Bobby Cox took over the team.

But that was out of 4 kabillion

rough count I found over a dozen pitchers that left the Braves and had good seasons for other teams since Bobby Cox took over the team.

The Braves have had this reputation at being able to develop pitchers and recognize who to keep and who t let go ever since they traded for Smoltz, signed Maddux and let David Nied go... and they've kept that reputation without much justification for a LONG time... (the Hudson trade revitalized it to some extent)

Hey, a bunch of dipshits in a meta argument with backlasher. what a surprise.

I think he's an angry man, and like more than few other posters uses the internet to vent.

Nah, he just likes to yank people's chains. Not that that's an admirable trait, even when the yank-ees aren't angels.

The Braves have had this reputation at being able to develop pitchers and recognize who to keep and who t let go ever since they traded for Smoltz, signed Maddux and let David Nied go... and they've kept that reputation without much justification for a LONG time... (the Hudson trade revitalized it to some extent)

I know and I've been fighting a battle against this perception for years. The Braves aren't the best team at developing pitchers, and probably not even top five. (I would list Blue Jays, Twins, White Sox, Marlins all clearly above the Braves and without looking I imagine that the Dodgers, Giants, Diamondbacks and A's as in the argument. and I'm sure I'm probably missing a team or two)

Just one question to Backlasher, was the Mulder trade a good, bad or neutral trade from the A's point of view?

I'm still waiting for an answer with regards to the A's Win Curve. What's the ####### problem???? Am I too nice of a guy to get noticed in a Beane thread? To translate form Genarro to English, does it matter whether or not the A's win some games or does that not have much of an effect on their revenue?

Bump.

Am I too nice of a guy to get noticed in a Beane thread?

Probably, you tremendous prick. Too nice by half, mother-######

the main difference between the marlins and As is that the marlins have won 2 WS

the As haven't even won a PENNANT

Comparing the Marlins and As is missing the part where one franchise is in a AAAA league where the teams with money have no clue on how to spend it and the other is in the major league where the teams with money do know how to spend it.

The ratio of Beane worshippers to those who complain about Beane worshippers here is about 1/100.

I can't believe people still argue with BL over this (or anything else). What exactly is the point?

Comparing the Marlins and As is missing the part where one franchise is in a AAAA league where the teams with money have no clue on how to spend it and the other is in the major league where the teams with money do know how to spend it.

The Marlins won the World Series in 1997 and 2003. In 1997 the NL won interleague 117-97 or a .547 clip; in 2003 the NL won interleague 137-115 or a .544 clip. So those two years at least the AL was the AAAA league, and the Marlins had to come out of the tougher league.

You mean the part of the 2005 season when the A's won 80% of their games?

Yeah. What's your point?

Yeah. What's your point?

Not my point, but in the example you cited the A's had an incredible hot streak - and still ultimately ended up finishing 7 games back.

Am I too nice of a guy to get noticed in a Beane thread?

You're too much like Cyril Morong.

Nah, he just likes to yank people's chains. Not that that's an admirable trait, even when the yank-ees aren't angels.

That was his original schtick. He long ago moved past that into his current irrational anger phase. He's obviously got an enormous chip on his shoulder and, as mentioned, uses the web to vent.

Not my point, but in the example you cited the A's had an incredible hot streak - and still ultimately ended up finishing 7 games back.

Yeah, but they gave the Angels a good scare for a little while. I still remember cursing out my TV as K-Rod threw a fit and failed to handle a throw back to the mound, allowing Jason F. Kendall to score the winning run. If the A's don't want to make a race of it and get my blood pressure up, fine by me.

Well, AROM, I don't think the A's went into the offseason necessarily planning to rebuild. My sense at the time of the offseason trades were that he started out with his usual desire to go for it despite it being a longshot based on 2007. But then the Angels traded for Garland out of a position of depth, and signed Torii Hunter - both moves likely to make the Angels better for 2008. Meanwhile, the trade market for top pitchers seemed to explode over the excitement that Santana was generating. So Beane decided to shop Haren just to see what he could get, and pulled the trigger, when the Dbacks basically floored him.

I don't think the A's were marketing Swisher - I heard zero rumors on him being traded until it happened. I think the White Sox approached the A's, and again the offer was too good to pass up, for a good but not great player. The discussion at the time was that Swisher wouldn't be able to handle cf for much longer, greatly reducing his value.

In terms of the Harden trade - I think most posters here value Gallagher less than the A's do. Including Gaudin in the trade screams to me that they targeted Gallagher. Now, it's certainly possible that the A's scouts have made a mistake on their evaluation of Gallagher, but I'd want a little time before deciding on that. Add in that the A's likely had no confidence in Harden staying healthy, it made sense for this season and going forward.

And Blanton was pitching around replacement level. I just don't see that as a significant loss to the team.

Now, it's possible that Harden would have stayed healthy, and Blanton would have improved - that would affect the race of course (though not all that much). It's also possible that the hangover of having two veterans traded for young players/prospects could affect the play of the rest of the team. But I don't see the overall talent level of the 2008 A's being significantly (or at all) negatively affected by these moves. And of course, the future talent level of the team has been helped significantly.

But of course, the psychological effect of Beane's hubris could have a negative effect.

As an Angel's fan, you should be happy for this year - more so since it makes it less likely that the Angels feel pressured to trade a prospect for major league help. But the overall effect on this year's pennant race is likely small to non-existent. And it will make it tougher on the Angels in the future, since the A's should be better in future years thanks to these deals.

The biggest criticism of Beane imo is that he didn't seem to worry about the psychological effects of the trades. But of course, he might have worried about it, and still decided that they were the right moves.

And it will make it tougher on the Angels in the future, since the A's should be better in future years thanks to these deals.

That remains to be seen. We'll see if they can form the collection of young talent into a team capable of winning 90+ games or not. It could be the only thing Beane has accomplished is keeping enough talent on the roster for the next few years to avoid getting the really good draft picks, but not enough to actually contend.

billy lamar gets more luuuvvv and more hate than any other guy except for barry lamar. must be something about the BL combo

and speaking of BL,

no, he really isn't an angry man at all. he's actually usually a pretty nice reasonable guy, just like the rest of all yall. he likes to argue, just like most of all yall.

- it isn't that he hates billy beane, it is that he hated the old - IF billy said/did it, then it is pure GEEEENNNNYUSSSS stuff that got real tiresome. and yeah he got a bug up his ass about billy.

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

ivan,

extremely well said

-----

and the rest of all yall,

who are all these pitchers who bobby cox/schuerholz traded away who turned out to be great?

- wainwright + schmidt

at least 1 year of at least league average - odalis perez, jason marquis

who else?

That remains to be seen. We'll see if they can form the collection of young talent into a team capable of winning 90+ games or not. It could be the only thing Beane has accomplished is keeping enough talent on the roster for the next few years to avoid getting the really good draft picks, but not enough to actually contend.

Fair enough. There may be something to the Marlins' boom or bust cycle, even ignoring the freakishness of them being 6-0 in playoff series. But I do believe that the A's got enough for Haren to justify his trade, ditto for Swisher. I'm not sure if Gallagher is as good as the A's seem to believe - obviously if Harden stays healthy this season the A's need Gallagher to be at least a marginal #2 at some point for the trade to be justified. And I don't really care about trading away less than a half season of Blanton, since he was quite bad this year, and I doubt that the A's would have offered him arbitration.

And I don't really care about trading away less than a half season of Blanton, since he was quite bad this year, and I doubt that the A's would have offered him arbitration.

Blanton doesn't become a free agent until after 2010.

Blanton doesn't become a free agent until after 2010.

Which still means that unless they signed him to a contract, they had to offer him arbitration. For a guy who was pitching at around replacement level, but who would likely have gotten a raise due to the peculiarities of arbitration, well I doubt that the A's would have risked it. They might have been able to trade him before the deadline to offer arbitration though. But they would have been unlikely to get a premium prospect in such a trade.

I think Beane is a good GM. He's pretty consistently been able to get good, cheap players and that's nothing to sneeze at. But Cohn is on to something.

One way to read Moneyball is to see it as the story of a GM ruthlessly eliminating alternate power centers in his organization. Tony LaRussa and the scouts frustrated Sandy Alderson and Beane wasn't going let that happen to him. So he keeps his Managers weak and purged Fuson and the scouting staff. This has advantages, his organization follows a coherent path with everybody on the same (Beane's) page.

But it seems like some essential skills are missing from the organization. Especially the ability to acquire or develop young star talent. The Devil Rays can do it, even the Marlins can do it, but the A's can't. They're stuck on treadmill of getting good cheap players and then trading them for B+ prospects who turn into good cheap players. they need some stars in the mix.

Beane needs to hire a top grade scouting director and give him some autonomy. If this means bringing in someone from the Racoon Lodge and hammering out a modus vivendi with him, then so be it.

Baseball as a whole is better managed than it was when Moneyball was written. Most teams have adopted at least some of stathead orthodoxy like the value of OBP and minor league talent. If they can adapt then why can't Beane? The Moneyball Wars are over. It's time to move forward.

It's easier to get star players when you draft first every year. The Marlins did get an amazing player in Hanley Ramirez but they also Traded Beckett and Lowell so it's not like they get him for nothing.

The A's have seemed to miss on star prospects lately but have tried harder this last year or so getting Inoa, Hunter (overslot try) and some other international signings like Leon. Making these guys (and Carlos Gonzalez) into stars might work.

For a guy who was pitching at around replacement level, but who would likely have gotten a raise due to the peculiarities of arbitration, well I doubt that the A's would have risked it. They might have been able to trade him before the deadline to offer arbitration though.

I think, if anything, things would be the opposite of what you say. Blanton's poor pitching this year would hurt his arbitration value but we know that Blanton is a better pitcher than that, and not very likely to be a "replacement level" one next year.

I thought Littlefield did a far better job of jettisoning Redman and Rhodes than Beane did.

Eh? They traded Rhodes (2 years, $8 M I think it was) for Matt Lawton (1 year, $8 M) ... who did give them 101 decent games then promptly forgot how to play baseball. They got Jody Gerut when they traded Lawton to the Cubs.

I'd forgotten they got a decent season out of Redman, then they flipped him to the Royals for one guy with 64 IP in the majors and an ERA+ of 65 and another guy who is now 25 and just getting his first exposure to AA.

Now I'll admit my memory was off -- I thought Redman started stinking right after leaving the A's. So the A's possibly could have got 180 league-average innings (in the AL?) out of Redman and 43 good innings out of Rhodes ... and then nothing. Or they could have gotten 100 good games out of Lawton instead of Rhodes, then nothing. But other than 6 starts from Etherton and Glynn, the A's starters were all better (in ERA+ terms at least) than Redman that year anyway.

Redman had no value to the A's; Rhodes had very little value to the A's. Neither have provided much value since and neither has been traded for much value since. Kendall caught 368 games in 2.5 seasons for the A's. That's a lot. And at the time, the only C the A's had was Adam Melhuse. He was coming off seasons with EQAs of 288 and 280 and in his first two seasons in Oakland he put up EQAs that were about average for a C (242 and 252) ... he absolutely sucked in 2007.

He was a huge risk given his age and heavy usage. The deal turned out a little worse than I expected but I remain stunned his durability has remained so high. But basically the A's increased their payroll by $5-6 M, lost nothing in Redman and Rhodes and got back 2 years of roughly average hitting at C in a ton of games. That's gonna cost you $5-6 M a year. He stank because his defense (or at least his throwing) went to hell.

Still, the alternate universe where they keep Rhodes and Redman doesn't help -- they still need a C and that's gonna cost them $5-6 M and the team's no better off than with Kendall. The only legit alternative is what other C could they have flipped one or both of those guys for ... who would have been a better/cheaper bet than Kendall (who, remember, had been a very good hitter for a C up to that point)? None of us know the answer to that but neither of those guys was much in demand at the time.

So he keeps his Managers weak and purged Fuson and the scouting staff.

The A's allowed Fuson to be interviewed by the Rangers for the GM job. The Rangers ended up hiring him as an assistant GM with a wink-wink promise that he'd eventually be GM. The A's, rightfully, filed a tampering complaint with the commissioner's office and demanded players and/or draft picks as compensation. Instead, the Rangers were fined.

The Rangers ended up screwing Fuson over by hiring Daniels when Hart left.

But it seems like some essential skills are missing from the organization. Especially the ability to acquire or develop young star talent. The Devil Rays can do it, even the Marlins can do it, but the A's can't. They're stuck on treadmill of getting good cheap players and then trading them for B+ prospects who turn into good cheap players. they need some stars in the mix.

The A's have had problems developing stars lately, but the Devil Rays? Seriously? After a decade of top draft picks, they'd have to be complete idiots not to have some young stars.

You guys still haven't answered my question. So I looked it up. The A's win curve is pretty effin' flat. So I guess that Beane can wave his white flag this year and it doesn't matter. Sorry, Matt.

You're too much like Cyril Morong.

What's that supposed to mean? Is it good, bad, or indifferent?

I think, if anything, things would be the opposite of what you say. Blanton's poor pitching this year would hurt his arbitration value but we know that Blanton is a better pitcher than that, and not very likely to be a "replacement level" one next year.

But arbitration salaries are substantially (but not totally) tied to experience level. And Blanton would be able to point to his high innings totals as a plus. He wouldn't get as much as if he'd pitched great - but he will get a raise in arbitration, unless it starts working differently than it has since arbitration first started. And frankly, I have doubts about uneven pitchers necessarily pitching better in the following season. And given what the A's have now (thanks to the previous trades) it's far from certain that the A's would have room for Blanton unless he was pitching at a level above his median shown ability level.

At the very least, there has to be significant doubt about whether the A's would gamble to pay a guy over 10% of their payroll to be a back of the rotation guy - I think that the A's would have traded Blanton this offseason before having to offer arbitration, but for much less of a return than they got from the Phillies. I would have been shocked if they kept him without trying to get something for him.

The Marlins did get an amazing player in Hanley Ramirez but they also Traded Beckett and Lowell so it's not like they get him for nothing.

But it wasn't Ramirez for Beckett and Lowell, period. It was 6 years of Ramirez, 6 years of Anibel Sanchez, 6 years of Jesus Delgado and 6 years of Harvey Garcia for 2 years of Lowell and 1 year of Beckett. They didn't get Ramirez for "nothing," but it's rare to see a veterans-for-prospects deal in which the value of the prospects exceeds the value of the veterans in years 1 and 2 of the deal (in '06, Ramirez + Sanchez > Beckett + Lowell; in '07, Ramirez > Lowell). Everything from here on out is gravy from Florida's POV.

One common criticism is that the preference for college players Beane had during the Moneyball era hurt the team. That he bypassed riskier, higher potential high schoolers for more certain, but lower upside older players. It's hard to say if it's true because there is so much variance in the results, and the A's never drafted low enough to get legit star talent.

Remember it's not just the chances of the A's making the postseason, it's the chances of the A's making the postseason and then doing something of note after they make it. At this point, simply making the postseason is pretty much a shrug worthy event for most teams. One of those things that's changed dramatically in my lifetime as a baseball fan.