Now someone actually does it and we're raking them over the coals, they've got no plan, the moves are pointless, it's just cause he likes making trades, etc. Especially when there's a clear endpoint/future they're building for - the team moving to San Jose. So are we disingenuous now, or were we being disingenuous then? Very strange.

It could be different people, we're not a monolithic mass.

I think the success cycle is mostly ########, it's not a cycle for starters, the downslope isn't inevitable and the upslope isn't guaranteed. But that's not really what sticks in my craw with these deals, it's the fact that if you're trading Gio you're not expecting to contend for a long, long time. He is the prototype of a player to keep and start the rebuilding around.

it's the fact that if you're trading Gio you're not expecting to contend for a long, long time. He is the prototype of a player to keep and start the rebuilding around.

...or Dan Haren is the prototype of that player... or Carlos Gonzalez...

I have to say I'm surprised at everyone getting on Beane for this string of deals. We've been saying for literally years on this site that if you have no shot to contend, you're in the downswing of the success cycle and look to be there for a while, etc., that you should blow it up, bottom out, get some picks, trade for prospects, and try to rebuild. No one ever does it, because they're afraid of the negative PR. Now someone actually does it and we're raking them over the coals, they've got no plan, the moves are pointless, it's just cause he likes making trades, etc. Especially when there's a clear endpoint/future they're building for - the team moving to San Jose. So are we disingenuous now, or were we being disingenuous then? Very strange.

I agree with this, but a big part of the problem is that the so-called sabermetric experts have spent the last few years duping many people into believing that the A's were moving in the right direction and right on the cusp of contention, which was never really the case. The guys who do the predictions routinely overrate them before every season.

Well, Beane has obviously decided that he's not kidding himself any more and is no longer going to half-ass the rebuild route. It's quite possible that when the move to San Jose is ready to happen, they will go on a Marlins-like spending spree, but in the meantime they're simply not going to spend any money.

in the meantime they're simply not going to spend any money.

They really really aren't. By my count, there are only 6 players currently under contract with the A's that have more than 3 years of service time; Fuentes, Balfour, Anderson, Suzuki, Braden and Barton. They're not just cutting payroll, they are cutting corners any way they can. Ryan Sweeney and Craig Breslow were due raises in arbitration (they both made 1.4m apiece last year), and they were seemingly unnecessary throw-ins in the Bailey and Cahill deals.

I agree with this, but a big part of the problem is that the so-called sabermetric experts have spent the last few years duping many people into believing that the A's were moving in the right direction and right on the cusp of contention, which was never really the case.

Ah, Joey. I love you, man. Don't ever change.

If you've been an A's fan long enough, you learn that it is sometimes darkest right before the dawn. Looks like it'll be a #### year, but seeing which of the kids pans out has an interest to it and it's still MLB. It's no worse that when Brent Gates was the hope for the future or the Dave Kingman years.

Ah, Joey. I love you, man. Don't ever change.

The classic kind of response a guy gives when he can't rebut what was said.

I have to say I'm surprised at everyone getting on Beane for this string of deals. We've been saying for literally years on this site that if you have no shot to contend, you're in the downswing of the success cycle and look to be there for a while, etc., that you should blow it up, bottom out, get some picks, trade for prospects, and try to rebuild. No one ever does it, because they're afraid of the negative PR. Now someone actually does it and we're raking them over the coals, they've got no plan, the moves are pointless, it's just cause he likes making trades, etc. Especially when there's a clear endpoint/future they're building for - the team moving to San Jose. So are we disingenuous now, or were we being disingenuous then? Very strange.

It's not so much what Beane is doing that people are ripping, it's what he's getting for his trading chits that people are have trouble with. I think he'd be getting a lot more slack if he'd gotten a couple of live arms from low A in exchange for Bailey.

I didn't see him play much so I have no idea if he really is a plus 15 fielder, but if he is Reddick is already an above average regular, according to BBRef. One and a half WAR in half a season. I don't mean for the discussion to devolve into a WAR based estimation of Reddick's value, but from the outside that's impressive for a 24 year old with that BB:K ratio.

Wait, Sweeney was in this trade too?

This is like the Pirates two years ago or the Brewers after Attanasio took over. Take Mark Loretta off our hands! Take Alex Ochoa! Sure, Jamey Wright has been in our rotation for two years, but you can have him for whatever you want. Don't want to give anything up for Manny Alexander? Just take him. Who cares, all of these guys will be retired in five years anyway. Except in this case the players are going to be still in their prime in five years.

The classic kind of response a guy gives when he can't rebut what was said.

Or a guy gives when he knows it's pointless to do otherwise. You wear your biases on your sleeve, and nothing I say is going to change them.

Plenty of "so-called sabermetric experts" have been critical of Beane -- or at least the results in Oakland -- for some time now, but that ruins your narrative.

I don't particularly care for this trade - Reddick's a low-upside guy.

That's fair, but what's Bailey? An injury-prone closer who didn't top 50 innings in either of the last two seasons, and will soon become expensive. What should Beane have gotten, and who was offering it?

That's fair, but what's Bailey? An injury-prone closer who didn't top 50 innings in either of the last two seasons, and will soon become expensive. What should Beane have gotten, and who was offering it?

I think this is fair. I think many, including myself, were starting to overrate Bailey a bit. The closers market right now is flooded with free agents. Good closers like Huston Street were traded away for nothing, and good young closers like Sergio Santos only netted one B+ prospect. I think teams are realizing that just because a guy has DA SAVES he isn't inherently more valuable than a really solid reliever like Brad Ziegler (who was dealt for what a AAAA 1B and a wild LOOGY?) I'm not saying Bailey = Ziegler, just that the market set for relievers isn't necessarily that high (particularly those with Bailey's injury history), and there does not seem to be a premium for saves.

So in sum, I was for the Royals trading Joakim Soria, but with the market the way it is, they're probably better off holding onto him.

I agree with this, but a big part of the problem is that the so-called sabermetric experts have spent the last few years duping many people into believing that the A's were moving in the right direction and right on the cusp of contention, which was never really the case. The guys who do the predictions routinely overrate them before every season.

Well, Beane has obviously decided that he's not kidding himself any more and is no longer going to half-ass the rebuild route. It's quite possible that when the move to San Jose is ready to happen, they will go on a Marlins-like spending spree, but in the meantime they're simply not going to spend any money.

I actually agree with all of this. The A's haven't been serious contenders since 2006, but they've been loping along trying to every year with the idea that if absolutely everything breaks right for them and absolutely everything breaks wrong with everyone else in the division they could sneak in and win it. Which is dumb. They were never contenders, it was obvious, and they should have known that. All they did was waste a lot of time.

seeing which of the kids pans out has an interest to it and it's still MLB.

Exactly. What fun was it going to be watching the team win 70-80 games for the next five years, pick in the teens, and have a completely barren farm system? That sounds excruciating, and I know because that's what they've been doing since 2007. This way we can at least root for the future and know there's a chance they'll be good again some day.

It's not so much what Beane is doing that people are ripping, it's what he's getting for his trading chits that people are have trouble with. I think he'd be getting a lot more slack if he'd gotten a couple of live arms from low A in exchange for Bailey.

As I said earlier, people are overrating what he had to trade. Cahill is pretty decent and got a decent haul. Gio is pretty good and got in my opinion a great haul. Sitting here in Dec 2011 they did great on that trade. Bailey is a very good closer who's hurt all the time. We all get blinded by the shiny ERA and forget to look at the IP. And for that matter they did get a live low A (ish) arm for him, as well as a live low A bat. And that's all they had to trade. They had nothing. It was time to blow it up. It's been time to blow it up for years. I'm glad they finally are.

As others have said, this looks like a bad trade because Reddick doesn't look like he's going to help with the rebuild. His upside seems to be a cheap league average OF for the next few years--which would be nice for a team looking to compete on a budget, but not on the A's who won't be competing. Just like Cahill's surplus value over the next few years wouldn't help the A's all that much, Reddick looks like he'll cease having much value right around when the A's plan on contending.

Here are the guys the A's got in their three trades, with Sickels' grades:

1) Parker, A-
2) Cole, B+
3) Peacock, B
4) Norris, B
5) Milone, B-
6) Reddick, B- (2011 grade)
7) Alcantara, C+
8) Cowgill, C+
9) Head, C+
10) Cook, C+

In terms of overall quality, I think that's a pretty decent haul. The problem is with the low upsides of Reddick, Cowgill, Milone, and Cook. Reddick and Cowgill, sadly, look like the two best OFers in the A's organization at the moment (with some stiff competition from Brandon Moss), but no one seems to think they're going to be above average players in the long run. Milone looks like he could already be a league average SP, which is tremendous value for the 4th prospect in a trade, but he doesn't seem to have any ceiling above that. If the A's are going to be in a better position to compete in a few years, they're going to have to come up with a few stars. They'd be more likely to do that if they had scored some higher upside guys rather than MLB-ready prospects who will fill out their rotation and OF in 2012.

They'd be more likely to do that if they had scored some higher upside guys rather than MLB-ready prospects who will fill out their rotation and OF in 2012.

They've said they're going to spend big in the draft this year (Oakland paper had Beane quoted at $10-11m). Hopefully they'll be able to supplement the 8 million pitchers they've traded for with a few decent hitters. If they really suck in 2012 they'll get a good draft spot. One would think the idea is that the offense is to come. We'll see. We'll also see what they do with Anderson when he comes back. He's a guy I would be bummed if they traded - that's the guy, if the Tommy John surgery fixes his health issues, that they should keep around.

In terms of overall quality, I think that's a pretty decent haul. The problem is with the low upsides of Reddick, Cowgill, Milone, and Cook. Reddick and Cowgill, sadly, look like the two best OFers in the A's organization at the moment (with some stiff competition from Brandon Moss), but no one seems to think they're going to be above average players in the long run.

You could also argue that low-upside guys that become average MLB quality starters can often be flipped for more prospects, which I expect Beane to do. I mean, Michael Cuddyer got THIRTY-TWO FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!!

Sweeney's value depends on how you view his knees. If you think they'll be fine and that 2011 was just a down year, then he's a very good 4th OFer as a league average hitter who can handle CF and play plus defense on the corners. But if you think his knee problems are likely to remain a problem going forward, he's suddenly a league average hitter who plays average defense in the corners and is stretched in CF. That's pretty near replacement level.

Sweeney's large platoon splits make him a nice platoon candidate but a less-than-ideal injury fill-in.

It's depressing to see the headliner of the trade be a an OFer who projects to be replacement level as a 25 year old. Then again, a few years ago the A's traded away a package headlined by a 23 year old OFer who ZIPs projected to hit .233/.276/.365. That didn't work out so well.

I was going to chime in but MC "stole my thunder" (least favorite talk radio expression). Reddick may not be a very good prospect, but he's a high upside guy. He has shown great contact ability, very good power, good to great range, and an awesome arm. He's got the skills to be an All-Star, a small of a chance as he may have to get there.

It's depressing to see the headliner of the trade be a an OFer who projects to be replacement level as a 25 year old. Then again, a few years ago the A's traded away a package headlined by a 23 year old OFer who ZIPs projected to hit .233/.276/.365. That didn't work out so well.

Gonzalez had very good tools and was loved by the scouting community. Reddick's never been close to his level of prospect.

His upside seems to be a cheap league average OF for the next few years--which would be nice for a team looking to compete on a budget, but not on the A's who won't be competing. Just like Cahill's surplus value over the next few years wouldn't help the A's all that much, Reddick looks like he'll cease having much value right around when the A's plan on contending.

Why would a "cheap league-average OF" have any less value to a non-contending team than a thrifty contender?

If the plan is to cut salary to the barest bone until the San Jose stuff is figured out, then Josh Reddick is exactly what Oakland needs. Understand, the A's are not spending ANY money for the next couple years, even on arbitration raises. Josh Reddick will make the league minimum for the next two years in which time Oakland will reevaluate their position. In the meantime, if he turns into an all-star, great! He's likely part of the next good team. If he doesn't, he'll be scrapped when he starts earning money and better options present themselves. But either way, he won't embarrass the A's for the next couple years until the whole San Jose thing is figured out. That's the purpose he serves for the A's in 2012 and 2013.

One reason I don't like this for the A's is that Reddick, a high strikeout hitter, is going to a high strikeout ballpark.

I was wondering whether this was true, since instinctively, the only thing I would think would make much of a difference to strikeouts would be the large amount of foul ground. Turning more foul balls into outs should take away opportunities to strike out.

Couldn't find any place that has k-rate for park factors, so I just had a quick glance at last years k/PA% in home and away games. Not sure how big of a home and away effect you would expect, but it looks fairly neutral actually.

Batters:
H: 16.8
A: 19

Pitchers:
H: 19.9
A: 17.8

I find this trade underwhelming talent wise but that's what you get for 4th OF type and closer I guess, especially with very real injury concerns for both.

1) Parker, A-
2) Cole, B+
3) Peacock, B
4) Norris, B
5) Milone, B-
6) Reddick, B- (2011 grade)
7) Alcantara, C+
8) Cowgill, C+
9) Head, C+
10) Cook, C+

That's half of the guys in a lot of teams farm systems. Add that to what they have and that's a good place to start a rebuild.

Right now the A's have some AAAA guys with power (Allen LF, Carter DH, Taylor RF, Reddick CF) who will get a lot of AB's this year and hopefully one turns into a Nelson Cruz, Carlos Pena type. That's the upside I'm hoping for. They are also balanced RH and LH hitters but it's going to be an ugly middle of the order this year. Barton and Cowgill provide some depth to the power guys to compete for AB's.

The other thing about these trades is that it frees a lot of money up. I'm hoping they use that in the draft as somebody posted up above, either that or buy the Dominican Republic. I'm worried that the saved money will buy a stadium and then they won't have a payroll spending spree and the team will still be mediocre 4 or 5 years from now and Wolf (Fisher) will sell the team for a huge profit without ever competing.

The other thing about these trades is that it frees a lot of money up. I'm hoping they use that in the draft as somebody posted up above, either that or buy the Dominican Republic.

A little late for that now that the caps are in place.

In terms of overall quality, I think that's a pretty decent haul. The problem is with the low upsides of Reddick, Cowgill, Milone, and Cook.

Absolutely. Pretty good value, but has nothing to do with a rebuilding plan to compete in 2015

Absolutely. Pretty good value, but has nothing to do with a rebuilding plan to compete in 2015

I think it does. These are the guys holding down playing time until 2015. The A's still need to field a team until then, and it can't cost them much more than the minimum.

The A's still need to field a team until then, and it can't cost them much more than the minimum.

That's what the Brandon Mosses and Jeff Fiorentinos of the world are for.

That's what the Brandon Mosses and Jeff Fiorentinos of the world are for.

Can you find 23 more of those guys? I'm actually perverted intrigued on how they'll fill out the rest of the roster. We may start hearing names we haven't heard in years.

Can you find 23 more of those guys? I'm actually perverted intrigued on how they'll fill out the rest of the roster. We may start hearing names we haven't heard in years.

God I love autocorrect.

hopefully one turns into a Nelson Cruz, Carlos Pena type.

We had these guys and we traded them for nothing...

JOHN FREAKING MABRY????? (yes, I know, not the same trade)

I'm worried that the saved money will buy a stadium and then they won't have a payroll spending spree and the team will still be mediocre 4 or 5 years from now and Wolf (Fisher) will sell the team for a huge profit without ever competing.

That's my fear as well. Wolff didn't buy the A's to build a championship team - he bought them to build a shopping mall in San Jose. If he gets them there and says "Did it, now we can run a payroll of $65 million!!!" it won't make A's fans very happy.

Absolutely. Pretty good value, but has nothing to do with a rebuilding plan to compete in 2015

If that is when they actually get to San Jose, the start of 2015 is three seasons away. A few of these guys will have a year or two in the majors then, the others will be on the way up. They have a small handful of guys already in the organization who might turn out to be useful. If the ML team really sucks for the next few years they'll be adding a few nice pieces in the draft - if they're college guys, they'll be up in a year or two. One would hope they would be willing to spend in the 2014 offseason to supplement. It's not going to be "Move to San Jose, start competing for championship" unless something crazy happens, but the timing works out to be fielding a team built on these players then, subject to all the normal factors.

it won't make A's fans very happy.

I thought that was the permanent state of existence for A's fans.

I thought that was the permanent state of existence for A's fans.

*flips desk, throws chair*

Can you find 23 more of those guys? I'm actually perverted intrigued on how they'll fill out the rest of the roster. We may start hearing names we haven't heard in years.

Projected 2013 A's lineup

C Vinny Rottino
1B Brandon Allen
2B Joe Thurston
3B Eric Sogard
SS Grant Green
LF Josh Reddick
CF Jermaine Mitchell
RF Michael Taylor

bench: Collin Cowgill, Chris Carter, Chris Carter, Chris Carter, Erik Kratz, Max Stassi, Bryan LaHair, Luis Montanez, Paul McAnulty, Kevin Frandsen, Argenis Diaz, Rene Rivera

#86 ... no, I think you've got that right (not that I can prove it either). But it's not clear Beane is acquiring potential "studs" (depends on the definition I suppose). He seems to go for a diversified portfolio of low risk/low reward types -- e.g. his draft record is actually pretty good when viewed vs. the average outcome (given where they draft) but he hasn't found a true star in a while.

It looks like Beane wants to finish way last for a few years so that he can stockpile #1 picks and rebuild in the manner that Tampa did.

Something which hasn't helped Tampa all THAT much. Upton (2002, #2 overall) has been worth 17 WAR (very nice) and will be FA after this year so he's likely gone. Nick Swisher (2002, #16) has provided 19 WAR, granted only 9 of it for Oakland.

Price (2007, #1) has provided 10 WAR. Cahill (2006, #66) has provided 9.

Ahhh, Longoria (2006, #3) really hit the jackpot. This is the sort of player Beane hasn't hit on yet (though he hasn't had a single top 10 draft pick yet). But the difference between Tampa and the A's the last 4 years is a lot more than Longoria's 24 WAR.

No Tampa first round pick since Price has made the majors yet. Tim Beckham (2008, #1) will be a 22-year old SS at AAA (promising) who has yet to post a BA over 275 or an OPS over 750 (not so promising). In 2009 they started drafting in rather Oakland-esque slots.

The Rays were of course helped by #1 overall pick Delmon Young in the Bartlett-Garza trade but he's not a credit to their drafting. And Josh Hamilton turned out very well although they got none of his value.

The Rays are starting to remind me more of the old Cox Braves. They are succeeding not so much due to the draft per se -- i.e. their top picks aren't necessarily turning out all that great, not necessarily better than expected, except for Longoria -- but due to development. They've had a good bit of success with later round draft picks -- Hellickson, Jennings, Davis, Cobb, McGee, Moore, Shields. Team after team after team passed on those guys. Tampa didn't brilliantly recognize their talent and grab them in the 4th round after spoiling 2nd and 3rd round picks on guys who were less talented. The Braves too always seemed to find more than their share of Giles, LaRoche and relievers in ridiculously late rounds. I suspect that's not greater talent recognition in the draft, it's better development through the system.

And they've made great trades. Garza/Bartlett, Joyce, Zobrist ... even guys like Rodriguez, Shoppach and Fuld have worked out.

We've been saying for literally years on this site that if you have no shot to contend, you're in the downswing of the success cycle and look to be there for a while, etc., that you should blow it up, bottom out, get some picks, trade for prospects, and try to rebuild.

I guess covered above. Some have been saying this and others have been countering the likelihood of such a plan working (plus its effects on the fanbase -- nobody wants to emulate Tampa's success in building a fanbase).

But even those who were advocating the "you're not going to contend, blow it up" weren't talking about trading guys who are 23, 24, 25. If the A's had a Cuddyer and could swap him for a Reddick, well by all means do so.

Anyway, in isolation I don't have a big problem with any of these trades. And, yes, the Gio trade looks pretty good although I'm not sure there's a genuine stud prospect in there. But I think we vastly over-rate the chances of guys panning out.

Jarrod Parker was a #9 pick. Now by virtue of having survived this long and at least tasting the majors, he's obviously a better bet to provide value than if he was a brand new #9 pick. But, by coincidence, guess who the 8th best #9 pick of all-time is -- Michael Cuddyer and his awesome 12 career WAR. Jeff Francis with 8 WAR is a bit behind in #10 and is, roughly, the median outcome among #9 picks who make the majors and contribute positive WAR. Sure there's a chance he becomes Appier, Zito or Danks (the #1, #3 and #4) but how big is that chance really? And they need not only him to become Appier but for a couple other folks to pay off big as well and then find enough complementary pieces. That's assuming they don't trade him away in three years.

In essence, isn't there a good chance they just traded Cahill for an 8-month younger version of Cahill? That saves Wolff money but it's very very hard to see how this improves their future outlook.

Off-topic kinda but fun found poking around ...

the cursed draft pick

#5 overall

Now, it's not bad, plenty of value here but see if there aren't a ton of names here that seemed to promise so much more (in order of WAR)

Gooden
Drew
Dale Murphy
Mark Teixeira
Jack McDowell
Vernon Wells
Ryan "it's the clap!" Braun
Kent Mercker (OK, doesn't fit)
Matt "child of a lesser god" Wieters
Brandon Morrow
Buster "we can fix him, make him better!" Posey

And the worst round of all-time? Definitely a contender

1975, 1st round, 24 picks ... 5.5 WAR. The best player was Rick Cerone who accounted for 5.7 WAR. Clint Hurdle (3), Dale Berra (3.7) and Dave Ford (.9) were the best of the rest. This round also featured Danny Goodwin (-1.4 WAR) being drafted #1 overall for the 2nd time!