Let me offer the disclaimer that I really have done no research to speak of here, so I could easily be well off the mark.

But aren't the A's essentially about where the Giants were after the 2005 season?  The Giants began what I would call a spirited effort to finally get some younger players beginning with the 2006 draft.  

They may not have come up with much depth from that draft, but they certainly  hit a home run with Tim Lincecum on the #10 overall pick.  And a month or so later, they paid their largest bonus ever to 16-year-old phenom Angel Villalona.  2006 could go down as the Giants' best impact year in acquiring entry-level players since ... well, I'm not sure I can think of a better one.

Unless, of course, it turns out to be 2007, when  the Giants made six of the top 51 picks and signed each of them.

So the Giants now appear to have a shot at again becoming perpetual contenders next decade.  The A's farm system appears to be in every bit as bad a shape as the Giants' was two years ago.  I'm not sure they have done as much as the Giants to repair their system -- but they have done it with players who will likely have a much earlier impact than all the Giants' youngsters save Lincecum.

I would presume the A's will be focusing hard on rebuilding their low minor leagues, perhaps with other trades and certainly with the entry draft.  They are now somewhat a mirror image of the Giants, having a solid top of the minor leagues and a very poor bottom of their system.  The Giants now appear strong at the bottom and very weak at the top.

I don't know if the A's moves will work out for them or not.  But I like them for their boldness.  Billy Beane didn't say anything about getting younger this off-season, yet he already has accomplished far more to do so than has Brian Sabean, who stated such change as a goal.

I suspect Brian still has a couple of moves up his sleeve.  And at least he didn't trade Tim Lincecum.  But he has miles to go before he sleeps.

Lest we forget, Billy has a very limited budget with which to work.  More than being obsessed with unloading stars, I feel he is often forced to do so in order to keep his team competitive within that limited budget.

An oversimplification, but during the overlapping years of Beane and Brian Sabean, Billy had about the same amount of money to spend as Brian -- AFTER Brian had carved out many millions for the game's top player.

Take Barry Bonds away during the Sabean era and how well do you think the Giants would have fared?  Since Barry missed almost all of the 2005 season, they haven't fared very well at all.

Much of winning and losing in sports is luck.  The larger the sample, the smaller role luck plays, of course. But in a single game, it can play a very big role.

The more scoring events in a game, the less luck plays a role.  Thus, there is a lot less luck involved in basketball than in baseball, hockey, soccer or even football.

Yeah, the best team likely WILL win the President's Trophy -- but that "best" team doesn't really win the World Series all that often.  As I pointed out, even if a team is a 9-to-1 favorite in each of the three rounds, that team's chances of winning it all are less than three-quarters.

I think part of the excitement and appeal of any playoff system is that any team that qualifies for the playoff has at least a theoritical chance to go all the way.

I don't think his track record is great at all:

OK, he got a couple of good players in the Mulder trade.

What about the Hudson trade?

Andre Ethier for Milton Bradley?

Didn't he give up a draft pick for Esteban Loiza?

Speaking of draft picks, just the fact that most of the 9 players he acquired in these trades are now making the A's top 10 prospect lists tells you something about the A's and their recent drafts.