Billy Beane - Brilliant GM or Best Fantasy GM?
by slcgiant on Jul 9, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
115 comments
Outside of the Yankees, no one in baseball evokes the love/hate feeling like Billy Beane does. Is he the shrewd genius GM or a self-promoting arrogant hack? As Giants fans we may be too close to be objective but in light of the Harden trade and accompanying media I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Personally, I'm not a huge Beane fan but I'm not a hater either. I like that he has pushed statistical analysis and other forms of analyzing players but he was not the first to push this concept. I like that he has run a small market team with precision but his trade ledger is not the slam dunk in his favor that everyone would make it out to be. His draft record has gems and busts as all GM's drafts do. He's had some brilliant pickups (Big Hurt) and he's had some poor pickups (Piazza). He's traded some guys at their peak value but some of the young players he locked up for big money instead of trading have not worked out (see Eric Chavez and Bobby Crosby).
My real problem with Beane is that he's essentially a fantasy GM - constantly trading and reloading almost for the sake of trading and reloading. Is this a Beane problem or a small market/competitive standpoint problem? Many will legitimately claim that he has never won a World Series which is not entirely fair but his teams have not performed well in the playoffs where they have largely been the home team in every series.
I guess I just detest the constant fawning and adoration he receives in the media. (The ESPN radio guys were saying that other GM's shouldn't even pick up the phone with Beane because he'll fleece them so bad and that just seems ridiculous).
Beane - brilliant, hack or somewhere in between?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
1 recs |
115 comments
Email
Print
Comments
He’s a computer, right?
I like Beane overall, I think he’s a pretty astute GM. Not every move will turn out great, but I think more times than not he makes pretty good moves.
He’s not infallible, no one is, but I liked his frank reasoning for his trade of Haren this year. That the team wasn’t going to be that great, so why try to hang on for 75 wins?
by xanthan on Jul 9, 2008 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant!
What I really like about him is he has a good handle on when to let a player go (ie. Zito, Mulder, Hudson). His theories on the bullpen also make a lot of sense…it’s pretty amazing how much people pay for shiny saves (cough, Benitez, cough). I would avoid trading with him because of his track record. If there was someone in my organization he had his eye on, that probably means that player could be something special.
Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!
by UnleashTheGore on Jul 9, 2008 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Used to agree with you
on the knowing when to let a player walk, but I can’t anymore. Getting nothing in return for Hudson (who has been fantastic in Atlanta), and signing Chavez and Crosby to long term deals while letting Tejada go to Baltimore for about the same money makes me a little sick. I think Beane is a good to very good GM, but plays the media game better than anyone. He gets a huge amount of credit for bringing a low payroll team to the playoffs (rightly so), but the A’s have been in the middle of the pack payroll wise for several years to I think that crutch is overated.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Tejada and Chavez
He had to choose between the two, as I recall. He chose Chavez because a) his defense was better b) he still had a chance of being better and c) the A’s had Crosby in the minors and no one really for a 3rd base replacement.
I remember thinking at the time that if it was a choice between the two, it’s kind of a no-brainer.
Only 883 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jul 9, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You made a common mistake in describing the Hudson trade
Whether it’s Hudson, or one of various other examples (Schmidt’s the main one I see around here), everyone seems to forget that the player was traded on the verge of free agency. What the player did after signing the extension is completely irrelevant to the deal.
Beane didn’t get nothing for 5 years of Hudson, he got nothing for one year of Hudson. Similarly, Sabean didn’t “steal” Schmidt from the pirates for Rios and Vogelsong, he “stole” two month of Schmidt from the Pirates, and paid a market-rate salary for the rest.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hudson wouldn’t have been a FA until the year after he was traded. Beane could’ve held onto him until the trade deadline, or made a trade with one of the myriad of other teams who wanted Hudson. There were several who wanted Hudson badly, and I don’t think Beane got the best deal.
Funny you say that Chavez was the “no brainer” choice, because I felt the same way about Tejada. Chavez has never been high on my must have list, and Tejada has, in my opinion, been one of the most underated players in the game. Crosby could’ve been moved to 3B while still in thte minors, and the A’s could’ve sold high on Chavez and been a better team.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The final year of Hudson's contract with the A's was 2005
He was traded in Winter 04-05, with one year left on his contract. Therefore, Beane trade away/the Braves acquired one year of Hudson, as I wrote.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
it was Mulder I was thinking of. That does not change the fact, however, that there were several teams in the bidding for Hudson. None of us will ever know what was actually on the table, but I have a hard time believing one of them would not have been better than the package they got from the Braves.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One I heard
Orioles: Bedard and Brian Roberts
That would have been better.
Only 882 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jul 9, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Favor
The story is Beane was doing Hudson a favor by taking the Atlanta deal. Huddy grew up near there and it was the team Huddy most wanted to go to if the A’s didn’t resign him.
The A’s might have been better off if they had taken the RUMORED Orioles deal, but I guess even Beane has a heart sometimes.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Jul 10, 2008 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's got guts
And isn’t afraid to buck trends and pull the trigger on trades and in the draft. He’s always interesting, which is good. And, unlike our own GM, actually says something besides cliches when interviewed on the radio.
Delaying the disappointment: I adopt Hector Sanchez because he's only 17.
by tedfordfan on Jul 9, 2008 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I especially agree with your last part.
Beane is super open to fans, and even does interviews regularly on AN. Can you imagine Sabes doing an interview here on McC? I really can’t.
by xanthan on Jul 9, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
He tries to move guys at the peak of their value, which doesn’t always work, but it works more often than it doesn’t.
Also, he’s always among the top GMs Who Aren’t Brian Sabean, which is a pretty important metric.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on Jul 9, 2008 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 9, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bad moves you cite
all turned bad because of injury. Piazza could have worked out like Thomas except for that slide at 3B. He is forced into making a lot of his trades because of the A’s inability to re-sign players approaching free agency. But when forced he seems to do well; getting Haren for Mulder, and then getting Eveland for Haren, eg.
With their payroll they still seem to be able to contend almost every year and always seem to have a bunch of good young players.
I don’t know if he’s the best or not, but I think among the top GMs.
by marklar on Jul 9, 2008 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Piazza
was struggling even before that slide at 3b: his OPS over the whole season was 727. He got injured on the 3rd of May. His OPS in April was 705.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is way to small a sample size
to judge him on. The year before his March/April numbers were: .210/.286/.403 with an OPS of .689. Putrid. But his totals when the season ended were: .283/.342./.501 with an OPS of .843. He also hit 22 HRs. This was in San Diego where, I could be wrong about this, no one seemingly puts up monster numbers. It was reasonable to believe that he would have hit much better at the Coliseum.
I stand by my original opinion that Beane cannot be blamed on the Piazza signing not working out.
by marklar on Jul 9, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Err,
OK. How about looking at his numbers from 2006 and 2005 too? To enlarge the sample, and all that. OPS+ of 108 and 104.
Piazza had been on the decline for several years. Anyone who watched him could see that his bat speed was no longer there. Even in 2007, with the Padres, his BA was comfortably his career average. He was a 38 year old catcher who could no longer play catcher.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't signed to play catcher.
It is reasonable to look at the previous full season of a player to determine what he might do in the next season. What he did in that hitting mausoleum in SD carries more weight that a season twice removed when there were injury issues. And based on that Piazza could have been an asset for the A’s at DH had he not been injured.
by marklar on Jul 10, 2008 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust
Piazza might have been a bust injury or not, but what really makes Beane shine as a GM is what he did after Piazza.
Once Piazza went down with an injury, he pulled Jack Cust off the scrap heap, who then went on to be, statistically, the second best DH in all of baseball in 2007.
What makes Beane such a good GM is that when he does make a mistake, he doesn’t just twiddle his thumbs and attempt to cover up the fact he screwed up, he gets right back into the game and tries something else. Maybe it’s the job security, but too many GM’s in baseball just pretend their mistakes never happened and wont lift a finger to fix them.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Jul 11, 2008 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Top tier
I don’t know how to rate “best,” but I would put him in the elite class. He’s smart, curious, brave enough to be open to different ideas and ways of looking at things/players, brave enough not to go with the safe decisions, not taking the easy route by pleasing the media and baseball establishment. I appreciate that he seems willing to talk about his thought process more than just the Standard Baseball Cliches from most sport folk.
It is true, though, that he hasn’t put together a WS team (let alone a WS champion), and I go around and around with how much weight to give that. I think we/Moneyballers/SABRists/stat users can’t continue to have it both ways, though: the method works or it doesn’t, and in spite of not having a Yankee/RedSox/dodger kind of budget; the idea is that sheer talent at evaluating sheer talent will outperform the fat oafs with the fat checkbooks. Sure, Oakland is a small payroll team, but is it small market, as people keep saying? It’s the same market as the Giants, for heaven’s sake. In the A’s heydays of the 1990s, the Coliseum was semi-full and Candlestick was not. I assume the A’s had more money. They’ll be getting more revenue once they become the Oakland A’s of Fremont, one would assume.
So I don’t know. Clearly, he’s a mega-talented GM. I just go back and forth on whether it’s fair to excuse him for not having put a team in the WS due to lower payroll, or whether it’s fair to expect him to have fielded a WS team because he is talented and his method is powerful.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 9, 2008 12:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees and Red Sox aren’t just fat oafs with fat check books, though. They have good GM’s running their franchises. What makes it so difficult for teams like the A’s is that they can’t necessarily outsmart the guys with the big payrolls because the guys with the big payrolls are smart too (except the Dodgers and Mariners and Orioles).
As for World Series appearances, I look at it on a case by case basis and I see that the reasons for the A’s lack of success in the post-season is 1) luck and 2) their lax, laid-back (some would say unprofessional) clubhouse. The A’s were knocked out in the fifth game four straight years. In 2001 and 2002, at least, they had the better team. I think they just didn’t have the professionalism to really hunker down and keep themselves focused. I think this was especially apparent against the Red Sox when they were more focused on shoving catchers than making sure they scored runs.
I guess I really can’t prove any of that. I just think you have to be doing something wrong with regards to your outlook when you lose four straight five-game series in five games, two of which you led 2-0 and at least two of which your team was clearly better than.
The thing that I don’t like about the “not built for post-season” argument is that I look at those teams and I see teams that are very much fit for post-season play. They had strong starting pitching and strong defenses. Their offenses (especially 2000 and 2001) weren’t bad either. Neither were their bullpens, for the most part.
Only 883 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jul 9, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Low Rates of Hunker-Over-Replacement-Hunkerer
I agree with everything you’ve said, though hadn’t considered their hunkerlessness. I agree with your point that other teams are rich and smart, some teams are just rich, and some are just smart, and some are neither rich nor smart (yes, that’s right, I’m looking at you, Kansas City Royals)—and the A’s have had to compete against them all.
But on thinking about your point that they sent 4 straight teams into the post-season, not only are you right, but it actually reinforces for me that they SHOULD have made the WS at least one of those. They had the better team, as you point out, and hell, they had luck those seasons. I share your skepticism about the “not built for postseason” meme—any team that can make the playoffs can get hot for the tournament… or not. And they had as much ability as anyone else to get there.
So I guess we are saying that maybe Beane should not get the benefit of being “excused” for lack of WS teams because of the low payroll? I mean, they DID make the playoffs and they had talent. Hmm. I really go back and forth on Beane. (Unlike Sabean, in which case I might be tempted to roll back and forth over him.)
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 9, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
They definitely should have sent at least one of those teams to the world series. I just can’t find any real reason to blame the GM for that. Those teams should have gone to the world series; this is the GM’s fault?
I’m still annoyed that we didn’t get the Bay Bridge Series 2: Giants’ Revenge in 2002.
Only 883 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jul 9, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly he should have gone out and traded his best hitter for Podsednik
Worked for the White Sox.
Sorry people, sometimes it’s just luck. And no, luck isn’t the residue of design. Luck is the residue of random occurrences.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make an important distinction, Mayor
We know that Oakland is a small payroll team. The big questions are: (1) are the A’s in a small market, and more important to our situation, (2) are the Giants in a small market?
The US Census Bureau defines Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) for the country. One could argue with some of their definitions, or one could use instead a list of TV market sizes, but here’s the MSA list for the top 25 areas:
1. New York/New Jersey/Long Island 18.815 million
2. Los Angeles/Long Beach/Santa Ana 12.875 million
3. Chicago/Naperville/Joliet 9.524 million
4. Dallas/Ft. Worth/Arlington 6.145 million
5. Philadelphia/Camden/Wilmington 5.827 million
6. Houston/Sugar Land/Baytown 5.628 million
7. Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Pompano Beach 5.413 million
8. Washington DC/Arlington/Alexandria 5.306 million
9. Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta 5.278 million
10. Boston/Cambridge/Quincy 4.482 million
11. Detroit/Warren/Livonia 4.467 million
12. San Francisco/Oakland/Fremont 4.203 million
13. Phoenix/Mesa/Scottsdale 4.179 million
14. Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue 4.109 million
15. Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario 4.081 million
16. Minneapolis/St. Paul/Bloomington 3.208 million
17. San Diego/Carlsbad/San Marcos 2.974 million
18. St. Louis/East St. Louis 2.803 million
19. Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater 2.723 million
20. Baltimore/Towson 2.668 million
21. Denver/Aurora 2.464 million
22. Pittsburgh 2.355 million
23. Portland/Vancouver/Beaverton 2.175 million
24. Cincinnati/Middletown 2.133 million
25. Cleveland/Elyria/Mentor 2.096 million
We could argue just what “small” market means; given that there are 30 ML teams, would it be fair to say the top 10 are de facto Large Market Teams, and the last 10 (#21-30) are Small Market Teams? If we agreed on that definition, the A’s and Giants play in a Middle Sized Market.
But notice two things:
15 isn’t a separate baseball market. Most of us would “give” that MSA to the Angels and Dodgers.#23 Portland isn’t especially near a ML team; perhaps we could give them to Seattle?
We should also factor in Areas with two baseball teams (NY, Chi, LA, SF). From a ticket-selling standpoint, is it fair to say that both the A’s and the Giants play in the 12th largest market in the country? I would divide the MSA in half (granted, an arbitrary division). If we re-did market sizes based on teams, and their supposed share of the MSA’s, we’d get this order:
1. NYYankees 9.4 million (half their MSA)
1. NYMets 9.4 million
3. LAAngels 8.4 million (half their MSA)
3. LADodgers 8.4 million
5. Texas Rangers 6.1 million
6. Philadelphia Phillies 5.8 million
7. Houston Astros 5.6 million
8. Florida Marlins 5.4 million
9. Washington Nationals 5.3 million
10. Atlanta Braves 5.2 million
11. Chicago White Sox 4.75 million (half their MSA)
11. Chicago Cubs 4.75 million
13. Boston Red Sox 4.48 million
14. Detroit Tigers 4.46 million
15. Arizona Diamondbacks 4.179 million
16. Seattle Mariners 4.109 million
17. Minnesota Twins 3.2 million
18. San Diego Padres 2.9 million
19. St. Louis Cardinals 2.8 million
20. Tampa Bay Rays 2.7 million
21. Baltimore Orioles 2.6 million
22. Colorado Rockies 2.4 million
23. Pittsburgh Pirates 2.3 million
24. Cincinnati Reds 2.133 million
25. Oakland A’s 2.101 million (half their MSA)
25. San Francisco Giants 2.101 million
When seen in this light, it would appear that the A’s (and the Giants, for that matter) do indeed play in a Small Market – relatively speaking. This, of course, leaves out any behavorial and regional influences on who attends games, or even who feels loyalty to a team. This is just another way of looking at the question: Who is my potential audience?
Is it truly accurate for both the SF and Oak organizations to look at the 4.2 million people in their MSA and presume that they BOTH can draw from that same market? Granted, individual humans can go to both A’s and Giants games, or Cubs and White Sox games; but wouldn’t experience tell us that most folks are either Mets fans or Yankee fans? Dodger fans or Angel fans? A’s fans or Giants fans?
What do you all think?
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Jul 9, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I think you are earnestly trying to sift the data, which is great, but I think this is where sorting data for the sake of sorting data starts to deviate from the reality one is trying to describe and/or analyze. Either that, or the assumptions in your first cut aren’t really how markets are defined.
For one thing, as I recall (and I haven’t looked it up), the US Census Bureau redefined their SMSAs several years ago, and what was SF-Oak-SanJose became SF-Oak-Fremont, and the SF SMSA lost Santa Rosa as well as San Jose. (A more cynical mayor would point out that there is ample evidence that this redefinition was done by the bush administration as a deliberate ploy to reduce the population numbers associated with SF’s SMSA so that SF would get less federal money. But that mayor would be digressing.) So, we would have to add in all the area down to Gilroy and up to Santa Rosa and almost but not quite to Sacramento in order to get a truer picture of the “market” for the A’s and Giants.
Second, I don’t think you can just simply cut that number in half and say “that’s the market.” I don’t think it is quite that binary.
Personally, my sense of it (read: I haven’t researched it and I have no intention of researching it) is that the term “market” is defined more like the “media market,” as the television/radio licensing fee is the single biggest chunk of dough that teams get (except for ticket sales in the case of SOME teams but not nearly all teams by a long shot), and so things like eyeballs and ratings are what define a market for a team. But there are a damn sight more than 4M people in the SF/Oak “market,” which is pretty much all the population centers of Northern California. For heaven’s sake, the MLB definition of the phrase “San Francisco” is the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, which the current SMSA definition doesn’t take into account.
But we could cut through all this if we could just find out what the approximate gross revenue for the A’s has been. Or the Giants. Or other teams. Is that info available?
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 9, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I will see If I can dig it up for you.
The Giants are pretty high on the list.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 10, 2008 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Revenue
is reporte as part of this article..
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-much-is-your-team-worth-2008/
The Giants are 7th in MLB according to this w/ a 2007 revenue of 184 million.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 10, 2008 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as I can tell look at this article and all it’s inherent links, these estimates are club specific and don’t seem to be including estimates from the burgeoning new media revenue streams that come in throuh the industry as a whole (MLB.com, MiLB.com, XM, DirectTV and cable deals). As I’ve argued before as these revenue streams get larger and larger (and MLB.com itself has started growing by over a billion $$$ in revenue per year) the notion of “markets” will come to mean less and less, as the population emcompassed by the size of one’s local TV reach (the definition of one’s market) will have less to do with a team’s ability to sell itself to it’s fans around the country and around the world.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 10, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's correct, as most of what you've described is split equally.
Other than individual cable deals, I think teams split the rest of that stuff, as it’s universally available (stuff on the intertubular webs and the satellite radio machines, DirectTv/PPV, etc.) All that will be left that differentiates teams will be whatever their ballpark can produce (ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, concessions, etc.) and their local media licensing fees.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 10, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But individual cable deals can make a big difference.
I forget which year it was that I read this, but the New York Yankees cable deal brought in more revenue for them than the total revenues for the bottom 3 teams combined.
by marklar on Jul 10, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it's a huge difference, no question about it
But the Yankees are really, really, really rich. That’s not news. They have more than many other teams. Also not news. But do the A’s get much less than, say, the Giants from their media deal? Mariners? I find that hard to believe.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 10, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point,
they probably don’t. But what about teams like the Astros and Phillies? The Giants and A’s are probably splitting the pie, while those large market teams don’t have to.
I’m serioulsy asking though and not trying to make a point. I mean, I really don’t know. It is a complex issue.
by marklar on Jul 10, 2008 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the A's TV deal is much smaller than the Giants
I don’t have the numbers, but the A’s are on TV a lot less than the Giants are and their local network deal is with KICU as opposed to the Giants who have a local network deal with a major network affiliate (NBC) which is more valuable. The 2nd team in the market is always going to have a lesser TV deal but the A’s get especially screwed because there is only one local sports network so they have to compete for airtime with the Giants, whereas in New York the Yankees have their own channel, in Chicago WGN provides more TV opportunities, in Baltimore/Washington they have MASN and a local Comcast Sports Net.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 10, 2008 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, next step is subtracting costs
Not only debt service on the ballpark (that used to be reported as $20M/year, which might or might not be true, but seems reasonable), but costs of everything—concessions, payroll, maintenance, travel, feeding Tyler Walker, scouting, and on and on. What would be interesting to know is whether the A’s or other small payroll teams have vastly different amounts of money they COULD be working with.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 10, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't think the A's are that small payroll
Their payroll was 80m last year…
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 10, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, though apparently 40% less this year.
But that really gets to my question: is it by CHOICE or by NECESSITY that some of these small-payroll teams have such a small payroll. In some cases, clearly yes. (The evil carl pohlad used to take the money he got from luxury taxes and simply pocketed it. The brilliant people of Minnesota protested this by giving the Twins a new ballpark; bravo, clods.)
It also gets to my companion point that the A’s aren’t really a small-market team.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 10, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you, mayor. Since the institution of the luxury tax, and revenue sharing, many man owners (Pohlad, David Glass, Jeffery Loria) have mearly cried poor and pocketed the cash. Then we have to put up with uninformed media crying about how baseball is unfair becuase of a lack of a salry cap. Never mind looking up how many different teams have been in the playoffs the last ten years, or how many “small market” teams are really good.
by tyrannoman on Jul 10, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Beane is a good GM.
But I don’t think he deserves all the attention that he seems to receive. It just feels like people overlook his bad moves and praise him endlessly for his good ones.
Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.
by Anticon23 on Jul 9, 2008 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+ I agree, as the kids say.
2008 Giants: Scrappy! Scrappy! Joy! Joy!
by Goofus on Jul 9, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO, one problem
is that while Beane gets a lot of attention, a lot of hype, many people who opine on Beane don’t actually follow the A’s closely enough to properly critique his moves during his tenure, or their views are too heavily influenced by Moneyball the book, whether positively or negatively.
Case in point, if you ask A’s fans, say on A’s Nation, they’ll likely say that Mark Ellis was one of Beane’s best acquisitions. Ask most non A’s fans, and they are barely aware that Ellis even exists.
Many A’s fans would probably tell you that the Ted Lilly for Bobby Kielty, and then signing Mark Redman as a replacement for Lilly, sequence of moves, is one of Beane’s worst. Non A’s fans probably don’t even remember that Beane signed Redman as an FA to a somewhat big salary.
Another example would be the surprise, even disbelief and critisicm, in some circles that Beane would pay $4.5M to a 16 year old LA pitcher, because that is what Moneyball argued against.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exellent points. Letting Lilly go was one of Beane’s lowpoints, and I personally wouldn’t mind a bit if Mark Ellis was playing 2B for the Giants next year.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i really like
the swisher, haren, and harden deals this year.. on paper it looks like the a’s could be a 100 win team by 2010 so i say hes a good GM. im glad though im not an a’s fan because i like to like the players along with liking the team and with all the trades as an A fan i feel like you dont get to see players grow as much
proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..
by Azmanz on Jul 9, 2008 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Love the Swisher and Haren deals, but am really not sure on the Harden deal. If he could’ve procured that haul (or 3/4 of that haul) for just Harden, I’d be all in. Gaudin is a pretty good pitcher in his own right, and I think he’s been overshadowed in this deal.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chicago wouldn't have done
a 3/4 deal for Harden alone. They had to have Gaudin as insurance for the possibility/probability that Harden will go down again.
by marklar on Jul 10, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to do the math but...
If you count regular season wins/total payroll, I think Beane grades out pretty well.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN
by zenbitz on Jul 9, 2008 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They always win
Do you need a bigger metric than that?
I don’t think he’s the best, but he’s definitely very good at what he does.
Now what if he were the GM of the Yankees? Would he practice reasonable spending, or would he too be too enticed by the notion of signing free agents away from the A’s? Or what if he were the GM of the Giants? He’d have a high enough payroll to re-sign his homegrown players that he thinks he should re-sign. Would he do it, or would he still trade away most of his best players year after year? It would be an interesting study, to say the least.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
by JRPhillips on Jul 9, 2008 12:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It depends what you want out of a team.
The A’s are always in contention, always a factor – but they never win.
They have not been to a world series in 18 years. Billy Beane appears to be great at what he does – and that is run the Oakland A’s as if they were the big market teams’ farm. He finds talented young players, sorts them out, grooms them – and then sells them as turn key ML stars to large market/budget teams.
And he is very good at that. IMO, that would be pretty shitty as an A’s fan. Any young talented player that comes up – you know the clock is ticking before he becomes a Yankee, Cub, Brave, Etc. Imagine knowing for a fact that Cain and Lincecum were only a year or two from being shipped off for a boatload of new faces. Beane would probably orgasm over the idea of trading Lincecum before his FA years.
It is continual player development in Oakland. It builds teams that are interesting and relevant, but never teams that actually win.
Selling high is great, but the problem with it is you never get to enjoy the high – which in an of itself kinda defeats the point.
Could the A’s ever win a world series under Beane? Yeah – probably… they could get a young group of players together that were so electric (and lucky) they pulled it off… but it would be a one year show and then they would all get scattered throughout the league.
Personally, I want a team that wins games, and is trying to win more games next season. I want a team that is focused on bettering itself towards the goal of winning a world series. The A’s to me seem to be focused on continually putting an interesting team on the field – different goals.
Frankly, I’m not sure what the hell the Giants are focused on right now, FWIW.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How is that different than mostother teams?
Except that Beane usually trades the young studs rather than just letting them walk in free agency. The big difference isn’t that Beane can’t hold onto his talent, that’s a problem endemic to virtually every small market (or just bad) team. It’s that the A’s mange to acquire and/or develop so damn many good-to-great players. Instead of losing a star every few seasons, the A’s seem to lose, and find, a new star or two every season.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
However
if he “just let’s them walk” he recieves compensation picks for the FA that defect. Wasn’t that one of the main tenets of “Moneyball”? The fact is, the A’s have had fairly poor drafts in the last 5 years, which is why they’ve had to trade Haren for a boatload of prospects rather than enjoy him (and a homegrown supporting cast) for the next three years.
by tyrannoman on Jul 9, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except for two things
1) He has to offer arbitration
2) Moneyball was written before the last CBA, which tightened up the compensation pick rules (particularly relevant for Harden, given the amount of time he’s missed. They don’t hand out type-A rankings on potential).
3) Alot of these players had option years on their final contract. Declined options = no compensation picks
4) Trades bring in prospects who might be MLB ready now or in the next 12 months. Compensation picks, which can’t be higher than #16, are unlikely to be ready to contribute for 3 years. If you’ve just lost one of your better players, the last thing you want to do is wait 3 years for reinforcements.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
make that four things.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he is a good GM
on balance he has done a good job building teams and more of his moves have worked than not. I really like the fact that he thinks outside the box.
I do think that some of the mystique that surrounds him is pretty silly and ignorant, like that whole “no GM should ever trade with him…” bullshit. Do you think the Tigers are upset that they got Jeremy Bonderman from him, or the Blue Jays regret giving up Bobby Kielty for Ted Lilly, or the Reds getting Aaron Harang for Jose Guillen? I don’t point those trades out to suggest that I think Beane is a bad GM, I think more often than not his moves work out well, but I just think he is a as prone to coming out on the losing end of a trade as any other good GM. So the whole idea of “hide the women and children when Billy Beane calls!” is pretty stupid I think.
Also, time will tell on this one, but I am not impressed with what they got for Harden, it is very much a quantity over quality package. I would have insisted that the Cubs include Ronny Cedeno rather than Patterson.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 9, 2008 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jim Callis on the trade and Beane
This probably validates the points that are being made.
Jim Callis: (2:07 PM ET ) Two differing viewpoints . . . I was surprised the A’s didn’t get more. Harden is a risk with his health, and his last two starts haven’t been stellar, but I don’t think the Cubs gave up much. Gallagher can be a solid mid-rotation guy, but Murton and Patterson aren’t regulars on good teams and Donaldson is having a rough year in low Class A. If I were the A’s, I would have shopped for a better deal. Doesn’t seem like they got enough considering Harden’s huge upside and the inclusion of Gaudin as well. The Cubs wouldn’t have turned down this deal if they had to wait two weeks. It amuses me that there’s a lot of analysis on the blogosphere saying that the A’s must know Harden is about to get hurt again, or else Billy Beane wouldn’t have made the trade. Beane is a tremendous GM, but I swear, if Kenny Williams made a similar deal, he’d be getting killed for it.
by slcgiant on Jul 9, 2008 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
KW is vastly underrated by most
stat influenced fans. A GM who’s vastly overrated by stat influenced fans is Mark Shapiro. Often touted as one of the best, even as the best, GM in MLB, despite doing nothing really special.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree Shapiro is overrated. The Indians should have done a lot better over the past couple of years. Not only that but he really fails at finding a suitable closer and other bullpen arms.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 10, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We know how I feel about Beane. I don’t like the way that he does things, like, I absolutely can’t stand the way he does things, but I respect his ability to do things the way that he does do them.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreement and a question
I agree with Jim Callis that on the face of it, I was surprised the A’s didn’t get more for Harden and Gaudin, two seemingly pretty good assets. But I have also learned it usually doesn’t pay to bet against Billy Beane (see Barry Zito).
The way I look at Billy is that during the Bonds years the A’s were about as good as the Giants, even though given their low payroll, they essentially spotted the Giants the best player in the game. How do you think Billy would have done had he had the same money to spend AFTER having Bonds added to his roster? Might we be thinking dynasty?
The question I would ask the original poster is why he doesn’t like that Billy promoted statistical analysis in addition to traditional scouting. The consensus now seems to be that combining the two is better than using EITHER one exclusively.
Billy is probably too non-traditional for this to happen, but I could see him being voted into the Hall of Fame on merit. The guy has made more from less than perhaps any other general manager of his generation.
A lot of people thought the A’s would be even worse than the Giants this season. Certainly their budget was still much lower. But now Brian Sabean is spotted the OTHER Barry, while Billy is about as good as it gets at making a silk purse out of a cow’s ear, so I wasn’t among them.
by sharksrog on Jul 9, 2008 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One thing I’ve always wondered about Beane and budget is that there was a time when he was REALLY cash strapped, and all this stuff he did was completely necessary. But I’ve been under the impression that the payroll has significantly increased (relative to other low-market teams) during his tenure.
I tried to look for it online, but all my searches amounted to was essentially a bunch of yankees blogs (wtf??) talking about the yankees budgets, and some Forbes list from 2005 that had the A’s total value as 3rd worst in the league (which obviously WOULD NOT support my previous impression).
Does anybody know where I can find reliable payroll numbers for MLB? I’d appreciate a push in the right direction. I’m just curious about how much there is to this amorphous idea I have about that team’s payroll. I think a lot of people give the A’s FO a lot of slack for “not having any money” just because there was a time when that team didn’t have any. But if they actually still don’t, I don’t want to go around sounding like an ass about it.
I need FACTS, dammit!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where else, but from Cots?
Here are the A’s payroll from 2000:
- 2008: $ 47,967,126
- 2007: $ 79,366,940
- 2006: $ 62,242,079
- 2005: $ 55,425,762
- 2004: $ 59,425,667
- 2003: $ 50,260,834
- 2002: $ 40,004,167
- 2001: $ 33,810,750
- 2000: $ 32,121,833
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dammit I type too slow.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks to both of you, though! I’m still figuring out what I want to make of this in terms of the last full decade, but I think at least from 2006-2007, the small market “pass” couldn’t really apply.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2007, maybe
but they were still about 10M below MLB average in 2006. Even in 2007, they were (barely) in the bottom half of MLB payrolls at #16.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you can’t discard outliers… but I wonder how they would fall on a line that best fits rather than a straight average… just because of the 3-4 outrageous payrolls that are out there.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends
Which is the bigger outlier: The 2006 Yankees (194M) or the 2006 Marlins (15M).
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If ML average was around $75 million in 2006 (just basing that on you saying the A’s were about 10 below that season… I didn’t do the math), 194 is much farther away from 75 than 15 is.
I’m not sure if I can actually measure it in such linear terms, and I have the feeling that I actually can’t (I need an economist here!), but that’s how I would be inclined to look at it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, I was just being a smart ass
That being said, the Yankee’s money is being poured into player salaries, and particularly the free agent market, just like everyone else’s. The fact that they’re so disconnected from the average (or even the second place Red Sox) is irrelevent so long as they’re driving prices up.
I’d be rather interested to see a breakdown of each team’s payroll by money spent on 6+ year vets and pre-6 year vets. Seeing just how much of each team’s money is spent on players who have hit the free agent market (or at least signed market-sized extensions) would probably show an even bigger disparity than raw payroll figures.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
As a percentage of the average payroll, 15 is far more of an outlier (one fifth instead of ~270%). My instinct, also not as an economist, would be that that’s a much better way of looking at it.
Trent Kline: Decentish. Also, my website is called ChatterBalks Dot Com and on it I make jokes about things.
by groug on Jul 9, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I'm one of those.
are we trying to measure the A’s distance from the central tendency of payroll?
I would check to see where they are relative to the median, because that’s less influenced the Marlins and Yankees.
you can't block the Bocock
by oldjacket on Jul 10, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reliable? I'm not sure
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/oakland-athletics.html
Last year they spent nearly 80m, steadily climbing up from 32m in 2000.
This year they are back down to 50m, so apparently a little bit of a salary reset (we all knew this).
80M is well above most of the teams one would consider “small market” and overall their recent history looks fairly similar to the padres, as an example.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d suspect the 50m payroll is more a factor of selling everyone off than just getting back to frugal spending practices. If you blow up a team like Beane did, your payroll is going to be much much smaller.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
by JRPhillips on Jul 9, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hidden payroll
I think even though this years payroll is over 30 million less then 2007, that doesn’t mean that 30 million still isn’t being invested.
Beane is taking that savings and throwing $4.25 million at Michael Inoa (LA pitcher) 350,000 at Robin Rosario (an LA outfielder), and giving $600,000 to 10th rounder Rashun Dixon (going higher over slot then any other team in baseball). He didn’t just cut payroll, he did what most greedy GM’s and owners (cough Tampa Bay cough) wont do and funneled the $30 million back into the team in the form of future prospects.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Jul 11, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good for him if he did!
My point is more about the ML roster itself. That’s that the team payroll will drop if you make trades like Beane did the offseason. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. It should give him better flexibility to make a splash later if need be, whether that’s in the offseason or right at the trade deadline, or even next season.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
by JRPhillips on Jul 11, 2008 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Answer
Sharksrog—I stated, “I like that he has pushed statistical analysis and other forms of analyzing players.” I agree and believe that the more analysis of a player the more likely one can know a player’s true value.
I only said that Billy Beane was not the pioneer of statistical analysis that he is made out to be. I believe Bill James deserves far more credit than Billy.
Also, we didn’t really bet against Billy Beane for Barry Zito. Zito was an unrestricted free agent. I’m not defending the signing in any way, shape or form but Zito was the one guy from the original 3 that Beane didn’t actually trade. He certainly could have gotten
by slcgiant on Jul 9, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finish typing before posting
He certainly could have gotten more for Zito if he would have traded him after the Cy Young season with a year left on his contract. As it was he didn’t even get a first round pick because the Giants selected in the Top 15.
by slcgiant on Jul 9, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
After his CY season, Zito had only 2 years of service time. Also, in May of that CY season, Zito was signed to a 4 year arby buyout contract.
And while Zito never replicated that CY season, here are his ERA+ during the 4 seasons following that CY season: 134 in 231.7 IP, 101 ERA+ in 213 IP, 113 ERA+ in 228.3 IP, 116 ERA+ in 221 IP.
Trade ZIto after his CY season, and you have to replace those 4 years of performance, which came at a price of $9.3M / 4.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what you say makes sense
But Beane’s track record is the opposite. Trade him after his CY performance (sell high) regardless of what production you lose and reshuffle with a new group of prospects.
If anything, Zito was atypical for Beane.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suggest you follow the A's more closely
you are allowing recent trades to influence your opinion way too much.
Beane signed Chavez to a long term deal. He signed Crosby. Swisher. Haren. Rich Harden too. Jermaine Dye. He tried to sign Jason Giambi. The deal didn’t go through because Giambi insisted on a no trade clause.
Beane’s track record is that he’s adaptable and doesn’t follow any formula set in stone.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure where anything I said disagrees with what you just said?
He signed Swisher, Haren, Harden, Dye yes.
And then traded them all while their value was high without any real concern for replacing their performance on the field.
Which is exactly my point. The fact that he did not do that with Zito is atypical.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didnt' trade Dye
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
how the hell do you know that he traded Swisher, Haren, Harden without any real concern for replacing their performances?
You are aware that, for example, Ryan Sweeney’s OPS+ this year is 111, yes? And Carlos Gonzalez, who came back in the Haren trade, has an OPS+ of 99? Whereas Nick Swisher’s OPS+ is 100?
You are aware that Dana Eveland ang Greg Smith, from the Haren trade, have ERA+ of 108 and 105, right? Or that Justin Duchsherer, shifted from the pen to the rotation, has an ERA+ of 213?
Jermaine Dye, Ramon Hernandez, Terence Long, Esteban Loaiza, Mark Redman, Arthur Rhodes all say “HI”.
If anything, Beane’s MISTAKES have been handing out “big” money contracts.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn got eaten up
Ryan Sweeney, from the Swisher trade, has an OPS+ of 111. Carlos Gonzalez, from the Haren trade, has an OPS+ of 99. Meanwhile, in Chicago, Swisher only just came out of a horrible slump that has his OPS+ at 100.
Dana Eveland from the Haren trade, has an ERA+ of 108. Greg Smith, also from the Haren trade, has an ERA+ of 105.
As for Rich Harden, he hasn’t been able to pitch a total of 200 innings, COMBINED in the last 2 1 /2 seasons. Even this year, when “healthy”, he’s complained recently of a “dead arm”. Earlier in the season, he was shelved for a strained subscaplaris, that’s a shoulder muscle. Sure, in an ideal world, Harden is can contribute more than Gallagher + Murton. This isn’t that ideal world.
He hasn’t signed Bonds, when he should have. That would be a valid criticism.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 10, 2008 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what has he really accomplished?
Making a bunch of mediocre teams with a few division winners sprinkled in? Not a single world series appearance in over 10 years?
I guess that is an accomplishment – and sure, maybe you can blame it on payroll.
But the fact is that his strategy of always selling high continually mortgages the present for the future. Is this strategy adopted out of necessity because of payroll constraints? I don’t know. Is it organizational in that the A’s figure they make more money by always having an o-k team than by occasionally having a real winner?
Or is it perhaps a chink in the Billy Beane armor that, while he always knows the right time to let go of someone – maybe he doesn’t know when it is the right time to hold on.
Selling high as a rule is pretty easy – When something has more value than you bought it for, you sell it. That is pretty hard to get wrong. The trick is knowing who to sell and who to keep, and I’m not so sure Billy has done so amazing in that regard. For every Zito and Mulder there is a Giambi and Tejada. If Beane were such a fantastic GM, perhaps he should have locked some of these “young” talents up to cheap long term deals and built a core of star players to take his team to the big show on the cheap.\
But he hasn’t. Instead, every good player he finds he flips to go on and become someone else’s star (or flop). Sure, he mostly gets good value when he does, but what he loses is the ability to build a team that is competitive on the big scene.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's easy to say that selling high as a rule is pretty easy
Problem is, many teams and many GMs lack that ability. They wishcast that a player having a career high season due to unsustainable factors has genuinely improved. They wishcast that a player who is showing signs of declining, is not declining. They squint and cherry pick.
As for locking up cheap young talents, he has locked up some. Zito himself was locked up. After 2 years, he was signed to a 4 year arby buyout contract. Chavez was locked up. Crosby. Nick Swisher. Dan Haren. Some of these worked, some didn’t.
Making a bunch of mediocre teams with a few division winners sprinkled in? Not a single world series appearance in over 10 years?
A bunch of “mediocre” teams? WTF? Look at the freaking W-L records of the A’s teams in the early 2000s. Those were not “mediocre”, by any freaking stretch of the word.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed but...
You are right rfloh. They weren’t mediocre at all but they also didn’t perform well in the playoffs. They lost in the first round in every series, most of which they were the home team, except 06. However, in 06 they beat the Twins (road team) and then got swept by the Tigers (A’s were the home team in that series).
by slcgiant on Jul 9, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Winning a lot of regular season games
And then getting rolled out of the playoffs is the definition of mediocre.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it isn’t.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on Jul 9, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
errrr
I’d say that’s the definition of pretty damn good.
You can’t be mediocre and make the playoffs consistently every year.
Billy did his job.
Also, small sample size.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on Jul 9, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't agree
Winning a lot of regular season games year after year is pretty meaningless if you never get beyond that. Look at the Sharks…
Sure, the A’s have had some good teams over the last 10 years in terms of regular season wins, but as well as I can remember every one of their playoff appearances has ended in hilarity, kinda like the Rockies in the WS last year.
So Ultimately, you have to decide what do you want to do? Win a lot of regular season games over a 10 year span and generally be respectable – or build a team that actually takes it to the next level and makes an impression in the playoffs and hopefully the world series a few times in that span?
Beane is extremely good at one of these – perpetual slightlyaboveaverageness.
Maybe mediocre was the wrong word.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The question is
What the difference between building regular season and postseason winners? Many people wold say “veteran leadership,” which is synonymous with “post-free agent players” which is synonymous with “prohibitively expensive.”
Of course, I suspect it’s more of a crapshoot.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would not say veteran leadership
I would say a team that is better than last years.
Beane does not produce that. The quality of his team in any given year is largely dependent on the quality of the young players that he is grooming.
My point is that is good enough to win some games, and sometimes a lot of games – but when it comes to the playoffs and facing teams like the Yankees or Red Sox who are constantly cherry picking from the best players avaliable trying to make their teams better than the previous year – the A’s cant hang.
If he instead were to hold onto a few top players each season, theoretically the team would be better year after year instead of it being a crapshoot each time out.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a pointless argument
You’re basically saying that it’s impossible to win in the postseason under the A’s salary constraints, which essentially absolves Beane of any blame for postseason failings.
Besides, the A’s did hold on to their best core for awhile. Zito, Hudson, Tejada, Giambi, Mulder, Chavez. They held most of that group together for 5 seasons (2000-2004).
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is NOT
hockey. Baseball is NOT basketball.
Far more teams in basketball and hockey get into the playoffs.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that’s the definition of mediocre, I’d love for the Giants to be mediocre.
by xanthan on Jul 9, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he locked up some
But then proceeded to trade them. The only players that he has held onto are Crosby and Chavez of all those you listed
(and really any of consequence I can think of).
He finds players, increases their value, and sells them to the highest bidder. Great for a house flipper but not great if you want someone to actually build you a team.
Perpetual rebuilding describes the Beane years to a T. He’s ungodly good at it – and that is why his teams win a lot more than others in the same mold…
But that is still what he is doing, and that is what keeps him from being able to compete with teams with a more rounded model, and why he gets rolled out of the playoffs year after year.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that is still what he is doing, and that is what keeps him from being able to compete with teams with a more rounded model, and why he gets rolled out of the playoffs year after year.
Can we say that with certainty though? The playoffs, by definition, give us a very small sample size from which to derive… well, anything. I don’t think we can say that the way he builds his team necessarily leads to p[layoff failure. (The BP guys even address this in “Why Doesn’t Billy Beane’s Shit Work in the Playoffs.)
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on Jul 9, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
self-reply ftw!
One thing I’ve never understood is why people think they can pull statistically significant studies out of postseason games, when there are so few of them. Much of what happens in the postseason is due to luck, not skill; obviously the 162-game season is a much better test of a team’s true sense of value. Sometimes, good teams don’t win short series. Anyone want to claim that the 1987 Twins, 1960 Pirates, 1969 Mets, or 2002 Angels, just to name four off the top of my head, were really the best teams in baseball?
what i was trying to say, i think.
from here
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on Jul 9, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that it is a small sample size w/ the playoff performance
But then again, can you ever say a GM was really good or really bad? Most things a GM has control over would fall into the “small sample size” catagory. (obvious extremes excepted)
I don’t think it is merely the outcome of recent A’s playoff appearances that is telling – I think it is the fact that he does not retain a core group of skilled players. His lineup/rotation is currently in a state of flux, and as such shows no linear progression of talent from one year to the next.
A “typical” approach would be to try out a group of young players, and hold onto a few because you felt they were good enough to form the core of a winning team. The following year, you try out more young players and keep a few of them to supplement what you’ve got from last year – rinse and repeat year after year to suppliment and replace the core as they age, etc.
Beane seems to be perpetually on step 1. As soon as he finds a few good young players, he offloads the good young players he found last year (or the year before, etc) and starts essentially all over.
Yes, he gets good value when he does so – and as a result his annual crop of young players is very talented (hence the resulting winning seasons) but the team is not strong enough to compete one on one with other highly talented teams (IE, the playoffs).
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 9, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't trade Jermaine Dye
He also signed Ramon Hernandez and Terence Long. Long sucked really badly. Thus he traded Hernandez to get the Padres to take TLong’s contract.
I repeat, if you want to critique Beane, follow the A’s more closely.
But that is still what he is doing, and that is what keeps him from being able to compete with teams with a more rounded model, and why he gets rolled out of the playoffs year after year.
Name the team with the “more rounded model” that Beane can’t compete with on the field, whose model isn’t predicated on spending >$100M in payroll. Please do.
Perpetual rebuilding describes the Beane years to a T. He’s ungodly good at it – and that is why his teams win a lot more than others in the same mold…
Except of course that it doesn’t. Is giving $21M to Esteban Loaiza “perpetual rebuilding”. $7M to Mike Piazza at the end of his career “perpetual rebuilding”?
And you can’t brush aside Crosby and Chavez with impunity. If Beane is a perpetual rebuilder why do he lock Chavez up?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 9, 2008 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So would you say that Sabean’s a better GM than Beane simply based on the 2002 playoff run? Because in your core assessments that seems to be the only real difference. Other than 02 Sabean’s teams haven’t won in the playoffs, and amazingly despite much greater resources he also doesn’t really keep a core group together. Bonds/Kent/Snow I guess you could say, but since 2001 there’s been a rotating door in RF, and there’s been a rotating door at 3B since ‘97 (and really we’ve run through a lot of catcher’s and CFs, too).
Also, you’re basing alot of your assumptions on post-season performance, but does the A’s flop in the ‘02 series against the Yankees differ in any substantive way from the Yankees ‘04 flop against the Red Sox, and if not, would you have to say that Brian Cashman fails to build solid playoff teams?
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 9, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be ridiculous
Sabean’s not a better GM BECAUSE of the playoff run, he’s a better GM because of the Lofton trade which triggered the4 playoff run, duh.
I also here that he stirred things up between Bonds and Kent in that little dugout fraccas, which clearly lit a fire in the team’s belly.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jul 9, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never made any mention of Sabean
Sabeans performance or lack of really has nothing to do w/ my critique of Beane.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Jul 10, 2008 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I realize you didn’t mention Sabean, I brought him up. But I have to disagree with your second sentence—in any job, and particular one that’s such an exclusive group, job performance has to be considered in relation to one’s peers. Your critique of him was implicit relative to other GMs and other teams.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 10, 2008 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's a great GM...but not perfect
Most of the moves Beane makes are the right ones for his club and is generally ahead of the curve for all front offfices.
His drafts could be better, but that’d be my only legitimate complaint (and his drafts aren’t horrible either)
www.wazzel.com (prove your sports knowledge if you can)
by NeifiChicken on Jul 9, 2008 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are very few GM’s out there who I would feel comfortable rating higher than Beane. Schierholtz when he was GM, what’s his name in Boston….um, that might be it.
Beane’s not perfect. He’s been wrong about some stuff (e.g. you can just throw anyone into the closers role and they will be fine…ahem, Dotel and Rhodes). He’s made some bad moves. I particularly didn’t like the Hudson trade, which was compounded by the fact that he then traded Cruz to the Diamondbacks for Brad Halsey. But his overall body of work is overwhelmingly positive.
Personally, I don’t care about how he is perceived. I think he’s really good because of what he has done. I think he has some flaws that some critics here have touched on (but greatly exagerrated), but he also has some very valuable strengths; the kind which I wish our GM had.
Only 883 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jul 9, 2008 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Theo Epstein.
Signed,
Epstein’s Mother
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 9, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Schierholtz was not only a GM, he also played 3B in high school.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
