Billy Beane: Help or Hurt?

[blacksilverfan12]

Does Billy Beane's trading of top players help or hurt the A's? I think he hurts because he's gotten rid of many well-liked players by A's fans to save himself money. I would think that would alienate a lot of fans. While "Moneyball" may keep the A's competitive year after year, the A's have won one playoff series during Beane's tenure (He became GM in 1997)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What does "Moneyball" have to do with Beane trading away players right before they will command high salaries? The A's can't afford to sign these players. What is is supposed to do, watch them leave and get nothing in return? True the A's haven't had that much success but that has nothing to so with "Moneyball".

Since the 1999 season the A's are:

1999- 87-75 (2nd)
2000- 91-70 (1st)
2001- 102-60 (2nd)
2002- 103-59 (1st)
2003- 96-66 (1st)
2004- 91-71 (2nd)
2005- 88-74 (2nd)
2006- 93-69 (1st)
2007- 76-86 (3rd)
2008- 51-44 (on pace for 87 wins)

Since the 1999 season the A's are 878-673 (.566, 205 games over .500) with five playoff appearances.

[Old Sweater]

Hurt.....if you like having the same players.

Hurt...if you ever expect to get any ring value.

Hurt.....the fan base.

Help.......the owner.

[Old Sweater]

The A's can't afford to sign these players.

If the Rockies can resign a few so could the A's..........It's ridiculous the amount of players that Beane has gotten rid of.

Beane is nothing more then a fantasy GM........if that is your cup of tea...the he is your man.

[blacksilverfan12]

What does "Moneyball" have to do with Beane trading away players right before they will command high salaries? The A's can't afford to sign these players. What is is supposed to do, watch them leave and get nothing in return? True the A's haven't had that much success but that has nothing to so with "Moneyball".

Are you saying he can't resign any of them? I know the A's are a small market team, but still...

[SamtheBravesFan]

Are you saying he can't resign any of them? I know the A's are a small market team, but still...

I'm sure that's what he's saying, because that's what I believe. Beane acts like he's operating on a strict budget from year to year, and despite yearly turnover and a shoestring budget, Oakland remains competitive. He should be lauded, not ridiculed. He's a "help".

[spark240]

Beane does occasionally keep a guy around, for example Eric Chavez who I believe was eligible for free agency in 2002, is now getting more than nine million dollars per season, and, yes, is still in Oakland.

Of course he's "helping" the A's...!! So they haven't got a WS ring yet in his term, but they've been an extremely good team, and I don't know who else could have done more with what Beane has had to work with.

Hey, didn't we have a thread recently which argued that American League teams were playing to a higher standard, because they had to compete with... the Oakland A's? ;)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Are you saying he can't resign any of them? I know the A's are a small market team, but still...

That's a good question. I have no idea.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If the Rockies can resign a few so could the A's..........It's ridiculous the amount of players that Beane has gotten rid of.
Funny in '08 the Rockies have about a $21 million edge in payroll over the A's. That's a lot. So the 'If the Rockies can resign a few so could the A's' argument is pointless.



Beane is nothing more then a fantasy GM........if that is your cup of tea...the he is your man.
Again with your rants, OS? What the heck is a fantasy GM? Aren't the Rockies shopping Matt Holliday?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hurt.....if you like having the same players.
Oh really? How many current Rockiers were on the team four years ago?



Hurt...if you ever expect to get any ring value.
"Ring value"? What does that mean?



Hurt.....the fan base.
What fan base?



Help.......the owner.

Of couse. What's wrong with that? And remember Beane is part owner of the A's.

[blacksilverfan12]

And remember Beane is part owner of the A's.

That was my point earlier when I said that he saves himself some money by not re-signing guys

[spark240]

That was my point earlier when I said that he saves himself some money by not re-signing guys

Okay... but the owners also make more money when the team is winning, and under Beane's management, they have won a lot.

So Beane is pretty much doing what a good GM is supposed to do, on both sides of the equation.


What fan base?

The A's fan base is smaller than that of the other west coast teams, but it's clearly more loyal and visible than, say, the Marlins fan base. While I haven't been to a game in Oakland myself, I have met A's fans at games in other cities, and they impressed me as being in the upper tier of fan quality.

[Erik Bedard]

Hurt.....if you like having the same players.

Hurt...if you ever expect to get any ring value.

Hurt.....the fan base.

Help.......the owner.

1 and 4 are true. 3 is your opinion. I don't share it, you already know that. 2 is total and utter nonsense.

HWR: Five Rockies (Todd Helton (who has a NTC and huge contract), Matt Holliday (who is reportedly being shopped), Garrett Atkins, Aaron Cook, and Jeff Francis) were on the team in 2004 and in 2008. For the A's, that number is seven. Chavez, Bobby Crosby, Justin Duchscherer, Santiago Casilla, and Kirk Saarloos, in addition to the now-traded Harden and Blanton.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The A's fan base is smaller than that of the other west coast teams, but it's clearly more loyal and visible than, say, the Marlins fan base. While I haven't been to a game in Oakland myself, I have met A's fans at games in other cities, and they impressed me as being in the upper tier of fan quality.
This is true. I live in the Bay area and Giants fans greatly outnumber A's fans but the A's fans are there. And they are loyal. Whenever the Giants and A's meet for their interleague games there is a great rivalry between the fans. I've always wondered why the Giants are more popular? In terms of team success it's no contest. In 10 fewer years in the Bay Area they A's have had FAR more success.

Oakland A's 1968-2007
4 World Series titles
6 AL pennants
14 AL West Division titles
1 Wild Card

S.F. Giants 1958-2007
0 World Series titles
3 NL Pennants
5 NL West Division titles
1 Wild Card

[Honus Wagner Rules]

HWR: Five Rockies (Todd Helton (who has a NTC and huge contract), Matt Holliday (who is reportedly being shopped), Garrett Atkins, Aaron Cook, and Jeff Francis) were on the team in 2004 and in 2008. For the A's, that number is seven. Chavez, Bobby Crosby, Justin Duchscherer, Santiago Casilla, and Kirk Saarloos, in addition to the now-traded Harden and Blanton.

There you go bringing in facts in to the discuss. Stop that! :rofl: Well there you go OS. I guess that makes the Rockies GM more of a fantasy manager than Billy Beane. :)

[Erik Bedard]

And I don't know about everybody else, but when I'm playing video games, I never trade anybody. I just hold on to everybody and re-sign them all at the end of the season. I've never won a World Series yet, but at least I have the same guys every year!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And I don't know about everybody else, but when I'm playing video games, I never trade anybody. I just hold on to everybody and re-sign them all at the end of the season. I've never won a World Series yet, but at least I have the same guys every year!

Then that makes you a bad fantasy manager! :D

[blacksilverfan12]

This is true. I live in the Bay area and Giants fans greatly outnumber A's fans but the A's fans are there. And they are loyal. Whenever the Giants and A's meet for their interleague games there is a great rivalry between the fans. I've always wondered why the Giants are more popular? In terms of team success it's no contest. In 10 fewer years in the Bay Area they A's have had FAR more success.

My guess is Bonds had something to do with it. Last year, 5th out of 16 in attendance. This year, 8th. And the Giants are basically the same quality of team this year than last year

[blacksilverfan12]

And I don't know about everybody else, but when I'm playing video games, I never trade anybody. I just hold on to everybody and re-sign them all at the end of the season. I've never won a World Series yet, but at least I have the same guys every year!

My trades rarely work. The guys I have traded for usually implode. There's a pattern here

[rockin500]

well, considering who he has gotten in return for who he has traded in addition to who he has let go in free agency, and I would say all in all he has helped the A's considering their salary situation.

Lets examine three of the guys he has gotten rid of and how they have fared:

Mulder: traded to the cardinals. Got Haren in return, Mulder is probably done for his career.

Hudson: gone to the braves. Solid for the Braves, but not spectacular

Zito: off to the giants. hows that working out for the giants?

Then there was that billy koch/keith foulke trade, amongst others. And they got a good haul for haren.

[Cubsfan97]

well, considering who he has gotten in return for who he has traded in addition to who he has let go in free agency, and I would say all in all he has helped the A's considering their salary situation.

Lets examine three of the guys he has gotten rid of and how they have fared:

Mulder: traded to the cardinals. Got Haren in return, Mulder is probably done for his career.

Hudson: gone to the braves. Solid for the Braves, but not spectacular

Zito: off to the giants. hows that working out for the giants?

Then there was that billy koch/keith foulke trade, amongst others. And they got a good haul for haren.

You beat me to it, I was gonna bring them up. I personally love Beane, I trust he knows what hes doing, hes competitive, he aint gonna trade and not care about winning, but he does whats best tio consistantly win. Unless your a team like the Cubs, you dont play for one big year and froget the rest, you wanna win for many years. He deffienently helped the A's

[Evangelion]

All I see is Beane putting a contender on the field each season while maintaining a reasonable payroll. You want him to spend money on these players he's dealing? Who's been traded or left the A's that had major success after leaving? Even if it's a fan favorite, have players that left been that successful?

LoL, I like how one person continues to insult Beane by calling him a fantasy GM. With nothing to back up that absurd claim.

[SamtheBravesFan]

LoL, I like how one person continues to insult Beane by calling him a fantasy GM. With nothing to back up that absurd claim.

I can't even begin to fathom what "fantasy GM" means.

[Erik Bedard]

One more thing: In 2002, the famed "Moneyball draft", the A's drafted 51 players. 11 made the majors. Not great, right?

No other team drafted more than 7 future major leaguers.

[Old Sweater]

Funny in '08 the Rockies have about a $21 million edge in payroll over the A's. That's a lot. So the 'If the Rockies can resign a few so could the A's' argument is pointless.

That 20 mil is the increase from last year after going to the WS.....whats pointless is that Beane will never get there.


Again with your rants, OS? What the heck is a fantasy GM? Aren't the Rockies shopping Matt Holliday?

What rant?????Beane is nothing more then a fantasy manager at the top level with a pitching favored ballpark helping out big time.

And the Rockies ain't shopping Holliday as much as the other clubs are drooling........Like Hurdle said....the Rockies ain't going to be hanging there players on the clothesline for the other teams to pick from and IMO....that is exactly what Beane does each and every year.

Guess if you're into fantasy leagues or a owner, then Beane would be your man......but not mine by a long shot......guy is a brown nosing gutter to me. The whacky Finley done a better job there with the mustaches...:) and has 3 rings to show for it before he sold the team off.

BTW/why do you always use the Rockies for comparision???? I'm just a supportive fan of theirs just like the Yankees. I just root for who my teams put out there and have no interest in trades until the ink dries on the contract.....then I root for them but I prefer to have most of the same names each year...win or lose...HS/Legion/Pro........that is my team.....I'm not into the Sally Gossip at all like all the wanne be fantasy GM's that don't seem to know what a fan is. I'd be content with all the Rockies players they have right now until they retire(40 man roster) I know the Rockies chances are very slim to ever pick up a big name pitcher because they're afraid of losing the big name.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Beane is nothing more then a fantasy manager at the top level

What does that mean?! Please tell me!

[Old Sweater]

What does that mean?! Please tell me!

Exactly what it says.....Runs the A's like a 14 year old in a fantasy league.....players always on the trading block.....if he'd spend some money he could actually build a fan base but who wants to be a loyal A's fan with the revolving door each and evey year. Even if Beane got lucky and won the WS he'd just gut the team the next year like the 97 Marlins. Good for the owner and bad for the fans..I'm a fan.

[Erik Bedard]

So you're saying that Beane isn't a good GM because his teams will never win a WS, but you'd be happy with a team that never won a WS as long as they kept the same players?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Exactly what it says.....Runs the A's like a 14 year old in a fantasy league.....players always on the trading block.....if he'd spend some money he could actually build a fan base but who wants to be a loyal A's fan with the revolving door each and evey year. Even if Beane got lucky and won the WS he'd just gut the team the next year like the 97 Marlins. Good for the owner and bad for the fans..I'm a fan.

Have you even played fantasy baseball, OS? Most people that do play are adults, not kids. I find it funny that you think you know more about running a major league club than Billy Beane does. Beane is a former major leaguer, former scout and has been the A's GM for 11 years. What's on your resume, OS? Beane doesn't dump players just to dump players. He has restocked the A's farm system substantially and is gearing up for a 3-4 year run. As for him gutting the A's like the '97 Marlins here are the A's record since 1999


1999- 87-75 (2nd)
2000- 91-70 (1st)
2001- 102-60 (2nd)
2002- 103-59 (1st)
2003- 96-66 (1st)
2004- 91-71 (2nd)
2005- 88-74 (2nd)
2006- 93-69 (1st)
2007- 76-86 (3rd)
2008- 51-44 (on pace for 87 wins)

Since the 1999 season the A's are 878-674 (.566, 204 games over .500) with five playoff appearances. What have the Rockies done since 1999?

[Old Sweater]

So you're saying that Beane isn't a good GM because his teams will never win a WS, but you'd be happy with a team that never won a WS as long as they kept the same players?

Yep or close to it. Winning ain't everything to me compared to being able to Boom Rah Rah for the same players who I consider my team..Sorta along the line of your sons team or your old school.

I also said Beane is a good GM if you like different players every year/are into fantasy leagues/if you like to see the owner turn big profits/into Sally Gossip before the ink dries.

[Seattle1]

Hurt. The worst thing you can do in baseball is to trade away accomplished players who are fan favorites. That hurts the fan's feelings.

[Old Sweater]

Have you even played fantasy baseball, OS? Most people that do play are adults, not kids. I find it funny that you think you know more about running a major league club than Billy Beane does. Beane is a former major leaguer, former scout and has been the A's GM for 11 years. What's on your resume, OS? Beane doesn't dump players just to dump players. He has restocked the A's farm system substantially and is gearing up for a 3-4 year run. As for him gutting the A's like the '97 Marlins here are the A's record since 1999


1999- 87-75 (2nd)
2000- 91-70 (1st)
2001- 102-60 (2nd)
2002- 103-59 (1st)
2003- 96-66 (1st)
2004- 91-71 (2nd)
2005- 88-74 (2nd)
2006- 93-69 (1st)
2007- 76-86 (3rd)
2008- 51-44 (on pace for 87 wins)

Since the 1999 season the A's are 878-674 (.566, 204 games over .500) with five playoff appearances. What have the Rockies done since 1999?



2008- 51-44 (on pace for 87 wins)

Now 86 wins since the trades and sinking like a sub with screen doors.


What have the Rockies done since 1999?[/

Kept more players!!!!! And went to one more WS. 7 games out just like the A's this year with a better shot at winning the division then the A's IMO>>>>>since we havn't dealt Hawpe/Holliday/Fuentes/Atkins/Taveras/Torrealba...who all have been in the Sally Rumors on the boards.... I like that a lot better then Beane counter being here turning a nickel for the owner every chance he gets and queering the fan base.

What does Beane have to do with the Rockies??????Dealing Dan O'Dowd was just as bad as Beane until the farm produced some ringers that we kept.

[Erik Bedard]

The worst thing you can do in baseball is make no effort to field a competitive team, either now or in the future.

[Old Sweater]

I find it funny that you think you know more about running a major league club than Billy Beane does. Beane is a former major leaguer, former scout and has been the A's GM for 11 years.

I find it funny that you stuck your foot right in your mouth on that one. I never have or never will say I know anything about running a club. I'm a fan and as a fan I don't like Beane or anyother GM that runs a revolving door for the players. If your fine with Beane gutting the A's every year I'm fine with that but not with Beane.

As far as fantasy leagues being mostly adults you could be right. I don't know or will never know anything about them except on the boards it is mostly kids talking about fantasy leagues.

I'll just remain a supportive fan who likes to stick with most of the players my teams have and just hope that it never turns Beane like with the idenity crisis each and every year.

[Old Sweater]

The worst thing you can do in baseball is make no effort to field a competitive team, either now or in the future.

Farm keeps that from happening. And losing builds the farm unless you gut it like the Yankees did for some years. Even the Yanks are on the right track now.

I think something like 16 players were home grown last year for the Rockies. More ringers in the future like with Fowler and Weathers etc.....Like I said before I'd like 5 years more with the same core of players with the Rockies....even the pitching with a healthy Francis/Hirsh..for the pitching the Rockies have to about produce a ringer from the farm unlike Beane with a ballpark where the ERA is about a run lower then the road.

Rays and Marlins seem to be doing OK this year but I expect that Marlins owner to gut the team out again.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I find it funny that you stuck your foot right in your mouth on that one. I never have or never will say I know anything about running a club. I'm a fan and as a fan I don't like Beane or anyother GM that runs a revolving door for the players. If your fine with Beane gutting the A's every year I'm fine with that but not with Beane.
You admit you know nothing about running club yet you whine about Beane's way of running his club? :rofl: Then stop posting as you as if you know what you are talking about because you don't know what you are talking about. The A's still have a fair fan base regardless if Beane constantly trades or not. If you don't care for Beane's method that's your business and I could care less. But Beane's methods works and it works well given the A's record overt he past nine seasons.



As far as fantasy leagues being mostly adults you could be right. I don't know or will never know anything about them except on the boards it is mostly kids talking about fantasy leagues.
I've played on several fantasy baseball leagues and it's always always been adult. Since we play for money we don't allow minors in our leagues.



I'll just remain a supportive fan who likes to stick with most of the players my teams have and just hope that it never turns Beane like with the idenity crisis each and every year.
Yet, the Rockies have as much turn over in players as the A's do. As a previous poster had said only five Rockies remain from the '04 team. And until the recent trades the A's had seven players from the '04 team. So you are simply wrong again as you usually are.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Now 86 wins since the trades and sinking like a sub with screen doors.
Gee, you rounded down and I rounded up. Big deal, one win.




Kept more players!!!!! And went to one more WS. 7 games out just like the A's this year with a better shot at winning the division then the A's IMO>>>>>since we havn't dealt Hawpe/Holliday/Fuentes/Atkins/Taveras/Torrealba...who all have been in the Sally Rumors on the boards.... I like that a lot better then Beane counter being here turning a nickel for the owner every chance he gets and queering the fan base.
And you are wrong again. As a previous poster had posted only five Rockies remain form the '04 club, same as the A's. As for going to the World Series it's far easier to reach the World when the entire NL sucks. And the Rockies were a complete embarrassment getting swept in four games. And where are they know?

[Seattle1]

The worst thing you can do in baseball is make no effort to field a competitive team, either now or in the future.

And, of course, working to field a competitive team should never include trading away your best/most popular players. That breaks the fan's hearts.

[mrakbaseball]

Winning is the only thing that matters. Root for the name on the front of the jersey never the back. Winning draws fans. Always better to part ways with a player too soon than too late. That's why the A's are competitive year after year and why Seattle is a perennial last place team with a top third payroll.

[Tony19]

Oakland is resonably competitive year after year, and teams like NYY, NYM and even my Tigers have big payrolls but can be less sucsessful some years. I admire Beane.

[blacksilverfan12]

since we havn't dealt Hawpe/Holliday/Fuentes/Atkins/Taveras/Torrealba...who all have been in the Sally Rumors on the boards....

I've heard the rumors about Holliday and Fuentes a lot. Would they deal them if they thought they were out of it?

[digglahhh]

Billy Beane is bad for baseball... He attempts to make decisions on the basis of empirical evidence and make use of modern tools that make research, data collection and prediction easier. He privileges this view above the divine wisdom derived from the chewing tobacco stained "guts" of "baseball men." He treats baseball like the billion dollar business it is, not like astrology. This of course, is counterintuitive to the anti-intellectual, alpha male culture of the game. While this post may read as satirical, to large extent, I believe most of it to be true.

Beane is an iconoclast; those in his camp are a threat to the Luddites who dominate the industry. He must be maligned; it's survival. Dusty Baker and Joe Morgan MUST rail against the Beane-style paradigm. Were it to be accepted, it would mean the obsolescence of a lot of currently powerful, and highly paid individuals in the industry.

[BoSox Rule]

I love when people talk about Billy Beane but know nothing about him or what he does. I'm not talking about anybody in this thread but I was watching Around the Horn the other day and that imbecile Kevin Blackistone said something like "he's an overrated GM that gets rid of star players but he writes a good book."

[digglahhh]

In regard to the way the mainstream media treats Beane:

sabermetrics : baseball :: communism : politics.

[numchuckskillz]

Beane always manages to trade his players at their peaks. We've seen that with the big three. The only pitcher among Hudson, Zito, and Mulder that has had any success after the A's has been Hudson, and he doesn't pitch at the level he did for the A's. We'll see how the Haren, Harden, and Blanton (who sucked anyway) trades play out.

Plus, even if Harden continues his pitching dominance, the A's got two very solid pitchers in Greg Smith and Dana Eveland in return who have helped them out tremendously this year.

Beane does what he needs to in order to keep the A's from looking like the Royals, and he's doing a great job. There's no question - even if the A's don't have a World Series and have only won one playoff game - they would not be nearly as good of a team as they are now. Without Beane, the A's would struggle to keep around a few veterans and maybe reach .500, but with him, they contend every year.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Billy Beane is bad for baseball... He attempts to make decisions on the basis of empirical evidence and make use of modern tools that make research, data collection and prediction easier. He privileges this view above the divine wisdom derived from the chewing tobacco stained "guts" of "baseball men." He treats baseball like the billion dollar business it is, not like astrology. This of course, is counterintuitive to the anti-intellectual, alpha male culture of the game. While this post may read as satirical, to large extent, I believe most of it to be true.

Beane is an iconoclast; those in his camp are a threat to the Luddites who dominate the industry. He must be maligned; it's survival. Dusty Baker and Joe Morgan MUST rail against the Beane-style paradigm. Were it to be accepted, it would mean the obsolescence of a lot of currently powerful, and highly paid individuals in the industry.

Can I nominate this for the BBF Post of the Year?! :D

[digglahhh]

Can I nominate this for the BBF Post of the Year?! :D

You have MY permission... :highfive:

[Brad Harris]

Does Billy Beane's trading of top players help or hurt the A's? I think he hurts because he's gotten rid of many well-liked players by A's fans to save himself money. I would think that would alienate a lot of fans. While "Moneyball" may keep the A's competitive year after year, the A's have won one playoff series during Beane's tenure (He became GM in 1997)

And the Braves won just one World Series under the Schuerholz/Cox regime, but I suppose they hurt their franchise too?

What Beane does for Oakland (i.e. keeping them competitive annually) actually increases fan interest. Players leave all the time. Beane simply gets something in return for those players by letting go of them a few months earlier.

If you don't want Beane running your team, enjoy the gradual downward trend your franchise sees in the win column just so long as the players on the roster are familiar to you. Plenty of other teams would love to have him.

[sturg1dj]

Beane seems overrated to me. the team finds success, but they don't win rings. It must be a strange feeling being a fan of the A's knowing that your team will be in the thick of it come September and yet your owner and GM will do nothing to put your team over the top in the end.


it is like a more moderate version of the Marlins.

Its not like the A's never drew fans either...look at the late 80's early 90's.


btw did you know that Lewis Wolff, co-owner of the A's, was a frat brother of Bud Selig?




its like taking a dive, but a controlled dive.

[Zagi-CRO]

I said:
For Haren, Swisher, Harden and Blanton, Beane has acquired 20 prospects.

It's wonderful!!

[Westlake]

Beane seems overrated to me. the team finds success, but they don't win rings. It must be a strange feeling being a fan of the A's knowing that your team will be in the thick of it come September and yet your owner and GM will do nothing to put your team over the top in the end.



July 25th, 2001 -- Traded Todd Belitz, Mario Encarnacion, and Jose Ortiz to the Colorado Rockies. Received Jermaine Dye.

July 30th, 2003 -- Traded Aaron Harang, Joe Valentine, and Jeff Bruksch (minors) to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Jose Guillen. (bad trade considering what Harang turned out to be, but Guillen was flat out KILLING that year)

Two deadline deals that i could remember where Beane was obviously trying to put his team over the top. He may trade established players, but he won't hesitate to go for that player that he thinks will help him in the pennant race.

I don't think Beane is the greatest GM ever -- he has traded away some guys that ended up being good players (as every GM will inevitably do), but he will try and win. He has only a certain amount of money to spend and does so very well, I think. People like Old Sweater (who knows basically nothing about any of what Billy Beane does or why he does it -- basically talking out of his arse) seem to ignore that and think he's just throwing players around for funsies.

[Erik Bedard]

Winning is the only thing that matters. Root for the name on the front of the jersey never the back. Winning draws fans. Always better to part ways with a player too soon than too late. That's why the A's are competitive year after year and why Seattle is a perennial last place team with a top third payroll.


Billy Beane is bad for baseball... He attempts to make decisions on the basis of empirical evidence and make use of modern tools that make research, data collection and prediction easier. He privileges this view above the divine wisdom derived from the chewing tobacco stained "guts" of "baseball men." He treats baseball like the billion dollar business it is, not like astrology. This of course, is counterintuitive to the anti-intellectual, alpha male culture of the game. While this post may read as satirical, to large extent, I believe most of it to be true.

Beane is an iconoclast; those in his camp are a threat to the Luddites who dominate the industry. He must be maligned; it's survival. Dusty Baker and Joe Morgan MUST rail against the Beane-style paradigm. Were it to be accepted, it would mean the obsolescence of a lot of currently powerful, and highly paid individuals in the industry.


I love when people talk about Billy Beane but know nothing about him or what he does. I'm not talking about anybody in this thread but I was watching Around the Horn the other day and that imbecile Kevin Blackistone said something like "he's an overrated GM that gets rid of star players but he writes a good book."


In regard to the way the mainstream media treats Beane:

sabermetrics : baseball :: communism : politics.


And the Braves won just one World Series under the Schuerholz/Cox regime, but I suppose they hurt their franchise too?

What Beane does for Oakland (i.e. keeping them competitive annually) actually increases fan interest. Players leave all the time. Beane simply gets something in return for those players by letting go of them a few months earlier.

If you don't want Beane running your team, enjoy the gradual downward trend your franchise sees in the win column just so long as the players on the roster are familiar to you. Plenty of other teams would love to have him.


I said:
For Haren, Swisher, Harden and Blanton, Beane has acquired 20 prospects.

It's wonderful!!


July 25th, 2001 -- Traded Todd Belitz, Mario Encarnacion, and Jose Ortiz to the Colorado Rockies. Received Jermaine Dye.

July 30th, 2003 -- Traded Aaron Harang, Joe Valentine, and Jeff Bruksch (minors) to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Jose Guillen. (bad trade considering what Harang turned out to be, but Guillen was flat out KILLING that year)

Two deadline deals that i could remember where Beane was obviously trying to put his team over the top. He may trade established players, but he won't hesitate to go for that player that he thinks will help him in the pennant race.

I don't think Beane is the greatest GM ever -- he has traded away some guys that ended up being good players (as every GM will inevitably do), but he will try and win. He has only a certain amount of money to spend and does so very well, I think. People like Old Sweater (who knows basically nothing about any of what Billy Beane does or why he does it -- basically talking out of his arse) seem to ignore that and think he's just throwing players around for funsies.

All quoted for truth.

[Old Sweater]

Well the pace record has went from 87 wins to 84 wins for the A's since the trades. Should be below .500 in no time!!! Nothing against the A's mind you......just Billy Beane counter.

Makes one wonder or at least me how much all the trades hits the heart and spirit of a club??????? The A's fans?????????

Guess thats one of those things you can't pull the stats off of though.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Makes one wonder or at least me how much all the trades hits the heart and spirit of a club???????

What heart? What spirit? The way you talk about the A's, it makes me think they have no spirit, heart, or togetherness because of Beane, which makes trades easier to accept.

[brewers96]

I think it could go either way.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well the pace record has went from 87 wins to 84 wins for the A's since the trades. Should be below .500 in no time!!! Nothing against the A's mind you......just Billy Beane counter.
Oh gee another OS "prediction". And we know how those "predictions" always come true. How's that Omar Vizquel "prediction" coming along, OS?

[Old Sweater]

Just fine! Omar the Great is leading all SS's in FP and ZR with at least 40 or more games.

IMO the A's will finish around .500

[Old Sweater]

What heart? What spirit? The way you talk about the A's, it makes me think they have no spirit, heart, or togetherness because of Beane, which makes trades easier to accept.

The way you talk you make it sound like all the A's and their fans don't mind losing all the ringers that Beane trades away year after year after year.

Only A's fan I chat with is Zito75 and claims that have an idenity crisis going in Oakland.

Dan O'Dowd of years pass was a crown jewel compared to Beane counter.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The way you talk you make it sound like all the A's and their fans don't mind losing all the ringers that Beane trades away year after year after year.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a few of them don't mind because it has brought consistent success to the ballclub, something that hadn't been there for seven years (1992-98). In this era of free agency, no matter how "sad" it may seem, as a baseball fan you must accept that not all your favorite players will stay with your favorite team.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Just fine! Omar the Great is leading all SS's in FP and ZR with at least 40 or more games.
Yes, I'm sure his FP and ZR are more important than his .166 BA, his .236 OBP, and his .191 slugging percentage. :)

[Old Sweater]

Yes, I'm sure his FP and ZR are more important than his .166 BA, his .236 OBP, and his .191 slugging percentage. :)

Bochy must think so since the other 2 SS's have FP's in the .960's ........can't be giving runs away up the middle.

Everett was holding starting job until his injury.


Belanger for years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bochy must think so since the other 2 SS's have FP's in the .960's ........can't be giving runs away up the middle.
But it's ok to give up far more runs with a .166 BA and .191 slugging percentage?



Everett was holding starting job until his injury.


Belanger for years.
In what baseball universe did Everett and Belanger hold starting jobs hitting .166 and slugging .191?

[nerfan]

All I can say about Dan O'Dowd

Dennis Edward Neagle Jr.
Michael William Hampton

[NYMets523]

Every multi-year contract Beane has given hasn't worked out. He is an excellent trader and drafter which makes up for it.

[Seattle1]

Winning is the only thing that matters. Root for the name on the front of the jersey never the back. Winning draws fans. Always better to part ways with a player too soon than too late. That's why the A's are competitive year after year and why Seattle is a perennial last place team with a top third payroll.

Think about if the Mariners still had Ken Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, and Alex Rodriguez through 2001. In addition to keeping fan favorites, the Mariners would have probably won about 130 games that year!

(And they would have beaten the 'roided up Yanks in the ALCS!)

[Westlake]

Every multi-year contract Beane has given hasn't worked out. He is an excellent trader and drafter which makes up for it.

Can you think of any long deals he has given other than Chavez and Crosby? The only multi-year deals I can think of at all are the following..

Chavez - 6 yrs
Loaiza - 3 yrs
Embree - 2 yrs
Crosby - 5 yrs
Mark Ellis - 2 years

The Chavez, Crosby, and Loaiza deals have been pretty bad, while Embree and Ellis have given the team their money's worth thus far I would think.

It took me a while to even think of some of those... he doesn't give em often.

[NJMetfan4life]

Isn't he trading everyone he trades for? Dan Haren, they got him from the Cardnals. That's all I can think of, but there have to be more.

[NYMets523]

Can you think of any long deals he has given other than Chavez and Crosby? The only multi-year deals I can think of at all are the following..

Chavez - 6 yrs
Loaiza - 3 yrs
Embree - 2 yrs
Crosby - 5 yrs
Mark Ellis - 2 years

The Chavez, Crosby, and Loaiza deals have been pretty bad, while Embree and Ellis have given the team their money's worth thus far I would think.

It took me a while to even think of some of those... he doesn't give em often.

My computer isn't cooperating with me now. MLB Trade Rumors.com has an Excel file for GM profiles and Beane's is one. I don't have it on my comp anymore and I don't feel like having my computer freeze trying to download it. I know Arthur Rhodes got a multi-year deal. Between the ones you mentioned and Rhodes, I don't recall the others. Swisher got one but he was traded quickly.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Think about if the Mariners still had Ken Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, and Alex Rodriguez through 2001. In addition to keeping fan favorites, the Mariners would have probably won about 130 games that year!
Not quite. If they still had those three many of the players that played key rolls in their 116 game season would not have been there.

[Brad Harris]

Well the pace record has went from 87 wins to 84 wins for the A's since the trades. Should be below .500 in no time!!! Nothing against the A's mind you......just Billy Beane counter.

Makes one wonder or at least me how much all the trades hits the heart and spirit of a club??????? The A's fans?????????

Guess thats one of those things you can't pull the stats off of though.

I'm a long-term fan of a poorly-run small market team and I can tell you that the "spirit" of a team's fans is directly proportional to the team's chances of competing on a regular basis, something Beane does an oustanding job of providing for A's fans.

[Dodgerfan1]

As an A's fan, I don't like to see our best players getting traded so frequently, but I understand the financial situation and Beane has definitely helped far more than hindered the team. Anyone familiar with the A's situation knows this. All my reasons have already been listed.

[Westlake]

As an A's fan, I....

Buh?......

[Dodgerfan1]

Buh?......

Westlake, perhaps I should elaborate (although I have posted many times that I'm an A's fan... what...? You don't read ALL my posts?? HA!)....

NL - Dodger fan (first love)
AL - A's fan (second love)

[Westlake]

Westlake, perhaps I should elaborate (although I have posted many times that I'm an A's fan... what...? You don't read ALL my posts?? HA!)....

NL - Dodger fan (first love)
AL - A's fan (second love)

I'm just messing with you, I already knew this.

Every night before I go to bed I read a passage from both the Bible and Moneyball, brush my teeth, then read all DF1 posts of the day.

I'm kidding. I don't brush.

[Dodgerfan1]

I'm just messing with you, I already knew this.

Every night before I go to bed I read a passage from both the Bible and Moneyball, brush my teeth, then read all DF1 posts of the day.

I'm kidding. I don't brush.

:rofl: I should know you better by now!

[Old Sweater]

But it's ok to give up far more runs with a .166 BA and .191 slugging percentage?


In what baseball universe did Everett and Belanger hold starting jobs hitting .166 and slugging .191?

Since when did 46 games count more then career? Vizquel has been better with the bat his career then other defensive SS's including Ozzie.

You enjoy ripping on your teams SS don't ya????????

^never have understood how fans can do this.

[Old Sweater]

Billy Beane better get some sticks for his squeak ball he likes to play.

9 runs in 6 games.

A's have now went from a 87 win pace to 83.4 win pace since the trades.

Billy Beane stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Since when did 46 games count more then career? Vizquel has been better with the bat his career then other defensive SS's including Ozzie.
We are talking about Omar's play this season not for his career.



You enjoy ripping on your teams SS don't ya????????
No, just pointing out that I stated before the season that Omar can't hit anymore and it would be a bad idea to have him be the starting shortstop. You made some swarmy remark about "eating crow" when Omar was hitting .300 in the first few games when he came back. I simply stated that a few games back doesn't mean anything and to wait and see how the season plays out. Predictably he's hitting exactly how I thought he would. Omar simply can't hit anymore and it's time for him to retire.

[Old Sweater]

We are talking about Omar's play this season not for his career.


No, just pointing out that I stated before the season that Omar can't hit anymore and it would be a bad idea to have him be the starting shortstop. You made some swarmy remark about "eating crow" when Omar was hitting .300 in the first few games when he came back. I simply stated that a few games back doesn't mean anything and to wait and see how the season plays out. Predictably he's hitting exactly how I thought he would. Omar simply can't hit anymore and it's time for him to retire.

We were? I'd say it's safe to say that Omar will increase those bat stats!

And you were eating crow and will continue to do so if you keep making wrong statements about Omar. And he was hitting like .400 when you were feasting on crow.

BTW/ This is a Billy Beane thread where at the time you are feasting on crow once again. If you want to diss Omar any more which you like RMB(Omar ain't even on his top 10 defensive SS list) seem to enjoy.......start another thread.

[Westlake]

Well, Old Sweater is obviously just trolling this thread now....


"A's have now went from a 87 win pace to 83.4 win pace since the trades.

Billy Beane stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Either that or he's just plain ignorant.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

We were? I'd say it's safe to say that Omar will increase those bat stats!
He will? Let's see Omar hit .197 in May, a whopping .115 in June, and got on a hot streak in July hitting .200 so far. Yes, I guess Omar is heating up for the dog days of Summer. :rofl:



And you were eating crow and will continue to do so if you keep making wrong statements about Omar. And he was hitting like .400 when you were feasting on crow.
Omar was not hitting "like .400" when we had our pleasant exchange. You are simply a liar, OS. Or just plain dense. I can't tell which. Here is your post I was referring too.



How's that crow taste so far?

Guy was the main factor in the 2 Giants wins here at Coors.


And this was my reply.


Whatever dude. He's been back what 10 days? Let's see how where he ends up at the end of the season. I will remember this post and remind you of it. Oh, and by the way he's hitting .188 (3/18) in his last six games. He's had 2 three hit games. In the other NINE games he's hitting .192. Next time you should check the facts before you make pointless statements.

When we had this exchange on May 23 Omar was hitting .306 in 36 ABs not "like .400". After the May 23 game his BA dropped to .275. Within a week (May 30) his BA was down to .197. So how does it feel to always be wrong, OS? :shrug:

[Erik Bedard]

Billy Beane better get some sticks for his squeak ball he likes to play.

9 runs in 6 games.

A's have now went from a 87 win pace to 83.4 win pace since the trades.

Billy Beane stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, by trading away three players who have no impact whatsoever on his team's offense, Beane managed to adversely affect his team's offense. Right. I suppose this makes perfect sense in OS world, where I'm not allowed to say Freddie Bynum can't hit.

[flash143817]

Think about if the Mariners still had Ken Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, and Alex Rodriguez through 2001. In addition to keeping fan favorites, the Mariners would have probably won about 130 games that year!

(And they would have beaten the 'roided up Yanks in the ALCS!)

The Mariners got Mike Cameron as part of the Griffey deal. He was far better than Griffey was that year had probably his best year overall.

They got Freddy Garcia as part of the Randy Johnson trade. He had his best year and was 3rd in the CYA voting that year. Sure Randy had an awesome year that year leading the DBacks to the title, but Garcia was still very good in his place.

That's not even to mention all of the parts I'm sure they were able to get from the money they saved by not keeping all of those stars.

[sturg1dj]

The Mariners got Mike Cameron as part of the Griffey deal. He was far better than Griffey was that year had probably his best year overall.

They got Freddy Garcia as part of the Randy Johnson trade. He had his best year and was 3rd in the CYA voting that year. Sure Randy had an awesome year that year leading the DBacks to the title, but Garcia was still very good in his place.

That's not even to mention all of the parts I'm sure they were able to get from the money they saved by not keeping all of those stars.

both this statement and the statement this is in response to are crazy.


1. You cannot assume that just because you have certain players that you will succeed.

2. That being said...even though you admitted Randy Johnson had a better year you still seemed to hint that Garcia was nearly as good. Garcia was good but not nearly as good and the Mariners would have probably done better with Johnson. Also Cameron didn't necessarily have a better season than Griffey. He was just healthier than Griffey was. We cannot assume that Griffey would have gotten the same injuries if he would have stayed in Seattle. As it was the injured Griffey had a higher OPS than Cameron and hit only 3 fewer home runs in 39 fewer games. Heck, for all we know they could have moved Ichiro to CF and moved Griffey to RF. But like I said we cannot be sure what would happen. We could go back further and wonder what if they kept Omar Vizquel and Tino Martinez.


so now the starters of the 2001 Seattle Mariners are

C - Dan Wilson
1B - Tino Martinez
2B - Bret Boone
3B - A-Rod (if they kept him)
SS - Omar Vizquel
RF - Griffey, Jr.
CF - Ichiro
LF - Jay Buhner (what if he had not declined so fast)
DH - Edgar Martinez

with a bench of
Scott Podsednik (what if he hit his short peak there)
Carlos Guillen (a couple year later traded for Ramon Santiago, whom the Tigers got back)


wow, what a great team!

except that is not how baseball works, and on paper its great, but 1) you never know what will happen 2) no team outside of New York or Boston could afford this team.


I understand why teams trade some players, but I don't understand when a team's mission statement is basically bring players up to trade to get more young players to trade to get more young players.

[Old Sweater]

A's were in the hunt until the trades and now are 10 games out. What a baseball Einstein he is..........LOL

Thought I was on your ignore list Westlake??????? Just can't resist good info or what??????????

Billy Beane stinks!!!!!!!!!!

[Brad Harris]

both this statement and the statement this is in response to are crazy.


1. You cannot assume that just because you have certain players that you will succeed.

2. That being said...even though you admitted Randy Johnson had a better year you still seemed to hint that Garcia was nearly as good. Garcia was good but not nearly as good and the Mariners would have probably done better with Johnson. Also Cameron didn't necessarily have a better season than Griffey. He was just healthier than Griffey was. We cannot assume that Griffey would have gotten the same injuries if he would have stayed in Seattle. As it was the injured Griffey had a higher OPS than Cameron and hit only 3 fewer home runs in 39 fewer games. Heck, for all we know they could have moved Ichiro to CF and moved Griffey to RF. But like I said we cannot be sure what would happen. We could go back further and wonder what if they kept Omar Vizquel and Tino Martinez.


so now the starters of the 2001 Seattle Mariners are

C - Dan Wilson
1B - Tino Martinez
2B - Bret Boone
3B - A-Rod (if they kept him)
SS - Omar Vizquel
RF - Griffey, Jr.
CF - Ichiro
LF - Jay Buhner (what if he had not declined so fast)
DH - Edgar Martinez

with a bench of
Scott Podsednik (what if he hit his short peak there)
Carlos Guillen (a couple year later traded for Ramon Santiago, whom the Tigers got back)


wow, what a great team!

except that is not how baseball works, and on paper its great, but 1) you never know what will happen 2) no team outside of New York or Boston could afford this team.


I understand why teams trade some players, but I don't understand when a team's mission statement is basically bring players up to trade to get more young players to trade to get more young players.

Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but Griffey would have played out his contract with the 2000 Mariners. It was widely believed he was going to Cincinnati as a free agent at the end of the 2000 season regardless. I don't imagine Griffey would have been in Seattle in 2001 under any scenario, regardless of where else he might have ended up.

As a Reds' fan, I thought the trade was a steal - useful pieces in exchange for a future Hall-of-Famer. In the long run, it turns out that the Mariners probably got equal value in exchange for Griffey although I don't know how you'd quantify the effect Griffey had on Reds' merchandising. I can't picture too many Cameron jerseys sold at Safeco Field.

[mrakbaseball]

Think about if the Mariners still had Ken Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, and Alex Rodriguez through 2001. In addition to keeping fan favorites, the Mariners would have probably won about 130 games that year!

(And they would have beaten the 'roided up Yanks in the ALCS!)

I disagree, first off, it's naive too think the Mariners weren't "roided up", second, they wouldn't be able to afford the other 22 players. With Griffey, Johnson, and Rodriguez the best the Mariners did was go 90-72 with a weak division series exit against Baltimore in '97. Who cares about fan favorites? Give me wins. Winning teams are fan favorites. This isn't basketball. If you have 1-2 superstars fine, but winning is and will always be the ultimate draw, more than any specific player. I am sick and tired of seeing Oakland consistently finish ahead of Seattle.

[Seattle1]

C: Dan Wilson
1B: John Olerud
2B: Brett Boone
SS: Alex Rodriguez
3B: David Bell
LF: Mike Cameron
CF: Ken Griffey, Jr.
RF: Ichiro Suzuki

SP: Randy Johnson
SP: Jamie Moyer
SP: Freddy Garcia
SP: Aaron Sele
SP: Paul Abbot

CL: Kazuhiro Sasaki

Manager: Lou Piniella

Record: 130-32

AL Champions

WS Champions



:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper:

[Old Sweater]

Will the A's ever contend with Beaneroids?

Not compete but actually contend?


A's Trivia............

Who's on the A's team today???(25 man roster)

[Dodgerfan1]

Will the A's ever contend with Beaneroids?

Not compete but actually contend?


A's Trivia............

Who's on the A's team today???(25 man roster)

Old Sweater, none of my business I suppose, but what did Billy Beane ever do to you to make you so bitter toward him? You are obviously in the vast minority with your opinion of him (with good reason) and you seem to think he 'stinks'?? He's got a great track record of making favorable trades over the years. He's considered by many baseball experts as the best GM in the game. He does wonders with a team on a shoestring budget. These are all proven facts.

I don't get what's not to like here. I get the fact that he has a penchant for trading away established players and stars for many up-and-coming youngsters, but those trades have panned out well for the A's, for the most part, and saves the owners $$$$ in the process. That's known as win-win. What is wrong with that? What's your gripe with the dude other than merely what you have been saying thus far which, quite frankly, doesn't hold water when you look at his track record.?

[Erik Bedard]

Will the A's ever contend with Beaneroids?

Not compete but actually contend?


A's Trivia............

Who's on the A's team today???(25 man roster)

Let's see... no looking it up?

Catchers:

Rob Bowen
Kurt Suzuki

Infielders:

Daric Barton
Mark Ellis
Jack Hannahan
Bobby Crosby
Donnie Murphy
Eric Chavez

Outfielders:

Carlos Gonzalez
Travis Buck
Jack Cust

Pitchers:

Justin Duchscherer
Dallas Braden
Shane Komine
Lenny DiNardo
Huston Street
Troy Cate
Santiago Casilla
Dana Eveland
Alan Embree
Andrew Brown

Provided all of these are correct, I've got 21/25.

I know I'm missing quite a few, though.

[Westlake]

Will the A's ever contend with Beaneroids?

Not compete but actually contend?


A's Trivia............

Who's on the A's team today???(25 man roster)

Says the guy whose team is 13 (also his IQ! What a coincidence.!) games below .500.

Everyone, don't forget Old Sweater is a ridiculous troll. Don't forget this for a second.

DF1, he just doesn't like that Billy Beane isn't some old man that hates stats. It's really that simple. He doesn't know what he's talking about.. at all. Seriously.

[Erik Bedard]

Arguing with trolls is what makes the interwebs fun. That, and arguing with non-trolls. But it's more fun when you're clearly right.

[digglahhh]

Since when did 46 games count more then career? Vizquel has been better with the bat his career then other defensive SS's including Ozzie.

You enjoy ripping on your teams SS don't ya????????

^never have understood how fans can do this.

This is just simply not true - repeating it ad nauseam does not make it such either, despite your totally irrational commitment to doing so.

[Westlake]

Arguing with trolls is what makes the interwebs fun. That, and arguing with non-trolls. But it's more fun when you're clearly right.

I guess it can be fun when it's someone 30 years your elder with just plain awful grammatical skills and far less intelligence. We're no geniuses either, but I respect your opinion far more than his and you're like what, 16? Ability to reason goes a long way.

[Evangelion]

I guess it can be fun when it's someone 30 years your elder with just plain awful grammatical skills and far less intelligence. We're no geniuses either, but I respect your opinion far more than his and you're like what, 16? Ability to reason goes a long way.
Don't forget to mention it's funny how much he's like bigbadwolf and joek and he's not even aware of that fact. Also, don't forget that saying one negative thing about a player will make you a "fickle fan" or discussing possible trade rumors brought up by sports reporters makes you a "fantasy manager". :highfive:

[Brad Harris]

Will the A's ever contend with Beaneroids?

Not compete but actually contend?


A's Trivia............

Who's on the A's team today???(25 man roster)

Curious to hear if you've got something to actually argue rather than calling names and making bad jokes?

[Zito75]

Free agency is what killed the A's, not bad trades. Losing Tejada and Giambi sucked. Yeah they're juicers, but they put up numbers. Trading Mark McGwire for TJ Mathews however, does have to go down as one of the worst trades EVER.

[Westlake]

Free agency is what killed the A's, not bad trades. Losing Tejada and Giambi sucked. Yeah they're juicers, but they put up numbers. Trading Mark McGwire for TJ Mathews however, does have to go down as one of the worst trades EVER.

Though, just to keep in the Billy Beane mode, he wasn't the GM at that time. Horrible trade though. I can't even begin to understand that one.

[Old Sweater]

Billy Beane counter is only good for the owner turning a buck. Look at what just happened. A's in it....trades....A's out of it. As long as Beane is there it will just continue to happen until he holds on to a few of the better players.

A's are just one of the better 6 year farm clubs in the league for the other teams.

Must suck to be a A's fan!

[Old Sweater]

Curious to hear if you've got something to actually argue rather than calling names and making bad jokes?

A's are 10 games out.<<<<<<<<<<<

Won one game since the trades.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

^2 things

Billy Beane stinks for the fans

^ third

[NYMets523]

Won one game since the trades.
They are doomed for the rest of time...


Billy Beane stinks for the fans
Yes. A GM who trades players he has no chance of keeping long term for younger prospects and who has never had a team finish worst than 3rd (which was only once) is the worst GM from a fan's perspective.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Billy Beane counter is only good for the owner turning a buck. Look at what just happened. A's in it....trades....A's out of it. As long as Beane is there it will just continue to happen until he holds on to a few of the better players.

A's are just one of the better 6 year farm clubs in the league for the other teams.

Must suck to be a A's fan!

The last few posts are well outside the spirit of this site. Any more comments that are personal, either attacks on the character of another poster or attaks on a team for the sake of attacking another team, will be removed.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Don't push your luck, Old Sweater.

[Old Sweater]

They are doomed for the rest of time...


Yes. A GM who trades players he has no chance of keeping long term for younger prospects and who has never had a team finish worst than 3rd (which was only once) is the worst GM from a fan's perspective.

That looks good but there are only 4 teams in the division. Beane has no ring value what so ever since he has been with the A's. Most his fame comes from being a Bill James apprentice.

[Brad Harris]

Trading Mark McGwire for TJ Mathews however, does have to go down as one of the worst trades EVER.

1. Beane wasn't the GM at that time.
2. McGwire was a free agent at the end of that season.
3. The A's weren't competing for squat in 1997.

Mathews was a 27-year old reliever with a 197 ERA+ earning $240,000 and under contract for 4 more years. Blake Stein was a 23-year old minor leaguer starter from the Cards' AA team, coming off a year where he'd gone 16-5 with a 2.15 ERA. Eric Ludwick was a rookie starting pitcher from St. Louis' AAA affiliate where he'd struck out better than a man per inning with a 2.92 ERA. Ludwick and Stein were both on Baseball America's Top 10 Prospect List for the Cardinals in 1997. So getting inexpensive major league-ready middle relief help and two legitimate pitching prospects in exchange for dumping approximately $2.2 million in salary from the roster of a small market club that was dead last at 42-68 (19.5 games out of first) and who had Jason Giambi (.293/.362/.495) ready to take over...well, you tell me how that was a dumb move.

It might have turned out to be a poor trade value-for-value, but the A's certainly didn't seem any worse off for it at the time and no one could have predicted McGwire's monster season the following year. Keeping McGwire for 1998-2000 - he retired after an abysmal 2001 - would have meant juggling Giambi, Ben Grieve, Rickey Henderson, Matt Stairs and John Jaha in the LF/1B/DH slots, all of whom put together a couple pretty good seasons during those years. It would also have necessitated spending close to an additional $39 million over the next four years to retain Big Mac. So even in light of what actually transpired, the deal isn't that bad unless you're judging it solely based on the on-field career value of the players involved in the deal from that point forward. For better or worse, baseball's economic landscape isn't that simple any more.

But I digress...none of this had anything to do with Billy Beane as he wasn't hired to replace Sandy Alderson until three months later.

In retrospect, it might have been better for Oakland to just take the compensatory draft pick given the names available in the 1998 Amateur Draft, but there's no guarantee Oakland would have made one of the more savvy choices either. :laugh

[Old Sweater]

Don't push your luck, Old Sweater.



I don't like Beane pure and simple.

[NYMets523]

That looks good but there are only 4 teams in the division.

They still play 10 other AL teams. Their records haven't been mediocre either.


Beane has no ring value what so ever since he has been with the A's.
Ring value is worthless. Billy Beane is a better GM than Brian Cashman. Besides, how would you even quantify "ring value"?


Most his fame comes from being a Bill James apprentice.
Since when have Rob Neyer and Billy Beane been the same person?

[Brad Harris]

I don't like Beane pure and simple.
Obviously. Like all people of from extreme prejudice, you'll have to excuse your critics when they mistake your lack of intellectual integrity for a lack of intellectualy capacity.

[Old Sweater]

Ring value is worthless. Billy Beane is a better GM than Brian Cashman. Besides, how would you even quantify "ring value"?


IYO not mine. How is he better? Cashman has 4 winner rings and 2 loser rings..... Beane has nothing but kiss your sister rings and prospects......:)

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't like Beane pure and simple.

Fine. That's all you had to say.

Any and all troll talk is gone. That's enough.

[Old Sweater]

Obviously. Like all people of from extreme prejudice, you'll have to excuse your critics when they mistake your lack of intellectual integrity for a lack of intellectualy capacity.

Still smart enough to know that Beane is a loser and just took his team outta the race this year.

[Old Sweater]

Fine. That's all you had to say.

Any and all troll talk is gone. That's enough.


What troll talk....lots worse about Clemens and Bonds on this board everyday and you know it.

Mr Steroids.

Roid Head

Loser

and if you go thru the treads you will find many more.

[Captain Cold Nose]

What troll talk....lots worse about Clemens and Bonds on this board everyday and you know it.

Mr Steroids.

Roid Head

Loser

and if you go thru the treads you will find many more.

I was talking about the troll accusations, not calling you a troll. But all you're doing is instigating at this point.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Also smart enough to have 7 different handles on 7 different computers.

Howdy CCN.....well.......6 after this one....:)......see ya around CCN!!!!

Evidently not smart enough to not admit anything. Not like your posting style is unique or anything, so, if I were you I'd leave your bread crumbs far, far away.

[Zito75]

1. Beane wasn't the GM at that time.
2. McGwire was a free agent at the end of that season.
3. The A's weren't competing for squat in 1997.

But I digress...none of this had anything to do with Billy Beane as he wasn't hired to replace Sandy Alderson until three months later.


You're right dude. I guess I went off on a tangent there.

[Zito75]

Though, just to keep in the Billy Beane mode, he wasn't the GM at that time. Horrible trade though. I can't even begin to understand that one.

You're also correct. Beane wasn't the GM then. My bad.

[Seattle1]

I don't like Beane pure and simple.

Me neither. I don't like the turning glass doors with the player turnstile in that organization. Here today gone tommorrow. Glad I'm not an A's fan, that's for sure.

:twocents:

[NewEnglandAmazins]

Is Huston Street the player next to go? :nod:

[Dodgerfan1]

.... Glad I'm not an A's fan, that's for sure.

:twocents:

This is funny, because it's exactly what I said to my buddy in Seattle a couple of months ago about the Mariners! Honestly. We were talking about overall team success regarding the A's and M's franchises and I said, "It must be frustrating to be a Mariners fan. I'm glad I don't have to go through every year knowing my team won't be in the World Series and probably won't make the playoffs again."

I was being flippant, of course, but it actually sounds like you're serious with your statement, so I put in my two cents for what it's worth here...

[chris14]

IBeane acts like he's operating on a strict budget from year to year, and despite yearly turnover and a shoestring budget, Oakland remains competitive. He should be lauded, not ridiculed. He's a "help".

Exactly!
Think of what he could do with some $$$.

[Erik Bedard]

This is funny, because it's exactly what I said to my buddy in Seattle a couple of months ago about the Mariners! Honestly. We were talking about overall team success regarding the A's and M's franchises and I said, "It must be frustrating to be a Mariners fan. I'm glad I don't have to go through every year knowing my team won't be in the World Series and probably won't make the playoffs again."

I was being flippant, of course, but it actually sounds like you're serious with your statement, so I put in my two cents for what it's worth here...

I'd much rather be an A's fan than an Orioles fan over the last ten years.

[Brad Harris]

Still smart enough to know that Beane is a loser and just took his team outta the race this year.
This isn't trollspeak? :think:

[Brad Harris]

Me neither. I don't like the turning glass doors with the player turnstile in that organization. Here today gone tommorrow. Glad I'm not an A's fan, that's for sure.

Firstly, if one isn't an A's fan, it really doesn't matter whether or not someone dislikes their player personnel policies, does it? That has absolutely no effect on the A's fanbase (which seems to be one of OS' primary complaints against Beane.)

Since the A"s 1988-1992 run, the organization suffered through five consecutive losing seasons, surpassing 68 wins only once from 1993-1997. Beane was hired in October, 1997. Let's look at what he's done with the team since then. After a 74-win first season in 1998, the A's had 8 straight winning seasons, finishing in first or second place every year and reaching the playoffs in five of those seasons. Very few teams, of any market size or payroll, can claim the same over that stretch. Last year was the A's first sub-.500 season since 1998 and they are currently on pace for an 83-win season, which would be a 7 game improvement over last year.

Beane's trade record is outstanding. In fact, despite his well publicized fleecing of other teams and the rest of baseball's GMs' embarrassment and jealousy over it, Beane still continues to find trade partners and continues to get the better end of deal after deal. Here's just a few names that Beane has brought into the organization:


Traded for Kevin Appier, Daric Barton, Chad Bradford, Milton Bradley, Juan Cruz, Johnny Damon, Octavio Dotel, Ray Durham, Erubiel Durazo, Jason Duchscherer, Jermaine Dye, Mark Ellis, Keith Foulke, Chad Gaudin, Jose Guillen, Chris Hammond, Aaron Harang, Danny Haren, Jason Isringhausen, David Justice, Jason Kendall, Billy Koch, Mark Kotsay, Cory Lidle, Ted Lilly, Carlos Pena, Ricardo Rincon, Kenny Rogers, and Tim Worrell.
Selected Joe Blanton, Jeremy Bonderman, Jared Burton, Eric Byrnes, Bobby Crosby, Andre Ethier, Rich Harden, Mark Mulder, Kurt Suzuki, Huston Street, Nick Swisher, Mark Teahan, J.R. Towles and Barry Zito in the Amateur Draft.
Grabbed Frank Menechino in Rule V Draft.
Signed Jack Cust, Scott Hatteberg, Rickey Henderson, John Jaha, Doug Jones, Mike Piazza and Frank Thomas as free agents.


The A's players leave by free agency. Be it Damon, Giambi, Zito...you name it, they go for greener pastures. Beane has rarely traded a player that wasn't headed elsewhere via free agency the same season and, to date, exceptionally few of his trades have netted the other team the better on-field value over the course of time.

In short, he's done incredibly well with the resources he's been given. It is not Billy Beane's fault that the A's stars want $50 million contracts in New York, Boston or San Francisco.

Additionally, Beane has routinely received cash back in trades and sold players, none of which have hurt the team and which have garnered Oakland millions of additional dollars for their payroll over the years. His free agent purchases typically involve stars who are still productive and can help the team but come cheaply because they're at the end of their career or, occassionally, former A's that Beane feels can contribute.

The revolving door is hardly Beane's fault. Beane is being proactive by trying to get something for the players on their way out before they hit the door. Beane is not responsible for them leaving, he's just responsible for many of them leaving two months earlier. And at the exchange rates that Beane has been getting for these players, A's fans should be pretty happy about the large number of quality players coming to Oakland through that "turning glass door". And that is a direct result of Beane's efforts.

Any team in baseball would be lucky to have a Billy Beane working for them. If some people don't like Beane's methods, then that's a commentary about the game's economic landscape or the A's owners' financial decisions. But it in no way suggests Beane isn't the best at his job.

Perhaps Old Sweater would prefer that Beane sat on his haunches and let many of these guys stick around until they became free agents, collect the draft picks for them and whine about how unfair it is playing in a league with the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mariners, etc. Perhaps then Beane would be good enough because he'd be promoting stability in the franchise. The way I see it, it's the GM's job to put together a roster capable of reaching the playoffs as often as possible. If that's how you define what a general manager is supposed to do, then there's no one better at it than Billy Beane.

[flash143817]

both this statement and the statement this is in response to are crazy.


1. You cannot assume that just because you have certain players that you will succeed.

2. That being said...even though you admitted Randy Johnson had a better year you still seemed to hint that Garcia was nearly as good. Garcia was good but not nearly as good and the Mariners would have probably done better with Johnson. Also Cameron didn't necessarily have a better season than Griffey. He was just healthier than Griffey was. We cannot assume that Griffey would have gotten the same injuries if he would have stayed in Seattle. As it was the injured Griffey had a higher OPS than Cameron and hit only 3 fewer home runs in 39 fewer games. Heck, for all we know they could have moved Ichiro to CF and moved Griffey to RF. But like I said we cannot be sure what would happen. We could go back further and wonder what if they kept Omar Vizquel and Tino Martinez.


so now the starters of the 2001 Seattle Mariners are

C - Dan Wilson
1B - Tino Martinez
2B - Bret Boone
3B - A-Rod (if they kept him)
SS - Omar Vizquel
RF - Griffey, Jr.
CF - Ichiro
LF - Jay Buhner (what if he had not declined so fast)
DH - Edgar Martinez

with a bench of
Scott Podsednik (what if he hit his short peak there)
Carlos Guillen (a couple year later traded for Ramon Santiago, whom the Tigers got back)


wow, what a great team!

except that is not how baseball works, and on paper its great, but 1) you never know what will happen 2) no team outside of New York or Boston could afford this team.


I understand why teams trade some players, but I don't understand when a team's mission statement is basically bring players up to trade to get more young players to trade to get more young players.


Griffey was injured and as such Cameron was much more valuable to his team than Griffey was in 2001. You say I cannot assume an injury in Seattle, but bottom line was that Griffey was hurt that year period, whether it would have happened in Seattle or not.

Yes Griffey's OPS+ was one point higher than Cameron's, but that came in almost 200 fewer AB's. Cameron's OPS+ was definitely more valuable because of the extra AB's and the fact that they were almost exactly similar OPS+ wise.

On top of the pure hitting numbers, Cameron stole 34 bases at an excellent 87% success rate compared to only 2 steals for Griffey. He was also known as one of the faster players in the league at that time and a good and fast baserunner besides the pure steal numbers. Advantage Cameron.

And besides offense and baserunning, Griffey was past his fielding prime by 2001 and was no longer of Gold Glove or near Gold Glove caliber. Cameron was in the middle of his fielding prime and won the Gold Glove that year. Most modern statistical defensive measures show Cameron to be one of the great fielding CF of all-time. Advantage Cameron.

Basically, they were essentially equal offensively but Cameron had huge baserunning and defensive advantages that year on top of the fact that he played all season and Griffey didn't. Blame injuries or whatever you want, but it is pretty undeniable that Cameron was a far more valuable player than Griffey during the 2001 season.


I would never say that Garcia was equal to Randy Johnson during 2001, but in his defense he did have his best season and finished 3rd in the AL CYA that year. Randy was incredible and would have been easily better than Garcia obviously when compared one-to-one. He had probably his 2nd or 3rd best regular season and was ridiculous during the DBacks World Series run.

However, when you consider the money saved by trading Randy and getting a good pitcher in return, it wasn't a completely awful move by the Mariners and probably allowed them to acquire some important complementary players for that 2001 season. That is all I was saying regarding that move. They would have been better with Randy.

My comment was in response to the Seattle guy that was implying they would have had guys like Griffey, Johnson, Cameron, and Garcia all on the same team leading to like 130 wins that year. We both should agree that this is just blatantly not true and couldn't have happened.

[sturg1dj]

Griffey was injured and as such Cameron was much more valuable to his team than Griffey was in 2001. You say I cannot assume an injury in Seattle, but bottom line was that Griffey was hurt that year period, whether it would have happened in Seattle or not.

Yes Griffey's OPS+ was one point higher than Cameron's, but that came in almost 200 fewer AB's. Cameron's OPS+ was definitely more valuable because of the extra AB's and the fact that they were almost exactly similar OPS+ wise.

On top of the pure hitting numbers, Cameron stole 34 bases at an excellent 87% success rate compared to only 2 steals for Griffey. He was also known as one of the faster players in the league at that time and a good and fast baserunner besides the pure steal numbers. Advantage Cameron.

And besides offense and baserunning, Griffey was past his fielding prime by 2001 and was no longer of Gold Glove or near Gold Glove caliber. Cameron was in the middle of his fielding prime and won the Gold Glove that year. Most modern statistical defensive measures show Cameron to be one of the great fielding CF of all-time. Advantage Cameron.

Basically, they were essentially equal offensively but Cameron had huge baserunning and defensive advantages that year on top of the fact that he played all season and Griffey didn't. Blame injuries or whatever you want, but it is pretty undeniable that Cameron was a far more valuable player than Griffey during the 2001 season.


I would never say that Garcia was equal to Randy Johnson during 2001, but in his defense he did have his best season and finished 3rd in the AL CYA that year. Randy was incredible and would have been easily better than Garcia obviously when compared one-to-one. He had probably his 2nd or 3rd best regular season and was ridiculous during the DBacks World Series run.

However, when you consider the money saved by trading Randy and getting a good pitcher in return, it wasn't a completely awful move by the Mariners and probably allowed them to acquire some important complementary players for that 2001 season. That is all I was saying regarding that move. They would have been better with Randy.

My comment was in response to the Seattle guy that was implying they would have had guys like Griffey, Johnson, Cameron, and Garcia all on the same team leading to like 130 wins that year. We both should agree that this is just blatantly not true and couldn't have happened.


i do agree with you on most of this...but I don't care what the numbers are I will never say that Mike Cameron is or was more valuable than Ken Griffey Jr at any time. Regardless of injuries. If Griffey dies before Cameron I would still take Griffey's lifeless body over Mike Cameron because Ken Griffey has more baseball talent in his lifeless body than most players can dream of. I am part of the Griffey generation, so you will have to understand my stance.

which is another reason I don't buy into Seattle's stance on the issue. They may be far away in Seattle but Ken Griffey was the biggest star of his generation and was known by everyone. I was in Michigan and Griffey was still one of my favorites. I cannot imagine Seattle not profiting enormously from this. And I don't know who owns them now, but right now Nintendo owns them, which is megabucks. Some teams are truly small market, and some just act like it.

[Brad Harris]

I don't care what the numbers are I will never say that Mike Cameron is or was more valuable than Ken Griffey Jr at any time.
Fine, don't say it. But you not saying it doesn't keep it from being true. Whether you'll concede the point or not, there were seasons where Cameron was the more productive of the two.


I would still take Griffey's lifeless body over Mike Cameron because Ken Griffey has more baseball talent in his lifeless body than most players can dream of.
Talent means squat when it doesn't translate into production.


I am part of the Griffey generation, so you will have to understand my stance.
If you're going to take a position, do so. Don't hide behind your age as the reason for it though.


And I don't know who owns them now, but right now Nintendo owns them
Huh?

[sturg1dj]

Fine, don't say it. But you not saying it doesn't keep it from being true. Whether you'll concede the point or not, there were seasons where Cameron was the more productive of the two.


Talent means squat when it doesn't translate into production.


If you're going to take a position, do so. Don't hide behind your age as the reason for it though.


Huh?

you couldn't tell my last post was tongue in cheek? I said I would take Jr's lifeless body over Cameron's. I thought that would be clear.

[Wade8813]

you couldn't tell my last post was tongue in cheek? I said I would take Jr's lifeless body over Cameron's. I thought that would be clear.
The thing is, it's hard to tell when someone's being tongue in cheek, or when they're being more or less honest, just exaggerating.

Like when I say I would start a riot if Christopher Nolan doesn't make part 3 for Batman, I'm not being tongue in cheek. I AM slightly exaggerating, but only slightly.

[Brad Harris]

you couldn't tell my last post was tongue in cheek? I said I would take Jr's lifeless body over Cameron's. I thought that would be clear.

My bad. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. My frustration is aimed at a certain person here continuing to persist in his errors and, quite possibly, now creating shell accounts in order to continue his TrollQuest.

[Westlake]

Seriously. I thought wisdom came with age.

[NYMets523]

No wonder Billy Beane slashed salary over 30mil.......he gets around 4% of the earnings.....Guess when he's kissing the owner's butt he is also kissing his own......:)
He's signed through 2014. Don't think he's worried about $1.2M.


Makes you wonder how much he put in his own pocket with the latest trades that doomed the A's for this season........and many more if he keeps this up!
How is trading Blanton and Harden dooming them? Blanton has been bad this year and Harden has made 13 starts the past 2 years. He got good players for both of them who will probably be more valuable in the future than those 2 would be.


A's are around 143mil in the black in 2 years.....ya can't tell me that they couldn't hold on to a few ringers and actually contend.
They are trying to build a new stadium in Fremont.

[sturg1dj]

He's signed through 2014. Don't think he's worried about $1.2M.


how do you figure?

just because he's signed long term you think that he wouldn't want $1.2M more?

[flash143817]

i do agree with you on most of this...but I don't care what the numbers are I will never say that Mike Cameron is or was more valuable than Ken Griffey Jr at any time. Regardless of injuries. If Griffey dies before Cameron I would still take Griffey's lifeless body over Mike Cameron because Ken Griffey has more baseball talent in his lifeless body than most players can dream of. I am part of the Griffey generation, so you will have to understand my stance.

which is another reason I don't buy into Seattle's stance on the issue. They may be far away in Seattle but Ken Griffey was the biggest star of his generation and was known by everyone. I was in Michigan and Griffey was still one of my favorites. I cannot imagine Seattle not profiting enormously from this. And I don't know who owns them now, but right now Nintendo owns them, which is megabucks. Some teams are truly small market, and some just act like it.


I'll buy that Griffey is more marketable than Cameron and as such might make the team more money in ticket sales, tshirt sales, etc.

But my point was to on-field performance. Plain and simple, Cameron was the more valuable, productive player in 2001.

Don't discount Cameron's natural talent either. He might not have had talent quite like Griffey, but he had 5-tool ability, even if he only really put it all together that one year in 2001.

As far as the age, most of my teenage years were during Griffey's prime in the '90s so I'd say he was as much of my generation as yours.

[flash143817]

As far as the original point of the thread....it is pretty asinine to hate on Billy Beane.

I'd be willing to bet that no team has had more wins per dollars than the A's have during the Beane era. That's pretty much the best way to measure the effectiveness of a GM.

Think about this: the Red Sox have been pretty much the best team in baseball the last few seasons and they have done it with a GM cut from the same statistical mold as Beane - Theo Epstein.

Both Beane and Epstein are excellent GM's. The difference is that Boston spends a lot of money and as such has better records than Oakland. If Beane was allowed the same payroll as the Red Sox, the A's would probably be just as good if not better than them right now year in and year out.

Now if Beane was allowed the Yankees payroll....

[BoSox Rule]

I don't understand why Beane is getting so much negative feedback for trading Harden. Harden is made out of glass and Beane was finally able to sell high on him. That is his job.

[sturg1dj]

As far as the original point of the thread....it is pretty asinine to hate on Billy Beane.

I'd be willing to bet that no team has had more wins per dollars than the A's have during the Beane era. That's pretty much the best way to measure the effectiveness of a GM.

Think about this: the Red Sox have been pretty much the best team in baseball the last few seasons and they have done it with a GM cut from the same statistical mold as Beane - Theo Epstein.

Both Beane and Epstein are excellent GM's. The difference is that Boston spends a lot of money and as such has better records than Oakland. If Beane was allowed the same payroll as the Red Sox, the A's would probably be just as good if not better than them right now year in and year out.

Now if Beane was allowed the Yankees payroll....


what is the goal of baseball? To win a championship....correct?

Billy Beane is great when it comes to winning with little, but his style does not allow the team to win the big one. Now who is truly to blame is another question. Is it the fans for not coming to more games? Is it the owner for not wanting to spend? Is it Billy Beane who is part owner who thrives with the small market payroll. Could Billy Beane win with a huge payroll or would he still be selling players for younger talent? Could he stick with players for long stretches? The one example we have is Eric Chavez and how has that worked out for him?

[-Kyle-]

what is the goal of baseball? To win a championship....correct?

Billy Beane is great when it comes to winning with little, but his style does not allow the team to win the big one.

Then all small market GMs are awful then? Beane to a degree can't control how well his team does in the playoffs, I think it's more blame on the manager or the players for not coming through. The Yankees and the Twins make the playoffs often but don't win it all, are those GMs awful too? :confused:

[sturg1dj]

Then all small market GMs are awful then? Beane to a degree can't control how well his team does in the playoffs, I think it's more blame on the manager or the players for not coming through. The Yankees and the Twins make the playoffs often but don't win it all, are those GMs awful too? :confused:


nope, they are also not geniuses....like Beane

but the Marlins have won a couple of times. Cardinals won (not sure if I would consider them small market)

Rockies made it to a world series.



If you want to crown a genius GM you show me a guy who can win a world series with nothing...not give false hope to a fan base only to trade it away.

[digglahhh]

I'd be willing to bet that no team has had more wins per dollars than the A's have during the Beane era. That's pretty much the best way to measure the effectiveness of a GM.


Not to be jerk, but not really. When you consider the natural caps on how many games a team can realistically win or lose, no matter how good or bad, that's probably not the case.

I mean, the Marlins will probably take that honor this year - but they could probably do so even if the had the Nats record. On the other hand, the Yanks will come in last place even if they were to win 105 games and sweep the playoffs. The dynamic of the game and the non-linear growth of salaries through arbitration and free agency make it such that you can't compare dollars to wins with a one to one ratio.

The question is whether a team is efficiently using their available resources, no matter how great or few. And, we're certainly in agreement that, all in all, Beane makes rather efficient use of what he has at his disposal.

[Brad Harris]

what is the goal of baseball? To win a championship....correct?

Billy Beane is great when it comes to winning with little, but his style does not allow the team to win the big one. Now who is truly to blame is another question. Is it the fans for not coming to more games? Is it the owner for not wanting to spend?...

Tight-fisted teams are usually tight-fisted because the owner is shaking more profits out of the bottom line, not because the team is legitimate constricted to that size of payroll. That may be the owner's prerogative and, as a business, we can't fault a club owner for trying to maximize his profits, but it's my contention that the best way to assure long-term profitability for a franchise is to maintain a competitive level of talent on the field. The extent to which an owner is willing to do that at the expense of short-term profits is, to say the least, highly questionable among the worst owners in baseball.

In the extremely rare case where a small market team is operating on a shoestring budget out of necessity, then we can squarely point the blame at MLB owners at-large and their stooges Selig and DuPuy. If the other 29 owners are stupid enough to admit an underfunded newbie into their boys club, then when that franchise experiences immediately financial instability, they have only themselves to blame. An equitable and independently verifiable revenue sharing plan would reduce disparities in market size to a reasonable ratio and provide the smallest markets (generously supported by local fans or not) with sufficient funds on which to operate while fielding a competitive payroll.

So either way you slice it, the economic conditions which facilitate the kind of behavior Beane is known for are the product of MLB ownership.

[sturg1dj]

Tight-fisted teams are usually tight-fisted because the owner is shaking more profits out of the bottom line, not because the team is legitimate constricted to that size of payroll. That may be the owner's prerogative and, as a business, we can't fault a club owner for trying to maximize his profits, but it's my contention that the best way to assure long-term profitability for a franchise is to maintain a competitive level of talent on the field. The extent to which an owner is willing to do that at the expense of short-term profits is, to say the least, highly questionable among the worst owners in baseball.

In the extremely rare case where a small market team is operating on a shoestring budget out of necessity, then we can squarely point the blame at MLB owners at-large and their stooges Selig and DuPuy. If the other 29 owners are stupid enough to admit an underfunded newbie into their boys club, then when that franchise experiences immediately financial instability, they have only themselves to blame. An equitable and independently verifiable revenue sharing plan would reduce disparities in market size to a reasonable ratio and provide the smallest markets (generously supported by local fans or not) with sufficient funds on which to operate while fielding a competitive payroll.

So either way you slice it, the economic conditions which facilitate the kind of behavior Beane is known for are the product of MLB ownership.

agreed.

The quickest way for a team to go from small market to a larger market is to open a cool new stadium. The problem with that is owners don't even want to pay for that any more. They want the taxpayers to foot the bill. The Twins/Vikings have needed a new stadium for years and the owner of the Vikings even threatened to move the team....it took Jesse Ventura standing up to them to stop the new stadium from being built with taxpayer money. If I am not mistaken, they are now getting a new stadium (now that Jesse is gone).

What a sweet gig you got if you are an owner of a major league team. All you have to do is buy the team, then you have the city build you a new field; then you can constantly trade budding stars for younger players while looking like you are still competing....then every few years you can cry poverty just so you can rework the CBA and shortchange players.

[-Kyle-]

agreed.

The quickest way for a team to go from small market to a larger market is to open a cool new stadium. The problem with that is owners don't even want to pay for that any more. They want the taxpayers to foot the bill. The Twins/Vikings have needed a new stadium for years and the owner of the Vikings even threatened to move the team....it took Jesse Ventura standing up to them to stop the new stadium from being built with taxpayer money. If I am not mistaken, they are now getting a new stadium (now that Jesse is gone).

They don't even need that, what MLB needs right now is revenue sharing, it will create much more even playing in the league.

[Seattle1]

This is funny, because it's exactly what I said to my buddy in Seattle a couple of months ago about the Mariners! Honestly. We were talking about overall team success regarding the A's and M's franchises and I said, "It must be frustrating to be a Mariners fan. I'm glad I don't have to go through every year knowing my team won't be in the World Series and probably won't make the playoffs again."

I was being flippant, of course, but it actually sounds like you're serious with your statement, so I put in my two cents for what it's worth here...


Hey the Mariners did great last year! They'll probably do great next year too!

[Erik Bedard]

I doubt it.

[mrakbaseball]

Hey the Mariners did great last year! They'll probably do great next year too!

As long as Yamauchi owns Seattle and Howie Lincoln and Chucky Armstrong have any affiliation with the Mariners, expect more seasons of 90-100 losses. I'm a Seattle fan and have zero confidence in their front office. Perfect definition of incompetence.

[NYMets523]

Hey the Mariners did great last year! They'll probably do great next year too!

Don't worry. They won't.

The Angels, A's, and even Rangers have a buttload of talent. So long as Seattle are too obstinate to dump their players, they'll keep losing.

[sturg1dj]

well here's a question. And I am not making a point or anything because I truly have no idea.


what is better for a team

the A's who go into seasons with low expectations and overachieve but still don't draw well

or

Seattle Mariners a team that seems willing to spend, but doesn't seem to spend wisely.

think about it, at the beginning of some seasons the Mariner's fans have to be excited since they got star A or star B so there could be a spike in season tickets and/or early ticket sales.

thoughts?

[NYMets523]

The A's. Even if no one is going, the team at least has a season. The Mariners were done before May.

[flash143817]

Not to be jerk, but not really. When you consider the natural caps on how many games a team can realistically win or lose, no matter how good or bad, that's probably not the case.

I mean, the Marlins will probably take that honor this year - but they could probably do so even if the had the Nats record. On the other hand, the Yanks will come in last place even if they were to win 105 games and sweep the playoffs. The dynamic of the game and the non-linear growth of salaries through arbitration and free agency make it such that you can't compare dollars to wins with a one to one ratio.

The question is whether a team is efficiently using their available resources, no matter how great or few. And, we're certainly in agreement that, all in all, Beane makes rather efficient use of what he has at his disposal.


True that a team like the Yankees will never be able to compete in a measure like this, but maybe that should be an indictment of Brian Cashman. He has had all these resources at his disposal and they still can't win it all. He merely signs any of the so-called big name guys, regardless of whether they are still any good (see: Sexson, Richie). Any GM could do that if the owner would let them.

While there would have to be some sort of adjustment made in order to get a fair reading, I still believe that a measure of success to dollars spent in some manner would come out overwhelmingly favorable to Beane.

To me, Beane has done all that he can with the resources he is allowed. Most of the big names he lets go don't end up performing at the same level they did in Oakland. Look at Barry Zito and Jason Giambi. At least Giambi is still a decent player, but he is a shell of what he was in Oakland. Zito is just a joke. Beane got everything he could and was smart enough to let them go when he realized they would decline. Better than locking them up to long-term deals that hamstring the team for 6-7 years just because they are "our guys".

Granted, the Chavez deal hasn't worked out for them, but I for one can't blame him on that. Chavez was a GG 3B with 3 straight 125+ OPS+ seasons at age 25. Lot of teams in baseball would expect him to be a heck of a sign. Part of it was injuries, but his decline sort of came out of nowhere during an age when most players hit their peaks, and I don't blame Beane for it. It's better than signing at 30+ year old player that has already begun to decline to a multi-year big deal.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True that a team like the Yankees will never be able to compete in a measure like this, but maybe that should be an indictment of Brian Cashman. He has had all these resources at his disposal and they still can't win it all. He merely signs any of the so-called big name guys, regardless of whether they are still any good (see: Sexson, Richie). Any GM could do that if the owner would let them.

While there would have to be some sort of adjustment made in order to get a fair reading, I still believe that a measure of success to dollars spent in some manner would come out overwhelmingly favorable to Beane.

To me, Beane has done all that he can with the resources he is allowed. Most of the big names he lets go don't end up performing at the same level they did in Oakland. Look at Barry Zito and Jason Giambi. At least Giambi is still a decent player, but he is a shell of what he was in Oakland. Zito is just a joke. Beane got everything he could and was smart enough to let them go when he realized they would decline. Better than locking them up to long-term deals that hamstring the team for 6-7 years just because they are "our guys".

Granted, the Chavez deal hasn't worked out for them, but I for one can't blame him on that. Chavez was a GG 3B with 3 straight 125+ OPS+ seasons at age 25. Lot of teams in baseball would expect him to be a heck of a sign. Part of it was injuries, but his decline sort of came out of nowhere during an age when most players hit their peaks, and I don't blame Beane for it. It's better than signing at 30+ year old player that has already begun to decline to a multi-year big deal.
I still believe that Beane would sign a great young player to a long term contract, like Chavez, if he truly believed that player was going to be a truly elite player. He though Chavez was that player. He thought Chavez would morph into Mike Schmidt. It just didn't happen. If Beane had an Albert Pujols I am of the strong belief that he would sign him to a long term contract and build a team around him.

[Old Sweater]

Oakland is a major league-worst 2-14 since the All-Star break, and 9-23 since June 28.

A's were on pace to win 87 and are now on pace for a 77 win season since the trades.

Pure Einstein that Billy Beane.......LOL

Shot the A's outta the water with no help in hitting in sight.

[Old Sweater]

I still believe that Beane would sign a great young player to a long term contract, like Chavez, if he truly believed that player was going to be a truly elite player. He though Chavez was that player. He thought Chavez would morph into Mike Schmidt. It just didn't happen. If Beane had an Albert Pujols I am of the strong belief that he would sign him to a long term contract and build a team around him.

Beane would have traded Schmidt to line his own pockets like he did with Tejada and Giambi.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Beane would have traded Schmidt to line his own pockets like he did with Tejada and Giambi.

I disagree, OS.

[sturg1dj]

I still believe that Beane would sign a great young player to a long term contract, like Chavez, if he truly believed that player was going to be a truly elite player. He though Chavez was that player. He thought Chavez would morph into Mike Schmidt. It just didn't happen. If Beane had an Albert Pujols I am of the strong belief that he would sign him to a long term contract and build a team around him.

weren't Giambi and Tejada elite players when they were not resigned?


unless Beane knew something about how those players got the way they did?

[Westlake]

weren't Giambi and Tejada elite players when they were not resigned?

unless Beane knew something about how those players got the way they did?

Because he couldn't afford them. How are people not getting this? Giambi got a deal worth over $120 million, and Tejada for over $70 mil. That's basically $200 million for two players, something the A's could not afford.

You should read Moneyball.

[sturg1dj]

Because he couldn't afford them. How are people not getting this? Giambi got a deal worth over $120 million, and Tejada for over $70 mil. That's basically $200 million for two players, something the A's could not afford.

You should read Moneyball.

and I am answering this quote


I still believe that Beane would sign a great young player to a long term contract, like Chavez, if he truly believed that player was going to be a truly elite player. He though Chavez was that player. He thought Chavez would morph into Mike Schmidt. It just didn't happen. If Beane had an Albert Pujols I am of the strong belief that he would sign him to a long term contract and build a team around him.


to which I am saying I do not believe it


and also you should join in other discussion we have been having regarding size of payrolls and market sizes. Basically I would say markets truly exist in the heads of the owners. If they cannot handle the competition they should sell the team to someone who can.

If they want to draw better then they can do 2 things.

1) Stop selling their top players

2) Build a stadium...and if they cannot get funding PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!!!!

I have no sympathies for Beane who cries about how unfair things are. Oakland at one point had a dynasty in the making in the late 80's and early 90's. How did they do that?

Salaries weren't what they are today? Sure, but neither were television contracts and tickets prices, and there was no luxury tax.

No, I will not read moneyball since it is evidence on how a GM/Owner goes out of their way to not compete to the fullest that he is capable. Sure they find some nice players, so what? They don't keep them.

[spark240]

Oakland at one point had a dynasty in the making in the late 80's and early 90's. How did they do that?

They had a different owner, who was independently rich and poured money into the team; the La Russa/Bash Bros. era A's lost money operating that way. They were running the team like they were a big-money operation, but in fact they weren't. It couldn't possibly have continued that way forever, even if salaries hadn't continued rising.


No, I will not read moneyball since it is evidence on how a GM/Owner goes out of their way to not compete to the fullest that he is capable.

What is this, you're trumpeting ignorance? If you read the book, you'd know the answer to your question that I just answered. You'd also know that your description of it is nonsense; the book is, among other things, a study of Oakland's efforts to be competitive.

[flash143817]

weren't Giambi and Tejada elite players when they were not resigned?


unless Beane knew something about how those players got the way they did?

Both Tejada and Giambi were over 30 when they became free agents. Beane obviously doesn't believe in long-term deals to players that are going to be past their prime age for most of those contracts (26-31 for most players). I think it's smart payroll management and is part of what has allowed them to be so consistently good despite changing rosters and a small payroll.

I agree with HWR that if Beane had a guy like Pujols become a free agent at like 26-27 that he would throw big money at that guy. The evidence is there with Chavez.

[Westlake]

Basically I would say markets truly exist in the heads of the owners. If they cannot handle the competition they should sell the team to someone who can.

If they want to draw better then they can do 2 things.

1) Stop selling their top players

2) Build a stadium...and if they cannot get funding PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!!!!

I have no sympathies for Beane who cries about how unfair things are. Oakland at one point had a dynasty in the making in the late 80's and early 90's. How did they do that?

Salaries weren't what they are today? Sure, but neither were television contracts and tickets prices, and there was no luxury tax.

No, I will not read moneyball since it is evidence on how a GM/Owner goes out of their way to not compete to the fullest that he is capable. Sure they find some nice players, so what? They don't keep them.

1. What do you mean you don't believe that quote? It happened. He signed Chavez. He is willing to sign people to multi-year deals, since he has done so in the past.

2. The A's are building a new stadium.

3. Beane does not cry about it being 'unfair.' Where do you come up with that? In Moneyball he talks about how much he enjoys it.

4. You really aren't grasping anything. He doesn't 'go out of his way to not compete to the fullest.' Do you REALLY believe that? Seriously? The facts are right there in front of you in the book if you actually want to be enlightened. The fact that you refuse to read it only means that you don't want to be proved wrong.

It's really no one's fault but your own that you refuse to believe he is trying to win with what he has got. The owners give him a certain amount of money to build a team and he does so. Most of the time, he does so very well with the limited resources. Again, if you want to ignore that, fine -- but don't expect anyone to agree with you if you won't even look at what's right in front of you. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

weren't Giambi and Tejada elite players when they were not resigned?

unless Beane knew something about how those players got the way they did?

They were good players that had some MVP type seasons but not necessarily elite players. Giambi was basically a DH that played first base. He was a total stiff on defense and was a poor base runner. His performance as a Yankee after his first season in New York is no where near what it was in Oakland. After 2002 Giambi was still a good hitter but Beane knew that kind of production that Giambi was likely to have in his 30s is not worth what Yankees are paying him. From 1999-2002 Giambi was truly an elite hitter but after that his BA dropped like a rock. Tejeda was never a Beane type of player. Good hitter good defense but doesn't draw many walks and Beane most likely figured his skill set is not worth the huge contract the Orioles gave him. And I'm sure the orioles were very disappointed overall with what Tejeda accomplished in Baltimore.

[Seels]

The Beane love really blows my mind. What has he done since 2002? Prior to the Haren trade, the A's had one of the worst farm systems in the American League. The man has built a career and reputation off of one draft, very little post season success, and always selling players at the right time. Good, he got rid of an injury prone Harden, but he got a bunch of AAAA fodder in return.

His Mulder for Haren + trade was great, and who knows maybe the Haren / Harden / Blanton trades end up looking good, but all I see through the last 6 years is getting to the playoffs far less often than a team with as great a gm as Beane supposedly is.

Oh and the Colorado - Oakland comparisons are awful. Colorado draws far more fans, and won more games in last years post season alone than Oakland has since the 02 draft.

How is Oakland a small market? Are you kidding? Sorry, California and small market shouldn't be in the same sentence.

Beane is overrated, and will be until the A's are competitive; doing what they've done the last few years is not what I would call competitive.

[sturg1dj]

They had a different owner, who was independently rich and poured money into the team; the La Russa/Bash Bros. era A's lost money operating that way. They were running the team like they were a big-money operation, but in fact they weren't. It couldn't possibly have continued that way forever, even if salaries hadn't continued rising.

What is this, you're trumpeting ignorance? If you read the book, you'd know the answer to your question that I just answered. You'd also know that your description of it is nonsense; the book is, among other things, a study of Oakland's efforts to be competitive.



ok, ok


this leads me to a new thought then

maybe this should be the basis of contraction in baseball. Teams that over and over again have to do things like the A's do in order to stay afloat, maybe they should not have a team.


its one thing if a team is crap but building to try to win it all, its another thing totally to have a goal to always be on the cusp of something greater and never allowing your team to win.


If the team was run better it would be able to compete. Sounds crazy, right? The GM that pulls winning seasons out of his....you know. But if the team cannot find a way to draw and make money then someone else could. It is why the baseball monopoly is a bad thing. It does not freely allow anyone to own a team, just people that fit into the boys club. I guarantee you there is someone in this country or in the world that can win and make money with the A's.

[sturg1dj]

How is Oakland a small market? Are you kidding? Sorry, California and small market shouldn't be in the same sentence.



thank you!


I am starting to believe that small market is a code word created by the owners to allow cheap owners to get richer without trying as hard. Sure, not every team is New York; but every city that has a team can support a team and can afford the salaries. Some just don't want to.

[Westlake]

Weird stuff

"What has he done since 2002?"

-- Won the division twice? Gotten to the ALCS?

"Good, he got rid of an injury prone Harden, but he got a bunch of AAAA fodder in return."

-- Your opinion and not much else. We'll see how they turn out, but i'm sure people were saying this about Haren when he got him as well.


"Oh and the Colorado - Oakland comparisons are awful. Colorado draws far more fans, and won more games in last years post season alone than Oakland has since the 02 draft. "

-- You're right, it is an awful comparison. Oakland has been drawing more fans since Beane became GM while the Rockies attendance has been in a downward spiral since they became a franchise. Oakland has been very successful the last 8 years while the Rockies have had only one winning season since 2000.

"How is Oakland a small market? Are you kidding? Sorry, California and small market shouldn't be in the same sentence."

-- The point is that Beane doesn't have the money to spend like Boston, NY, and LAA have. He does very well with the resources he is given.

"Beane is overrated, and will be until the A's are competitive; doing what they've done the last few years is not what I would call competitive"

-- Again, winning the division 2 years ago and going to the ALCS isn't competative?

To close out..

Regular Season wins since 2000 --

Yankees - 773
Athletics - 740
Red Sox - 730
Angels - 703
Twins - 688

Totally not competitive.

[flash143817]

thank you!


I am starting to believe that small market is a code word created by the owners to allow cheap owners to get richer without trying as hard. Sure, not every team is New York; but every city that has a team can support a team and can afford the salaries. Some just don't want to.

That I can agree with. You basically make your own market based on what you are willing to spend as owners. Some locations like NY and LA will always naturally be big-market teams just cause the cities are so large that they automatically draw. But for awhile the Angels were considered small-market. How? They are located right outside of LA and surrounded by a huge population.

Now Arte Moreno buys the team and is willing to spend and suddenly they are a big-market team? Nothing changed except the owner and owner-willingness is the main component of both success and big/small market.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Beane love really blows my mind. What has he done since 2002? Prior to the Haren trade, the A's had one of the worst farm systems in the American League. The man has built a career and reputation off of one draft, very little post season success, and always selling players at the right time. Good, he got rid of an injury prone Harden, but he got a bunch of AAAA fodder in return.
We have no idea how the 20 prospects he got will pan out.



His Mulder for Haren + trade was great, and who knows maybe the Haren / Harden / Blanton trades end up looking good,
I'm sure many thought Haren was AAAA fodder as well when the A's acquired him.


but all I see through the last 6 years is getting to the playoffs far less often than a team with as great a gm as Beane supposedly is.
How many times does Beane have to make the playoffs? Since 2001:

2001: 102-60 (Wild Card)
2002: 103-59 (AL West Champ)
2003: 96-66 (AL West Champ)
2004: 91-71 (2nd place, 1 game back)
2005: 88-74 (2nd place, 7 games back)
2006: 93-69 (AL West Champ)
2007: 76-86 (3rd place)




Oh and the Colorado - Oakland comparisons are awful. Colorado draws far more fans, and won more games in last years post season alone than Oakland has since the 02 draft.
So one fluke season when they played over their heads in a crappy division in the inferior league and got swept in the World Series. And? The Rockies since 2001

2001: 73-89 (last place, 19 games back)
2002: 73-89 (4th place, 25 games back)
2003: 74-99 (4th place, 26.5 games back)
2004: 68-94 (4th place, 25 games back)
2005: 67-95 (last place, 15 games back)
2006: 76-86 (last place, 15 games back)
2007: 90-73 (2nd place, 0.5 games back)

So who has been the more successful team since 2001? The A's or the Rockies?


How is Oakland a small market? Are you kidding? Sorry, California and small market shouldn't be in the same sentence.
Yes, every CA city is huge metropolitan. Have you ever been to Oakland?



Beane is overrated, and will be until the A's are competitive; doing what they've done the last few years is not what I would call competitive.
Do you even pay attention to what the A's do? Since 1999:

1999: 87-75 (2nd place, 8 games back)
2000: 91-70 (AL West Champ)
2001: 102-60 (Wild Card)
2002: 103-59 (AL West Champ)
2003: 96-66 (AL West Champ)
2004: 91-71 (2nd place, 1 game back)
2005: 88-74 (2nd place, 7 games back)
2006: 93-69 (AL West Champ)
2007: 76-86 (3rd place)

[sturg1dj]

you guys can keep flashing the record all you want. The problem I have with that is Beane is always looking for the next valuable player to trade to re-load. It would be one thing if you are a bad team who all of the sudden got good; then that is a big deal, but once you consistently are good then its time for the next level, and the way Beane is shows that he has no interest in that next level.

[Westlake]

you guys can keep flashing the record all you want. The problem I have with that is Beane is always looking for the next valuable player to trade to re-load. It would be one thing if you are a bad team who all of the sudden got good; then that is a big deal, but once you consistently are good then its time for the next level, and the way Beane is shows that he has no interest in that next level.

Uh yeah, we will, until you and people like Seels stop saying inaccurate stuff like " it is evidence on how a GM/Owner goes out of their way to not compete" or "Beane is overrated, and will be until the A's are competitive."

"Consistently good then it's time for the next level" -- How do you not get that its VERY hard to do that with a small payroll (28th in MLB this year). Having a consistently good team means having good players... retaining these good players means you have to spend a lot of $ on them. Money that the A's owners are not willing to spend.

The only way he can afford to have these good players is to get them before they are eligible for free agency -- young players will little to no MLB experience. He trades players nearing FA so that he can get younger players that he can afford.

The fact that you refuse to read a book (that will answer basically everything for you) on the very subject you are pretending to know about is very telling.

[sturg1dj]

Uh yeah, we will, until you and people like Seels stop saying inaccurate stuff like " it is evidence on how a GM/Owner goes out of their way to not compete" or "Beane is overrated, and will be until the A's are competitive."

"Consistently good then it's time for the next level" -- How do you not get that its VERY hard to do that with a small payroll (28th in MLB this year). Having a consistently good team means having good players... retaining these good players means you have to spend a lot of $ on them. Money that the A's owners are not willing to spend.

The only way he can afford to have these good players is to get them before they are eligible for free agency -- young players will little to no MLB experience. He trades players nearing FA so that he can get younger players that he can afford.

The fact that you refuse to read a book (that will answer basically everything for you) on the very subject you are pretending to know about is very telling.


and yet you seem to refuse to read all of my posts

how can I give him credit for winning in a small market if I don't believe in small markets?



it was brought up how a few years ago the Angels were considered small market, then they got a good owner. The Tigers used to be lumped in with the Twins and Royals for market and now have the second highest payroll. Sorry, the small market excuse doesn't work on me anymore.

[Westlake]

and yet you seem to refuse to read all of my posts

how can I give him credit for winning in a small market if I don't believe in small markets?


it was brought up how a few years ago the Angels were considered small market, then they got a good owner. The Tigers used to be lumped in with the Twins and Royals for market and now have the second highest payroll. Sorry, the small market excuse doesn't work on me anymore.

:: Bangs head on keybord ::

The market doesn't matter. The amount of money he is given to spend on his team does. It doesn't matter whether you believe in small markets or not. I could care less if Oakland is called small market or not -- the payroll thing is really all that matters.

It seems as though you are giving the Tigers GM credit for making the payroll bigger - that's not how it works. That's the owners job.

The small market thing isn't an 'excuse.' It has nothing to do with my side of this -- AT ALL (In fact I think you're the only person who has brought it up lately). Beane's $ resources are low so he MUST make due with that. It seems as though you think he's a bad GM because he doesn't hold onto most of his good players -- he can't. It's impossible with the money he is given to make the team. The average player on his team this year makes 1.7 mil. The average Yankee makes over 6. You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

[sturg1dj]

:: Bangs head on keybord ::

The market doesn't matter. The amount of money he is given to spend on his team does. It doesn't matter whether you believe in small markets or not. I could care less if Oakland is called small market or not -- the payroll thing is really all that matters.

It seems as though you are giving the Tigers GM credit for making the payroll bigger - that's not how it works. That's the owners job.

The small market thing isn't an 'excuse.' It has nothing to do with my side of this -- AT ALL (In fact I think you're the only person who has brought it up lately). Beane's $ resources are low so he MUST make due with that. It seems as though you think he's a bad GM because he doesn't hold onto most of his good players -- he can't. It's impossible with the money he is given to make the team. The average player on his team this year makes 1.7 mil. The average Yankee makes over 6. You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

but Beane is part owner, so one would imagine he would have some push to increase payroll to sign a great player, which he has only done once with Eric Chavez, if he wasn't busy lining his pockets with the money he saved along with the other cheapskates within the organization.


He knows he can win enough games to stay relevant with a tiny payroll so he continues to do it. As long as people do not question that he will continue to do it because he makes his money.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

but Beane is part owner, so one would imagine he would have some push to increase payroll to sign a great player, which he has only done once with Eric Chavez, if he wasn't busy lining his pockets with the money he saved along with the other cheapskates within the organization.
Beane has a small part of the A's ownership, less than 5%. That's hardly anything and in reality Beane has no real say on the yearly operational budget.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/02/SPG9VC2DLJ1.DTL&feed=rss.sports



He knows he can win enough games to stay relevant with a tiny payroll so he continues to do it.
And what is wrong with that?



As long as people do not question that he will continue to do it because he makes his money.
Again what is wrong with that? And if you think Beans doesn't want to win a World Series you are simply misinformed.

[Westlake]

but Beane is part owner, so one would imagine he would have some push to increase payroll to sign a great player, which he has only done once with Eric Chavez, if he wasn't busy lining his pockets with the money he saved along with the other cheapskates within the organization.

He knows he can win enough games to stay relevant with a tiny payroll so he continues to do it. As long as people do not question that he will continue to do it because he makes his money.


Beane owns something like 3-4%. Lew Wolff (the actual owner that makes the big decisions) is the guy you should be looking at -- not a limited partner like Beane. That's a pretty lame cop-out. Do you go after the guys that don't own 97% of other teams too? No, because you've never even heard of the small percentage owners like Beane before.

Your argument keeps changing. First it was 'Beane doesn't try to be competitive' then 'its not a small market team' now its 'Beane is just lining his own pockets' -- Only thing they all have in common is that they are wrong.

[Westlake]

And what is wrong with that?


Don't even humor him with that. If Beane was given more money to run the team, he would use it. It's really that simple. The facts keep changing with these people but the opinion stays the same.

[sturg1dj]

Don't even humor him with that. If Beane was given more money to run the team, he would use it. It's really that simple. The facts keep changing with these people but the opinion stays the same.

what the hell? This isn't a debate on energy policy or anything like that this is a discussion on Billy Beane on a website. So chill out.



Beane is part of the problem in MLB. If he is a minority owner he still would be able to be present when the ownership is discussing baseball matters. So if he knew that the owners who give him the money are short changing the baseball team and has the means to raise salaries then he is also at fault. But instead of being a whistle blower or anything like that he happily takes his cut and makes due with what he has. He then goes further in perpetuating the myth that certain teams cannot compete the same way because of the money they make, which is not true.

[Westlake]

what the hell? This isn't a debate on energy policy or anything like that this is a discussion on Billy Beane on a website. So chill out.



Beane is part of the problem in MLB. If he is a minority owner he still would be able to be present when the ownership is discussing baseball matters. So if he knew that the owners who give him the money are short changing the baseball team and has the means to raise salaries then he is also at fault. But instead of being a whistle blower or anything like that he happily takes his cut and makes due with what he has. He then goes further in perpetuating the myth that certain teams cannot compete the same way because of the money they make, which is not true.

NO DUDE IM FREAKING OUT!!!!111!!1

Like I said, your argument has changed too many time for me to take you seriously on this subject. He is a minority owner. He does not make the decisions. You blame the decisions on him. Makes complete sense.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Beane is part of the problem in MLB. If he is a minority owner he still would be able to be present when the ownership is discussing baseball matters.

I'm sure he does present all the time.


So if he knew that the owners who give him the money are short changing the baseball team and has the means to raise salaries then he is also at fault. But instead of being a whistle blower or anything like that he happily takes his cut and makes due with what he has.
Look, every owner decides how much money they want to spend on their teams. Some owners are happy to spend more than others. Others not so much. You can't force the cheap owners to spend more. They are able to afford to buy a major league team because they are mostly likely astute businessmen. They may not want to spend money knowing full well they will not get a return on investment. That is the nature of any business.



He then goes further in perpetuating the myth that certain teams cannot compete the same way because of the money they make, which is not true.
Baseball history utterly refutes your statement. Throughout history teams like the old Philadelphia A's, Phillies, St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves were terrible teams for decades. One hundred loss seasons were nothing for these teams. why do you think that is? And when has Beane has ever said certain teams cannot compete for economic reasons? That sounds more like Bud Selig.

[sturg1dj]

NO DUDE IM FREAKING OUT!!!!111!!1

Like I said, your argument has changed too many time for me to take you seriously on this subject. He is a minority owner. He does not make the decisions. You blame the decisions on him. Makes complete sense.

i just looked at my posts on this thread and they have all stayed pretty consistent. A couple of times I have veered to other aspects of the discussion because that is where the discussion was going but since my first post in this thread


Beane seems overrated to me. the team finds success, but they don't win rings. It must be a strange feeling being a fan of the A's knowing that your team will be in the thick of it come September and yet your owner and GM will do nothing to put your team over the top in the end.


it is like a more moderate version of the Marlins.

Its not like the A's never drew fans either...look at the late 80's early 90's.


btw did you know that Lewis Wolff, co-owner of the A's, was a frat brother of Bud Selig?




its like taking a dive, but a controlled dive.




my point has been that Beane does win games, but they are hollow victories because he tends to be a seller by the midpoint and takes the wind out of his teams sails.


I moved to talking about market size because that is the direction the discussion went. I do not think I was the one that brought it up, actually since my responses have been about how I do not believe that market size is really a factor, I would imagine I was responding to someone using market as an excuse.

[sturg1dj]

Baseball history utterly refutes your statement. Throughout history teams like the old Philadelphia A's, Phillies, St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves were terrible teams for decades. One hundred loss seasons were nothing for these teams. why do you think that is? And when has Beane has ever said certain teams cannot compete for economic reasons? That sounds more like Bud Selig.

baseball economy has changed. There is more money out there for all teams. You cannot compare the economics of the "dark ages" of baseball to today's game. Those teams didn't have revenue sharing or television contracts. They also were not owned by billionaires but instead were owned by baseball men such as former managers and players.

[Seattle1]

I bet the Mariners win at least 85-90 games in 2009.

[Wade8813]

Beane is part of the problem in MLB. If he is a minority owner he still would be able to be present when the ownership is discussing baseball matters. So if he knew that the owners who give him the money are short changing the baseball team and has the means to raise salaries then he is also at fault. But instead of being a whistle blower or anything like that he happily takes his cut and makes due with what he has. He then goes further in perpetuating the myth that certain teams cannot compete the same way because of the money they make, which is not true.
I think the real issue lies with your misperceptions of how business works. Beane has no say in how much the other owners will spend. He can't be a whistle blower, because there's nothing to blow a whistle about.

Would it make you feel better if Beane whined about how little he has to work with? Most people say they hate whiners.

[Food]

On KNBR's morning show two days ago, the hosts Murph and Mac liked Beane to Mao Zedong; saying that Beane, like Mao, has a plan that's just a few years away from perfect fruition, but for some strange reason it never happens. Apt.

[SamtheBravesFan]

On KNBR's morning show two days ago, the hosts Murph and Mac liked Beane to Mao Zedong; saying that Beane, like Mao, has a plan that's just a few years away from perfect fruition, but for some strange reason it never happens. Apt.

Great. This is what it has come to. Billy Beane is being compared to communist dictators. It's absurd. He's not on any "five-year plan". This has been his way of operating for all the time he has been general manager. He puts the best team out there that he can every year because of the money constraints. In a sense, he's reloading each year, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Brad Harris]

my point has been that Beane does win games, but they are hollow victories because he tends to be a seller by the midpoint and takes the wind out of his teams sails.
What exactly makes a win a "hollow victory"? Is there such a thing? The more games a team wins, the more the team is likely to increase its fans, its tickets, concessions and merchandise sold, etc.

If you're suggesting that Beane's trading knocks his teams out of the playoff chase (which is what it sounds like) then your statement is just flat out wrong. Beane's teams have a .527 winning percentage from Opening Day through the trade deadline and a .600 winning percentage from the trade deadline through the end of the regular season. Contrary to your contention, Beane's teams win more often after the trade deadline than before.

If you're saying that Beane's teams win a lot of games in the regular season but not in the playoffs then I have to point out the obvious: Billy Beane doesn't hit, pitch, run, field or throw; the players do that. It's not Beane's job to win ballgames, it's his job to maximize the resources he's given and put the best team he can on the field as often as possible.


I moved to talking about market size because that is the direction the discussion went. I do not think I was the one that brought it up, actually since my responses have been about how I do not believe that market size is really a factor, I would imagine I was responding to someone using market as an excuse.
Of course market size is a factor because you're criticism of Beane stems directly from the fact that Beane's actions are directly related to Oakland's market size and the lack of willingness by ownership to increase payroll. Sure Beane is an owner, but he is a minority owner and minority owners don't set payroll levels. It's ridiculous to think that the general manager of a club wouldn't speak up in support of a higher payroll when such things are discussed at ownership meetings - if indeed they are discussed at all with non executive shareholders.

I can see one legitimate criticism against Beane - that he doesn't do his job well - because the rest of these complaints are misdirected choruses about baseball's economic infrastructure or owners who place a greater premium on maximizing short-term profits over providing fans with a quality product. With the cards Beane has been dealt, he's a shark. And the only blood in these waters is seeping from his competitors.

[sturg1dj]

why does he stay with the A's?

if he has no control over the money situation and he is a genius you would think he would want to move on. you would also assume that any team would take him.

if he is not to blame for what goes on in Oakland then at least him staying legitimates the stance of the owner not to spend.

when your GM can win with nothing, why give him more money then?

[sturg1dj]

The more games a team wins, the more the team is likely to increase its fans, its tickets, concessions and merchandise sold, etc.

well apparently not if the A's are still so 'poor'

maybe the fans know what is going on. Maybe the fans know that Beane will never make the big trade needed to put them over the edge, so why invest any time in a team like that?

[Brad Harris]

why does he stay with the A's?

if he has no control over the money situation and he is a genius you would think he would want to move on. you would also assume that any team would take him.
Uhh...because it's a job? Beane has spent the better part of two decades in the Bay area. I would expect he thinks of it as his "home" by now - at age 46 - having a family and all that. Beane gets paid well for doing what he does. He's a general manager. A darn good one.

That's a far cry from "genius" though; a word I'd be hard-pressed to apply to anyone in Major League Baseball. Beane is well-paid for his skills and talents. Perhaps you don't remember, but after the 2002, the A's gave Beane permission to talk to Boston about their GM opening. Boston's owners made no secret of the fact Beane was their first choice for the job. Beane was the Dodgers' first choice for their GM opening the following year, with Frank McCourt allegedly dangling the duel position of Team President also. Although his salary has not been disclosed, it certainly numbers in the millions. The club has exercised at least three extensions and/or reworkings of Beane's contract over the past several years and he is currently contracted through the 2014 season. By the way, Beane's ownership stake is only 4% and team president Michael Crowley also received a stake at the same time the new ownership group (headed by Lewis Wolff) purchased the team. I couldn't tell you why Beane turned down the offers from Boston and LA, but if I lived in Oakland, I'd be very grateful that he did. I would think Beane has exhibited a respectable level of loyalty to his "home" team.

The point is that he's an excellent GM, he's been highly sought after by other (more prominent) teams but for whatever reasons he's opted to remain where he is. Seems to me that's something Oakland fans should be happy about.


if he is not to blame for what goes on in Oakland then at least him staying legitimates the stance of the owner not to spend.
He's "not to blame" for the (economic) rules of the game. He plays by the rules as they are and he succeeds at that. If you don't like the rules, that's fine, but that's an entirely different discussion. And Beane is trying to earn a living in an field of endeavor - baseball - that he loves; I'm sure he's more interested in financial security and job satisfaction than he is in trying to make a social statement. I know my presence at my job is all about my bank statement; whether I'm legitimizing my employer's practices by working here isn't something that ever crossed my mind. Here in the real world, that's not really a consideration for most people in the workforce.


when your GM can win with nothing, why give him more money then?
There's no need to act stupid.


well apparently not if the A's are still so 'poor'
Are you suggesting the team isn't making enough money? If you've got problems with the A's payroll not being larger, write a letter to Mr. Wolff. I'm sure he'd enjoy a good laugh.


maybe the fans know what is going on. Maybe the fans know that Beane will never make the big trade needed to put them over the edge, so why invest any time in a team like that?
Apparently you're the only one who knows "what is going on" around here. I've known many Oakland fans over the years and almost without exception they think Beane is a great general manager. Beane's done nothing but make big trades to put the team over the edge. As I stated in a previous post, under Beane's tenure, the A's have a much better winning percentage after the trade deadline than they do before. Season after season, Beane gives this team a brighter future. A's fans have more reason to invest in their team since Beane took over than they did before.

[Wade8813]

The more games a team wins, the more the team is likely to increase its fans, its tickets, concessions and merchandise sold, etc.
well apparently not if the A's are still so 'poor' The thing is, it's quite possible they'd be even worse off financially if they had some other GM. The theory isn't more wins = lots of money. The theory is more wins = more money. 'More' is comparative.

A lot of argument has been made about Oakland's success, or lack thereof. There's no debate that they have had a lot of regular season success. Yet they haven't done particularly well in the playoffs. Is that Beane's fault? It seems strange to me to say that it is, for several reasons.

1. The playoffs are a small sample size. Ted Williams was one of the best hitters this game has ever seen, and he batted .200 in the playoffs. That doesn't make him any better or worse as a player - it's only 7 games.

2. If you assemble a team that ends up choking, wouldn't it be a GOOD idea to trade for other players, in the hopes that you'd find players that don't choke?

3. People only notice the A's lack of success in the playoffs because they have so many appearances. If Beane's teams had reached the playoffs less often, people probably wouldn't even comment on it. It's unfair to criticize someone for doing better.

4. Yes, it's possible that the owners see that they're winning, and thus don't see a reason to increase salary. Does that mean Beane should stop winning, so they might increase the salary? Of course not.

[sturg1dj]

wow, lots of emotion here...to the point where people are taking shots at me for not liking a guy. I guess my first mistake was not directly answering the question of does Beane help or hurt, instead I answered if I like him and what he stands for. The answer is no.

That being said, do you guys think you are going to make me like Billy Beane? I have already said he is good at winning with nothing, which I see as a compliment. What more do you guys want, for me to say that I have an undying love for the guy. I can't do that. No man is an island, and nothing occurs in a vacuum. You guys may not like me linking him to ownership and cheap owners as a whole, and the myth of small markets...but thats what I see. Sue me.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

wow, lots of emotion here...to the point where people are taking shots at me for not liking a guy. I guess my first mistake was not directly answering the question of does Beane help or hurt, instead I answered if I like him and what he stands for. The answer is no.

That being said, do you guys think you are going to make me like Billy Beane? I have already said he is good at winning with nothing, which I see as a compliment. What more do you guys want, for me to say that I have an undying love for the guy. I can't do that. No man is an island, and nothing occurs in a vacuum. You guys may not like me linking him to ownership and cheap owners as a whole, and the myth of small markets...but thats what I see. Sue me.
No we don't want to make you like Beane. That would be silly. We have responded to your reasons you dislike Beane being illogical and based on poor reasoning. That's not taking shots at you, just taking shots at your underlying reasons for disliking him.

[Westlake]

wow, lots of emotion here...to the point where people are taking shots at me for not liking a guy. I guess my first mistake was not directly answering the question of does Beane help or hurt, instead I answered if I like him and what he stands for. The answer is no.

That being said, do you guys think you are going to make me like Billy Beane? I have already said he is good at winning with nothing, which I see as a compliment. What more do you guys want, for me to say that I have an undying love for the guy. I can't do that. No man is an island, and nothing occurs in a vacuum. You guys may not like me linking him to ownership and cheap owners as a whole, and the myth of small markets...but thats what I see. Sue me.

Not taking shots at you, just at your baseless and uneducated assumptions. I could really care less if you like him or not, but your reasoning is just ridiculous.

[Brad Harris]

On KNBR's morning show two days ago, the hosts Murph and Mac liked Beane to Mao Zedong; saying that Beane, like Mao, has a plan that's just a few years away from perfect fruition, but for some strange reason it never happens. Apt.

Maybe it's because I of where I was raised, but to me, comparing someone to Mao is no less insulting than comparing someone to Hitler or Stalin. Murph and Mac were no doubt trying to make a completely different point, but they probably could have found a better example to illustrate it. And given that KNBR broadcasts Giants games, is it fair to assume that their on air talent might be slightly biased against San Fran's neighbor? Regardless, I'll take Beane over Brian Sabean any day of the week.

[Brad Harris]

wow, lots of emotion here...
Funny, but the Beane haters have been displaying far more "emotion" in this thread than the majority of posters.

And no, no one's trying to convert you or attack you. Simply refuting those elements of your argument that we disagree with.

[Westlake]

is it fair to assume that their on air talent might be slightly biased against San Fran's neighbor? Regardless, I'll take Beane over Brian Sabean any day of the week.

No kidding. Brian Sabean is a fool. I spoke with a Giants scout the other day that told me that every scout AND the scouting director told Sabean to NOT sign Zito. Needless to say, they aren't fans of his.

Also, you're right about the Beane haters. One even got banned because of this thread and he had been here for over a year.

[sturg1dj]

ok then, here is the last thing I will say on the subject in this thread


If your team was only 5 games out of first place how would you feel as a fan if your GM traded 3 of your top 5 starting pitchers?

on just about any other team I see the move as pretty unfathomable.

[SamtheBravesFan]

If your team was only 5 games out of first place how would you feel as a fan if your GM traded 3 of your top 5 starting pitchers?


It depends on who those pitchers are.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

ok then, here is the last thing I will say on the subject in this thread


If your team was only 5 games out of first place how would you feel as a fan if your GM traded 3 of your top 5 starting pitchers?

on just about any other team I see the move as pretty unfathomable.
Don't you remember the Chicago White Sox "White Flag" trade on 1997?



'White flag' fallout examined

Lisa Winston
04/11/2001

They called it the "White Flag" trade. On July 31, 1997, at the trading deadline, the Chicago White Sox dealt a trio of veteran pitchers — Wilson Alvarez, Danny Darwin and Roberto Hernandez — to the San Francisco Giants for six young players, four pitchers and two position players, all minor leaguers.

At the time, the White Sox trailed Cleveland in the standings by just 3 1/2 games, yet it appeared they were giving up the chase, hence the trade's nickname. Sox fans were up in arms.

But more than three years later, that trade looks different. The White Sox finally blew past the Indians in 2000, winning 95 games and the AL Central title. They are favored to be just as competitive this year. Of the six players acquired from the Giants, four pitchers are very much in the White Sox's current picture.

Keith Foulke has emerged as the closer, collecting 34 saves with a 2.97 ERA last year. Bobby Howry is the setup man, posting a 3.31 ERA in three years with the club.

Two younger players could factor into the scenario this year.

Big right-hander Lorenzo Barcelo has come back from two elbow surgeries and figures prominently in the bullpen picture, perhaps as a future closer.

"I see him as a seventh-, eighth-inning guy for now and maybe somewhere down the line a ninth-inning guy," said Don Cooper, the White Sox's minor league pitching coordinator. "He's tough, aggressive. He isn't going to blow his chance."

Southpaw Ken Vining, also rehabilitating from arm surgery, has a bright future as well. The Clemson product, a fourth-rounder in 1996, missed most of 1999 with elbow trouble but returned in 2000 to strike out 41 batters in 46 1/3 innings at Double-A Birmingham.

"Right now he's throwing the ball better than he ever has since joining us," Cooper said. "He's bounced back from surgery because we took the time during his rehab to work on a lot of things."

What of the trio the Sox dealt away? Alvarez is with the Devil Rays, but missed all of last year with an injury. Hernandez is with Kansas City. Darwin? Out of baseball.

The summer of 1997 marked the beginning of the White Sox collection of perhaps the deepest stockpile of pitching talent in the game.

Aside from the acquisition of the talented quartet of relievers, the White Sox picked up current rotation stalwart southpaw Jim Parque and right-hander Rocky Biddle in the supplemental first round of that summer's draft.

Parque, a UCLA product, was in the majors a year after he was drafted. He went 13-6 with a 4.28 ERA for the Sox in 2000.

Biddle took a longer to emerge, having Tommy John surgery that cost him all of 1999. He responded by going 11-6 at Double-A Birmingham last year. He earned a call-up to the majors and appeared in four games.

In the next two years, they acquired via draft or trade nine more hurlers who were in major league camp this spring in Tucson and who all figure prominently in the White Sox's plans.

"It's a good problem to have because other people are always watching organizations and looking for good talent," Cooper said. "That's what makes the world go 'round. We might get some of our needs filled by trading a pitcher or two or three when we have this surplus. And I hope we keep having a bigger and bigger surplus every year so that can happen."

If there has been any kind of change in the scouting and drafting philosophy over the past few years, it's been a shift from looking for great deliveries to looking for great arms.

"Nothing really scares us off anymore delivery-wise," he said. "A few years back we were looking for the perfect delivery, but that's why the coaches are here, to make that delivery better. Meanwhile, there's no substitute for a good arm. If there's a delivery flaw or two, we can fix that. I like it this way."

[Brad Harris]

ok then, here is the last thing I will say on the subject in this thread


If your team was only 5 games out of first place how would you feel as a fan if your GM traded 3 of your top 5 starting pitchers?

on just about any other team I see the move as pretty unfathomable.

Depends on the circumstances, of course.

The A's traded their two most expensive, most injury-prone starters when they were six games out of first. In exchange, they got four inexpensive players who can help them win now and in the future. A corner outfielder, a utility player, a #3-4 type starter and a genuine catching prospect. Both Murton and Patterson hit .300 at AAA this year before going to Oakland. All four players are inexpensive and under contract for a long time. Harden and Gaudin could land on the DL at any time. Beane traded two guys when their value was highest. Gaudin is arbitration eligible this winter and Harden would be worth considerably less - even if healthy between then and now - if traded next year in his FA season.

The Blanton trade was an absolute steal. Blanton wasn't helping the team win this season and Beane got the best second base prospect in the minors plus a left-handed starter and another minor league bat thrown in. The A's can afford to trade their pitchers because they have a wealth of starting pitcher prospects at AA and AAA, several of whom are ready for a full tryout at the major league level.

At the time of the Harden trade, Oakland was firmly in second place, six games behind the Angels. They were 7.5 games out of the wildcard chase, behind five other teams. It's not as though they were in the thick of the playoff race. Beane assessed the team's chances of making the playoffs with the team they had, looked at the cost of acquiring additional talent for a run and decided it wasn't worth what he'd have to give up so he elected to be a seller; and wisely did so in early July than later in the month, being the first to plunder the market.

I don't expect the "average" fan to be realistic about their team's chances of reaching the playoffs. I live in Cincinnati and the average fan here certainly seems to have an overdeveloped sense of our ability to win in any given season, but GMs are paid to be realistic about such things, regardless of what they'd like to happen.

Beane could either (a) trade the future for a shot at 2008, (b) stand pat, or (c) trade a shot at 2008 for the future. I think he made the right choice.

How someone feels about a decision, however, is a piss poor way to evaluate whether that decision was the right one to make.

[Erik Bedard]

Same with the Orioles. As long as they don't trade Guthrie, Markakis, Jones, or The Savior of the Baltimore Orioles, Matt Wieters, I don't mind them being sellers instead of dumping prospects for two-month rentals for a playoff chase that probably won't pay off, since they play in the best division in the league.

[Brad Harris]

I'm curious where the perception comes from that Beane won't keep people for very long. Is there an example of a player Beane's traded who wasn't likely to leave via free agency in the ensuing 6-18 months?

He kept Hudson-Mulder-Zito together for five seasons. How many teams have a 1-2-3 top of the rotation together for that long?

He netted Dan Haren from the Mulder deal and that worked out great as the A's got three great years from Haren before dealing him before this season.

This was Joe Blanton's fifth season in Oakland; Rich Harden's sixth with the team. He's a free agent after next year. Where's this view come from that Beane somehow is keeping his players around significantly less than any other team?

Tejada, Isringhausen, Giambi, Zito, etc. opted to leave via free agency. Beane has a history of not trading players like that if the team is truly playoff bound.

To discredit Beane's decision this July, one has to make the assumption that the A's could play significantly better (and their opponents play significantly worse) in order to catch-up and reach the playoffs this October. If the team tried that and failed, the A's future would look much less bright than it does now.

How is Beane getting rid of players at a faster rate than anyone else?