PDA

View Full Version : FOBBs come here to comiserate


Jerome
10-03-2004, 02:20 PM
Jeremy, shagar, gosox41, all other wsi FOBBs...

We've had a rough weekend. Even though the A's lost to a team with twice their payroll, even though BB's right hand man Paul DiPodesta (sp?) just won a very tough division, we are taking a beating.


The A's were a team I could always root for because of BB and because the Sox were never in the playoffs. So who are the WSI FOBBs going to root for now? The Dodgers? The Red Sox? They don't even count count as a Moneyball team b/c their payroll is so high.

Sighhhhh. This baseball year sucks. At least the Cub didn't end up doing anything.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2004, 02:43 PM
Hey, you don't mind if I crash your party do you?
:tongue:

I'll bring the Kleenex.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

shagar69
10-03-2004, 02:47 PM
dont worry jerome. im still convinced that beane is a very good drafter and that his philiosphy works. is it the only way? no, of course not. but it works! and i will be rooting for the cards or stros.

HomeFish
10-03-2004, 02:48 PM
The blame for Oakland not making the playoffs can be put squarely on the shoulders of one man and of one man alone: Octavio Dotel.

FarWestChicago
10-03-2004, 03:08 PM
The blame for Oakland not making the playoffs can be put squarely on the shoulders of one man and of one man alone: Octavio Dotel.And who put him on the team? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 03:18 PM
And who put him on the team? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif
Well he had to. Arthur Rhodes wasn't getting the job done. It's not Billy's fault that he gave Rhodes a 3 year deal worth 9 million. Billy also had the Chad Bradford he was bragging about in ''Moneyball."

kittle42
10-03-2004, 03:48 PM
And who put him on the team? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif
POTY

SOXSINCE'70
10-03-2004, 05:18 PM
What is a FOBB??:dunno: :dunno:

FarWestChicago
10-03-2004, 05:24 PM
What is a FOBB??:dunno: :dunno:It's in the dictionary (http://www.flyingsock.com/glossary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=157).

nodiggity59
10-03-2004, 05:44 PM
Billy Bean = Above average but nothing special. Got lucky with 3 very good pitchers and when they're just good and not great, it exposes just how mediocre the rest of his team is. BTW it's possible Zito will never have a sub 4.00 ERA season from here on out.

shagar69
10-03-2004, 06:30 PM
Billy Bean = Above average but nothing special. Got lucky with 3 very good pitchers and when they're just good and not great, it exposes just how mediocre the rest of his team is. BTW it's possible Zito will never have a sub 4.00 ERA season from here on out.
how did he get "lucky"? he drafted two out of the threee? he also had to make a tough choice between giambi and chavez, and looks like he made the right decision. he also drafter a SS and developed him in 2 yrs. he also found guys of the scrapheap like durazo and hatteberg who are having unbelieveable seasons, especially durazo.

doublem23
10-03-2004, 06:31 PM
how did he get "lucky"? he drafted two out of the threee? he also had to make a tough choice between giambi and chavez, and looks like he made the right decision. Good thing he developed that moneyball thereom to predict tumors and what not.

:rolleyes:

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 06:33 PM
how did he get "lucky"? he drafted two out of the threee? he also had to make a tough choice between giambi and chavez, .
I could've sworn he had to choose between Tejada and Chavez. (Tejada was a FA before this season, Chavez signed a big deal before this season.)
Who would you rather have, Tejada or Chavez?

duke of dorwood
10-03-2004, 06:41 PM
Bean:

"I didnt know Jermaine Dye only hit against Chicago

kittle42
10-03-2004, 11:01 PM
I do believe it's "Beane."

flo-B-flo
10-03-2004, 11:08 PM
The blame for Oakland not making the playoffs can be put squarely on the shoulders of one man and of one man alone: Octavio Dotel. Funny I thought it was Vlad Guerrero the AL MVP this year. And what an owner huh?:smile:

nodiggity59
10-03-2004, 11:12 PM
It's clear now he made the WRONG decision w/ Tejada and Chavez. Tejada has much better numbers and makes everyone else better b/c he is a leader. Bobby Crosby has stepped up admirably, but that team is now missing heart and leadership. Maybe Crosby could have moved to third. If not, he'd have been better off trading Chavez and Crosby for bullpen help and a young 3b. Oh, wait a minute, didn't the As just a trade a highly touted 3B in the Dotel deal? Now the decision to let Tejada go looks downright asinine.

Giambi?? *****, that wasn't his decision to make. The decision for Giambi to play in NY was made by Steinbrenner and Cashman. Whether Beane wanted to keep him or not is immaterial. He would have been a Yankee either way.

Lastly, he did only draft 2 Big 3 and one the ones he drafted, Zito, has been a #3 starter at best for the last 2 years. So basically, he drafted 1 good pitcher.

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 03:26 AM
It's clear now he made the WRONG decision w/ Tejada and Chavez. Tejada has much better numbers and makes everyone else better b/c he is a leader. Bobby Crosby has stepped up admirably, but that team is now missing heart and leadership. Maybe Crosby could have moved to third. If not, he'd have been better off trading Chavez and Crosby for bullpen help and a young 3b. Oh, wait a minute, didn't the As just a trade a highly touted 3B in the Dotel deal? Now the decision to let Tejada go looks downright asinine.Keeping Chavez over Tejada was an extremely defensible move. Hitting-wise, they're about the same (I'd give the edge to Chavez, he edges out Tejada in career EqA .285 to .269), though Chavez has made a tremendous improvement in his walk rate (led the AL in walks this year I think). Add in the fact that he hit lefties better than ever this year, I think it's safe to say Chavez will be one of the better third baseman in baseball for the next several years. I haven't even mentioned his defense. Using any advanced defensive metric, Chavez is one of the best defensive third basemen in the majors (just behind six 3B according to Ultimate Zone Rating*). The media seems to agree with the numbers, as he's won three consecutive Gold Gloves.

This isn't to take anything away from Tejada, who is also a great player. Good hitter, always healthy. His defense, however, is a bit lacking (about average according to UZR*). Coupled with the fact that Bobby Crosby was the PCL's best player in 2003, that spelled the end for Tejada in Oakland.

In my opinion, if it was up to Beane, he most likely would have kept both Tejada and Chavez. Alas, A's owner Steve Schott is a penny-pinching bastard, and he was only able to keep one. I for one think he made the right choice.

A few other things:
- Why move Crosby when he both hits and fields well for a SS?
- Mark Teahan was the guy traded for Dotel. I never recall him being a highly-touted prospect, though he did hit well in AA (though almost anyone can hit well in the Texas League). Considering park factors, he struggled a bit in AAA. With Chavez on the A's, however, he would've never played a game at third base for Oakland.
- Calling Octavio Dotel anything but a dominating reliever is hindsight. Prior to 2004, Dotel had ERA+s of 171, 232, and 178 as a reliever. I won't disagree that Dotel was a gascan this year (way too many homers), but it's hard to say that the guy was a bad reliever. I'd call him a much better version of Billy Koch.

Lastly, he did only draft 2 Big 3 and one the ones he drafted, Zito, has been a #3 starter at best for the last 2 years. So basically, he drafted 1 good pitcher.How many number three starters had a 129 ERA+ in 2003?

Also, I'd wait before judging Beane's drafting record of pitchers. He has guys like Joe Blanton, Brad Knox, Steve Bondurant, Jairo Garcia (actually, he was signed out of the DR), Dallas Braden, Jason Windsor, and Huston Street in the minors. At least three of those pitchers (Garcia, Street, and Blanton) will probably see time with the A's next year. I also forgot Rich Harden, who finished with an ERA around four while striking out about eight guys per game for Oakland.

* Here are the data on UZR: http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html Lichtman's method can be found in the Baseball Think Factory archives I believe (sorry, too lazy to look it up now... plus I'm supposed to be working on a paper :D: )

Why do I even bother. I'll just be called an idiot as usual. Must be the masochist in me... :smile:

SOXSINCE'70
10-04-2004, 08:22 AM
It's in the dictionary (http://www.flyingsock.com/glossary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=157).
Thanks.:D:

The Wimperoo
10-04-2004, 08:23 AM
Good article

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/release-the-hounds/

Flight #24
10-04-2004, 11:54 AM
Keeping Chavez over Tejada was an extremely defensible move.

...

- Calling Octavio Dotel anything but a dominating reliever is hindsight. Prior to 2004, Dotel had ERA+s of 171, 232, and 178 as a reliever. I won't disagree that Dotel was a gascan this year (way too many homers), but it's hard to say that the guy was a bad reliever. I'd call him a much better version of Billy Koch.

How many number three starters had a 129 ERA+ in 2003?

Also, I'd wait before judging Beane's drafting record of pitchers. He has guys like Joe Blanton, Brad Knox, Steve Bondurant, Jairo Garcia (actually, he was signed out of the DR), Dallas Braden, Jason Windsor, and Huston Street in the minors. At least three of those pitchers (Garcia, Street, and Blanton) will probably see time with the A's next year. I also forgot Rich Harden, who finished with an ERA around four while striking out about eight guys per game for Oakland.


That's one of the things about using a pure statistical analysis. Tejada does a lot more for his team than Chavez in terms of leadership and keeping the team moving forward, IMO. Hard to quantify, but definitely a factor. Similarly, they don't reflect how a guy may not be able to adjust to different roles. Dotel was awesome as a setup man. Much like LaTroya Hawkins, and to some extent even Kyle Farnsworth. But as a closer - no dice. The opposite would be Shingo, who seems to have a great mentality for closing, but lacks the pure stuff.

Harden was pretty solid, but to say he'll be able to replace one of the big 3 is a bit of a stretch at this point. As for the prospects, the general difficulty in translating great minor league stats to the bigs for pitchers, combined with the injury potential makes me a bit leery of claiming that they'll be able to replace even Harden's performance with one of them in the near future (assuming Harden moves up in the rotation to replace one of the big 3).

gosox41
10-04-2004, 12:00 PM
Billy Bean = Above average but nothing special. Got lucky with 3 very good pitchers and when they're just good and not great, it exposes just how mediocre the rest of his team is. BTW it's possible Zito will never have a sub 4.00 ERA season from here on out.
And if KW had these 3 pitchers (plus a Rick Harden) you would be worshipping him.

It's possible you don't know very much about Bille Beane, especially when he compares to KW.


Bob

gosox41
10-04-2004, 12:05 PM
It's clear now he made the WRONG decision w/ Tejada and Chavez. Tejada has much better numbers and makes everyone else better b/c he is a leader. Bobby Crosby has stepped up admirably, but that team is now missing heart and leadership. Maybe Crosby could have moved to third. If not, he'd have been better off trading Chavez and Crosby for bullpen help and a young 3b. Oh, wait a minute, didn't the As just a trade a highly touted 3B in the Dotel deal? Now the decision to let Tejada go looks downright asinine.

Giambi?? *****, that wasn't his decision to make. The decision for Giambi to play in NY was made by Steinbrenner and Cashman. Whether Beane wanted to keep him or not is immaterial. He would have been a Yankee either way.

Lastly, he did only draft 2 Big 3 and one the ones he drafted, Zito, has been a #3 starter at best for the last 2 years. So basically, he drafted 1 good pitcher.
Harden has the potential to be pretty good. And Blanton is waiting in the wings.

Also, if the Sox and KW drafted a pitcher like Zito we'd be thirlled.


Bob


Bob

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 04:34 PM
That's one of the things about using a pure statistical analysis. Tejada does a lot more for his team than Chavez in terms of leadership and keeping the team moving forward, IMO. Hard to quantify, but definitely a factor.Who's to say Chavez isn't a leader? In his six years with the A's, his character has never been questioned. Neither you (I assume) nor I have access to the A's clubhouse, so we can't comment on the players' personalities. It's all speculation.

And if you're implying that Beane doesn't take chemistry into account while constructing a team, I disagree. In 2002, he traded Jeremy Giambi (.274/.390/.471 at the time of the deal) for John Mabry (.286/.304/.286) just to shake things up.

Similarly, they don't reflect how a guy may not be able to adjust to different roles. Dotel was awesome as a setup man. Much like LaTroya Hawkins, and to some extent even Kyle Farnsworth. But as a closer - no dice. The opposite would be Shingo, who seems to have a great mentality for closing, but lacks the pure stuff.Dotel closed games for Houston from the start of the 2004 season until he was traded. In that time, he had a 3.12 ERA and was 14 for 17 in save opportunities. Didn't seem to struggle much then.

Harden was pretty solid, but to say he'll be able to replace one of the big 3 is a bit of a stretch at this point. As for the prospects, the general difficulty in translating great minor league stats to the bigs for pitchers, combined with the injury potential makes me a bit leery of claiming that they'll be able to replace even Harden's performance with one of them in the near future (assuming Harden moves up in the rotation to replace one of the big 3).I never compared Harden to the Big Three nor was I trying to predict future success for any of the pitchers I named. The previous poster questioned Beane's success in regards to drafting pitchers, and I just threw out some players who have (so far) pitched well in the Oakland system.

FarWestChicago
10-04-2004, 05:39 PM
Also, if the Sox and KW drafted a pitcher like Zito we'd be thirlled.


Bob:smokin: on Bob!!

shagar69
10-04-2004, 06:22 PM
It's clear now he made the WRONG decision w/ Tejada and Chavez. Tejada has much better numbers and makes everyone else better b/c he is a leader. Bobby Crosby has stepped up admirably, but that team is now missing heart and leadership. Maybe Crosby could have moved to third. If not, he'd have been better off trading Chavez and Crosby for bullpen help and a young 3b. Oh, wait a minute, didn't the As just a trade a highly touted 3B in the Dotel deal? Now the decision to let Tejada go looks downright asinine.

Giambi?? *****, that wasn't his decision to make. The decision for Giambi to play in NY was made by Steinbrenner and Cashman. Whether Beane wanted to keep him or not is immaterial. He would have been a Yankee either way.

Lastly, he did only draft 2 Big 3 and one the ones he drafted, Zito, has been a #3 starter at best for the last 2 years. So basically, he drafted 1 good pitcher.
youre right, the choice was between tejada/chavez, my bad. but guess what, he STILL made the right decision! he KNEW he had crosby waiting in the wings, and knew that he would be able to replace tejada adequetley. and mark teahan is not that highly touted, he is a decent prospect. but he did give up mark wood also, which was a bad move. so yeah, i will admit that the trade for dotel was not that great, depending on how teahan and wood turn out, but by no means was letting tejada go asinine

shagar69
10-04-2004, 06:24 PM
Harden has the potential to be pretty good. And Blanton is waiting in the wings.

Also, if the Sox and KW drafted a pitcher like Zito we'd be thirlled.


Bob


Bob
harden IS going to be very good.i was very impressed when i saw him pitch against us. he as got a good arm, reaching 97 mph. and i have heard good things about blanton also, although IIRC, he struggled a bit in AAA.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 06:27 PM
Jairo Garcia (actually, he was signed out of the DR),
garcia has UNBELIEVABLE talent. i have seen him play at Kane county. he has an electric arm and is only 19! its pretty amazing that he made it from the kane county cougars, all the way up to the major league club during one season

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 06:29 PM
Who's to say Chavez isn't a leader? In his six years with the A's, his character has never been questioned. Neither you (I assume) nor I have access to the A's clubhouse, so we can't comment on the players' personalities. It's all speculation.

It is not pure speculation. Miguel Tejada is consistently referred to as one of the most energetic, enthusiastic players in the game. He has infused life into Baltimore. You cannot ignore such a wide spread reputation a guy has. Chavez has no such rep nor displays it on the field.

Also, Beane constructed a bullpen that blew 26 saves.

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 06:35 PM
Further, Bobby Crosby hit .240 this year.

By the White Sox fans double standard of hating their team, owner, and GM no matter what, any player who hits under .260 is either "useless" or "questionable".

A perfect example is Juan Uribe:

Why isn't KW getting credit for finding a 25 year old (1 year older) who had over 20 homers, batted around .275-.280, and plays outstanding defense. This player also had more RBIs than Crosby. This player did all this in ~50 less ABs than Crosby.

Randar68
10-04-2004, 06:35 PM
youre right, the choice was between tejada/chavez, my bad. but guess what, he STILL made the right decision! he KNEW he had crosby waiting in the wings, and knew that he would be able to replace tejada adequetley. and mark teahan is not that highly touted, he is a decent prospect. but he did give up mark wood also, which was a bad move. so yeah, i will admit that the trade for dotel was not that great, depending on how teahan and wood turn out, but by no means was letting tejada go asinine
As an aside, I think it's absolutely hillarious that the great Billy Beane had 1 solitary prospect on the top-20 prospect list for the AA Texas League, and that was Teahan, who they traded. Teahan was relatively highly regarded and the only of the "Moneyball" draft picks who wasn't considered an overdraft at the time. Don't make me dig up Billy Beane quotes. FWIW, the Sox had 3 in the AA Southern League, traded one of them(Morse)...

Yet, KW has destroyed all that is good and right in the world of prospect and the Sox Farm System.

BTW, BA's lists are comprised by the polling of the league managers, so keep the BP/BA complaints out of this.

Randar68
10-04-2004, 06:37 PM
Why isn't KW getting credit for finding a 25 year old (1 year older) who had over 20 homers, batted around .275-.280, and plays outstanding defense. This player also had more RBIs than Crosby. This player did all this in ~50 less ABs than Crosby.
Because he traded "The Mighty Midget Pylon" for him. We clearly were robbed.

Look no further than the initials "KW". If they aren't "BB"...(fill in the rest)

shagar69
10-04-2004, 06:46 PM
As an aside, I think it's absolutely hillarious that the great Billy Beane had 1 solitary prospect on the top-20 prospect list for the AA Texas League, and that was Teahan, who they traded. Teahan was relatively highly regarded and the only of the "Moneyball" draft picks who wasn't considered an overdraft at the time. Don't make me dig up Billy Beane quotes. FWIW, the Sox had 3 in the AA Southern League, traded one of them(Morse)...

Yet, KW has destroyed all that is good and right in the world of prospect and the Sox Farm System.

BTW, BA's lists are comprised by the polling of the league managers, so keep the BP/BA complaints out of this.
who cares? he's got chavez there who is signed for like 5 more years. they dont need a 3b. they had to trade him anyway

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 06:51 PM
who cares? he's got chavez there who is signed for like 5 more years. they dont need a 3b. they had to trade him anyway
Who cares about Reed? Sox have Lee, Rowand, and Maggs if they want to resign him (it was not certain at the time of the deal Maggs would not be back or was seriously injured).

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I criticize Beane for the deal b/c I feel Tejada would have been a better investment. That said, IF Chavez was the better deal, then ya who cares about Blanton.

Randar68
10-04-2004, 07:02 PM
who cares? he's got chavez there who is signed for like 5 more years. they dont need a 3b. they had to trade him anyway
Wait, the Sox have a lot of OF depth and the picture was clearing up until Maggs was injured, yet they traded away Reed for a #2 pitcher and the outcry was heard...

Yet, when BB deals from strength, it was "he needed to be traded?"

*****.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 07:38 PM
Who cares about Reed? Sox have Lee, Rowand, and Maggs if they want to resign him (it was not certain at the time of the deal Maggs would not be back or was seriously injured).

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I criticize Beane for the deal b/c I feel Tejada would have been a better investment. That said, IF Chavez was the better deal, then ya who cares about Blanton.
1. it was 50-50 AT BEST that we would be able to resign him at the money he wanted.
2. teahean is not even close to reed, prospect wise. reed has a MUCH higher ceiling than teahan

shagar69
10-04-2004, 07:39 PM
Wait, the Sox have a lot of OF depth and the picture was clearing up until Maggs was injured, yet they traded away Reed for a #2 pitcher and the outcry was heard...

Yet, when BB deals from strength, it was "he needed to be traded?"

*****.
teahan is not reed. reed was highly regarded by all publications and scouts. it was widley agreed upon that he was going to be a special player. teahan is just another, run of the mill, good prospect, who may or may not turn out

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 08:05 PM
teahan is not reed. reed was highly regarded by all publications and scouts. it was widley agreed upon that he was going to be a special player. teahan is just another, run of the mill, good prospect, who may or may not turn out
Despite Reed's status as a prospect, it is still more likely than not he will be worse than the 3 outfielders we had at the time b/c he was still a prospect, no matter how highly regarded. How many top prospects bust? We had sure things in the majors and more good prospects in the minors, Reed was COMPLETELY expendable.

Also, once and for all, the As miss Tejada more than they would miss Chavez. Chavez could have been TRADED (perhaps to help the As terrible bullpen?) for more talent, Crosby could have been dealt or played 3rd or 2nd instead of the ancient Mclemore (sp?), Teahan is a decent option.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 08:07 PM
Despite Reed's status as a prospect, it is still more likely than not he will be worse than the 3 outfielders we had at the time b/c he was still a prospect, no matter how highly regarded. How many top prospects bust? We had sure things in the majors and more good prospects in the minors, Reed was COMPLETELY expendable.

Also, once and for all, the As miss Tejada more than they would miss Chavez. Chavez could have been TRADED (perhaps to help the As terrible bullpen?) for more talent, Crosby could have been dealt or played 3rd or 2nd instead of the ancient Mclemore (sp?), Teahan is a decent option.
they have scutaro at 2b, who is a good, young player. and how do you know that crosby could of moved to 3b? he was drafted as a SS and came up through the system as an SS. and like i said before, it was 50-50 at best that we were gonna sign maggs, just because of the money he wanted.

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 08:09 PM
Wait, the Sox have a lot of OF depth and the picture was clearing up until Maggs was injured, yet they traded away Reed for a #2 pitcher and the outcry was heard...

Yet, when BB deals from strength, it was "he needed to be traded?"

*****.
It's an absolute joke, it's basically a double standard for kenny I just don't get it. Can you imagine if KW traded Teahan and Blowtel, oh my would there be an uproar by the fobb.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 08:13 PM
It's an absolute joke, it's basically a double standard for kenny I just don't get it. Can you imagine if KW traded Teahan and Blowtel, oh my would there be an uproar by the fobb.
well thats because we dont have a lot in our system. the a's have a buch of guys already in the majors who are young and cheap, and they have a couple more coming. and i dont understand the double standard. what about reed>>>>>teahan dont you understand?

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 08:16 PM
well thats because we dont have a lot in our system. the a's have a buch of guys already in the majors who are young and cheap, and they have a couple more coming. and i dont understand the double standard. what about reed>>>>>teahan dont you understand?
What don't you understand that neither has proven crap in the majors while Freddy has proven to be a solid number 2 starter in the bigs while dotel has proven he can't close a game yet he was brought into to be a closer, like I said if KW made that trade, he'd be dead right now.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 08:20 PM
What don't you understand that neither has proven crap in the majors while Freddy has proven to be a solid number 2 starter in the bigs while dotel has proven he can't close a game yet he was brought into to be a closer, like I said if KW made that trade, he'd be dead right now. we could of signed freddy in the offseason. considering how fast he signed the extension, im sure that we could of gotten him. and freddy is supposed to be an ace, not a number two, which he hasnt been either

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 08:28 PM
we could of signed freddy in the offseason. considering how fast he signed the extension, im sure that we could of gotten him. and freddy is supposed to be an ace, not a number two, which he hasnt been either
Dumbest.Argument.Ever. We were in the pennant race what does signing freddy in the offseason do for us at the time?? Plus if he gets traded to the yankees or red sox or whoever who's to say they don't sign him to an extention, oh yeah if he reached free agency you think the sox would have outbid the yanks or bosox for him??

shagar69
10-04-2004, 08:37 PM
Dumbest.Argument.Ever. We were in the pennant race what does signing freddy in the offseason do for us at the time?? Plus if he gets traded to the yankees or red sox or whoever who's to say they don't sign him to an extention, oh yeah if he reached free agency you think the sox would have outbid the yanks or bosox for him??
nothing said that the yanks or bosox wanted him

dcb33
10-04-2004, 08:41 PM
nothing said that the yanks or bosox wanted himAre you kidding me? Have you taken a look lately at the Yankees pitching rotation, or the pitching rotation of the Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals for that matter? You're only fooling yourself if you think Freddy Garcia wouldn't have been one of the prized FA starting pitchers this offseason...

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 08:43 PM
nothing said that the yanks or bosox wanted him
Are you kidding? Over 15 teams were reported to have wanted him (back when evrybody was in it), most prominently the Yankees!!! Cashman specifically was qouted as saying the Yanks had been outbid by KW.

If Freddy had gone to free agency, there is NO guarantee we could have gotten him. Jeez, they offered Vazquez 10mil for 4 years, and he's not even a former Cy Young winner! Plus, Freddy had the lowest or 2nd lowest ERA in the AL at the time. The Yanks would have offered him at least #2-3 mil more per year than us (plus another year on the deal), and who's to say he wouldn't have taken it?

shagar69
10-04-2004, 08:43 PM
Are you kidding me? Have you taken a look lately at the Yankees pitching rotation, or the pitching rotation of the Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals for that matter? You're only fooling yourself if you don't think Freddy Garcia wouldn't have been one of the prized FA starting pitchers this offseason...
well all this is besides the point, i should of not even brought it up. all i gotta say is that i still believe that beane is a good GM and that his philosophy works, but of course its not the only one that works. i still belive in his drafting ability and player evaluation talent

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 08:43 PM
It is not pure speculation. Miguel Tejada is consistently referred to as one of the most energetic, enthusiastic players in the game. He has infused life into Baltimore. You cannot ignore such a wide spread reputation a guy has.Never denied this. I disagree with the notion that...

Chavez has no such rep nor displays it on the field.... Eric Chavez is an antisocial bastard. Do you have any evidence showing Chavez as an insufferable prick?

Also, Beane constructed a bullpen that blew 26 saves.OK. The Twins blew 20 saves, the Giants 28, the Astros 23, the Yankees and Angels 17.

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 08:48 PM
OK. The Twins blew 20 saves, the Giants 28, the Astros 23, the Yankees and Angels 17.
Right. You'll notice the two worst teams on that list (in terms of blown saves) are NOT in the playoffs. No one ever said the margin between victory and defeat was monumental. As they say, "It's a game of inches" and Beane missed the mark with his pen. Also, you'll note the Astros and As were both teams that used Dotel for long stretches of the season.

Also, in the case of the Angels, that's potentially a nine game swing! Now, maybe they didn't lose all of those games, but even 5 or 6 extra losses is enough to define a noticeable difference in bullpen quality.

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 08:51 PM
... Eric Chavez is an antisocial bastard. Do you have any evidence showing Chavez as an insufferable prick?


My argument was not that he was, but rather that Tejada's leadership and prescence is among the tops in all of baseball, whereas Chavez's is not. However, this is based purely on the reputation of both players. Tejada is constantly praised for his effect on teams, Chavez is not. Take it for what you will. It does not, however, signify that Chavez is a BAD prescence.

santo=dorf
10-04-2004, 08:56 PM
nothing said that the yanks or bosox wanted him
"There's a misbelief that we do not have the players, and that we did not have the players to get the deal done with the Royals or the deal done with the Mariners when Freddy Garcia and Carlos Beltran were available and I can tell you that's not the case," Cashman said. "The Mariners wound up getting a great deal from the White Sox. They beat out probably 15 teams fighting for Freddy Garcia. And the White Sox beat everybody out with a phenomenal, overwhelming offer. It didn't mean we didn't have anything that would work. I know for a fact that we had stuff that would work."
Brian Cashman, GM of the Yankees.


The deal with Chicago wound up the winner in a lottery of six pursuers — including the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers. The New York Mets fell out when they refused to part with top third-base prospect David Wright. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2001967810_marinews29.html

Don't write checks that your ass can't cash. Everyone knew that Boston and New York were in the hunt for Freddy Garcia.

dcb33
10-04-2004, 09:03 PM
Right. You'll notice the two worst teams on that list (in terms of blown saves) are NOT in the playoffs. No one ever said the margin between victory and defeat was monumental. As they say, "It's a game of inches" and Beane missed the mark with his pen. Also, you'll note the Astros and As were both teams that used Dotel for long stretches of the season.

Also, in the case of the Angels, that's potentially a nine game swing! Now, maybe they didn't lose all of those games, but even 5 or 6 extra losses is enough to define a noticeable difference in bullpen quality.The off year that the combination of Hudson, Mulder, and Zito had certainly did nothing to help the cause with their bullpen. These three guys were touted as the "Prior, Wood, and Zambrano" of the American League. Although they all had good years, they pitched nearly 40 fewer innings than in 2003 and had a combined ERA that was well over 1 run higher than last year's. When the guys who are supposed to carry the pitching staff end up pitching fewer innings and start giving up more runs that will do nothing but put more pressure on an already weak bullpen, especially when you have an offense that does not score bunches of runs, and does nothing to manufacture them when they need them (the A's do not bunt or steal).. Letting Foulke go to Boston tells me that Oakland had a lot of confidence these guys would give a repeat performance of 2003, which obviously did not happen. Is there a chapter in Moneyball entitled "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"? If not there should be...

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 09:09 PM
As an aside, I think it's absolutely hillarious that the great Billy Beane had 1 solitary prospect on the top-20 prospect list for the AA Texas League, and that was Teahan, who they traded. Teahan was relatively highly regarded and the only of the "Moneyball" draft picks who wasn't considered an overdraft at the time. Don't make me dig up Billy Beane quotes. FWIW, the Sox had 3 in the AA Southern League, traded one of them(Morse)...Come on, Randar, you're better than this. Using the Midland Rockhouds as an example of the A's farm system woes is like saying the Sox farm system blows because Felix Diaz was the only legitimate prospect to spend the whole season in Charlotte (well, there was Jeremy Reed, but he's no longer with the Sox).

The A's had twelve players in BA's minor league prospect lists (Sox had 14). From Sacramento, the A's had Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton (with Dan Johnson making the Second Team). From Modesto, Omar Quintanilla came in at 19 (and guys like Nelson Cruz, Jason Perry, Brian Stavisky, and Andre Ethier all could have made the top 20). From Kane County, Jairo Garcia was the sixth-best prospect. From Vancouver, Javi Herrera, Richie Robnett, Kurt Suzuki, and Landon Powell made the top 20. From the Arizona League, Alexi Ogando and Connor Robertson made the top 20. Why neither Brad Knox nor Steve Bondurant made the MWL's top 20 is beyond me.

Anyway, quibbles aside, I'd say both the A's and Sox systems are quite strong.

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 09:25 PM
Right. You'll notice the two worst teams on that list (in terms of blown saves) are NOT in the playoffs. No one ever said the margin between victory and defeat was monumental. As they say, "It's a game of inches" and Beane missed the mark with his pen. Also, you'll note the Astros and As were both teams that used Dotel for long stretches of the season.Dotel blew three saves in 17 oportunities for the Astros. That's an 82% conversion rate. MLB average the past several years is like 86%.

Also, in the case of the Angels, that's potentially a nine game swing! Now, maybe they didn't lose all of those games, but even 5 or 6 extra losses is enough to define a noticeable difference in bullpen quality.Remember, not every blown save is of the ninth inning variety. Damaso Marte had six blown saves this year, seven in 2003, and he's not been our closer the past two years. Anyway, using blown saves to analyze a bullpen's effectiveness is not a good way to find answers. I disagree with a lot of Baseball Prospectus's stats (the fact that they don't publish their methods irks me), but I would put some trust in their reliever evaluation tools*. Using adjusted runs prevented, the A's bullpen ranked sixth in the AL, about where I'd expect them to be.

*- Here's the Reliever Evaluation Tools site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/rrereport04.html#teamtot

MarkEdward
10-04-2004, 09:29 PM
My argument was not that he was, but rather that Tejada's leadership and prescence is among the tops in all of baseball, whereas Chavez's is not. However, this is based purely on the reputation of both players. Tejada is constantly praised for his effect on teams, Chavez is not. Take it for what you will. It does not, however, signify that Chavez is a BAD prescence.
Well, since neither you nor I are close to Oakland's organiztion, I suggest we agree to disagree on this argument, seeing as though we're both arguing based on large amounts of speculation.

santo=dorf
10-04-2004, 09:44 PM
Wait, the Sox have a lot of OF depth and the picture was clearing up until Maggs was injured, yet they traded away Reed for a #2 pitcher and the outcry was heard...

Yet, when BB deals from strength, it was "he needed to be traded?"

*****.
:worship: Randar68

:fobbgod:

"LISTEN TO ME NOT RANDAR!!!! KW IS A HORRIBLE GM AND HAS DESTROYED HIS FARM SYSTEM!!!"

shagar69
10-04-2004, 09:56 PM
:worship: Randar68

:fobbgod:

"LISTEN TO ME NOT RANDAR!!!! KW IS A HORRIBLE GM AND HAS DESTROYED HIS FARM SYSTEM!!!"
how did we have depth? honestly, how many people thought that we were gonna resign maggs for what he wanted? and also, honestly, at the time the trade was made, how many people had confidence in rowand to be productive all year? and the point that i am making is that reed was considered by all publications and scouts to be a very special prospect(and thats all that any of us can rely on) teahan was just a good 3b prospect, probably not even top 15 3b in the minors. and i have never said that KW is a horrible GM. i have merely said that KW is an average to slightly below average GM, and that beane is a good GM and a great drafter IMO.

ChiSoxRowand
10-04-2004, 09:57 PM
Oakland's starting pitching was crap in september, which is unusual. Especially Mulder. And they chose Chavez because they had Crosby waiting at SS.

Billy Beane=best gm in baseball

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:00 PM
[QUOTE=ChiSoxRowand]Oakland's starting pitching was crap in september, which is unusual. Especially Mulder. And they chose Chavez because they had Crosby waiting at SS.

Billy Beane=best gm in baseball[/QUOTE thank you. yes it was crap in september, which is NOT beanes fault, just like mags and frank going down is NOT kw's fault.

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 10:00 PM
how did we have depth? honestly, how many people thought that we were gonna resign maggs for what he wanted? and also, honestly, at the time the trade was made, how many people had confidence in rowand to be productive all year? and the point that i am making is that reed was considered by all publications and scouts to be a very special prospect(and thats all that any of us can rely on) teahan was just a good 3b prospect, probably not even top 15 3b in the minors. and i have never said that KW is a horrible GM. i have merely said that KW is an average to slightly below average GM, and that beane is a good GM and a great drafter IMO.
All publications?? I've seen many publications claim he's the next Mark Kotsay and besides I'd rather not rely on publications for my info

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:01 PM
All publications?? I've seen many publications claim he's the next Mark Kotsay and besides I'd rather not rely on publications for my info
well unless you are trained in baseball scouting and watched him play, how else are you going to determine how good he is or is not?

nodiggity59
10-04-2004, 10:04 PM
Barry Zito was poor most of the year, not just in September. He was a middle of the rottion strter at best.

MRKARNO
10-04-2004, 10:05 PM
well unless you are trained in baseball scouting and watched him play, how else are you going to determine how good he is or is not?
I really can't believe that the Mods on this board have blatantly let you come back and continue on with your incessesant anti-KW, pro-Billy Beane, rabble-rousing, trouble-making agenda in which you make stuff up, skew the facts and provide blatantly biased interpretations to fulfil that agenda. Habibharu has not changed one bit.

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 10:05 PM
well unless you are trained in baseball scouting and watched him play, how else are you going to determine how good he is or is not?
I'm definitely not a trained baseball scout, however I'd like to watch the guy play myself before making a judgement on him. If I can't watch a certain player I'd rather get my minor league info from Randar, Daver, Rex, and all the other minor league experts around here then reading some sports writers who really don't know what they're talking about.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:06 PM
Barry Zito was poor most of the year, not just in September. He was a middle of the rottion strter at best.
yeah, that still puzzles me. but if im KW, i look to try and trade caballo for him. he only makes 4.5 mil, and im convinced that he will be back and again become one of the best lefties in the majors. having him and buehrle for the next few years would be pretty sweet

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:08 PM
I'm definitely not a trained baseball scout, however I'd like to watch the guy play myself before making a judgement on him. If I can't watch a certain player I'd rather get my minor league info from Randar, Daver, Rex, and all the other minor league experts around here then reading some sports writers who really don't know what they're talking about. come on, how do they not know what they are talking about. i agree that if you listen to some guy from sporting news, or rotoworld or something like that, but if you are talking about BA or BP, they are usually pretty accurate IMO

OEO Magglio
10-04-2004, 10:11 PM
come on, how do they not know what they are talking about. i agree that if you listen to some guy from sporting news, or rotoworld or something like that, but if you are talking about BA or BP, they are usually pretty accurate IMO
Some of them....yes, there are others that are terrible, the people from BP that Jeremy always posts articles from are truley awful and inaccurate in their writings.

Randar68
10-04-2004, 10:11 PM
how did we have depth? honestly, how many people thought that we were gonna resign maggs for what he wanted? and also, honestly, at the time the trade was made, how many people had confidence in rowand to be productive all year? and the point that i am making is that reed was considered by all publications and scouts to be a very special prospect(and thats all that any of us can rely on) teahan was just a good 3b prospect, probably not even top 15 3b in the minors. and i have never said that KW is a horrible GM. i have merely said that KW is an average to slightly below average GM, and that beane is a good GM and a great drafter IMO.
Brian Anderson a year away, Borchard(FWIW), Sweeney, and Chris Young. That is some of the deepest high-ceiling OF talent in the majors when you add Reed in. Add in Maggs as a possibility as they WERE in contract negotiations, CLee signed, Rowand signed...

DEPTH! How about!

Teahan was the best prospect in the Moneyball draft, but in your opinion, he was lesser of a prospect than Sweeney/Reed/Young/Anderson/Borchard, yet BB is the great GM, and "KW is an average to slightly below average GM"

Get your **** straight. You guys are so brainwashed by that book that you don't know which way is up...

Flight #24
10-04-2004, 10:12 PM
how did we have depth? honestly, how many people thought that we were gonna resign maggs for what he wanted? and also, honestly, at the time the trade was made, how many people had confidence in rowand to be productive all year? and the point that i am making is that reed was considered by all publications and scouts to be a very special prospect(and thats all that any of us can rely on) teahan was just a good 3b prospect, probably not even top 15 3b in the minors. and i have never said that KW is a horrible GM. i have merely said that KW is an average to slightly below average GM, and that beane is a good GM and a great drafter IMO.How do you know that the plan wasn't to make the playoffs with Maggs, Frank, Garcia, and the 5th starter or bullpen help we could have traded Rauch for, then use that $$$ to resign Maggs? I can remember a number of quotes from KW around early-midseason discussing how one of his goals was to raise the revenue base of the franchise, and that winning was the best way to do that.

As for the drafting, see the other thread on when you can realistically expect a GM to see results from implementing his own drafting philosophy. Hint - it's not 3-4 years. EDIT: The thread's in the Clubhouse.

santo=dorf
10-04-2004, 10:17 PM
I really can't believe that the Mods on this board have blatantly let you come back and continue on with your incessesant anti-KW, pro-Billy Beane, rabble-rousing, trouble-making agenda in which you make stuff up, skew the facts and provide blatantly biased interpretations to fulfil that agenda. Habibharu has not changed one bit.
Did habib get banned or something? Shagar69=Habibharu. I hope we aren't the only two who see this.

Daver
10-04-2004, 10:19 PM
Did habib get banned or something? Shagar69=Habibharu. I hope we aren't the only two who see this.
I knew it when he registered.

He'll go over the top soon and get his ass booted again.

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:54 PM
I really can't believe that the Mods on this board have blatantly let you come back and continue on with your incessesant anti-KW, pro-Billy Beane, rabble-rousing, trouble-making agenda in which you make stuff up, skew the facts and provide blatantly biased interpretations to fulfil that agenda. Habibharu has not changed one bit. first of all, im not anti-KW. when have i said that i was. i simply said that KW is an average to slightly below average GM but deserves at least another year. and i didnt even start this thread. and so what if im pro-billy beane? this is the talking baseball forum, isnt it?

shagar69
10-04-2004, 10:56 PM
Brian Anderson a year away, Borchard(FWIW), Sweeney, and Chris Young. That is some of the deepest high-ceiling OF talent in the majors when you add Reed in. Add in Maggs as a possibility as they WERE in contract negotiations, CLee signed, Rowand signed...

DEPTH! How about!

Teahan was the best prospect in the Moneyball draft, but in your opinion, he was lesser of a prospect than Sweeney/Reed/Young/Anderson/Borchard, yet BB is the great GM, and "KW is an average to slightly below average GM"

Get your **** straight. You guys are so brainwashed by that book that you don't know which way is up...
i WILL give KW credit for that. we do have a ****load of OF depth, the problem is that it is all we have and it is all at the lower levels. sure teahan might have been the best prospect in that draft, but you fail to take into account guys like scutaro, swisher,crosby,harden,and garcia who are ALL contributing. this doesnt even take into account guys like dan johnson, and joe blanton who will surely make the team in 05. the same cant be said about KW

Randar68
10-04-2004, 11:30 PM
the same cant be said about KW
WHAT!?!?!? The Moneyball draft was KW's what, 2nd draft as GM? Why won't you give him time to build depth? It doesn't happen overnight!

What happenned to Fritz, McCurdy, and Obenchain? All picked before the start of the 2nd round! Heck, KW was getting roasted because he picked Whisler, Lumsden and Lucy where the Sox did.

McCurdy hit .249 in AA. Obenchain had a 5.11 ERA in AA. Fritz had a 5.62 ERA in AA! 3 players drafted 2.5 years ago and no signs of getting out of AA alive. Heck, the 2 pitchers KW drafted in the 2004 draft, Lumsden and Whisler both had better partial first-seasons in Low/High-A.

The love-fest is insane. KW got Reed in the second round and turned he and essentially Chad Bradford into a legit and proven #2 starting pitcher signed for 3 years...

The next year, he got Anderson and Sweeney in the first 2 rounds! *** is wrong with that!?!?!?!? His drafts have gotten better each year.

He also got McCarthy and Haigwood in the 16th and 17th rounds of the Moneyball draft, Thomas Brice, Sean Tracey, Schnurstein, LaMura and Ryan Rodriguez and Rupe who is probably the gem of the traded guys in the original Carl Everett deal...

That BB, my hero...

shagar69
10-04-2004, 11:49 PM
WHAT!?!?!? The Moneyball draft was KW's what, 2nd draft as GM? Why won't you give him time to build depth? It doesn't happen overnight!

What happenned to Fritz, McCurdy, and Obenchain? All picked before the start of the 2nd round! Heck, KW was getting roasted because he picked Whisler, Lumsden and Lucy where the Sox did.

McCurdy hit .249 in AA. Obenchain had a 5.11 ERA in AA. Fritz had a 5.62 ERA in AA! 3 players drafted 2.5 years ago and no signs of getting out of AA alive. Heck, the 2 pitchers KW drafted in the 2004 draft, Lumsden and Whisler both had better partial first-seasons in Low/High-A.

The love-fest is insane. KW got Reed in the second round and turned he and essentially Chad Bradford into a legit and proven #2 starting pitcher signed for 3 years...

The next year, he got Anderson and Sweeney in the first 2 rounds! *** is wrong with that!?!?!?!? His drafts have gotten better each year.

He also got McCarthy and Haigwood in the 16th and 17th rounds of the Moneyball draft, Thomas Brice, Sean Tracey, Schnurstein, LaMura and Ryan Rodriguez and Rupe who is probably the gem of the traded guys in the original Carl Everett deal...

That BB, my hero...
ok, but where is the talent at the major league level? i understand that beane has had more drafts than KW so im gonna take the big three out of the equatiion. but what about guys like scutaro, harden,crosby and swisher who were picked very recently.

OEO Magglio
10-05-2004, 12:11 AM
but what about guys like scutaro, harden,crosby and swisher who were picked very recently.
What about 'em. Out of the 4 you mentioned only harden has proven to be a real good big league player. Crosby had a solid year for a rookie but it wasn't like he's proven to be a star, Scutaro?? him of the .297 obp. Swisher hasn't proven diddly in the bigs I don't even know why you brought him up.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 12:15 AM
What about 'em. Out of the 4 you mentioned only harden has proven to be a real good big league player. Crosby had a solid year for a rookie but it wasn't like he's proven to be a star, Scutaro?? him of the .297 obp. Swisher hasn't proven diddly in the bigs I don't even know why you brought him up.my point was that they are at the major league level contributing not as september callups for a team out of contention, but for a team that was in it till the last week of the season

nodiggity59
10-05-2004, 12:30 AM
my point was that they are at the major league level contributing not as september callups for a team out of contention, but for a team that was in it till the last week of the season
I see you use the word "contributing" very loosely. Boy.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 12:39 AM
I see you use the word "contributing" very loosely. Boy.
hey theyre starting for a team that is in the race till the last week! more than we can say

santo=dorf
10-05-2004, 12:50 AM
hey theyre starting for a team that is in the race till the last week! more than we can say
So that makes them better as individuals? Yeah ok. I guess B.J Upton and Jeremy Reed suck too because they are on teams that were eliminated from contention months ago.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:14 AM
So that makes them better as individuals? Yeah ok. I guess B.J Upton and Jeremy Reed suck too because they are on teams that were eliminated from contention months ago. you missed my point. my point is that people that were drafted at the same time that KW was doing our drafts are already in the team, not because of september callups but because they are already major league capable players. the same cant be said, for honel, rauch,borchard,or anderson,sweeney,or young can it?

MisterB
10-05-2004, 01:16 AM
ok, but where is the talent at the major league level? i understand that beane has had more drafts than KW so im gonna take the big three out of the equatiion. but what about guys like scutaro, harden,crosby and swisher who were picked very recently.
Scutaro was an amateur FA signing for the Indians in '95. He played 5 years in the Tribe system before being the PTBNL in the Sexson-Wickman deal with Milwaukee. He became a 6-yr minor league FA the next year and was signed by the Mets as AAA roster filler. Beane claimed him when the Mets waived him this last offseason. Acquisition-wise, he's the A's equivalent of KW getting Gload last year. He only got a shot because Ellis, Menechino and McLemore all had injuries early on.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:18 AM
Scutaro was an amateur FA signing for the Indians in '95. He played 5 years in the Tribe system before being the PTBNL in the Sexson-Wickman deal with Milwaukee. He became a 6-yr minor league FA the next year and was signed by the Mets as AAA roster filler. Beane claimed him when the Mets waived him this last offseason. Acquisition-wise, he's the A's equivalent of KW getting Gload last year. He only got a shot because Ellis, Menechino and McLemore all had injuries early on.
yeah but he still got him.and you know what, KW got gload, he deserves credit for that. but what about the other players besides scutaro

gosox41
10-05-2004, 09:25 AM
It's an absolute joke, it's basically a double standard for kenny I just don't get it. Can you imagine if KW traded Teahan and Blowtel, oh my would there be an uproar by the fobb.
Meanwhile, FOK's here still say Beane was lucky to have inherited his Big 3 pitchers. Besides getting the facts wrong (he only inherited 1) and the fact that Harden looks like he's going to be a good one it reeks of double standard.

Does this mean when KW finally drafts and develops any sort of starting pitcher that is decent, I can call it luck and not give any credit to skill.

It's essentially what FOK's do. 'Beane is lucky he has the Big 3' Why not give the guy credit for drafting and developing 3 of Oakland's starters. And any of those 3 would fit great on the Sox right about now.

FOK's wouldn't know what to do with themselves the first time KW actually produces a good starting pitcher. Now multiply that by 3 because that's how many times Beane has done it.



Bob

Randar68
10-05-2004, 11:22 AM
Meanwhile, FOK's here still say Beane was lucky to have inherited his Big 3 pitchers. Besides getting the facts wrong (he only inherited 1) and the fact that Harden looks like he's going to be a good one it reeks of double standard.
Nevermind that FOK have only said the big 3 were drafted prior to BB putting his "Moneyball" system in place, not that he inherited them. Don't let reality get in the way of a perfectly good obsession, though.

fquaye149
10-05-2004, 11:24 AM
Meanwhile, FOK's here still say Beane was lucky to have inherited his Big 3 pitchers. Besides getting the facts wrong (he only inherited 1) and the fact that Harden looks like he's going to be a good one it reeks of double standard.

Does this mean when KW finally drafts and develops any sort of starting pitcher that is decent, I can call it luck and not give any credit to skill.

It's essentially what FOK's do. 'Beane is lucky he has the Big 3' Why not give the guy credit for drafting and developing 3 of Oakland's starters. And any of those 3 would fit great on the Sox right about now.

FOK's wouldn't know what to do with themselves the first time KW actually produces a good starting pitcher. Now multiply that by 3 because that's how many times Beane has done it.



Bob you misinterpret the FOK's. Which is fine, because it's expected of FOBB's.


Look - Beane's not lucky to have inherited 3 starting pitchers BUT he's lucky they all stayed healthy and good as long as they have (which looks to be changing).

Say what you want about great talent but a lot of @#$% can happen in the minor leagues. There's nothing to indicate that Rauch would not have been as good as one of the big three had he not torn his labrum. He was one of the best pitchers in the minors. Honel's been injured quite a bit. How does that make Beane a great drafter and Kenny a bad pitching drafter? Injuries are a part of baseball. What if Beckett, Sheets, or Prior had suffered what essentially was a career ending injury? Would it have bad a bad move by those GM's to have drafted them? HELL NO. Fortunately for their squads they turned out healthy. KW has had no luck w/ injuries.

THAT IS THE POINT - beane's success has to do with his pitchers not his "MONEYBALL" strategy. This september proves it. If you want to praise Beane for assembling a very good starting rotation for not a lot of money (which will likely depart soon) then by all means go ahead. But don't act like OBP and Marco Scutaro is why the A's are successful.

It's like this: you don't praise the offensive coordinator for the 2000 ravens - they were just out there trying not to lose games. Same with Mark Kotsay and the rest of that anemic squad.


THAT IS THE POINT.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 11:26 AM
you missed my point. my point is that people that were drafted at the same time that KW was doing our drafts are already in the team, not because of september callups but because they are already major league capable players. the same cant be said, for honel, rauch,borchard,or anderson,sweeney,or young can it?
Nevermind Rauch wasn't drafted when KW was GM. Nevermind Honel was injured. Nevermind that Borchard was Ron's last pick. Nevermind that Sweeney, Anderson and Young were all drafted in the last 3 years and 2 of the 3 were HS players young for their leagues.

Then again. Reality and facts don't seem to be your strong-suit. Do you expect HS players to be in the majors within 2 years? You're dumber than I thought if yes...

Where's your response about Obenchain, Fritz and McCurdy? What have they done? College players 3 years removed from draft and not able to do jack-squat at AA. THE MIGHTY BB?

kittle42
10-05-2004, 11:41 AM
Just a question from having read a few things in this thread....

Is there actually a fight over who was the better acquisition...ROSS GLOAD or MARCO SCUTARO???

If so, this is the worst thread ever.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 11:53 AM
Nevermind that FOK have only said the big 3 were drafted prior to BB putting his "Moneyball" system in place, not that he inherited them. Don't let reality get in the way of a perfectly good obsession, though.
Many have said here that Billy Beane as lucky because he inherited the Big 3. I don't recall mentioning any names, specifically yours.

But he has drafted and developed 2 All Star pitchers and one guy who has potential to be a star. 'Moneyball' or not, it's a better track record then what Kenny has done.

Feel free to read through the posts from old threads that aren't yours that said Beane inherited these guys.


Bob

gosox41
10-05-2004, 11:56 AM
Nevermind Rauch wasn't drafted when KW was GM. Nevermind Honel was injured. Nevermind that Borchard was Ron's last pick. Nevermind that Sweeney, Anderson and Young were all drafted in the last 3 years and 2 of the 3 were HS players young for their leagues.

Then again. Reality and facts don't seem to be your strong-suit. Do you expect HS players to be in the majors within 2 years? You're dumber than I thought if yes...

Where's your response about Obenchain, Fritz and McCurdy? What have they done? College players 3 years removed from draft and not able to do jack-squat at AA. THE MIGHTY BB?
Time will tell. But Beane has put more guys in the majors then Kenny has. And like you say Randar, not every pick is going to work out. There is some degree of luck involved.

YOu misunderstand FOBB's just like you think I miss understand FOK's. Show me one post where I said Beane is perfect.

But you're right I can show you many posts that I wrote saying Beane is better then KW.


Bob

gosox41
10-05-2004, 12:05 PM
you misinterpret the FOK's. Which is fine, because it's expected of FOBB's.


Look - Beane's not lucky to have inherited 3 starting pitchers BUT he's lucky they all stayed healthy and good as long as they have (which looks to be changing).

Say what you want about great talent but a lot of @#$% can happen in the minor leagues. There's nothing to indicate that Rauch would not have been as good as one of the big three had he not torn his labrum. He was one of the best pitchers in the minors. Honel's been injured quite a bit. How does that make Beane a great drafter and Kenny a bad pitching drafter? Injuries are a part of baseball. What if Beckett, Sheets, or Prior had suffered what essentially was a career ending injury? Would it have bad a bad move by those GM's to have drafted them? HELL NO. Fortunately for their squads they turned out healthy. KW has had no luck w/ injuries.

THAT IS THE POINT - beane's success has to do with his pitchers not his "MONEYBALL" strategy. This september proves it. If you want to praise Beane for assembling a very good starting rotation for not a lot of money (which will likely depart soon) then by all means go ahead. But don't act like OBP and Marco Scutaro is why the A's are successful.

It's like this: you don't praise the offensive coordinator for the 2000 ravens - they were just out there trying not to lose games. Same with Mark Kotsay and the rest of that anemic squad.


THAT IS THE POINT.
So is it luck or skill that KW passed up on Blanton and chose to draft Ring, a relief pitcher with the SOx first round pick in the 2002 draft?

Why not take a starting pitcher who pitched great over a reliever? And I'm not even tlaking about any conversations that may or may not have occurred between Beane and KW (though I don't see why Lewis would make up a whole conversation). Why take a releiver over a starter that early in the draft?


Bob

Randar68
10-05-2004, 12:49 PM
Why not take a starting pitcher who pitched great over a reliever? And I'm not even tlaking about any conversations that may or may not have occurred between Beane and KW (though I don't see why Lewis would make up a whole conversation). Why take a releiver over a starter that early in the draft?

Quicker to the majors, and more quickly becomes valuable as trade bait. Kenny was playing for the present. What part of that is so hard to understand. Today, Blanton is more valuable. 12 months after the draft, Ring was more valuable in terms of trade value. What's the big deal and confusion on your part?

Randar68
10-05-2004, 12:52 PM
Time will tell. But Beane has put more guys in the majors then Kenny has. And like you say Randar, not every pick is going to work out. There is some degree of luck involved.
Beane's had 3 or 4 more drafts than Kenny! OF COURSE HE HAS! WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? Not only that, but BB focuses on college players who are generally going to be quicker to the majors ON TOP OF THAT. Was picking Sweeney bad because he was a HS player? GMAB! It's just 2 different systems. BB has a LONGER track record and his system lends itself to quicker results. BFD.

YOu misunderstand FOBB's just like you think I miss understand FOK's. Show me one post where I said Beane is perfect.
No, nobody has said that, and I don't misunderstand you in the least. Glorifying BB's everymove as justification for your position on KW. I haven't misunderstood you at all.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 12:53 PM
Many have said here that Billy Beane as lucky because he inherited the Big 3. I don't recall mentioning any names, specifically yours.
No, they haven't, anyone who has has been quickly corrected. Stop making **** up.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:03 PM
Quicker to the majors, and more quickly becomes valuable as trade bait. Kenny was playing for the present. What part of that is so hard to understand. Today, Blanton is more valuable. 12 months after the draft, Ring was more valuable in terms of trade value. What's the big deal and confusion on your part?
yeah good thing that he drafted ring instead of blanton. ring was GREAT trade bait and brought us back SO MUCH value! *****! that was a dumb move by KW whether you want to admit it or not. and so what if BB drafted the big three before he implemented moneyball? they were still drafted by BB, which is all im arguing!

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:08 PM
yeah good thing that he drafted ring instead of blanton. ring was GREAT trade bait and brought us back SO MUCH value! *****! that was a dumb move by KW whether you want to admit it or not. and so what if BB drafted the big three before he implemented moneyball? they were still drafted by BB, which is all im arguing!IIRC, didn't he inherit Hudson?

Ring brought us a proven player in the midst of a pennant chase. If you want to complain about that trade, fine, but he was drafted to be traded.

santo=dorf
10-05-2004, 01:09 PM
yeah good thing that he drafted ring instead of blanton. ring was GREAT trade bait and brought us back SO MUCH value! *****! that was a dumb move by KW whether you want to admit it or not. and so what if BB drafted the big three before he implemented moneyball? they were still drafted by BB, which is all im arguing!Was KW the only GM that passed over Blanton? If not, what do you think of the other GMs that passed over him?

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:12 PM
they were still drafted by BB, which is all im arguing!
Really? Could have fooled me.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:18 PM
Was KW the only GM that passed over Blanton? If not, what do you think of the other GMs that passed over him?
they are obviously not as good as BB either! im just pointing out that KW passed on him because what we are arguing is that BB is still a good GM and still better than KW even though BB failed to make the playoffs this year

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:19 PM
IIRC, didn't he inherit Hudson?

Ring brought us a proven player in the midst of a pennant chase. If you want to complain about that trade, fine, but he was drafted to be traded.
yeah youre right, he drafted zito and mulder and also harden which you have to admit is pretty damn good. and yeah we were in the middle of a penant chase. but if KW deliberatley picked ring, a RP, over blanton, a SP with good numbers, than he should of made sure that he got a HELL of a lot more for ring than he did! :angry: :angry: :angry:

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:38 PM
yeah youre right, he drafted zito and mulder and also harden which you have to admit is pretty damn good. and yeah we were in the middle of a penant chase. but if KW deliberatley picked ring, a RP, over blanton, a SP with good numbers, than he should of made sure that he got a HELL of a lot more for ring than he did! :angry: :angry: :angry:Like I said. Complain about that trade. We've all been over that before. But if you're going to moan about Ring, you have to at least recognize that Ring was drafted to be traded in the near term.

I think part of the other criticism about the nice run of luck with the big 3 is that 2 of the three were drafted in higher positions in the draft than the Sox have drafted in 15 years. Pitchers are no sure thing, but usually the dropoff in talent after the top 5 or so pitchers in the draft is remarkable. 2 of those guys were chosen there.

Look at the 1998 draft for an example:

1. Phillies. #Pat Burrell, 1b, U. of Miami
2. Athletics. Mark Mulder, lhp, Michigan State U.
3. Cubs. Corey Patterson, of, HS--Kennesaw, Ga.
4. Royals. Jeff Austin, rhp, Stanford U.
5. Cardinals. #J.D. Drew, of, St. Paul/Northern League
6. Twins. Ryan Mills, lhp, Arizona State U.
7. Reds. Austin Kearns, of, HS--Lexington, Ky.
8. Blue Jays. Felipe Lopez, ss, HS--Altamonte Springs, Fla.
9. Padres. Sean Burroughs,3b, HS--Long Beach
10. Rangers. Carlos Pena,1b, Northeastern U.
11. Expos. Josh McKinley, ss, HS--Dowington, Pa.
12. Red Sox. Adam Everett, ss, U. of South.Carolina
13. Brewers. J.M. Gold, rhp, HS--Toms River, NJ
14. Tigers. Jeff Weaver,rhp, Fresno State U.
15. Pirates. Clint Johnson, lhp, Vanderbilt U.
16. White Sox. Kip Wells, rhp, Baylor U.
17. Astros. Brent Lidge, rhp, U. of Notre Dame
18. Angels. Seth Etherton, rhp, U. of Southern California
19. Giants. Tony Torcato, 3b, HS--Woodland, Calif.
20. Indians. C.C., Sabathia, lhp, HS--Vallejo, Calif.
21. Mets. Jason Tyner, of, Texas A & M U.
22. Mariners. Matt Thornton, lhp, Grand Valley (Mich.) State U.
23. Dodgers. Bubba Crosby, of, Rice U.
24. Yankees. Andy Brown, of, HS--Richmond, Ind.
25. Giants. Nate Bump,rhp, Penn State U.
26. Orioles. Rick Elder, of-1b, HS--Marietta,Ga.
27. Marlins. Chip Ambres, of, HS--Beaumont, Texas
28. Rockies. Matt Roney, rhp, HS--Edmond, Okla.
29. Giants. Arturo McDowell, of, HS--Jackson, Miss.
30. Royals. Matt Burch, rhp, Virginia Commonwealth U.

LOOK AT THAT TOP 10! The Sox haven't drafted there in 15+ years. Look at the other 20 picks. Only a couple names stand out. This is how almost every draft shakes out. The true difference-makers are in the first half of the 1st round. Teams find or develop diamonds in the rough like Buehrle, Hudson, etc, but the difference-makers are usually in the top 15 picks or there-abouts. Why don't the Sox have much high-level system Depth? Look at the 1999 draft class, one of the main reasons the Sox had the #1 system in baseball, yet none of those guys has turned into anything!

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:40 PM
Like I said. Complain about that trade. We've all been over that before. But if you're going to moan about Ring, you have to at least recognize that Ring was drafted to be traded in the near term.

I think part of the other criticism about the nice run of luck with the big 3 is that 2 of the three were drafted in higher positions in the draft than the Sox have drafted in 15 years. Pitchers are no sure thing, but usually the dropoff in talent after the top 5 or so pitchers in the draft is remarkable. 2 of those guys were chosen there.

Look at the 1998 draft for an example:

1. Phillies. #Pat Burrell, 1b, U. of Miami
2. Athletics. Mark Mulder, lhp, Michigan State U.
3. Cubs. Corey Patterson, of, HS--Kennesaw, Ga.
4. Royals. Jeff Austin, rhp, Stanford U.
5. Cardinals. #J.D. Drew, of, St. Paul/Northern League
6. Twins. Ryan Mills, lhp, Arizona State U.
7. Reds. Austin Kearns, of, HS--Lexington, Ky.
8. Blue Jays. Felipe Lopez, ss, HS--Altamonte Springs, Fla.
9. Padres. Sean Burroughs,3b, HS--Long Beach
10. Rangers. Carlos Pena,1b, Northeastern U.
11. Expos. Josh McKinley, ss, HS--Dowington, Pa.
12. Red Sox. Adam Everett, ss, U. of South.Carolina
13. Brewers. J.M. Gold, rhp, HS--Toms River, NJ
14. Tigers. Jeff Weaver,rhp, Fresno State U.
15. Pirates. Clint Johnson, lhp, Vanderbilt U.
16. White Sox. Kip Wells, rhp, Baylor U.
17. Astros. Brent Lidge, rhp, U. of Notre Dame
18. Angels. Seth Etherton, rhp, U. of Southern California
19. Giants. Tony Torcato, 3b, HS--Woodland, Calif.
20. Indians. C.C., Sabathia, lhp, HS--Vallejo, Calif.
21. Mets. Jason Tyner, of, Texas A & M U.
22. Mariners. Matt Thornton, lhp, Grand Valley (Mich.) State U.
23. Dodgers. Bubba Crosby, of, Rice U.
24. Yankees. Andy Brown, of, HS--Richmond, Ind.
25. Giants. Nate Bump,rhp, Penn State U.
26. Orioles. Rick Elder, of-1b, HS--Marietta,Ga.
27. Marlins. Chip Ambres, of, HS--Beaumont, Texas
28. Rockies. Matt Roney, rhp, HS--Edmond, Okla.
29. Giants. Arturo McDowell, of, HS--Jackson, Miss.
30. Royals. Matt Burch, rhp, Virginia Commonwealth U.

LOOK AT THAT TOP 10! The Sox haven't drafted there in 15+ years. Look at the other 20 picks. Only a couple names stand out. This is how almost every draft shakes out. The true difference-makers are in the first half of the 1st round. Teams find or develop diamonds in the rough like Buehrle, Hudson, etc, but the difference-makers are usually in the top 15 picks or there-abouts. Why don't the Sox have much high-level system Depth? Look at the 1999 draft class, one of the main reasons the Sox had the #1 system in baseball, yet none of those guys has turned into anything!
coulda had sabathia!

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:40 PM
they are obviously not as good as BB either! im just pointing out that KW passed on him because what we are arguing is that BB is still a good GM and still better than KW even though BB failed to make the playoffs this year
I'm not arguing that BB isn't a good GM. All I'm saying is that you using that as some kind of barometer or measuring stick for every move KW makes is absolutely goofy. Glorifying BB to make some point about KW is not an effective method of proving your point. KW's actions speak for themselves, good or bad, so why does BB need to be brought into every discussion about him? It's like the crutch the FOBB use to stand on.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:41 PM
coulda had sabathia!
What's your point? 18 other teams could have too.

every team in baseball had 30+ shots at Mark Buehrle. Who cares?

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:48 PM
I'm not arguing that BB isn't a good GM. All I'm saying is that you using that as some kind of barometer or measuring stick for every move KW makes is absolutely goofy. Glorifying BB to make some point about KW is not an effective method of proving your point. KW's actions speak for themselves, good or bad, so why does BB need to be brought into every discussion about him? It's like the crutch the FOBB use to stand on. the reason i use BB as a barometer is because 1) many people on this board are against him and his moneyball principle and most important 2) he is in the EXACT situation as KW: he has an owner who wont dish out the money and is forced to manage the organization like a small market club. that is why he makes a good comparison. if you FOK's want, we could compare KW to terry ryan instead, also in a similar position. but guess what, he wouldnt win that either!

santo=dorf
10-05-2004, 01:50 PM
coulda had sabathia!Or Brad Lidge!!

:chickenlittle

Habibharu considers Sabathia to be an "Ace," but not Garcia. :rolleyes:

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:51 PM
Or Brad Lidge!!

:chickenlittle

Habibharu considers Sabathia to be an "Ace," but not Garcia. :rolleyes:
what are you talkin about? i have never said anything about sabathia and garcia. and who the hell is "habibharu"

santo=dorf
10-05-2004, 01:52 PM
what are you talkin about? i have never said anything about sabathia and garcia. and who the hell is "habibharu"
Habibharu said Sabathia is an ace, not Garcia. I have a very stong feeling that Habibharu is reading this as we speak.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:53 PM
the reason i use BB as a barometer is because 1) many people on this board are against him and his moneyball principle and most important 2) he is in the EXACT situation as KW: he has an owner who wont dish out the money and is forced to manage the organization like a small market club. that is why he makes a good comparison. if you FOK's want, we could compare KW to terry ryan instead, also in a similar position. but guess what, he wouldnt win that either!
Most people aren't against Moneyball as a system, but rather the half-ass baseball fans who think they know baseball because they read that book and they are just "fighting the establishment" by being a proponent of it. There are only 1 or 2 FOBB here who really understand what that book is truly about.

Again, Kenny runs an entirely different organization with a different philosphy. Comparing it to BB is apples to oranges. Terry Ryan? Do you realize how many top draft picks he's had to work with? He is a good GM, but again, how can you judge KW so completely when his players haven't had the opportunity to populate the Sox' farm system?

shagar69
10-05-2004, 01:54 PM
Habibharu said Sabathia is an ace, not Garcia. I have a very stong feeling that Habibharu is reading this as we speak.
well i dont know what you are talkin about, but whatever. i dont believe that sabathia nor garcia are true "aces" but the difference between them is that freddy is 5 years older.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 01:56 PM
Quicker to the majors, and more quickly becomes valuable as trade bait. Kenny was playing for the present. What part of that is so hard to understand. Today, Blanton is more valuable. 12 months after the draft, Ring was more valuable in terms of trade value. What's the big deal and confusion on your part?
So you don't see the problem of drafting a reliever over a starting pitcher, though both had good numbers?

I must have missed the surplus of starting pitchers the Sox have in their minor leagues that are ready to make an impact. Or the fact that most relievers in the majors are guys who couldn't cut it as starters. Or that a good, dependable starting pitcher is more valuable then a reliever.

My guess is Blanton has plenty of trade value if the A's decide to move him.

So far the Sox don't have much of a present and if they keep this up the future looks bleak.


Bob

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:57 PM
well i dont know what you are talkin about, but whatever. i dont believe that sabathia nor garcia are true "aces" but the difference between them is that freddy is 5 years older.
That and Sabathia is trying to eat himself out of his uniform. Worked for Wilson Alvarez and Alex Fernandez.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 01:59 PM
So you don't see the problem of drafting a reliever over a starting pitcher, though both had good numbers?

I must have missed the surplus of starting pitchers the Sox have in their minor leagues that are ready to make an impact. Or the fact that most relievers in the majors are guys who couldn't cut it as starters. Or that a good, dependable starting pitcher is more valuable then a reliever.

My guess is Blanton has plenty of trade value if the A's decide to move him.

So far the Sox don't have much of a present and if they keep this up the future looks bleak.
Are you truly this dense? I never said Blanton didn't have significant trade value now. I said that 12 months after the draft, Ring had more trade value, and that is why he was drafted, to be traded. A college reliever moves faster. This point apparently went in one ear and out the other.

You obviously completely missed the point... what's new?

Jerome
10-05-2004, 02:00 PM
Just a question from having read a few things in this thread....

Is there actually a fight over who was the better acquisition...ROSS GLOAD or MARCO SCUTARO???

If so, this is the worst thread ever.

When I started this thread I thought it would be about five people discussing what went wrong for the A's this year. I had no idea it would morph into this.

Oh well. IT'S MY FIRST GOLDEN TOMATO THREAD!!!!!!!!!

shagar69
10-05-2004, 02:00 PM
So you don't see the problem of drafting a reliever over a starting pitcher, though both had good numbers?

I must have missed the surplus of starting pitchers the Sox have in their minor leagues that are ready to make an impact. Or the fact that most relievers in the majors are guys who couldn't cut it as starters. Or that a good, dependable starting pitcher is more valuable then a reliever.

My guess is Blanton has plenty of trade value if the A's decide to move him.

So far the Sox don't have much of a present and if they keep this up the future looks bleak.


Bob
well their IMMEDIATE future (next 1-3 years) CERTAINLY looks bleak. but there is some light at the end of the tunnel with guys (hopefully) coming up: anderson, sweeney,young,bmac,tracey,fields, etc.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 02:01 PM
Are you truly this dense? I never said Blanton didn't have significant trade value now. I said that 12 months after the draft, Ring had more trade value, and that is why he was drafted, to be traded. A college reliever moves faster. This point apparently went in one ear and out the other.

You obviously completely missed the point... what's new? and im saying that we didnt get EVEN close to what we should have for ring and that is an indictment of KW!

gosox41
10-05-2004, 02:07 PM
Beane's had 3 or 4 more drafts than Kenny! OF COURSE HE HAS! WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? Not only that, but BB focuses on college players who are generally going to be quicker to the majors ON TOP OF THAT. Was picking Sweeney bad because he was a HS player? GMAB! It's just 2 different systems. BB has a LONGER track record and his system lends itself to quicker results. BFD.

No, nobody has said that, and I don't misunderstand you in the least. Glorifying BB's everymove as justification for your position on KW. I haven't misunderstood you at all.
So in 3 or 4 more drafts I can expect KW to have developed and drafted 3 very good pitchers.

Benae became GM in mid-1997. 1999 he drafted Zito. 1998 he drafted Mulder. 2000 he drafted Harden. 2002 he drafted Blanton. 3 of those guys were taken in Beane's first 3 drafts.

And there's nothing wrong with taking HS players, especially offensive players. But earlier in this thread you mentioned KW was thinking of the present. Well the present (or recent past) since 2001 tells me the Sox lack a fifth starter, amongs other holes. So why not look to draft pitchers that are going to make it the majors in a quicker time frame? That's thinking of the present.

What is KW's plan? We know his goal is to win. Is he trying to draft players with first round pisks that can be traded for veterans past? Is he trying to win now?

So far his plan has failed.


Bob

gosox41
10-05-2004, 02:08 PM
well their IMMEDIATE future (next 1-3 years) CERTAINLY looks bleak. but there is some light at the end of the tunnel with guys (hopefully) coming up: anderson, sweeney,young,bmac,tracey,fields, etc.
I hope so. And I hope KW develops some pitching. I'm going to love seeing the FOK's trip all over themselves when KW develops some pitching that is good or even decent. What was luck for Beane will be declared skill for Kenny.


Bob

Randar68
10-05-2004, 02:22 PM
I hope so. And I hope KW develops some pitching. I'm going to love seeing the FOK's trip all over themselves when KW develops some pitching that is good or even decent. What was luck for Beane will be declared skill for Kenny.
It will only be touted as such because we've all been beaten over the heads with the incessant "big 3" paddle until we're cross-eyed.

Developing pitching is in large-part luck. No matter who does it.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 02:24 PM
What is KW's plan? We know his goal is to win. Is he trying to draft players with first round pisks that can be traded for veterans past? Is he trying to win now?

So far his plan has failed.
How's this for a "plan" (note: because it is not a carbon copy of BB's "plan" does not make it right or wrong):

THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX
October 5, 2004

STATE OF THE SOX - LOOKING TO 2005
================================================== ===============

Dear White Sox fans and season ticket holders,

It is still pretty difficult, even painful in a way, to recap the
2004 Chicago White Sox season. When I hired Ozzie Guillen as
manager, one of my reasons was that I wanted someone who took the
losses just as hard as I did and just as hard as our fans do.

While our 2004 season had its bright spots - the 40-plus home run
performance of Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee's club-record, 28-game
hitting streak and Shingo Takatsu's grand entrance onto the
Chicago baseball stage - the overall emotion we are feeling right
now is disappointment. Yes, we certainly battled injuries, and
not many teams lose their three and four hitters in June and
still win, but those are excuses. We were in first place on
July 24 and just did not get it done.

But rather than re-live the past six months (I do that enough in
the middle of the night when I would rather be asleep), I am
focused on this offseason and what we need to accomplish to make
our team better in 2005. I cannot stress strongly enough my
commitment to improving the 2005 White Sox. This organization's
goal remains consistent - to win a World Series championship for
White Sox fans and the city of Chicago.

It is my responsibility to build a team that has a chance to win
its division each season, and we began that project for 2005 well
before this season ended. It is our responsibility to bring all
of our energy, intellect and effort to improving this team. I
promise you everyone on my staff, and everyone in the front office,
is focused on this mission.

We hope to have a team built around our pitching staff. But
anyone who watched us play in 2004 realizes that we need to be
more athletic, better defensively and quicker on the bases.
Slugging it out night after night is just too inconsistent. You
need thunder in the middle of your lineup, especially in the
American League, but at the top and at the bottom we need guys
who can get on base, run, move runners along and handle the bat.
I want to give Ozzie a team he can play with and really manage
during games.

Our first focus entering this offseason is pitching. We feel very
confident in our top four starters, Freddy Garcia, Mark Buehrle,
Jose Contreras and Jon Garland, and believe each one has the
potential to win 15 games and give us 200 innings. Jason Grilli
showed signs he could fill the fifth starter's role, or we may
decide to look toward free agency to round out our rotation.

We also want to build our bullpen from the back forward. In
Shingo and Damaso Marte, we are comfortable that we have at least
two pitchers who can close out games. Cliff Politte was
impressive at times this year and has a role in a dominant
bullpen. Another positive for our club was how Jon Adkins and
Neal Cotts matured as major league pitchers during the season. We
need to add to this mix and make it even better and deeper in 2005.

We will see what players are available on the free agent market
to fit our needs, and I also am willing to pull the trigger on a
trade if I believe it will make our team better. We have been
criticized for our willingness to trade young players for the
chance to win now. I will never apologize for trying to win. It
has been way too long since White Sox fans celebrated in October.
On the wall of our board room is a chart showing our team's
projected roster over the next three years. Miguel Olivo is the
only player we have traded away who is on that chart from 2004 to
2007. I hated to give him up, but I felt that getting a pitcher
like Freddy Garcia through 2007 was more important for this
organization.

Despite his season-ending injury, we still are optimistic about
re-signing Magglio Ordoņez for 2005. Of course, a lot depends
upon his recovery and health. At one point in the season, we
offered Magglio the largest contract ever for a White Sox player.
We still hope to discuss a possible new contract with Maggs over
the coming months.

One player I truly need to commend for his 2004 season is Paul
Konerko. He grabbed all kinds of deserving headlines with his 40-
plus home runs, but he proves his value as a player and teammate
each and every day by how he approaches the game. I am convinced
that if Paul came into the last at-bat of the season with the
chance for either the home run crown or the opportunity to win
the game, he would willingly sacrifice his own success for the
team. He is as unselfish a player as we have. I love his winning
attitude. Paul cares about winning, but even more importantly, he
cares about winning here in Chicago.

It's way too early to map out our exact plans for 2005 and how
this offseason will ultimately unfold, but I did want this letter
to give you some of our thoughts on the 2004 season, but more
importantly, to outline our early thinking as we prepare for 2005.

Everyone in a White Sox uniform and in our front office
appreciates our fans. You are there on the cold nights in April,
during winning and losing streaks in June, July and August, and
are there to celebrate the game-winning home runs and suffer the
painful defeats. You feel it in your gut right along with us. As
we finish the 2004 season, we want to say "Thank You" for your
undying support and for your pride in being a White Sox fan.

Sincerely,

Ken Williams

gosox41
10-05-2004, 02:41 PM
How's this for a "plan" (note: because it is not a carbon copy of BB's "plan" does not make it right or wrong):
We know his goal. Then there's his plan. While I realize things could change, trades could be made, free agents could be signed etc. Here are a couple of flaws in his plan:

-Good to see that KW finally figured out that having a team of right handed, slow power hitters isn't going to win. Took him 4 years, but at least he's recognizing it. Now would be a good time to do something about that, huh?

-Jon Garland is a 5th starter at best. Grilli has no business being in the rotation of a winning team.

-Adkins and Cotts don't belong in the same paragraph as "dominant bullpen" unless you say something like 'As long as Adkins and Cotts are in the bullpen, we will not have a dominant bullpen next season.'

Seriously a bullpen of Marte, Politte, Shingo, Cotts and Adkins is hardly the stuff of domination. That's 5 spots. Are they going to carry 12 pitchers next season?

-Was Reed not on KW's flowing chart of future rosters from 2004-2007? See the contradiction between the part of needing speed, better defense and then how Reed wasn't even mentioned as a vital cog in that flow chard. Surprising. How about Ordonez or even Thomas?




Bob

balke
10-05-2004, 02:48 PM
In the end, they both haven't won JACK. Beane Ball proves yet again this season, that HE who spends on proven players will beat weak OBP guys, and pitching.

At least Kenny has an excuse this year with the sluggers going out to injury.
Billy Beane just comes out looking like a cheap skate.

He easily could've picked up a bat during trade season. HEck, probably could've taken Walker or someone like him. Now the A's sit at home enjoying 2nd place, just like Kenny and the Sox. At least he didn't waste everyone's time by going out in the 1st round again.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 02:50 PM
We know his goal. Then there's his plan. While I realize things could change, trades could be made, free agents could be signed etc. Here are a couple of flaws in his plan:

-Good to see that KW finally figured out that having a team of right handed, slow power hitters isn't going to win. Took him 4 years, but at least he's recognizing it. Now would be a good time to do something about that, huh?

He's said this after each of that last 2 seasons. You can only do so much when your core is signed long-term.


-Jon Garland is a 5th starter at best. Grilli has no business being in the rotation of a winning team.

Garland is a 4 or 5, but what's he going to say? "I'm going to trade or sign a legit #2"? He can't come out to the fans in such a definitive manner or he comes off as a liar in the Spring if those opportunities don't arise.
-Adkins and Cotts don't belong in the same paragraph as "dominant bullpen" unless you say something like 'As long as Adkins and Cotts are in the bullpen, we will not have a dominant bullpen next season.'

"Jason Grilli showed signs he could fill the fifth starter's role, or we may decide to look toward free agency to round out our rotation."


Seriously a bullpen of Marte, Politte, Shingo, Cotts and Adkins is hardly the stuff of domination. That's 5 spots. Are they going to carry 12 pitchers next season?
And???? He said he wanted to build on that to create a dominant bullpen. He didn't say that it was a dominant bullpen by itself, no did he?

-Was Reed not on KW's flowing chart of future rosters from 2004-2007? See the contradiction between the part of needing speed, better defense and then how Reed wasn't even mentioned as a vital cog in that flow chard. Surprising. How about Ordonez or even Thomas?

I also found that comment somewhat striking. I was a big fan of Reed, but let's look at it this way: Reed was a LF'er or a sub-Rowand serviceable CF'er. Lee is signed 2 years, he has Sweeney and Anderson on his 2006 or 2007 depth chart in the OF at CF or corner. Same with Rowand. Looking at resigning Maggs... I understand that Reed gives you good bang for buck in terms of OBP and average, but where do you play him? May CLee a DH? Not while Frank is under contract...

These next 2 offseasons are KW's opportunity to remake the team as a lot of big contracts will be ending over the next 3 years or sooner in many cases.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 02:54 PM
Most people aren't against Moneyball as a system, but rather the half-ass baseball fans who think they know baseball because they read that book and they are just "fighting the establishment" by being a proponent of it. There are only 1 or 2 FOBB here who really understand what that book is truly about.

Again, Kenny runs an entirely different organization with a different philosphy. Comparing it to BB is apples to oranges. Terry Ryan? Do you realize how many top draft picks he's had to work with? He is a good GM, but again, how can you judge KW so completely when his players haven't had the opportunity to populate the Sox' farm system?
well how are these for guys ryans drafted: crain and durbin in the second round of 02, we could of had them both, and at least one of them will be in the twinks rotation next yr. he found santanta, got nathan for almost nothing, got lew ford for nothing, found romero late in the draft, got morneau(what we hope borchard WILL turn into) in the 3rd round, we could of had him also, drafted kubel in the 12th round, could of had him.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 02:57 PM
He's said this after each of that last 2 seasons. You can only do so much when your core is signed long-term.



Garland is a 4 or 5, but what's he going to say? "I'm going to trade or sign a legit #2"? He can't come out to the fans in such a definitive manner or he comes off as a liar in the Spring if those opportunities don't arise.
-Adkins and Cotts don't belong in the same paragraph as "dominant bullpen" unless you say something like 'As long as Adkins and Cotts are in the bullpen, we will not have a dominant bullpen next season.'

"Jason Grilli showed signs he could fill the fifth starter's role, or we may decide to look toward free agency to round out our rotation."



And???? He said he wanted to build on that to create a dominant bullpen. He didn't say that it was a dominant bullpen by itself, no did he?


I also found that comment somewhat striking. I was a big fan of Reed, but let's look at it this way: Reed was a LF'er or a sub-Rowand serviceable CF'er. Lee is signed 2 years, he has Sweeney and Anderson on his 2006 or 2007 depth chart in the OF at CF or corner. Same with Rowand. Looking at resigning Maggs... I understand that Reed gives you good bang for buck in terms of OBP and average, but where do you play him? May CLee a DH? Not while Frank is under contract...

These next 2 offseasons are KW's opportunity to remake the team as a lot of big contracts will be ending over the next 3 years or sooner in many cases.
that is exactly right! these next 2 offseason will IMO determine whether he is a good GM or not. he doesnt have any excuses. like you said all of the big contracts will be off the books and he will REALLY have the opportunity to build this team pretty much anyway he wants. we will also find out more about his player evaluation skills if guys like anderson, sweeney, young and bmac will be good major leaguers.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 02:58 PM
well how are these for guys ryans drafted: crain and durbin in the second round of 02, we could of had them both, and at least one of them will be in the twinks rotation next yr. he found santanta, got nathan for almost nothing, got lew ford for nothing, found romero late in the draft, got morneau(what we hope borchard WILL turn into) in the 3rd round, we could of had him also, drafted kubel in the 12th round, could of had him.
Terry Ryan has done a good job, yes. "Could have had him" is the most asinine line of reasoning possible. In every draft, after the first round, EVERY team passed on that player. BFD. There is no point to it. Keep spinning around on your wheel of illogical jumps to conclusion, though...

shagar69
10-05-2004, 03:00 PM
Terry Ryan has done a good job, yes. "Could have had him" is the most asinine line of reasoning possible. In every draft, after the first round, EVERY team passed on that player. BFD. There is no point to it. Keep spinning around on your wheel of illogical jumps to conclusion, though...
yeah, well my point is that both ryan AND beane are doing a better job than KW in similar situations. thats all

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:01 PM
the reason i use BB as a barometer is because 1) many people on this board are against him and his moneyball principle and most important 2) he is in the EXACT situation as KW: he has an owner who wont dish out the money and is forced to manage the organization like a small market club. that is why he makes a good comparison. if you FOK's want, we could compare KW to terry ryan instead, also in a similar position. but guess what, he wouldnt win that either!
Actually, I think many here have ended up being against BB and the moneyball principles because of the constant deification of them here (by some), and the constant, often irrational slamming of any KW move combined with the raising up of anything done by BB.

The plain and simple fact is that the single greatest reason above all others for the A's success is that BB was good enough as a GM to draft 2 excellent pitchers (Mulder, Zito), and lucky enough to have them develop at the same time and stay healthy. He's done a good job getting Harden as well, but the A's success lies primarily on the extremely unlikely chance that you'd have 3 young stud pitchers who are all dominant and cheap at the same time.

Moneyball's a decent system, but it's not the be-all-end-all of development. Ask Terry Ryan, who I'd argue is a better GM than Beane.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 03:04 PM
Actually, I think many here have ended up being against BB and the moneyball principles because of the constant deification of them here (by some), and the constant, often irrational slamming of any KW move combined with the raising up of anything done by BB.

The plain and simple fact is that the single greatest reason above all others for the A's success is that BB was good enough as a GM to draft 2 excellent pitchers (Mulder, Zito), and lucky enough to have them develop at the same time and stay healthy. He's done a good job getting Harden as well, but the A's success lies primarily on the extremely unlikely chance that you'd have 3 young stud pitchers who are all dominant and cheap at the same time.

Moneyball's a decent system, but it's not the be-all-end-all of development. Ask Terry Ryan, who I'd argue is a better GM than Beane.
well its not ALL luck. you do have to be able to evaluate talent and project. and i know he didnt get lucky, because after he got zito and mulder he did it again a few yrs later getting harden who will replace one of the big three(probably hudson) and then did it AGAIN by getting blanton, who yes hasnt dont jack in the majors, but looks like he will be a good player and considering BB's history i would bet that he WILL be a no. 2 type starter.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 03:06 PM
yeah, well my point is that both ryan AND beane are doing a better job than KW in similar situations. thats allYou just agreed with me above that not only is KW just nowing having the opportunity to remake the club, but that Beane's had several more draft classes to build organizational depth. How can you judge KW until he's been given that opportunity?

I'll answer that for you: Logically, you can't!

Wow. I can't believe I spent half a day banging my head against this wall. The FOBB's circular logic has come full circle. Time to call it a day.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 03:08 PM
You just agreed with me above that not only is KW just nowing having the opportunity to remake the club, but that Beane's had several more draft classes to build organizational depth. How can you judge KW until he's been given that opportunity?

I'll answer that for you: Logically, you can't! well how many years does he need? dont you agree that somebody that KW drafted in 01 should of panned out by now? almost every other team has players who have

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:10 PM
well how are these for guys ryans drafted: crain and durbin in the second round of 02, we could of had them both, and at least one of them will be in the twinks rotation next yr. he found santanta, got nathan for almost nothing, got lew ford for nothing, found romero late in the draft, got morneau(what we hope borchard WILL turn into) in the 3rd round, we could of had him also, drafted kubel in the 12th round, could of had him.
You do realize, right that almostall the guys you mentioned were drafted in 1999 or earlier? The exceptions being Kubel(who's had what - like 50ABs?), and 2 middle relievers. The fact that one will be in the rotation doesn't mean they'll be any good.

In a year or 2, you may very well have Sweeney, BMac, Anderson here showing that Morneau, Ford, etc aren't the only good players in the division.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:13 PM
well how many years does he need? dont you agree that somebody that KW drafted in 01 should of panned out by now? almost every other team has players who have
As posted in another thread, the Twins have 3 contributors to this year's team drafted after 1999. One of them's Mauer, who was only the #1 pick in the whole draft. The others are middle relievers. You sure you wanna assert that EVERY team has had guys pan out?

And for the record, it counts as "panning out" when you can trade a guy for a valuable ML player. Marte comes to mind, as does Garcia.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 03:13 PM
well how many years does he need? dont you agree that somebody that KW drafted in 01 should of panned out by now? almost every other team has players who have
THAT DEPENDS ON HS/COLLEGE OR YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL PHILOSOPHY. Just because BB's and KW's systems are different doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. They run on independant schedules. We've done this tango now 3 times in this very thread. Enough. You just don't get it.

They were only able to sign 5 of their first 8 picks, 2 of them were pitchers who have been injured, and one of them a HS SS. Why is that hard to fathom? Wyatt Allen was a high-risk high-reward guy who just hasn't panned out. Happens all the time and he was a sandwich pick, big deal...

WHERE ARE OBENCHAIN, FRITZ, and MCCURDY!?!?!?!?

Different philosophies... get it? I doubt it...

Wealz
10-05-2004, 03:22 PM
I also found that comment somewhat striking. I was a big fan of Reed, but let's look at it this way: Reed was a LF'er or a sub-Rowand serviceable CF'er. Lee is signed 2 years, he has Sweeney and Anderson on his 2006 or 2007 depth chart in the OF at CF or corner. Same with Rowand. Looking at resigning Maggs... I understand that Reed gives you good bang for buck in terms of OBP and average, but where do you play him? May CLee a DH? Not while Frank is under contract...

These next 2 offseasons are KW's opportunity to remake the team as a lot of big contracts will be ending over the next 3 years or sooner in many cases.
If we are to take him at his word, Williams was all over the map in his letter. He talks about needing guys who get on base, but Reed wasn't a projected starter? Since Ordonez is unsigned who was the projected RF'er in 2005 at the time of the Garcia trade? most likely Borchard. Borchard rated ahead of Reed? This front office has a talent evaluation problem.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 03:22 PM
THAT DEPENDS ON HS/COLLEGE OR YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL PHILOSOPHY. Just because BB's and KW's systems are different doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. They run on independant schedules. We've done this tango now 3 times in this very thread. Enough. You just don't get it.

They were only able to sign 5 of their first 8 picks, 2 of them were pitchers who have been injured, and one of them a HS SS. Why is that hard to fathom? Wyatt Allen was a high-risk high-reward guy who just hasn't panned out. Happens all the time and he was a sandwich pick, big deal...

WHERE ARE OBENCHAIN, FRITZ, and MCCURDY!?!?!?!?
yeah they havent panned out so far. but what about zito, mulder, harden and crosby? if for every rauch, or honel, or wing there was a guy like harden or crosy, i wouldnt be upset at all about KW's drafting.

Different philosophies... get it? I doubt it...
why is not a big deal that allen hasnt panned out? do we have any other player who HAVE panned out? wheres rauch at? wheres honel, wheres wing, wheres gonzalez, whers Lamura? at least a couple of these guys should of panned out! yeah, i understand that they have different philiosphies, but KW's hasnt worked has it? rodriguez, wing, and honel are hurt. rupe is gone, rauch is gone. gonzalez isnt close to the majors.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 03:33 PM
If we are to take him at his word, Williams was all over the map in his letter. He talks about needing guys who get on base, but Reed wasn't a projected starter? Since Ordonez is unsigned who was the projected RF'er in 2005 at the time of the Garcia trade? most likely Borchard. Borchard rated ahead of Reed? This front office has a talent evaluation problem.
You have an ass/u/me-ption problem.

Wealz
10-05-2004, 03:36 PM
You have an ass/u/me-ption problem.
I don't get it.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:39 PM
why is not a big deal that allen hasnt panned out? do we have any other player who HAVE panned out? wheres rauch at? wheres honel, wheres wing, wheres gonzalez, whers Lamura? at least a couple of these guys should of panned out! yeah, i understand that they have different philiosphies, but KW's hasnt worked has it? rodriguez, wing, and honel are hurt. rupe is gone, rauch is gone. gonzalez isnt close to the majors.
yeah, KW's gotta get off that philosophy of drafting pitchers that are going to get hurt.....

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:41 PM
I don't get it.
Something that's painfully obvious.

I believe what Randar's trying to get across is that it is your assumption that Borchard was the guy favored over Reed. Another, quite possible one is that Sweeney was seen as the long-term guy, or possibly Rowand. FA signings or a resigning of Maggs might also have factored into that picture.

Wealz
10-05-2004, 03:55 PM
Something that's painfully obvious.

I believe what Randar's trying to get across is that it is your assumption that Borchard was the guy favored over Reed. Another, quite possible one is that Sweeney was seen as the long-term guy, or possibly Rowand. FA signings or a resigning of Maggs might also have factored into that picture.
If his letter is to be believed and Reed was not rated as a starter Williams has no business occupying the G.M.'s position.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 04:13 PM
If his letter is to be believed and Reed was not rated as a starter Williams has no business occupying the G.M.'s position.
(sigh)

This is, I believe, what Randard was referring to about assumptions and ass-u-me.

Maybe he sees Sweeney as better than Reed, or maybe he wants to trade Konerko, sign Beltran, and go Lee-Beltran-Rowand, or maybe he figured adding Garcia to the team would provide a playoff berth and the associated revenues to resign Maggs.

Or maybe, as posted in the clubhouse in the thread associated with the letter, he didn't have Reed penciled in for ALL of those years, because he had Sweeney beating him out in 06.

Wealz
10-05-2004, 04:48 PM
(sigh)

This is, I believe, what Randard was referring to about assumptions and ass-u-me.

Maybe he sees Sweeney as better than Reed, or maybe he wants to trade Konerko, sign Beltran, and go Lee-Beltran-Rowand, or maybe he figured adding Garcia to the team would provide a playoff berth and the associated revenues to resign Maggs.The problem with this assumption is that it is nonsensical. I guarantee you this board doesn't include any non-White Sox personnel, too many variables in that, and at the time of the Garcia trade Ordonez wasn't a White Sox in 2005. The most logical assumption - and the one you're avoiding - is Borchard being rated ahead of Reed (if Williams' letter is to be believed.)

Or maybe, as posted in the clubhouse in the thread associated with the letter, he didn't have Reed penciled in for ALL of those years, because he had Sweeney beating him out in 06.If he thinks Sweeney will be a better major league player than Reed by 2006 he has a problem.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 04:52 PM
The problem with this assumption is that it is nonsensical. I guarantee you this board doesn't include any non-White Sox personnel, too many variables in that, and at the time of the Garcia trade Ordonez wasn't a White Sox in 2005. The most logical assumption - and the one you're avoiding - is Borchard being rated ahead of Reed (if Williams' letter is to be believed.)

If he thinks Sweeney will be a better major league player than Reed by 2006 he has a problem.
Really? KW made Maggs an offer that by all reports was almost exactly what he wanted (minus a deferral that by MLB rules, couldnt have made much more than a 1-2mil impact on the overall deal value). So why is it so illogical to think that they'd reach a deal?

As for Reed over Sweeney, even if it's '07, it would explain why Jeremy wasn't on the board for 04-07. You don't think that's possible? By that time, it could also be Anderson, who by all accounts is already a better defensive CF than Jeremy.

nodiggity59
10-05-2004, 05:04 PM
The most logical assumption is that none of you know what the f*** you're talking about:

-Maybe they were going to do anything to keep Maggs. They DID offer him the biggest contract in club history. Not getting it done early could have been their way of negotiating.

-Maybe he rated Borchard over Reed

-Maybe he rated Sweeney/Anderson over Reed

-Maybe, and this is my opinion, he lied/exaggerated when not mentioning Reed. Reed may have been on w/ an asterisk or something cause of injury. In either case, Kenny didn't mention him as being part of the board b/c he wanted to make the Freddy deal seem better.

Either way, this debate is pointless and pathetic.

Randar68
10-05-2004, 05:07 PM
The most logical assumption is that none of you know what the f*** you're talking about:Our only point is that none of the FOBB "KNOW". While we may not know either, we're not the ones making dumbass assumptions about what is said or done behind closed doors. We're offerring plausible alternatives to the single-minded assumptions of others...

Get it? Again... I doubt it.

shagar69
10-05-2004, 07:29 PM
Really? KW made Maggs an offer that by all reports was almost exactly what he wanted (minus a deferral that by MLB rules, couldnt have made much more than a 1-2mil impact on the overall deal value). So why is it so illogical to think that they'd reach a deal?
are you sure, because IIRC the best deal offered to maggs by us was something around 50 mil, while he wanted 60 something

HomeFish
10-05-2004, 07:35 PM
Can we please stop giving contracts in total value and rather put them in years, or at least list the number of years?

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 09:02 PM
are you sure, because IIRC the best deal offered to maggs by us was something around 50 mil, while he wanted 60 something
Last I heard was that they came up to his total $$, but there was an team option that would kick in a deferral (or some other deferral-related clause), but per KW "nothing that takes away from the overall dollars".

Given that MLB rules state all deferred money must be paid within 2 years of contract's end, the difference between even $14mil in yr5 and $14mil in yr7 is minimal (around 1-1.5mil).

To me, that says "OK Maggs, here's pretty much exactly what you wanted, we just get a teeny tiny bit of flexibility in the out year if something major happens". That tells me that unless he doesn't want to be here, they'd likey be able to work something out.

shagar69
10-06-2004, 12:26 AM
Last I heard was that they came up to his total $$, but there was an team option that would kick in a deferral (or some other deferral-related clause), but per KW "nothing that takes away from the overall dollars".

Given that MLB rules state all deferred money must be paid within 2 years of contract's end, the difference between even $14mil in yr5 and $14mil in yr7 is minimal (around 1-1.5mil).

To me, that says "OK Maggs, here's pretty much exactly what you wanted, we just get a teeny tiny bit of flexibility in the out year if something major happens". That tells me that unless he doesn't want to be here, they'd likey be able to work something out.
well still, like i said before we didnt whether or not rowand is gonna be good for the whole yr or not. in fact, we still dont know whether rowand can have yrs like this consistently. thats why you keep reed. and if he had anderson or sweeney rated ahead of reed at this point, that is just stupid since reed has accomplished more at a higher level. could both those guys be better than reed? hell yah they could. but we dont know that yet since they havent played full seasons in AAA or even AA

nodiggity59
10-06-2004, 12:47 AM
well still, like i said before we didnt whether or not rowand is gonna be good for the whole yr or not. in fact, we still dont know whether rowand can have yrs like this consistently. thats why you keep reed. and if he had anderson or sweeney rated ahead of reed at this point, that is just stupid since reed has accomplished more at a higher level. could both those guys be better than reed? hell yah they could. but we dont know that yet since they havent played full seasons in AAA or even AA
Under your plan the Sox could potentially have 6-7 outfielders and no top of the rotation pitching. Man, I wish we had kept Reed. Insurance policies on the outfield is pointless b/c we already had 2-3 good players there and potentially some more in the future. Our pitching, OTOH, consisted of a very good #2 (maybe #1) and a #5 AND NOTHING ELSE.

And yet, you're worried about us not having 3 good outfielders.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 10:05 AM
well still, like i said before we didnt whether or not rowand is gonna be good for the whole yr or not. in fact, we still dont know whether rowand can have yrs like this consistently. thats why you keep reed. and if he had anderson or sweeney rated ahead of reed at this point, that is just stupid since reed has accomplished more at a higher level. could both those guys be better than reed? hell yah they could. but we dont know that yet since they havent played full seasons in AAA or even AA
Ummmm......there are tons of guys who have played full seasons at AA or AAA, should we rate them all above Anderson/Dweeney because they've "proven it" at that level and the younger guys haven't? I'm not saying Reed's not CURRENTLY better than the other 2, but it's no stretch to imagine that the other guys could be better within 2-3 years, which is all that comment about the chart means.

As for Rowand, you're not convinced that ARow can maintain his proven performance in the bigs, but somehow you think Reed, who's proven a ton less will outplay or match him?:?:

gosox41
10-07-2004, 12:27 AM
In the end, they both haven't won JACK. Beane Ball proves yet again this season, that HE who spends on proven players will beat weak OBP guys, and pitching.

At least Kenny has an excuse this year with the sluggers going out to injury.
Billy Beane just comes out looking like a cheap skate.

He easily could've picked up a bat during trade season. HEck, probably could've taken Walker or someone like him. Now the A's sit at home enjoying 2nd place, just like Kenny and the Sox. At least he didn't waste everyone's time by going out in the 1st round again.
You mean like the Sox get eliminated when they've been in the playoffs?

For the record, Beane isn't the cheap one. Read an article earlier today (maybne it was Gammons) who said that the A's had a deal in place to get Kent, but A's ownership nixed it. That's not Beane's fault.

Don't let the facts deter you form a useless rant.


Bob

FarWestChicago
10-07-2004, 01:01 AM
For the record, Beane isn't the cheap one. Read an article earlier today (maybne it was Gammons) who said that the A's had a deal in place to get Kent, but A's ownership nixed it. That's not Beane's fault.LOL, Gammons!! There's a reliable source. For the record, out here where people are objective about Beane and he's not worshipped by FOBB's, I heard him being criticized today for not making that move and the acquisitions of Rhodes and Blotel. You FOBB's couldn't take living in A's land. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

balke
10-07-2004, 05:17 AM
You mean like the Sox get eliminated when they've been in the playoffs?

For the record, Beane isn't the cheap one. Read an article earlier today (maybne it was Gammons) who said that the A's had a deal in place to get Kent, but A's ownership nixed it. That's not Beane's fault.

Don't let the facts deter you form a useless rant.


BobHAHAHAHAHA Jeff KENT!!!! :tongue:


There's an answer to slugging woes. I'm talking a move that would HELP the A's offensively. Here's a fact for ya, Kent sucks! I'm talking Walker, Beltran, Delgado, TEJADA!, a move that would actually help the team.

Poor Beane. Ownership did nothing but help him out. That move is about as pathetic as it gets. Cough up some players and some dough, and make it past the first round. Your team costs you under 50 mil, and you can't sign one free agent to help your cause that will add excitement and run power to your team? THAT IS CHEAP my friend. Kent is a clubhouse cancer, and a well-known sucker. Not a useless rant, a point of Beane being a cheap GM that creates boring baseball. I'm so happy to see a real American League baseball team come out of the west. I hope Mulder can get out of there soon.

:gulp: Here's to star-lit baseball, Future Hall-of-Famers, and fireworks.

JRIG
10-07-2004, 07:54 AM
HAHAHAHAHA Jeff KENT!!!! :tongue:


There's an answer to slugging woes. I'm talking a move that would HELP the A's offensively. Here's a fact for ya, Kent sucks! I'm talking Walker, Beltran, Delgado, TEJADA!, a move that would actually help the team.


I would love to have a 2nd baseman that "sucks" like Jeff Kent:

2004: .289/.348/.531

That's OK, we have KW "pet" project Willie Harris.

JRIG
10-07-2004, 08:07 AM
Been so busy at work I just got a chance to read KW's letter. And I know this has been covered in this thread, but...


On the wall of our board room is a chart showing our team's projected roster over the next three years. Miguel Olivo is the only player we have traded away who is on that chart from 2004 to 2007.

This quote makes it quite clear, once and for all, KW has no business running a team, any team. He talks about speed and OBP and grinders and getting on base. Here, in Reed, he has a guy who is a prime example of all of those things, a player that has shown strong signs of being a player unlike any this organization has had in his reign. And not only does he trade him, he wasn't even planning on him being a starter in the next 3 years.

Unbelievable. Actually, too believable.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 10:01 AM
Been so busy at work I just got a chance to read KW's letter. And I know this has been covered in this thread, but...


This quote makes it quite clear, once and for all, KW has no business running a team, any team. He talks about speed and OBP and grinders and getting on base. Here, in Reed, he has a guy who is a prime example of all of those things, a player that has shown strong signs of being a player unlike any this organization has had in his reign. And not only does he trade him, he wasn't even planning on him being a starter in the next 3 years.

Unbelievable. Actually, too believable.

It's hard to believe he didn't see Reed in the Sox future between 2004-2007 (before he traded him). I don't get what he's thinking. But if he wants 'grinders' I would say Reed would fit into that category and should have been on the list.


Bob

gosox41
10-07-2004, 10:03 AM
HAHAHAHAHA Jeff KENT!!!! :tongue:


There's an answer to slugging woes. I'm talking a move that would HELP the A's offensively. Here's a fact for ya, Kent sucks! I'm talking Walker, Beltran, Delgado, TEJADA!, a move that would actually help the team.

Poor Beane. Ownership did nothing but help him out. That move is about as pathetic as it gets. Cough up some players and some dough, and make it past the first round. Your team costs you under 50 mil, and you can't sign one free agent to help your cause that will add excitement and run power to your team? THAT IS CHEAP my friend. Kent is a clubhouse cancer, and a well-known sucker. Not a useless rant, a point of Beane being a cheap GM that creates boring baseball. I'm so happy to see a real American League baseball team come out of the west. I hope Mulder can get out of there soon.

:gulp: Here's to star-lit baseball, Future Hall-of-Famers, and fireworks.
You are completely confused and clueless. No point explaining things to you. But I'll try one point. Does KW set the Sox payroll or does Reinsdorf? Now, does Beane set the A's payroll or his ownership?

And you criticize Beane, yet look at the Sox record of being relatively cheap and not even making the playoffs.




Bob

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 10:25 AM
Been so busy at work I just got a chance to read KW's letter. And I know this has been covered in this thread, but...


This quote makes it quite clear, once and for all, KW has no business running a team, any team. He talks about speed and OBP and grinders and getting on base. Here, in Reed, he has a guy who is a prime example of all of those things, a player that has shown strong signs of being a player unlike any this organization has had in his reign. And not only does he trade him, he wasn't even planning on him being a starter in the next 3 years.

Unbelievable. Actually, too believable.
This was discussed at length yesterday. The most likely reasons why this is the case is that they had Sweeney, Anderson, Rowand projected ahead of him by 2007. So it's not that he wasn't envisioned as a starter at some point during that period, just that he was envisioned being beat out by 2007. There was also talk athat given that the Sox made a pretty good offer (reportedly) to Maggs that KW thought he had a decent shot at resigning him and that may have been what was on the chart.

Then there's the fact that since it's a PR letter and no one really knows what's on the chart, there's a decent chance that he's just doing his little bit to make the Garcia trade look that much better.

MisterB
10-07-2004, 11:27 AM
Miguel Olivo is the only player we have traded away who is on that chart from 2004 to 2007.
I take that as Olivo was the only player on the roster this season (2004) that figured to be here through 2007. Reed wasn't even on the 40-man roster yet this year.

Jerome
10-07-2004, 12:02 PM
It will only be touted as such because we've all been beaten over the heads with the incessant "big 3" paddle until we're cross-eyed.

Developing pitching is in large-part luck. No matter who does it.



How come the A's luck is way better than the Sox' luck?

Randar68
10-07-2004, 12:04 PM
How come the A's luck is way better than the Sox' luck?
Are you just being pithy or do you want an answer? The A's draft college pitchers and have had 2 top 11 picks reach the majors without injury. Look around baseball and tell me how often that happens. The Sox went over 10 years with the lowest injury rates in baseball. The lest 3-4 years have been an absolute disaster in that department.

It's a crapshoot, buddy. The numbers even out in the long-run.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 01:08 PM
It's a crapshoot, buddy. The numbers even out in the long-run.
We hope.


Bob

CWSGuy406
10-07-2004, 07:52 PM
they are obviously not as good as BB either! im just pointing out that KW passed on him because what we are arguing is that BB is still a good GM and still better than KW even though BB failed to make the playoffs this year
Let's look at some of the teams that also passed on Blanton in that draft. Doing a bit of research, I found that some of the teams that also passed on Blanton were Atlanta, Anahiem, and LA.

So - you're trying to tell me that - because the Atlanta GM didn't take Blanton, that he's not as good as Beane? Even though the Atlanta GM has made the postseason for 10+ years?

What am I missing here?

Just as you did on your old name, you use other people's arguments - other people who are FOBB - and argue them - even though, you argue them very, very poorly, and make the smarter FOBB's look sort of stupid. I almost fell off of my chair when I saw you using Scutaro - a player who had a lower OBP than Joe Friggin' Crede - trying to back up your argument.

You're truely - truely, pathetic.

gosox41
10-08-2004, 02:38 PM
Let's look at some of the teams that also passed on Blanton in that draft. Doing a bit of research, I found that some of the teams that also passed on Blanton were Atlanta, Anahiem, and LA.

So - you're trying to tell me that - because the Atlanta GM didn't take Blanton, that he's not as good as Beane? Even though the Atlanta GM has made the postseason for 10+ years?

What am I missing here?

Just as you did on your old name, you use other people's arguments - other people who are FOBB - and argue them - even though, you argue them very, very poorly, and make the smarter FOBB's look sort of stupid. I almost fell off of my chair when I saw you using Scutaro - a player who had a lower OBP than Joe Friggin' Crede - trying to back up your argument.

You're truely - truely, pathetic.
You're missing the fact that KW was specifically asking Beane about Blanton being available. Now the book may have portrayed it as a one sided conversation, but I think Michael Lewis has enough integrity to not completely make up a whole conversation. Say if KW called to ask Beane if he should wear brown shoes with brown pants. I doubt Lewis said to himself, 'Brown starts with a B. So does Blanton. I have a plan to make KW look stupid even though i have no reason to.'

The conversation may have been reported one sided, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Second, KW took a relief pitcher insterad. Anaheim, LA, etc. didn't waste their picks on relievers in the first round. Now maybe KW was thinking of the present, but then why draft HS kids at all?


Bob