PDA

View Full Version : "The Great" Billy Beane?


Jabroni
12-19-2004, 06:02 AM
Why would Beane trade for Jason Kendall and add his albatross of a contract and then trade his two best pitchers? Wouldn't the smart thing be to make a run for the playoffs in 2005 with the Big Three still intact and an awesome leadoff man in Kendall?

Maybe he isn't quite the genious that all the stat-heads think he is.

Say goodbye to the "Big Three"!
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/images/2004/12/19/44mCCXgr.jpg

munchman33
12-19-2004, 06:55 AM
Well, I'm no FOBB, but Beane did trade the salaries of the much less productive Mark Redman and Arthur Rhodes in the Kendall deal, while also getting money back from Pittsburgh.

danjames
12-19-2004, 10:40 AM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along? In Moneyball, there are several references made to the team of statgeeks that Beane employs to make sure they know what they're doing.

Maybe Depodesta was one of the louder ones, and now that he's gone, no one is speaking up against these rash ideas?

idseer
12-19-2004, 10:50 AM
don't know why you'd blame bean for this. wouldn't you figure he has tight restraints on him just like our own kw?
why not wait to see what the a's are doing in a few years before criticizing these moves?

johnny_mostil
12-19-2004, 10:52 AM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along? In Moneyball, there are several references made to the team of statgeeks that Beane employs to make sure they know what they're doing.

Maybe Depodesta was one of the louder ones, and now that he's gone, no one is speaking up against these rash ideas?
What rash ideas? The A's think (and they could be right) that Blanton and Harden are lights-out ace material and they are cheap. At some point the A's have to hand the ball to these guys. Besides, the whole idea of Moneyball is to get as much production from as little money as possible. Hudson and Muldur have long since outgrown being cheap.

View this as a test. The A's have repeatedly dumped their large contracts with talented players, replaced the players with cheap substitutes, and managed to stay in the race in a competitive division with a small payroll. The anti-Moneyball baseball witch doctors (the Friends of Grady Fuson) all insist that Beane was just lucky in having drafted three ace pitchers, and that the rest of his operational theory is all baloney.

On the other hand, the FOGF organization in the division, Seattle, is loading up on anti-Moneyball players. They think this will magically improve a team whose core was rotting away.

Well, now we will see, won't we? OK, folks, time to go to Vegas and bet your houses where your mouths are. I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

Oh, and don't forget, Moneyball also says KW was planing to draft Blanton but switched at the last minute to bust Royce Ring.

johnny_mostil
12-19-2004, 10:55 AM
don't know why you'd blame bean for this. wouldn't you figure he has tight restraints on him just like our own kw?

Tighter. If you think the Cubs/White Sox situation is imbalanced, the Giants/A's situation is worse. The A's are virtually broke, all the time, and their "fan base" is weak. The solution is to move south on 880 about 30 miles, but the Giants perversely block it, viewing a city that is impossibly far away in their traffic as being part of their exclusive territory.

Soxzilla
12-19-2004, 11:07 AM
don't know why you'd blame bean for this. wouldn't you figure he has tight restraints on him just like our own kw?
why not wait to see what the a's are doing in a few years before criticizing these moves?Bull. If KW traded away Buehrle and Garcia in order to 'rebuild' after this year, there would be a witchhunt and nobody would let up. Why should the FOKW have to let up when you guys rag on Kenny's nut hairs every time he shakes?

How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball? Or the clubhouse for that matter?

But I see ID ... let's give Beane years to examine his work, but KW only has fragments of seconds before he is castrated.

Beane screwed the pooch, there I said it. See? I can jump to conclusions on BB just as easily as you guys can on KW!

johnny_mostil
12-19-2004, 11:18 AM
How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball?

Exactly. Garcia was 9-4 despite playing all of his games for the post-Frank, post-Magglio version of the team. He didn't post a 3.30 ERA because USCF isn't Safeco. I saw an often-dominant pitcher who rarely failed to give the Sox a chance to win. What the Sam Hill does everybody want?

johnny_mostil
12-19-2004, 11:20 AM
Well, I'm no FOBB, but Beane did trade the salaries of the much less productive Mark Redman and Arthur Rhodes in the Kendall deal, while also getting money back from Pittsburgh.
He still needed to lose $9,000,000 a year to satisfy his strapped owner, Steve Schott. That required taking flyers on young pitchers and dumping two of the big three.

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 11:39 AM
Bull. If KW traded away Buehrle and Garcia in order to 'rebuild' after this year, there would be a witchhunt and nobody would let up. Why should the FOKW have to let up when you guys rag on Kenny's nut hairs every time he shakes?

How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball? Or the clubhouse for that matter?

But I see ID ... let's give Beane years to examine his work, but KW only has fragments of seconds before he is castrated.

Beane screwed the pooch, there I said it. See? I can jump to conclusions on BB just as easily as you guys can on KW!Exactly. FOBB are hypocrites.

Brian26
12-19-2004, 11:44 AM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along?
This is really quite interesting to me because I just read Moneyball this week on the train commute. By the way, if you haven't already read it, you should. It's a very simple read. I thoroughly enjoyed the chapter on the history of Bill James and how he turned his small ad in the Sporting News into a big deal. But I digress...

In Moneyball, DePodesta seems to have been the entire brains behind the operation - always checking the numbers on his computer for Beane. In the 2002 draft, all 16 guys on the A's short list were guys that Paul had found.

Brian26
12-19-2004, 11:46 AM
Oh, and don't forget, Moneyball also says KW was planing to draft Blanton but switched at the last minute to bust Royce Ring.
Actually, I think the book calls him "Roger Ring". Maybe that's his real name, though. I did catch that immediately though because I've never heard him called "Roger".

idseer
12-19-2004, 12:47 PM
Bull. If KW traded away Buehrle and Garcia in order to 'rebuild' after this year, there would be a witchhunt and nobody would let up. Why should the FOKW have to let up when you guys rag on Kenny's nut hairs every time he shakes?

How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball? Or the clubhouse for that matter?

But I see ID ... let's give Beane years to examine his work, but KW only has fragments of seconds before he is castrated.

Beane screwed the pooch, there I said it. See? I can jump to conclusions on BB just as easily as you guys can on KW! 1st ... i'm not a fobb. never cared anything about him. but what you say here is the real bull. you've got apples mixed with oranges here.

ask me again when buehrle is near free agency and asking the moon. ask me again when garcia, who probably already feels like a fool for signing a puny contract (by comparison) to others this year, is ready for fa again and asking for 12 mil a year. you damn right kw will be trying to move him!

btw ... i am also NOT a kw foe. i like what he's done for the most part and am pretty pleased he's ours.

bb did NOT screw the pooch. he did what he felt he HAD to do.

row18
12-19-2004, 12:56 PM
Bull. If KW traded away Buehrle and Garcia in order to 'rebuild' after this year, there would be a witchhunt and nobody would let up. Why should the FOKW have to let up when you guys rag on Kenny's nut hairs every time he shakes?

How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball? Or the clubhouse for that matter?

But I see ID ... let's give Beane years to examine his work, but KW only has fragments of seconds before he is castrated.

Beane screwed the pooch, there I said it. See? I can jump to conclusions on BB just as easily as you guys can on KW!
Thank You, Well said.

SomebodyToldMe
12-19-2004, 01:00 PM
Say goodbye to the "Big Three"!
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/images/2004/12/19/44mCCXgr.jpg
That actually makes me sad.

But it's time for the new Big Three!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/deputy_of_reno/sox4.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/deputy_of_reno/sox9.jpg

and...

Ok I've got nothing...yet.

Soxzilla
12-19-2004, 01:13 PM
1st ... i'm not a fobb. never cared anything about him. but what you say here is the real bull. you've got apples mixed with oranges here.

ask me again when buehrle is near free agency and asking the moon. ask me again when garcia, who probably already feels like a fool for signing a puny contract (by comparison) to others this year, is ready for fa again and asking for 12 mil a year. you damn right kw will be trying to move him!

btw ... i am also NOT a kw foe. i like what he's done for the most part and am pretty pleased he's ours.

bb did NOT screw the pooch. he did what he felt he HAD to do.
I never figured you for a FOBB, just a FOAKW (Friends of Anti KW), this happens to be the first post I've read of yours where you actually give the man some credit. Which is sort of fortunate ...

But anyways, I was just stating how genius KW looks now that he traded for Garcia (He is a STEAL at this price). Yet when the beginning of the off season came around, or heck, when the end of the season reared its ugly head, the FOBBs where all too happy pointing out his failure for wasting Reed and Olivo on this guy, when we could have acquired him in the off season. And you can't say that we gave up too much, because when you are on the verge of winning (Which we all hope the Sox are), you have to give up something young, to get something in return, this isn't MVP baseball, you can't trade timo perez and draft picks for ichiro.

But back on topic, while I can't judge this trade (Mulder and Hudson) right now (Because then I would lower myself to FOBB standards), and I admit my 'screwed the pooch' remarks are a little over zealous at this point, but WHY bring in a catcher like Kendall when you are planning on rebuilding? What is the point? Sure you dump junk like rhodes and redman ... but come on, other teams (Like the white sox) could have used that much more, and I mean, we all know BB is such a genius, he wouldn't have ANY trouble swindling Kenny out of more top prospects.

Eitherway, we won't need to shop around Buehrle and Garcia in 2 years, because we'll have won 2 championships by then, and a payroll comparable to the Boston Red Sox.


....And the cubs will have moved to hell ... where they belong.

Point of the thread - FOBBs, whatever goes around comes around. Now the FOKWs get to talk crap, so let us enjoy it!

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 01:17 PM
It will be interesting to see how this all works out. I think Beane is a very good GM. Yes he's a bit egotistical and conscious of his media image. But, it's the fawning FOBB's that are annoying, not him. And they are very hypocritical. If Beane traded Zito :smokin: for Royce Clayton tomorrow they would find a way to spin it into genius. Conversely, if Kenny signed Odalis Perez for the major league minimum they would rip him (and somehow find a way to mention Jeremy Reed). That whole schtick gets old, but what plays out in Oakland should be quite fascinating.

JRIG
12-19-2004, 03:02 PM
It will be interesting to see how this all works out. I think Beane is a very good GM. Yes he's a bit egotistical and conscious of his media image. But, it's the fawning FOBB's that are annoying, not him. And they are very hypocritical. If Beane traded Zito :smokin: for Royce Clayton tomorrow they would find a way to spin it into genius. Conversely, if Kenny signed Odalis Perez for the major league minimum they would rip him (and somehow find a way to mention Jeremy Reed). That whole schtick gets old, but what plays out in Oakland should be quite fascinating.
This will be a test for Beane, obviously. He believes Blanton and Harden are ready. He needs to cut payroll and thinks Hudson and Mulder will be overvalued when their contracts are up. Seeing the deals that are being signed this offseason, he looks to be correct.

Now, there is virtually no way to say Beane has another couple of masterstrokes with these trades. Did he get OK value for Hudson and Mulder? Yeah, probably. Are the A's right now better than they were with Hudson and Mulder. No, I don't think so. But can they still succeed? Yes.

Beane's a great GM. I'm not going to bet against him.

Jerome
12-19-2004, 03:37 PM
Bull. If KW traded away Buehrle and Garcia in order to 'rebuild' after this year, there would be a witchhunt and nobody would let up. Why should the FOKW have to let up when you guys rag on Kenny's nut hairs every time he shakes?

How long is it before we see another "Garcia deal a bust" thread in talking baseball? Or the clubhouse for that matter?

But I see ID ... let's give Beane years to examine his work, but KW only has fragments of seconds before he is castrated.

Beane screwed the pooch, there I said it. See? I can jump to conclusions on BB just as easily as you guys can on KW!


Beane made the playoffs for three years in a row in a very tough division with a much smaller payroll than the Sox. During that same time, KW's grinders have underachieved in a much weaker division.

That is why so many FOBBs hate KW. They see that over in Oakland there is a guy doing more with less.

Me personally, I like the Freddy trade. I was never overly impressed with Olivo. (I could care less about Chad Bradford.)

And if, somehow, Freddy and Buhrle were traded, I'm pretty sure the Sox don't have a Blanton and Harden waiting in the wings.

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 03:40 PM
Beane's a great GM. I'm not going to bet against him.If they can thrive with Bong Boy and the kids as a rotation, he will look pretty good indeed. I wonder what he's going to do with Douchebag. That guy is tough to hit when his curve is working. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 03:43 PM
That is why so many FOBBs hate KW. They see that over in Oakland there is a guy doing more with less. Judging from their behavior, I don't believe this is the case at all. It's just a smoke screen.

Soxzilla
12-19-2004, 03:56 PM
Beane made the playoffs for three years in a row in a very tough division with a much smaller payroll than the Sox. During that same time, KW's grinders have underachieved in a much weaker division.

That is why so many FOBBs hate KW. They see that over in Oakland there is a guy doing more with less.

Me personally, I like the Freddy trade. I was never overly impressed with Olivo. (I could care less about Chad Bradford.)

And if, somehow, Freddy and Buhrle were traded, I'm pretty sure the Sox don't have a Blanton and Harden waiting in the wings.
I'm pretty sure they don't either, and I totally agree with what your saying. I think our minor league system has been a joke thus far, who have we produced in the past few years that is worth noting? Rowand? Buehrle?

Compared with the utter garbage we've thrown out there, like Danny Wrong, Stewart, Cotts, BORCHARD, Munoz it really has me worried whether Sweeney, Anderson and Bmac are going to amount to anything. We all know how highly touted LTP was ... :rolleyes:

Now, I'm not exactly sure who is to blame for this? Be it KW or Schueler, I admit I don't know who's guys are whos. But eitherway, I cut Kenny some slack because he has fielded a team that SHOULD compete every year (More often by outslugging opponents), but we just have had some real underacheivers out there ... there is no reason we should have lost in 2003 ... that was unexcusable. 2004 was more disheartening because we lost our two big sluggers ... even though we still should have taken that division (IMO).

I'm not sure you can blame Kenny for putting out the productive players ... only to have a group that gets shaky feet whenever the lifeline is at stake, but then again, maybe you can. I'm not going to pretend I work in the busines, I'll just call it like it see it (whether my opinion sucks or not:smile: ).

I'm not sure that you can argue that Beane has accomplished more in the past 3 years than KW has ... BUT, the past is the past, and neither one of them have done exactly **** ... so despite Beane's success, they are about even keil right now. I believe it is 0 WS to 0 WS between them.:redneck

pudge
12-19-2004, 04:27 PM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along? In Moneyball, there are several references made to the team of statgeeks that Beane employs to make sure they know what they're doing.

Maybe Depodesta was one of the louder ones, and now that he's gone, no one is speaking up against these rash ideas?
That's hogwash. Read Gammons article on ESPN and it explains that Beane is basically trying to establish a cheap 5-man rotation that will be around for the next five years. Considering his salary contraints, he's not doing such a bad job.

cleogogo
12-19-2004, 05:24 PM
Can someone explain why Bean would not keep mulder/hudson and try to make a run at the division title? If their not winning he could trade them at the deadline.
Would he get more or less in return, during the season?

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 05:28 PM
Can someone explain why Bean would not keep mulder/hudson and try to make a run at the division title? If their not winning he could trade them at the deadline.
Would he get more or less in return, during the season?That's what I want to know. Why add Kendall and his huge contract and not keep Hudson and Mulder for one more season and make a run at the playoffs and beyond?

voodoochile
12-19-2004, 05:28 PM
Can someone explain why Bean would not keep mulder/hudson and try to make a run at the division title? If their not winning he could trade them at the deadline.
Would he get more or less in return, during the season?
Any way you slice it, he white flagged it at least a year early...

If I'm an A's fan, I'm ticked... really ticked...

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 05:32 PM
Any way you slice it, he white flagged it at least a year early...

If I'm an A's fan, I'm ticked... really ticked...Agreed. Notice how Beane traded Hudson and Mulder after Seattle signed Sexson and Beltre. Hmmm, something's fishy there, no?

fquaye149
12-19-2004, 05:39 PM
if he's conceding defeat to the MARINERS he's crazy.

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 05:42 PM
if he's conceding defeat to the MARINERS he's crazy.If they sign another starting pitcher and their rotation performs like the Cardinals' did last season, they are contenders. They have a sick lineup now.

MHOUSE
12-19-2004, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if dealing Mulder turns out like dealing Koch did. Mulder has pitched A LOT of innings the last two years especially and after getting his 17th win in '04 he didn't win again. His ERA over those last starts was very high and there was speculation that he was hurt and didn't tell anyone. He has also missed at least three starts the last two years because of nagging injury or fatigue.

I would not put it past Beane to deal potentially damaged goods at high value instead of trying to squeeze another season out of Mulder and having him lose his value and Hudson be lost to free agency. Their rotation has the potential to break out if Blanton and Meyer reach their potential quickly.

PaulDrake
12-19-2004, 06:18 PM
Exactly. FOBB are hypocrites. You don't have to be a FOBB to see that KW is in over his head.

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 06:22 PM
You don't have to be a FOBB to see that KW is in over his head.How does Beane trading away his two best pitchers for unproven talent have anything to do with KW? :rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
12-19-2004, 06:27 PM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along? In Moneyball, there are several references made to the team of statgeeks that Beane employs to make sure they know what they're doing.

Maybe Depodesta was one of the louder ones, and now that he's gone, no one is speaking up against these rash ideas?
DePodesta was his right hand man in Oakland. That could be the case.

As for the trades, Beane could have confidence in his young pitchers can replace big three production. Also he could be leery of Mulder's hip thus can't take the risk his salary becomes a drain on team's budget.

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 06:32 PM
DePodesta was his right hand man in Oakland. That could be the case.

As for the trades, Beane could have confidence in his young pitchers can replace big three production. Also he could be leery of Mulder's hip thus can't take the risk his salary becomes a drain on team's budget.But Mulder has a relatively cheap contract considering his production. $6 million in 2005 and $7.25 million is cheap for a pitcher of Mulder's quality, especially when scrubs like Kris Benson are making that.

http://img83.exs.cx/img83/8949/markmulder6yt.jpg

PaulDrake
12-19-2004, 06:34 PM
How does Beane trading away his two best pitchers for unproven talent have anything to do with KW? :rolleyes: I worked all day and then had a some wine for dinner. Maybe I can't hold it like I used to. :D: I just thought that some of us who don't care too much for KW also don't bow at the altar of the great Beane. Now that I've maybe muddied the waters let me say I agree with Voodoo. If I'm an A's fan I'm extremely ticked. I think Mulder and Hudson were nice additions for their respective teams. It would have been great to land either one of them for the Sox. Mulder is local and Hudson is a favorite of mine.

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 06:42 PM
Read Gammons article on ESPN and it explains that Beane is basically trying to establish a cheap 5-man rotation that will be around for the next five years.Now there's a true authoritative source. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 06:46 PM
I just thought that some of us who don't care too much for KW also don't bow at the altar of the great Beane.I think there may be a few of you out there. You get kind of drowned out by the Worshipers. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Dadawg_77
12-19-2004, 06:57 PM
But Mulder has a relatively cheap contract considering his production. $6 million in 2005 and $7.25 million is cheap for a pitcher of Mulder's quality, especially when scrubs like Kris Benson are making that.

http://img83.exs.cx/img83/8949/markmulder6yt.jpg
When you have to cut 9 million from your salary, 6 million for a pitcher who you consider a high risk for an injury might not be right path to take. Mulder did fall on his face the last part of last year. That falloff could be related to being overworked, thus puts a red flag around Moulder for this year.

As for people asking hypothetical question of what would you think if Kenny traded Mark or Freddy, the whole premise of the question relies on if the Sox had young stud arms in the waiting. Right now the Sox don't and Oakland does. But having replacement parts would lessen burden of losing Mark and Freddy and you would gain parts aquired from trading Mark and Freddy.

Is this waving the white flag, Beane says he still has team that can compete. And given his track record, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to see what he can pull out. Before you all start calling me a hyporcrit, no team Kenny has ever put together has made the playoffs.

From a interview of Beane on ESPN radio. This shows his primary motivation of trading Hudson was cost control. In another question in the interview, Beane says the market for pitcher of Hudson or Mulder is extremly high and he can get the players he needs.

Tell me about the three players you got in return.
The first thing we wanted to look at is a young pitcher who was ready for the major leagues or very, very close. Dan Meyer (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7426) was a guy the Braves had, very successful, first round pick of the Braves a couple of years ago. Career like 2.70 ERA in the minor leagues, and actually pitched a couple of innings in the big leagues. They had a piece we had to have in any deal with the Braves. The other guy was Charles Thomas (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7364) -- an outfielder who came up as a rookie last year, a guy we've always thought was a very good player who proved his sort of mettle last year -- outstanding defensive player, plays the game hard, good base-runner. And a guy once again we have cost control over the next couple of years. And finally Juan Cruz, (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6783) who's a guy who will upgrade our bullpen but will also give us a fallback starter if some of our young starters falter a little bit. So three guys we're going to have for a while, guys we can afford as opposed to going out and getting a guy who's established already making money that if he has a good year, we have to turn around and trade him because of the cost. We were very specific on the type and where they were at in their career and these three fit that.
http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/story?storyId=1948466

voodoochile
12-19-2004, 07:04 PM
When you have to cut 9 million from your salary, 6 million for a pitcher who you consider a high risk for an injury might not be right path to take. Mulder did fall on his face the last part of last year. That falloff could be related to being overworked, thus puts a red flag around Moulder for this year.

As for people asking hypothetical question of what would you think if Kenny traded Mark or Freddy, the whole premise of the question relies on if the Sox had young stud arms in the waiting. Right now the Sox don't and Oakland does. But having replacement parts would lessen burden of losing Mark and Freddy and you would gain parts aquired from trading Mark and Freddy.

Is this waving the white flag, Beane says he still has team that can compete. And given his track record, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to see what he can pull out. Before you all start calling me a hyporcrit, no team Kenny has ever put together has made the playoffs.

From a interview of Beane on ESPN radio. This shows his primary motivation of trading Hudson was cost control. In another question in the interview, Beane says the market for pitcher of Hudson or Mulder is extremly high and he can get the players he needs.


http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/story?storyId=1948466

So he traded an elite SP for Chris Singleton, a guy with worse minor league stats than Jon Garland and a middle reliver who might cut it as a 5th starter in a pinch...:?:

WOOHOO! I can see already how you folks like this guy...:rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
12-19-2004, 07:08 PM
So he traded an elite SP for Chris Singleton, a guy with worse minor league stats than Jon Garland and a middle reliver who might cut it as a 5th starter in a pinch...:?:

WOOHOO! I can see already how you folks like this guy...:rolleyes:
Hey not saying whether or not I like the deal, just Beane has earned enough respect for one to give him the benefit of the doubt.

FarWestChicago
12-19-2004, 07:41 PM
Hey not saying whether or not I like the deal, just Beane has earned enough respect for one to give him the benefit of the doubt.Not with real A's fans. They are pissed. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Jabroni
12-19-2004, 07:46 PM
Not with real A's fans. They are pissed. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gifYep.

fquaye149
12-19-2004, 08:01 PM
Not with real A's fans. They are pissed. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
they just wouldn't understand as well as a "sox fan" who "follows the a's tangentially".

voodoochile
12-19-2004, 08:47 PM
Not with real A's fans. They are pissed. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
No way...

Did that seriously need to be in teal?:rolleyes:

Jabroni
12-20-2004, 12:36 AM
Athletics | Zito is No. 1 - from www.KFFL.com
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:08:01 -0800

Janie McCauley, of the Associated Press, reports Oakland Athletics SP Barry Zito would likely be the team's No. 1 starting pitcher in 2005, according to Oakland general manager Billy Beane.Athletics | Harden is No. 2 - from www.KFFL.com
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:14:00 -0800
Janie McCauley, of the Associated Press, reports Oakland Athletics SP Rich Harden would likely be the team's No. 2 starting pitcher in 2005, according to Oakland general manager Billy Beane.Athletics | Meyer is No. 3 - from www.KFFL.com
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:15:50 -0800

Janie McCauley, of the Associated Press, reports Oakland Athletics SP Dan Meyer would likely be the team's No. 3 starting pitcher in 2005, according to Oakland general manager Billy Beane.

Athletics | Blanton is No. 4 - from www.KFFL.com
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:16:56 -0800

Janie McCauley, of the Associated Press, reports Oakland Athletics SP Joe Blanton would likely be the team's No. 4 starting pitcher in 2005, according to Oakland general manager Billy Beane.Athletics | Haren is No. 5 - from www.KFFL.com
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:17:43 -0800

Janie McCauley, of the Associated Press, reports Oakland Athletics SP Dan Haren would likely be the team's No. 5 starting pitcher in 2005, according to Oakland general manager Billy Beane.:tongue:

OurBitchinMinny
12-20-2004, 09:40 AM
I was discussing this with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that maybe Dopodesta was the brains behind the As all along? In Moneyball, there are several references made to the team of statgeeks that Beane employs to make sure they know what they're doing.

Maybe Depodesta was one of the louder ones, and now that he's gone, no one is speaking up against these rash ideas?


look what depodesta is doing to the dodgers now

gosox41
12-20-2004, 11:57 AM
This will be a test for Beane, obviously. He believes Blanton and Harden are ready. He needs to cut payroll and thinks Hudson and Mulder will be overvalued when their contracts are up. Seeing the deals that are being signed this offseason, he looks to be correct.

Now, there is virtually no way to say Beane has another couple of masterstrokes with these trades. Did he get OK value for Hudson and Mulder? Yeah, probably. Are the A's right now better than they were with Hudson and Mulder. No, I don't think so. But can they still succeed? Yes.

Beane's a great GM. I'm not going to bet against him.
Agreed. The A's are retooling right now instead of going through an outright rebuilding process. They will probably havea down year next year, but will probably be a stronger team in 06 and beyond then they would be if the did nothing.

Both deals that were made were good for all the teams involved.


Bob

gosox41
12-20-2004, 11:59 AM
That's hogwash. Read Gammons article on ESPN and it explains that Beane is basically trying to establish a cheap 5-man rotation that will be around for the next five years. Considering his salary contraints, he's not doing such a bad job.
Seems ot be doinga better job of putting together a 5 man rotation then KW. Unles you think Grilli/Diaz are good pitchers and that Contreras will live up to the hype.


Bob

gosox41
12-20-2004, 12:00 PM
Agreed. Notice how Beane traded Hudson and Mulder after Seattle signed Sexson and Beltre. Hmmm, something's fishy there, no?
I don't think so. I mean it's possible, but I've been hearing stuff since the end of last season that Beane might break up the Big 3.


Bob

CWSGuy406
12-20-2004, 02:09 PM
While I don't consider myself a FOBB, you guys are making his team out to be terrible (in '05), but that really isn't the case. What Beane has done here -- again, JMHO -- is he's gotten players that will be with him for five plus years, giving him a better shot at contending from '06-'10, but also a solid shot at '05 too (at least, IMHO).

First off, at this point, their lineup is a lot better than ours is:
C-Kendall
1B-Hatteberg
2B-Ginter
3B-Chavez
SS-Crosby
OF-Swisher
OF-Byrnes
OF-Kotsay
DH-Durazo

If that isn't a sabermatics-fans' dream, I don't know what is. You have at least four guys in that lineup that lineup who are going to get on base at a ridiculously high rate, and outside of Crosby, all of them will get on base at, at the very least, a pretty solid rate. You have power, not a lot, but a little bit, with Byrnes, Durazo, Chavez, and Crosby, too.

I guess it all depends on whether or not Beane's starting rotation shows up or not. I know one thing, they'll have a darn good bullpen, for sure. It's whether or not the young arms step up or not.

But, they definitely aren't in as bad of shape as some of you haters of Beane (and I'm on neither side of the fence, KW or BB) make them out to be...

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 02:15 PM
outside of Crosby, all of them will get on base at, at the very least, a pretty solid rate.
ginter?

and oh by the way, how many runs did this ridiculously high obp team score last year?

CWSGuy406
12-20-2004, 02:28 PM
ginter?

and oh by the way, how many runs did this ridiculously high obp team score last year?
True, Ginter didn't have such a good OBP, but he's definitely a guy I wish was added on that Carlos Lee deal. He absolutely annialates lefties, which will be good because they have a lot of lefties in that lineup that are able to dominate righties (thus, he won't be relied upon for as much offense vs. right handers).

What have the Athletics lost offensively? Jermaine Dye, that's it. Sure, they'll lose a little power, but Nick Swisher will also get on-base more than Dye ever did. They also added one of the best leadoff hitters (OBP-wise) in the game in Jason Kendall. Crosby has another year under his belt, he'll (most likely) improve upon last year's numbers, too.

I'm not saying they'll be World Series contenders, but I think that they should be in a position to contend (not necessarily to win) the Wildcard.

ma-gaga
12-20-2004, 05:11 PM
I want to know what the Anti-FOBB think, if this team that Beane just put together wins 80 games next year, then 90 in 2006, then 100 and the WS in 2007.

What would that be called? Is it worth "regressing" to 0.500 to retool the organization? Despite losing 10 more games in the initial year???

Most teams regress to 70 wins. I don't know how good these young pitchers are, but we'll find out next year. The only stat head Oakland fan I know (EIO)seems to really really like the deals. Questioning the catcher situation a bit, but other than that very very positive.

:gulp:

FarWestChicago
12-20-2004, 05:15 PM
I want to know what the Anti-FOBB think, if this team that Beane just put together wins 80 games next year, then 90 in 2006, then 100 and the WS in 2007.

What would that be called? Is it worth "regressing" to 0.500 to retool the organization? Despite losing 10 more games in the initial year??? :reinsy

I like the way you think! I've done that before.

Baines2Raines
12-21-2004, 03:35 AM
I want to know what the Anti-FOBB think, if this team that Beane just put together wins 80 games next year, then 90 in 2006, then 100 and the WS in 2007.

What would that be called? Is it worth "regressing" to 0.500 to retool the organization? Despite losing 10 more games in the initial year???

Most teams regress to 70 wins. I don't know how good these young pitchers are, but we'll find out next year. The only stat head Oakland fan I know (EIO)seems to really really like the deals. Questioning the catcher situation a bit, but other than that very very positive.

:gulp:
So you're saying that these unproven players can win two playoff series, when the big 3 in Oakland never won a playoff series? Hmmm

What if the A's won 80 games, then 70, then 70 again. Is that progress? Will Beane fans think he actually made a mistake?

Oh nice trade for your closer their Beane. Dotel did a great job getting you to the playoffs.

gosox41
12-21-2004, 09:20 AM
Oh nice trade for your closer their Beane. Dotel did a great job getting you to the playoffs.

Love the last statement. Can I substitute a certain other GM's nane in there and have it hold true?


Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 09:25 AM
But, they definitely aren't in as bad of shape as some of you haters of Beane (and I'm on neither side of the fence, KW or BB) make them out to be...
I think the FOBB is the biggest over exaggeration here at WSI. Being that I'm lumped into that category because I think Beane is a better GM then KW. I also agree with your opinions on the trade.


But there are others here who take satisfaction in seeing and hoping Beane fail. Maybe it's jealousy, who knows. But I get a nice sarcastic laugh out of it when I look at what the Sox have done lately and their future and see people mocking a team that has had more success then the Sox have the last 5 years.


Bob

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 09:44 AM
I think the FOBB is the biggest over exaggeration here at WSI. Being that I'm lumped into that category because I think Beane is a better GM then KW. I also agree with your opinions on the trade.


But there are others here who take satisfaction in seeing and hoping Beane fail. Maybe it's jealousy, who knows. But I get a nice sarcastic laugh out of it when I look at what the Sox have done lately and their future and see people mocking a team that has had more success then the Sox have the last 5 years.


Bob
What dictates success? Last I checked, neither team has won a WS in the past 5 years. Thus, they mean jack to either team.

I bet those A's fans love revelling in division championships!

And I openly admit I hope that Beane fails ... because he's an opponent, one less team to worry about, one MORE team to beat up on (that usually beats the crap out of us).

fquaye149
12-21-2004, 10:10 AM
I think the FOBB is the biggest over exaggeration here at WSI. Being that I'm lumped into that category because I think Beane is a better GM then KW. I also agree with your opinions on the trade.


But there are others here who take satisfaction in seeing and hoping Beane fail. Maybe it's jealousy, who knows. But I get a nice sarcastic laugh out of it when I look at what the Sox have done lately and their future and see people mocking a team that has had more success then the Sox have the last 5 years.


Bob
if i do hope beane fails it's only because fobb's like you keep selectively omitting/praising the ****ty moves he makes and selectively omitting/decrying the good moves kenny makes (see dadawg's rabid criticism of the garcia deal) in order to "prove" the beane is a better GM.

If you called a spade a spade and admitted the strengths of kenny and weaknesses of beane I might be willing to admit one is better than the other...but the way you FOBB's formulate your argument makes me disinclined to do so. call me petty....

gosox41
12-21-2004, 11:53 AM
What dictates success? Last I checked, neither team has won a WS in the past 5 years. Thus, they mean jack to either team.

I bet those A's fans love revelling in division championships!

And I openly admit I hope that Beane fails ... because he's an opponent, one less team to worry about, one MORE team to beat up on (that usually beats the crap out of us).
From the regard of being an opponent, I agree, I hope every team fails.

The ultimate success is winning a WS. I agree. But that doesn't mean everything else is a failure. By that logic every team that doesn't is a failure and it doesn't matter a bit if you make the playoffs 4 years in a row or finish in second place.

I think the A's are a good story, an underdog. A team with limited payroll that has been playing in the toughest division in baseball and went to the playoffs 4 years in a row and finished 1 game out in '04.

I root for the A's way before I'd root for the Yankees or Red Sox.


Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 11:58 AM
if i do hope beane fails it's only because fobb's like you keep selectively omitting/praising the ****ty moves he makes and selectively omitting/decrying the good moves kenny makes (see dadawg's rabid criticism of the garcia deal) in order to "prove" the beane is a better GM.

If you called a spade a spade and admitted the strengths of kenny and weaknesses of beane I might be willing to admit one is better than the other...but the way you FOBB's formulate your argument makes me disinclined to do so. call me petty....
Then you must not read my a lot of my posts or have a selective memory. And if I think a trade is bad (ie Koch for Foulke) I'm going to tell it like it is. And for the record, I was against this trade from Day 1. Please check it out.

It sounds again like a jealousy thing. I'll praise KW if he deserves it. Go look at my posts on signing Hermanson and Dye. And I don't agree with the trading of 2 of the Big 3, but I can see the logic behind it. And the A's did get some players with high ceilings in return.

But please try reading my posts a little more before you jump the gun. The fact that you hate Beane for winning making the playoffs 4 years in a row but support KW even though he hasn't even done that (in a muchweaker divison) says it's more then me being an FOBB.


Bob


Bob

Jabroni
12-21-2004, 12:11 PM
Then you must not read my a lot of my posts or have a selective memory. And if I think a trade is bad (ie Koch for Foulke) I'm going to tell it like it is. And for the record, I was against this trade from Day 1. Please check it out.

It sounds again like a jealousy thing. I'll praise KW if he deserves it. Go look at my posts on signing Hermanson and Dye. And I don't agree with the trading of 2 of the Big 3, but I can see the logic behind it. And the A's did get some players with high ceilings in return.

But please try reading my posts a little more before you jump the gun. The fact that you hate Beane for winning making the playoffs 4 years in a row but support KW even though he hasn't even done that (in a muchweaker divison) says it's more then me being an FOBB.


Bob


BobI bet if KW was in the same situation as Beane and traded away Hudson and Mulder, you would be ripping KW to shreds. :rolleyes:

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 12:18 PM
From the regard of being an opponent, I agree, I hope every team fails.

The ultimate success is winning a WS. I agree. But that doesn't mean everything else is a failure. By that logic every team that doesn't is a failure and it doesn't matter a bit if you make the playoffs 4 years in a row or finish in second place.

I think the A's are a good story, an underdog. A team with limited payroll that has been playing in the toughest division in baseball and went to the playoffs 4 years in a row and finished 1 game out in '04.

I root for the A's way before I'd root for the Yankees or Red Sox.


Bob
That is where our opinions differ. I would call the season a failure no matter what (Considering they don't win the WS), why? Because they didn't acheive the ultimate goal. Despite the WS appearance, and the few division championships, these past 87 years have been a complete failure for the white sox.

But that is just my opinion, and I'm not going to harp on you for not agreeing with me.:tongue:

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 12:23 PM
if i do hope beane fails it's only because fobb's like you keep selectively omitting/praising the ****ty moves he makes and selectively omitting/decrying the good moves kenny makes (see dadawg's rabid criticism of the garcia deal) in order to "prove" the beane is a better GM.

If you called a spade a spade and admitted the strengths of kenny and weaknesses of beane I might be willing to admit one is better than the other...but the way you FOBB's formulate your argument makes me disinclined to do so. call me petty....
Lol, I believe the Garcia move was a bad move and unfortunately history will prove me out. Sorry I don't think trading one of your top prospects and decent catcher for mid four era pitcher is a good deal.

What strengths of Kenny? Taking a playoff team to the cellar, which is where I think we will end up this year.

I don't think anyone needs to prove Beane or for that matter at least 10 GMs are better at it then Kenny, the track record speaks volumes. Does Beane have weakness sure, no one is prefect.

What I find clearly suspect is for all the talk the fans of Kenny on how he won so many deals, the Sox have regress as a team since he took over. I only ask if he has made so many great deals how come the team has regressed under his leadership? The cause (good deals) and effect (poor teams) do not go together. So keep if you want head in the sand and praise Kenny do so. But why do you need to validate your points by mocking others who see a downward trend without ever offering convining proof that Kenny is taking this team in the right direction, other then your own opinion? Has Kenny made some good moves, yes. But his bad moves have effected this team more then his good moves have.

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 12:29 PM
I bet if KW was in the same situation as Beane and traded away Hudson and Mulder, you would be ripping KW to shreds. :rolleyes:
No, we would be ripping JR to shreds for not shelling out the cash to keep Hudsona nd Mulder. Beane and Kenny have no controll on how much they can spend, only on how to spend it.

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 12:31 PM
So when the Sox win the WS this year. Are you going to put your foot in your mouth?

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 12:35 PM
So when the Sox win the WS this year. Are you going to put your foot in your mouth?
Very happy so but if they don't... well I won't bet against my team.

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 12:50 PM
Very happy so but if they don't... well I won't bet against my team.
Fair enough.:cool:

FarWestChicago
12-21-2004, 01:28 PM
But there are others here who take satisfaction in seeing and hoping Beane fail. Maybe it's jealousy, who knows.I have no problem with Beane or A's fans. However, most FOBB's are completely and utterly obnoxious and long winded to boot. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

BTW, I think of you as more of a KW hater than a FOBB. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

ma-gaga
12-21-2004, 01:31 PM
The cause (good deals) and effect (poor teams) do not go together.
Dawg speaks the truth.

All I was trying to say is that the Hudson/Mulder deals look terrible for Oakland because they give up the tangible players with recent success for a bunch of unknowns. Because we have no idea of what the Cardinal's/Atlanta's minor league system looks like. We won't know whether or not "The Great" Billy Beane wins or loses these deals for 3-4 years.

I mean you can and should do the same for all of KW's trades. Garcia for Olivo/Reed was a push this year IMO. We'll see how they do down the road. KW gave up young cheap talent for older expensive talent. He created a weakness in the lineup at catcher and in the 2005+ outfield for a certified #2 pitcher (I'm just not certain that he qualifies as being in the top 20% of AL starters). The extension with the "discount" was nice of Freddy, but I'm not sure if that speaks volumes about KW's deal making ability.

Not all trades have clear cut winners like AJ Pierzynski for Joe Nathan.

gosox41
12-21-2004, 03:07 PM
I bet if KW was in the same situation as Beane and traded away Hudson and Mulder, you would be ripping KW to shreds. :rolleyes:
Not necessarily.

There's 2 ways to look at the trade. Personally, I think the A's should have given it another year with the Big 3m or at least 2. so Beane was wrong to do that.

But on the flipside, the talent Beane got from the trades was very good and for the long term it was a solid move.

I thought hte A's had a chance next year to get to the playoffs. Beane didn't feel that way. It depends on the circumstances in which KW makes the trade.



Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 03:10 PM
That is where our opinions differ. I would call the season a failure no matter what (Considering they don't win the WS), why? Because they didn't acheive the ultimate goal. Despite the WS appearance, and the few division championships, these past 87 years have been a complete failure for the white sox.

But that is just my opinion, and I'm not going to harp on you for not agreeing with me.:tongue:
But you odn't think it's worth anything to average 95 wins at all for a 5 yaer period. Or to make the playoffs? It's not the ultimate goal but it's damn good and should be acknowledged IMHO.

And while Beane only made the playoffs, you need to make the playoffs to get to the WS.


Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 03:11 PM
I have no problem with Beane or A's fans. However, most FOBB's are completely and utterly obnoxious and long winded to boot. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

BTW, I think of you as more of a KW hater than a FOBB. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Good. That is 100% accurate.

And for the record, I think KW has made some good moves this offseason. However, it will be a failure of an offseason if he doesn't fill the biggest hole: A fifth starting pitcher who is good.


Bob

fquaye149
12-21-2004, 03:57 PM
Then you must not read my a lot of my posts or have a selective memory. And if I think a trade is bad (ie Koch for Foulke) I'm going to tell it like it is. And for the record, I was against this trade from Day 1. Please check it out.

It sounds again like a jealousy thing. I'll praise KW if he deserves it. Go look at my posts on signing Hermanson and Dye. And I don't agree with the trading of 2 of the Big 3, but I can see the logic behind it. And the A's did get some players with high ceilings in return.

But please try reading my posts a little more before you jump the gun. The fact that you hate Beane for winning making the playoffs 4 years in a row but support KW even though he hasn't even done that (in a muchweaker divison) says it's more then me being an FOBB.


Bob


Bob
call it the early 90's dallas cowboy's syndrome - you hear too much about them from people who bend the facts....so you translate your disdain for the obnoxious parrots to the team.

I never said I hate Beane for winning or making the playoffs, and I never said I support KW for losing. I support KW when he makes good deals

a.) because I feel they are good deals
b.) because I know the motormouth FOBB's (whether you are one or not) will find a way to spin it as a bad deal with little regard for the big picture or the facts (see DaDawg's insistence on calling Freddy a mid 4.00 ERA pitcher --LOL!!! you've got to be kidding me)

I don't even hate Beane - I am just more likely to latch onto his lousy deals that KW would get roasted for (see these 2 white flaggers, the Dotel deal) because I KNOW the FOBB's will find a way to grant Beane leniency that they would never allow to Kenny....

And for the record - I have called deals by Kenny bad too - Koch, Wells, Ritchie, The 2nd Alomar deal....

I apologize if I offended you - my post was more about people like Dadawg, JeremyB and Jrig

fquaye149
12-21-2004, 04:00 PM
Sorry I don't think trading one of your top prospects and decent catcher for mid four era pitcher is a good deal.


1999 4.07 ERA
2000 3.91 ERA
2001 3.05 ERA
2002 4.39 ERA
2003 4.52 ERA
2004 3.81 ERA
Total 3.94 ERA


BOO THIS MAN

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 05:10 PM
But you odn't think it's worth anything to average 95 wins at all for a 5 yaer period. Or to make the playoffs? It's not the ultimate goal but it's damn good and should be acknowledged IMHO.

And while Beane only made the playoffs, you need to make the playoffs to get to the WS.


Bob
For the fan, what does the playoffs really accomplish? Sure the owner sees more revenue, but when you have a guy like Jerry behind the controls ... what does that matter?:rolleyes:

The playoffs and no WS just entitles dissapointment in my eyes ... :(:

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 05:17 PM
1999 4.07 ERA
2000 3.91 ERA
2001 3.05 ERA
2002 4.39 ERA
2003 4.52 ERA
2004 3.81 ERA
Total 3.94 ERA


BOO THIS MAN Ok, now factor in Safco field being a pitchers park. And let's forget that Freddy ERA before he came to the Sox was 3.20 in 107 innings. With the Sox his ERA was 4.46 in 103 innings. Freddy was mostly a creature of SAFECO field and will be slightly above average pitcher with the Sox. The Sox paid an aces price for him. Bad deal imho.
Instead of straw man attacks why don't you back up your assertions or is it you can't? Whether or not you choose to believe my interpretation of the facts, I do supply them to back my opinions.

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 07:03 PM
I did some research, and did some splits on Garcia over the past 3 years. Unfortunately I couldn't do his better years (4.52 ERA last year was a 'struggle year' for him;)), but I found his 3 year split ERA for home and away were...

4.11 - Home
4.38 - Away

Not too big of a difference ... and his home split last year was 3.99. His numbers from last year with us only seem inflated because he 2 rough outings where he was left in far too long by our genius manager Ozzie Guillen. (That 9 run/4.33 ip game against detroit comes to mind :/).

Regardless, Garcia is far from a middle 4 ERA pitcher. I think he'll post a 3.6 ERA next year. Which compared to some other starter that get his kind of money (Benson, Clement, Lieber, Vazquez), will dominate.

fquaye149
12-21-2004, 07:11 PM
Ok, now factor in Safco field being a pitchers park. And let's forget that Freddy ERA before he came to the Sox was 3.20 in 107 innings. With the Sox his ERA was 4.46 in 103 innings. Freddy was mostly a creature of SAFECO field and will be slightly above average pitcher with the Sox. The Sox paid an aces price for him. Bad deal imho.
Instead of straw man attacks why don't you back up your assertions or is it you can't? Whether or not you choose to believe my interpretation of the facts, I do supply them to back my opinions.
the only facts you gave were that his era in the first half was 3.20 and in the second half was 4.46.

It's not a straw man attack to say your statement that he is a 4.50ish ERA pitcher is an incorrect statement. rather, it's a criticism of your selectivity of facts.

If I say someone is a .300 hitter do you assume that he hit .300 in the second half of last season or that he is a career .300 hitter?

Likewise if you want to make the accusation that Freddy is a pitcher that pitches better in a pitchers' park, SAY THAT. Or do you think your position is so weak that you have to say he's a 4.50 pitcher and hope people believe you?

CWSGuy406
12-21-2004, 07:25 PM
if i do hope beane fails it's only because fobb's like you keep selectively omitting/praising the ****ty moves he makes and selectively omitting/decrying the good moves kenny makes (see dadawg's rabid criticism of the garcia deal) in order to "prove" the beane is a better GM.

If you called a spade a spade and admitted the strengths of kenny and weaknesses of beane I might be willing to admit one is better than the other...but the way you FOBB's formulate your argument makes me disinclined to do so. call me petty....
Sorry for the late chime in on this.

See, that's the thing. Any poster who puts a reply down regarding Billy Beane that isn't "Oh, Billy Beane is a piece of crap, what a stupid trade" is regarded as a FOBB.

And, I don't know how anyone can argue KW being a better GM than Beane. Look, I'm not trying to start an argument -- in fact, I like Kenny, I like both GM's, for that matter. But -- Beane works with a payroll that's about 20 million less, in a division (the past couple of years) that has been much tougher than that of the Sox'.

GoSox41 did nothing to deserve a response like some of you are giving him, almost jumping on him at any post that, like I said, isn't "Oh, Billy Beane is crap!".

You look at the trade like this -- he traded a good pitcher, and got (what you think) is nothing in return, rather than making a one year run at it, and getting only draft picks in return.

Like gosox41 said, this whole FOBB is pretty silly. JMHO...

CWSGuy406
12-21-2004, 07:28 PM
I bet if KW was in the same situation as Beane and traded away Hudson and Mulder, you would be ripping KW to shreds. :rolleyes:
Again -- totally different situations from here and Oakland, so it's incomparable.

The White Sox don't have a Joe Blanton waiting in the wings. Beane, whether he's right or not, believes he gets more 'bang for his buck' with what he got in the trades from Mulder/Hudson, rather than keeping the two.

gosox41
12-21-2004, 11:07 PM
call it the early 90's dallas cowboy's syndrome - you hear too much about them from people who bend the facts....so you translate your disdain for the obnoxious parrots to the team.

I never said I hate Beane for winning or making the playoffs, and I never said I support KW for losing. I support KW when he makes good deals

a.) because I feel they are good deals
b.) because I know the motormouth FOBB's (whether you are one or not) will find a way to spin it as a bad deal with little regard for the big picture or the facts (see DaDawg's insistence on calling Freddy a mid 4.00 ERA pitcher --LOL!!! you've got to be kidding me)

I don't even hate Beane - I am just more likely to latch onto his lousy deals that KW would get roasted for (see these 2 white flaggers, the Dotel deal) because I KNOW the FOBB's will find a way to grant Beane leniency that they would never allow to Kenny....

And for the record - I have called deals by Kenny bad too - Koch, Wells, Ritchie, The 2nd Alomar deal....

I apologize if I offended you - my post was more about people like Dadawg, JeremyB and Jrig
No problem. I've been lumped in that category before...rather unfairly so I assumed you were antoher one to add to the list.

I am a fan of Beane and do root for the A's (though when they lose it doesn't upset me like the Sox do) except when they play the Sox.


Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 11:08 PM
For the fan, what does the playoffs really accomplish? Sure the owner sees more revenue, but when you have a guy like Jerry behind the controls ... what does that matter?:rolleyes:

The playoffs and no WS just entitles dissapointment in my eyes ... :(:
It is disappointment. But my point is more that you can't make the World Series withut getting to the playoffs. So that first step must be taken.


Bob

gosox41
12-21-2004, 11:27 PM
Sorry for the late chime in on this.

See, that's the thing. Any poster who puts a reply down regarding Billy Beane that isn't "Oh, Billy Beane is a piece of crap, what a stupid trade" is regarded as a FOBB.

And, I don't know how anyone can argue KW being a better GM than Beane. Look, I'm not trying to start an argument -- in fact, I like Kenny, I like both GM's, for that matter. But -- Beane works with a payroll that's about 20 million less, in a division (the past couple of years) that has been much tougher than that of the Sox'.

GoSox41 did nothing to deserve a response like some of you are giving him, almost jumping on him at any post that, like I said, isn't "Oh, Billy Beane is crap!".

You look at the trade like this -- he traded a good pitcher, and got (what you think) is nothing in return, rather than making a one year run at it, and getting only draft picks in return.

Like gosox41 said, this whole FOBB is pretty silly. JMHO...
Well said. It is pretty silly. I try to be objectve when rating moves whether it's KW, Beane or Hendry.

Again for the anti-Beane people who started this whole FOBB (and you know who you are) it's coming off more as sour grapes.

There is no double standard for most people here. KW's deals will get "scrootened" as Mayor Daley says for a lot of reasons. Mostly because this is a site mainly about the White Sox and every move/quote will be analyzed. Nut also becasue this team has fallen below expectations for 4 straight years.



Bob

JRIG
12-23-2004, 02:04 PM
I know this won't be popular, but Skip Bayless has a column on Bean today over at espn.com:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/041223

It's a good read.

fquaye149
12-23-2004, 02:22 PM
I know this won't be popular, but Skip Bayless has a column on Bean today over at espn.com:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/041223

It's a good read. same skip bayless who said it doesn't matter/he doesn't know that bonds took steroids and that bonds "needs to be a jerk to be successful"

and who said the artest in Detroit thing was not that big a deal?

that skip bayless?

FarWestChicago
12-23-2004, 02:26 PM
I know this won't be popular, but Skip Bayless has a column on Bean today over at espn.com:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/041223

It's a good read.Holy lost credibility, Batman!! http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

santo=dorf
12-23-2004, 03:40 PM
Ok, now factor in Safco field being a pitchers park. And let's forget that Freddy ERA before he came to the Sox was 3.20 in 107 innings. With the Sox his ERA was 4.46 in 103 innings. Freddy was mostly a creature of SAFECO field and will be slightly above average pitcher with the Sox. The Sox paid an aces price for him. Bad deal imho.

$9 million is the price of an ace? :?:

Compare that to money that guys like Lieber, Wright, Benson, and Clement received this offseason. Or compare that to the contracts that Colon, Escobar, and Vazquez got last year. That deal we gave Garcia is going to be a steal for the next 3 years.