A's Trade another pitcher

#2
How come the A's don't want to win? They're not even that far behind the Angels this season (even though they don't really have a shot at the division, barring even more injuries than the Angels have already suffered so far).

And what sucks is that they're only going to continue doing this once their current minor leaguers turn into big time contributors. That's their pattern. They are like a farm system for the rest of MLB.
 
#3
Are you f'ing kidding me??!?!?!?...:mad:

There will now no longer BE any eras because they are shipping people out before they can create one with anybody. And they will continue to play chicken and egg with the attendance and their need to pare payroll down, ignoring the fact that their fan base is tired of the revolving door. What am I saying, they will continue this charade until they move to freaking Fremont and build a disinterested fan base of casual fans who really could give a crap who wears the uniforms as long as there is a seat and it becomes the in place to be.

This is my team, the team I grew up bleeding the colors of, but I am sick of this. SICK OF IT. :mad:

Continue to play your strat-o-matic sabremetrics Billy Beane, must be fun....it's gotten old to your peeps in the cheap seats...:mad:
 
#4
Completely agree with both of you. The A's weren't all that far behind the Angels. And if they had been buyers rather than sellers, who knows, maybe they could have made a run?

I get it when you deal a guy who's about to be a free agent, and you're probably going to lose him for nothing. But Haren/Blanton/Harden were all signed to reasonable deals, and Beane never got a good run out of them. At least we can say we got a run out of the Zito/Mulder/Hudson bunch. What's next? Trading guys right when the A's promote them?
 
#5
It's not over even I bet. Beane still has Huston Street and Mark Ellis he can ship off either before the trading deadline or in the offseason.

As long as the A's are close enough to giving the appearance that they are in contention this is the way it's going to be. I listened to KNBR on the way home tonight and they gave A's fans a forum to express their opinion on the move. Split pretty much 50/50 depending on your view of (self proclaimed) boy genius Billy Beane. And whether you see through the mask (slightly loaded bias language on my part, so you may guess whether I am a Beane worshiper or a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig time vocal detractor).....and realize that it's all a damn charade. They don't have any desire to build a team that can win in the playoffs, just one that can be better than Texas and Seattle while look competitive against Anaheim. And if the pitching well ever goes dry and some of these gambles with the arms don't pan out, and once the minor league system goes dry (like it did the last two years and he had to make more than his usual number of deals and deal people earlier in their contracts than closer to free agency) you'll see the naked emporer.

gaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwd, I need to step away from the keys on this topic...:mad::mad::mad:
 
#6
I don't worship Billy Beane, but I'm fine with the results the A's have produced over the last ten years or so.

So I don't have a problem with this. They've got a plan to get really competitive in a few years, so I'm cool with waiting.
 
#7
How is trading away most of your talent and most of your pitching a plan for being competitive? I could understand if this were an isolated incident, but this is becoming a pattern for the A's. If they had held on to some of their talent over the past five seasons, they'd be the number one team in the West, not the Angels.
 
#8
How is trading away most of your talent and most of your pitching a plan for being competitive? I could understand if this were an isolated incident, but this is becoming a pattern for the A's. If they had held on to some of their talent over the past five seasons, they'd be the number one team in the West, not the Angels.
Isn't that what many are begging the Kings to do right now? Obviously they have a hard time paying for their talent, and a lot of the talent they have now was from trading away previous stars.

The difference in this situation is that they are trading young talent, which makes it hard to swallow. But fighting for the fourth playoff spot in baseball isn't that much different than fighting for the eighth spot in basketball.

I haven't analyzed the details of these trades and I don't follow minor league players well enough to have specific opinions, but in theory there's nothing wrong with the idea.
 
#9
It's very different from what fans want the Kings to do. I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about thinks that the Kings have enough talent to be competitive. So taking a step or two back in order to be really good in a couple three seasons is reasonable.

The A's are trading away all their young talent in order to stock their farm system, and they have been for years now. If they had held on to their guys, they'd be a top force in the AL right now, assuming, of course, good health for their key players.

But shooting for the wild card in baseball is not at all like shooting for the 8th seed in the NBA. For three years in a row from '02 to '04, the wild card team actually won the World Series, and several more wild card teams made it to the World Series since realignment in 1994. There's only four teams from each League that make it, so the wild card team isn't exactly mediocre. Many times, the wild card team is better than the winner of a different division.

Your right that there's nothing wrong with the idea in theory, but I think a lot of A's fans are frustrated (and I'm confused myself) with management bleeding talent to the rest of baseball when they could hold on to some of that talent and make a strong push for a couple seasons in a row. It doesn't seem like management is in it to win, and they're becoming a farm system for the rest of baseball.
 
#10
It's very different from what fans want the Kings to do. I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about thinks that the Kings have enough talent to be competitive. So taking a step or two back in order to be really good in a couple three seasons is reasonable.
But this is exactly what the A's management thinks is happening there.

You seem to be saying that you want them to go for the playoffs even as the fourth best team because anything can happen in the smaller baseball playoffs. You also seem to be saying that the team doesn't want to win and just wants to keep stocking its farm system. But look at the history. They've made the playoffs or been close to it every year this decade except last year. So they're doing exactly what you want. And now that they finally had a real decline, they decided enough getting close to the championship, let's do a full rebuild and get there for real.
 
#11
That depends on whether or not you believe that's the A's end game. Because they've been saying "we're building for the future" since Giambi left. Then they let Tejada walk, then they traded Mulder and Hudson, Then then let Zito walk. Then they traded Haren, and Swisher, then it was Harden and Blanton.

A's fans (bitter ones like me) can accept a rebuild/restock. But, at some point the A's front office has to say, here are the group of 25-40 guys we were building towards. If you can tell me which 25 guys, hell, I'll make it easier, which 5 guys the A's hope to make a young nucleus out of and continually build outward around, I'd tell you you know five more guys than Billy Beane does.

Where I will agree is that it's a crap shoot once you get to the playoffs, as A's fans also painfully are aware in the Moneyball era. You can get lucky in baseball and if you get a good group of players (which the A's for the most part have had - keeping them healthy has been an entirely different issue) you can win some games and stay in the playoff race. The A's model has been to stock up on arms and if those arms pan out you can always win some games in this league. They don't do well in producing solid power guys or guys who hit consistently for average and for the most part their defense and speed is sorely lacking in the team's philosophy and therefore in their farm system. So they can usually pitch themselves into contention but that's about it, they can't hit enough to beat the teams that have the sluggers they can't/won't go out and buy unless they can rent them (see: Frank Thomas, David Justice et al).

But the day these trades for young arms starts turning up dry, is the day the bubble bursts. The other little secret for the most part is these guys are starting to not come out of the A's draft any more, their upper level prospects are being culled from other team's via trades. That should be a red flag waving for the Beane worshippers. But it's not. Oh well...
 
#12
I think it's a legitimate concern that the A's "end game" is to keep fielding young, cheap, competitive teams without really trying to win it all. That's a consequence of their financial situation. I have some hope that it will improve a little when they move to the new park. Hopefully, if the nucleus they are building now is ready at that time, they will have some money for real free agents (not one-year rentals) and make be a serious threat. To be honest that's what I'm looking forward to at the moment.

I also see the concern of the talent drying up or not panning out. I had that concern when Giambi, Tejada, Mulder and Hudson were shipped. But they've surprised with more good talent and so I'm not quite as worried about it now as I once was.

That should be a red flag waving for the Beane worshippers. But it's not. Oh well...
I wouldn't know. But then again I'm not a fan of that kind of labeling anyway so I wouldn't know who else to ask to find out. ;)
 
#13
But this is exactly what the A's management thinks is happening there.

You seem to be saying that you want them to go for the playoffs even as the fourth best team because anything can happen in the smaller baseball playoffs. You also seem to be saying that the team doesn't want to win and just wants to keep stocking its farm system. But look at the history. They've made the playoffs or been close to it every year this decade except last year. So they're doing exactly what you want. And now that they finally had a real decline, they decided enough getting close to the championship, let's do a full rebuild and get there for real.
I should clarify that I'm not an A's fan. I'm an Angels fan. If the A's want to keep bleeding their talent to the rest of baseball, be my guest. I just don't understand it.

And I know that they've been in the playoffs, but every time it seems like they are developing a team that can make a strong run, they get rid of a key player. I understand not resigning Zito, and it looks like they made a good decision there, as he's done absolutely nothing as a Giant, but trading away your pitching, when your a team that's built on your pitching seems ridiculous to me. Especially when the top team in your division isn't exactly a stellar run-producing ball club.

I certainly don't see the A's as suffering from a real decline (they're only a few games back of the Angels with 70 or so left), and I think that any drop off in their play can easily be traced back to them letting their top talent go year after year.

If they are rebuilding and plan on changing the philosophy of their team, if they're going to model themselves after the Angels, shore up their defense, add some speed to the base paths, etc., then fine. But why give blow up your pitching staff? They've given up five studs on the mound in the past three or four years, and that's NOT counting Zito. It just doesn't make sense to me.
 
#15
See, that's where I don't have faith...I don't believe this philosophy will change when they move. Why would it? It's worked for them thus far.
Has it? They have horrible attendance, right? (Honest question.) I think they've got to be trying to do something different. Then again, maybe they are making a profit. If that's the case, then there would be little reason for them to change.

Of course, I'm also a Giants fan, and I'm much happier with what the A's have been doing recently. So the problem might just be who I'm comparing them to. :p
 
#16
There is feeling that with revenue sharing (such as it is) and the favorable lease that they have with the Coliseum that the A's have been turning a profit despite attendance. That I believe.

There are some more on the conspiracist side who believe that the A's would love nothing more than to keep attendance surpressed because of some provision of their lease that is to their advantage if their attendance is under 2 million per year. (Which was the feeling some folks have that the ulterior motive for tarping the third deck last year was to ensure that they did not reach that milestone). I'm not as much inclined to believe that Lew Wolff and Steve Schott before him are/were that sinister.

I do not believe that once they move into Cisco Field (or whatever whereever) that they will all of a sudden become buyers and the A's will splurge on the Vlad Guerreros of the world. I just don't. I don't think Billy Beane abandons what made him the golden child of baseball GM-dom. The "Look what I can do when I have no money" If he has the money and the expectation that goes along with it? I think he bails. If he stays, I think it will be more of the same because there is absolutely no incentive to change - fans that come to new shiny ballparks tend to be the non-baseball people so they will not have to impress them with big names.
 
#17
I agree that they won't be big spenders. I just hope that they become spenders. Just one or two players to put them over the top when (and if) the new talent matures again.
 
#18
Don't get me started on Brian Sabean and his crazy "strategy" to building a ball club. The A's are above .500 in a competitive division and may very well stay that way despite trading 2/5ths of its starting rotation in less than 10 days.

But I hate the Giants and hope they stay on the geriatric dead end path Sabean continues to lead them on....:p
 
#19
Isn't that what many are begging the Kings to do right now? Obviously they have a hard time paying for their talent, and a lot of the talent they have now was from trading away previous stars.
This would be like us deciding to rebuild by trading Martin and Garcia away, then Hawes next year after he has a breakout season.
 
#22
.. and getting two or three potential young studs for each.
...right, and then when these new young studs start making their first all star game, you immediately trade them away for new young studs, even though your previous young studs were never old, and you never made a run, never were competitive, never were patient enough to see your plan through from beginning to end. It's always rebooting in the middle. Constantly rebuilding. You can't expect to keep fans around like that.