SB Nation User Blog: UncleLeo

Did the farm system fail us?

UncleLeo — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:07:57 -0000

For several years we've been told that a large part of the A's continued success was going to have to come from the farm system. That impact players through free agency just wasn't going to be a regular viable option, due to cost, etc. So, if that's the case, why was the farm system allowed to become so dreadfully depleted to begin with?

We're told the team's financial model is frugality, not cheapness. Ok, fine. I actually buy that to some degree, but I do wonder if cheapness still didn't creep in somewhere. It stands to reason that if more had been invested in the farm system all along (read Grover's fanpost about the investment trends the past few years), as the team has always said was their goal and policy, and as they're doing now, then maybe the team wouldn't have felt the need to go into such a deep rebuild mode for Rebuild #2 so quickly after Rebuild #1. Possibly, instead of trading Haren or Swisher or some of the others, they just might have had their own home grown players coming up now to fill the voids.

A little history...

Rebuild #1, 2004/05 off-season. Not a full-blown re-build as is happening now, but a minor one. One can play euphemism games with "re-tool" or "re-load", but it's kinda silly to do so and doesn't serve any purpose other than denial of reality. Anyway, trading players like Hudson and Mulder brought back good prospects. Enough of those good prospects panned out, along with some of the homegrown talent and some fill-in veterans, to keep the team winning and competitive for another couple years, including a shot in the ALCS. Then... it all crashed. But still, there was legitimate reason at the time to feel that it would be at least another 4-5 year run as the last run had been. And I still feel that 2007 could have been a minor blip, rather than a complete crash-and-burn had the farm system been paid more attention.

In December 2004 a fan (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent) posted...

I'm thinking the over/under for the 2005 A's should sit at 84 Wins. 2006 - 91 Wins. 2007 - 96 Wins. 2008 - 100 Wins. 2009 - 100 Wins. That looks to me like 3-4 good runs at the playoffs and World Series.

Over the next 3 years, gradually say goodbye to Zito, Hatteberg, Durazo, Kendall, Byrnes, and Kotsay. And gradually say hello to Blanton, Haren, Meyer, Swisher, Johnson, Thomas, D.Barton/Suzuki/Powell/Baker/Brown (5-Headed Catching Monster), and whomever else is undervalued within the MLB Ranks.

That's just how it's going to be, and I'm looking forward to the next 4-5 Years as an A's Fan.

Point being, there was alot of excitement, and justifiably so, IMHO. Instead, we got the complete crash-and-burn, with no back-up, thus requiring...

Rebuild #2. 2008-2009 (or beyond?). This one is different. It couldn't be minor, it had to be major. We were forced to unload virtually all of our star players *because* we had virtually nothing in the farm system to plug in. Again, why? Where was the ball dropped? IIRC, there were some rule changes in the draft, and I'm sure that plays a part, but I don't accept that as a primary reason for the downfall of the farm system. Nor would I accept the notion that it was all "bad luck" or that none panned out, etc. If anything, I feel it was more a simple taking for granted that the system would always be there when needed. Or, maybe an over-confidence of their own abilities to "make it happen" through trades, etc. Don't get me wrong, I have alot of faith in Billy Beane and his colleagues, but no one is infallible, and the depletion of the farm system is an area where I feel it is justified to call them on. Something Mr. Beane said a few years ago after Rebuild #1 stuck out to me...

Excerpt from:

Billy Beane: Back in AN Part I
by Blez on Jan 18, 2005

Blez: This is related to that same topic-- so many in the media seemed to claim that you were participating in a Charlie Finley-style talent dump. There is one person I'm thinking of who went on ESPNEWS and was saying that the A's were going to only win 60 games this year. But from reading some of your comments in the media, you don't consider this a rebuilding, rather a retooling. Can you explain how you view the two differently?

BB: First of all, I'm not sure it's good management as a GM to rebuild, rebuild probably isn't the right word, but to start to make changes only after you've hit rock bottom. Because it takes five, six, seven years to get out of that in a small market. Those same people that criticize those preemptive moves are the same ones who spend the next three years wondering why you didn't do anything. We were kind of going through a restructuring here last year with the number of rookies we brought onto the team any way. I'm not sure that any of our fans want me to stand up at the podium and say, "Hey, we're getting rid of everybody. We're going to lose 100 games over the next three years, now come and enjoy the show." What we're trying to do is make sure that any dip in performance doesn't happen for five or six years and I've seen professional sports franchises do that. You can think of some where the critics are saying, "Why didn't they do this three years ago? Why didn't they do this two years ago?" I've been through a situation when we needed to make moves and we didn't make them. Back in 1992, I sat in a cab with Sandy Alderson when we won the division and people got emotional and we wanted to bring the entire team back to try and do it again. I remember sitting there with him and we knew the smart thing to do at that point was to take a step back and start rebuilding. We made the mistake of trying to bring the entire team back and it took us seven years to recover. Our market is not going to handle that. Understand that attendance percentage is basically based on winning. Everything you can do to make sure that any dip in your performance in a year, you minimize that. Because when you put together back to back to back losing seasons, then you've created a very apathetic situation that's very difficult to recover from. If you're worried about what a couple of sportswriters say and let them make the decisions for you, you're an absolute coward and a fool.

Emphasis in bold mine. ~UL

I believe he meant on the field as well as attendance and fan attitude.

Now, on the one hand, I agree completely with his assessment of 1992 and his feelings at the time. I've always felt that a roster needs to always be at least tweaked and in some constant state of flux in order to remain "fresh". This isn't 1952 where you can be the Yankees and just get all the good players and dominate every year. This is also why I loved the acquisition of Mike Moore in 1989. They could have easily looked at their roster and felt they were still good enough to dominate and stood pat, but they added another piece, and won it all. After 1992 it was clear the team was aging and that some changes needed to be made. But, on the other hand, I question whether the lesson was really learned. We seem to be exactly at the point that is considered to be least desirable... and avoidable... consecutive losing seasons.

It should be noted that 2006 wasn't exactly like 1992, in that 1992 was an aging team and 2006 was pretty much a young team under reasonable financial control for a few more years, with the young players looking to only get better.

To sum up, no, this is not a "doom-and-gloom" post, but rather a "be cautious and look at what's really happening" post. I still see what strikes me as alot of blind faith and enthusiasm. Not wholly unwarranted, and maybe people need faith and hope to better accept current circumstances, I don't know, but it seems to me that a little reserve or caution should be in order. Let's get real, the history of recovering and rebuilding isn't as impressive as many seem to think. While I felt 2009 was not guaranteed but doable, now I see no way and am cautious about 2010 as well. An awful lot of stuff has to come together all at once for 2010 to happen as hoped. It's not inconceivable that 2008-2013 might end up being similar to 1993-1998. There are too many parallels to ignore.

I totally accept that if only 30% of the pitching prospects pan out, we'll have one hellacious pitching staff. What about the offense? We have some great prospects, but do we have enough? Many people here counter that the pitchers who don't pan out could be traded for needed position players, but that doesn't make sense. If they don't pan out, other teams would know that too, so why would they pay a high price for them? It only works if more pan out than we really want or need. Define "want" or "need". And if we do trade some of the pitchers, will they be traded for more prospects, who themselves will be a couple years away, or will they be traded for established players who can help immediately? And if we trade good "surplus" pitchers for bats, what do we do in case of injury? Hopefully, there will be even more good prospects in the farm system by that time, so hopefully the lessen has been learned.

To be honest, I'm much more impressed with Mr. Beane's ability to keep a good team good by adding pieces to an already solid and established core (c. 2000-2003) than I am of his history of keeping a team good with wholesale change.

Note: This started out as a response to Grover's post, but grew from there, so I'm posting it independently. I'm also trying to not always harp on the same thing, so unless some new developments or ideas some along, I'll try to make this my last fanpost on this particular subject. At least for awhile.

Have we been suckered, or are we just suckers?

UncleLeo — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 06:54:55 -0000

Everybody's frustrated right now. I get it. So am I. There's a very stark contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm that was prevalent here in the early part of the season, and the despair that is common right now. That early excitement and enthusiasm wasn't unwarranted, but I do feel that it is time to take a step back and try to objectively assess what is happening and where this team is going and when.

Rebuilding - some thoughts about various aspects of this rebuilding and observations I've made of the team and the fans...

Was it necessary? I'm not entirely sure it was, at least to the degree that it's been implemented, but at the same time I realize that this team does have fiscal constraints that other teams don't and cannot just go out and buy what they need, so I'm on board. And no, I'm not into feel-good euphemisms and hyperbole like "reloading". It is what it is... rebuilding.

Is the excitement and enthusiasm misplaced? Will this team be like the forever-rebuilding Royals or Pirates, or the rebuilding Marlins that can pull off the occasional coup and get a world series title out of it? I'm hoping against the former, but I'm having my doubts. History isn't encouraging in that regard. Rebuilding itself is most often a never-ending vicious circle. Lowell Cohn almost nailed it when he said "...Beane’s philosophy is like communism. It never ever works in the present but it will work in some far-off mythical moment that never comes.", though I don't think it's Beane specifically, but rather the unavoidable nature of rebuilding itself. How many teams pull off what the Marlins do? Seriously, how many? For every rule any contrarian can point out exceptions to the rule, and the Marlins are an exception. Most teams who win consistently don't rely on consistently reinventing themselves, they have a plan and/or the money to make it happen and keep it happening. The A's did well at building a team 10 years ago... their record with rebuilding has been less than impressive.

What happened last time? Losing players like Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, etc., got us players like Swisher, Blanton, Haren, and other serious prospects as either draft picks or in trade. How did that work out? How many have actually panned out? A few, but the ones who really did, the one's I mentioned, are now gone.

Which brings me to my next point... Six years. So many people keep talking about how we're going to have these new guys for six years. Are we, really? Why do we say that? Did Billy Beane say we would? I don't recall him saying that, but even if he did, weren't we led to believe that about Swisher and Haren and Blanton, et al? We were supposed to have them (cheaply) for six years, also. To paraphrase Dr Phil, How did that work out for us?

Which brings me to yet another point... What happens if (read: when) all these great prospects don't pan out? Think about it, what's the success rate for prospects? I don't know exact percentages, but it's not anywhere near the excitement I read on these boards. To hear people here tell it, this team is going to be so great when ALL these guys mature. We'll be damn lucky if as many as half of them actually pan out and only half flame out. Referencing the trades and draft picks above, we should be worshiping Barton and Meyer now, but we're not. Why is that? What happened to half those guys in that great draft that everybody was oohing and aahing over several years (2002?) ago? Sometimes it's unforeseen injury, but sometimes it turns out they're not really as good as projected. I feel good that we have many legitimate pitching prospects, so if only half of them succeed we'll still be doing well. I am not so confident about hitting. We have so few, that if even one fails, this team will be in a world of hurt, offensively. This organization has HUGE holes at various positions. Rebuilding only works when needs are filled.

Last point... I didn't believe we'd make the post-season this year, but I thought we'd be serious and respectable. Some great young players playing and learning how to play and how to win. Something to build on. I was excited about our prospects for 2009. I thought we had a legitimate shot at the post-season for next year. Now, I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with trading Harden and Blanton. I feel, given the overall pitching situation, that we could afford to let them go. I am disappointed, though, that immediate and short(er) term needs weren't addressed in those trades. Instead of getting a return that could help as soon as 2009, everything was pushed back even further. Just as a good mid-season trade can inspire a team I feel that a questionable trade can deflate a team, and that's at least part of what I think has happened to this team in the last month. They were told, in essence, wait another year.

Maybe the title of this post should have been... Rebuilding: It's always a day away.

Is the Giants' status dictating A's moves?

UncleLeo — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:45:45 -0000

Not literally every year, of course, but as a general concept since 1968 it has seemed to me that the Giants and A's have always fed off each other. When one team gets good and starts drawing attention and attendance, the other team suddenly starts doing things to get better. Maybe to keep their market share, or media attention, or whatever. Could be any number of reasons. I've always wondered if maybe it's a subconscious thing, but is it mere coincidence that both teams are generally pretty good or pretty bad at around the same times?

Now, the Giants have fallen to "suck" status. Their meal-ticket star is gone. All the trendiness and glitter has faded and attendance will surely drop as the "non-fans" find other places to be seen. How does this affect the A's, you say? Well, they no longer have the literal need to work so hard to maintain what status they have. They can relax without fear of being overshadowed into obscurity. They only have to be as good as the Giants, not necessarily better. Is it possible that this is affecting the team's thought process about whether to tear down the team and rebuild or to 'go for it'? After all, if the Giants can't hope to contend again until 2010 or later (as some observers suggest), then the A's may feel they have the luxury of time to do things before the new ballpark opens around the same time.

Just thinkin' out loud. Agree or disagree, that's fine, but I'd be interested in other's thoughts.

I do think that an exception to this may be the Finley era. I have no doubt he wanted to be bigger than Stoneham, but he was also pretty in dependant in having his own motivations, too.

Brewers sign Kendall

UncleLeo — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:26:06 -0000

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...

Eh.

Geren's report card?

UncleLeo — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:36:22 -0000

How would you assess Bob Geren's performance as manager this year? Now that the season is over (or will be over in a few hours).

First losing record in many years aside, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised that the team did as well as they did, and I give alot of the credit to Geren and his juggling of the line-ups, and in-game moves, and ability to work with what he had. Was he perfect? Hell no, of course not, and there is some room for growing. But, he was working with a AAAA team most of the time, and also had a few players who couldn't get a clutch hit against a T-ball team.

It's a qualified endorsement, to be sure, but given what he had to work with, I think he did pretty damn good. I still reserve judgement for next season, though.

Grade: B

Side question: In your opinion, how would Ken Macha have done had he been retained? Better? Same? Worse?

Poll

Geren's grade for first season?

F

7 votes

A

5 votes

B

87 votes

C

44 votes

D

15 votes

158 votes | Poll has closed

What's your biggest disappointment for this season?

UncleLeo — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:20:01 -0000

There are so many different things, but for me I think I'm more bummed by the losing record. In spite of having a AAAA team most of the season, they showed some fight at times, and would have some good runs, but then would just as inexplicably fall apart for extended periods and blow everything they had gained. I feel like they could have... should have... at least had a winning record.

Having said that, I do feel cautiously encouraged about the future. Some dead weight was jettisoned and some good young players have gotten some experience and shown promise.

Joe Shlabotnik

UncleLeo — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:03:38 -0000

Which player is most like Charlie Brown's hero Joe Shlabotnik from Peanuts?

This is meant in fun, but I gotta admit it's been a frustrating couple weeks watching these guys.

From Wikipedia:
Shlabotnik was demoted to the minor leagues after hitting .004 over an entire season; his one hit was a bloop single with his team comfortably ahead. One time he promised to hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth; he popped out instead, but circled the bases anyway. His greatest achievements included making spectacular plays on routine fly balls and throwing out a runner who had fallen down between first and second.

After being sent down to Stumptown of the Green Grass League, Shlabotnik eventually retired as a player and agreed to manage the Waffletown Syrups. Sadly, Joe was fired after only one game, after calling for a squeeze play—with no one on base.

Poll

Which player is the A's Joe Shlabotnik?

Bobby Crosby

19 votes

Marco Scutaro

2 votes

Travis Buck

0 votes

Mark Kotsay

2 votes

Nick Swisher

0 votes

Shannon Stewart

0 votes

Kurt Suzuki

0 votes

Dan Johnson

0 votes

Mark Ellis

0 votes

Eric Chavez

7 votes

30 votes | Poll has closed

Is "Moneyball" a curse?

UncleLeo — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:28:02 -0000

Is the book "Moneyball" a curse? I ask because it seems to me that Beane has not been able to make nearly as many meaningful trades, especially mid-season trades, since the book came out. He's having to rely more on off-season signings and minor "gum-in-the-crack" trades. To use two examples, I believe that both Kenny Williams and Brian Sabean feel the book portrayed them as fools, easily manipulated by Beane, so now they and most other GMs are unwilling to talk seriously with Beane for fear of being made out to be fools, also. I think an unfortunate result of the book is that it has hindered Beane's ability to do his job. Thoughts?