SB Nation User Blog: iglew

Korach calls A's play 'terrible', 'unacceptable'

iglew — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:37:42 -0000

I've managed to extract from the MLB audio archive the moment where A's radio announcer Ken Korach expresses his disgust with the A's performance. The play that triggers the response is the one last night where a high fly ball dropped between Cust and Kennedy, but listening to the whole broadcast you can tell that's just the culminating event after an evening full of poor play.

To those who don't know Korach, it won't sound very impressive. His words are far less extreme than what we hear in game threads every day. But those who listen to the radio broadcast regularly know that Ken is almost never critical of the A's — not because he's an aggressive homer, but just because he's such a mellow and good-natured guy that he never has a harsh word for anyone at all.

Leaving out Vince's comments and Ken's calling of the subsequent play, here's what Ken said:

Boy, this has been a terrible performance by the A's tonight. That ball has got to be caught. And well-deserved boos cascading down on the field from the fans. ...
This is just unacceptable. ...
People are paying good money to come to the ballpark, Vince.

For those who want to listen, I've uploaded it as a WAV file. Since I'm only quoting a short passage as an illustration, I trust this won't violate MLB's "any rebroadcast" restriction.

(If anyone wants to keep it for posterity, you'll need to download the file and store it somewhere else, since I expect to remove it from my server after about a week. I've got a MP3 version, too, but I ran out of space on my limited Earthlink account and couldn't fit both of them.)

Beane and Geren: best friends

iglew — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:13:11 -0000

Beane's and Geren's friendship gets mentioned a lot on AN. It comes up frequently in game threads and game recap discussion -- especially on days when the A's lose -- but for all the mentions, there's very little real discussion. I think the topic warrants serious thought, and not just the unwarranted assumptions and snide remarks I see in the game threads.

For starters, some background information is in order. Everyone knows that Bob Geren was Billy Beane's "best man", but no one seems to know quite when the wedding was or how it aligned with Geren's career. I'd love to provide all the details, but unfortunately my own information is incomplete. I'll fill in what I can, and if anyone out there knows better, I hope you'll enlighten the rest of us.

History

This article from 2006 says that Geren and Beane were both high school baseball stars at the same time in San Diego. The article also specifies that they weren't friends at the time, though I haven't found another source that specifies exactly when they did become friends.

Geren was a first-round draft pick out of high school in 1979. Beane was selected in the 1980 draft, but he fell to the lower rounds because it was widely assumed he'd choose to attend college. (Stanford was actively recruiting Beane for football, envisioning him as the quarterback who would succeed John Elway when he graduated two years later.) The Mets took a flyer on Beane in the 23rd round and lucked out when Beane decided to skip college and sign after all.

Both Geren and Beane had lackluster careers as players. Geren toiled in the minor leagues for a decade before finally making the show in 1988. Beane, on the other hand, flamed out early, and his final season was 1989. Beane's and Geren's playing careers thus overlapped for only two years, and they didn't play for the same team. (Beane spent time with the Mets, Twins, Tigers, and A's; Geren played for the Yankees and the Padres.)

In 1994, Beane joined the A's as assistant GM under Sandy Alderson and would go on to succeed him as GM in 1988. Geren retired from playing after the 1993 season. In 1995 he got his start as a manager in the Red Sox farm system. Geren was a protegé of Bob Schaefer (whom he would later appoint as bench coach for his first year managing the A's), so when Schaefer left the Red Sox after the 1998 season, Geren was cleaned out with him.

At the start of 2000 Beane needed to hire a manager for his AAA affiliate. Under new ownership the team had relocated from Vancouver to Sacramento renaming itself the River Cats. Geren had a good record in the lower minors for the Red Sox, which presumably made him a plausible candidate. At the same time, their shared history no doubt helped put his name on Billy Beane's radar. Even aside from friends, when selecting players Beane has a history of being particularly attuned to guys from Southern California, and most especially San Diego (or Fullerton).

I wish I had a better sense of exactly how close Beane and Geren were at this time. Following their career paths, I don't see any time they could have been in the same city before 1999. Undoubtedly they were aware of each other and had contact through being in the same business, but it doesn't seem like there was any opportunity for them to become close before that. This is just speculation, but based on the facts I've seen, I'd say the most plausible scenario is that they had some friendly contact prior to this, which helped put Geren to the top of the list for the River Cats job, but then it was only after that hiring, when they were in close proximity and working more closely together that they truly became good friends.

Billy Beane's first marriage was some time in the 1980s. He has a daughter from that marriage who I believe is now in her early 20s. I assume that the wedding where Geren served as best man must have been the one between Billy and his current wife Tara. I can't find any record of when that was, but I have a vague recollection of it being background news some time when I was aware of Beane as the A's GM, in which case it must have been some time after 2000. (If anyone out there remembers when the wedding was, please mention it in the comments.)

Geren managed the River Cats for three seasons, 2000-2002, and had a very good record. Between the latter two years he also managed the Licey Tigres in the Dominican winter league, winning the league championship that year (the same year when Eric Byrnes was the MVP). After that he moved onto the coaching staff in Oakland, rotating through various positions.

Business

One thing that has bothered me a lot in the game threads is the assertion without evidence that Beane's decision to hire Geren in 2007, and more importantly his lack of decision to fire him in 2009, is due primarily or entirely to their friendship. In his "Dear Billy Beane" letter last weekend, Nico called the friendship a "built-in problem" in that if Geren "didn't turn out to be good at his job it would create an awkward situation". Many many others have echoed the idea that the friendship is an obstacle to Geren being fired. Some take that several steps further and insinuate that Beane knows that Geren should be fired but refuses to do it out of personal loyalty to his friend.

One of saner comments on this topic came from ohtobe21likehuston in one of the game threads. He said:

I always tell my friends that I will hire them but they should be ready for me to expect a much stronger effort than I do from other employees because of our friendship.

This is exactly right. Anyone who has ever been involved in hiring knows that when you get a friend a job you have to be careful. You have to plan for the possibility that some day you might be involved in your friend losing that job. Business is business and friendship is friendship, so if you want to make sure that one isn't going to ruin the other, you need to talk about it ahead of time and make sure everyone understands. Yes, you want to help out your friend and give him a chance, but at the same time he needs to know that it's his responsibility to prove himself, and he can't expect your friendship to make you back him up when his own work record doesn't. More important, you need to know that if a situation like that does come up, you'll both see it as just business and won't let it ruin the friendship. If you don't have that kind of understanding going in, then you don't hire him in the first place.

This is really pretty basic. So basic that it borders on absurd to assume that any successful business person would somehow neglect to have such a discussion. And yet that's exactly what is implied by Nico's remark about an "awkward situation", not to mention some of the nastier comments.

Does anyone really believe that Beane and Geren didn't consider this when Geren interviewed for the manager's position in fall of 2006? There is little job security in baseball. Even more than in most businesses, if you don't produce, you get sacked. Geren had been managing for six years and playing for 14 years before that. Beane's experience is similar. Both of them have taken part in scores of discussions that go, "nothing personal, but you're not getting the job done, so we're gonna have to let you go," and from both sides of the desk even. They know that's how it goes in baseball.

Of course they are aware of this, and of course they discussed it prior to Geren's hiring. Indeed, they probably discussed it before he was hired for the River Cats, too. Sometimes the right business decision is to give the manager the ax. The possibility always exists that that situation is going to come up for Geren. If Geren is your friend, before you hire him, you make sure that he understands this, so that if you do have to fire him, it doesn't ruin your friendship.

Conclusion

If you want to argue that the team is in a rut, that Geren is part of the problem, and that he therefore needs to be fired, have at it. I would even agree with that argument. (Although I'm not as adamant as many here, and I don't think I have any special insight that Billy Beane lacks, based on what I do know, I would like to see Geren fired and I think it would be good for the team.) If you want to further argue that it's Beane's job as GM to see that Geren needs to be fired, and by failing to actually fire him, Beane is failing at his job, go ahead and make that argument, too.

But unless you're prepared to back it up, don't imply or insinuate that the reason Geren got the job is because he's Billy's "best man" or that the reason Beane hasn't fired Geren yet is he's afraid of losing a friend, because first of all that's probably not true, second you have no way of knowing whether it's true, and third even if it is true, it doesn't matter. If Geren is doing a crappy job as a manager, he's just as crappy whether he's Billy's friend or not. If Beane is failing as a GM because he won't fire Geren, he is failing regardless of whether his reason for not firing has anything to do with the friendship.

Poll

If Geren does get fired some time during this season, the next A's manager should be:

Tony DeFrancesco

34 votes

Tye Waller

10 votes

Jamie Quirk

20 votes

Orel Hershiser

47 votes

Carney Lansford

60 votes

Todd Steverson

14 votes

someone else (please specify)

24 votes

RICKEY!!!

72 votes

281 votes | Poll has closed

New Trade Diary

iglew — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:31:42 -0000

There were a zillion trade diaries yesterday, and yet this morning when I return to post my thoughts, it’s not obvious where they should go. I don’t want to fill up the DLD with trade talk, since that should be a haven for readers who don’t want to discuss the trade. The big trade diaries have all been pushed down from the front page. There’s a few new little trade diaries, but none are even close to getting enough recommendations to make the top list.

So for lack of any better place to add my comments, I’ll just make a new trade diary.

I was late to the party last night, so it took me all evening to get caught up on all the discussions, but I did manage to read (almost) everything. My next-day observations:

1. The characterizations of Billy Beane are exaggerated on both sides. Obviously the folks who are saying "he’s sold out the team" or "he’s lost his frickin’ mind" are exaggerating in the heat of the moment. But the supposedly sober folks on the other side saying "you must trust Billy, when has he ever let you down?" are also exaggerating. The truth is Beane’s record isn’t immaculate. The Tim Hudson trade was a complete bust for us, and the Arthur Rhodes experiment did not go well at all. Those aren't the only examples. Like anyone, Beane has made mistakes, and he’ll make more. Maybe this trade will be one of them. You can’t logically conclude that just because Beane did it, it must be right.

On the other hand, he does have a very good track record over all. I see no reason to believe Beane has departed from his usual practice of perpetual reload. He must think this trade will improve the team. Maybe he’s right, or maybe he’s wrong. He’s not perfect, but he’s not stupid either.

2. Way too many people are stuck on the idea of one GM fleecing the other. The way a GM succeeds at trading is not by suckering fools into making stupid deals; it’s by creating a series of win-win trades. The point is to make your own team better, and if in order to do so you have to make someone else’s team better, that’s fine. You both still gain ground against the other 28 teams.

The fleece trades are memorable, but they’re the exceptions. Even when they do happen, I think it’s more by accident than design. Both sides probably evaluated the trade as reasonably close to even, but there’s always uncertainty. Sometimes the uncertainty all tips in one direction and in hindsight it looks like one guy got robbed.

I think the idea that certain GMs are "dumb" is greatly exaggerated on the Internet — a function of the I’m-a-genius-and-everyone-else-is-a-moron mentality that pervades Internet commentary — but to whatever extent some GMs are less savvy than others, Jim Hendry is not one of the dumb ones. I doubt that either Beane or Hendry believes he fleeced the other. I think they both see it as a win-win trade which marginally improves their team.

3. Because of Rich Harden, this trade has more uncertainty than most. This trade is all about risk, and who wants to assume it. Would you rather have a 10% chance at $900, or a 90% chance at $100? Mathematically they’re the same, but which you prefer depends on your current financial situation.

Everybody knows that Harden is a high-upside, high-risk guy. The risk and the upside can be evaluated and set against a package of roughly equal overall value but with different risk distribution. Guys like Gallagher and Murton are the other side of the coin: they’re more likely to be useful contributors on an ongoing basis, but less likely to be great. I think the two sides of this trade are probably nearly equal in total value; the key difference is the distribution of risk. For whatever reason, the Cubs have decided that they want to gamble right now, and Beane has decided that the A’s want to sell risk and buy security. To me, that’s the interesting proposition of this trade, which one might agree or disagree with, not which team came out ahead.

4. Several people have commented that they hope Harden’s health takes a sudden dive and he’s terrible for the Cubs. This is the logical conclusion of the fleece mentality: If Harden sucks then it’s, "Ha ha we fleeced you. We win, yay for us." But if Harden is awesome then it’s, "Oh no, you fleeced us," and hang our heads in shame.

I think this attitude is completely wrong. The trade is done. Harden is off our team now. If he goes on to be terrible, that doesn’t make our team any better; if he goes on to be fabulous, that doesn’t make our team any worse. The only way in which Harden’s future performance affects our team now is how it affects us in future trades. When Beane has a great player and wants to trade him, people are naturally suspicious. They ask, "Why is Beane unloading him? Is something wrong with him? Does Beane know something I don’t?" If they’re afraid, they won’t trade. If other GMs are reluctant to trade with us, that’s a bad thing.

Harden’s future makes a difference in this respect. If his arm falls off tomorrow, as many on this blog have openly wished, when future GMs ask themselves the questions above, they’re going to think, "What if it’s like that time when Beane traded Harden and he was a big dud? Am I going to get ripped off like that?" On the other hand, if Harden goes on to be great, they will think, "Yeah, but maybe it’ll be an opportunity like Harden. The Cubs came out great with that trade."

We want Harden to do well in Chicago. His success won’t make our team any worse, but it will make our trading options better for the future.

An open letter to Bob Geren

iglew — Sat, 24 May 2008 07:37:03 -0000

(One won lost won mentioned this idea in response to my comment on the game wrap-up thread. I was inspired. Hence this post. If you agree, "sign" the letter by voting in the poll. If you don't agree, don't vote.)

Dear Bob Geren,

Next Tuesday, May 27, is Frank Thomas's 40th birthday. On that day, the A's are scheduled to start a series against the Toronto Blue Jays, Frank's former team. The media is bound to notice that and give it a little attention.

We, the undersigned, believe that we know the perfect way to celebrate Frank's birthday. We believe he should bat lead-off in that game. According to Baseball Reference, Frank has never started a game batting lead-off. We think he'd get a big kick out of it.

Now I know what you're thinking: "Lead off? Frank Thomas? He's a great hitter, but he's not at all what you want in a lead-off hitter." Yeah, so what? It's not like any of the other guys on the team are classic lead-off hitters either. (Seriously, Kurt Suzuki?) And Frank's hot right now. So what the heck, why not just give it a try?

According to Baseball Reference, although Frank has never started a game at lead-off, he's had two plate appearances in the #1 slot as a pinch-hitter. And you know what? In one of them he walked, and in the other he hit a home run! Of course, we here at Athletics Nation recognize what a ridiculously small sample size that is. Still, you can't argue he hasn't had success there.

Most of all, baseball is about entertainment. Sure, you want to win the game, too. We're all A's fans here. We want the A's to win every game. We would never recommend you do something stupid that would lessen the team's chance of winning. But on a call like this, where maybe it would work or maybe it wouldn't, but strategically it's not likely to make a big difference at all, sometimes you just gotta go with what would be the most fun. Lineup order is mostly psychological anyway, and the guys on the team would love it. Big Frank batting lead-off on his birthday? What's not to like?

If for no other reason, you have to do it because of that: It would be really really funny.

Yours truly,

Poll

Signed:

(I agree, and I've signed my name in the comments.)

30 votes

(I'm an anonymous lurker, but I agree, too.)

49 votes

79 votes | Poll has closed

Team with only three names

iglew — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:03:29 -0000

In yesterday's game thread, Future Ed asked, "How many names are needed for a complete line up? 4?" and he proposed a lineup made up of Suzukis, Sweeneys, Ramirezes, and Sanchezes. I'm sure one could complete a lineup card with just three names, it's only a question of how deep one has to dig into the minor leagues to do it.

This suggests an amusing puzzle: What's the best team you can construct using only three last names? Go ahead and fill out the roster as far as you like, but I guarantee you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time you reach 25. Pitching counts, too. Try to come up with enough staff to get through a playoff series.

No restrictions on where the players come from, but every player is considered in terms of his talent right now. So if you want to promote someone from the minors (or college, or Japan) or bring someone out of retirement, go ahead ... but if he's not in the big leagues right now, it's probably because he isn't that good.

Here's my best effort:

Lineup:
• Hanley Ramirez, SS (Florida)
• Aramis Ramirez, 3B (Cubs)
• Manny Ramirez, LF (Boston)
• Melky Cabrera, CF (Yankees)
• Miguel Cabrera, 1B (Detroit)
• Ramon Hernandez, C (Baltimore)
• Orlando Cabrera, DH (White Sox)
• Asdrubal Cabrera, 2B (Cleveland)
• Jolbert Cabrera, RF (now playing in Japan, I think)

Bench:
• Luis Hernandez, 2B/SS (Baltimore)
• Alexei Ramirez, CF/2B/SS (White Sox)
• Yordany Ramirez, OF (Houston, AAA scrub)
• Anderson Hernandez, 2B (Mets, AAA scrub)
• Max Ramirez, C (Texas, AA prospect)

Rotation:
• Felix Hernandez (Seattle)
• Daniel Cabrera (Baltimore)
• Livan Hernandez (Minnesota)
• Horacio Ramirez (unemployed!)

Bullpen:
• Ramon Ramirez (Kansas City)
• Edwar Ramirez (Yankees)
• Fernando Hernandez (White Sox sent him back to AA)
• Erasmo Ramirez (now in AAA somewhere, I think)

I'm afraid I don't really have a fourth starter -- not until Orlando Hernandez comes off the DL, anyway. Ho Ram is terrible, but I don't have any better ideas. There's another Ramon Ramirez in Cincinnati's AA rotation. I suppose I could give him a try. My bullpen is also pretty thin, though there's probably a few more guys I'm not thinking of. (Baltimore's Fernando Cabrera is also on the DL.)

The top of my lineup looks great, but it falls off pretty dramatically at the end. If it were just the lineup, I could improve it by dumping Hernandezes for Lees (Derrek! Carlos! Cliff!), but then my rotation suffers. It's bad enough I don't have a fourth starter; I'm not willing to go out there without even a third.

Lots of other tempting names out there -- Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Jones, Johnson, and probably more I'm not thinking of -- but I couldn't get them to add up to a whole team.

Can you do better?

(Warning: If you take this challenge seriously, be prepared to waste a lot of time. I thought it would be fun to play around with it for a lark, and then the next thing I knew three hours had gone by....)

Poll: Should you be required to preview before you post?

iglew — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:56:16 -0000

This hasn't caused a great deal of discussion on AN because we're used to it. Before the upgrade, it was impossible to post a comment or reply without clicking preview first. After the upgrade, it's still impossible to post a comment or reply without clicking preview first. Nothing has changed in that regard, so most of us haven't even thought about it.

Preview became mandatory with the Ajax upgrade, which was implemented at about this time last year. That's the same upgrade that gave us other features, like recommending diaries and adding tags. AN and a few others got Ajax, but many other SB Nation blogs did not. If you go to one of the latter, such as Lookout Landing, you'll notice that it lacks a lot of things you were used to from old AN (eg, recommended diaries). Folks on LL have always been able to post without previewing, so they think of that as normal.

Now, with the current upgrade, some readers from LL and other non-Ajax sites have come over here to check out the new system, and for them being required to preview is a new thing. It got mentioned in one of the threads here, and it's been discussed quite a bit at LL.

The main complaint seems to be that it slows down posting. That prompted the observation that it's really just one more click so it's not a big deal. That prompted the observation that for the exact same reason that it's no big deal, it doesn't accomplish much either: Anyone who doesn't want to preview his or her comment won't look at it anyway, and making them click a second time won't make them. By the same token, anyone who does want to preview still has that option if it's not mandatory. I pointed out that in case of an egregious error -- like if you accidentally bracketed a big chunk of text with "<" and ">" causing it to be swallowed by the software, or if a picture you inserted is much more ginormous than you realized -- mandatory preview can force you to notice even if you don't reread your words.

Opinion at LL is strongly against mandatory preview, but they're open-minded enough to realize that, unlike us, they aren't used to it. Someone there wants to hear objective opinion from those of us who are actually used to it. Does it bother us? Do we like it? Do we care at all? Hence this poll.

Important: Since the purpose of this poll is to gauge the experience of those of us who are used to mandatory preview, please don't choose any of the top five answers (the ones that say "I'm used to it") unless you're at least a semi-regular user of AN or another Ajax SB Nation blog. For the rest of you, so that you don't feel disenfranchised, there are three more choices at the bottom (the ones that say "I'm not used to it").

Poll

How do you feel about being required to click preview before you can post?

I'm used to it, and I think it's much better this way.

18 votes

I'm used to it. I prefer it this way, but it's no big deal.

25 votes

I'm used to it, and I have no preference.

10 votes

I'm used to it. I would prefer we didn't have to, but it's no big deal.

13 votes

I'm used to it, and I still hate it.

7 votes

I'm not used to it, and I think I would like it if this requirement were imposed on us.

3 votes

I'm not used to it, and I think I wouldn't care if it changed for us.

1 votes

I'm not used to it, and I think I would dislike it if this requirement were imposed on us.

8 votes

85 votes | Poll has closed

Poll of polls

iglew — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:15 -0000

Over on the fanpost about the latest format updates, there was an inquiry about making poll votes public. In case you didn't notice, in the new AN, you can go to any user's profile, look in the "recent activity" section, and find out how they voted in any poll. Some have questioned whether this is a good idea.

Responding to the inquiry, Clockwerks explained,

We didn't realize that people would want to keep their vote private. We'd often see people commenting after voting, explaining why they voted one way or the other. If a lot of people don't like the public votes, we can get rid of that.

So let's find out:

Poll

Should votes in polls on AN be public or private?

It's very important to me that they are private.

23 votes

I prefer private, but it's not a big deal.

77 votes

I have no preference.

47 votes

I prefer public, but it's not a big deal.

31 votes

It's very important to me that they are public.

13 votes

191 votes | Poll has closed

Center field defense over the years

iglew — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:02:54 -0000

I'm not sure this really warrants its own diary, but I have a question and I don't see any other likely diary to put it in.

In the course of an unrelated discussion over on Athletics Nation, I happened to be thinking about Adam Jones and whether he'll be traded. And then I'm thinking that even though I understand both Jones and Ichiro are awesome, and I totally get why you'd want to hang on to both of them, it's kind of a waste to have two guys on the same team who can play good defense in CF, when so many other teams out there are resigned to picking the least bad of their corner outfielders to play in the middle. Surely there's better value to be had by trading one of them to another team that will make full use of the defense?

And then I started thinking, why the heck did you guys waste Ichiro in RF for so long, when statistically you know he's going to save far more runs playing in CF. But then I remembered ... well, Jeremy Reed, whatever other problems he had, was pretty good defensively. And so was Randy Winn. And Mike Cameron. And Junior when he was young and uninjured. And holy crap, have you guys ever had bad defense in center field?? Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I can't think of any.

Or maybe I just have low standards. I root for the team that fills CF with guys like Nick Swisher, Eric Byrnes, and Terrence Long. They're decent players (well, maybe not T-Long...), but they're not exactly defensive whizzes. And that's not even counting this past season when injuries made us play something like 15 different guys in CF.

Are my standards of CF defense unreasonably low? Or are yours unreasonably high because you're spoiled? Maybe past-his-prime Randy Winn seemed lousy to you. Maybe you think Adam Jones' defense is no big deal.

So my question is: When was the last time that the Mariners had what you would consider sub-par defense in center field? I don't mean just the occasional sub when the starter needs a day off or is on the 15-day DL. I mean a time when your real center fielder isn't very good defensively.

What would a unicorn do?

iglew — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:11:41 -0000

An illustrative comment on yesterday's DLD contemplates how Mark Ellis might handle a broom-wielding confrontation.

Looking at the options, I can't help thinking that "chase a rainbow" sounds more like something Travis Buck might do.

It's a slow day, so maybe this warrants a new discussion thread.

Which A's player (or former A's player) do you think is most likely to do each of the following:

Chase a rainbow
Leap across a ravine
Impale evil things
Graze on honeysuckle
Race the wind
Nuzzle a newborn
Believe in miracles
Prance through a waterfall
Majestically gallop
Whinny and rear
Pose on a windy cliff
Frolic in a meadow

Calling Bllsht on Billy Beane

iglew — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:40:29 -0000

The demands of real life have kept me from AN for about a week, and now I've spent the better part of this evening reading the zillion hot warm stove diaries I missed during that time. Most of them are too old to reply to, but I see that I made NSJ's list of posters who need to write more diaries, so here you go.

Nearly all of the discussions of the team's future are centered around the idea that the team has come to a point of major decision: either we can contend in 2008, or we can't so we may as well "blow up" the team. Here at AN, the debates rage on about how much to blow up, whether we can contend after all, how various moves by the Angels affect our decision, etc, etc. It's all we talk about now.

It's no mystery where this idea came from. It's straight from Billy Beane himself. As quoted by Tom Verducci in Sports Illustrated, Beane said,

We're at a fork in the road. ... We're either going forward and going for it or cutting it down and rebuilding. There is no middle ground in our market. When we hit the bottom, small market teams like us don't bounce."

Now, wait a minute. Since when is there no middle ground in our market? That's not what Beane has said before. Just last year he was telling us exactly the opposite. He said he believes in reloading, not rebuilding. For as long as he's been the GM he's always said he believes that the A's need to be competitive year after year. Indeed, he has even cited the team's particular market situation as a reason for that.

So why has he suddenly changed his tune? Why are the A's now a candidate for a Marlins style fire sale? Is it just because of one losing season? In the SI article, all Beane offers for a reason is that he's "monitoring the health and rehabilitation status of several key players". The article names Chavez, Duchscherer, Harden, and Kotsay. How does that make any sense? I'm not saying the health of these guys won't make a big difference to the team's success in 2008 (well, the first three anyway...), but what exactly does Beane expect to learn about Rich Harden between Nov 7 and Dec 3 that's going to tell him whether he needs to blow up the team?

It's remarkable to me how quickly and thoroughly we've all bought this line, both the fans here on AN and all commentators throughout the sports media. Has no one noticed that this is a complete 180-degree change in philosophy by Beane? Are we so enamored of the idea of rebuilding and "blowing up" the team when you can't contend, that when Beane -- for the first time ever -- shows accord with the idea we just push away his entire history and breathe a sigh of relief that he has returned to the fold of orthodoxy?

The more I think about this, the more fishy it seems. You know what? I don't think Beane has changed his philosophy at all. I think he still believes in reloading, not rebuilding. I think he still believes you make the team as competitive as you can year after year, rather than take your best shot at the World Series before breaking up the team for a new batch of prospects. I think this new line about a "fork in the road" and "no middle ground" is grade-A Billy Beane bullshit.

So why would Beane say such a thing? Two reasons come quickly to mind.

First, the winter meetings. Beane loves to trade players, regardless of whether his team is "contending" or "rebuilding". He has always said no player is off the table and he's always open to any trade suggestion that will make his team better.

But Beane has a reputation, and it has gotten harder for him to make good trades. No GM wants to be caught having made a bad trade with Billy Beane. With another GM you might take a chance, but because of Billy's reputation, there's a stigma attached to being swindled by Beane that isn't suffered when one makes an equally bad trade with, say, Jim Hendry.

Beane's greatest successes have always been with the unfamiliar names -- minor players he's gotten as "throw-ins" in larger trades. But other GMs are wary of that now. If Beane is talking to some other GM about, say, Blanton, and he asks about two obscure minor leaguers that the GM has never even heard of, that GM is going to say "Whoa, who are those guys and why is Billy Beane so interested in them?" By the same token, if out of nowhere Beane starts showing a willingness to trade Dan Haren, GMs are going to ask themselves, "Why would he trade away his star pitcher? Is there something wrong with him? What does Billy Beane know that I don't know?"

I don't think there's anything wrong with Dan Haren. But maybe Beane senses the possibility that he's overvalued. He wants to see what offers are available and if one is good enough that it could improve the team, he'll go for it. Not because the team can't contend, but because he's always open to any trade that might make the team better.

Beane's new line about rebuilding gives him valuable cover in these conversations. If he asks about some obscure low-level prospects, it's just because he needs to restock his depleted farm system. If he offers up a good player like Haren, Blanton, Ellis or Street, it's because he's blowing up the team. If Kenny Williams or Omar Minaya is on the verge of making a big trade with Beane, instead of worrying that he's about to be swindled, he can take smug satisfaction in the idea that Beane's team is in the dumps so it's time to cash in on the fire sale.

The second reason is for the players. How must Joe Blanton have felt in the second half of the season, seeing his name thrown around in so many trade rumors? For that matter, how must the other guys on the team have felt, seeing that Beane was willing to give up one of their best starters? Was he giving up on the team?

This line about the "fork in the road" makes it possible for everyone to feel reassured. All the guys on the trading block are up there not because Beane doesn't value them, but because they're good players who shouldn't be wasted on a team that can't contend. More important, if it turns out Beane doesn't hear any offers he likes and all the players don't get traded, then the message will be that we've decided we can contend after all, so everyone can take that extra boost of confidence into the new season.

And what's the downside for Beane for pushing this line? None that I can think of. I think it's pure win-win bullshit. The fans are buying it, and the press is buying it. Will the other GMs buy it, too? I hope so.

Three other thoughts about the diaries I read tonight. They're unrelated to the main topic, but it's my diary. You can think of them as special bonus topics.

One. Someone mentioned the idea that teams don't trade within the division. I think this is a canard. It's easy for us to believe it here in Oakland because it so happens that two of the other three in our division won't trade with us, but I don't think it has anything to do with being division rivals.

Some GMs just won't trade with Billy Beane. I believe Bavasi is one of them, and many sports journalists seem to agree. Bavasi made one trade with Beane, in 1999. In his last major trade as GM of the Angels, he sent Omar Olivares and Randy Velarde to the A's at the trading deadline. Since he took over in Seattle, Bavasi has done no trades with Beane, and as far as I know they've never even discussed any.

Some GMs trade a lot, some don't. Bavasi trades a little but not a lot. Bill Stoneman hardly traded at all with anyone, so it's no shock that he never traded with Beane. Maybe the new guy will be different. I don't know. But I don't think it has anything to do with being in the same division.

Two. I see that the debate about the team's budgetary process for player payroll rages on. The next time someone interviews Beane, can we please have some serious questions about this? Unlike so many topics we're tempted to ask Beane about, this is one where he could actually provide some meaningful information. Obviously he's not going to come out and say "I'm not allowed to spend more than $75 million this year," but he could shed a lot of light on the process that would make our discussions here more informed. How fixed is his budget? Is it directly tied to revenues? How separate are player salaries from other player development expenses? If there's a target budget for the year, how much flexibility does he have to exceed it if an opportunity warrants it? Conversely, if there is a target budget for the year but the opportunities really aren't there, does he still spend the money the best he can, or does he prefer put it back into the company, whether to retain as capital or distribute as dividends?

I'm not saying he's going to tell us all the details about how the company is run, nor give out any real financial figures, but it seems to me there's quite a bit he'd be happy to discuss if only someone were to ask the right questions.

Three. Our former interest in Lastings Milledge. Yeah, I wonder if that was bullshit, too. Since when is Beane interested in guys above the radar? He's notorious for expressing phony interest in popular names in order to better hide his interest in the under-the-radar guys he truly wants. Not just in trades, but in the draft, too. Remember Nick Swisher.

SB Nation User Blog: iglew

Korach calls A's play 'terrible', 'unacceptable'

Beane and Geren: best friends

If Geren does get fired some time during this season, the next A's manager should be:

Tony DeFrancesco

Tye Waller

Jamie Quirk

Orel Hershiser

Carney Lansford

Todd Steverson

someone else (please specify)

RICKEY!!!

New Trade Diary

An open letter to Bob Geren

Signed:

(I agree, and I've signed my name in the comments.)

(I'm an anonymous lurker, but I agree, too.)

Team with only three names

Poll: Should you be required to preview before you post?

How do you feel about being required to click preview before you can post?

I'm used to it, and I think it's much better this way.

I'm used to it. I prefer it this way, but it's no big deal.

I'm used to it, and I have no preference.

I'm used to it. I would prefer we didn't have to, but it's no big deal.

I'm used to it, and I still hate it.

I'm not used to it, and I think I would like it if this requirement were imposed on us.

I'm not used to it, and I think I wouldn't care if it changed for us.

I'm not used to it, and I think I would dislike it if this requirement were imposed on us.

Poll of polls

Should votes in polls on AN be public or private?

It's very important to me that they are private.

I prefer private, but it's not a big deal.

I have no preference.

I prefer public, but it's not a big deal.

It's very important to me that they are public.

Center field defense over the years

What would a unicorn do?

Calling B*llsh*t on Billy Beane

Calling Bllsht on Billy Beane