jkpigskin wrote:i havent read wat every1 else has said, but if billy beane had a 100million dollar budget, he would win it all frequently.. just look at all the talent they had... plus they home grow players.. and their drafting technique has been the best out of everybody
an all A's team
C-jason kendall 1b-jason giambi 2b- 3b- eric chavez ss- miguel tejada of-johnny damon of-jermaine dye of
just think if they could have had the money they would have the best pitching staff and a solid hitting... plus u never no wat would have happend to giambi if he had stayed in oakland
Players who have worn an Astros jersey,
C - Ausmas/Bako 1B - Bagwell 2B - Kent/Biggio 3B - Ensberg/Nevin SS - Everett/Lugo OF - Berkman OF - Abreu OF - Beltran OF - Luis Gonzalez OF - Alou
SP - RJ SP - Clemens SP - Oswalt SP - Pettitte SP - Schilling RP - Scott Linebrink RP - Tom Gordon RP - Lidge RP - Dotel RP - Wagner
Check out that pitching staff! lol
What about the Expos?!
[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]
Lack of money was also a blessing for Oakland. Just think if they had wasted the money signing Giambi like they wanted to. Dont get me wrong though i love Billy Beane. If it wasnt for him my beloved Tigers wouldnt have their current staff ace and first baseman.
jkpigskin wrote:i havent read wat every1 else has said, but if billy beane had a 100million dollar budget, he would win it all frequently.. just look at all the talent they had... plus they home grow players.. and their drafting technique has been the best out of everybody
The same could be said for basically every small market team, which is why fans in those cities are constantly crying foul when it comes to the revenue setup.
I don't agree with your assertion that the same thing could be said for basically every small market team. Look at these organizations: Kansas City (25th in 2004 payroll), Montreal (27th), Pittsburgh (28th), and Tampa Bay (30th). Do you really think that these teams would "win it all frequently" if they had $100 million to spend, or that "their drafting technique has been the best out of everybody"? If you do, you need to go back and look at some of the drafts and signings of these clubs over the last five years.
reynolds80 wrote:I don't agree with your assertion that the same thing could be said for basically every small market team. Look at these organizations: Kansas City (25th in 2004 payroll), Montreal (27th), Pittsburgh (28th), and Tampa Bay (30th). Do you really think that these teams would "win it all frequently" if they had $100 million to spend, or that "their drafting technique has been the best out of everybody"? If you do, you need to go back and look at some of the drafts and signings of these clubs over the last five years.
They wouldn't win it every year, and they do make their share of bad signings, but if you level the playing field in terms of salary, those teams would all give the Yankees and Red Sox serious runs for their money, and probably beat them a fair amount of the time. Smaller market teams can't just throw money at mistakes and they have obviously been smarter to even be able to compete the way they have. Give them comprable money to spend and there's no doubt in my mind the Yankees would be middle of the pack unless they clean house in the front office and where ever else the decisions are made.
SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote:They wouldn't win it every year, and they do make their share of bad signings, but if you level the playing field in terms of salary, those teams would all give the Yankees and Red Sox serious runs for their money, and probably beat them a fair amount of the time. Smaller market teams can't just throw money at mistakes and they have obviously been smarter to even be able to compete the way they have. Give them comprable money to spend and there's no doubt in my mind the Yankees would be middle of the pack unless they clean house in the front office and where ever else the decisions are made.
Money doesn't make you smarter. Pittsburgh could have twice as much money as New York, and they'd still finish in last place. The Orioles spent a ton of money in th elate 90s and early 00s, and it bought them 4th place finishes because they spent it on crappy players.
The adulation that Beane gets is just the natural tendency to cheer for the underdog when he gets close. He is no better judge of talent than most of the other gms. He is a devotee of the invented stats that Bill James loves. The same Bill James who in 1992 said that Sosa would never be the player the White Sox thought he would be. It's still a crap shoot when you draft players in baseball. Always has been and always will be. You can invent all the stats you want to claim that so and so is better, you still cannot predict a thing. The A's caught lightning in a bottle with the three pitchers. One would expect that in trading two of them you would get quality in return. When you do, it should not really not be a testament to the greatness of the gm. It's what anybody breathing could have done.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Money doesn't make you smarter. Pittsburgh could have twice as much money as New York, and they'd still finish in last place. The Orioles spent a ton of money in th elate 90s and early 00s, and it bought them 4th place finishes because they spent it on crappy players.
Very true, but if you give the A's or Twins as much money as the Yankees they would definitely win their share of championships. I know giving money to poorly run teams does no good, but you can't say that it doesn't at least help. Those teams have to be so frugal to begin with, that the additional salary (and retaining the same philosophy they use now) would allow them to build even better teams. That's all I was really trying to say really.
SouthBronxBombers wrote:The adulation that Beane gets is just the natural tendency to cheer for the underdog when he gets close. He is no better judge of talent than most of the other gms. He is a devotee of the invented stats that Bill James loves. The same Bill James who in 1992 said that Sosa would never be the player the White Sox thought he would be. It's still a crap shoot when you draft players in baseball. Always has been and always will be. You can invent all the stats you want to claim that so and so is better, you still cannot predict a thing. The A's caught lightning in a bottle with the three pitchers. One would expect that in trading two of them you would get quality in return. When you do, it should not really not be a testament to the greatness of the gm. It's what anybody breathing could have done.
I'd certainly say he ranks in the top third of GMs on talent evaluation.
I'd like to see the exact quote on Sosa, but the fact is Sosa did look like a crappy player at that point. Since there's no perfect system for player evaluation, I can't see how you can take one mistake and make your judgements based solely upon that.
Certainly baseball drafts are more unpredictable, but they are not simply a crap shoot. Furthermore, creating a winning team involves much more than drafting. And once players are in the minors, there are very good predictive systems. The A's success is not solely dependent on those three pitchers, whom Beane had a hand in selecting anyway.
Bas wrote:Im not saying Blanton wont become a good player but a SP who has never won a game is not an impact player yet period. Oakland lived off their second half comebacks for years now. Well guess what Hudson and Mulder arent there to lead the charge anymore. Sorry but i cant respect any GM who just lets his 2 best pitchers get away in their primes.
As other's have already said, how many players from the 2002 draft are impact players right now? Second, pitchers don't win games. Teams win games. Pitchers prevent runs. Blanton, who has a DH bat for him, has no impact what-so-ever on his run support. Third, Beane didn't let his two best pitchers get away. He did the exact opposite. He traded them before they were going to walk for more money.
Except Mulder was not a free agent until the ennd of 06. He could have waited on him. He also could have held ot with Hudson and traded him to a contender before the deadline this year. For all the BS of Moneyball, it still comes down to you get what you pay for. No Tejada, no Mulder, no Hudson = one crummy team.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by beltrans_boy » Fri May 13, 2005 8:41 pm 
