It is better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late
OREO fan wrote:i will give him some cradit for getting haren for mudler but trading hudson a year before his contract expired for meyer? wouldnt that be a nice bargaining chip for a contender this midseason
. - Branch Ricky
Why? To land a huge windfall like the Royals got for Beltran at the deadline last season? If everyone knows that the Athletics are not going to resign Hudson next season, the closer the trade dealine becomes, the more of a buyer's market there is for Hudson. In trading him before the season starts, the Athletics have much more leverage because they are months away from losing him without getting anything in return, instead of days or weeks.
Deuce wrote:As you may recall, when the A's allowed Jason Giambi to walk away, it was so they could sign the big 3 or Tejada. WELL
Did their market get smaller after that year. Ask the twins about small markets. They are still competitive.
Speaking as an avid Twins fan, if they played in the AL West, they wouldn't have made the playoffs in any of the last three seasons. And speaking of the Twins...
Deuce wrote:Moneyball = Owners taking home money at the end of the season.
Baseball = Playing the game to win the World Series ring.
Moneyball is happening in Oakland - Congratulations to the new owners.
If you want to talk to any of whom I consider the three best general managers in baseball, Schuerholtz, Ryan, or Beane, they will all tell you the exact same thing. No one builds a team for a five or seven game series in October when you have to get through a six month, 162-game marathon first. This keeps getting parroted, but it just displays a lack of understanding. The Athletics have won a ton of games and made the playoffs with regularity over the past few years. If they lose three games in a five game span, it isn't a discredit to their organizational philosophies.
Think Joe Morgan is looking for an intern? Reminds me an awful lot of when he said, after the publishing of Moneyball, that the Athletics subsequent loss in the playoffs was because they didn't manufacture runs. Nevermind that Oakland scored more runs in that series than they had during the regular season, but that the pitching coughed up a bunch of runs. This isn't about anything approaching fact, just an overreaction to a sensationalized book designed to sell copies. Just look at this thread; someone else already made a sinde remark about on-base percentage. The point that could be gleaned from Lewis' overhyped account of the Athletics' organizational strategy is that you look for abilities the market is undervaluing in both trades and free agent signings, and sometimes even in the draft where you can get an undervalued player to agree to a lessor contract and signing bonus.
Beane said in an interview on XM this season during spring training that the rest of baseball has already caught up to on-base percentage and that it is a slightly overvalued commodity, and teams are not likely to find any bargains there. He even mentioned defense being underpaid this offseason in reference to the Kotsay aquisition.
Beane didn't discover that on-base percentage was a better metric than batting average. There were writers from the Sporting News arguing that same thing before the 1900s rolled around, but the Joe Morganish crowd has always tended to yell louder.
I think Beane does an excellent job. Who cares what kind of market Oakland is if the owners never capitalize or filter any extra budget money to Beane? He cannot spend more than he is given.
And heaven forbid after making the playoffs four out of the last five seasons and never finishing worse than second in an awfully competative division, that the Athletics take a year or so to retool. Beane added a whole slew of arms on the cheap for one all-star and one decent to good pitcher. My hat is off to him.