wrveres wrote:Correct me if I am wrong ... ( I am sure you will) ..
Jason Giambi drafted By Oakland in the summer of 1992 Miguel Tejada drafted by Oakland in the summer of 1994 Eric Chavez drafted by Oakland in the summer of 1997 Tim Hudson drafted by Oakland in the summer of 1997
William Beane becomes GM on October 17, 1997.
In 1998 he drafted .. 1st round (2nd pick) Mark Mulder In 1999 he drafted .. 1st round (9th pick) Barry Zito
so what exactly has Beane done again? I am confused ... I mean we all know he has never "WON" anything except a couple of AL West Pennants. He has never won a playoff series. At least La Russa took the A's to the World Series a few times. So what exactly has Beane done? I mean after 7 years shouldn't we now be seeing the "Fruit" from his so called "Genius drafts"? Hell the only thing Beane has actually provided us with is Barry Zito, and I am pretty sure that nobody needed a speadsheet to show that Barry Zito was going to be good.
Some interesting notes, wrveres. But I still think you are missing the WHY of this stuff. Do you agree that if the A's had been able to resign any of the guys they produce they would much better right now? I hope so.
Here is Beane's (and the A's) dilemma: ownership gives him only about $60K per year to work with. Therefore, he cant resign the guys he finds like Mulder who would ask for big contracts in free agency. So, he trades them for prospects or lets them go to free agency in exchange for draft picks. The result is an enormous turnover in the A's system. New players are constantly being thrown into the lineup year after year. The only veterans on Beane's teams are no-name guys who he gets on the cheap like Matt Stairs.
To me its a miracle that the A's win as much as they do. It is my opinion that, given a more flexible budget, allowing Beane to take part in such gm activities as big-name-free-agent-signing, blockbuster-trading, etc, that he would win a WS within a few years and sustain that excellence for a while. He would find not only the talent for the best VALUE, but the best talent OVERALL.
I understand all that, I really do ...
Everybody talks about the Bill James system of prospects that Beane practices, but after 7 years, what has Beane given us? ..
I am kinda in your boat here. I admit that Beane is a very good GM but I don't understand how he can be treated as a God by so many when he has never won a playoff series let alone a World Series. So much is made of his methods but all that they have proven is that he can field a productive team that fails miserably in the playoffs. And before anyone brings up what he could do with more $$, let me remind you of Glen Sather. When he was solely the GM of the Edmonton Oilers, he used to field a decent team that would get bounced out of the playoffs in the first round. He would also laugh at the Rangers and say how he could win tons of championships with their payroll. Well, he's there now and would have been fired if not for him being in Dolan's pockets. He hasn't even made the playoffs in years (at least 5) and many of us know how easy it is to make the playoffs in the NHL.
Pedantic wrote:Don't focus on just amateur talent with Beane. Don't forget about the Hattebergs and Bradfords he literally discovered out of nowhere.
On another note, I read Moneyball, but returned it immediately afterward. It was interesting, but not worth that much money.
Hatteberg was a first round pick way back in 1991. After 5 seasons in a somewhat succesful catcher platoon with Boston, Beane signed Hatteberg as a FA and moved him to 1B. How is that "discovered out of nowhere"? What is so great about Hatteberg anyways? Honestly?
Bradford was a closer in the minors and had a 1.09WHIP over 5 minor league seasons. I highly doubt he was "discovered out of nowhere". Besides, Bradford was traded to the A's for Miguel Olivo. Which player would you of rather had now, Olivio or Bradford? Heck, If he had kept Olivio, he wouldn't have needed Jason Kendall, and he might have then been able to keep a Mulder and/or Hudson.
That Olivo thing is interesting. As I said, I am not a Beane lover, so I dont agree with everything he's done. I do respect him a lot though, so I have tried to explain why I respect in this thread. Obviously he has made some bad moves, as all gms do, but I do think he is one of the top gms in the league. It would be very interesting to see him work with a larger payroll. I wonder what might happen.......?
To simplify the situation and get this thread back on track, the initial question was why there hasn't been X amount of Beane criticism. The answer: because he has not failed. The idea that GMs are paid to win championships is ludicrous. They don't throw, hit, or field; they have no direct influence on the outcome. All a GM can do is put together a contender with his available resources. In that regard Beane is highly successful so far. Speculate all you want on trades and draft picks whose results are yet to be determined, he has yet to fail.
Bloody Nipples wrote:That Olivo thing is interesting. As I said, I am not a Beane lover, so I dont agree with everything he's done. I do respect him a lot though, so I have tried to explain why I respect in this thread. Obviously he has made some bad moves, as all gms do, but I do think he is one of the top gms in the league. It would be very interesting to see him work with a larger payroll. I wonder what might happen.......?
I respect him a lot as well. I just refuse to pray to him before I go to bed at night.
Amazinz wrote:If you can't judge a GM on his ability to field a winning team, how are you supposed to judge them at all?
You make a fair point. Like I said above, I respect him a lot and feel that he does a very good job but I don't see how everyone can claim that he has a wonderful method and pray to him when his teams have never won a playoff series. If you have numerous best-of-5 series and you can trot out some combination of Hudson, Mulder, and Zito for at least 4 of those games, you should be able to win 3/5 at least once.
I'm still laughing at the "at least the Cubs take a shot at winning the WS every year". Yes I applaud the Cubs, they find a way to spend obscene amounts of money and fail at winning the series. Much better than spending modest amounts of money and failing at winning a crown. And really, do you think they aren't trying to win one in Oakland? Because that's what you make it sound like.
People need to get through their thick heads that the playoffs are more about luck than anything. There is a reason that the team with the most regular season wins seems to never win the series. Deciding whether or not a team is good because of a five game series is like taking a poll for president with a sample size of ten... doesn't really work that well.
Another thing to all you guys who point to the Twins as a great example of another small market team doing well. You need to realize their GM mucked up things pretty well for six years there. Because of that, he got some pretty good draft picks. He also was part of some trades that probably wouldn't have been made if they were a contending team at that point. If you give me six years to build, I bet that I could find a way to make the playoffs a few times too. Beane finds a way to keep Oakland at virtually the same level of play year after year, regardless of the players he is forced to do without.
Why I leave for a day and this thread explodes (mainly cause of no other baseball news), awesome. I think, as Rugby stated, this thread got a little off track.
Like I said in my original post, I believe Beane is talented. I stated that personally I would place him among the top GMs in baseball. However, I am a little angry that he receives no criticism. Beane having not failed yet does not mean he should be perceived as an omnipotent baseball icon. The moves he made this offseason were questionable, and articles pop up calling him a mastermind.
Fact remains he traded two starters with ungodly winning percentages for some minor league talent with no track record. Is it his fault this is the way it is? No, he has a small budget to work with, however, Mulder and Hudson were on the payroll for a couple more years. Would it have hurt to let Harden and Blanton mature a little with Hudson and Mulder on the staff? The A's could have made a run there for the WS, which should be the ultimate goal.
Why force a young Harden to become the #2, and a bunch of no experience guys to march the A's into playoffs?
I honestly believe the A's would be in a better position this year keeping Hudson and Mulder. Of course that's my opinion and Beane has done waaaaay more research than this than I, but I was just peeved that no other writers brought forth this possibility. Beane wears a jersey of invincibility, and I believe with little or no reason. Thanks for posting peoples.
...Boston papers now and then suffer a sharp flurry of arithmetic on this score; indeed, for Williams to have distributed all his hits so they did nobody else any good would constitute a feat of placement unparalleled in the annals of selfishness. -Updike