Neyer "Losing Faith in the A's"

Neyer gives his take on the trade and tells why he is losing faith in the A's. I linked to it because it is similar to what I imagine we feel about Shapiro.

over 2 years ago Cols714 20 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

While I agree with him that at some point the process needs to translate to wins (something the A’s did for quite a while, it seems to me), I vehemently disagree with him when he says,

Instead of applauding Beane for adding to the organization’s pitching depth, I wonder what the A’s — who already have eight starting pitchers 25 or younger — could possibly do with another young starter.

Seriously? Just freaking stockpile ‘em. Get another 8 if you can. Because at least half of them aren’t going to amount to much, and if you actually DO have a legitimate surplus of viable MLB pitching options in a year when you’re contending, you can go and get yourself Matt Holliday (or Victor Martinez, or whomever) with it.

The A’s may have problems, I don’t follow them closely enough to really speak about it one way or another, but I’d bet quite a bit that a surplus of young starting pitching is pretty low on their list of issues.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Jul 24, 2009 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

Yeah, I had that same thought about pitching depth.

by Cols714 on Jul 24, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions

ALSO!

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

very rec

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe the A’s will trade for Lee.

by dgcambridge on Jul 24, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Tribe fans can certainly agree with your point. Nothing wrong with having too much pitching.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 24, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Thereby proving how easy it is to dump on brilliant people who operate at a disadvantage and are sitting on a cold streak.

by elsandito on Jul 24, 2009 4:50 PM EDT reply actions

I just read that article and thought the exact same thing.

by Buckeye Brad on Jul 24, 2009 5:56 PM EDT reply actions

I have lost faith in Neyer.

"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."

— The Inestimable Eric Wedge

by emd2k3 on Jul 24, 2009 10:08 PM EDT reply actions

Why?

by Cols714 on Jul 24, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions

No reason. Just a stupid jokey comment.

"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."

— The Inestimable Eric Wedge

by emd2k3 on Jul 24, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions

As soon as things look their worst, that’s when you buy….everyone else is getting off quickly

by Roger Dorn on Jul 25, 2009 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions

When will the baseball writers ever realize that Billy Beane knows more about baseball than they do? The guy’s track record certainly earns him some sense of respect by now.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Jul 25, 2009 1:32 AM EDT reply actions

Did you read the article? Neyer specifically says that he’s been praising almost every move by Beane, but that since he hasn’t had good results over the last 3 years that maybe it’s time to have a different take. Which is pretty similar to what’s been talked about at LGT. Shapiro has made any number of perfectly reasonable and defensible moves that just haven’t panned out.

by Cols714 on Jul 25, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Right. Neyer has always been one of Beane’s biggest cheerleaders but he correctly points out that his moves have not translated in to success on the field the past few years. As you said, much like Shapiro’s moves the past two years (which Neyer has also praised). The point is that sometimes GM’s make moves that seem very good at the time but they don’t work out for whatever reason.

I have absolutely no doubt that Neyer would tell anyone that Beane knows more about baseball than he does. In fact, I’m sure he’s even mentioned that in his blog posts a few times. But that doesn’t mean he can’t question some of his moves; after all, that’s his job.

by Buckeye Brad on Jul 25, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Results oriented analysis is inappropriate when applied to people who operate at a distinct disadvantage. The person or group under evaluation can be doing more things right than others and still have nothing to show for it.
If you want to use this type of analysis on Cashman or Epstein, it makes sense. If these guys can’t show results, despite their advantages, they would be open to criticism.

~ It's no fun throwing fastballs to guys who can't hit them. The real challenge is getting them out on stuff they can hit ~ Sam McDowell

by elsandito on Jul 25, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Beane and Shapiro operate in very similar milieus in that their clubs are mid-market, limited resource teams. The trades and signings they make are dictated by their limited resources and by their very nature are riskier than the trades and signings the Boston’s and New Yorks of the world make. This is the obvious part. For the A’s or Indians to win a pennant the GM’s maneuvers have to be flawless – flawless – and lucky. When you trade for young talent luck plays a bigger part in the outcome than when you sign or trade for proven players – although you’ve gotta be lucky here too. Young players can have unlimited potential – like Adam Miller – and be reduced to a mere shadow of their projection by the simplest of injuries – a blister for example. Not that this can’t happen with veterans too, but it seems that young players are more susceptible to these career-ending injuries than guys who’ve been up for awhile.

Here’s my point – if I have a point – GMs that have demonstrated that they can successfully compete inside the small market limitations deserve more leeway when evaluating a veteran for prospects move like this. It takes the fullness of time to arrive at an evaluation and should not be criticized so sternly in the same week that it’s concluded. Give the guy a break.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Jul 25, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

If I may expand….Every transaction carries some degree of risk with it. When the Yankees purchased the contract of Babe Ruth from Boston, there was some degree of risk that Ruth would not be worth the price paid.
When you compare this type of transaction to the trading of proven major league talent for unproven prospects still playing in the minors, it’s like day and night. The degree of risk that Beane and Shapiro are forced to accept is much greater than the degree of risk that Cashman or Epstein take. I’d fire Cashman or Epstein if they accepted this degree of risk because, with their resources, it’s unnecessary. A good manager accepts only the degree of risk that is appropriate and necessary to the situation.

~ It's no fun throwing fastballs to guys who can't hit them. The real challenge is getting them out on stuff they can hit ~ Sam McDowell

by elsandito on Jul 25, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

This is the most I’ve agreed with anything you’ve said, but the rec comes for the use of milieu.

by Joel D on Jul 27, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions

When you say you are losing faith in someone, aren’t your really implying that you don’t think they are smart enough to recognize their mistakes (if they are mistakes) and make adjustments? Especially if we’re only talking 2 or 3 years.

If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.

by LeftyCatcher on Jul 25, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions