Cards close to trading for Willis?

[BoSox34]

I'm going to jump in on this but keep it simple, Billy Beane is the best GM in baseball period... He constantly has to make moves around a small payroll, losing guys such as Miguel Tejada, Losing 2 of 'The Big Three' (Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson), and soon to lose Barry Zito in the offseason. Not to mention the countless others he couldn't resign or had to trade.

The brilliance here is how he manages to add young players but not just any young players, the right youngsters, who come in right away and are ready to take the field and compete. There are some good GM's in the league and I do consider Jocketty to be one of them, but if you asked me who I thought was the best to me, it's one of the easiest answers... Billy Beane.

[HollywoodLeo]

I don't think it's a crap shoot at all. I think clutch and gutty players who are plucked out by GMs with good "Scouts Eyes" for talent are the ones who have the most success in the playoffs. Obviously the payroll of a team can play a big factor too, but it goes far beyond that.

And the Cards aren't in a large market. They just have great fans and a great owner and GM.

As for a team who does well without a big payroll: look at the Florida Marlins. They have won multiple World Series Championships over the last few years with very small payrolls. They are constantly abused for cutting payroll and such but they always seem to re-load on their way to another Championship. Even this year when they were expected to be as putrid as the Royals, they are playing above "expectations."

St Louis practically owns the entire midwest so they do own a pseudo-large market. I know, I lived in Arkansas for quite some time and they all cheer for the Cardinals down there as well.

As for the Marlins, they won their first world series with big spending mentality, and then sold everyone off the next year.
Their 2nd world series is a good example, however.

But that is besides the point, I wasn't asking you to name a small market team that had success, I could've done that myself. I was asking if you had a ton of respect for a small market GM like the kind you seem to have for the big market guys and the kind you seem to lack for a GM the calliber of Billy Beane.

In regards to the playoffs/"scouts eye for players who gut it out..." remark, I don't buy into the logic of a group of players good enough to take their team to the playoffs year in and year out suddenly sucking come playoff time.
The A's took every single one of their wild card series to 5 games everytime they made the playoffs. An argument doesn't hold water with me when things could've been different had one solitary play or game gone differently.
You'd have a valid argument under my opinion if the A's continously got swept right out of the playoffs like as though they don't belong every year after making it, but that's not the case.

Anyways, I really don't think Walt Jocketty is a bad GM, in fact I agree that he's a good one. I just think Beane's also a good one and I don't think the St Louis pitching staff is all that good.

[CincyRedsFan30]

I'm going to jump in on this but keep it simple, Billy Beane is the best GM in baseball period... He constantly has to make moves around a small payroll, losing guys such as Miguel Tejada, Losing 2 of 'The Big Three' (Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson), and soon to lose Barry Zito in the offseason. Not to mention the countless others he couldn't resign or had to trade.

The brilliance here is how he manages to add young players but not just any young players, the right youngsters, who come in right away and are ready to take the field and compete. There are some good GM's in the league and I do consider Jocketty to be one of them, but if you asked me who I thought was the best to me, it's one of the easiest answers... Billy Beane.

I think he is overrated because of an excessive amount of playoff choking.

Nothing can convince me otherwise. The facts are there and they aren't pretty.

[CincyRedsFan30]

St Louis practically owns the entire midwest so they do own a pseudo-large market. I know, I lived in Arkansas for quite some time and they all cheer for the Cardinals down there as well.

As for the Marlins, they won their first world series with big spending mentality, and then sold everyone off the next year.
Their 2nd world series is a good example, however.

But that is besides the point, I wasn't asking you to name a small market team that had success, I could've done that myself. I was asking if you had a ton of respect for a small market GM like the kind you seem to have for the big market guys and the kind you seem to lack for a GM the calliber of Billy Beane.

In regards to the playoffs/"scouts eye for players who gut it out..." remark, I don't buy into the logic of a group of players good enough to take their team to the playoffs year in and year out suddenly sucking come playoff time.
The A's took every single one of their wild card series to 5 games everytime they made the playoffs. An argument doesn't hold water with me when things could've been different had one solitary play or game gone differently.
You'd have a valid argument under my opinion if the A's continously got swept right out of the playoffs like as though they don't belong every year after making it, but that's not the case.

Anyways, I really don't think Walt Jocketty is a bad GM, in fact I agree that he's a good one. I just think Beane's also a good one and I don't think the St Louis pitching staff is all that good.

I guess everyone who doesn't think Beane's repetitive choking in the playoffs is a bad thing also doesn't think Bob Huggins' choking in the 2nd Round of the NCAA Tournament was bad either, huh?

I think both situations are more than a matter of coincidence or luck. There is something that has been inherently flawed about Beane's teams just like the same was true for Huggins' teams in the 2nd Round of the NCAA Tournament.

[McKain]

Oakland has made the playoffs four times under Beane, and lost in game five each time. They lost those four final games by a total of six runs.

That's pretty much a sign of "luck" deciding things rather than "Beane's teams being flawed."

[HollywoodLeo]

I guess everyone who doesn't think Beane's repetitive choking in the playoffs is a bad thing also doesn't think Bob Huggins' choking in the 2nd Round of the NCAA Tournament was bad either, huh?

I think both situations are more than a matter of coincidence or luck. There is something that has been inherently flawed about Beane's teams just like the same was true for Huggins' teams in the 2nd Round of the NCAA Tournament.

First off, I don't know who Bob Huggins is, I follow the NCAA about as much as I follow figure skating.

Anyways, as McKain has already pointed out (not to mention me in the post you quoted) everytime the A's have made the playoffs they were knocked out in game 5, all close games. That's not quite the same as getting run out all 5 years.

Once the playoff teams are settled you basically have a group of 8 teams vying it out in a small tournament. For the most part all 8 teams are on about an even keel in terms of talent and it pretty much amounts to who's playing better ball at that time.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Oakland has made the playoffs four times under Beane, and lost in game five each time. They lost those four final games by a total of six runs.

That's pretty much a sign of "luck" deciding things rather than "Beane's teams being flawed."

To you it is.

I think it is a lack of clutch performers. There is no concrete evidence that you can provide that would indicate having non-clutch players has nothing to do with it.

[McKain]

And you're using... what evidence, exactly... to determine that it's a lack of clutch players? The fact that they lost in the playoffs several times? Is that about it?

[CincyRedsFan30]

And you're using... what evidence, exactly... to determine that it's a lack of clutch players? The fact that they lost in the playoffs several times? Is that about it?

They lost multiple times. That's about as non-clutch as you can get, IMO.

Bob Huggins' teams say hi.

[HollywoodLeo]

"clutch" is a made up word people like to use when they have no other evidence to prove someone or some team is good or bad.

[CincyRedsFan30]

"clutch" is a made up word people like to use when they have no other evidence to prove someone or some team is good or bad.

Made up? How about the connotations of the word as itself. I did a search for the word clutch and found this definition for this situation:


"4. crucial moment: a crucial moment in a critical situation"

I think the A's have been non-clutch many times, including those important Game 5's.

There is simply nothing to support your claim that the word is a made up one.

[Providence A's]

The Cardinals keep losing in the playoffs, so I guess they choke as they haven't won a World Series in this recent run.

The Braves must be the biggest chokers ever since they only won 1 World Series in those 13 playoff appearances.

The Yankees haven't won since 2000 despite making the playoffs every year...chokers.

The Red Sox took 86 years to win another World Series...they must have choked all those times they made the playoffs.



I'm glad Beane is the GM for the A's, but every single GM has made moves that don't always work out. That's just the way it is; no one is perfect. It's going to look like Beane got screwed in the Hudson deal (though Hudson hasn't been as good as he was), but that is mainly due to Meyer getting injured twice...how can one plan for that? The guy never had a track record of injuries...that's just bad luck.

Beane certainly took Walt for a loop in the Mulder deal. Haren > Mulder...plus Calero has been solid out of the pen and Barton should be with the A's next year. That's a killing right there. Loaiza hasn't exactly panned out and I didn't like the move to begin with...we overpaid, but everyone overpays for pitching...he wasn't brought in to be a stud, just to eat innings. Now people are saying the Bradley deal is horrible for the A's because Bradley had been on the DL twice and Perez hasn't hit well. So what? Ethier was expendable because we have a prospect that was pretty much the same as him only projects to be better in Travis Buck (who played in the Futures Game this year).

Due to the lower payroll, which should change if they can get a new stadium since the majority owner is the owner of Gap among other things, they have to take chances like that. Everyone said the Thomas signing was horrible, but he's got 20 homers already...more than anyone would have expected...and he was only put on the DL that one time because they were going into NL parks where there is no DH and he wasn't going to play anyway.

Yes, I'm disappointed the A's didn't win a World Series during one of those playoff runs, but the GM can only do so much. Once they get there, the players have to do the job. Yes, they have been somewhat unlucky...in 2003 they were without Mulder (who was solid that year)...there's no way the Red Sox win that series if they're facing Hudson, Zito, and Mulder instead of Hudson, Zito, and Lilly...and yes Lilly piched well that game, but they could have gone with a 4-man rotation instead of bringing Hudson and Zito back on short rest...and then Hudson got hurt, too...so some of that is shitty luck...2003 A's at full strength > 2003 Red Sox at full strength...though it didn't matter as the Sox didn't win the World Series either.

And that is the bottom line...winning the World Series...so I don't see how you can say one team choked by losing in the 1st round in 5 games or whatever and another didn't even though they didn't win the World Series...that's the goal...not to get out of the 1st round, not to get to the World Series, but to win it...and Walt hasn't done that with the Cards recently...and they won't do it this year.

[McKain]

They lost multiple times. That's about as non-clutch as you can get, IMO.

Bob Huggins' teams say hi.

So our respective amounts of evidence are about equal, then.

Works for me.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Sure the Cards have choked in the playoffs too. They have just been less non-clutch than the A's. I also have more faith in their chances of winning a World Series in coming years.

The Marlins are an extremely clutch team. They have to be the model of being clutch in recent years and some of that goes to the GM, some to the owner and some to Jack McKean, IMO.

[HollywoodLeo]

Made up? How about the connotations of the word as itself. I did a search for the word clutch and found this definition for this situation:


"4. crucial moment: a crucial moment in a critical situation"

I think the A's have been non-clutch many times, including those important Game 5's.

There is simply nothing to support your claim that the word is a made up one.

I did not mean "made up" in the sense that there is no definition for it or that it can't be found in Webster's dictionary.

So, perhaps I used the wrong term, but the fact remains that it's still a word people like to use when they want to call a player good who isn't or a player bad who isn't. (same can be said for teams.)

The A's have had good teams under Billy Beane year in and year out whether you like it or not.