As you might've heard, Coco Crisp chose to return to the Oakland A's. While it seems to fly in the face of a player who was saying that he wanted to be with a contender, Coco seems to be claiming that the A's could be MLB's Clippers this year. Course that means the 2012 Clippers and not the perennially crappy Clippers for most of their history. At least that's what I think he means.
Crisp compared the A's to his favorite NBA team, the Clippers, saying, "You know the Lakers are going to be good, but that's not that exciting. The Clippers, they're young, they're exciting to watch - and they've done well."
Well the A's might be exciting to watch in 2012. Or they might not be, but I'd like to consider myself one of the more optimistic, supportive A's fans, you have to notice that his analogy does not say "winning" (TM Charlie Sheen). That's because with the A's 2012 lineup, I don't imagine that we'll see too much of that winning. Sure there's a chance that some of the young guys prove to be better than advertised and maybe even ahead of schedule, I'm just skeptical of it coming together in time to approach anything worth competitive this season. There's just too many things that can go wrong.
I do like bringing Coco in because I think Coco is a fun player to watch and he's just more dynamic than bringing in someone like Cody Ross. Course the A's could very well still bring in Ross as well which I am NOT a fan of.
0 recs | 169 comments
You sure it isn't the AAA Columbus Clippers?
I could see them giving the A’s a run for their money in 2012. They are repeat AAA-Champs!
dwishinsky - January 4, 2012
I swear, I'm not in the habit of praising Halos Heaven, but...
This is amazing.
http://www.halosheaven.com/2012/1/4/2682571/moneyblog
danmerqury - January 4, 2012
gotta respect.
MobiusKlein - January 4, 2012
Agreed
that is actually really well done.
Tyler Bleszinski - January 4, 2012
so awesome
stm72 - January 4, 2012
Just, WOW!
Tutu-late - January 4, 2012
Meta is the new moneyblog.
iglew - January 4, 2012
Do you remember that time
67Marquez wrote 20 consecutive front page posts? That was inspiring. It’s a shame AN couldn’t hold onto the talents of SalB, Monkeyball and G_S, but what’s a small-market blog to do?
YonYonson - January 4, 2012
i did?
why did nobody stop me?!
67MARQUEZ - January 4, 2012 via Android app
happy new year man
stm72 - January 5, 2012
you too!
67MARQUEZ - January 5, 2012
Holy Shit
That was funny!
athletics68 - January 4, 2012
Had me chuckling
Geronimo Berroa - January 4, 2012
big thumbs or not
it’s always nice to uncover gems like those on SB Nation
rhymeswithelephant - January 4, 2012
that's just outstanding stuff.
so…um…..do we have anyone that can do fart and dick jokes here?
or is just saying “f*ck the Halos” enough to draw eyeballs?
Drone - January 5, 2012
Awesome
Does this mean we’re going to have fewer charts, graphs, and statistical breakdowns on A’s Nation moving forward?
LastAsFanInNJ - January 6, 2012
I wrote this my orginal fanpost about the Rays draft picks:
Feels a bit overstated….
The Rays drafted Longeria and Price with high picks (And Upton, but he has had an uneven career). However, you also have:
James Shields (16th Round)
Matt Moore (8th Round)
Desmond Jennings (10th Round)
Jeremy Hellickson (4th Round)
Ben Zobrist (6th).
I’d Argue the Rays success as more to do with later rounds than the earlier ones. How would the A’s look with those five guys right now?
tinez14 - January 4, 2012
I agree with you
And that’s definitely the case with the later round picks. But their arguably best hitter and arguably best pitcher (Shields) both came from those more sure fire positions in the draft. Much easier to build around cornerstones of the franchise when they’re drafted that high.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve been saying that the A’s should just go ahead and totally suck this year. Get one of those top five picks for once. Easy for me to say though as I’m a NRAF and I’m not the GM of the team.
Tyler Bleszinski - January 4, 2012
I'm saying Shields just
because you could argue Shields is their best pitcher over Price.
Tyler Bleszinski - January 4, 2012
Shields Is Better
Because he had a very good 2011 and a low ERA. Also, Shields is coming off a season where he threw 11 CG’s, and he pitches deep into ballgames. Price didn’t have any.
Alex Stauffer - January 5, 2012
Price actually put up a marginally better FIP
which I actually didn’t know until I just looked it up. However, you’re correct in that Shields was more valuable last year having pitched nearly 250 innings.
tRA and SIERA are pretty comparable too. You could argue they pitched equally last year, but I think Price has a higher ceiling, while Shields has probably reached his.
stranahanahan - January 5, 2012
Most Probably
Still I think Shields might continue his good season in 2012. Price will be better though troughout the next years.
Alex Stauffer - January 5, 2012
Zobrist was drafted by the Astros.
James Shields was drafted while Bill Clinton was president. We’re going back 11 years and finding 3 guys they’ve hit?
BWH - January 4, 2012
Didn't realize Zobrist wasn't drafted by them.
My point is that five of their seven best players next year were drafted in the 4th round or later. The Rays are not only a function of high draft picks.
tinez14 - January 4, 2012
Last year Price, Longoria, and BJ Upton
all of whom were top 3 picks, combined for 15 WAR. The won 91 games. Replace them with average players and they’re a .500 team.
BWH - January 4, 2012
Last year Shields, Hellickson, and Jennings
All of whom were not top draft picks combined for 12.6 rWAR. And that’s not including a full season of Jennings, and Matt Moore who lights out in a playoff game.
Not only have they had high draft choices, but they been lights out in the lower rounds as well.
tinez14 - January 4, 2012
BTW
I realize I’m cherry picking my WAR source because of of Hellickson’s whack-ass fip :)
tinez14 - January 4, 2012
So?
The problem is that it’s exponentially more difficult to find good players even in the latter half of the first round, never mind in later rounds. There’s plenty of proof that they exist, but it’s only ever in hindsight. If somebody knew who Zobrist would become, he surely wouldn’t have lasted till the 6th Round. To give you an idea how hard this is, in 2004 the A’s first five picks were Landon Powell, Daniel Putnam, Huston Street, Richard Robnett, and Michael Rogers. I think it’s safe to say the A’s would have gleefully given up at least four of those five for Zobrist, in hindsight.
Now, the top few draft picks, however, are relative no-brainers.
So the question is, should one’s strategy be to get three no-brainers to combine for 15 WAR, or to somehow count on finding another three from later rounds for the 12.6 WAR? The better strategy surely is to pick up the no-brainers and somehow buy the diamonds-in-the-rough as they reveal themselves. No one is suggesting a strategy of relying only on top picks, and you’re surely not suggesting that the A’s can build a team mostly with surprises from later rounds, so what’s there to really argue about?
GlassHeart - January 4, 2012
Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round.
Just goes to show, you never know how your draftees will pan out.
Tutu-late - January 4, 2012
Textbook example is Mike Piazza.
Very last pick in the 60-something-th round, right?
danmerqury - January 4, 2012
Exactly.
ALL draft picks are a gamble. After his surgery, Strasburg may never return to fulfill his hype. To dump on BB for the outcome of his draft picks, is just wrong. You roll the dice, and hope for the best.
Tutu-late - January 4, 2012
It's not all a crapshoot
Sure, there are lower picks that come out of nowhere that were signed because it’s the son of the next door neighbor of the GM’s cousin, and there are high picks that wind up flaming out in AA
-but then there’s everybody else, and it’s the job of the scouting department, in coordination with folks who can do statistical analysis and understand which statistics are important for prospects, to find the right prospects to draft.The A’s, for several years, up until the advent of Jamile Weeks last year, had done a consistently poor job of drafting position players. Maybe it’s the scouting department, maybe it’s the decision to cheap out on over-slot pay-outs, whatever. It’s hard to hide the fact that between the 2002 draft, which brought in Nick Swisher, and the 2008 draft, which brought Jamile Weeks, the only two position players drafted by the A’s thus far, insofar as I can recall, to achieve any kind of starter role were Cliff Pennington and Kurt Suzuki.
richwol1 - January 5, 2012
I do think its a crapshoot. And I don't think it is fair to exclude pitchers as to the value of your picks.
During the years directly after the Swisher draft, the A’s were more interested in drafting pitchers to go along with the position players. I found this an interesting article.
If you notice, even teams like the Yankees screw up with their picks.
Tutu-late - January 5, 2012
The younger the player, the greater the crapshoot
But it isn’t fully a crapshoot. There are analysts and scouts, and based on what you’re saying, they’re all overpaid. I’ll reiterate what I’ve said a couple of times, and what never gets commented upon. Unless there are secret studies being done, there is no statistical analysis available for the success rate of individual scouts and analysts. That means that we have no idea if it’s a crapshoot or not
-sure, there are injuries and guys who inexplicably don’t produce — but by and large there are, or should be, ways to tell which prospects are more likely to pan out, and which will not.Until someone comes up with a study of scouts themselves, we don’t know the answer.
richwol1 - January 5, 2012
Not a statistical study by any means...
…but I looked through the Wikipedia articles of recent drafts, which conveniently highlight the picks who eventually make All-Star:
1998 – #2, #5, #8, #10, #17, #20, #22
1999 – #1, #2, #9, #10, #19, #25
2000 – #1, #15, #29
2001 – #1, #2, #5
2002 – #6, #7, #12, #15, #16, #17, #25
2003 – #2, #13, #20, #24, #29
2004 – #2, #12, #23
2005 – #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #11, #12, #23
2006 – #3, #7, #10
2007 – #1, #5, #14
At a glance, 49 of the top 300 (16%) become all-stars. Since there are 32 players for each all-star team, I’d expect a number much closer to all 300 first round picks becoming all-stars if your not-crapshoot theory is correct.
17 of the 49 all-stars (35%) were drafted in the top 5. If it was a true crapshoot, you’d expect ~16% of the all-stars to come from the top 5, so it certainly suggests the scouts do have an idea who the best players are.
27 of the 49 all-stars (55%) were drafted in the top 10. Again, we’d expect ~33% in a “crapshoot”, so the scouts seem to win again.
5 of the 10 number-one picks become all-stars, and 6 of the 10 number-two picks become all-stars. In other words, if you had the first two picks, you have a 55% chance of getting an all-star, which is fantastic considering the mere 16% chance if you had the first thirty.
(There seems to be something horribly wrong with number three picks. :)
So far, this does not contradict my theory that the scouts know who the best handful of players are in each draft, but the low overall ratio of first round picks becoming all-stars suggests they know little beyond that.
[Note: small sample size, plus all-star selection is often more about popularity than performance, so this post should be considered more a suggestion of a metric than any sort of conclusion.]
GlassHeart - January 5, 2012
If you look at the mode, though,
You have, in half the years years, a 3/30 chance of drafting a future AllStar. that is 10%.
Tutu-late - January 5, 2012
You're missing the point
Of course the higher drafted prospects will tend to have better careers. If you look at scouting and analysis as a whole, that has been true, and will always be true.
The question is rather whether you can gain an edge through better scouting, and if so, what criteria tend to be more successful at the lower levels? Some scouts or analysts most likely have better records of success than others; some might be far better than others. Saying “It’s always a crapshoot” simply ignores the idea that perhaps it isn’t, and that some people simply know more than others.
richwol1 - January 6, 2012
i agree. it is typically a crapshoot
just through statistical averages some teams will draft better than others through time. same thing with stock market pickers. someone several years ago did a statistical analysis of stock pickers and found the the distribution of good/bad to be within the norms of a normal curve. if it wasn’t a crapshoot then the normal distribution wouldn’t be the distribution.
for a real determination whether it is or isn’t a crapshoot an analysis would have to be done to determine whether success is out of the normal distribution range. of course it could be presumed that those actually making the decisions have knowledge and skills that make them better than the average citizen BUT within the population of skilled/knowledgeable decision makers the results are most likely influenced by randomness
heartstopper - January 5, 2012
The key here...
…is that no analysis has been done, or at least has been mentioned in public.
You cannot determine if it’s fully a crapshoot based on the information we now have.
richwol1 - January 5, 2012
Also the later the pick, the more of a crapshoot it is.
On a #1 pick, you are more likely than not to find a contributor to the big league team, and there’s probably at least a 10% chance of finding a bona fide star.
On a #15 pick I think those odds dramatically fall.
Billy Frijoles - January 5, 2012
Cheaping out cost the
A’s Papelbon, for sure.
BoyHowdee - January 5, 2012
Also Andre Ethier
iglew - January 5, 2012
I was hoping you'd reply...
…and further hoping that you’d do the math to see how draft slots correspond to success in the majors. :)
Perhaps a graph of WARs provided by players drafted at each slot? I’d predict a visible “cliff” somewhere in the first round as the picks suddenly become a crapshoot.
GlassHeart - January 5, 2012
Baseball Reference
has a very convenient resource for looking at draft picks. One of the columns is bWAR, so you can look at those.
One thing to watch out for, though. The data includes HS players drafted and not signed by a team, then re-drafted later by a different team which signed him (eg, Smoak in 2005 for A’s). I wish they would mark those differently somehow so they are easily spotted.
If you’re looking for the picks “suddenly” becoming a crapshoot, you’ll want to figure not just average but also standard deviation.
iglew - January 5, 2012
Lots of research involved with this
Way too much.
I don’t think anybody here has the resources to not only determine crapshoot percentages, but also figure out which teams
-and which scouts-have clearly moved the odds in their favors. We’re not talking a magic bullet here, but we are talking about ways to move past simple crapshoot.richwol1 - January 6, 2012
If you want to get into teams and scouts
I reckon you’d have deal with some sample size issues. One first round pick a year, and could really credit the same organization for picks from twenty years ago? Maybe. Tracking scouts would be harder as who knows which scout truly advocated for which guy. Sure would be a fun study in any event.
A first level analysis could at least look at which organizations have had a higher success of getting players into the MLB. Ooh, or maybe a ranking of total accumulated WAR by team that drafted each player?
Ciderbeck - January 6, 2012
Sample size wouldn't be a problem...
….if you found scouts with extremely high percentages of success, because then you could pick their brains and discover what it was that made them successful.
It’s pretty clear, though, that the Oakland A’s do have an excellent success rate with pitchers, both with drafting and with trading, and with coaching, and it seems to be a success rate that goes beyond ball park statistics. (James Simmons is such an outlier in that regard that you have to wonder what went wrong). So if this is the case with Oakland and pitchers, why shouldn’t it be the case with other teams and position players?
richwol1 - January 7, 2012
Your idea sounds like too much wishful thinking to me.
Are we supposed to believe that it has never occurred to any MLB club to make an effort to identify the best scouts, or to figure out the best scouting methods?
If you want to argue that the A’s scouting sucks and they haven’t been able to get good ones, OK. But the notion that can fix that by suddenly realizing, “Hey! I just had an idea, let’s try to hire better scouts” seems terribly simplistic.
iglew - January 7, 2012
Well, one downside of the "better strategy" of three no-brainers
is that it requires being the shittiest team in the league for three straight years. That’s kind of no fun.
iglew - January 4, 2012
I think's it worse when pitching's the problem
At least in the 90’s McGwire and Berroa were crushing the heck out of the ball. I can enjoy a pitcher’s duel, but I find it more exciting having a team that always charges back and then blows leads instead of the team that can’t even put three measly runs on the board.
Ciderbeck - January 4, 2012
it gives you something to look fwd to in the next inning
Pitching-centric teams just keep you nervous on when they are going to break, and you basically lose all hope if they give up 3-4 runs.
Billy Frijoles - January 5, 2012
How many of the later guys were overslot?
stranahanahan - January 4, 2012
Hellickson and Jennings
Moore looks like he was right around slot, maybe a touch over. Too long ago for Shields.
grover - January 4, 2012
I think deal with Moore..
Is that he was like 5’9 in high school, and grew a bunch when he was 18-20. Late growth spurts – the new market inefficiency!
tinez14 - January 5, 2012
this doesn't at all contradict what Beane is saying
The reason that the Rays are good with their payroll is that they hit big with a lot of picks (and scooped up Zobrist). So yes, it is possible to succeed with a small payroll, but it’s very very hard. Of course the A’s management is trying to do this, they just haven’t succeeded lately. I’m not claiming that the front office is anywhere close to flawless, but Keri’s article seems to imply that they aren’t trying, because if they only tried then the team would be as good as the Rays. That is a ridiculous idea.
colin - January 4, 2012
'tis
and it makes him come across as having a problem with the A’s based on the fact that he’s a Rays fan.
stranahanahan - January 4, 2012
A ridiculous idea that we hear applied to individual hitters all the time.
iglew - January 5, 2012
are you defending Matt Holliday?
colin - January 5, 2012
I hear there's a vacancy for that position.
iglew - January 5, 2012
picks
Niemann went in the 1st round at pick 4
Delmon Young went in the the 1st round and was pick one, and turned into Garza and Bartlett and Crawford was picked with the 1st pick in the 2nd round.
While two of those guys are not on the Rays anymore, they still help to to get the Rays to were they are today
dougald1 - January 5, 2012
Joe Stiglich took a shot at Openign Day batting order with Crisp signed
1. Weeks 2B
2. Sizemore 3B
3. Crisp CF
4. Allen 1B
5. Suzuki C
6. Reddick RF
7. Carter DH
8. Taylor/Cowgill LF
9. Pennington SS
OaktownPower - January 4, 2012
Linky link
http://www.ibabuzz.com/athletics/
Tyler Bleszinski - January 4, 2012
the youth is exciting
DaRubiesSLOKingsA's - January 4, 2012
Pardon my laziness in not looking
but por favor, can someone tell me the status of Sean Doolittle?
BoyHowdee - January 4, 2012
he's now a pitcher
stm72 - January 4, 2012
he's now able to converse with animals
EddieVegas_NRAF - January 4, 2012
Yah, so I thought "hey, an animal whisperer
would be cool to have on the team. So I looked him up; so much for dedicated laziness. WTH is he doing listed as a pitcher? Sigh. I suppose that’s so he can be injured with a clear conscience.
But I didn’t see where he could talk to animals, so THAT’S a misleading statement, Eddie.
BoyHowdee - January 4, 2012
No, this is perfect
We can train Doolittle to summon animals to our aid. Think of it! Midges to swarm closers, black cats walking across opponent dugouts, squirrels darting across home plate to distract pitchers, or maybe even call upon a pigeon to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Ciderbeck - January 4, 2012
Hell, with all the seagulls at the coliseum, have them swarm the field whenever a ball is in the air
when it comes down below the flock of seagulls, no not the band, the fielder won’t have time to find it.
theblackpearl - January 5, 2012
what this team needs is
a baseball whisperer! baseball’s version of cesar milan to get these players to exhibit the inner player they all have.
heartstopper - January 5, 2012
I'd be pretty mad if that's the actual linep.
There’s no way Suzuki hits 5th, even in that lineup. With those players, I have to imagine that Allen, Reddick, Carter get some kind of combination as the 3,4,5. Crisp is a pretty bad 3rd spot hitter, and has said he doesn’t like hitting there.
Furyan - January 5, 2012
Might be more like this, judging by the apparent lack of faith Beane has in Taylor
1. Weeks 2B
2. Barton 1B
3. Crisp CF
4. Reddick RF
5. Sizemore 3B
6. Allen LF
7. Carter DH
8. Suzuki C
9. Penny SS
drink - January 5, 2012
Taylor hasn't exactly lit up AAA, so it's hard to blame the lack of faith
Maverick10126 - January 5, 2012
but yet still....
there is carter as dh batting 7.
heartstopper - January 5, 2012
But
Carter’s OPS was over 80 points higher than Taylor this year in AAA, bad wrist and all. Plus he is a year younger. I would like to see Taylor get 300 at bats, but I’d much rather see Carter get them, if we have to choose.
drink - January 5, 2012
Exactly
I’m all for giving Taylor a chance, but he hasn’t exactly dominated AAA at any point. Carter has at least done that.
Carter has two wRC+ seasons of 120 at AAA
Taylor has one wRC+ of 94 and his breakout season was a 103.
Cowgill, who everyone seems to be ignoring for some reason, is younger and put up a wRC+ of 155 at AAA in a similar amount of playing time as Taylor. Yes, he had an insanely high .397 BABIP but even if you put that average back in line at .300 he still would have put up a wRC+ of at least 120 or more.
Taylor will have the opportunity to compete in spring, but he hasn’t done what Cowgill or Allen have done at AAA. And it’s not even close.
Maverick10126 - January 6, 2012
Agreed
And with the further talk of adding yet another OF, Beane may be looking at Allen just at 1B. Regardless, Taylor seems to be the last option, at the moment.
drink - January 6, 2012
Well, sadly for Cowgill we just got Crisp back
Both Cowgill and Reddick had some potential as center fielders. I’m guessing Cowgill will just have to wait for Crisp to have that injury we all know is coming.
As for Carter/Taylor, they’re going to be 25 and 26 this upcoming year. It’s time for both of them to show what they can do at the MLB level. You’re right that Carter’s the better bet to succeed right now. But in some ways, that makes me want to see Taylor get more time that Carter because this will be just about Taylor’s last shot to prove his worth. If he sinks we cut bait and move on.
Ciderbeck - January 6, 2012
With Coco's arm . . .
It will definitely be Lob City.
EddieVegas_NRAF - January 4, 2012
rec'd
bbower - January 4, 2012
Awesome
tinez14 - January 4, 2012
Hee.
danmerqury - January 4, 2012
He can't throw hard enough to throw a lawn dart.
Tutu-late - January 4, 2012
that made me giggle
stm72 - January 5, 2012
It actually makes me sad:(
Tutu-late - January 5, 2012
it's also true...which is why it made me giggle
stm72 - January 5, 2012
designated thrower
ak_A - January 5, 2012
The Clippers at least have CP3 and Blake Griffin
The A’s are more like the Cavaliers.
YonYonson - January 4, 2012
YAY WE SIGNED OUR RBI MAN!
Look out we might have TWO players reach the 10 homer mark this year! YESYESYES!
TripleA's - January 4, 2012
A critique of Keri's Grantland Beane bashing:
Sure would have helped if Holiday hadn’t had the worst half season of his career in Oakland. It wasn’t horrible, but not the All-Star we hoped he’d be. And don’t go on about park effects. He’s done just fine in the fairly neutral Busch Stadium. Cust also fell off a cliff that year, not sure how predictable that was.
Tejada was a great international amateur pick-up from a time when they didn’t cost millions upon millions to sign. Chavez was a 10th overall pick. Also high picks were Zito (9th overall) and Mulder (2nd overall).
So Keri agrees that this rebuild makes good baseball sense. In other words, Beane is not acting liking a fool at the moment.
Yeah, it’s a shocker that we didn’t develop another set of all-stars from our 2003-2007 crop of late first round draft picks. Curse you Travis Buck.
Since Swisher in 2002, who was our first pick in top twenty? Jermile Weeks. Turning out decent so far. Who were next? Grant Green and Michael Choice. So far neither have flamed out, and were listed as our top 2 prospects before the flurry of off-season trades
We are doing exactly what Jonah Keri laid out in his second paragraph. Acquiring good young talent and hope they all come together as a cost-controlled nucleus for a winning team. So Beane is sure as hell not “fucking up”. Just riding the cycle. Maybe should have tanked more instead of the 2009 go-for-it move, but we’ve course corrected. Also, it’s not a “fire-sale” if you get back some value, which we have.
As for the stadium issue, campaigning for a new park is a business decision, not a baseball one. Has there been solid evidence that Lew Wolffe told Beane to rip apart the team to help with the SJ move? I don’t think so. If crying poor helps the A’s get past this territorial rights kerfuffle then it will have been a smart business move to spin the A’s on-field woes into potential gain on the stadium front. Where is the link proving the following incendiary claim Mr. Keri?
The West is unwinnable right now. We didn’t have the money to sign a Pujols or a Reyes so there was no way to get some bats to back up the fantastic pitching. So we tore it down. You know, because of the winning/losing WINDOW of competiveness cycle.By the way, nice work re-assembling an almost Big Three again Billy!
If the A’s are stuck in the cellar in 2015 go ahead and repost this. Until then go back to covering your Rays Mr. Keri. I truly am sorry that my awesome saber-friendly franchise got to have a movie starring Brad Pitt and your awesome saber-friendly franchise didn’t get one. Maybe your Rays should do something crazy like have a 20W streak or win a World Series ever.
A’s 9, Rays 0.
Ciderbeck - January 4, 2012
RecRecRec
In addition to saying:
You can add “if the Rays are still a powerhouse in 2016…”
BWH - January 4, 2012
Wow, my post went triple green!
Thanks for the support all. And I didn’t even use BWH’s excellent point that the Rays are potentially on the verge of collapse and could be fighting us for draft positions in the near future.
Ciderbeck - January 5, 2012
Really like this comment overall
Although I have just a couple of quibbles.
I’m not sure exactly why you decided on “top twenty” as the cut-off point. I seem to remember reading somewhere that after the top ten the rest of the 1st round was basically a crapshoot (i.e. picks 11-30 are pretty equivalent), but perhaps I remember wrong, so feel free to correct me.
I’m pretty-sure that fire-sale in baseball is generally used to mean trading away all or most of a team’s current MLB talent, and any minor-league returns are generally ignored. When Florida had it’s 1993-94 “fire-sale”, they got back several very good young players, but it was still considered a fire-sale.
el generico - January 5, 2012
Good counterpoints
I guess the fire-sale line irked me because it fit in with the plot of Major League conspiracy theory. And while you’re right that in baseball the fire-sale term has become synonymous with going into full rebuild mode, it’s not the same as the original meaning of discounting prices.
And yeah, top twenty was a darn arbitrary line. Looking on the past few drafts I saw this obvious gap between the good A’s years, when we picked no higher than 21, and the bad A’s years when we picked no lower than 13 (well, until this very last draft when we picked 18th). So i drew the line at #20 mark in that gap. Here are the last few 1st round positions we’ve had:
16 (‘02)
25 (’03)
24 (‘04)
21 (’05)
26 (‘07)
12 (’08)
13 (‘09)
10 (’10)
18 (’11)
Disclaimer: I don’t remember my draft history well enough to recall why we lost the ’06 pick and drafted so low in ’07.
Finally, I have a similar recollection of where draft pick success rate falls off. I dug through the archives and came up with a grover piece from 2008. He found a study that put the chance of drafting a big league starter at 39% for picks 1-15 and dropping to 25% for picks 16-31.
Ciderbeck - January 5, 2012
The A's signed Loaiza pre-2006, costing them their 1st round pick
grover - January 5, 2012
We're going to get something back from the Dodgers for him, though, so it'll be alright in the end
Nick - January 5, 2012
And the reason we drafted so low in 2007
is because we had a good W-L record in 2006.
iglew - January 5, 2012
Right
That was silly of me. Just blanked for a bit on the fact that drafts are based on previous year win totals.
Ciderbeck - January 6, 2012
Good points
The fire-sale term has certainly gotten a bit abused, especially by people who aren’t thinking about long-term success, but it kind of is what it is at this point.
And thanks for putting in the effort that I didn’t to find that draft info.
el generico - January 6, 2012
You're welcome
Actually baseball-reference.com has a really good draft database that’s quite easy to work with. And grover and iglew had my back on filling in the gaps. AN fact checkers for the win!
Ciderbeck - January 6, 2012
Add to that critique...
…that the team is paying for the ballpark. A $500 million dollar check ain’t coming ever.
gojohn10 - January 5, 2012
Maybe Blake Griffin could be left field
coachmmm - January 4, 2012
Paul DePodesta doesn't get enough credit.
He’s the guy that made the difference and Beane is still living off of it.
Ran - January 4, 2012
a reasonable point
stm72 - January 5, 2012
I thought Keri's article was uncharacteristically not smart
What I thought was a basic fact, that Wolff is privately financing a putative SJ stadium, he muffed. It’s like he’s so against public stadium financing that it clouds the rest of his arguments, even though some of them are good
cuppingmaster - January 4, 2012
I called him on that
Linky
EddieVegas_NRAF - January 4, 2012
Like I said
Keri is a good guy who does quite a good job interacting with fans and commenters.
It’s a shame he didn’t ask some questions over here before finishing his piece.
stranahanahan - January 4, 2012
We were indisposed...
grover - January 4, 2012
ha!
I would say so…
stranahanahan - January 4, 2012
This is really fantastic. I just love to watch Coco play. And isn't that why people go to the park?
Also, maybe we’ll have him long enough for his hair to grow back out.
Despite all the moves, so far the two As jerseys I bought (Crisp, Barton) are still As! Although of course that isn’t going to last forever (like, say through Spring Training this year).
4-6-3 - January 5, 2012
Many congrats oh Nostradamus of jerseys.
Pray tell, which names do you like going forward so that a jersey bought this year will last until needing to be replaced by the San Jose/Fremont/Las Vegas new home uni?
Ciderbeck - January 5, 2012
so the A's are trading for Chris Paul?
OaklandSi - January 5, 2012
We did, actually. Stern blocked it.
Nick - January 5, 2012
Beane wanted someone to give Cowgill confidence he isn't the shortest guy on the squad.
ru155 - January 5, 2012
trade bait?
Do you think Billy resigned Crisp to trade for prospects later on? There is really nothing left on this team that others value.
I saw there was a 250K clause in his contract if he got traded, and if Billy had to overpay for him to stay in Oakland, that doesn’t make much sense. But next year he may have value to contenders at the trade deadline.
elephantman - January 5, 2012
That's always possible ...
… but in the meantime, Coco’s great fielding, great base running, decent batting, and experience, are going to benefit the A’s on the field, and his popularity with fans will help at the gate and with fan/media relations.
jeff-athletic - January 5, 2012
you forgot the hair
he’s gotta grow the ’fro back
heartstopper - January 5, 2012
What about this guy?
falconsfury - January 5, 2012
Also, there is payroll, as in the A's need to get to $40 million + to keep the player's union off their back.
jeff-athletic - January 5, 2012
I do. But in the mean time I'll love watching him.
4-6-3 - January 5, 2012
Is it 2012 yet
I like this team!
nevermoor - January 5, 2012
heh
King Richard - January 5, 2012
Well, considering that our DH was a broken jpeg file
I don’t see why the rotating DH plan isn’t still feasible. And really, we’re not too far off from that lineup. Taylor or Choice both still have a chance to turn into the hitter we’d hoped Wallace was going to be. And Carter might just show us he’s for real this year. Weeks-Coco is somewhat close to the hypothetical Weeks-Cardenas. Let’s just not talk about Suzuki.
So still have to hit on a couple coin flips, but we have a shot at league average offense. Sadly, league average is our hope for the upside.
Funniest wrong predication: On Sunday it was prophesied that Carter would play LF.
Ciderbeck - January 5, 2012
OT: Prospects
Scout.com did a 2012 top 100 prospects, OAK has 7 in top 100 (inc. Chris Carter at 99 which was a surprise)
http://mlb.scout.com/a.z?s=243&p=9&c=12&yr=2012&nid=287&lnid=287&rc=4&ai=o
closetasfan - January 5, 2012
And Green at 47?
Banuelos at 9? This was another weird prospect list.
I don’t usually read much from scouts.com, are there lists generally within industry consensus, or do they tend to go against the grain a bit?
stranahanahan - January 5, 2012
Yeah, can someone tell me why I even need to think about Green
I’m just not impressed so far and I’m not counting on him to ever play any significant role for the A’s.
A'sFanDFW - January 5, 2012
For what it's worth
Their prospect guy, Frankie Pilier either wrote the list, or had significant input. He has supposedly watched Green several times, as recent as 2011 AFL, and really likes his offensive potential and adjustment to OF.
Hoegaarden - January 5, 2012 via Android app
Giving Grant Green a 5 star rating just means that Scout.com hasn't been paying attention.
danmerqury - January 5, 2012
Quick summary
for those who don’t want to follow the links:
iglew - January 5, 2012
And Norris isn't even included.
Interesting.
drink - January 6, 2012
Some scouts still value batting average highly
while I agree he should probably squeak into top 100 lists, I can understand why he wasn’t included…
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
It's not the batting average so much as the K rate WITH the batting average.
I wouldn’t put him on a top 100 prospects list either.
danmerqury - January 6, 2012
I'm kookoo for Coco Crisp!
RudiFan - January 5, 2012
Right on Coco!
Quit yer cry9ing A’s fans. Angels, Rangers, Yankees, Red Sox all suck. We’re beating them all. Next year, not 2015 or whenever. Especially the Angels. Screw them
Hegenberger Road - January 5, 2012
Jerry Crasnick says Iwakuma to the Mariners for a one-year deal
http://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/155099733738786817
Flashfire - January 5, 2012
Also:
http://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/155100050165465088
Not exactly the market I think he was hoping for in America.
Flashfire - January 5, 2012
Wow wow wow.
Our posting fee alone last year was 12 times that.
danmerqury - January 5, 2012
And the funny thing is, let's say he hits all of his bonuses
He’s still right around what the A’s were offering in their per-year deal.
Yeah, he had some shoulder issues last year and yeah, signing as a free agent – for a year or otherwise – is different than signing after going through the posting process, but this is nowhere near what they were shooting for last year.
Flashfire - January 5, 2012
We offered him $3-5M/yr, right?
Billy Frijoles - January 6, 2012
that 1.5 looks really low
surprised someone else with pitching needs wouldn’t go higher, like Cubs, Yankees, maybe the A’s
closetasfan - January 5, 2012
I wonder what his agent is saying now?
Slide Giambi - January 5, 2012
He switched agents.
Last season Iwakuma was with Don Nomura, the legendary agent who first started getting Japanese players jobs in MLB so many years ago.
This year he’s with Cobbe-Sosnick. Sosnick is Willingham’s agent, who has a good relationship with Beane. Sosnick’s partner Paul Cobbe spent several years in Japan in his earlier corporate career and knows the language, so he’s the agency’s point man for Japanese clients.
iglew - January 5, 2012
wow
I guess Iwakuma will just have to remember that Nomura cost him about $10MM.
ru155 - January 5, 2012
Twitter
Jane Lee
Joe Stiglich
DDroney - January 5, 2012
BP's top 11 A's prospects
Last yrs list carter and green were rated 5 star prospects. Taylor 12, last yr he was 11th.
J.J. Miller - January 6, 2012
Wow
All those 4-Star pitching prospects are brand new to the system. Between the trades and drafting Gray, that’s a nice future rotation.
Maverick10126 - January 6, 2012
delightful
i shudder to think about what that list was before we made the trades.
ru155 - January 6, 2012
the system was thinner than keira knightley
stm72 - January 6, 2012
Ha!
el generico - January 6, 2012
stassi is 11? wowzers that's high.
stm72 - January 6, 2012
Seriously.
I wonder if he’ll even make the top 20 when we do our community poll.
I was higher on Stassi than most, but it’s hard to look at him this year and not think he’s a total bust. Makes you wonder if some of these national prospect-ranking groups don’t actually look that hard.
iglew - January 6, 2012
good points. the injury alone should drop him a great deal.
stm72 - January 6, 2012
The analysis is pretty decent, until I read this
There is nothing about his performance to suggest he was “beat up.”
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
Did he mean "beat up the DSL"?
Because otherwise, yeah, that’s simply factually incorrect. Seventh highest wOBA in the league.
danmerqury - January 6, 2012
Quick question
How was Jamile Weeks rated last year?
Thus far, he seems to have worked out.
richwol1 - January 6, 2012
not sure, but he might have taken a hit because of all the injuries.
Billy Frijoles - January 6, 2012
Yeah, but that means these rankings are pretty limited in scope
I wonder: has anyone ever looked at all these rankings after the fact and seen how accurate any of them are? In other words, should we even consider trusting them?
richwol1 - January 6, 2012
You mean as opposed to other prospect lists?
or lists in general?
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
BTW, this intrigued me
For all the talk about other recent draftees i.e., Shipman, Cabrera, Vollmuth, etc. I never heard anything about Crocker. Anyone know much about him?
He’s a bit older (21), but I suppose if he can perform early this year and move up to AA by the end of the year, he could be an interesting find.
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
Yeah
BA’s 2011 pre-draft scouting report.
grover - January 6, 2012
Hmmm....inside-out approach?! 6'3", 230 lbs?
Who does that sound like?
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
haha
stm72 - January 6, 2012
I'm only halfway kidding
If this guy has power potential, I’d really like to see it sooner than later…
stranahanahan - January 6, 2012
still made me giggle
stm72 - January 7, 2012
Whaaa?
How is going from college to professional baseball supposed to allow someone to loosen up their swing? I would think facing much stiffer competition wouldn’t exactly be a conducive environment towards such phenomena.
Helloooo 1st - January 7, 2012
The Jonah Keri podcast drinking game
If you take a drink everytime he says advanced metrics you’ll be drunk within 20 minutes.
Bed. - January 6, 2012
I drink slow.
Will I still get drunk?
Tutu-late - January 6, 2012
Hmm....maybe 30 minutes for you then, Tutu.
Bed. - January 6, 2012
heehee
Tutu-late - January 6, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.