This article seems to offer a lot of questions (literally) with very few answers. That may be fitting considering the state of the A’s right now but I would have like to have seen more evidence within each of these sections explaining the ranking. It’s not that I disagree with the ranking but that the 2013+ outlook should have some reference to Marc Hulett’s prospect ranking of the team. Should the A’s baseball operations team still be ranked 10th? If so, why? I read nothing in that section explaining the relatively high ranking of that group.
In the article’s defense, there was evidence for the low ranking in the financial resources category but I would like to have seen more evidence in the other sections that help to explain the A’s ranking.
I don’t know if the Twins are going to be as low as last years performance would indicate. They have always been a team that has succeeded despite questionable front office/coaching decisions. They had an awful season last year because literally everything that could have ever went wrong happened to go wrong all at once.
Wait, doesn’t Spock end up dating Shatner in the 44th episode?
Comment by Why do you call me Phantom of the Opera? — March 26, 2012 @ 3:51 pm
If other teams are in similar financial situations, doesn’t the success of Tampa Bay and the emerging talent of KC start to call into question whether Billy Beane really is a top 1/3 GM? I mean, one reason he had to trade away his team was because he’s drafted so poorly for so long. Then there is the head scratching signing of Cespedes, the even more bizarre announcement that he is the starting CF despite strong evidence he is not ready for that role, the obssessive collecting of AAAA 1B/DH types. Just maybe the A’s problems are rooted more in the baseball side of the front office than in the ownership/financial side.
“The team hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006, and since the last wave of future talent was just traded away en masse this past offseason, it’s worth wondering what happened with it. Did the Athletics just randomly fail to amass as much talent at one time as they did in their past two cycles of success?”
Simply put, one mistake was made. If you add Carlos Gonzalez to the 2010 team that finished .500, they suddenly become playoff contenders looking to buy and perhaps take the division. The Matt Holliday mistake ruined the team from 09-present.
I think you’re underestimating the Mets, but I could be wrong. That team, even while suffering from financial calamity, still has more resources than about half the league. At least, in terms of franchise worth and revenue. You expect them to suffer for a year or two, and then thing should be straightened out well enough for them to rejoin the spenders.
And even if they’re a last place team in the NL East, I do like a lot of guys who are their roster. I think they’re outside the bottom 5.
Eh, I think you might be overstating the case against the Athletics:
he team hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006, and since the last wave of future talent was just traded away en masse this past offseason, it’s worth wondering what happened with it. Did the Athletics just randomly fail to amass as much talent at one time as they did in their past two cycles of success? Or was this last sell-off a sign that the team’s approach to collecting talent is flawed?
I don’t know why 5 seasons would be a sign of anything, especially when you consider that the A’s were one of the best teams in baseball in the early 2000’s with the same approach. Even if they haven’t made the playoffs in 5 years, they’ve averaged 77 wins a season, which is pretty solid.
Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 4:02 pm
The A’s are far more successful over the past 10 years than either the Royals or the Rays. Especially for small payroll teams, major league talent is very cyclical.
Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 4:04 pm
Huh. I noticed it, but assumed it was coincidental because I don’t really know poetry that well.
As a Mariner fan, I am happy to see Oakland this low. But I admit I am surprised. The group of prospects they acquired in their trades this offseason, not to mention Cespedes, seems solid and fairly deep.
Then again, they’re still in Oakland and not making money and such……nevermind
I think you have a misunderstanding of the 2013+ rankings. Last year, the rankings in this category were based entirely on prospects and only the prospect “experts” got a vote. This was almost universally criticized and has been changed.
Also, this author is not responsible for the rankings; he is just trying to give a brief summary of why they are what they are, so asking for “proof” is not really reasonable.
I agree that the A’s were overrated on Organization. I believe this is just a carryover of the love that Billy Beane perhaps deserved several years ago but has done nothing to justify since.
I have the A’s ranked higher in my 2012 Org Rankings, mostly due to their minor league system and the wins they are able to get out of such a low payrolled team. Someone like the Pirates should be here imo.
Using the spreadsheet, the Texas Rangers have a serious shot at #1. That’s where I had them before I made some minor adjustments to the revenue numbers. I think it will come down to the separation between the Yankees and Rangers in financial resources. With the increase in attendance for the Rangers plus the windfall they’re receiving from the new TV deal, that organization is becoming monstrous in a hurry.
Tampa Bay is going to get slammed the most by this current set of criteria. Baseball Ops, which the Rays are strong in, carries less weight whereas Financial Resources, which the Rays are massively weak in, carries more weight this year.
Will, yes the revenue category likely hurts them in the FG formula. I would probably override it in the case of Tampa Bay as they have shown since 2008 (97, 84, 96, 91 wins) they have been able to succeed “despite” the low revenues.
Any category that can eliminate an organization from a top ranking based on something almost completely out of their control should be revisited in how it is applied to the rankings imo. That is meant as a contructive criticism as I enjoy this series.
Not a fairer comparison, because Tampa Bay had a crapload of talent from the pre-Namoli years. But point taken.
Comment by vivaelpujols — March 26, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
I was going to do “The pure products of Sacramento/ go crazy” but I realized that that’s a long poem and anyone who has to look up the A’s AAA affiliate has no chance of getting anything good out of it.
That’s not at all what I was saying. I didn’t even suggest I disagreed with the ranking. All I was saying was that I wanted more in the write-up that explained why the A’s were ranked where they were. The 2013+ outlook had a very short reference to Cespedes, Weeks, and Choice, and almost nothing else about the team’s future prospects. There wasn’t even a reference to Marc Hulett’s ranking of their farm. That, to me, is relevant and I think should have been included. Other references to the A’s younger players should have been included as well.
Moreover, I never asked for “proof”. In fact, I was quite careful not to. I asked for “evidence” and “explanations.” What justifies this ranking? That’s it.
I love what the A’s did this offseason. Took their farm system from bottom 5 to top 10, and I’m not convinced they actually made the major league squad worse. I think this team betters their 2011 record. I’m a lot higher on the A’s going forward than this.