Organizational Rankings: #11

Today, we keep looking at some teams that have legitimate hope, so it gets harder from here on out. And, for those of you who haven’t seen the previous parts (which are linked below), keep in mind that this is a forward looking exercise – we are evaluating clubs on their overall ability to contend for a World Series title in the future. We are not evaluating how they have performed historically. This is about the health of each organization going forward.

Rankings So Far

#30: Washington Nationals
#29: Florida Marlins
#28: Houston Astros
#27: Kansas City Royals
#26: Pittsburgh Pirates
#25: San Diego Padres
#24: Cincinnati Reds
#23: Colorado Rockies
#22: Detroit Tigers
#21: St. Louis Cardinals
#20: Toronto Blue Jays
#19: San Francisco Giants
#18: Minnesota Twins
#17: Chicago White Sox
#16: Baltimore Orioles
#15: Seattle Mariners
#14: Philadelphia Phillies
#13: Los Angeles Dodgers
#12: Texas Rangers

#11: Oakland Athletics

Ownership: D

Lew Wolff seems like a pretty smart guy. I’m sure he wants to win, and it’s not really his fault that the A’s play in the worst stadium in baseball. But, since this section is about the team’s ability to compete financially with the rest of baseball, the A’s end up near the bottom of the pack. They don’t draw fans, they just blew up the Fremont option for a new stadium, and they appear locked in to the Oakland Coliseum for the foreseeable future. That means that they’ll continue to operate on one of the lowest payrolls in the game, and that puts them at a significant disadvantage.

Front Office: A

At this point, even the most ardent old school guy has to admit that Billy Beane is just very good at this whole GM thing. During their initial success, the credit was given to the A’s Big Three, but now that all have moved on and the A’s continue to compete with limited resources, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Beane and his crew have done a great job of exploiting weaknesses in other team’s analytics to build quality rosters. They scout better than people give them credit for, and they obviously have a pretty firm grasp on statistical analysis. They aren’t perfect, but every organization in baseball would love to have Billy Beane in charge. It will be interesting to see how much longer he stays, though – rumors continue to swirl that he’s going to move upstairs and hand the job to David Forst in the not too distant future.

Major League Talent: C

The additions of Matt Holliday, Jason Giambi, and Orlando Cabrera have put the A’s in a position to compete for the AL West title this year, but when you look for a young core of major leaguers to build around, you start to realize that there’s not a lot here to be excited about. Daric Barton has a lot to prove and might have to do it in Triple-A. Travis Buck needs to stay healthy. Ryan Sweeney is a role player, not a building block. Gio Gonzalez, Dana Eveland, and Sean Gallagher are interesting arms with upside, but they’re all guys you want at the back-end of a championship rotation. They’re an ’09 contender if they can get a healthy starting rotation, but there’s going to be a lot of turnover at the big league level after the season.

Minor League Talent: A

Beane’s decision to trade off significant major league assets let him rebuild his farm system very quickly, and the A’s have some premium talents headed for the Bay Area. Few organizations have two arms that can match up with Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill, and Vin Mazzaro provides some extra depth behind the big two. Michael Ynoa is perhaps the most hyped signing out of Latin America in years, and provides a high ceiling long term asset. Adrian Cardenas, Jemile Weeks, and Chris Carter provide some position player depth, and I’m a bigger fan of Aaron Cunningham than some others. With a bunch of stopgap position players at the major league level, there will be open jobs for a lot of these guys for 2010, and the guys on the farm will be the ones they’re counting on to contend going forward.

Overall: B

If they could figure out how to get into a real stadium and generate some revenue, they’d have a chance to put a stranglehold on the AL West. However, that doesn’t look likely any time soon, forcing the front office to keep trying to win with tape and bailing wire. It can work, but it’s tough to sustain on a yearly basis, and some bad luck with prospect development could set them back for several years. The A’s margin for error just isn’t very large, and they have to continually make excellent decisions in order to stay ahead of the curve. They should be able to maintain their analytical advantage, but for how long? The rest of baseball is catching up.

Print This Post

Dave is a co-founder of and contributes to the Wall Street Journal.

55 Responses to “Organizational Rankings: #11”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. JLP says:

    As an M’s fan, I cringe at the thought of Billy Beane having a real payroll to work with.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. YC says:

    Isn’t Billy Beane working with a real payroll pretty much what Epstein and the Red Sox are?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Tyler says:

      Well, if you live a crazy world, yes, they are about the same.

      Red Sox: $133,440,037
      A’s : $47,967,126

      Its only a ~$90 million difference. Or a 1/3rd.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Walter Jones says:

      Didn’t he turn down the Red Sox job in fancy fashion?

      I also disagree about Gio G being a back-end guy. At this point, yes, he is. But I see no reason why he couldn’t turn into a smurfy version of Aaron Harang if he gets his offspeed junk in shape.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. B says:

    Curious as to what you mean by Beane moving upstairs? I know he’s a partial owner – so I assume you mean taking more of an owner-role – but what would the appeal of that job over the GM job have? I would think he could make a bigger impact as the GM, plus as a baseball guy, he’s probably better suited for it. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Teej says:

      Probably along the lines of a president/CEO. He’d still be involved in the organization, but wouldn’t be the guy doing the day-to-day operations. Similar to what Schuerholz did in Atlanta — focusing more on the business side.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Nathan says:

      I’ve heard about Beane becoming very interested in soccer and rumors that he might switch sports and try to run a soccer team…ugh.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. DP48 says:

    I don’t understand the D ranking for ownership. Wolff and Co. have increased payroll (the exception being last year) since they purchased the team, are actively pursuing a new stadium IN THE BAY AREA, and have given Billy free-reign on all baseball-related activities. He has allowed Beane to increase the A’s presence in the Latin American market and the payroll this year will be somewhere between $70m-$80m. Obviously he did botch the Fremont plan but the city itself also had something to do with that, and he has subsequently moved onto San Jose. I think a C+ or even B- would be in order.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Nathan says:

      I think what Dave is saying is that ownership encompasses more than the direct actions of the owner. It is a measure of a team’s financial resources balanced with support/meddling from authority figures. Even though Wolff may be a perfectly good owner, it would be hard to dispute that the A’s are in a bad place financially.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Wally says:

      My thoughts exactly, 65+ million isn’t that bad of a payroll. Wolff doesn’t meddle at all. And he’s at least seeking a better stadium.

      Teams with similar payrolls over the last 3 years and your grading
      Twins (C-)
      Rockies (C-)
      Reds (B-)
      Royals (D)

      And the A’s are closer to Reds than the Royals in payroll over this time period. Plus, the A’s owner, Wolff, is actively looking to improve his team’s situation, while the Royals really aren’t…. I’ll be interested in what you have to say about the Indians, D-backs and Rays on this.

      I’d give them a C here.

      Then the MLB roster is a C? I understand many of the parts are leaving after this year and the real promising players are in the minors, but this is still a team with roughly a flip of the coin chance of getting into the playoffs this year. This also leaves them with some valuable contracts/players to trade (Holliday, Giambi, Cabrera, maybe Duchscherer if he can get hot for a bit) half way through the year if they fall out of contention early, which would only further boost a great farm system.

      This needs to get up to about a B-.

      Over all I have a pretty hard time thinking this team is worse off than the Angels for the next “5ish” years. They are roughly even this year, and while next year they might fall back some (but who’s say Beane won’t augment the team with FAs again next year, particularly with some room in the payroll), the farm system should allow them to over take the Angels in 2-3 years.

      I’d give them a B+ and put them in the top 10, 8th or 9th sounds about right.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sammy says:

        I agree with the ownership rating change and that the A’s should be ranked ahead of the Angels. Although the Halos can’t be much further down on this list, I’d be curious to hear the rationale for sticking them ahead of the A’s. Is it just about the payrolls? Cause I’d put my money on the A’s FO outmaneuvering the Halo’s over the next five years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alaskan says:


        I think I see the logic in weighing the money so heavily. It allows a team to make mistakes, and quickly build around their home-grown talent. There’s no question the A’s FO is better than the Angles, but they’re not so much better that it outweighs having more than twice as much money in the payroll (I’m just pulling the $120 mil for the Angles and $48 mil for the A’s off of cbssports’ 2008 team payrolls). While the Yankees are an extreme example, their ability to make the playoffs every year shows how payroll can overcome poor FO work.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sammy says:

        Generally I agree, but you and I both know that principle isn’t absolute. Just look at our embattered M’s. Over the next few years, the A’s have a young core and tons of talent up the pipeline. The Angels have a depleted farm and a front office that I don’t trust at all to spend their riches wisely.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jon S. says:


        The main problem with the major league roster is that they’re only an even money contender in the AL West. If you look at the actual talent on the roster, it’s a team that can only win the World Series if it gets extremely lucky (think 2006 Cardinals). The rotation is a mess and the lineup has holes at 3B and CF (and possibly 1B if Barton doesn’t improve). The bullpen should be quite good and Matt Holliday is awesome but it’s just not a great core.

        And as Dave mentioned, the lack of resources they have at their disposal is a huge impediment to any sort of sustained bid for competition. They have to be well above-average at scouting, developing and trading for young talent to be successful. Even then, their window of contention never stays open for long because the talent they acquire becomes too expensive to keep within a few years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DP48 says:

        If anything I think that if the A’s are even money to make the playoffs (which they’re not) than the ’06 Cards show that it’s possible for anything to happen once there. The hard part is consistently making the playoffs with a lower-budget team. Many years of data shows us that the best team doesn’t necessarily win the WS, and with the farm system that Beane has developed they will have a great shot at the playoffs for the next 5+years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally says:

        CF isn’t so much of a hole as you think. Sweeney is a pretty good bet to be average. Then 1st base is primarily Giambi now, not Barton. As for luck: So the A’s would need some luck to win a WS, but I don’t think we’re looking at the Cardinals here. If the A’s win the division, its probably going to be because they won more than 84 games. Then after that the postseason is pretty much a crap shoot anyway.

        As for the money, I know its an issue, but over the last 3 years the A’s have averaged almost 70 million/year. That isn’t so bad. In 2007 the budget was 78 million. The A’s can spend to keep some young talent, they just chose to phone it in last year, save what they could for a later run, and get younger. Don’t let the 48 million payroll from last year fool you. That isn’t going to be their normal operating budget, which will be closer to 80 million.

        So yes, it hinders them some, but someone please explain to me how Wolff, and his money, should grade out worse than the owners of the Reds, Twins and Rockies, and even with the Royals. Particularly sense the A’s outspent them all in 2007. No, Dave blew this call. The A’s payroll will be closer to the middle of pack most years, Wolff doesn’t meddle, he honestly cares about winning, and he’s actively challenging the Giants to get a park in San Jose.

        I gave them a C for ownership above, but the more I think about, the more I figure it should be more around the B- range.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sammy says:

        @Wally: If the A’s win the division this year, it’s much, much more likely to be a 87-win squad than a 97-win one. Whoever comes out of the AL West wins by virtue of the crappiness of the other three teams. Preliminary sims that DMZ over at USSM have been playing with currently peg the A’s chances at winning the division at 25 percent, which sounds about right to me (the AL West is such a crapshoot this year, I’d actually peg each team’s chances at 1 in 4).

        Also, a request: please stop being so antagonistic. Your original post was fine and mostly reasonable, but there’s no reason to be so dismissive of the author (“No, Dave blew this call.”)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally says:

        25% sounds low to me, I’ve seen a few ranging from 40-50. Seems odd this singular simulation is so far from the others.

        And I’ll come off as dismissive as you like. Giving the A’s a D for ownership seems terribly out of place. The payroll situation is no where near as bad as he’s making it out to be. Just a year ago they where up at almost 80 million, which was roughly solid average. Not near the bottom, at all. Then he doesn’t give much credit at all to having a hands off owner that is actively trying to improve the finances and venue of the team (despite doing it for other teams, or downgrading others for having the oppisite). He gave the twins, operating with a similar payroll, with an owner he downgrades saying, “The ownership even went so far as to volunteer to contract the team despite the fact that the team has a solid history and a good fan base to draw from,” a C-? If that’s not blowing a call I don’t know what is. You don’t like the wording? Eh, that’s your opinion. I stick by it. Blown call. That simple.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sammy says:

        I can be as dismissive as you like as well. I can also say your penis is small. Neither tactic would be very polite, even if the analysis is accurate. Goodbye troll, I’m done talking to you.

        -6 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivaelpujols says:

        do trolls even have penises? And how do you know that he is a male troll?

        Sammy- in the future I urge you to check your facts before insulting someone.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • SpokenForTruth says:

        Unfortunately for Wally, he’s earned the reputation of being a “Master Baiter”.

        That’s the problem with axe grinding. The collateral damage is that people ignore you.

        In an effort to poison the author’s drinking water, poor Wally has dosed himself.

        If fangraphs was a moderated environment, his behavior would have landed him in the queue…… He’s on a crusade and he’s eating tenderized horse meat and trying to convince the rest of else it’s prime rib.

        Any insight the guy might be able to contribute isn’t worth the cost of it’s caustic delivery.

        Unfortunately this has been a common attribute of his through several threads.

        Serious people don’t want to interact with him consistently. Why would someone who truly cares about talking and learning about baseball behave in such a way?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally says:

        Well Sammy, good ridens. I don’t particularly care to carry on a discussion with you if you are going be so upset over a statement of opinion, ie. “Dave blew the call.” If you don’t think that,s polite, fine. Frankly, Dave doesn’t diserve to be treated politely after his .1% comment.

        Nice rant from your high horse there “spokenfortruth.”

        As I see it, if someone doesn’t have think enough skin to hear they “blew the call,” which apperently Sammy has such an issue with despite me not talking about him, then they can’t handle criticism. Saying someone blew a call is a pretty mild sumation. If someone disagrees, they can disagree with the reasons for why I said that, which are clearly stated. But to take offense to such a thing is pretty silly.

        -6 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DP48 says:

        I don’t understand the hatred towards Wally. He laid out his points in a clear and concise way, then stated his opinion. Isn’t that what comments are for? Instead of attacking him for being a troll try refuting his points. Saying “Dave blew this call” is not a personal attack, rather it’s his opinion, and if everyone’s opinions differ, say why and use evidence to back up your point.

        @Wally Sucks: Your name alone speaks to your ignorance and stupidity. Really, he seems like a lonely person? You created a screen name with the lone intent to disparage someone. Look in the mirror.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mr Irony says:

        Wally “argues” the author doesn’t deserve the courtesy of having his argument discussed rationally and thus it’s fine to attack the author yet Wally has issues with those who wish to focus on Wally’s motives rather than considering his comments on their face value.

        I think my 3 year old uses similar logic when explaining why he hit his sister…..after all she stuck her tongue out at him first.

        It’s never excusable to act like an ass.

        It’s rude and even intellectually dishonest to hijack thread after thread with a childish agenda.

        Grow up dude and maybe people will take the few comments you actually make about baseball more seriously.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally says:

        Hey mister Irony, that was a pretty ironic post don’t ya think. You know sense you insulted me.

        Anyway to address what points you have other than I’m an ass: ‘Wally “argues” the author doesn’t deserve the courtesy of having his argument discussed rationally and thus it’s fine to attack the author.’ Actually, I’ve not once argued he doesn’t deserve a rational discussion. What I have done is argue that his actions have actively discouraged a rational discussion. I’ve also stated simple opinions (blown call), and mentioned Dave doesn’t deserve to be treated politely (being polite in an argument is a courtesy not a necessity).

        “Wally has issues with those who wish to focus on Wally’s motives rather than considering his comments on their face value.”

        Uh? Focus on my motives? I’m pretty sure my motives haven’t been in question at all, my wording has though. I guess Sammy would like me to say “I respectfully disagree” instead of “blown call.” Fine, he can say it how he wants, and if he doesn’t like the way I state a simple opinion, I don’t really care. Which was all stated before, making me wonder how you think I’m taking “issue?”

        “It’s rude and even intellectually dishonest to hijack thread after thread with a childish agenda.”

        Right, my childish agenda in this thread so far has been to state my opinion of the A’s ownership and give my reasons for that opinion. Then one poster took “issue” with the wording of my opinion (blown call), and I’ve been defending myself from personal attacks ever sense. Now, you tell me who’s being intellectually dishonest here? The guy that states his opinion and back it up, or the guy that attacks the wording of that opinion and then the individual?

        Am I coming off abrasive? Sure. But I’d like to see a single line in this thread where I personally attacked an individual.

        -6 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally Sucks says:

        “Created a screen name”? I typed two words into a box. You do realize the whole process took me all of three seconds, right?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally sucks is gae says:

        you realize this took me TWO seconds, mwhahahaha

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Wallyisgae says:

      Wally can’t help himself.

      Wally is an intellectual walk.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Wally says:

      Alright guys. I give.

      I would like to sincerely apologize to Dave and to everyone else who has tried to legitimately discuss these issues.

      I’ve acted like a baby and I’m very embarrassed.

      Again, please accept my heartfelt apologies.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Tom says:

        I have read Wally’s comments on almost everyone of these rankings articles and I can surely say he is completely RUDE, uninformed, and unintelligent.

        He seams to want to question EVERYTHING ANYONE ELSE has to say. He thinks he knows everything. And he presents his arguments in a very RUDE way.

        -5 Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Alaskan says:

    Hey, where’s all the vitriol? Maybe it was just the Texas Rangers that brought it out? Anyway, I hope it stays there.

    Dave, I like this one. I’m not an expert, but across the board this is how I think of them. I’m assuming it’s the lack of owner interference that moves them up from an ‘F’.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Jacob Jackson says:

    Great series, Dave – clearly its generated a ton of interest amongst readers.

    Two positive Lew Wolff anecdotes:

    1. He occasionally sits in the bleacher seats at the Coliseum to watch games with average fans.

    2. He signed off on the wealthiest Latin American teenage signing bonus in history – Inoa – and he flew to the D.R. with Beane to help seal the deal.

    Those two things are examples of why many A’s fans like him. I haven’t seen a long enough track record to determine if he’s frugal or not, but he’s definitely spent money this offseason when he had an easy excuse to tighten up this offseason in a down economy.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. ThundaPC says:

    This is basically like the Marlins situation with a larger payroll.

    The A’s have been able to field a competitive team for a long time given the finances they had to work with and their primary methods involved finding undervalued pieces. Billy Beane could prove to be quite devistating with a large enough payroll to maintain a competitive team and hold on to quality players.

    Of course, the problem is that he doesn’t, and unfortunately for the A’s, more and more organizations are employing new-school GMs that have a strong statistical analysis and good scouting backgrounds AND they have the financial resources to maintain a quality team in the long term. The edge that the A’s have is steadilly dwindling in their current position.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • vivaelpujols says:

      So why are the Marlins ranked 29th? I agree with you that they are in a similar position. They both have great minor league systems. By Victor Wang’s recent team prospect value rankings the Marlins are on top, while the A’s are also in the top 5.

      I would argue that the Marlins have a better major league core, with a very good, young starting rotation and probably the best MIF in the game (it’s close with the Phillies). The A’s have a higher payroll, yet there ownership ranking was only 1 grade higher.

      The A’s have Billy Beane, but Larry Beinfest is no slouch either. He has basically done the same thing Beane has done, IE identify good value in players (Cantu, Uggla) and trading off established stars more young talent (Beckett for Hanley, Cabrera for Miller and Maybin).

      I see no huge differences between the two teams. Certainly not anything that could justify an 18 spot difference in there rankings. I have agreed with most of Dave’s rankings (besides the Cardinals for obvious reasons), but the Marlins grade really bugs me.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • philosofool says:

        The money situation is different. Wolff appears to want to win, but also refuses to lose money in the process. The Marlins’s ownership are, so far as I can tell, simply greedy fuckers unwilling to commit a cent that won’t see at least a 25% return on investment. The fact is, and Moneyball detailed it, Wolff will extend the budget when Beane comes to him with a plan to win if he only had a half million more dollars. That’s a very different sort of ownership.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Omar says:

        Ehh…Dave seems to be docking Loria for the things that he thinks he’ll do (normally I think this isn’t a good idea, but Loria’s an exception), Beane has a much better track record at doing what he does than Beinfest does, but then again the Marlins have Hanley Ramirez, and if the defensive improvements are for real…he might be the best player in the game in a year or two. Furthermore, I’d rather have Florida’s rotation than the A’s rotation, and that has IMO much more impact on being able to win a single WS in the next five or six years than Loria being a worthless tool. The As are in better shape to be the consistent contender, but if you were to ask me whose more likely to win a WS in the next six years…I’d probably say the Marlins. As are probably more likely to make the playoffs since the other teams in that division are a couple of years off (and the Angels kinda suck), but getting to the WS through the NL is a whole lot easier than trying to get past either Tampa’s, Boston’s, or New York’s (imagine if AJ is healthy in the playoffs) rotations…not to mention their lineups. i.e. I agree with you.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. PL says:

    co-sign, if Beane had Boston’s payroll the A’s would be in the playoffs and have about 5 rings by now.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Lukas says:

    A pretty fair analysis Dave, though I’d agree with the others that the ownership should be closer to the “C” range instead of the “D” range but that isn’t a major discrepancy nor should it really change their overall rating.

    One question though, no love for Kurt Suzuki who finished 10th among all catchers in Value Wins last season? That would be just outside the Big 4 catchers if you added in his defensive runs above average that Brian Cartwright calculated. At 25 years old with no injury history (one of three catchers in the green according to Will Carroll) and under team control for years to come he would have been near the top of the players currently on the MLB roster that I would build around.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Reid says:


    With the ridiculous farm system in Texas, the A rating of Oakland’s minors, the C+ farm (albeit a C+ with both potential payoff and potential mediocrity) in Seattle, and the LAA yet to be ranked (and to add to all of that, Beane’s presence and Z’s arrival), would it be fair to gather that in the next “5ish” years the AL West will become quite a competitive division? That is, of course, barring any unexpected disasters.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Benne says:

      That certainly looks to be the case. As you mentioned, Texas and Oakland have stacked farm systems, the M’s have reinvented their front office, and the Angels are still the Angels. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Dave ranked all 4 West teams in the upper half of baseball, because all 4 teams are set up quite nicely for the future (barring the A’s stadium situation, of course).

      This division is going to be a dogfight by ’12.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Omar says:

        I don’t get the Angels love, the team seems to have an utter hatred for on base percentage, and a love for mediocre slap hitting infielders with speed. I mean, yeah they’ve been successful, but the Mariners have been largely terrible (except for the flukey 07 season), the Rangers were the Rangers, and the As haven’t really been much since they lost the Big 3. Harden’s had injury problems, Chavez was hurt, and other things contributed to them not providing stiff competition for the Angels.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. J.R. Mannetta says:

    I want to preface this statement by saying FanGraphs is my new favorite site and that I hate the way people throw out this argument so haphazardly, but don’t the disparities in Front Office ranking between the A’s and the Marlins indicate somewhat of a bias. Respective to their payrolls, the two teams essentially squeeze the maximum amount of wins out of their resources. Simply because Billy Beane has a statistical approach to his decisions does not give his accomplishments more credibility when compared to the more mysterious yet equally successful methods demonstrated by Larry Beinfest.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Tom says:

    For all Beanes accolades and hype, he has never had a team make the World Series let alone win one. I do not understand why his team gets ranked this high on his strength alone, when a team like Detroit gets ranked so low because they dont have as many prospects or thier economy is bad, but their GM has actually won a W.S. and taken his current team to another.

    Like I have said before, these rankings are TOTALLY based on 3 things:

    1. is the GM one of the analytical types?

    2. Does the team have some top ranked prospects?

    3. And how did the team look last year?

    I say this because when he ranked teams last October, teams that did bad last year dropped like 15 places from those old rankings, unless they got a few prospects or have a statistical GM.

    He is putting so much weight on a few minor leauge prospects it almost invalidates this whole list.

    Is having a couple pitching prospects like Cahill and Anderson SOOOO much more important than having an owner who will actually spend money on the draft, sign expensive free agents, and resign his own players????

    I would venture to say OVER HALF of top prospects NEVER live up to the hype… So out of Cahill and Anderson, chances are only one will be an number 1 or 2 starter and the other will be just an replacement level to average player.. (They both might be great, i am just using those 2 as an example)

    Look at some of the top prospects from a few years back… Hermida was touted as being the greatest thing since sliced bread.




    -12 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B says:

      Just relax dude, a number of people (myself included) were making the argument that he put too much emphasis into how much money an owner spent when he ranked the Marlins. Sometimes subjective rankings by another person aren’t going to exactly match your opinion, you don’t have to get your panties in a bunch over it. The reason the Tigers fell so much is because at this time last year we all expected their MLB talent to legitimately contend for a world series, and their poor record indicated that their MLB talent wasn’t nearly as good as everyone thought…hence them dropping a lot. Maybe Dave put too much emphasis on the economic situation, sure, but then again Detroit has been hit harder than anywhere in the country.

      Anyways, **** the A’s. Dave, I’m also hoping you respond to my question way up at the top of the thread, too, as I’m still curious.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Wally says:

      Tom, that was a rather rude post, don’t ya think? Did you caps lock key stick there, or what?

      And some might say its pretty unimformed or unintelligent to discredit Beane so much for not making a WS when the playoffs are such a crap shoot. Had the A’s been able to beat the Tigers in the 2006 ALCS, win just 4 games out of 7, would that mean Beane is a significantly better GM?

      It would seem to me that you need to take a look in the mirror before making such ridiculus ad hominems next time….

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Tom says:

        Wally, every post you make is rude. And I was purposly being rude because of what was quoted at the beginning of my post.

        -8 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Wally says:

        Oh, I see. Its ok for you to be rude because you were trying to be rude. Duh, don’t know why I didn’t figure that out.

        And saying every post I make is rude, is a hyperbole.

        PS. I was trying to rude in this post, so its ok!

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Compassionate for the large survey, but I’m warm the new Zune, and hope this, as well as the fantabulous reviews many other bonk cursive, gift ameliorate you settle if it’s the moral option for you.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Jimmy Choo says:

    This will be an incredibly gravid resourcefulness that you are rendering and you pass on it away for free. I relish seeing websites that be aware of the value of rendering a prime resource for free. I truly enjoyed reading your Wiley Post. Thanks!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get irked while people think about worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. I couldn’t have really asked for a more rewarding blog. You are ever present to supply excellent advice, going straight to the point for easy understanding of your site visitors. You’re undoubtedly a terrific expert in this area. Many thanks for always being there for humans like me.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. negocios says:

    Good info and straight to the point. I am not sure if this is truly the best place to ask but do you folks have any ideea where to hire some professional writers? Thx :)

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>