A's designate Jeremy Brown for assignment

[Post Count Padder]

Yes, the same Brown that Billy Beane loved and was chronicled in Moneyball:

 

Jeremy Brown-DH-Athletics May. 23 - 10:49 am et

 

A's designated C Jeremy Brown for assignment.

 

Oakland needed to make room on the 40-man roster for Colby Lewis, who was called up to get shelled in Tuesday's game. Made famous by Michael Lewis' bestselling book, Moneyball, Brown has struggled to hit in the high minors and figures to go unclaimed on waivers.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

[Bruno7481]

I'm surprised it took this long.

[Electron Blue]

dammit, i'm not done with moneyball yet. you spoiled the ending for me!!

[cubweiser03]

i love the line in Moneyball that hes so fat that if he wore corduroys he would start a fire while walking. Or something like that.

[rocket]

proof that computer nerds shouldn't run baseball teams

[JeffH]

Nor should dopey tools-lovers.

[mhuber92211]

But us message board people know all. We should run a team!

[Post Count Padder]

But us message board people know all. We should run a team!

I name myself general manager.

[Rob]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

[Bruno7481]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

[Rob]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

 

Sorry, but I'm still inclined to think the fact that Beane's longshot gave even a modicum of production to the big league club and the fact that Cincinatti and Montreal's sure things at #3 and #5 still haven't made it out of A ball makes this a notch in the win column for Beane.

 

Even had Brown never made it past AAA, it still does show that performance analysis can be just as valuable as conventional tools-oriented scouting... making Moneyball a success.

[TruffleShuffle]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

 

nobody is going to bat 1.000 when it comes to drafting amateur talent. So Brown didn't work out. Beane got Nick Swisher, who had a 126 OPS+ last year and has an excellent 293/416/486 line this year. He also got Joe Blanton, who was not very good last year, but pitched very well in 2005 and is off to a good start in 2007. Mark Teahen had a 117 OPS+ from 3B last year; this year he's been shifted to RF because of Alex Gordon and has a 126 OPS+ (including a .403 OBP).

 

Meanwhile, the Cubs spent more money on Bobby Brownlie (bust), Luke Hagerty (injuries - bust), Chadd Blasko (see Hagerty), Matt Clanton (see Blasko), Brian Dopirak (on the road to nowhere), Justin Jones (going nowhere), Billy Petrick (still some potential, but hasn't made it past AA), Matt Craig (hitting well this year, but still hasn't made it past AA after being drafted as a college player), and Rich Hill (hey look! a productive major leaguer!)

 

 

In fact, the only guys the Cubs drafted who have made any impact at the major league level are Hill and Rocky Cherry. I'd have to take the A's draft over the Cubs draft. I think if you do this exercise for almost any draft in the late 90s and early part of this decade, you'd find that the A's were better at identifying major league talent.

[Bruno7481]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

 

nobody is going to bat 1.000 when it comes to drafting amateur talent. So Brown didn't work out. Beane got Nick Swisher, who had a 126 OPS+ last year and has an excellent 293/416/486 line this year. He also got Joe Blanton, who was not very good last year, but pitched very well in 2005 and is off to a good start in 2007. Mark Teahen had a 117 OPS+ from 3B last year; this year he's been shifted to RF because of Alex Gordon and has a 126 OPS+ (including a .403 OBP).

 

Meanwhile, the Cubs spent more money on Bobby Brownlie (bust), Luke Hagerty (injuries - bust), Chadd Blasko (see Hagerty), Matt Clanton (see Blasko), Brian Dopirak (on the road to nowhere), Justin Jones (going nowhere), Billy Petrick (still some potential, but hasn't made it past AA), Matt Craig (hitting well this year, but still hasn't made it past AA after being drafted as a college player), and Rich Hill (hey look! a productive major leaguer!)

 

 

In fact, the only guys the Cubs drafted who have made any impact at the major league level are Hill and Rocky Cherry. I'd have to take the A's draft over the Cubs draft. I think if you do this exercise for almost any draft in the late 90s and early part of this decade, you'd find that the A's were better at identifying major league talent.

 

I never said they didn't pick some good players, I just said Brown wasn't one of them. It wasn't a bash on Beane at all. Every team has mistakes, obvioulsy some more than others. I do think Beane is put on too high of a pedestal at times though. I remember the backflash when the Cubs traded Adam Morrissey for Mark Bellhorn. Everyone thought Beane swindled the Cubs and nobody should ever trade with Oakland because he is a superior judge of talent than anyone else.

 

Don't take it as a slam against Beane. I was just responding to the post that claimed Jeremy Brown selection was a success, it wasn't.

[KingCubsFan]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

 

Sorry, but I'm still inclined to think the fact that Beane's longshot gave even a modicum of production to the big league club and the fact that Cincinatti and Montreal's sure things at #3 and #5 still haven't made it out of A ball makes this a notch in the win column for Beane.

 

Even had Brown never made it past AAA, it still does show that performance analysis can be just as valuable as conventional tools-oriented scouting... making Moneyball a success.

How is that a success at all? Brown was never good, and the only reason he ever made it to the majors was, most likely, because he was a former first round pick. And the only reason Grueler and Everts aren't in the MLB is because of injuries; it happens to every team. I'm not sure how Brown's failure equals a success for performance-based analysis. People before the draft said he sucked, Beane took him and, sure enough, he sucked. Surprisingly, the two legitimate first round talents he took (Swisher and Blanton) ended up being productive players. All the Moneyball draft shows is that, no matter what approach you take, the draft is a crap-shoot, and you shouldn't use one approach at the expense of all others.

If you call Brown's draft selection a success, we better keep you away from the Cubs before you give Hendry an extension.

[Rob]

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

 

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong.

 

No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody.

 

Sorry, but I'm still inclined to think the fact that Beane's longshot gave even a modicum of production to the big league club and the fact that Cincinatti and Montreal's sure things at #3 and #5 still haven't made it out of A ball makes this a notch in the win column for Beane.

 

Even had Brown never made it past AAA, it still does show that performance analysis can be just as valuable as conventional tools-oriented scouting... making Moneyball a success.

How is that a success at all? Brown was never good, and the only reason he ever made it to the majors was, most likely, because he was a former first round pick. And the only reason Grueler and Everts aren't in the MLB is because of injuries; it happens to every team. I'm not sure how Brown's failure equals a success for performance-based analysis. People before the draft said he sucked, Beane took him and, sure enough, he sucked. Surprisingly, the two legitimate first round talents he took (Swisher and Blanton) ended up being productive players. All the Moneyball draft shows is that, no matter what approach you take, the draft is a crap-shoot, and you shouldn't use one approach at the expense of all others.

If you call Brown's draft selection a success, we better keep you away from the Cubs before you give Hendry an extension.

 

 

I'll go ahead and admit I may have jumped the gun, but I think everybody expects far too much from the #35 overall pick, sooo...

 

 

Since 1970, people taken with the #35 pick.

 

Ron Kinner

Dennis DeBarr

George Lusic

Eddie McMahon

Gary Harqis

Mitch Lukevics

Tom Hawk

Linvel Mosby

Edwin Hook

Scott Glanz

Jim Weaver

Mark Langston

Jim Opie

Mickey Brantley

Matt Kinzer

Mike Schooler

Cliff Brantley

Terry Jorgensen

Wynn Beck

Brian Hunter

Stan Spencer

Jeff Ware

Johnny Damon

Todd Dunn

Sean Johnston

Mark Bellhorn

Jason Marquis

Mark Fischer

Aaron Rowand

Brian West

Tyrell Godwin

J.D. Martin

Luis Atilano

Matt Fox

Cesar Ramos

Kylar Burke

 

Only Langston, Damon, Bellhorn, Marquis, and Rowand have any success drafted from that spot in the last 36 years. While it's too early to tell on the most recent draft picks, none are looking too strong. So yeah, it's possible to find a valuable major leaguer at that point, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Even getting a guy to the majors is a success of sorts, is what I guess I was trying to say, and the further you get from the top five picks, the faster your chances of getting anything from them fall off a cliff.