Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[mookie]

I didn't know copy and paste had an objective maturity level evaluation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

I see 76-77 as a baseline projection. But with a few games of luck and a few games of breakout performances? I don't see why 81-81 is unattainable.

[mookie]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

I see 76-77 as a baseline projection. But with a few games of luck and a few games of breakout performances? I don't see why 81-81 is unattainable.

 

I agree, .500 is well within reach. That's why they play the games.

[RammyFanny]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

I think people underestimate how many late leads we blew. I mean Marmol blew 10 games for us in the 9th. Combine that with some injury problems, and essentially being out of the division race ridiculously quick, and there's probably a few more wins we lost there due lack of motivation/preparation from being out of it so early.

[questionmarkgrace]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

hey they have avoided the major loss seasons thats better than we have done. And they have been constantly rebuilding, and have a much smaller budget! We have a much larger budget so again there is no reason we cant field a decent team while rebuilding as well.

 

Again, their young core is far, far, better than ours and well suited to compete before we do. We have 3 top 100 prospects in baseball. They have 7 with cespedes and some nice pitchers already on their roster. Ill take that going forward any day of the week.

[mookie]

Hmmm, on an offensive level, Jemile Weeks beats Barney, but that is the only advantage on their roster I am seeing at the moment.

[Guest]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

hey they have avoided the major loss seasons thats better than we have done. And they have been constantly rebuilding, and have a much smaller budget! We have a much larger budget so again there is no reason we cant field a decent team while rebuilding as well.

 

Again, their young core is far, far, better than ours and well suited to compete before we do. We have 3 top 100 prospects in baseball. They have 7 with cespedes and some nice pitchers already on their roster. Ill take that going forward any day of the week.

 

Our front office has been in place for not even four months, their front office has been in place for a decade. (EDIT - Well over one, actually...time flies)

 

I'll take our resources, our front office, and our 3 (probably soon to be more with a #6 pick and possibly Soler) top 100 guys going forward. Oh, and Starlin Castro and Matt Garza.

 

Is this even a discussion?

 

And who cares if they've managed to barely avoid 90 losses those years? How is that any kind of accomplishment? Consistently sub-mediocre but not terrible. Awesome.

Edited February 13, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

I think people underestimate how many late leads we blew. I mean Marmol blew 10 games for us in the 9th. Combine that with some injury problems, and essentially being out of the division race ridiculously quick, and there's probably a few more wins we lost there due lack of motivation/preparation from being out of it so early.

 

And in a normal year, what can you expect, 6 or those? The Cubs lost a lot of games in a lot of different ways. That's because they sucked. It's not because they weren't motivated or that Marmol ruined the season with flukey struggles.

[Guest]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

I think people underestimate how many late leads we blew. I mean Marmol blew 10 games for us in the 9th. Combine that with some injury problems, and essentially being out of the division race ridiculously quick, and there's probably a few more wins we lost there due lack of motivation/preparation from being out of it so early.

 

And in a normal year, what can you expect, 6 or those? The Cubs lost a lot of games in a lot of different ways. That's because they sucked. It's not because they weren't motivated or that Marmol ruined the season with flukey struggles.

 

Flukey struggles and lots and lots of starting pitching injuries definitely played a significant role too.

[dew1679666265]

hey they have avoided the major loss seasons thats better than we have done. And they have been constantly rebuilding, and have a much smaller budget! We have a much larger budget so again there is no reason we cant field a decent team while rebuilding as well.

 

Again, their young core is far, far, better than ours and well suited to compete before we do. We have 3 top 100 prospects in baseball. They have 7 with cespedes and some nice pitchers already on their roster. Ill take that going forward any day of the week.

 

Here's the thing I think you're missing, though: because we're a big market team, we don't have to build exclusively through the minors. The As have no choice but to mire themselves in mediocrity until their young core is in the majors and ready to contend. We don't, or shouldn't. We shouldn't have to rebuild as extensively or as long as a small market team like the As do simply because we have the capability of spending money (intelligently) through FA without crippling ourselves.

 

I'm pretty bothered by missing on Cespedes.

[MSG T]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

I'm hoping that the Cubs aren't consistent and actually break through that 75 win barrier next season.

[questionmarkgrace]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

hey they have avoided the major loss seasons thats better than we have done. And they have been constantly rebuilding, and have a much smaller budget! We have a much larger budget so again there is no reason we cant field a decent team while rebuilding as well.

 

Again, their young core is far, far, better than ours and well suited to compete before we do. We have 3 top 100 prospects in baseball. They have 7 with cespedes and some nice pitchers already on their roster. Ill take that going forward any day of the week.

 

Our front office has been in place for not even four months, their front office has been in place for a decade.

 

I'll take our resources, our front office, and our 3 (probably soon to be more with a #6 pick and possibly Soler) top 100 guys going forward.

 

Is this even a discussion?

 

And who cares if they've managed to barely avoid 90 losses those years? How is that any kind of accomplishment? Consistently sub-mediocre but not terrible. Awesome.

 

I dont know about you but Im tired of watching 90 plus loss seasons. But if we can get a team that looks like its has a shot at .500 its at least worth watching while we wait for young guys to develop. Plus its never a sure thing, developing players. Who did theo develop after 05? nobody significant. they benefited greatly from deep drafts in his first few years. At least if your team is .500 there is less of a climb to the top. Right now we need a lot to go our way to be a .500 team even next year.

[questionmarkgrace]

hey they have avoided the major loss seasons thats better than we have done. And they have been constantly rebuilding, and have a much smaller budget! We have a much larger budget so again there is no reason we cant field a decent team while rebuilding as well.

 

Again, their young core is far, far, better than ours and well suited to compete before we do. We have 3 top 100 prospects in baseball. They have 7 with cespedes and some nice pitchers already on their roster. Ill take that going forward any day of the week.

 

Here's the thing I think you're missing, though: because we're a big market team, we don't have to build exclusively through the minors. The As have no choice but to mire themselves in mediocrity until their young core is in the majors and ready to contend. We don't, or shouldn't. We shouldn't have to rebuild as extensively or as long as a small market team like the As do simply because we have the capability of spending money (intelligently) through FA without crippling ourselves.

 

I'm pretty bothered by missing on Cespedes.

 

I said that in my first post, and the one after this one you quoted. But as usual the great minds here were focusing on the one aspect that they disagreed with. But yes dew, you are entirely correct and that is my point.

Edited February 13, 2012 by questionmarkgrace

[SouthSideRyan]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

I'm hoping that the Cubs aren't consistent and actually break through that 75 win barrier next season.

 

We just need to focus on what's important, winning at least 73.

 

(72 if a game is cancelled)

 

(5 days in a leap year)

[questionmarkgrace]

They have 6 top 100 prospects in baseball. Make it 7 with cespedes. thats about as good as a core as you can get. but again they are a small market team working with much less resources and somehow can manage to field a descent enough team every year despite a constant rebuilding cycle. All of the sudden we cant field a team better than last years 90 loss pos? come on. Theres no reason we cant do both.

 

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins.

 

There's that hallmark consistency of the Oakland A's.

 

I'm hoping that the Cubs aren't consistent and actually break through that 75 win barrier next season.

 

We just need to focus on what's important, winning at least 73.

 

(72 if a game is cancelled)

 

(5 days in a leap year)

 

Do you fail to see that this division will be won by a team that is just barely over .500? The point is we could still compete this year. Its funny though how you were spouting off how bad the A's are and yet they have 7 top 100 prospects in baseball and building a consistent winner again without completely blowing off the major league fans.

[dew1679666265]

I said that in my first post, and the one after this one you quoted. But as usual the great minds here were focusing on the one aspect that they disagreed with. But yes dew, you are entirely correct and that is my point.

 

I may have misread your posts, and if so I apologize. However, what triggered me to post that was what I thought I saw in your posts that you were justifying the Cubs passing on Cespedes and justifying the As signing him because they are closer to contention than we are.

 

If that's what you intended to say, I disagree with that because of what I posted - they may have a stronger minor league core than us, but we have much, much better resources and, thus, can effect a much quicker turnaround than them. If we're willing to use those resources, though, which we haven't been to this point.

[mookie]

 

Do you fail to see that this division will be won by a team that is just barely over .500? The point is we could still compete this year. Its funny though how you were spouting off how bad the A's are and yet they have 7 top 100 prospects in baseball and building a consistent winner again without completely blowing off the major league fans.

 

Hold on cowboy. I didn't know all of the teams in the central were so bad. So, both the Reds and the Cardinals are going to barely eclipse the .500 barrier? Do explain.

[questionmarkgrace]

I said that in my first post, and the one after this one you quoted. But as usual the great minds here were focusing on the one aspect that they disagreed with. But yes dew, you are entirely correct and that is my point.

 

I may have misread your posts, and if so I apologize. However, what triggered me to post that was what I thought I saw in your posts that you were justifying the Cubs passing on Cespedes and justifying the As signing him because they are closer to contention than we are.

 

If that's what you intended to say, I disagree with that because of what I posted - they may have a stronger minor league core than us, but we have much, much better resources and, thus, can effect a much quicker turnaround than them. If we're willing to use those resources, though, which we haven't been to this point.

 

 

We definitely should have signed Cespedes and he definitely fit us better but I think its a good signing for them if they dont start doing the prospect shuffle with other teams again. If they're committed to build for a winner it makes sense.

[Guest]

Do you fail to see that this division will be won by a team that is just barely over .500? The point is we could still compete this year. Its funny though how you were spouting off how bad the A's are and yet they have 7 top 100 prospects in baseball and building a consistent winner again without completely blowing off the major league fans.

 

That's great. We have 3. And Starlin Castro. And Matt Garza. And a lot more money. And really smart people making decisions for us.

 

But yea, we need to aspire to be the A's so we can win 76 games instead of 72. My summer will be so much more enjoyable then.

Edited February 13, 2012 by David

[USSoccer]

I'm glad we still aren't signing anyone who's any good. What would the fun in that be?

[questionmarkgrace]

 

Do you fail to see that this division will be won by a team that is just barely over .500? The point is we could still compete this year. Its funny though how you were spouting off how bad the A's are and yet they have 7 top 100 prospects in baseball and building a consistent winner again without completely blowing off the major league fans.

 

Hold on cowboy. I didn't know all of the teams in the central were so bad. So, both the Reds and the Cardinals are going to barely eclipse the .500 barrier? Do explain.

 

Uh, the cardinals lost pujols. Enough said there. The reds were 4 games under last year. Yes they will be better with their additions but how much 7-10 games? that puts them at 85-75 at best. Latos wont pitch like he has at petco in great american ball park. If you have a decent team on the field you never know what can happen.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Do you fail to see that this division will be won by a team that is just barely over .500? The point is we could still compete this year. Its funny though how you were spouting off how bad the A's are and yet they have 7 top 100 prospects in baseball and building a consistent winner again without completely blowing off the major league fans.

 

I wonder if they'll do as well as they did last time they had 7 top 100 prospects.

 

In 2008, they had the 22, 26, 46, 50, 56, 98, and 99th ranked prospects on BPro. What followed was truly the golden age of A's baseball.

[dew1679666265]

Hold on cowboy. I didn't know all of the teams in the central were so bad. So, both the Reds and the Cardinals are going to barely eclipse the .500 barrier? Do explain.

 

St. Louis won 90 games last year and lost the best player in baseball in the offseason. Their pythagorean W-L was 88-74. You don't think it's very realistic they drop 4-6 games off that pythag W-L? I don't know that I'd bank on it, but I think there's a pretty good chance of it.

 

The Reds finished 2011 with a 79-83 record. Their pythag W-L was 83-79, so they do have that going for them, however. They did add Latos, but then treaded water from there - losing Cordero, adding Madson and guys like Jeff Francis and Willie Harris. Do you see them making a 10+ game jump from last year? Maybe, but it's certainly not a certainty.

 

I could easily see the winner of the NL Central finish with 85-88 wins.

[mookie]

Nice contradiction.

[dew1679666265]

We definitely should have signed Cespedes and he definitely fit us better but I think its a good signing for them if they dont start doing the prospect shuffle with other teams again. If they're committed to build for a winner it makes sense.

 

I think I just misread your earlier posts. I agree with all of this.