2014 MLB transactions

[Guest]

Just kinda going "[expletive] it" and diving into that once it became obvious that the Ricketts have the business acumen of running a baseball team in Chicago of a chalk-white turd I can deal with.

 

I think the truth may be close to that. For example, Ricketts promised Theo money to spend when Theo first came in and Theo planned to build a winner relatively quickly. Then bad things happened and Ricketts no longer had any money. Instead of trying to patchwork together a longshot contender, Theo just decided to go all out with his deep down fantasy of a total rebuild.

 

Additionally, the new CBA seemingly rewards an all-out tanking rebuild to the middle ground types that teams like the Mets gave employed.

[Derwood]

Yes, if we match the greatest run baseball has seen in half a century, then it turns out that these years were probably worth it.

 

That's like saying if Mike Olt hits like Barry Bonds for the next two years, then this three months didn't matter.

 

How many of our current core prospects are in the system due to the major league team sucking?

 

Five? Everyone but Soler and Alcantara

 

Unless you're talking about sucking brought about by this PLAN, and to the depths they sucked. Then it's Kris Bryant, and whoever we draft next year.

 

And Russell, Hendricks, Ramirez, etc. those trades don't hallen if the Cubs are contending for a post season berth

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Additionally, the new CBA seemingly rewards an all-out tanking rebuild to the middle ground types that teams like the Mets gave employed.

 

The Mets have a top-five farm system and a young team with a positive run differential.

 

If it weren't for the fact they're invested in pitchers whose arms are all going to fall off, they'd be in pretty good shape.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yes, if we match the greatest run baseball has seen in half a century, then it turns out that these years were probably worth it.

 

That's like saying if Mike Olt hits like Barry Bonds for the next two years, then this three months didn't matter.

 

How many of our current core prospects are in the system due to the major league team sucking?

 

Five? Everyone but Soler and Alcantara

 

Unless you're talking about sucking brought about by this PLAN, and to the depths they sucked. Then it's Kris Bryant, and whoever we draft next year.

 

And Russell, Hendricks, Ramirez, etc. those trades don't hallen if the Cubs are contending for a post season berth

 

I was told it was IMPOSSIBLE to contend for a postseason berth by trying, so I guess that wouldn't matter and we could make the trades anyway.

 

And if we did contend for a postseason berth...isn't that better than not contending and having a handful more prospects???

[rawaction]

Their farm system provided Donaldson, Gray, Chris Carter(who became Jed Lowrie), Griffin, Doolittle, and Straily since the start of 2012. They also used their young MLB pitching in trades to get Parker, Milone, Cook, Reddick, and Norris.

 

While we used our young MLB pitching to get Ramirez, Edwards, Grimm and Olt.

 

We were shopping Garza the same time they were selling Gio Gonzalez the offseason of 2011-12. The different results are striking.

 

Wait. Really?

 

Edit: TT handled this. Very, very bad example.

[dew1679666265]

Well they just DFA'd their 2nd highest salaried player.

 

And prior to that still had less than $3 mil in dead money. Whereas we've had Soriano and Z as dead money in the Theo regime. That can be worked around if we could carry payrolls above $100 mil, but not if we're in the As salary realm.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wait. Really?

 

Edit: TT handled this. Very, very bad example.

 

I'll cop to thinking Gonzalez had three years of control left instead of four, but Garza was coming off a 4.9 fWAR season. We biffed that badly, and if we had made a good deal then instead of 18 months later, things might look different right now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well they just DFA'd their 2nd highest salaried player.

 

And prior to that still had less than $3 mil in dead money. Whereas we've had Soriano and Z as dead money in the Theo regime. That can be worked around if we could carry payrolls above $100 mil, but not if we're in the As salary realm.

 

The A's payroll last year, while they were making the playoffs, was $61m. You could add on two Sorianos and it's still less than the Cubs.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well they just DFA'd their 2nd highest salaried player.

 

And prior to that still had less than $3 mil in dead money. Whereas we've had Soriano and Z as dead money in the Theo regime. That can be worked around if we could carry payrolls above $100 mil, but not if we're in the As salary realm.

 

As PTR PTR has been, we haven't been in the A's realm until this season. A's-Johnson is still slightly lower than Cubs - Soriano. In years past it's not even close when including dead money (Soriano in '13, Zambrano in '12)

[Guest]

I don't caaaaaare if it was voluntary or not.

 

Billy Beane doesn't need $130m payrolls to put together the best team in baseball.

 

You're right, he's had an excellent 3 year run after missing the playoffs for the 5 previous ones.

 

But circa 2011, they had a bad MLB record and a low-ranked farm system. It should have been impossible for them to make the playoffs by 2013 without massive payrolls.

 

Their farm system provided Donaldson, Gray, Chris Carter(who became Jed Lowrie), Griffin, Doolittle, and Straily since the start of 2012. They also used their young MLB pitching in trades to get Parker, Milone, Cook, Reddick, and Norris.

 

It's not fair they did stuff that made their team better.

 

Even leaving out the trade half of things out of this, those homegrown guys(and Lowrie) alone have posted just over 30 fWAR the last 2.6 years for the A's.

[SouthSideRyan]

And Castro, Shark, and Rizzo put up 20. 10 wins behind the A's puts us 1.5 games out of the wild card.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Even leaving out the trade half of things out of this, those homegrown guys(and Lowrie) alone have posted just over 30 fWAR the last 2.6 years for the A's.

 

OK, that's six guys.

 

In the same time period, Castro, Rizzo, Barney, Samarzdija, Castillo, Lake: 28.9 fWAR

 

*massive* difference :roll:

 

(edit: all we had to do to get to 30.0 was keep DJ LeMahieu to replace Lake on that list)

[Guest]

I really don't care how people decide if the FO's tenure ends up a success or not and what justifies the losing at the beginning. All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

The last few years have sucked but the only reason they really matter once we start winning is in debates like this. Who gives a [expletive]?

[Sammy Sofa]

If.

[dew1679666265]

As PTR PTR has been, we haven't been in the A's realm until this season. A's-Johnson is still slightly lower than Cubs - Soriano. In years past it's not even close when including dead money (Soriano in '13, Zambrano in '12)

 

As 2013 payroll: 70.8 (1.3 dead money)

As 2014 payroll: 88.6 (2.6 dead money) - pre-Jim Johnson DFA

 

Cubs 2013 payroll: 75.4 (17.5 dead money)

Cubs 2014 payroll: 79.7 (21.4 dead money)

[jersey cubs fan]

I really don't care how people decide if the FO's tenure ends up a success or not and what justifies the losing at the beginning. All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

The last few years have sucked but the only reason they really matter once we start winning is in debates like this. Who gives a [expletive]?

 

Being set-up to become awesome and being awesome are very different. It's going to take a hell of a lot of winning to wash the stink off regardless.

 

 

 

 

 

http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2013/12/lets-not-start-suckin-each-others-dicks-quite-yet.jpg

 

[dew1679666265]

I really don't care how people decide if the FO's tenure ends up a success or not and what justifies the losing at the beginning. All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

The last few years have sucked but the only reason they really matter once we start winning is in debates like this. Who gives a [expletive]?

 

If we could have been more competitive, then what we did was throw away 3 full seasons for the possibility (which it still is, no matter how awesome the future appears) of winning in the future.

 

I'll be pretty unhappy if we did that only to have a slightly better than Hendry tenure (which 4-5 90 win seasons in 9 years would be).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

Ehhhhh, if I were as sure of it as you are, then I'd be a bit more excited.

 

If we're going to be awesome in the next couple of years (which is possible), we have to hit on a *lot* of outside pitching, and we're putting that in the hands of the men responsible for the Edwin Jackson signing.

 

I like our chances to be not terrible in 2015, but there's still tons of chances for us to fail to produce extended awesomeness. Converting an awesome pile of prospects into extended success is a lot harder than using extended failure to create an awesome pile of prospects.

[Guest]

I really don't care how people decide if the FO's tenure ends up a success or not and what justifies the losing at the beginning. All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

The last few years have sucked but the only reason they really matter once we start winning is in debates like this. Who gives a [expletive]?

 

Being set-up to become awesome and being awesome are very different. It's going to take a hell of a lot of winning to wash the stink off regardless.

 

 

 

 

 

http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2013/12/lets-not-start-suckin-each-others-dicks-quite-yet.jpg

 

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2013/12/lets-not-start-suckin-each-others-dicks-quite-yet.jpg

 

The quote runs through my head basically every day here. For a couple of reasons, true, but it's still so apt.

[jersey cubs fan]

Converting an awesome pile of prospects into extended success is a lot harder than using extended failure to create an awesome pile of prospects.

 

Quotable Kyle

[dew1679666265]

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

If that happens I'm 100% with you. If that happens.

[Guest]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

[Sammy Sofa]

I really don't care how people decide if the FO's tenure ends up a success or not and what justifies the losing at the beginning. All I really care about is that we're currently set up to be awesome for an extended period of time and that smart people are in charge of it to maximize our chances of winning now that it looks like doing so is going to be prioritized.

 

The last few years have sucked but the only reason they really matter once we start winning is in debates like this. Who gives a [expletive]?

 

Being set-up to become awesome and being awesome are very different. It's going to take a hell of a lot of winning to wash the stink off regardless.

 

 

 

 

 

http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2013/12/lets-not-start-suckin-each-others-dicks-quite-yet.jpg

 

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

What does bandwagoning have to do with anything?

 

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

Even leaving out the trade half of things out of this, those homegrown guys(and Lowrie) alone have posted just over 30 fWAR the last 2.6 years for the A's.

 

OK, that's six guys.

 

In the same time period, Castro, Rizzo, Barney, Samarzdija, Castillo, Lake: 28.9 fWAR

 

*massive* difference :roll:

 

(edit: all we had to do to get to 30.0 was keep DJ LeMahieu to replace Lake on that list)

 

Castro, Barney, and Samardzija all contributed in 2011, and without them they would've been ~10 games worse than the 2011 A's. Look down the 2011 rosters for each and look at the ages, then consider how much more the A's were adding from their own system since that point. As much as you doggedly want to insist it's the same, they aren't comparable.