Dan Haren and Connor Robertson to ARI, Carlos Gonzalez, Brett Anderson, Greg Smith, Dana Eveland, and 2 others to OAK

[Big Reed]

Looking at haren's salary, i find it hard to believe the reason for trading him. Even if he had an injury or a so so year, he would have still been in great demand next year. people would have said just like Andrew jones, that surely he'd be able to bounce back. look at sheets. he hasn't had a great season in a long time, but he's just as valuable in a trade today as he was 4 years ago. I think beane could have and should have kept haran for at least one more year.

 

I agree with both sides of the issue of money ball.. but oakland is starting to resemble the brewers of the late 90's in their monitary thinking. The bottom financial line is starting to dictate their personnel decisions more than winning games is. they are starting to get into developing players into stars and then trading them for prospects mode. money bal l only works if yo u have a great scouting team and great draft picks.

 

Gone are tejada, mulder, Giambi, Foulke, Miller, hudson and Zito among others. What does oakland have to show for their loss? ( P Dan meyer, P juan Cruz, OF Charles thomas for hudson), (P calero, haren, C barton, for Mulder) The A's had 7 first round picks in 2002 that netted them Swisher, Joe blanton, teahen, C jeremy brown, and three failures named ss mc curdy, RHP Fritz, and RHP Obenchain as a result of losing Giambi and a couple of other players to free agency. They drafted 3b Snyder and ss Quintanilla in 2003 for losing Durham. They drafted C Powell and OF Putnam in 2004 for losing Keith Foulke. they drafted Street and RHP Rogers with the pick they got for losing tejada. the picked up travis buck as a supplemental in 2005 for losing somebody - was it for Miller? they got a couple of picks for losing Zito.

 

They were able to draft some talented players for the players they lost. But it appears as if it was a 50/50 split of talented /untalented players drafted. What I find disturbing is that with all the additional players Oakland has drafted in the past 5 years, BA ranked their farm system as only the 26th best in 2006 and the 27th best in 2007. This tells me the A's are no longer making smart draft decisions. What I also find disturbing is oakland's desire to acquire 6 more prospects to fill their farm system. i would think with all the extra picks they received in the past 5 years, that their farm system would be plenty full of prospects and they wouldn't need anymore. it appears as if oakland fans are going to be on the bottom looking up for a few years, like the brewers were, and their prospects will be followed more closely than their parent club just like the brewers were.

 

In doing my research of the oakland draft picks, i couldn't help but notice - Chavez is a left handed hitting third baseman. I have to believe he is available for prospects.

[TooLiveBrew]

Daric Barton?

 

Saw this guy play two or three times this year. I'd heard he was highly touted, and he didn't look like he'd really project for big-time power. Appeared physically like Nick Swisher lite. Actually, a more apt comparison would be Jason Giambi pre-steroids.

 

Barton's Baseball Cube page

Giambi's Baseball Cube page

 

I would have liked to see how Giambi matured as a hitter, sans PEDs. His career would've been very good, in a different way.

 

Arizona has impressed me. Busy rattlers down there. Quantity for quality, but the DBacks get a top-shelf pitcher. He'll be even better in the NL.

 

EDIT: In doing my research of the oakland draft picks, i couldn't help but notice - Chavez is a left handed hitting third baseman. I have to believe he is available for prospect

 

That's a pretty intriguing observation, Reed. Certainly worth exploring. How about Vargas (we eat $1-2 mil. of his deal) + T-Bow + __?__.

[danzig6767]

Looking at haren's salary, i find it hard to believe the reason for trading him. Even if he had an injury or a so so year, he would have still been in great demand next year. people would have said just like Andrew jones, that surely he'd be able to bounce back. look at sheets. he hasn't had a great season in a long time, but he's just as valuable in a trade today as he was 4 years ago. I think beane could have and should have kept haran for at least one more year.

Why?

 

There is almost no chance they would be able to beat the Angels for the division or get a Wild Card berth with Cleveland/Detroit in the Central and the two money printing presses in the AL East, Red Sox/Yankees. Plus, trading Haren now raised his value given the years left on his team friendly contract. There is also the injury factor. If Beane held kept Haren for one more year and he got hurt, they could lose out on most of Haren's trade value all for keeping him for one more year even though they had almost no shot to contend.

 

If Beane had all the cash to spend like Theo or Cashman does, he might have been able to use financial might to help fill holes and contend with the Angels. He doesn't though and he faced reality, the A's currently weren't good enough to win the 90+ needed for a playoff berth.

[Big Reed]

why? the basic reason i would have kept him another year is that he's only making about $5 million this year. The A's could definitely afford that amount. And he would have commanded at least the same type of package in return next year, and maybe better. Even if he was injured this year, the A's would have still been able to receive a quality package for him next year. I guess my thoughts are if you can afford to keep an all star player, why trade him? I know the brewers can afford to keep Prince. I also know the brewers would receive some quality players in return if they decided to trade him. But out of loyalty to the fans, if a team can afford to keep its star player, why trade him for prospects? Haren wasn't costing oakland that much this year. if i was an oakland fan, i'd be peesed at Oakland's ownership for giving away my star pitcher for prospects no matter how good they may turn out to be. if i was an oakland fan, i would probably have already bought my Haran jersey for my son for Christmas, and now i have to buy one of those big circles with a line through it to put on the jersey. I'll be piessed when Fielder asks for $15 million a year and the brewers trade him away.

 

I guess I'm just not sold on the players oakland received for him. Gonzolez will be a good outfielder. but usually quantity for quality never adds up to being equal. From Arizona's perspective, I can see why they made the trade. they had 4 quasi rookies starting in the field last year. They really had no room for Gonzalez or Quentin whom they traded last week. They still don't even know what they're going to with Tracey. With young guys like Upton, Drew, jackson, young, montero, and reynolds they don't really need more prospects on their farm.

[twobrewers]

Webb & Haren could be a devastating combination in the playoffs. The D-Backs my have given up a lot, but this has to make them a serious contender for the NL penant. (Don't forget, Haren is also moving from the AL to the NL)

 

I am trying to figure out what a similar offer would be from the Brewers. The best I could come up with would be Parra, Jeffress, Gillespie, Escobar, Iribarren, and Perez. Does that sound like a similar offer?

 

I would have made that trade for 3 years of Haren.

[Oldcity]

There's no high-impact hitter in that Brewers offer. I imagine Gamel would need to be in there. I think Arizona's offer was better.

[ILuvDaBush]

Parra/Gamel/Alcides/Jeffress/Salome...MAY have done it. Carter and Gonzalez are two prime hitters, though Carter is only in A-Ball. But we would just be adding to an already crowded staff.

[dadofandrew]

Reed sounds like the GM's who fail to rebuild because they're afraid of losing 90 games. Whether you win 85 or 70, you go the same place...home.

 

Haren would not have been around when the A's next contend, so he's gone now. Beane will do the same with almost everyone who is at peak value.

[homer]

I'm fairly confident that Beane will have the last laugh. I think he's done more than enough with the payroll he's had to work with to be judged as a very competant GM.

[ILuvDaBush]

I think the fact that Haren was only the Athletics' property because of such shrewd trades by Big Beane speaks volumes about attempting to critique Billy with an eye for the short-term. Thats said, I think Doug has a new BFF that he should be calling to gauge what it would take to procure a Gold Glove-caliber hot-sacker.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"What makes Beane's decline different from the Braves decline, or the Cardinals decline"

 

The Braves and Cardinals have declined?

 

14 consecutive division titles, followed up by an 84-78 season is a decline? And St. Louis wins a World Series, and then challenges for the NL Central until the last week or so.

 

I'll take those declines for the Brewers anytime.

 

"ALL managing strategies eventually result in re-tooling periods."

 

Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, Mets, Angels...

 

"Calling one team's decade of success "luck" and implying that others are not, simply because you disagree with the managerial strategy, seems to me like blatantly ignoring the facts and distorting your conclusion to support your own opinion. "

 

Once again, Sam, a LOT of the A's default playoff appearances were greatly aided by the fact that they only had 3 opponents in their division to beat out. Every other division has 4 opponents, and the Brewers have 5 that we hope are either asleep at the switch or are really banged up that season.

 

The A's most often had only 2 to worry about, because in pretty much every one of those seasons, the Rangers were a pushover. And other times, the Angels were VERY often riddled with injuries, leaving the Mariners occasionally lucid, but more often not. 19 games apiece per season against some often overmatched competition? Doesn't hurt!

 

"It was the Braves dominance that was partially/mostly luck, IMO."

 

Luck? The Mets have had the almost unlimited resources of half of the NY/NJ/CT market, and they haven't been able to knock off the Braves. The Phillies have had a lot of great talent obver the past decade-plus, the Marlins have won 2 World Series, leaving only the Expos/Nationals consistently in the Texas Rangers role. That's tougher competiton than the Mariners, Angels and Rangers, and they finished ahead of 4 teams, 14 straight times.

 

"They had three of the greatest pitcher of all time fall into their laps at the same time..."

 

John Smoltz was the result of a very deft trade with the Tigers, and Greg Maddux was signed away from the Cubs. Schuerholz went out and actively acquired them. Both were strategic, managerial moves. Not divine intervention, like manna falling from the heavens.

 

"Haren would not have been around when the A's next contend, so he's gone now. "

 

I'll take "Self-fulfilling Prophecies" for $200, Alex!

 

If you dump your top players, then yeah, you've assured that the next time you contend won't come anytime soon.

 

"Beane will do the same with almost everyone who is at peak value."

 

Honestly, Al, I don't see where Beane is getting peak value. He didn't get "peak value" when he traded Tim Hudson to Atlanta for such household names as Charles Thomas, Juan Cruz and Dan Meyer. And this wheelbarrow of quantity he got for Haren is nothing special. Not a Gallardo or an Andrew Miller or Joey Votto in the bunch.

 

I'll spot you Greg Smith, whose numbers look very impressive. But with A-ball'ers Anderson, Cunningham and Carter years away at best, Gonzalez in his 5th year in the minors with so-so numbers, and Dana Eveland? That's what Beane got for Danny Haren? Meh.

 

As I noted earlier, if Haren was costing them $15 million this year, instead of 5, and if he was 34 instead of 27, then I would MUCH more readily accept that this was a franchise-first baseball move. But to many of my friendly opponents on the other side of the ideological aisle here at Brewerfan, whenever a star major leaguer is traded for a sack of maybe's, the deal is usually applauded, especially if it's Billy Beane making the move. This time, given Haren's affordable salary, and his fresh emergence as the obvious staff ace, the trade seemed kind of, dare I say, "selfish" on Beane's part.

 

At the time of the Hudson trade, Mark Mulder said:

 

"What's kind of tough about all this retooling is you see us lose these guys, but then you see Anaheim go get Vladimir Guerrero, Seattle getting (Richie) Sexson and (Adrian) Beltre, Anaheim getting (Bartolo) Colon. That's the tougher thing -- seeing the other teams in our division going out and getting better, and us still trying to compete, losing guys,"

 

While Beane plays Rotisserie Baseball fom his office, A's players and of course A's fans, begin to feel cheated and depressed.

 

"Whether you win 85 or 70, you go the same place...home. "

 

The Cubs won 85, and made the playoffs. Or, if you win 83, you can win the World Series.

[Ennder]

Well to be fair Meyer had injury issues which is why he never turned into much. Gonzalez is considered a Votto type prospect, he just missed being an A- prospect last year and improved in plate discipline so is considered one this year, Goldstein actually thinks he might be better than Barton who is thought of as highly as Votto.

[sbrylski]

Few points, Geno:

 

First, you list the top payroll teams in the league as the ones who don't decline. This is not applicable to us, nor is is fool-proof either. The Cardinals are definitely in a bit of a retool period, struggling to 78 wins last season in the worst division in baseball, and the Mets were pretty bad from '02-'04.

 

Second, my point about the Braves being more luck than the A's was due to the fact that just 3 great moves/draft picks were a very large part of their dominance over the course of more than a decade. In the A's case, they had to juggle their roster constantly to stay under budget and remain competitive. I don't mean to take anything away from Schuerholtz, but why do you give him credit for the Braves success, but gave credit for the A's success to the players? That's inconsistent, obviously.

 

Third, I don't feel you can take away the A's success because they play in a 4 team division. In their five playoff seasons in a seven year period, they were 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, and 4th in wins among AL teams. So each year, they did deserve to be there.

[Oldcity]

Of course Geno fails to mention that Mark Mulder brought back a package of players that included none other than Dan Haren.

 

And yes, the Cardinals have declined... That isn't obvious?

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"First, you list the top payroll teams in the league as the ones who don't decline. This is not applicable to us, nor is is fool-proof either."

 

Of course, it's not. But that wasn't the point. You said "ALL managing strategies eventually result in re-tooling periods." ALL. I rattled off 6 exceptions.

 

"Second, my point about the Braves being more luck than the A's was due to the fact that just 3 great moves/draft picks were a very large part of their dominance over the course of more than a decade. "

 

And the Jones boys didn't have a major impact on those 14 years of titles? Furcal? Millwood? Avery? Rocker? Remlinger? Javy Lopez? Klesko? Even the carpetbaggers he brought in like Galarraga, Sheffield, Jordan, Sanders, Burkett, Neagle, McGriff...they all made major contributions. It wasn't just 3 terrific pitchers, and you win 14 straight titles.

 

"In the A's case, they had to juggle their roster constantly to stay under budget and remain competitive. I don't mean to take anything away from Schuerholtz, but why do you give him credit for the Braves success, but gave credit for the A's success to the players? That's inconsistent, obviously. "

 

First of all, Sam, I gave credit to those 90-100 win Oakland teams to their drafting/scouting directors, but I'll spot you 1/2 a point here, anyway.

 

As I've always maintained, it sure as hell helped Schuerholz to have Ted Turner's Cartoon Network budget at his disposal all those years. It helps when you almost never lose a star player to a higher bidder, because you can afford to keep him in a Braves uniform. And that's where I readily concede half my point to you. The Braves always kept their stars.

 

But part of that was also because Schuerholz CHOSE to keep them, instead of cashing them in, even if they came cheap, just to see how nifty a deal he could swing for them. One GM wants to keep his best players, while the other just lets them go for draft picks/nuggets, even when it's not incumbent upon him to do so.

 

For hyperbole sake, if Billy Beane were the Milwaukee GM, Prince and Braun would both already be traded for 6-8 nuggets, and our farm system would be #1 in the majors....Our major league team? Not so hot, but Baseball America would love us!

[sbrylski]

I hope we can come to a consensus sooner than later, but I still have another round of rebuttals.

 

It wasn't just 3 terrific pitchers, and you win 14 straight titles.

 

It was a hell of a lot easier though, obviously. That's all I'm saying - you can't compare GM's from different markets/situations in a vacuum. Leading into...

 

But part of that was also because Schuerholz CHOSE to keep them, instead of cashing them in, even if they came cheap, just to see how nifty a deal he could swing for them. One GM wants to keep his best players, while the other just lets them go for draft picks/nuggets, even when it's not incumbent upon him to do so.

 

There is no comparison. You can't take the actions of Beane in one situation and assume they'd be the same in Atlanta. Beane is forced by financial limitations to make nifty deals. I think it is wrong to assume he wants to occasionally trade away his best players.

 

For hyperbole sake, if Billy Beane were the Milwaukee GM, Prince and Braun would both already be traded for 6-8 nuggets, and our farm system would be #1 in the majors....Our major league team? Not so hot, but Baseball America would love us!

 

And another bad comparison. The A's are on the downswing, the Brewers are on the up. Haren is traded because his value is at a peak and Beane knows that, due to financial limitations, he won't be with the team in few years when they are back on the up. So he's getting guys that will be with the team on the way up, stregthening the future team's chances at another extended run.

 

Yes, the above paragraph speaks of evil cycles of success - the ones even the Mets couldn't avoid. But of teams in similar financial situations as Milwaukee, Beane's A's have had the longest highs.

 

What are your expectations? They seem to be through the roof. Regardless of financial constraints, it seems you want constant success. That's simply unrealistic, IMO.

[Thurston Fluff]

I'm typically not a fan of trading a bunch of prospects for one guy due to how devastating an injury would be for the team who gave up the farm for one guy. I can't help but think of another quantity for quality deal the D-backs made a few years ago that had a horrible effect on that team for a couple years. If Haren stays healthy and pitches to expectations this is a good deal for the D-backs. I'm not sure how much better they got though since their strength was already pitching and defense and their weakness was offense. Haren doesn't help them in that area.

[TooLiveBrew]

No, but he makes what was a strength into a virtual super-power. His addition makes their lack of offense even more tolerable than 2007 - which obviously saw them advance to the NLCS. Any addition they can make to their offense now, too, carries additional value due to adding Haren.

[Thurston Fluff]

No doubt about that TLB. If they make the playoffs it will be a bigger benefit ala Johnson/Shilling. I do think over the regular season the point of diminishing returns is more relevant. They won a lot of one run games last year and pitching had a lot to do with that so I don't want to belittle that but a portion of that is also luck. Without a good offense to go with that pitching odds are higher that some of those games will tilt the other way. Just my opinion but if they were willing to give up that much of the future I'd rather have seen my team address a weakness vs. add to a strength. Especially when taking into account the injury risk for pitchers. I know anyone can get hurt but all things being equal pitchers tend to be more of an injury risk.

Disclaimer...after the season I picked them to be one of the teams that take a step back next year. I like that team but I felt they played a little above their head. So perhaps my judgment of this deal is partially due to my belief that they do not have enough of an offense to sustain that level of play.

[Ennder]

Most of the A's deals have been overrated players going for prospects. Haren is the first one that really surprised me. Zito is not a great pitcher, Mulder was on the downswing, Hudson's stuff had been slipping already when they traded him. I think he realized that Zito/Mulder/Hudson were no Glavine/Smoltz/Maddux. These are not the same league of pitcher regardless of how good their peak years were yet they all got ace type deals.