Defending Beane

This post originated as a response to a post on Athletics Nation (a blog which I frequent and you should too) which criticized the idea of holding on to prospects instead of trading them for big ticket names. The poster contended that whichever contending team signs Roy Halladay will win the World Series this year, and that trading Dan Haren was bad since our team would be much better right now with Dan Haren then with the package we got in exchange for him.

I'll link you the original post; and subsequently here is my response:

First lets talk about Haren. You say that trading Haren was a bad deal, but how would we be if we still had Haren? You’re assuming that we’re able to sign Haren to an extension similar to the one the Diamondbacks did, which is 44 million over 4 years, and this probably isn’t true. This year, the team is still bogged down with the contracts of Crosby and Chavez, and any money we gave to Dan Haren instead almost certainly assures that we don’t have as good of a draft as we did, since we can’t sign Green and the like to any sort of decent deal. Furthermore, do you really think that Haren makes this team a contender? Dan Haren was 6.4 WAR last year, and even if he were to somehow improve to an amazing 8 WAR this year, we’re still in last place since we no longer have the bat of Holliday and the decent arm of Brett Anderson. This team right now is awful with or without Dan Haren.

Next, somehow you assume that postseason performance is a constant factor. You’re under the idea that if the postseason were to be replayed again with robots that directly clone the abilities of the aforementioned players, that it would turn out exactly the same, when in all likelihood it would not. Baseball is a game where a couple inches on a short fly ball to right field means a single drops in scoring a tying run, or a few degrees of heat means a ball flies over the fence. It’s perfectly OK to assume that if the Washington Nationals made the playoffs, they have a reasonable chance of making the World Series (remember, baseball is a game where even the worst teams win 1/3 of their games, unlike say football.) What I’m getting at here is that if the As had a few breaks in 2006 and won the series, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Furthermore, if Matt Stairs hadn’t had a certain pinch hit blast then we’d be talking about how the Phillies couldn’t get it done, and how the Rays (read: a team that focuses on long term growth as opposed to quick gain) truly have the best philosophy. The Phillies, on the other hand, really didn’t pick up a huge signing. Blanton was a very middle-of-the-road starter at best, and yet somehow you think this proves your point because signing guys wins championships, when in fact it only slightly improves a still up in the air outcome.

Furthermore, and I love this: " If the Dodgers get him, even if its for Kershaw, they are going to the World Series, same with the Phillies." How is this an absolute guarantee for success? Both he Dodgers and the Angels last year acquired HUGE upgrades to their offenses last year in the forms of Manny Ramirez and Mark Teixeira respectively, and I don’t see either of them with World Series rings. Just because a team makes a big acquisition to try to make their team win more now it in no way assures a victory.

Remember when the Brewers traded their best prospect (Matt LaPorta) for CC Sabathia, in the hopes of winning it all? Yes, they made the playoffs, but no World Series occurred. My point here is that, while signing big free agents and making trade-deadline deals can improve a team’s chances to make the postseason, it should only be done in a context of a team that has a chance to win. The Oakland As would not have been in that position with Haren, with Harden, with Swisher, or with basically anybody else because of a generally poor team surrounding them. Beane made the Haren deal realizing that, as long as the contracts of Chavez and Crosby are sucking up his funds he will never be able to put together a contending team because he just does not have the funds.

The Oakland As do not sell out every game. We do not buy merchandise in the way the Red Sox fans do, and we are on the shitty end of the Bay Area stick to be honest for marketing purposes. Assuming that we will magically garner the funds possible to make a team viable through holding on to big names and somehow still adding to them other big names is just deluding yourself. Our only hope, as has been for the last 10 years, is to try to accumulate enough good prospects that a team pans out of them that can contend (like Zito, Mulder, Giambi, Hudson, Tejada, etc.) When a team like that comes along, then we can think about making big signings (like we did with Dye.) Until then I’m definitely not in favor of holding on to big names only to watch our team despair in Nationals-esque awfulness.

My point here is that, while Haren would make this team better, it would not make us a contender and we are much better off with a much improved possibility of making the postseason in the future, since our future team will probably be much more well-rounded instead of a Twins-esque 3 man show.