But what's wrong with Ned? More money given to ned makes him better right?... RIGHT?! He (Bean) would be a good choice. On a side note, hey Doyer let it go, you're not going to change my stance on Ned and having money so taking shots even jokingly is getting old. Otherwise I respect your opinion so I expect to have mine respected as well.
I am changing bit by bit, and will acclimate myself to the fact that stats that were so important in the past, like W/L, BA, ERA, RBIs (especially), etc. don't mean really much at all; that's all old style shit for old guys like me...oh, and one more that there is no abrreviation for: success. We seem to have that down pat, no matter what approach is taken.
The Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees won 1 WS each the past 6 years, the Cardinals won 2, so I guess the Cards FO is doing a better job than the Phillies, Red Sox and Yankees. The playoffs is as much of a crapshoot as it gets. You cannot build a team to win the World Series, you build a team to get to the playoffs. Saying Beane has never won anything is foolish, how is it his fault that a 110 win team lost to a 95 win team in the playoffs, that's his fault? I'm genuinely curious, I'd love to hear an argument as to how a GM can build a foolproof World Series championship team. Because a team with Halladay, Lee, Hamels and Oswalt lost to Edwin Jackson and Kyle Lohse.
You make an excellent point. I just don't see how it's a defense of Beane. Oakland's record, year over year, since he became GM of the A's: Code: Rk Year W L W-L% Finish Playoffs Top Player Managers 1 2011 74 88 .457 3rd of 4 G.Gonzalez (5.1) Bob Geren(27-36) and Bob Melvin(47-52) 2 2010 81 81 .500 2nd of 4 D.Barton (4.2) Bob Geren(81-81) 3 2009 75 87 .463 4th of 4 A.Bailey (3.9) Bob Geren(75-87) 4 2008 75 86 .466 3rd of 4 J.Duchscherer (3.8) Bob Geren(75-86) 5 2007 76 86 .469 3rd of 4 D.Haren (5.1) Bob Geren(76-86) 6 2006 93 69 .574 1st of 4 LostALCS(4-0) B.Zito (4.6) Ken Macha(93-69) 7 2005 88 74 .543 2nd of 4 E.Chavez (5.5) Ken Macha(88-74) 8 2004 91 71 .562 2nd of 4 E.Chavez (5.5) Ken Macha(91-71) 9 2003 96 66 .593 1st of 4 LostLDS(3-2) T.Hudson (6.7) Ken Macha(96-66) 10 2002 103 59 .636 1st of 4 LostLDS(3-2) T.Hudson (6.7) Art Howe(103-59) 11 2001 102 60 .630 2nd of 4 LostLDS(3-2) J.Giambi (10.3) Art Howe(102-60) 12 2000 91 70 .565 1st of 4 LostLDS(3-2) J.Giambi (8.7) Art Howe(91-70) 13 1999 87 75 .537 2nd of 4 J.Giambi (6.0) Art Howe(87-75) 14 1998 74 88 .457 4th of 4 K.Rogers (6.8) Art Howe(74-88) 15 1997 65 97 .401 4th of 4 M.McGwire (2.7) Art Howe(65-97) Again, subtract the years where he had Giambi, Zito, Hudson, Mulder, etc, what exactly has he done to build a repeatable playoff contender?
Unsuccess it's called. Sure, if you word it that way, "foolproof" as you write, you can't argue it. That's a loaded question asked that way, and the answer can only come out the way you want...how about one WS success, or is the "new"success getting to the playoffs? If he had just one championship team, I'd say you have a solid point--you'd be right. But a bunch of bridesmaids teams , for pretty much year after year for a while...WTF? Then a big zero? The Dodgers did every bit as well as that...and if we aren't failures since '88, no one is. I know I'm fucking tired of waiting.
i think beane could build a contender with 100 million dollars more to work with every year it's hard to sustain success when you cant keep those star players because of money shouldnt be a problem here with new ownership if you think he's overrated, fine. he might be. but he'd be better than ned
You've got blinders on bro: Code: Rk Year W L Finish Playoffs Top Player Managers 1 2011 82 79 3rd of 5 M.Kemp (10.0) Don Mattingly(82-79) 2 2010 80 82 4th of 5 C.Kershaw (4.2) Joe Torre(80-82) 3 2009 95 67 1st of 5 LostNLCS(4-1) C.Blake (5.9) Joe Torre(95-67) 4 2008 84 78 1st of 5 LostNLCS(4-1) C.Billingsley (3.7) Joe Torre(84-78) 5 2007 82 80 4th of 5 B.Penny (6.5) Grady Little(82-80) 6 2006 88 74 2nd of 5 LostLDS(3-0) D.Lowe (4.4) Grady Little(88-74) 7 2005 71 91 4th of 5 J.Kent (4.4) Jim Tracy(71-91) Ned's been more productive as a GM in recent years than Beane has. AND the Dodgers have a better nucleus of talent to build on than the A's do--and that's supposed to be Beane's strength. I could see you wanting Colletti out, but there have to be better options than Beane.
Perspective people. Frank McCourt has had a pretty successful run as an owner if all you look at is on the field success in comparison to the years before McCourt. With McCourt the Dodgers have advanced further into the playoffs and been a semi regular playoff team. Sure its not what we would like of course, but compare it to the pre McCourt era? Remember how long it had been since we won a playoff game much less a series? Of course Frank has been a shitty owner, but this is the same kind of logic being used to prove that Beane is not a good GM. Im sure we can find a bunch of GM's with better W/L records and playoff outcomes than Beane of late, possibly even NEDCO. Does that mean that Ned and them are better GM's than Beane? Course not. Frank is not a good owner, but when you compare him to Fox owning the team it was actually better. Even with all of the shit that McCourt brought with him, even though he spent less money than Fox, it was STILL better than being owned by Fox. Perspective. Its not one man that makes your team, but one man can be the missing piece to the puzzle. We have great international scouting, great pitching scouting, but poor trading and FA dealings. Beane is a great missing piece to the puzzle. Put him alongside Logan and the rest of our management team and you are set. I wouldnt be surprised if new ownership would even give Beane a shot to be the team president to really run the team with impunity. The A's have no money, shitty stadium, and they play in OAK. Its a miracle what he was able to accomplish there. But he has gone as far as he is going to go in OAK. What do you think he will be able to do with double the money? BTW... i dont honestly think that Beane is coming to the Dodgers. I hope, i wish, it would be better than what we have and much better than most of the available GM's. But i dont think Beane is available. He has turned down the Sox and the Cubs, so maybe he just doesnt give a crap about what the rest of the league says or wants from him... maybe he just rather stay in his little pond in OAK. At his point in his life maybe he just doesnt want all the drama and pressure that comes from living and working in a big city for a big important franchise. I can understand that pov.
Last year Beanes highest paid pitcher was reliever Brian Fuentes, and his highest paid hitter was Mark Ellis. What FA is going to want to come play in OAK? Unless they really like weed and want to be in one of the most weed friendly areas in the country. There is only so much purchasing power he has each offseason there. Ned had way more to work with as well as superstars already here. Beane has had to work with what he had, and he has to constantly trade away good productive players in order to seed the farm system for the next few years by getting prospects. That saps team morale as well as makes it very difficult to keep things going when you have some success. Dont just look at his W/L record. Look at what he is doing, how he is doing his job with the funds he has and the really unfortunate situation he is in for a major league GM. In some ways OAK is almost like a AAAA franchise. There is only so much Beane can do there before he has to start over again every few years because of all the nice players he's had to trade away. That wont be the case here. Players like LA. There will be money to keep star players that come up through the system. There will be money to go and grab a superstar if we need to fill a hole and we are a contender. With Beane and Logan filling in all of the rest of the little holes with what they do best makes for a very exciting possible future for the team.
^ Great post Ruven. However, we still disagree about Beane. I'm of the opinion that he was the perfect guy for Oakland because dealing with low budgets is his specialty. I believe, wholeheartedly, that it's a fallacy to believe all GM's can thrive under all circumstances. Some guys are just better than others at certain things. Brian Cashman, for example, is probably not the right guy for the Dodgers either. And many people seem to dismiss Cashman and say he just spends. BUT, I've been a Yankee fan since birth and this is the first time in my lifetime that the Yankees have both had a good farm system and a World Series contending team year in/year out. I believe he's the right guy for the Yankee job because his style works here. On that note, I believe a guy like Beane may do well in small markets but not so well in major markets. The reason for this is perception. Everyone has the perception that he's accomplished a lot in Oakland BUT Oakland is not a good team and hasn't really been good for years. However, because they have a low budget, he gets a pass. Because they had past success--which IMO was also just lighting in a bottle--he gets more credit than I believe he actually deserves.
Wait, are you guys seriously hating on Billy Beane? The guy has had 9 winning seasons in 15 years with the A's. The last 12 years, the average A's payroll, was roughly 54 million dollars. Umm, pretty sure if the guy had an extra 100 million to play with, the rest of the MLB would be fucked. He knows how to get good value in trades, how to evaluate talent, how to build from within, and spends money wisely.
It's hard to say what Beane can actually do with money in a post-moneyball world, but with new ownership Ned will be out and the Dodgers will need a new GM. Like I said, who knows what Beane can do with money... but I wouldn't mind being the team that finds out.
The thing that makes me think that the Dodgers would be the perfect thing is just that, perception. Are the Dodgers a big market team? Sure they are... in theory. LA is a huge market of course, fans pack the stadium no doubt. But our payroll has always been on the low end of the major markets, with plenty of mid market teams passing us up. Not just recently under this owner, but under O'Malley as well. We are the #2 market, but realistically we have had the budgets usually somewhere between 7 and 12 and lots of times lower. The Dodgers dont have to be in the top 5 in payroll to be successful, its been proven many times. But i think that the times we have come up short its because we needed that extra little bit of talent on the field that we might of missed out on because our GM couldnt make a little more happen, couldnt stretch that dollar a little better. You know what i mean? With Beane i have a feeling that if we go into next season with a 95M payroll that there will be more talent on the field that with most other GM's... specially our current one. There will be at least another 10M more in talent out there just out of Beane's thrifty nature.
As a yankee fan I often pull my hair at wasted money for guys who suck Give Beane more money and would he have done better? When he had Giambi, Mulder and Zito, they were all dirt cheap. With a larger budget they may have stayed in Oakland. The A's were better off getting rid of those pieces of shit when they did and it had nothing to do with billy beane.
And I wonder what kind of manager Beane brings in? We remember how incompatible Depo and Jim Tracy were - just not on the same game plan at all. I assume Donny is history right away. And what kind of ownership group fits with a Dodger Beane? Hmmm... interesting questions to be sure...
This has been my point all along. I wasn't trying to say Beane is *bad* manager. I'm saying he's the kind of manager that works best in a small market/low budget environment. Different settings yield different results. Assumptions can't be made either way...
I actually think there's a good chance Donny remains a Dodger through all of this. The new owners will want some stability coming out of this. Mattingly is actually liked by fans and players - Ned is obviously the guy you'd axe. Disagree. All of Billy Beane's GM experience is small market - how do you conclude he can't run a big market team?
