...it left an already downtrodden fan base all the more disenchanted and skeptical, and in-uniform Pirates wondering whether Pittsburgh is turning into Oakland East: once a player gets good, he’s shipped off for prospects.The emphasis is mine.
The A's have not had much success the last three years, but is Passan's memory that short? For a stretch of eight years, the A's not only put up a winning record, but were one of the most successful franchises in Major League Baseball.
1999: 87-75
2000: 91-70*
2001: 102-60*
2002: 103-59*
2003: 96-66*
2004: 91-71
2005: 88-74
2006: 93-69*
* - play-off appearance
In case you're wondering, that's good for a 751-544 record, or a .580 winning percentage. For the sake of comparison, the New York Yankees were 777-515 (.601) during that same time span.
I have other issues with the column as well. Neil Huntington's been on the job for less than two years, and the article seems to imply that Huntington's to blame for the losing culture of the last 17 years. I can't say I like every move Huntington's made (I wasn't a fan of the Nate McLouth trade), but the Pirates do seem to be moving in the right direction for the first time in a long time. Finally, the mainstream sports press is often last to catch on when a functional rebuilding effort takes place; while Baseball Prospectus was singing the praises of the Tampa Bay Rays in 2007-2008 and the Texas Rangers in 2008-2009, the mainstream media seemed to expect more losing from those teams.
But the off-handed comment about the A's is baffling. Billy Beane has deservedly earned the respect of just about everyone in baseball. And - as illustrated above - he has the record to go along with it.
If the Pirates turn into "Oakland West", Pirates fans will be elated.
2 comments:
And, of all the players the Pirates traded away, only Jason Bay was a top notch performer. Most all of their other players were marginal major leaguers who experienced one year of success and mostly failure. Trading those players, who had ML contracts and no ML value, for prospects is great, even if they are for prospects nobody outside the scouting community has heard of.
The A's have lost considerable star quality. One of the biggest mistakes was signing Eric Chavez. Had they dealt him or let him walk it would have saved considerable money that could have been spent elsewhere. Was losing Zito all that bad? Giambi had his post steroid problems after he walked. Tejada continued his success (so that was a big loss). What about the Mulder deal that yielded Dan Haren and oops Daric Barton? Or the Dan Haren deal that yielded Brett Anderson, Dana Eveland, and Chris Carter among others. Ben Grieve 3-way deal anyone?
Most of these moves have worked out very well for Oakland, albeit it takes time for prospects to pan out.
This goes back to an earlier post, Mike, where we talked about the real lack of sports "analysis." I find it a disturbing trend that baseless opinion and sports "entertainment" have taken the place of solid analysis (from which opinions may be fairly drawn, of course).
This is one of the first times in the past 15 years where I see the Pirates with a glimmer of hope. They brought in a stable of young players, and while not all blue chippers, they provide a core of organizational depth and, if a couple pan out, the Pirates did well.
I believe I heard that, on Pirates 1979 throwback day, not one player in the lineup had been born in 1979. Sometimes, an organization needs to strip it that far in order to lay the groundwork for future success. In the Pirates case, this probably came a few years too late, but better late than never.
Post a Comment