11-06-2009, 04:39 PM
<!--quoteo(post=68420:date=Nov 6 2009, 01:53 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 6 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68355:date=Nov 5 2009, 10:25 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Nov 5 2009, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68354:date=Nov 5 2009, 10:17 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 5 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So did the Cubs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that was my point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the Cubs, a team with VASTLY larger resources, a massively bigger population, and usually triple the payroll, playing in a weaker league, performed significantly worse than this A's team over the decade.
Why is that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My first response would be to recall that although the Cubs had a significant advantage in resources, management until recently did not deploy those resources wisely compared to the A's.
The A's knew they were a small market team with relatively minor budgets so they determined a long term strategy. Yeah, the strategy used sabermetrics to identify what the market undervalued and use that to help construct the franchise but that is only one component. They committed to building through the draft and trading players they knew they couldn't afford. Finally, the A's also understand that given their limitations, they weren't going to contend on an annual basis so they don't necessarily trade away resources so they can fill holes on an annual basis.
I guess it didn't hurt to pick up guys like Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Tejeda or Giambi but their draft and scouting determined these were the players that they were going to acquire.
You look at the Cubs draft choices between 1985 - 2008, I believe that only 13 of the 74 first, second and third round choices even made it into the majors. MacPhail and Hendry rebuilt the Cubs minor league system during this time and the Cubs have begun seeing the fruits of their labors - Soto, Theriot, etc. but the system doesn't compare to what the A's have been able to do over the same time period.
Exactly, that was my point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the Cubs, a team with VASTLY larger resources, a massively bigger population, and usually triple the payroll, playing in a weaker league, performed significantly worse than this A's team over the decade.
Why is that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My first response would be to recall that although the Cubs had a significant advantage in resources, management until recently did not deploy those resources wisely compared to the A's.
The A's knew they were a small market team with relatively minor budgets so they determined a long term strategy. Yeah, the strategy used sabermetrics to identify what the market undervalued and use that to help construct the franchise but that is only one component. They committed to building through the draft and trading players they knew they couldn't afford. Finally, the A's also understand that given their limitations, they weren't going to contend on an annual basis so they don't necessarily trade away resources so they can fill holes on an annual basis.
I guess it didn't hurt to pick up guys like Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Tejeda or Giambi but their draft and scouting determined these were the players that they were going to acquire.
You look at the Cubs draft choices between 1985 - 2008, I believe that only 13 of the 74 first, second and third round choices even made it into the majors. MacPhail and Hendry rebuilt the Cubs minor league system during this time and the Cubs have begun seeing the fruits of their labors - Soto, Theriot, etc. but the system doesn't compare to what the A's have been able to do over the same time period.