those 6 free agents are paid less than $6m, combined.

You wondered if the A’s had some system developed better than others for developing players.

First off, CarGon is a real talent, and I’m ecstatic for the Haren trade already, let alone when he comes up.

It was noted earlier (March?) how the A’s do a fantastic job at the top of the draft of getting guys who can produce at the MLB level, quickly.

So, yes, they draft and trade well, mostly. And the FA’s aren’t bad either. Serious, which of those six do any of us really NOT want on the A’s this year? Are we still having to discuss whether or not Billy Beane is a fantastic GM? Sheesh.

writers constantly discussed the strength of their minor league system, both in drafting players and in bringing them through the system, preparing them well for the major league club. I’ve seen similar things written about other clubs (although Baltimore comes to my mind in particular, since it was mentioned quite a bit at the time). That was during the time when you didn’t see the kind of disproportionate major league club payrolls and profits from media and corporate sponsorships that we see today.

So I think it’s been known for some time that building and maintaining a strong, consistent minor league system is the best way to instill a culture of winning and create a team that is likely to contend more often than not. Free agent signings are going to be more expensive, and are certainly paying for past performance (with the hope that it continues). They are of course important, but can’t take the place of a strong system of drafting and developing players.

When I read phastphill’s fanpost I was inspired to dump the Staturday article I was working on and do a little research to expand on this article. I asked TPTB to promote this piece because roster construction fascinates me and phastphill provides a simple and clear look at our 2008 Oakland A’s.

Subject to change, of course.

Now I want to expand on what phastphill started. Of the 7 draftees in the current 25 man roster, 5 were 1st round picks. Kurt Suzuki was a 2nd round pick and Rich Harden was the last Draft & Follow the A’s have appearently signed in the last decade. The D&F is gone but the other 6 picks reiterate to me the importance of heavily investing in the scouting and signing of your early round picks. The A’s pick 12th overall in the upcoming draft, the main organization weaknesses (as pointed out by myself and Taj in the last weak) are at SS and 3B and it will be very difficult to find a player projected to play one of those positions that is talented enough to merit taking 12th overall unless one of the top amatuers falls out of the Top 10.

The only way THAT happens is if the player in question has signability issues. The A’s are flush with cash after trading Kotsay, Swisher and Haren… will they take advantage of that bounty to sign our hypothetical fallen amateur? We shall see. An even more worrisome idea is that the A’s reach for a less talented player who projects to play one of our troubled positions in an effort to save a bit of money. Joe Smith may have been hearing whispers that a team might draft him in the Sup 1st round (estimated bonus = $750K) but the A’s call up and say they’re willing to draft him 12th overall (2007 slot rec = 1.62 million) IF he’s willing to sign for $1.12 million. Mr. Smith undoubtedly says yes and the A’s save themselves half a million. That’s my nightmare scenario.

The A’s need to take the best available player at #12 and cost be damned. If that means going over the slot recommendation, a crime for which their is no penalty, then they need to do so.

OK, I went off on a bit of a tangent there. Back to phastphill’s article.

Two 1st round picks that you don’t see on the above list contributed to 4 names that you do see and another that we’re all familiar with. Nick Swisher begat Ryan Sweeney (and hopefully at least one of DLS or Gio) while Mark Mulder (2nd overall, 1998) brought in Calero, Barton and Dan Haren… who was then flipped for Eveland and Smith and hopefully a few more down the road. So 9 of the players on the current roster can be tied very directly to choices the A’s made in the 1st round of the draft.

Phastphill’s post is meant to replace today’s Staturday piece, so I’ll throw in a bit of jargon to satisfy any statistical needs… I recognize the SSS but but doesn’t the fact that 9 of 25 players are so closely tied to 1st round draft picks seem significant?

Moving on, this seems like a good time to point out a couple flaws in phastphill’s breakdown. Donnie Murphy and Jack Cust were essentially bought away from other organizations. Beane flat out gave the Royals a check when he acquired Murphy and, as I recall, the Padres ultimately settled for cash after dealing Cust to Oakland.

There are two more players I want to highlight in this analysis. Mark Ellis and Justin Duchscherer are unsong heros for the A’s and both were acquired by trading prospects Oakland had acquired through international FA signings. Ellis came over with Johnny Damon and Cory Lidle in a 2001 3-way trade between Oakland, KC and Tampa. (Tampa Bay, BTW, was one of the teams that refused to deal with Billy Beane for a long while because of how they got fleeced out of Lidle.) Ben Grieve got shipped to Tampa, who in-turn shipped 32 Save closer Roberto Hernandez to KC. But the player the Royals were really high on was Oakland prospect Angel Berroa, a player the A’s signed as an amateur free agent in 1997. The Royals don’t send Damon to the A’s unless they got the guy who they projected to be the next Miguel Tejada. Justin Duchscherer came over in a trade for Luis Vizcaino. Vizcaino was a hard throwing RH the A’s signed as a FA amateur out of the Dominican Republic.

To be blunt, the A’s failure to adequately invest in Latin America for most of the 21st century has not just cost them the chance to develope a big league player, it has cost them the athletic, projectionable bodies that other teams tend to look for when they make trades. I realize the A’s have made an effort in the last 6 months to expand their efforts in Latin America and I applaud them for it but Ellis and Duke stand as proof that such efforts should never be ignored again.

So thanks, phastphill, for writing this post. It inspired me to think more in-depth about how the A’s were built, how they succeed.

To me, that’s what a Staturday post is supposed to accomplish.

thats pretty cool

But the A’s didn’t claim Frank Thomas off waivers. He was released outright by the Blue Jays, therefore, he didn’t pass through the waiver process. They just signed him as a free agent.

Chad Gaudin (Waivers from Toronto)
Donnie Murphy (Waivers from Kansas City)

what methods are most successful for constructing teams, I’d like to see analysis of more teams. So far we’ve seen only the A’s and Mariners.

My hunch is that it would show success is indeed negatively correlated with relying heavily on free agents (as Seattle currently does), but I doubt it would show that doing a lot of trading is significantly better than cultivating your own minor leaguers.

Minnesota and Anaheim are two teams that come to mind who seem to have done well without much trading. Anaheim has had some big free agent signings but they also tend well to the farm. The same could be said of the Yankees.

But like I said, this is just a hunch. I’d love to see this sort of analysis of all the teams. I don’t expect anyone to want to go through all the work, but maybe if there’s someone reading who is a fan of a team other than the A’s or M’s, they’ll want to do a similar examination of their own favorite team and share it.

Windows Mobile Post
I guess AN isn’t the testing ground for all the boss new apps on SB Nation blogs. Come in handy for AN Day, dontcha think?