[As little as Beane might have thought of Howe...]
I love it when reporters use qualifiers in their barely disguised jeremiads. I mean, heaven forbid Murray Chass should tax the resources of The New York Times with a phone call to Billy Beane to actually ask him about Art Howe.
It was sort of Plaschkean with the image of the dejected, unemployed "traditional" baseball guy while upstarts like Beane coldly and cruelly treat people like they are just chess pieces.
I love when an article gives you only tiny specks of the picture and not the whole picture. Things like how Billy Beane acknowledges his way isn't the only one to build a team, Lewis just painted that image to make the book more interesting, things like Huston Street's draft and quick success, the success of Swisher, the failure of Howe outside of the A's, how DePodesta was not given much chance, how if you were to factor in inflation, the Blue Jays's payroll from before JP would probably be at worst equal to their payroll for this year (with No Legs nor Range figured in). It's just amazing that these reporters have free range to write fiction.
There was really no point to the article other than that some things that Beane has done have not panned out like he thought. As opposed to all of the other GMs out there.
Well you'd have to discount Coletti at the moment. Kind of hard to form an opinion on non-existant results. Maybe that's who Murray was trying to appeal to.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.
I love it when reporters use qualifiers in their barely disguised jeremiads. I mean, heaven forbid Murray Chass should tax the resources of The New York Times with a phone call to Billy Beane to actually ask him about Art Howe.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.