sure, i'll weigh in on this. i think the point-in-time assessment that the a's are very thin at major-league ready prospects doesn't necessarily mean a draft strategy is bad. the reason so many gm's are willing to part with 'hot' prospects for an established mlb player is because developing talent is imperfect. for every dontrelle willis there are 10 brien taylors. additionally, since prospects rise to the major league level at different rates, simply being thin on major-league ready talent does not mean beane's drafted poorly. e.g., huston street only spent 1 season in the minors. had he come along more slowly (say, a more normal 3 years), they'd have a stud relief pitcher in the 'major-league ready' category.

Well, as far as farm systems go, I think the A's are pretty middle of the pack - it's taken a hit recently due to Barton being injured and Meyer struggling horribly, but it's mostly thin due to the fact that they put a bunch of guys in the majors in the past year (Swisher, Street, Blanton, Johnson) and traded Ethier.

There's still depth though, as there are some good prospects a couple of years away.

You can hardly fault the organization for that.

The Mets should make the Milledge-Zito trade.

The two biggest controllable considerations here:
- Can their international scouting supplant two first round draft picks? (and how's the '07 draft look?)
- Is a moderate OBP, low SLG outfield prospect easier to find than a front line pitcher?

The fact is, thay NEED to sign a #1 or #2 starter between 06 and 07 - one way or another. If they wait to the offseason to sign someone, they lose their top two draft picks. If they trade for zito now, they'll be ensuring they keep at least two top draft picks regardless if Zito stays (he stays, they keep, he leaves, they get 2 more to replace any they lose for signing).

It's all about looking toward the future. But... There's also the benefit of having a playoff rotation with Pedro - Zito - Glavine that can actually compete with the AL teams. The Mets lineup is not missing anything without Milledge next year either.

So in summary, it's actually not that costly a proposition for the Mets. Even if Milledge turns out to be a ROY superstar, they'll be set up much better in the rotation.

My difference between the current A's and the A's of a few years ago comes down to one thing- drafting.

The A's strategy of hoarding picks worked because they consistently made great picks, particularly in the higher rounds. Nearly every pick made has ended up in the majors within a few years. Now, their drafts have largely been failures, starting with the "Moneyball" draft.

My reasoning for this? The departure of Grady Fuson, who handpicked (sometimes against Beane's wishes) several of their core players.

Yeah, that Moneyball draft was AWFUL. Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton (plus Mark Teahan) -- TERRIBLE. And since, they've done horribly too. I mean, who the hell thought Huston Street would do anything in the major leagues? What a bust.

i also do not see why anyone should think the a's are not drafting well. They turn out major-league talent year after year. What other organization can say they do that as well as the a's? the answer is none.

My ownly problem with oakland is who they decided to keep. They could only sign one of the following long term without breaking the bank: Damon, Hudson, Mulder, Tejada, Giambi, Chavez. Zito obviously was already locked up. And they chose Chavez to be the "face" of the organization. Personally I would have stuck with tejada. I dont know if they got a draft pick for tejada or who it subsequently turrned into but that would be nice to know.