Jump to content

John Welch

Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Short Season A-Ball

About John Welch

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And that fits right in with: These eyes have seen 35 years of ... I'm not Bill Gates Sounds a lot like: Why would I change anything about what I'm doing? Which is exactly why he needed to be removed.
  2. "Nah, I just did my thing" reminds me of this quote regarding Luhnow and the Astros: Boddy recalls hearing about how the pitching coaches for the Astros’ minor-league affiliates had defied Luhnow’s orders to implement long-toss training in 2012. In hopes of softening their resistance, Luhnow sent one of the skeptics, his 60-something first-year minor-league pitching coordinator and former major leaguer Jon Matlack, to the Texas Baseball Ranch to learn more about the controversial technique. “Matlack comes back and he’s like, ‘It’s stupid. They’re gonna hurt their arms,’” Boddy says. “And Jeff’s like, ‘All right … I can believe that. What’s your report? What’s your backing behind that? What’s your reason?’ Matlack’s like, ‘It’s just dumb.’ And Jeff’s like, ‘You’re fired, just leave,’ and canned him. And canned all the pitching coaches. And one of the other people in the organization was like, ‘Did you set out to fire all the pitching coaches?’ And Jeff said, ‘No, but I’m not gonna tolerate insubordination.’”
  3. I think he starts the season on the roster. Clearly you have a lot more information than I do but I believe Davis is given this offseason to make swing changes and ST plus 20 or so regular season games to prove it worked. The logical response is "he had last offseason" which is true but I've seen comments suggesting Davis didn't think he needed to change anything last offseason. Common sense would scream otherwise but it didn't happen. The changes he needs to make cannot reasonably be done in season. He gets an offseason to show dramatic improvement. I don't happen to think he'll make any significant improvement at all but cutting him during ST seems unlikely to me. I think he goes when Mountcastle comes up. And I have zero inside information, just my interpretation from seeing a quote here and there.
  4. Third and I completely agree with your post.
  5. I disagree but that's not a big deal. We look at how it should be done differently. I don't think it has anything to do with "loyal to the old king". I think it's all about folks who will execute the way Elias envisions, whether they were there previously or not. Surhoff seems pretty confident about how he does things. I doubt he's interesting in being told a different way. And I understand that you don't agree.
  6. Do we know he wasn't given an opportunity? He's had a new boss since November.
  7. Completely agree with Brooksie ^^^. And the comments on The Athletic are pretty critical of Surhoff. And Connolly.
  8. Do you feel like the Red Sox wanted to trade the 2 young players for Cashner?
  9. Do other teams only trade players they have given up on?
  10. That's what "full control" means when a poster uses it? Or that's what "full control" means with each owner-GM group in MLB? I would agree that every team has some limit where the GM includes ownership in a decision. And maybe I've interpreted posts on here incorrectly but some posts seem to suggest that it's a failure on Elias' part if he doesn't have full control. IMO he clearly doesn't, but he has an amount of control that you would expect from just about any MLB team. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think Elias has the luxury of cutting Davis right now. But that doesn't mean he's a limited GM.
  11. Fair enough. And I suspect we agree with the idea that there's no way on earth that Elias "wants" Davis on the roster.
  12. Holy cow. Couldn't disagree more. All the track record Elias has in St L, Houston and the changes he's made in an abbreviated year here would be thrown out because he doesn't handle a hot button issue quickly enough to suit some. I'm not arguing that Davis is deserving of a roster spot and I'm not arguing that I believe an offseason of working on swing changes is going to work. But if Davis is given extended opportunities the first few months of next season after ST would not, to me, indicate he's not a smart GM. And the gnashing of teeth about "full control" is misplaced. Anyone remember the scene from Moneyball where Billy Beane is begging the owner for more money to make a trade? Somehow the great Theo Epstein couldn't convince owners of the Cubs to give him money for more bullpen upgrades this year when they were clearly needed. The Rays are constantly shortchanged. Does that make their GM any less impressive or mean he doesn't have full control? I'm sure there are a half dozen other examples. Yankee fans constantly whine about Hal being cheap. Does that lessen what Cashman has done? Perhaps the zest to get rid of Davis is clouding the picture here a bit.
  13. It's possible that it's not a case of how likely it is but a case of doing everything possible before pulling the plug.
  • Create New...