now

That's a great point to explain the strategy... whether we agree with it or not. Another way to look at is, given the same budget (and presumably, wins) over the long term, would you rather buy wins like this: 60 - 70 - 80 - 90 or this: 50 - 60 - 90 - 100 ? I think there's another smart or prudent aspect in waiting... waiting to see what we actually have in young homegrown players, rather than betting big on a core before they're proven.

Yeah, definitely more prudent to stay away from the multiyear industry standard if that's 7+ years. Then again, we used to feel hamstrung by that caution when PA would balk at 4 years for any starting pitcher. Personally, I'm fine with being market-shy if it's enough compensated by being talent-smart. Still awaiting proof of concept on that. But hey, at least a clean contract slate (first time ever) is a good place to start.

I'm kind of surprised no one on here (that I've seen) has argued for the idea of a top-tier SS to carry into our window of contention. In other words, the Big Five: Correa, Seager, Story, Baez, Semien (or other 3B/2B) Granted, posing this idea about Lindor, a year or two ago, was premature. What about now? Too early? Too expensive? We won't be ready soon enough? You like Westburg, Henderson, etc. too much to block? The Big Five are overrated? They'd never sign here with at least another 1-2 years of losing? I'm remembering how Tejada almost keyed a legitimate contender in 2005, before everything went sideways. And BTW, I'm not committed to this idea, either, just a little puzzled as to why it's not even considered (espec. after the article leading this thread hinted at it).

To me the article teased about the wisdom of looking ahead with a long-term deal for a big name (e.g., inking 7 years to cover our window starting in the next 2-3), then basically backed off and said it was unlikely. "Maybe next year..."

and an outfielder. A long shot to stay on any MLB roster all season.

Also I'd expect to see a second rounder higher than #30 on the team's prospect list. Then again, if he was #14 last year, that seems more within an expected range. But then we come back to @Yossarian's point about the limited tools.

What he said. And, a ceiling of 4th outfielder seems low also for a 2nd round pick. What were they thinking??

Seems the BJ's just found one: Of course, the price was two top prospects (Martin, SS & Woods, RHP). Comparable, perhaps, to Cowser and Bradish?

I agree with that premise (as a rough guess) but I don't think most GMs do the same calculation when it comes to a trade. I think they're more likely to trade a 2 WAR hitter for a 2 WAR pitcher. But even then the pitcher is less valuable in future (more risky). So instead of trading your two hitters for one pitcher, you can keep one and trade one. And even then you'd be better off, and justified in demanding two pitchers in return for your one hitter. But most GMs, I believe, would settle for a one-for-one swap. I guess the real grail of value is to identify the truly "proven durable" pitcher (if such a thing exists... unlike the TINSTAAPP).

Sounds good in theory... but then you'd need an 80-man roster to stash them all. Maybe in the next CBA...

While your conclusion might have internal logic, I don't think it works that way in real life. In development, I agree hitters are twice as likely to make it. When it comes to trades, it's more the case that proven hitters and proven hitters are deemed equal and swapped one-for-one. Of course, both your conclusion and mine are speculative without further evidence and analysis!

Good catch. I've been remembering it as Charlie Morton, but your evidence puts that error to rest! Agree, that was awesome to behold, especially in this era of high heat, and against the MFYs.

I didn't care much at the outset except rooting against BOS and MFY. Wanted to root against the Giants partly out of sour grapes (Yaz, Gaus), but then LA is a good statue to topple. Rays, Brewers, Cards, ChiSox, meh (though La Russa would've been a good story). But the Braves have emerged as a great underdog team to root for, and that NLCS clincher was a classic; it doesn't get any better than that for pure baseball drama (that whole series, for that matter). How can you beat the likes of Seager, Bellinger, Betts, Taylor, et al. in the clutch? But the pitching... i.e., the Bullpen... a theme that seemed to take preeminence ever since our bitter loss to KC in '14.

Nor the Rays and Jays. But I know what you mean.

More excitement in that list than I can remember toward a group of O's prospects.

This conversation never goes away, but it always comes back to the same variable: pitchers get injured more often than hitters. However, conclusions and implications for strategy are also variable: Free agents & trades--Durable pitchers are more scarce, hence more valuable. Drafting--Drafting pitchers is more risky: but does that mean draft fewer to lessen the risk, or draft more to cover the attrition? Int'l/Amateurs--Get BPAs, but also load up on cheap pitching prospects/projects Personally, I find having endured the failure of so much "cavalry" (especially 1998-2011, but essentially the whole era spanning from Ben McDonald to Grayson) leaves me leaning hard on the opposite, call it the Rangers model: Grow the Bats (not that it ever did them any good).

Despite all the drek, it was gratifying and entertaining to watch some individual breakouts and inspired team efforts from time to time. Mullins, Mountcastle, Tyler Wells, Hays... even plucky K. Gutierrez or R. McKenna with some moments. In the end, even Skanky fans are reduced now to the same kind of consoling nostalgia, as will the other playoff contenders yet to fall, when only one team stands alone. Except, for them the memories will be all the more bitter, from high expectations.

Is that true? How many career wins differential does that represent? Judging from Elias's remarks on the draft ("It doesn't matter what pick we get"), he'd probably say, "I don't know and I don't care"--since you can only calculate retrospectively, not predictively... or something like that.

Cool list! You stumped me on Minor (played after Ripken? drafted instead of...?) and Quirk. ??

Hmm, are you Elias under an alias? Sounds like an accurate summary of his remarks on that topic today.

I agree with the first two paragraphs; but as for the need for veterans, I'm not so sure. If our crop of new stars matures quickly with steady progress, I'd be content with sticking with them for an extra year or two. Never did like the free agency model as much as the homegrown model, for sentimental reasons. Then again, hard to say no the the import of a F. Robby, a Singleton, a Robbie Alomar or Jimmy Key, and yes, even Palmeiro and Tejada. Of course, there were more than our share of failed saviors along the way too, which caused not only disappointments but lost draft picks and devastating budget losses. And then again, bad contracts were doled out to plenty of our "own" fading stars too. To cut this ramble short, I'll just reiterate, "Let the Kids Play!"

All the rat lines lead back to you know who.

And a 9:3 strike to ball ratio. Which seemed even higher (context is everything).

Dang, I was afraid that miracle win would carry a hidden cost. Like the year (I forget) we had one too many rare wins in Sept and lost the chance for, was it Teixeira?

Just wow. Exhibit A for robo-umps. Good catch!