Pickles

Why does that seem so difficult for so many to grasp? They were both worth over 3 WAR; they're above average regulars who make no money. They're exactly the kind of players we want.

The kind of guy that would gut out injuries and keep playing is unlikely the kind of guy that would use those injuries as an excuse for diminished performance.

Neither of them were "blockbuster" acquisitions at the time. I did consider them both significant acquisitions however. Nelson was probably a slight cut above Trumbo but they were hardly categorically different.

Now, those were some blockbuster moves.

What were the blockbuster moves in the offseaon of 2011 that led to 2012? Which ones in 2015 led to 2016? This is the worst kind of confirmation bias. But this is to all set up the winter narrative. That we'll get to hear about ad nauseam.

You could say a very similar thing about Nelson Cruz before we picked him up. They made an external acquisition that they planned on being an everyday regular. I guess we can debate the meaning of significant, but that's enough for me.

Well, I don't think you're wrong that stuff was going on that offseason, but I think you're wrong in the sense that that team wasn't doing everything it could to win now, future be damned. They were running a record payroll, and that's the year they traded Zach Davies for 2 months of Gerardo Parra. There's a future be damned move if there ever was one.

Not the sign of a team not going for it.

They replaced Cruz with Trumbo and then gave him an unwise longterm extension. Was he not a significant addition?

I'm tired of the old speculation, but regardless of who was making the decisions, they were clearly willing to mortgage the future for the present.

The longest thread on the board in the year 2014, our only division title of this millennium, was about the need to rebuild. Fans like to be contrarian.

The purpose imo is to win consistently. This is something I was thinking about the other day, but if you had the choice between winning 90 games every year and alternating between winning 100 and 80 every other year, which would you take? I'd take the 90 every year.

I mean they had record payrolls, doled out unwise FA contracts, traded draft picks, and basically every prospect who wasn't nailed down. Not every thing worked out for them, obviously, but they happily mortgaged every bit of the O's future for the success of 2012-16. What more realistically did you want them to do? I remember half the board in an uproar for the damage to the future, even while we were winning.

The "payroll kept getting higher by a lot" doesn't equal "they didn't capitalize on things when they needed to." The fact is those Duquette and Buck teams mortgaged everything they possibly could in order to win more now.

If they had truly made big mistakes after 2012 there wouldn't have been 2014. And if there truly had been big mistakes after 2014 there wouldn't have been 2016. You seem to think the only acceptable outcome is to make the playoffs every single year.

I'll add one thing to my comment: If we're judging solely by career WAR, I think Gunnar has the odds there, because of age and position. But I went with Adley because I think his peak will be appreciably higher.

Coming in to this season most people it seemed were expecting GG defense and an 800+ OPS from Adley, and I tried to temper expectations, pointing out that if he did that for a decade he'd be a hall of famer. Well he did just that, and then some, and he looks exactly like a "one in a generation" catcher, so he'd be my choice. Gunnar looks like a fine prospect, but he doesn't look one in a generation.

I'm surprised to hear this from you. I assume you're inferring how the FO feels?

No worries. I probably should rein it in a lot of times. But I'm hard-headed like that.

Rein it in, buddy. His major point is that FLA doesn't want pitching. So Hall has little value for them in a trade.

Yeah, I remember some of those AAU tournaments or summer camps, playing half a dozen basketball games.

Personally, I want him able to pitch at full strength in Sept. and Oct. of next year. That's why I would start him off slowly next year and wouldn't do it in the majors because it would be harder to incorporate onto a roster that was trying to win games. TBH, much as they planned on using him this year would be by model for next year.

Sure. We could start him in AAA. We could shut him down in the middle of the season for a period of time. We could slowly ramp him up in the bigs. We could couple him with someone and use him much as Wells was this season. There are a bunch of different options. Personally, depending on the offseason acquisitions and spring training performances, I would probably ramp him up in April in AAA. But that's just me. But I was responding to the idea that we simply pitch him regularly from the start of the season and then just shut him down in July and replace him with Means. To me, that's the worst option, and a virtual non-starter.

Surely. But I'd like the option to have Grayson be available in such a situation rather than throw all his innings by the All-Star break, shutting him down, and replacing him with Means.

Wins count more in October.