Pickles

Eh. It just takes delusion. The prior regime was delusional about the reality of their situation. We see it all the time. Much of the world is not in touch with reality. And most of the terrible things happening on your television screen every day, happen because people aren't in touch with reality and are delusional. They're often the very "smartest" and "brightest" and "accomplished" among us.

I'm not sure why anybody would think we'd getter better AFTER undertaking a rebuild. I mean the whole point of such an exercise is generally to get worse in the short term.

I understand the frustration and I share it in many ways. As SG has said, we didn't need to be this bad. If we were just garden variety bad, there'd be few complaints. I really do think going forward however, we won't be this bad. If we stink like this in 12 months, something's gone wrong, and perhaps a change in direction is in order. However, the bolded is just wrong. The stripping down was done before he even arrived. Now, Elias has continued to do things, like trade Iglesias, or Villar, or Bundy, that has contributed to this team being this bad. If Elias had a more conservative approach we probably could just be garden variety bad. But to me the difference between 65 and 55 wins is not enough to say that Elias stripped this thing down.

In the end we probably end up looking back at this as the bottom of the bottom, and when the turnaround began. Similar to how I've always felt about the 30-3 game in 07. It's not perfectly analogous, because in 07 we actually got worse on the field going forward, but there was a clear direction.

I think they were losing money when they pushed in then. But we'll never really know about that. All we can really know is that money isn't fungible, and the costs of running an international program (not to mention the domestic one) are significant. All we can do is speculate and argue mindlessly about money. I repose the question to you and the board at general as a more interesting one: How many players should we be running through our academy down their in the Dominican?

How many players? I think that's the question. How many coaches depends on how many players. Labor is cheap. You're right. As always, you manage to take something that is clearly a matter of degrees and reduce it to a black and white issue. It takes money to run an International program right. A lot of it. I just laid out how 10-20 million annually be spent on that. Money is not fungible. If you spend it here, you cannot spend it there. You seem to argue: Regardless of the Davis contract, it's a drop. We can spend more to win an insiginificant amount more. Regardless of the cost to build and set up and maintain international facilities- not to mention find and acquire the talent- it's a drop. We can spend more. I'm here to tell you: That doesn't comport with reality. Resources are limited. And you have to prioritize.

Well, what do you think the facility costs down there? I have no idea. But I could easily see 10 million dollars. We're talking fields, facilities, and dorms/living space, office space. Then what's the maintenance on that? 10-20% annually? How many scouts do you have? What do you pay them? How much do are their expenses? Surely far more theirthan actual salary. Coaches. Groundskeepers. Cooks. Maids. Security. Janitors. I work in education. I have spent a long time abroad running operations like this. Not in the Caribbean however. What you're essentially talking about is running a prep school, with top-notch athletic facilities. The way to really evaluate it would be to talk about price per head. How many players do you want to go? I could see players costing the org ~50 K annually in such a scenario.

Did we ever hear a number on the new project? I can easily see that project being a ~ 10 mil project. And then the upkeep? 5%? 10% I believe it costs real money to have a real international program.

Ten seems completely reasonable for me. Hell, twenty seems possible.

This is something I hadn't thought of too much. There's some truth here, but I wonder how much. How many games do you want AR to get at 1/DH? If he's the catcher they say he is, I don't think it's that many. There were roster construction hypothesis similar when Wieters was coming up, about how we'd need to accommodate him ABs at DH. But that never really matieralized. You just catch him 130-140 games, and give him a day off once a week. Not a lot of time left to worry about.

I guess this fact is like Jimi Hendrix: A lot of people listen to it, but they just can't hear it.

Yeah, I'm a narcissist because I have a different evaluation of a sports article than you. That's completely normal discourse. Again, we have a difference of opinion. Ranting at me and insulting me won't change my mind. Even if simultaneously accusing me of being the one ranting and insulting. We agree to disagree. Stop ranting and showing your ass. One might considerate pretty narcissistic.

And you really you need something more specific? Ok, we've had a whole class of rookie pitchers come up this year, and really struggle. Far worse than might have been expected. Why not explore why? Maybe ask some questions to people that I don't get access to because I'm not a professional journalist. How about something like that?

You're accusing me of "showing my ass." I was accused of being a "narcissist." Simply because I've criticized an article that ya'll seem to think is good. But I'm the one ranting. And taking things "personal." LOL. You can't make it up. I said some kind of analysis beyond "The pitching is terrible because the pitching is terrible" is the kind of thing I would call good journalism. I've defined it pretty accurately. It's not my responsibility to DO that good journalism. I'm not going to do that analysis. Because I"m not a good journalist. But a good journalist and a good article would have analysis that was deeper than "The pitching is terrible because it is terrible." And I'm not sure why you in particularly can't just accept that- at the very least that that is my opinion.

Well, I'll say two things to that: No team in history has ever been built entirely through amateur acquisitions, so anyone with those expectations is wrong. I personally have seen nobody with expectations like that, but I can't deny they exist. Secondly, we will bring in people from outside the organization. Obviously. They won't need to be high-priced FA necessarily.

What I find hilarious, is that this thread is a great example of people accusing one side of taking things personal and getting bent out of shape, while simultaneously accusing others of taking things personal and getting bent out of shape. I made no rant. I'm not dying on any hill. I find the article to be shallow. I don't find it to be good journalism. It did absolutely nothing to further my understanding. Or anyone else's on this board. We all acknowledge that. So that's what I'm asking for. Something to further my understanding of a topic. If you want me to call it good journalism. If stating blatantly obvious truths and generally acknowledged facts is enough for you, great. I gave you multiple opportunities to end this conversation we're simply agree to disagree. But you had to rant. And die on this hill. (My being as "vague" as the original article, is not insult to me. But the original article. Which was my point. I am not the professional journalist. If you want me to praise professional journalists, they should exceed the quality of a message board poster.)

For not praising the article, you sure are defending it passionately. What about the very specific analysis of the pitching woes I suggested? That doesn't meet your standards?

I'll take your insults and blatantant hyperbole to be an admission that you don't actually have anything to say.

I don't see this article as critiquing the O's. I think it is far more positive than some of the other recent takes. And I don't see anybody criticizing it on those grounds. Furthermore, your classification of people's position on the idea that the rebuild will be accomplished entirely through the farm system is false. At least here. I can't speak to Twitter.

And if that's enough for you, that's fine. Like I said, I'd like a little more.

See, that's the depth of the analysis provided. Which is the problem. Now, I'm no sabermatician, or a mathmetician, or a baseball journalist, and I don't have that much free time, and what free time I do have, I am extremely lazy with- but, I do propose a professional with the time on his hands could dig into the pitching data, and come up with some kind of analysis that would offer a fresh perspective. Something far more interesting than "They pitching is historically terrible because they're giving up runs at a historical rate." That isn't analysis. And I get that the article isn't "for" me. And it isn't "for" us on this board. That's exactly why I'm surprised some on the board are praising it, as if it something that we all don't already know.

Everybody's free to their opinions. If you think this was "good" journalism, that's your right. I'll update you on the Pirates rebuilding efforts with the same depth Goldstein covered the O's: They're bad. They have some prospects. They'll be better soon. But to really compete, they'll need more. Now, please go spread the word of what a great writer I am.

And actually, I'll come back to this. I think it is wrong. To describe the hole as "self-dug" is completely inaccurate.

Honestly, national pubs like Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, and the Athletic regularly do better than this, imo. I mean again, the thesis is just so thin as to be basically meaningless: The O's are bad; they'll get better; but they have work to get real good. I mean, no crap. You could literally say that about any bad team. The only real analysis in the article was on the pitching and it went no deeper than "It's terrible. In a historical way." And it is the weakness of a good farm system. Again, tell me something I don't know? How about an analysis of Why. Why is the pitching historically terrible? But that would require thinking. And that quality left journalism long ago.

I mean I guess I have a higher standard. I'll grant that it isn't the lazy, kneejerk reactions to "tanking" we've gotten the last couple weeks, but I find the conclusions to extremely thin and obvious. The basic premise of the article is the O's are historically bad; the farm system is good and help is on the way; the team should soon be "respectable" and no longer historically bad; but to really compete at a championship level they'll need more than they have in house, particularly on the mound, and will have to go to trades and the FA market to get it. I mean, is any of that news to anybody on this board? Could not a couple hundred people have written that? And are the conclusions particularly insightful?