Pickles

They'll never be what they were in the mid 90s. That's a cold, hard truth. The more they lose, the more prestige they will lose. I agree with that as well. It has a ripple effect. I agree. The only solution is to win consistently for a long time. Our model should be the St. Louis Cardinals. And I believe it largely is.

I was thinking the exact same thing. By the time you check the box score, they're almost always losing already. The starting rotation is horrendous. Particularly without Means. Those who thought this team had a baseline of 68 wins, and should "go for it", are being shown to be more wrong by the day.

Eh. Did they lose them in 2008?

That's poorly worded. Frankly, hit for average is probably the best way to describe it.

I've almost been tempted to start a thread on Wieters' unfortunate injury. It really seems to have colored his legacy- unfairly imo. One intelligent poster suggested that Adley should probably put up a 930 ops; that would be acceptable. Thankfully, somebody pointed out that would be 70 points higher than Posey's unbelievable, HOF-run. When Adley's up here being Wieters with better on-base skills (there it is; it's just not one of the five) we should all be thrilled.

Yes, and notice that none of them are "walk" or even "plate discipline." It simply wasn't considered one of those five skills. Again, you seem to understand they're arbitrary, but you think that supports something it doesn't. That isn't to sayd people didn't understand the concept. I hate this misconception that Billy Beane or even Bill James was somehow revolutionary. Branch Rickey: "The single greates difference between an amateur hitter and a professional hitter is understanding the strike zone." That's in the 1930s. It's importance has always been self evident, but it simply hasn't been conflated with "bat to ball skills"- meaning the ability to make contact, specifically meaningful contact.

Fair enough. And he'll probably be back to 300 in 3 days. I'm just seeing a lot of unrealistic expectations for this guy. He's not a better prospect than Wieters. And everyone acts as if they'll be disappointed if he's only a little better than Wieters. The only problem with Wieters' career here was the got injured at a very untimely point, and basically cost us two years of team control, and he missed his prime.

Is that the claim? His plate discipline is obviously as good as it gets at that level. But, imo, that's very distinct from hit tool, and that's always been understood. Of course, they're interrelated in performance, but so is power and hit tool, and yet people are very comfortable in being able to distinguish the two. Bat to ball skills- i.e. hit tool- have shown to be among the most predictive skills in the MiLs for ML success.

You couldn't say anything definitively over the course of whatever it has been so far- 150 abs maybe? And 300 is an arbitrary number. And 287 over the course of those 150 abs isn't negligibly distinct from 300. But I think a player who puts up a 300/400/500 line at AA is likely to be a better ML hitter than one who puts up a 250/400/500 line, all other things being considered equal.

Not regarding his hit tool. No. There's plenty of studies showing hit tool is the most important skill which correlates to ML success. I'm not trying to crap on the guy. But I'm being realistic.

Because if he can't hit 300 in AA at 23 years old, the hit tool isn't plus.

And if he did it for the best part of a decade, he'd be very close to the HOF. I really think we need to temper expectations. That should be our best-case scenario. It's likely to fall short of that.

Hays just made two very strong throws in two innings vs. Tampa. WHEN Hays, Mullins, and Santander are playing, we might already have the best defensive outfield in baseball.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'd personally wait until next April 15th or whatever. But if you're not going to do that then he should be up here immediately.

The weakness of this team is pretty obvious: The starting pitching. A team with Harvey, Lopez, Zimmerman, Kremer is just not going to be able to string wins together. At least as they're currently performing. The offense is bad. It isn't embarrassing. I'm disappointed in Mountcastle, but not shocked. I thought he'd struggle mightily at some point with that approach. He'll adjust, and get a plan, or he'll be a fringe major leaguer. He's still very young, with a great pedigree, and we stink, so there's no reason not to run him out there every day at this point. I guess I can say Sisco has been atrocious, but how much were any of us expecting anything from him? Same of Ruiz. They're 13th in the AL in RS, and if they had six more they'd be 9th. I don't think that range there is unexpected. The bullpen is bad. But it isn't embarrassing. I do worry about it getting exposed as the season goes on. The defense is bad. It isn't embarrassing. And when we put out best players out there, I'm not even sure I'd agree it is bad. What makes this team bad is what makes plenty of teams bad and we have seen it all before: Negative starting pitchers, and negative regular players. You simply can't have 25% of your roster bringing negative value and be competitive. Or even not embarrassing. This team will show improvement when we have more than one dependable starter. We don't need to be the 95 Braves, but we need 5 guys who give us a chance every night. You can win the whole thing without a "true" ace. But when 4/5ths of your starting rotation is below replacement, you're well on your way to being embarrassing. The same is true on the positional side. You simply can't have 3-4 black holes in your lineup. I don't want to go down the road again, but it isn't so easy as just bringing in different guys from the outside the organization. Unless you're willing to start spending on a different class of money or prospect. And frankly, the very fact that we need like 10 new players to really make us competitive, suggests doing that is a desperate grasp likely to fail. This team will get better when they get consistent starting pitching. That's the biggest difference-maker. And the best hope of that lies in AA right now. The longest term worry for me- besides the perpetual one of we need more pitching forever and always- is what are we going to do about the infield? That's the long-term black hole in talent. Starting Pitching- dont need aces, look at 2014 or even 2016 need solid production from the rotation spots Replacement players- can't have negative guy. certainly can't have multiple of them starting. That is largely what duquette cleaned up.

I was going to just walk away but you know, you have demonstrated yourself to be one of the most arrogant and abrasive posters on this board over the years, so I don't think I will. I teach reading/writing for a living ironically enough. You know what I teach my students? If your audience doesn't understand your writing, the problem isn't your audience. It is with you. So, you blaming me for your own sad and pathetic inability to enunciate yourself is on brand for you Sports Guy. This is my understanding of your "thesis" in this thread: You've been making the argument for a couple days now that the FO has been derelict in their duty precisely because they haven't made a series of incremental improvements which would lead to a slightly more competitive team this year. You tell me this is not your point at all, and I only understand it as such because presumably I am too stupid to read. Let's go back and look at some of what you've written in this thread. I’m talking about bringing in outside talent. I’m talking about using your money to bring in talent. I’m talking about using some of our depth to bring in talent. Not every prospect is for playing in the majors. They are assets to use in a number of ways. Trading some of them for proven talent that still fits into your situation is what you should be doing. just to say that the goal would be a 500ish/much more watchable team Gee, where did I ever get the idea that you were in favor of trading prospects and spending money on middling upgrades to a bad team that won't impact competitiveness in any way, shape or form. You can dress up bad ideas however you want. You can get angry when people call out your bad ideas. You can claim your bad ideas are a species of brilliance. Brilliance that others can't comprehend because they're too stupid. They're still bad ideas.

No, you haven't.

Then what are you talking about? You've been making the argument for a couple days now that the FO has been derelict in their duty precisely because they haven't made a series of incremental improvements which would lead to a slightly more competitive team this year. Am I insane? Is that not precisely what you've been arguing for 2 days now?

Whether you acknowledge it or not, yes you are.

I hate to keep dodging you, but my response to you mirrors my last to Sports Guy. Making meaningful upgrades to rosters isn't easy. And it generally isn't cheap. Or everybody would do it and there would be no bad teams. Generally, there are opportunity costs associated with trying to win more games now. It's exactly why teams rebuild. This is as old as organized ball. A specific comment I'll make to you is again, I don't see lazy play and I don't see bad fundamentals. Not really. With one exception. Severino. But Mountcastle stinking up LF ain't an effort issue. Or even a fundamentals issue. He just can't play LF. The very reason this team looks like "major leaguers" when Means is pitching, and not when he isn't, is because the whole thing is an ability issue.

I can't say you're wrong. But I don't think you make a particularly compelling case. Your argument rests basically on the premise that there are "easy" ways to improve with paying much of a "cost." I just don't think that's true. You fail to acknowledge the risk involved too. Say we could indeed have traded our #35 prospect for Adames in the offseason, and that would have us about a whole entire win better off than we are now. What happens if that unheralded prospect becomes the next Means? Well, you just set your rebuild back. The team made FA acquisitions at 3b and SS so we didn't have to watch AAAA players. Maybe they should have done the same at second base. Maybe they should have been willing to pay a little more, though Galvis has been a pleasant surprise. But in the end, all you're talking about is the difference between 64 wins and 68 wins. And I just can't get that worked up about it.

You're not really saying anything we all don't know, and have know for quite a while: They are not prioritizing wins in 2021 at the cost of possible future wins. That's what a rebuild is. We all know that. Let's get into the nuts and bolts: Do you trade Scott and Tate for Adames?

Their position in 2017 sure as hell was historically bad. Do ya'll know how difficult it is to win 47 games in a year in which you maxed out payroll with the intent of competing for the playoffs?

I guess I just think your criticism is overblown. You're not wrong. They could have done a lot of things differently. They could have spent some more money. They could have take some chances. Again, it is a matter of degrees. You say they don't care about putting a better product on the field in 2021. I say they're prioritizing putting a better future product on the field at the expense of the 2021 team. Because that's what a rebuild is. And again, we can get specific. You want Adames? You willing to trade Tanner Scott and Dillon Tate for him? Because these are the kind of real decision which need be made; and not just hypothetical platitudes about "turning over every rock."

You touch it with a needle.