Pickles

1) We have a difference here. I don't think they win 65-70 games. I think they win 60-65. That was my preseason prediction and I've seen nothing to change it. (Other than the option of running Means into the ground and winning 3ish more games, which of course they won't take.) So this is a ~5 game difference in our perspectives of the baseline for this team's talent. That's not insignificant. And yet, it kind of is. Improving the team by "ten games" doesn't make a lick of difference in their chances of making the playoffs. By either of our estimations. 2) Again, how do they just magically win 10 more games without damaging their long term options? How many wins is Adames worth? 2? 3? How do you just magically upgrade their weaknesses- C, 2b, 3b, SP the most glaring imo- 10 WAR without expending resources? So no I don't think it is impossible for them to raise their baseline like 10 games. But I think it will cost you long term opportunity. We don't really have relief prospects quite like what was just paid for Adames. But best comp imo, and I welcome your input, is a Dillon Tate and Tanner Scott. That might be a little more than was paid, but it's in the ballpark. Now do that 3-4 times to get the 74th win that we just so desperately need, and tell me how it doesn't come at the cost of either the current or future major league team. 3) This team won 47!!! games three years ago. It was old. It was expensive. All of the major league talent which had positive value had already been traded. All of the major league talent which remained had negative value. The farm system was bad. It wasn't a dumpster fire, but they had no international presence, and few systemic approaches to talent evaluation or development. I think this is our fundamental difference. Turning around a losing ML team is difficult enough. It takes time. Turning around a historically bad ML franchise takes more time. And you can't show me anything concrete other than the idea that they don't need to be this bad. As if that was any kind of prescription for improvement. "Doc, I'm sick." "Well, you don't need to be." Doesn't cure much, does it?

Real quick, but Hanser Alberto has a 63 OPS+, and has been worth - 0.4 BWAR. How much better would we be?

I mean you can have goals in this life. That's great. But have goals in one hand, and sh-- in the other, and tell me which fills up first. The idea that they should be .500 this year, while simultaneously building for the future, seems rooted in delusion. Trading "depth" now, when you don't know who is going to pan out, is reckless. If you want to argue they should spend 10 more mil this year to bring in upgrades to 2b and 3b, like.... ok. Sure. Again, maybe we'd win 66 games and get your nips all hard, but I don't see that as some kind of strong condemnation because I don't care if they win 66 games this year or 62. You know all these things. Your last paragraph shows us the motive here: Anger. It also reveals your total detachment from reality and rational analysis. To suggest that teams haven't lost outrageous amounts of money the last two years is....... detached from reality. There's no other word for it. You're angry that the team is playing poorly. I get that. You don't like the ownership. I more than get that. And yeah, they're not operating optimally. But don't tell me it's logical. Because it's anything but that.

Well, then what are you saying, man? Cause it sounds to me like you're saying they should have "spent money" and/or traded "depth" (presumably prospects and/or young MLers cause we don't have anything else) for immediate middling upgrades on a bad team in a rebuilding year. Even using your example of Adames. Even if the Rays would just gift us Adames, we'd still stink. It wouldn't change the needle in any appreciable way- in terms of actually competing.

I'll take that as a concession. I know that's not easy for you.

I agree. I'm not talking about now. In 2-3 years, when the time comes, they won't be rebuilding anymore.

What logic am I missing? Spending money in a rebuilding year to improve your baseline ability from 63 wins to 66 wins, is not logical. You know that- or at least you did in 2006. Likewise, trading talent in a rebuilding year ti improve your baseline ability from 63 wins to 66 wins, is not logical. You know that- or at least you did in 2006. How much "ink" was wasted on this website alone during that 14 year Roman wilderness of losing about the futility of spending money and talent on middling upgrades to the short term improvement of a bad team?

They're not going to spend money now. That's perfectly reasonable. And I'm sure at some point in 2006, when they signed a bunch of generic relievers to improve a 64 win team, you wrote a 3,000 word post- rightfully- nailing them about it. (I'm not saying that actually happened. But I bet it did.) What needle does Wily Adames move for this team? Is he going to make them "good?" No, they're still a bad team, and thus, will look like crap for weeks on end. I don't see them jerking young kids around. In fact, I see a lot of people criticizing them for being slow in their promotion of prospects. Guys aren't getting better? Mullins and Means would like a word with you.

Yes. I don't believe they are the worst team in the MLs but they're in the conversation. They have faced and will continue to face an extremely challenging schedule. I think the outlier is the #5 pick this year.

My response to you is similar to my response to SportsGuy: What specific moves should have been made? I think this team plays pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions. Our infield is undoubtedly a weakness- organizationally. How could they have improved it without trading talent, or spending money? Neither of which this team is in a position to do. These guys aren't turning it on and off depending on if Means is pitching or not. It looks like that because the question is one of ability not effort. Rest assured, this is a bad team. But there will be a few weeks at some point later this season when we'll be on here saying, "These guys don't look too bad."

Be specific. That's all I hear. They could be better if they tried a little harder. What moves, that are not just pure hindsight, could have been made in the last 14 months, which would improve this team in the here and now, and not cost them in the long term? I think Rutschman is a perfect example. Yes, if we called him up now it would improve this team. It would cost us a year of his prime theoretically. I'm perfectly fine with that decision. I think a lot of people have a misguided and linear view of a rebuild. And I think a lot of people got overly encouraged by a SSS improvement last year.

They don't have to be FAs.

I agree with most of this. I'm not advocating calling up Adley for the reasons you listed. But I do believe he would improve this team tangibly.

What would you have them do to improve that wouldn't take opportunity from future seasons? You're not wrong, but it isn't a particularly strong argument. Yeah, they could bring up Adley tomorrow, and improve the team. Is it worth it? They could trade prospects for improvement in the infield. Is it worth it?

Who was the big FA signing that led to the competitive window of 2012-2016? How would those teams have fared had they successfully signed in 2009 Tex?

Well, explain.

Facetiously, yes.

Teams that lose 95 games often go through week long stretches where they look atrocious. It is indeed painful, but entirely expected.

It has been thrown around here ad infinitum here, but it's worth noting that the O's aren't bad in 2021 because of decisions made in 2021. They are bad because of decisions in 2017. Unless Elias was in possession of a time machine when he got here, this was always going to be a long, painful process.

I find myself tempted to get excited about this kid.

The only thing you could ask if for a higher average. He's looking like advertised.

Slow bat.

This is really inaccurate. Means alone should have us doing backflips.

Cutting Pujols doesn't cost money at this point for the Dodgers. But if they do it at some point, it won't be "quiet." It will draw press attention, and possibly some negative attention as it did for the Angels.

So Means looked fine to me. Obviously not his best performance, but for those concerned with his health, I think tonight should have alleviated their concerns.