Fangraphs: Tanking, in the MLB

[Can_of_corn]

I tend to agree with hoosiers/frobby. The mentality on the board has been largely indifferent or complimentary of the front office, and folks questioning the front office tend to be shrugged off. I also agree you have questioned the front office frequently. I didn't take his "pretty lonely" statement as indicating he was the only one -- just a minority voice.

Matter of degree once again.

I for one have rarely felt outnumbered.

[Stotle]

Matter of degree once again.

I for one have rarely felt outnumbered.

Hoosiers tends to argue more vociferously and tends to draw harsher retorts. I don't think it's a contest -- you both have had concerns that are being validated in real time. Last off-season was my "we'll see" date for the front office, and while I have been against many of the short term moves I've tried to frame it more in the "it's going to take some really creative thinking to work out of the hole being dug -- the next 24/18/12/6 months will tell us a lot."

Last off-season I think it became crystal clear that the future was not of particular concern, and the org was going to need to get fairly lucky to maintain a competitive team moving forward. This offseason we've see more of the same. It is what it is. Hopefully the retooling (when it occurs) is shorter than it was the last time around.

[weams]

My point is they were hardly a lone voice in the wilderness. With the exception of the Miller trade I have been opposed to pretty much every short term move Dan has made. There hasn't been a shortage of others.

I'm with you. Hardly lonely.

[weams]

Hoosiers tends to argue more vociferously and tends to draw harsher retorts.

I rep him often.

[weams]

This offseason we've see more of the same. It is what it is. Hopefully the retooling (when it occurs) is shorter than it was the last time around.

Probably not best to send in your renewals for 2019 and 2020 to try to get postseason status. Hey, there will be other exciting teams folks can watch.

[Can_of_corn]

Hoosiers tends to argue more vociferously and tends to draw harsher retorts. I don't think it's a contest -- you both have had concerns that are being validated in real time. Last off-season was my "we'll see" date for the front office, and while I have been against many of the short term moves I've tried to frame it more in the "it's going to take some really creative thinking to work out of the hole being dug -- the next 24/18/12/6 months will tell us a lot."

Last off-season I think it became crystal clear that the future was not of particular concern, and the org was going to need to get fairly lucky to maintain a competitive team moving forward. This offseason we've see more of the same. It is what it is. Hopefully the retooling (when it occurs) is shorter than it was the last time around.

I wasn't implying a contest or trying to compare my level of dissatisfaction. I just meant that when I raised concerns others agreed with me.

[DrungoHazewood]

I tend to agree with hoosiers/frobby. The mentality on the board has been largely indifferent or complimentary of the front office, and folks questioning the front office tend to be shrugged off. I also agree you have questioned the front office frequently. I didn't take his "pretty lonely" statement as indicating he was the only one -- just a minority voice.

I might characterize it more as a disagreement with the assumption that prioritizing the future at the expense of the present is a given. That adding short-term assets for mid-level prospects in an attempt at a wildcard spot is objectively wrong.

[Tx Oriole]

It's been pretty lonely here advocating that our FO was selling out on our future.

It didn't have to be like this.

Our GM inherited a whole bunch of assets. Didn't trade ANY assets near their peak value and has forfeited and traded a bunch of high draft picks. During this time, about half the league or more gorged themselves with international signings deeming their haul worth of paying substantial penalties while we have been trading away international slots and staying within a low budget. At this point, unless DD makes some credible moves to strength the farm system by dealing veterans, it seems like things won't get better until our next GM.

DD's been talking about obp and strengthening the farm system since he was hired and it's all been a bunch of hot air completely unsupportable by his actual actions.

I think he has made mistakes but to some point he is like other GM's. Angelos is

charge. He ties the hands of the GM. Some fans want another GM. But it won't

matter. I agree that the farm system needs improving.

[Stotle]

I might characterize it more as a disagreement with the assumption that prioritizing the future at the expense of the present is a given. That adding short-term assets for mid-level prospects in an attempt at a wildcard spot is objectively wrong.

I think most reasonable minds would be satisfied with the FO acknowledging the future's existence.

Certainly doesn't have to come at the expense of the present.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

I think most reasonable minds would be satisfied with the FO acknowledging the future's existence.

Certainly doesn't have to come at the expense of the present.

I think a team that was actively selling out the future for the now would have traded Bundy, Harvey, Sisco, Schoop, and others. No, the results haven't been great. But they've avoided trading their best young assets. Now, some of the stuff with regards to competitive balance picks and allocation money I don't get. I understand not liking the Parra deal, even if I don't personally hate it.

[Stotle]

I think a team that was actively selling out the future for the now would have traded Bundy, Harvey, Sisco, Schoop, and others. No, the results haven't been great. But they've avoided trading their best young assets. Now, some of the stuff with regards to competitive balance picks and allocation money I don't get. I understand not liking the Parra deal, even if I don't personally hate it.

So it's either completely sell everything or there's no issue. Got it. Makes sense...

[Can_of_corn]

I think a team that was actively selling out the future for the now would have traded Bundy, Harvey, Sisco, Schoop, and others. No, the results haven't been great. But they've avoided trading their best young assets. Now, some of the stuff with regards to competitive balance picks and allocation money I don't get. I understand not liking the Parra deal, even if I don't personally hate it.

Pretty sure that ERod and maybe Hader are better assets than what was kept.

[Stotle]

Pretty sure that ERod and maybe Hader are better assets than what was kept.

It honestly isn't worth discussing at this point. The *only* evidence you can give for Baltimore considering the future is they haven't yet traded some of their prospects. I meant that hyperbolically, but it might actually be true -- would have to think on it.

There certainly isn't anything being done that indicates there are 2017/2018 projected depth charts on a wall somewhere in the warehouse.

[Can_of_corn]

It honestly isn't worth discussing at this point. The *only* evidence you can give for Baltimore considering the future is they haven't yet traded some of their prospects. I meant that hyperbolically, but it might actually be true -- would have to think on it.

There certainly isn't anything being done that indicates there are 2017/2018 projected depth charts on a wall somewhere in the warehouse.

It is the surrendering of four draft picks under Dan that completely convinced me.

Wait, five now that Davis resigned.

[DrungoHazewood]

So it's either completely sell everything or there's no issue. Got it. Makes sense...

See, that's what I'm talking about. If you take a middle ground and trade some 5-10 ranked prospects but keep hold of the Bundys and the Harveys for the future I think that's a reasonable strategy. But I'm reading a lot of skepticism in your post, right? That my point of view is basically acting as a front office apologist, or at least someone who's willing to ditch any sembelence of development, correct?

Or am I reading too much into that?