Roch guesses OD lineup…Urias at SS

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Jammer7 said:

Ok, being rude doesn't make you right. It's a shame. Most here on this board can have an intelligent discussion and remain civil. I see this is still a problem for you. 

This is the same rehashed rant you spout every few weeks. I was sitting here, bored, at home getting over COVID. I thought I would engage you today, as we actually agree on many things. But you are back to the old SG, and it's too bad, Rob. You have solid knowledge and insight, as do several here. But when you get like this, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I am not an Elias apologist. I happen to agree with what he is doing. I see the value in the process he has put into place, and it only works if you see it through. Abandoning that now will put us back in the same mediocre crap we had for 14 years prior to Buck. It may fail, sure, but that model has worked in other places. I will always call it how I see it. You disagree. Cool. Moving on...

I’m being rude because I’m pointing out that you could be a speech writer for him?  Lol

You are searching for reason to justify this team losing on purpose.  Your reasons are wrong.  None of that is reason to lose on purpose.  You do not have to lose on purpose for this amount of time to accomplish the goal of building a long term contender.

Nothing you hope to accomplish long term is going to happen because this team tanked for at least 4 years.

If they become a successful organization, people will point to the rebuild as to why..and that will all be fools for doing so.  This team is doing nothing by losing on purpose, outside of a few high picks (which may or may not pan out), that gives them an advantage over anyone else.  Many teams are doing the same thing and they are doing it while winning.

And yes, the Os had a long ways to go to build up analytics and international scouting, etc…but they don’t need to lose games on purpose to accomplish those things.  They can win games AND do those much needed things.  This isn’t an either/or situation and yet you and many others are seemingly treating it as such.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Frobby, you just aren’t realistic.  That 30M isn’t going into some “spend it later bank account”. There is no possible way that you actually believe that.

Now, if they have 30M in contracts in 2024 vs no money in 2024, we agree that it would give them more money to spend on 2024.  But those are 2 different things.  
 

And I don’t know how you disagree with what I said because it’s a fact.  We have payroll flexibility and, to the point I was making, we would be rid of the long term deals by now anyway, whether we dealt guys like Cobb or not.  They would be off the books by now.  The only player on the books that we couldn’t do anything about was Davis.

Like I said, we simply aren’t going to agree on your first paragraph.   You believe money not spent this year just lines the owners’ pockets forever, and I don’t.   I think it’s perfectly rational for a GM to save up a war chest to be spent when the time is right, and you don’t.  We can both argue about it until we are blue in the face; you’re not going to convince me and I’m not going to convince you.  

[Jammer7]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m being rude because I’m pointing out that you could be a speech writer for him?  Lol

You are searching for reason to justify this team losing on purpose.  Your reasons are wrong.  None of that is reason to lose on purpose.  You do not have to lose on purpose for this amount of time to accomplish the goal of building a long term contender.

Nothing you hope to accomplish long term is going to happen because this team tanked for at least 4 years.

If they become a successful organization, people will point to the rebuild as to why..and that will all be fools for doing so.  This team is doing nothing by losing on purpose, outside of a few high picks (which may or may not pan out), that gives them an advantage over anyone else.  Many teams are doing the same thing and they are doing it while winning.

And yes, the Os had a long ways to go to build up analytics and international scouting, etc…but they don’t need to lose games on purpose to accomplish those things.  They can win games AND do those much needed things.  This isn’t an either/or situation and yet you and many others are seemingly treating it as such.

The entire post was rude, yes. You often teeter on that, that's just who you are. It is the disbelief that anyone would dare disagree with you. 

You do realize that we agreed that we wanted to see improvement in the win column, maybe a 75 win team, right? The only thing I disagreed with was that you said Elias was lazy. I provided reasons that I disagreed. If this team is as it is today on opening day, then have at it and I will not argue. I find it silly to judge an off season at this point. From that, you say I am a speech writer to justify losing, and tired untrue cliche's are what I use to justify my belief in what Elias is doing. I don't see any cliche's in what I wrote, but whatever. In other words, you are right and anyone who believes differently is absolutely wrong. Carry on.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

The entire post was rude, yes. You often teeter on that, that's just who you are. It is the disbelief that anyone would dare disagree with you. 

You do realize that we agreed that we wanted to see improvement in the win column, maybe a 75 win team, right? The only thing I disagreed with was that you said Elias was lazy. I provided reasons that I disagreed. If this team is as it is today on opening day, then have at it and I will not argue. I find it silly to judge an off season at this point. From that, you say I am a speech writer to justify losing, and tired untrue cliche's are what I use to justify my belief in what Elias is doing. I don't see any cliche's in what I wrote, but whatever. In other words, you are right and anyone who believes differently is absolutely wrong. Carry on.

Yes, anyone who believes that we should still be tanking seasons in order to win long term is wrong.  I’m perfectly fine to say that.  No one on this site has provided any reason why losing on purpose, at this point, is justifiable and that it helps us win long term.  That is the question I keep asking and all I get back are the Elias talking points that aren’t actually accurate.  
 

As for judging the offseason…I haven’t judged anything.  I judged the Odor move and what I worry the signing represents.  If the Os make moves to actually improve the IF and they end up cutting Odor, I will happily say I was wrong.  But I feel pretty confident in saying that they won’t be doing that and that this lineup that Roch showed(at least the people In it), with a sprinkling in of Mateo, is what they are envisioning for 2022.

And btw, I didn’t say Elias was lazy.  I said the move was lazy.  And it is.  It took zero effort to sign a player no one else wanted. They aren’t paying anything and he was willing to come here.  The 2 things that matter.

[NCRaven]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The problem with Odor is simple..he’s going to take away at bats from players that he shouldn’t be taking at bats from.

He will hit for power.  I don’t doubt that but who cares.  Ok defense, no walks and awful bat to ball skills tell his story.

I get..you can move him around and we have other pieces that are versatile as well.  I also get that no one is a sure thing and that he can be somewhat of an insurance policy at no money.

But what he also represents is laziness.  He represents an unwillingness to make real moves to make the team better.  He represents them being cheap.

I don’t buy for a second that they just see this as some great bargain play.  They see as a warm body to put there that doesn’t cost anything and someone who can hit homers.  That’s it.  
 

No matter the cost or the low risk involved, it doesn’t make much sense baseball wise and it’s further evidence of them not caring about the on field product.

I don't know that there is a single infielder currently on the 40 man roster that deserves to enter the season guaranteed at bats.  So, I'm not worried about Odor taking them away.  And, I don't think Elias or any of his staff make decisions out of "laziness."  You don't agree with them, I get it.  And, you're right, he's not a move that makes us substantially better or more expensive.  But, IMO, you toss around words like "lazy" and "stupid" way too often.

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I don't know that there is a single infielder currently on the 40 man roster that deserves to enter the season guaranteed at bats.  So, I'm not worried about Odor taking them away.  And, I don't think Elias or any of his staff make decisions out of "laziness."  You don't agree with them, I get it.  And, you're right, he's not a move that makes us substantially better or more expensive.  But, IMO, you toss around words like "lazy" and "stupid" way too often.

It’s an easy sign.  It takes zero effort.  It takes zero creativity.  It basically takes zero negotiation.  
 

It was a lazy move that doesn’t make the team better.

I have zero issues throwing out that word to describe transactions like this.

And btw, lazy moves can turn out to be good moves.  

[Can_of_corn]

44 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I don't know that there is a single infielder currently on the 40 man roster that deserves to enter the season guaranteed at bats.  So, I'm not worried about Odor taking them away.  And, I don't think Elias or any of his staff make decisions out of "laziness."  You don't agree with them, I get it.  And, you're right, he's not a move that makes us substantially better or more expensive.  But, IMO, you toss around words like "lazy" and "stupid" way too often.

Mountcastle.

[Sports Guy]

I think Urias should be guaranteed at bats.  
 

I think both Mateo and Gutierrez shouldn’t be losing at bats to a guy like Odor.

Now, I do agree with Jammer that you give guys like that occasional days off. We all agree with that.

But I don’t buy that’s how Odor is used. 

[NCRaven]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Mountcastle.

True.  But I think he was speaking about the 2B/SS/3B mix.  Odor was never a threat to "take at bats" away from Mountcastle.

[emmett16]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m being rude because I’m pointing out that you could be a speech writer for him?  Lol

You are searching for reason to justify this team losing on purpose.  Your reasons are wrong.  None of that is reason to lose on purpose.  You do not have to lose on purpose for this amount of time to accomplish the goal of building a long term contender.

Nothing you hope to accomplish long term is going to happen because this team tanked for at least 4 years.

If they become a successful organization, people will point to the rebuild as to why..and that will all be fools for doing so.  This team is doing nothing by losing on purpose, outside of a few high picks (which may or may not pan out), that gives them an advantage over anyone else.  Many teams are doing the same thing and they are doing it while winning.

And yes, the Os had a long ways to go to build up analytics and international scouting, etc…but they don’t need to lose games on purpose to accomplish those things.  They can win games AND do those much needed things.  This isn’t an either/or situation and yet you and many others are seemingly treating it as such.

 So....after the rebuild if they become a successful organization, it will not be due to the rebuild?  Got it.  

 

You're obviously very knowledgeable and I enjoy your posts and very much appreciate the time you put into most of them, but I hope you realize that you contradict yourself seemingly every day with the sheer amount of quick reactionary comments that you write.  

 

 

[RZNJ]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

Seems like we have this conversation every other week, though in fairness there’s not much worth discussing during this dead period.   Having greater payroll flexibility helps.   Having higher draft picks helps.   And sure, you can build a good farm system without the super high picks, but it helps to have them, and the extra allotment of funds that can be spent on the draft.  

I don’t care very much how bad the team is when it’s bad.  I care about how good they’ll be when they’re good, and how long they’ll be able to stay good.   All that is to be determined.   
 

That last paragraph is point on.  Bravo!   Good luck with the brick wall.

[sportsfan8703]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think Urias should be guaranteed at bats.  
 

I think both Mateo and Gutierrez shouldn’t be losing at bats to a guy like Odor.

Now, I do agree with Jammer that you give guys like that occasional days off. We all agree with that.

But I don’t buy that’s how Odor is used. 

So if you think Urias should be guaranteed at bats, as do I, then what position are you in favor of signing?  The only player that potentially fits into what we’re doing is Josh Harrison for 3B. 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

So if you think Urias should be guaranteed at bats, as do I, then what position are you in favor of signing?  The only player that potentially fits into what we’re doing is Josh Harrison for 3B. 

I want a new left side of the IF, another starter and a solid back of the bullpen reliever.

If they make trades, like Mullins, add another OFer.

[Sports Guy]

3 hours ago, emmett16 said:

 So....after the rebuild if they become a successful organization, it will not be due to the rebuild?  Got it.  

 

You're obviously very knowledgeable and I enjoy your posts and very much appreciate the time you put into most of them, but I hope you realize that you contradict yourself seemingly every day with the sheer amount of quick reactionary comments that you write.  

 

 

I’m not contradicting myself at all.

There is nothing the organization is gaining long term, outside of a few early picks, that will be a result of losing on purpose.  
 

If you disagree with that, tell me where I’m incorrect.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not contradicting myself at all.

There is nothing the organization is gaining long term, outside of a few early picks, that will be a result of losing on purpose.  
 

If you disagree with that, tell me where I’m incorrect.

Keeping payroll low to increase profits.