Halfway to 74 wins?

[Matt Bennett]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Interesting, I was told in the offseason that 60ish wins or 75 wins didn’t matter.  

Well, it's more fun to watch. That doesn't necessarily mean trading away prospects so a 65 win team can get to 75 wins is a good investment.

The team has taken a big step and I am expecting 1 or 2 splashy rotation upgrades this off-season. The time has come. 

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Interesting, I was told in the offseason that 60ish wins or 75 wins didn’t matter.  

It does and it doesn’t.  The goal is to be a playoff team, or at least be in the race until the very end.   If we are not in that category, then long term goals vastly outweigh short therm goals and we should not compromise the former to achieve the latter.    But there’s no denying the fact that a 70+ win team is more fun to watch than a team hovering around 50 wins.   It’s self-evident.  

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It does and it doesn’t.  The goal is to be a playoff team, or at least be in the race until the very end.   If we are not in that category, then long term goals vastly outweigh short therm goals and we should not compromise the former to achieve the latter.    But there’s no denying the fact that a 70+ win team is more fun to watch than a team hovering around 50 wins.   It’s self-evident.  

Well zero people wanted them to do anything that hurt the future of the team.

The argument was that there was no need to tank anymore and that there is value on having a better product on the field for fans to watch.

This year is proving that.  

[Aristotelian]

27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well zero people wanted them to do anything that hurt the future of the team.

The argument was that there was no need to tank anymore and that there is value on having a better product on the field for fans to watch.

This year is proving that.  

The argument was we needed some combination of Stroman/Bryant to do that. (FWIW I would have been totally on board with Stroman). This year is disproving that.

[oriole]

I’ll go with a cool 69 win prediction. It’s been fun, but I doubt they have another winning month in them. They’ve got a lot going against them from this point…

bullpen likely won’t stay this good 

Established players will be traded

Our only good starter, Wells, is on an innings limit and probably past halfway there. The rest of the rotation is about as “meh” as “meh” can be

A lot more games VS the AL East…despite what Dave Roberts thinks, this division is very obviously the best in baseball

 

 

[LTO's]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well zero people wanted them to do anything that hurt the future of the team.

The argument was that there was no need to tank anymore and that there is value on having a better product on the field for fans to watch.

This year is proving that.  

And yet this year they didn't do basically anything you suggested and are still having a better year. That seems to be the point you're missing. 

[Sports Guy]

37 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

The argument was we needed some combination of Stroman/Bryant to do that. (FWIW I would have been totally on board with Stroman). This year is disproving that.

No it’s not.  It’s showing that if we added better talent, brought Adley up last year and brought up GRod from day 1 that maybe we are in contention right now.  That would have been better than expected but instead of still battling for a top 8 pick, we could be battling for a WC spot.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

For perspective, getting to 82 wins would be an improvement of 30 games.  While not likely, it isn't impossible.  In 2008 the Rays, with ROY Evan Longoria, went from 66 wins to 97 wins before losing in the WS to the Phillies.  

I've looked into Great Leap Forward teams a number of times, and 30+ win improvements are very rare.  You could count them on your fingers, perhaps of one hand.  Even some teams with the miracle label didn't do that.  The 1914 Braves, the '91 Braves, the '12 Orioles and the '69 Mets all fell short.

Teams I know of with 30+ win jumps in a season include the '36 Braves/Bees, the '89 Orioles, the 1890 Louisville Colonels (who went from 27-111 to 88-44 in one year with the help of the Player's League coming into existence and stealing half the good players in the established AA and NL).

[Sports Guy]

31 minutes ago, LTO's said:

And yet this year they didn't do basically anything you suggested and are still having a better year. That seems to be the point you're missing. 

Not really.  I said consistently that I never felt they were as bad in 2021 as the record showed. That you could play that season again and the tens would have won more games.  I also said I could see them winning up to 68 games. (65 was my prediction)

So I expected a big improvement regardless.  I wanted this to be a better product overall though.  

 

[NCRaven]

Anything over 71 wins would mean a 20+ win improvement over last season and would thrill me.  The possible addition of young hitters would help our odds of maintaining a .500 pace in the second half.  The starting pitching could doom that effort.  The rest of this season could rest firmly in Matt Harvey’s right hand.  🫣

[Aristotelian]

29 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No it’s not.  It’s showing that if we added better talent, brought Adley up last year and brought up GRod from day 1 that maybe we are in contention right now.  That would have been better than expected but instead of still battling for a top 8 pick, we could be battling for a WC spot.  

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. We are still sub .500, negative run differential, and last place in the division. I agree there is an alternate reality where Elias takes a high risk approach going all in and it works out, but I think it's also fair to say his strategy is working and we are very well set up for the future. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. We are still sub .500, negative run differential, and last place in the division. I agree there is an alternate reality where Elias takes a high risk approach going all in and it works out, but I think it's also fair to say his strategy is working and we are very well set up for the future. 

Well, first of all, if you have a better rotation and left side of the IF, you are in far better shape.  Secondly, I’m not sure how you are defining going all in but I’m guessing you are defining it in a way no one was advocating.

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, first of all, if you have a better rotation and left side of the IF, you are in far better shape.  Secondly, I’m not sure how you are defining going all in but I’m guessing you are defining it in a way no one was advocating.

From what I remember your leading suggestions were Bryant (-0.3 WAR, .680 OPS) and Stroman (5.32 ERA, 0.1 WAR). I was hoping for Ray and Harrison. Trading Mullins may have worked out for pitching but we don't know what the OF would look like, offensively or defensively. With the progress of our infield prospects I am glad we didn't go for Correa. Like I said, I could see a scenario where it works out but I wouldn't say it was close to a sure thing, and I also think you could read the current season as vindication of Elias's long term strategy.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

From what I remember your leading suggestions were Bryant (-0.3 WAR, .680 OPS) and Stroman (5.32 ERA, 0.1 WAR). I was hoping for Ray and Harrison. Trading Mullins may have worked out for pitching but we don't know what the OF would look like, offensively or defensively. With the progress of our infield prospects I am glad we didn't go for Correa. Like I said, I could see a scenario where it works out but I wouldn't say it was close to a sure thing, and I also think you could read the current season as vindication of Elias's long term strategy.

Yea, those 2 were 2 of my suggestions although I would not have given him 7 or more years like the Rockies did.

I wanted Stroman and would still be happy with him.

This season has zero to do with his long term strategy. 

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, those 2 were 2 of my suggestions although I would not have given him 7 or more years like the Rockies did.

I wanted Stroman and would still be happy with him.

This season has zero to do with his long term strategy. 

How's DeJong doing?  You were big on him too right?