Do you want anyone from the Marlins?

[Fan4Life]

Yep, it makes more sense to go after one of Beckett, Halladay, Lee, Vazquez, or Webb in the following off-season than it does Lackey this off-season. As you say, it's simply a matter of not basically wasting the first year of the players contract, which is theoretically supposed to be his best. We'll also have a better idea of team needs at that point and if going for it is even prudent.

It's a good plan IF all the pieces come together as you hope they will. If they don't, you'll be in agreement with those preaching not to touch Webb, Halliday etc etc... And if they do, having Lackey and perhaps one other TOR type pitcher onboard will only make us that much better.

[waroriole]

It's a good plan IF all the pieces come together as you hope they will. If they don't, you'll be in agreement with those preaching not to touch Webb, Halliday etc etc... And if they do, having Lackey and perhaps one other TOR type pitcher onboard will only make us that much better.

If those pieces don't come together, then getting Lackey will be a waste anyway. This way it buys us time to see if we are going to need to go after a SP

[incubus]

I concur with sports guy, we should get Lackey. We have plenty of money to spend this offseason, and having a proven 200+ip starter helps our team out tremendously. I would like to go into the season with 7 reliable starter candidates, not 5, the backups go to the pen.

I think people take too much of an optimistic view of pitching staffs. Remember, Bergesen is still in pain, even though doctors can't find a break. What if, heaven forbid, Bergesen's career is over? What if he never heals and cannot pitch again, but we go into spring training counting on him? We shouldn't have to count on any one pitcher having to make the rotation. Being successful is about planning for the unexpected.

[Fan4Life]

If those pieces don't come together, then getting Lackey will be a waste anyway. This way it buys us time to see if we are going to need to go after a SP

Well that's where you and the posters who support that position and I part ways. For me, 2010 is an extremely important year for this organization. In that regard it is necessary to field a team that will achieve .500 or better and preferably better. There needs to be some investments made this offseason to allow that to happen. We just disagree. AM has said that 2010 is important.. whether his version is similar to mine we'll find out.

[Sports Guy]

It's a good plan IF all the pieces come together as you hope they will. If they don't, you'll be in agreement with those preaching not to touch Webb, Halliday etc etc... And if they do, having Lackey and perhaps one other TOR type pitcher onboard will only make us that much better.

Plus, who is to say all of those guys will reach free agency? Who says they will be healthy?

What if next year, we win 72 games...When do you then spend the money?

Do you wait another year?

At what point do you say, well the talent is there, let's add it, start winning games and then see where we are at?

[Fan4Life]

Plus, who is to say all of those guys will reach free agency? Who says they will be healthy?

What if next year, we win 72 games...When do you then spend the money?

Do you wait another year?

At what point do you say, well the talent is there, let's add it, start winning games and then see where we are at?

Couldn't agree more. I am on your side of this equation. It's quite possible that AM makes a real effort to add the necessary pieces but comes up short. After all, there is a limit to how much I am willing to overpay.. in players or dollars. if that happens I can't fault AM and will just pray things don't' unravel into another cellar finishing year.

[waroriole]

Well that's where you and the posters who support that position and I part ways. For me, 2010 is an extremely important year for this organization. In that regard it is necessary to field a team that will achieve .500 or better and preferably better. There needs to be some investments made this offseason to allow that to happen. We just disagree. AM has said that 2010 is important.. whether his version is similar to mine we'll find out.

2010 is important to win. But, it's important to win b/c it will mean that alot of our young guys are ready to win, not b/c we overpaid for a SP who won't be worth what we pay him when we're ready to win.

[Fan4Life]

2010 is important to win. But, it's important to win b/c it will mean that alot of our young guys are ready to win, not b/c we overpaid for a SP who won't be worth what we pay him when we're ready to win.

In order for us to win, we need to add the very guy you don't want to add and yet still want to win. As I said... you and many others would be just as content next season going 70-92 as 85-78. Because to you, we're not going to contend so we're not investing heavily... I'm not onboard with that..

We're not going to find a middle ground. I respect your position, but don't agree with it.

[waroriole]

In order for us to win, we need to add the very guy you don't want to add and yet still want to win. As I said... you and many others would be just as content next season going 70-92 as 85-78. Because to you, we're not going to contend so we're not investing heavily... I'm not onboard with that..

We're not going to find a middle ground. I respect your position, but don't agree with it.

Lackey in the rotation over Hernandez isn't going to add you 15 wins. More like 5 tops.

[Sports Guy]

Lackey in the rotation over Hernandez isn't going to add you 15 wins. More like 5 tops.

Did he say it would?

[waroriole]

Did he say it would?

In order for us to win, we need to add the very guy you don't want to add and yet still want to win. As I said... you and many others would be just as content next season going 70-92 as 85-78. Because to you, we're not going to contend so we're not investing heavily... I'm not onboard with that..

We're not going to find a middle ground. I respect your position, but don't agree with it.

Not explicitly, but it was certainly implied in the bolded part.

[Sports Guy]

Not explicitly, but it was certainly implied in the bolded part.

Not really..His argument is wins matter next year and we need to add the proper talent to help us get the wins he feels he needs..He isn't saying that just adding Lackey means we win 15 more games...at least I hope he doesn't think that.

[waroriole]

Not really..His argument is wins matter next year and we need to add the proper talent to help us get the wins he feels he needs..He isn't saying that just adding Lackey means we win 15 more games...at least I hope he doesn't think that.

I guess I read it wrong then.

[Stotle]

I feel like my view, and others' similar views, is being misconstrued. The point isn't that I don't care if BAL wins. It's just that W/L is less important than correctly gauging player development and overall make-up of the team. The single most important accomplishment, for me, would be building a foundation that is flexible, talented, and allows you to compete for an extended period in the future, perhaps as early as 2010 or 2011 depending on how the pieces fall.

It's incorrect to say that I'm indifferent as to whether it is a 70 win season or an 85 win season. Of course I want an 85 win season. The question is whether or not it takes unnecessary risk and removal of future team flexibility to manufacture those 85 wins. The organization needs to start operating as if wins matter, but that doesn't mean the organization should throw prudence out the window in an all out ditch to tack on as may W's as possible, regardless of the future ripples it causes.

[Fan4Life]

I feel like my view, and others' similar views, is being misconstrued. The point isn't that I don't care if BAL wins. It's just that W/L is less important than correctly gauging player development and overall make-up of the team. The single most important accomplishment, for me, would be building a foundation that is flexible, talented, and allows you to compete for an extended period in the future, perhaps as early as 2010 or 2011 depending on how the pieces fall.

It's incorrect to say that I'm indifferent as to whether it is a 70 win season or an 85 win season. Of course I want an 85 win season. The question is whether or not it takes unnecessary risk and removal of future team flexibility to manufacture those 85 wins. The organization needs to start operating as if wins matter, but that doesn't mean the organization should throw prudence out the window in an all out ditch to tack on as may W's as possible, regardless of the future ripples it causes.

I'll apologize if I have mis-characterized your position. However I believe you are onboard with the idea of only making big splash investments when you are on the cusp of realizing the gain on that investment. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's a great approach to have to a point. The problem with it is you may never get to the cusp you are comfortable with to make the investments that will put you over the top. So there is also risk in not doing anything, or at least anything REAL. That risk is losing out on the production of your current primary assets while waiting for the stars to align.

So there is risk in both ideologies. For me, using your path gives greater risk to repeating a 2009 season in 2010. An injury, a guy or two don't improve at the rate you expected etc... So in that light, it gives me the impression that you can live better with a 70-92 season in 2010 than I can.

Obviously we both prefer an 85+ win season. The issue is what we think that kind of season is worth.