With the offseason essentially over...

[RShack]

I have missed it as well...

Right, you don't know anything about it.

From post #48:

my feelings aren't hurt. Get the facts right, that's all. So many people write opinions on here and think they are gospel. The facts are the facts. His ball isn't straight, that is nonsense. Ask Palmer the next time you talk to him, what Dennis' stuff is like. I already have. Dennis will be playing MLB this year. Why would my feelings be hurt?

So, here's a guy's Dad who just found out his son is getting cut from the team. Maybe he's being defensive, maybe he's being whatever, but his kid just lost his job. So, what do you say?

From post #59 on the same page:

Sarfate is nothing... A guy who can throw hard and nothing else.

[Frobby]

I have missed it as well...I have seen plenty of people cast their doubts about DH's ability to be a starter but haven't seen anyone really bashing them...at least to an extent of it being disrespectful.

I have certainly seen people, even myself, bashing orioole28 for the way he treats other posters because they feel DH is a BP pitcher...but that's not the same as bashing DH.

DH's father has always been a good poster and given us a very good updates and jumped into conversations with a lot more class than orioole28 did/does.

I didn't even know Sarfate's dad posted on here...What's his screen name?

I know Hobgood's dad posted on here.

I think it was Hobgood's uncle. You see more of this on the minors board. Spoone's mother occasionally posts an update, Snyder has a friend who posts from time to time. I'm sure there are a lot of friends or relatives who read the board even if they don't post.

Anyway, I don't want to make too much of this point. My first post on this subject was kind of a throwaway line.

[Sports Guy]

Concerning the nothing significant happening line, ok, but more happened with us than with most teams I think. Do you disagree?

Probably did more than a lot...but so what?(not trying to be ignorant but I just don't care about the other teams.

So to you the qualifications for getting better than a C are doing something significant for the long-term (or short-term if we're talking about a contender) and having it be a smart move(s). Is that correct?

No, that's just part of it...its just the part that people have become obsessed with.

As I said in one of my opening posts...I think he did a poor job of who he signed compared to who was out there..Also, losign at bats for Pie...which is something I know you agree with.

[hoosiers]

I must say, I am very surprised that 70-ish% of the people on here give this offseason a B or better...To mean, that means offseason that is better than average or even superb. I just don't see that.

I don't think that % is out of line with the consensus from the many articles in the national media regarding our future. I've seen very few articles (can't recall one actually) complaining that we should have made a stronger effort to move prospects.

AM has a plan (a widely praised plan) and he continued to execute it this offseason - not sure why this necessitates a poor or average grade.

The final word on the offseason will probably be based on:

- the results in production and, hopefully trade or draft picks, of Millwood, Tejada, Atkins and MGon

- the value of Scott and Guts

- the at-bats received by Pie, Snyder and Bell

- the development of Britton, Bell, DH, Mickolio, LeBron, Snyder and others

We'll know the answer to the above in less than a year.

[Stotle]

Well I didn't quite give it a B, but I'll ask you what I asked Stotle and see if I can get a response from at least one of you. I'll just paste what I said to him, so it may not totally match what I'd say to you, but you get the idea.

Concerning the nothing significant happening line, ok, but more happened with us than with most teams I think. Do you disagree?

So to you the qualifications for getting better than a C are doing something significant for the long-term (or short-term if we're talking about a contender) and having it be a smart move(s). Is that correct?

If that's the qualifications, I'd be interested to know how many teams meet those standards. Something tells me it would be less than half the teams, and likely not close. So in that case, your definition of average would be different than the reality of things.

Sorry - came back to thread and a bunch of new posts. Must have missed this. I respond when I'm back at my desk (in a meeting).

[Sports Guy]

deleted...not putting the board through this...Suffice it to say, its a real shame I can't say what i want to say.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I gave him a C. I really wish he would have traded Scott but the simple fact is, we don't know what proposals were/were not made.

If a great offer for Scott was on the table and he didn't take it, that would lower his grade. If the best offer for Scott was a bag of balls and he said no, that's fine, too.

The fundamental flaw with this poll is that I'd reckon we know about 10% of what really went on this off-season. GMs (especially ones like AM) play things close to the vest for a reason.

[mweb]

Probably did more than a lot...but so what?(not trying to be ignorant but I just don't care about the other teams.

No, that's just part of it...its just the part that people have become obsessed with.

As I said in one of my opening posts...I think he did a poor job of who he signed compared to who was out there..Also, losign at bats for Pie...which is something I know you agree with.

Than you have no basis for saying what's above or below average in terms of what a team does each off-season.

You're just going off what you wanted, not an average, which is fine. But I wouldn't use the word average in that case.

I'm not even sure that C really represents average in this case or in school for that matter. I think most look at a D as really bad, and there's only one option between that and a C, while there are 3-4 options between a C and what most would consider really good (B+ or A). So consider that as well.

I know that was just part of it, that was directed at Stotle as I said. I do agree with what you say in the last paragraph, that's mainly why I gave him a C+ instead of a B+ or so.

[mweb]

Sorry - came back to thread and a bunch of new posts. Must have missed this. I respond when I'm back at my desk (in a meeting).

No problem at all, I just brought it up since it applied to what SG said.

[Sports Guy]

I gave him a C. I really wish he would have traded Scott but the simple fact is, we don't know what proposals were/were not made.

If a great offer for Scott was on the table and he didn't take it, that would lower his grade. If the best offer for Scott was a bag of balls and he said no, that's fine, too.

The fundamental flaw with this poll is that I'd reckon we know about 10% of what really went on this off-season. GMs (especially ones like AM) play things close to the vest for a reason.

And that's fine...I wouldn't give him more than C- for what we do know.

[Stotle]

Concerning the nothing significant happening line, ok, but more happened with us than with most teams I think. Do you disagree?

No, I do not disagree. But I would generally think most teams' off-seasons would rate as around average © as a rule.

So to you the qualifications for getting better than a C are doing something significant for the long-term (or short-term if we're talking about a contender) and having it be a smart move(s). Is that correct?

"Smart" is relative, as is "significant". To get better than an average grading for an off-season I would want to see something that sets a GM apart from an averag GM. It could be a seemingly low impact move with high future upside (but relatively little chance of reaching that upside). I think what BOS did focusing on defense and pitching was interesting and creative (though it also included getting impact players, so probably doesn't qualify). DET getting Scherzer and A-Jax was an interesting solution to clearing some future payroll with Granderson and E. Jackson (I think they got younger and cheaper without getting substantively worse on the talent side -- they also added Schlereth, right?). It doesn't have to be earth shattering, but something that indicates the GM is operating outside of his own sphere (isolated, low-risk/low-reward FA signings, etc.).

Now, as I've said I thnk Millwood was a creative move and bumps the off-season above a C (for me) to a C+/B-, even. But other moves (Atkins/ Gonzalez, failure to touch on the international market/DPL) were enough to bring it back down to a C (C- for me, since I heavily preferred a Rodney/Capps and a draft pick and nothing to Atkins).

If that's the qualifications, I'd be interested to know how many teams meet those standards. Something tells me it would be less than half the teams, and likely not close. So in that case, your definition of average would be different than the reality of things.

I think average would be treading water. I think that is what most teams did. I think teams that had legit A/B off-seasons are pretty limited (probably less than 5-7). Teams that had true D/F off-seasons are equally limited (probably less than 5) and the vast majority falls in the treading water/slightly above or below C-/C/C+ level.

[mweb]

No, I do not disagree. But I would generally think most teams' off-seasons would rate as around average © as a rule.

"Smart" is relative, as is "significant". To get better than an average grading for an off-season I would want to see something that sets a GM apart from an averag GM. It could be a seemingly low impact move with high future upside (but relatively little chance of reaching that upside). I think what BOS did focusing on defense and pitching was interesting and creative (though it also included getting impact players, so probably doesn't qualify). DET getting Scherzer and A-Jax was an interesting solution to clearing some future payroll with Granderson and E. Jackson (I think they got younger and cheaper without getting substantively worse on the talent side -- they also added Schlereth, right?). It doesn't have to be earth shattering, but something that indicates the GM is operating outside of his own sphere (isolated, low-risk/low-reward FA signings, etc.).

Now, as I've said I thnk Millwood was a creative move and bumps the off-season above a C (for me) to a C+/B-, even. But other moves (Atkins/ Gonzalez, failure to touch on the international market/DPL) were enough to bring it back down to a C (C- for me, since I heavily preferred a Rodney/Capps and a draft pick and nothing to Atkins).

I think average would be treading water. I think that is what most teams did. I think teams that had legit A/B off-seasons are pretty limited (probably less than 5-7). Teams that had true D/F off-seasons are equally limited (probably less than 5) and the vast majority falls in the treading water/slightly above or below C-/C/C+ level.

I'm fine with that for the most part. However, as I said in my most recent post, I don't think a C is really average. If you look at the options, there are 6 grades above a C and only 3 below it, and that's with the exculusion of an A-. So it really should be 7 grades above a C and 3 below it. Not really average.

But of course I understand that a C is generally considered average, but when grading systems include plusses and minuses except for D's and F's, then average is more like a B-. Calling a C average in school is more or less a way of being nice imo.

Semantics I know, but I feel it's worth mentioning.

[Stotle]

I'm fine with that for the most part. However, as I said in my most recent post, I don't think a C is really average. If you look at the options, there are 6 grades above a C and only 3 below it, and that's with the exculusion of an A-. So it really should be 7 grades above a C and 3 below it. Not really average.

But of course I understand that a C is generally considered average, but when grading systems include plusses and minuses except for D's and F's, then average is more like a B-. Calling a C average in school is more or less a way of being nice imo.

Semantics I know, but I feel it's worth mentioning.

I think grade distributions treat C as average except in cases where a B- is treated as such. At least, that's what law schools do.

[mweb]

I think grade distributions treat C as average except in cases where a B- is treated as such. At least, that's what law schools do.

I'm not really sure what that means, but ok.

What I'm saying is not what is generally called or treated average, but what is truely average. In a grading system like I mentioned, a C is below average if we just consider the possible grades. I'd also venture to guess that in most decent schools, people average better than a C. I don't think many would call a 2.0 an average grade point average.

[Stotle]

I'm not really sure what that means, but ok.

What I'm saying is not what is generally called or treated average, but what is truely average. In a grading system like I mentioned, a C is below average if we just consider the possible grades. I'd also venture to guess that in most decent schools, people average better than a C. I don't think many would call a 2.0 an average grade point average.

A 2.0 is absolutely average.

A - 4

B - 3

C - 2

D - 1

F - 0

It's exactly one half of the possible points. Whether that grade is considered acceptable may be open to interpretation, but a straight curve grading system is a bell with the widest distribution at C. The reason people at decent schools average better than a C is that the bell curve is shifted up to facilitate a higher number of people passing/getting good grades. Law schools do it to help their students' transcripts look better during interviews (truth).

Doesn't it make intuitive sense that a fair amount above adequate (B-/B) is considered acceptable for most? I don't understand what you are trying to do with a traditional grade scale.