OT: Raise the Jolly Roger: Draft Day!

[DJ Spinoza]

I'm not sure I follow why we should reject the idea of a strawman simply out of hand? It's definitely a strawman argument if you are trying to say that signing a veteran pitcher somehow means abandoning the rebuild. Actually abandoning the rebuild would be something more along the lines of saying that we should start trading prospects in order to acquire MLB talent.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why it makes sense for BC to basically sit on his hands. There's nothing left to trade that will help out, and the depth is razor thin with a clear gap in when the strongest talent in the system will arrive. They should explore signing a couple of players at key positions of weakness in order to prevent the bottom from totally falling out on May 1st. At bare minimum they are going to need veteran pitching for the rotation and it's not a bad idea to get somebody for the bullpen too. The fact that this seems to be contentious is pretty bizarre to me -- I can at least sort of see some reasoning behind not wanting to pursue a starting position player, but it's a moot point to argue about it because they will not do it anyways.

They are going to try to thread the needle by identifying next year's version of Anderson and continuing to rotate through castoff players, and people are probably going to eat it up because BC is totally venerated right now. The better option is to look for some modest improvements that actually entail spending a little bit of money, giving the MLB team a fighting chance as the very wave of prospects presses down on it. It's wasting time to shoot for a repeat of 2021 with more luck.


edit: took something polemic out because I am not trying to fan the flames here -- genuinely a little perplexed at how much this has turned into a big debate

 

[MrBrightside]

edit: took something polemic out because I am not trying to fan the flames here -- genuinely a little perplexed at how much this has turned into a big debate

I'm likewise absolutely baffled why anyone is resistant to upgrading the major league roster unless you're trading away future assets or blocking promising players, neither of which signing a couple of veteran quality SP/RP would do. The only thing that suffers in that situation is the amount of money devoted to payroll and maybe some draft position...the former is nothing anyone should be opposed to and the latter doesn't matter enough to justify tanking.

 

[DJ Spinoza]

Maybe instead of abstractly saying that we should spend xyz, the better framework is that we should be willing to spend what we need to in order to get some veteran innings coverage, including upside. RP additions are run of the mill every offseason, but it would be better to pay for the sure thing rather than go the cheap/minor-league wait and see option, since it is a certainty that veteran, dependable RPs can be flipped at the deadline.

With pitching, BC and the staff did very well to identify Anderson, and if they can do that again, that's great. Cahill didn't really work out but was brought in simply to pitch 100 innings or so which was necessary for a young staff. I'd like to aim higher than both (though realistically, even just spending a modest amount of money on Anderson for a couple of years would be a fine stopgap). Andrew Heaney is a good example of someone who would be looking for a bounceback contract if he continues struggling, and there's no risk in trying him for a year, and very good upside if you hit it right.

I think sometimes with free agents, there's a tendency to focus too much on them vs. someone else, but I really see the work that needs done to be aiming for more of a cumulative effect than anything else. The depth is bad and not likely to be supplemented with prospects just yet. AAAA dumpster diving only goes so far. Getting some veteran stability gives you some more space for the young players to step up and slowly acclimate themselves to MLB without the whole thing crumbling down around them -- even though that happened a lot this year, Anderson was a godsend in that regard.

My very optimistic take is that there are enough bright spots and possibilities that a bolstered team might be able to take a pretty significant step forward. A dependable SP + RP, as well as a decent bat in the lineup to help compliment, would at least go a long way towards preventing the kinds of massive slides that this current team has gone on. Beyond that, the question is what kinds of improvements and internal additions happen, but I don't really see how at least trying for the former is going to stand in the way of the latter.

Overall, I think that being too passive and static is a very bad thing in MLB. The strip down, gather talent stage has mostly been completed, and now the task is to rebuild at the MLB level while also continuing to gather new talent and develop the talent that you have. Spending modestly in free agency when it's possible needs to be part of the equation. If there's really nothing there that can be "risked" on a one year deal or one year + option deal, then I can see the argument to sit and wait on the core a little bit. No need to aggressively pursue 3-4 year deals just yet. But unless we're stripping MLB costs as much as possible to then try and make an actually big splash in another offseason or two (LOL), I don't think BC/Nutting should be given a pass to run a 40M payroll in 2022.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Nobody is saying that spending x/y/z on a few lower tier FA's is abandoning the rebuild. Not at all.

I for one, am simply stating that spending money at the MLB level, on sub-optimal dart throws, is a fools errand, given the financial factors/restrictions one must take into consideration for this franchise.

But if we're doing the dart throw game at the MLB level, simply to inflate our win total by single digits, why not play any number of the following in 2022, who are far cheaper than a FA, and already on the roster, likely taking up a 40 man spot currently that we'd then waste on an outside player, not exactly logical given how deep our system is (meaning we need space to protect our best prospects)

Marcano (takes over the Newman role, hopefully better of course)
Chavis (as a right handed bat, start him off in a platoon with Moran at 1B and he can give you starts at 2B/3B as well so numerous ways to get him looks)

We're going to get a better, longer look at Castro and Park, players who weren't on the MLB roster for the first half of the season and seem to at least possess some modicum of value. Certainly no worse than Newman or Polanco who are verifiable negative WAR outputs.

We have to consider that players like Cal Mitchell and Oneil Cruz are legit possibilities by summer of next year. Maybe Swaggerty if he is healthy by next March and gets off to a nice start in AAA. What if Matt Fraizer continues to rake the rest of this year in AA and then goes off next spring there or Indy? How aggressive will they be w/him. He obviously possess a legit ceiling.

Like I said, Yajure, projects as a better P than anything you'll find on the FA market for the amount being thrown around. Barring a setback, you can pencil him on the opening day roster. Contreras, same story, only amplified though his arrival will probably be summer. Maybe you end up with another Tyler Anderson. That's about the logical, best case scenario. Most likely that is going to be a 1 or 2 year deal and doesn't help us in the actual window of winning, while only providing real value if you can flip that player at the deadline. Which is just as big a gamble as banking on prospects. The difference is going w/in house options doesn't cost nearly as much. And it has the benefit of actually providing data on how we're developing players under the new regime.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Nobody is saying that spending x/y/z on a few lower tier FA's is abandoning the rebuild. Not at all.

I for one, am simply stating that spending money at the MLB level, on sub-optimal dart throws, is a fools errand, given the financial factors/restrictions one must take into consideration for this franchise.

But if we're doing the dart throw game at the MLB level, simply to inflate our win total by single digits, why not play any number of the following in 2022, who are far cheaper than a FA, and already on the roster, likely taking up a 40 man spot currently that we'd then waste on an outside player, not exactly logical given how deep our system is (meaning we need space to protect our best prospects)

Marcano (takes over the Newman role, hopefully better of course)
Chavis (as a right handed bat, start him off in a platoon with Moran at 1B and he can give you starts at 2B/3B as well so numerous ways to get him looks)

We're going to get a better, longer look at Castro and Park, players who weren't on the MLB roster for the first half of the season and seem to at least possess some modicum of value. Certainly no worse than Newman or Polanco who are verifiable negative WAR outputs.

We have to consider that players like Cal Mitchell and Oneil Cruz are legit possibilities by summer of next year. Maybe Swaggerty if he is healthy by next March and gets off to a nice start in AAA. What if Matt Fraizer continues to rake the rest of this year in AA and then goes off next spring there or Indy? How aggressive will they be w/him. He obviously possess a legit ceiling.

Like I said, Yajure, projects as a better P than anything you'll find on the FA market for the amount being thrown around. Barring a setback, you can pencil him on the opening day roster. Contreras, same story, only amplified though his arrival will probably be summer. Maybe you end up with another Tyler Anderson. That's about the logical, best case scenario. Most likely that is going to be a 1 or 2 year deal and doesn't help us in the actual window of winning, while only providing real value if you can flip that player at the deadline. Which is just as big a gamble as banking on prospects. The difference is going w/in house options doesn't cost nearly as much. And it has the benefit of actually providing data on how we're developing players under the new regime.

I think it comes down to how the budgets are really set.

In an idealistic world, before the start of the 2021 season Nutting sits down with Cherington and Williams and says - "okay over a 5 year time horizon you have $550M to spend on all baseball ops, including minor league players and draft bonuses etc. We'll discount future spending at 5% annually." (e.g., $1M spent in 2021 = $1.05M spent in 2022) There have been vague indications that conversations like this have gone on.

A lot of businesses instead approach spending - and I imagine Bob Nutting mostly operates this way - with players as a "cost center" and Nutting looking to minimize cost % of revenue (last year's revenue) and not change too much year-to-year. I can't tell you how many business discussions start with "well, whatdidja spend last year?"

So if hypothetically the 2023 team looked like it was ready to shock contend - I"m not ruling this out yet - but we only spent $60M on payroll in 2022 I don't see Nutting going up to $100M or $110M in 2023 even though that still puts us in the bottom quartile of all of baseball. Even if Ben said "well, you promised me that whatever I saved in '21 and '22 I'd get to reinvest..." Nutting could handwave it away or make vague future promises about it.

I hope I'm wrong but now having seen how corporate budgets are set I'm worried about running too low of a payroll in 2022. Plus frankly I want to see if Cherington can evaluate talent worth a damn at the MLB level. The jury is very much out there.

 

[MrBrightside]

Nobody is saying that spending x/y/z on a few lower tier FA's is abandoning the rebuild. Not at all.

I for one, am simply stating that spending money at the MLB level, on sub-optimal dart throws, is a fools errand, given the financial factors/restrictions one must take into consideration for this franchise.

But if we're doing the dart throw game at the MLB level, simply to inflate our win total by single digits, why not play any number of the following in 2022, who are far cheaper than a FA, and already on the roster, likely taking up a 40 man spot currently that we'd then waste on an outside player, not exactly logical given how deep our system is (meaning we need space to protect our best prospects)

Marcano (takes over the Newman role, hopefully better of course)
Chavis (as a right handed bat, start him off in a platoon with Moran at 1B and he can give you starts at 2B/3B as well so numerous ways to get him looks)

We're going to get a better, longer look at Castro and Park, players who weren't on the MLB roster for the first half of the season and seem to at least possess some modicum of value. Certainly no worse than Newman or Polanco who are verifiable negative WAR outputs.

We have to consider that players like Cal Mitchell and Oneil Cruz are legit possibilities by summer of next year. Maybe Swaggerty if he is healthy by next March and gets off to a nice start in AAA. What if Matt Fraizer continues to rake the rest of this year in AA and then goes off next spring there or Indy? How aggressive will they be w/him. He obviously possess a legit ceiling.

Like I said, Yajure, projects as a better P than anything you'll find on the FA market for the amount being thrown around. Barring a setback, you can pencil him on the opening day roster. Contreras, same story, only amplified though his arrival will probably be summer. Maybe you end up with another Tyler Anderson. That's about the logical, best case scenario. Most likely that is going to be a 1 or 2 year deal and doesn't help us in the actual window of winning, while only providing real value if you can flip that player at the deadline. Which is just as big a gamble as banking on prospects. The difference is going w/in house options doesn't cost nearly as much. And it has the benefit of actually providing data on how we're developing players under the new regime.

Well, if it's your position that we shouldn't add at the major league level because you'd block Cal Mitchell or Matt Frazier or Michael Chavis, your level of absolute blind optimism about the upside of the players in the system is beyond any reasonable extrapolation.

Travis Swaggerty has had 41 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball. O'Neill Cruz has 190 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball and, oh yeah, HAS NEVER PLAYED THE OF, yet you're actually projecting them as real possibilities for the ML OF early next season. Nothing about Cal Mitchell's performance this year remotely suggests he can be a productive major leaguer next year. Contreras has thrown 46 innings above LOW A-ball. Frazier has 26 AB's above A-ball.

I mean, come on. These may or may not be viable future projections, but they sure as hell aren't viable future projections for 2022.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Well, if it's your position that we shouldn't add at the major league level because you'd block Cal Mitchell or Matt Frazier or Michael Chavis, your level of absolute blind optimism about the upside of the players in the system is beyond any reasonable extrapolation.

Travis Swaggerty has had 41 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball. O'Neill Cruz has 190 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball and, oh yeah, HAS NEVER PLAYED THE OF, yet you're actually projecting them as real possibilities for the ML OF early next season. Nothing about Cal Mitchell's performance this year remotely suggests he can be a productive major leaguer next year. Contreras has thrown 46 innings above LOW A-ball.

I mean, come on. These may or may not be viable future projections, but they sure as hell aren't viable future projections for 2022.

I think there is an adequate volume of intriguing position players that we need to see at the ML level to where it doesn't make much sense to add people there. Even if Cal Mitchell individually making it is a very far-fetched position.

For pitching though? I mean Brubaker is turning into an overtaxed pumpkin, Kuhl/Brault are questions marks in every way, Yajure's health is questionable, Keller is 2 years from Korea and Wilson looks good but who knows yet. That's before even mentioning the bullpen which is atrocious, and where the only help might be Crowe moving there and having his stuff play up.

It should be pretty uncontroversial to just spend $20M on outside pitching, run a $65M payroll, go 72-90 but make the team more watchable for fans in the meantime. There isn't enough internal pitching to block to dissuade me of this.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well, if it's your position that we shouldn't add at the major league level because you'd block Cal Mitchell or Matt Frazier or Michael Chavis, your level of absolute blind optimism about the upside of the players in the system is beyond any reasonable extrapolation.

Travis Swaggerty has had 41 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball. O'Neill Cruz has 190 AB's since 2019 and the same number of AB's above A-ball and, oh yeah, HAS NEVER PLAYED THE OF, yet you're actually projecting them as real possibilities for the ML OF early next season. Nothing about Cal Mitchell's performance this year remotely suggests he can be a productive major leaguer next year. Contreras has thrown 46 innings above LOW A-ball.

I mean, come on. These may or may not be viable future projections, but they sure as hell aren't viable future projections for 2022.

You are operating with an archaic mindset on how much time a player needs to be MLB ready. One of the biggest flaws of the last regime (beyond the utter incompetence) was their snail like pace in moving people through the minor league system. We're already seeing a drastic change in how Cherington has his people running said minor league system. If you think that guys already in AAA/AA ball can't help the MLB team a year from now (meaning next summer), then there is nothing else to debate other than me not wanting to watch some re-tread try and rehab his value when we could be watching young players who were actually home-grown.

Development isn't a one size fit all game. Players come out of nowhere all time time as we've seen already this year. Players who aren't even on the damn radar from a prospecting standpoint.

Again, you also fail to touch on my counter argument that signing mediocre FA's is absolutely not going to move the needle in terms of winning. You're not going to go from 60 wins to 80 wins by signing a Tyler Anderson and Mike Conforto (he's not coming here anyway) talent. Just will not happen. And even IF you somehow managed to hit on 2-3 lower end FA's, and the win total managed to climb into the 70's, you're still going home in September. Sorry, no playoffs. Have fun drafting 16th with millions less to play with than you'd have if you pick in the top 5.

You develop the best system in baseball. You start to win. THEN you spend at the ML level. If you disagree, no biggie.

Lastly, I've repeatedly said a bunch of the names posted above won't be MLB difference makers. The point is, one, we have the deepest system in the league which logically means some prospects will hit, and two, the only way you find out if a player is MLB capable is giving them a chance at the MLB level, unless of course they peter out before reaching that peak, which clearly does happen, and will happen. I'm not going to repeat this again even if you (or anyone else) fails basic reading comprehension.

 

[MrBrightside]

I'm not going to repeat this again even if you (or anyone else) fails basic reading comprehension.

You must be a hit at parties.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Again, you also fail to touch on my counter argument that signing mediocre FA's is absolutely not going to move the needle in terms of winning. You're not going to go from 60 wins to 80 wins by signing a Tyler Anderson and Mike Conforto (he's not coming here anyway) talent. Just will not happen. And even IF you somehow managed to hit on 2-3 lower end FA's, and the win total managed to climb into the 70's, you're still going home in September. Sorry, no playoffs. Have fun drafting 16th with millions less to play with than you'd have if you pick in the top 5.

I want the team to be watchable and don't really care about the 2023 draft pool. I have no illusions that Anderson/Anderson+/Shreve/Shreve+ make us contenders but I'd settle for watchability. In August we are no longer watchable and that is tough to stomach.

I don't really know why this is controversial. We'll still have a bottom barrel payroll.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Guys, we have a great thread, please keep the convo respectful.

 

[Gallatin]

That is another giant caveat to talking about anything for this offseason. I haven't seen anything other than vague speculation of a work stoppage. We'll see -- there is a lot more to potentially have grievances about this time, but it's also the case that MLB basically prints money for everybody involved.

There should be some kind of inventive put in place in order to force teams to promote players and not mess with service time when they are ready. The players' side always only has nominal interest in defending younger guys, but it's in the interest of all players to get that resolved, since effectively what is happening is that teams are stealing the prime years of players at bare minimum prices, and in almost every case manipulating service clocks. With the exception of major international phenoms who reach MLB very quickly, what ends up happening is that players don't hit UFA until they are close to 30 and teams refuse to give them a big payday.

Players should be hitting free agency faster and I also think teams should be forced to spend more. This will put me in the minority of the thread I think, but while it's true that the Dodgers can spend like bonkers in all facets of the game, there is also no real excuse for the barebones payrolls that we run and other teams run. A salary cap and floor won't do much other than further compress the wages of the players, IMO. There's already basically a cap with the luxury tax, and I'd like to see some kind of coercion to prevent taking/mailing it in at the MLB level. A team like the Brewers is a small market team who built up a strong drafting and development process and has managed to at least spend a reasonable payroll to continue to be a solid team.

Man if you don't think MLB needs a salary cap.... We must live in different universes. Yep - different universes bro.

 

[Gallatin]

1. Please refrain from using the tired strawman word. It was not applicable and is one of the most overused/misused terms in the f***ing English language. Has only sprung to prominence the past 10 odd years, mainly from academia, but I digress. There is too much material based in logic and financial certainty, based on history, to call anything I'm saying a strawman.

2. No I have not and given you are able to shape a sentence to an acceptable level in the English language, know I didn't say that in the post you quoted.

Most prospects don't make it. Literally said that in parts of the post above, and numerous other times as well. I'm almost 40. This isn't my first rodeo with this franchise and I certainly understand how economics work in the current structure of MLB, of which we are in worse position than all but a few teams in the entire league, which is an absolute fact. Now we can debate how unfair the system is, and it is that, for obvious reasons (big market teams like NY and LA don't want competition, just like people in power in business and politics) but this is not a franchise that has the resources to waste on middling FA's which is exactly what you're going to get 8-9 times out of 10 if you're only willing to fork over a few million here and there.

You can't sit there and type away that I'm operating with rose colored glasses and then advocate the team wasting 15-20 million over 2 years on a P, 5 million on an OF, another 5 million somewhere else, in hopes the player, on a contract that won't even keep them here through the next window, will be trade chips or push this team into winning territory (which is 82 games). This team is 100+ losses bad right now. Spending money on castoffs. hopes and dreams is bad business. Sure, you'll hit on a Liriano once in a blue moon but more often than not, it doesn't work that way.

And the difference between THAT and what I would do and hope Ben does, is if we're going to lose in the short term (we are) we should be getting the young players who could potentially help (Park, Castro, Marcano, Chavis of guys that are in MLB/AAA now) playing time. Why are we signing people that will almost surely block those types from getting more looks?

No FA you sign will push this team from 60 some odd wins to 80+. That's a massive ask from low end FA's which is exactly what you're buying at the prices being thrown out.

There is clearly a fundamental difference in how we're looking at the short term. You think that a few low end/modest FA's will push this team into more wins. Even IF that happens, a few more wins does nothing to transform us into a playoff team and going from 60-65 wins to 65-70. It does nothing other than give you a worse draft pick and less bonus pool money, which by the way is where a team like ours is always going to make the most headway in trying to compete. That and development of said draftees.

You spend money at the FA level, in a market like Pittsburgh, when the prospects you've accumulated, mature. The deeper the system, the more ammo you then have to play with when it comes time to add in June/July during a window in which a team is contending. And given the depth of our system, as I've outlined, will produce good and even a few great ML ballplayers. Many won't pan out but when you're pulling from a few dozen legitimate prospects between A-AAA, the reasonable expectation is that 1-2 will be become AS caliber players, a few more will become solid contributors and a bunch will flame out.

We're going to get a slew of talent in the draft again next year. It's up to Cherington's people to train and develop the many great to solid players we've added over the last 18 months. The foundation is absolutely present. The system is loaded. Stay patient. Don't waste resources on people who won't move the needle that much.

This man speaks for me.

Although I don't have any trouble with the idea of signing bottom basement value free agent pitchers - like usual.

 

[MrBrightside]

This man speaks for me.

Although I don't have any trouble with the idea of signing bottom basement value free agent pitchers - like usual.

So you’re cool with signing cheap and likely bad pitchers but you are opposed to signing more costly and possibly good pitchers.

The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Guys, we have a great thread, please keep the convo respectful.

I feel like all we need is a Bucco win or a stellar performance from one of our MILB pitchers to tide us over.

The future is bright but whether we need to endure this type of week all next year to get us there...it's worth discussing.

 

[Gallatin]

.

Either way by the 2nd half of next year the team must be markedly better as some of the top guys come up from the farm.

There you go again declaring definitives about something far from it. We don't even know if their going to be playing in May. And why must they be "markedly better" when the real prospects start getting called up? That's what the prospects are for - to make us better.

But 1st - they're likely to scuffle and struggle learning the MLB game. 2024 is when we start winning, anything before then is straight up luck IMO.

 

[Gallatin]

I think it comes down to how the budgets are really set.

In an idealistic world, before the start of the 2021 season Nutting sits down with Cherington and Williams and says - "okay over a 5 year time horizon you have $550M to spend on all baseball ops, including minor league players and draft bonuses etc. We'll discount future spending at 5% annually." (e.g., $1M spent in 2021 = $1.05M spent in 2022) There have been vague indications that conversations like this have gone on.

A lot of businesses instead approach spending - and I imagine Bob Nutting mostly operates this way - with players as a "cost center" and Nutting looking to minimize cost % of revenue (last year's revenue) and not change too much year-to-year. I can't tell you how many business discussions start with "well, whatdidja spend last year?"

So if hypothetically the 2023 team looked like it was ready to shock contend - I"m not ruling this out yet - but we only spent $60M on payroll in 2022 I don't see Nutting going up to $100M or $110M in 2023 even though that still puts us in the bottom quartile of all of baseball. Even if Ben said "well, you promised me that whatever I saved in '21 and '22 I'd get to reinvest..." Nutting could handwave it away or make vague future promises about it.

I hope I'm wrong but now having seen how corporate budgets are set I'm worried about running too low of a payroll in 2022. Plus frankly I want to see if Cherington can evaluate talent worth a damn at the MLB level. The jury is very much out there.

Now you're speaking my language. I see some interesting logic at play here. See better where your coming from. Still guessing - but I get it.

 

[Gallatin]

You are operating with an archaic mindset on how much time a player needs to be MLB ready. One of the biggest flaws of the last regime (beyond the utter incompetence) was their snail like pace in moving people through the minor league system. We're already seeing a drastic change in how Cherington has his people running said minor league system. If you think that guys already in AAA/AA ball can't help the MLB team a year from now (meaning next summer), then there is nothing else to debate other than me not wanting to watch some re-tread try and rehab his value when we could be watching young players who were actually home-grown.

Development isn't a one size fit all game. Players come out of nowhere all time time as we've seen already this year. Players who aren't even on the damn radar from a prospecting standpoint.

Again, you also fail to touch on my counter argument that signing mediocre FA's is absolutely not going to move the needle in terms of winning. You're not going to go from 60 wins to 80 wins by signing a Tyler Anderson and Mike Conforto (he's not coming here anyway) talent. Just will not happen. And even IF you somehow managed to hit on 2-3 lower end FA's, and the win total managed to climb into the 70's, you're still going home in September. Sorry, no playoffs. Have fun drafting 16th with millions less to play with than you'd have if you pick in the top 5.

You develop the best system in baseball. You start to win. THEN you spend at the ML level. If you disagree, no biggie.

Lastly, I've repeatedly said a bunch of the names posted above won't be MLB difference makers. The point is, one, we have the deepest system in the league which logically means some prospects will hit, and two, the only way you find out if a player is MLB capable is giving them a chance at the MLB level, unless of course they peter out before reaching that peak, which clearly does happen, and will happen. I'm not going to repeat this again even if you (or anyone else) fails basic reading comprehension.

This man continues to speak for me.

Well said bro.

 

[Gallatin]

I want the team to be watchable and don't really care about the 2023 draft pool. I have no illusions that Anderson/Anderson+/Shreve/Shreve+ make us contenders but I'd settle for watchability. In August we are no longer watchable and that is tough to stomach.

I don't really know why this is controversial. We'll still have a bottom barrel payroll.

I don't care about "watchability" right now, as we are approaching the low point of the cycle. I want a great team developed here, and I'm willing to stay focused on the Organization as opposed to the MLB club for a couple more years as long as I have faith in management.

 

[Gallatin]

So you’re cool with signing cheap and likely bad pitchers but you are opposed to signing more costly and possibly good pitchers.

The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well.

No not at all. I'm wanting those signings when there's a core to build around. Right now that core is in AA & A-ball.

 

[Gallatin]

I feel like all we need is a Bucco win or a stellar performance from one of our MILB pitchers to tide us over.

The future is bright but whether we need to endure this type of week all next year to get us there...it's worth discussing.

Spend that Big Club focus on the Minors right now Doc. You'll be a happier man for it.

 

[DJ Spinoza]

Priester having maybe his strongest start all year tonight. Stuff is really sharp, scattered 5 hits through 6 so far, and 9 Ks, including an immaculate innings just now.

Only at 71 pitches through 6 IP, so could easily get at least one more, but we'll see. No Davis in the lineup which I guess isn't shocking but is still a little disappointing given that there's a DH option.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Priester having his best game of the night. He's missing bats with really nice breaking stuff that seems to be hitting the target more than any previous start. 9 K's through 6. Would like to see him go out for a 7th given his pitch count.

Gonzo also really locked in right now. 3-3 and at the dish.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Priester having maybe his strongest start all year tonight. Stuff is really sharp, scattered 5 hits through 6 so far, and 9 Ks, including an immaculate innings just now.

Only at 71 pitches through 6 IP, so could easily get at least one more, but we'll see. No Davis in the lineup which I guess isn't shocking but is still a little disappointing given that there's a DH option.

Only quibble are the multiple walks and 3 wild pitches but this is the best I've seen him all year. He's been moving the needle for me recently.

 

[bigdaddyk88]

I want the team to be watchable and don't really care about the 2023 draft pool. I have no illusions that Anderson/Anderson+/Shreve/Shreve+ make us contenders but I'd settle for watchability. In August we are no longer watchable and that is tough to stomach.

I don't really know why this is controversial. We'll still have a bottom barrel payroll.

No thanks keep your baseball purgatory you want to be a diamondbacks reds Philly cards fan go be it baseball needs more than 5 playoff spots