If things had gone differently this off season.....

[Docwaukee]

and let's say that we signed Eovaldi/Happ, Cahill, Ramos, and Bour.  That would be a total of 37.5m.  

Would you be happy? 

or do you think it's good that we've addressed most spots and still have some money left to improve?  

would you be upset if we stopped where we're at?  

or give us a different path based on what Eppler has done.  ie, no trades etc.  

[Stradling]

I’d be happier with those signings because I think at least for this season there’s less risk with Eovaldi and Happ as there are with Harvey. I also have to assume that Ramos will be better than Lucroy.   

[Stradling]

That’s being said we don’t know how this off season finishes.   We don’t know if this is the year where he signs a closer.  We don’t know if the prices come down where Keuchel ends up or LeMahieu or Lowry.

[totdprods]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

That’s being said we don’t know how this off season finishes.   We don’t know if this is the year where he signs a closer.  We don’t know if the prices come down where Keuchel ends up or LeMahieu or Lowry.

Yeah, I'm real curious to see what plays out still...there's more than enough free agents available for the rotation, pen, and infield that I think we may see another signing or two still, and that is likely only possible because Eppler has been able to address the needs so far through mostly one-year commits. 

[totdprods]

13 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and let's say that we signed Eovaldi/Happ, Cahill, Ramos, and Bour.  That would be a total of 37.5m.  

Would you be happy? 

or do you think it's good that we've addressed most spots and still have some money left to improve?  

would you be upset if we stopped where we're at?  

or give us a different path based on what Eppler has done.  ie, no trades etc.  

I was never really enthused about Ramos, and there's quite a bit of risk in Eovaldi and Happ's contract for the years they got, so I actually like the Harvey, Cahill, Bour, Lucroy quartet more. 
 

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Eppler swing a trade for a SP, but without knowing who was realistically available or who was discussed I can't really say. 

[arch stanton]

There should be some bargains to be had as the season approaches but I like the idea of having available cash to move after the season starts once we see who pans out and who doesn't

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, arch stanton said:

There should be some bargains to be had as the season approaches but I like the idea of having available cash to move after the season starts once we see who pans out and who doesn't

They have always had room under the tax to make an in season move if the team is performing.  I think it is the smart way to do it.  There is less risk getting a guy that is actually performing that season than signing a guy in free agency.  We don’t know if a guy like Holland is going to perform, but if he is performing and you trade for him mid season, you are trading for him because he is performing.  The other side of it, a side that Flop brings up and it is tough to argue against it if you aren’t adverse to risk and that is if you sign a free agent and he performs you have him the entire season and not just for the last two months after you trade for that player.

[floplag]

What would have made me happy was to see them fill the holes over the next few years to bridge the gap between now and 21-ish to allow the farm time to come into its own and continue its development to try to make a legit run at a post season.   IMO they did no do that.   

Im actually okay with many of the signings pitching wise as i feel the bigger names on that side are getting grossly overpayed for what/who they are.  its on offense where we went cheap and where its going to bite us.   

There is still time left, but i have no expectations of anything significant, maybe Robertson. 

[Stradling]

Hey @floplag, what does it matter if they haven’t filled those holes after the upcoming years as long as they fill them before those seasons?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to go year to year in a free agent class that isn’t that strong?  If you can get a guy that performs each year versus overpaying guys for 3-4 years in hopes that you don’t have to replace them in year 3-4.  For example, if the Angels didn’t give Kole his contract don’t you think they would have upgraded RF this off season instead of paying him $10 million and hope he bounces back?  If you can get guys on one year deals, there is little to no risk until the farm starts to develop talent for the major league team.  This is the second year in a row that we are seeing older guys get 1-2 year deals and they can still be productive players.  

[arch stanton]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They have always had room under the tax to make an in season move if the team is performing.  I think it is the smart way to do it.  There is less risk getting a guy that is actually performing that season than signing a guy in free agency.  We don’t know if a guy like Holland is going to perform, but if he is performing and you trade for him mid season, you are trading for him because he is performing.  The other side of it, a side that Flop brings up and it is tough to argue against it if you aren’t adverse to risk and that is if you sign a free agent and he performs you have him the entire season and not just for the last two months after you trade for that player.

I’m talking about being able to pick up slack for any of these higher risk players that don’t work out, especially in the pitching staff or to get an injury replacement 

[popo85]

I thought the Cahill,Lucroy signings were solid, Harvey hasn't pitched the same in years but atleast it's only 1 year. Hoping they make 1 big move whether it's signing a solid pen guy or adding another bat to the line up.

[Fish Oil]

There is a lot of potential upside in the team as assembled. I doubt that anyone is entirely satisfied, including Eppler, but there is enough to have me excited for the upcoming season.

 

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Hey @floplag, what does it matter if they haven’t filled those holes after the upcoming years as long as they fill them before those seasons?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to go year to year in a free agent class that isn’t that strong?  If you can get a guy that performs each year versus overpaying guys for 3-4 years in hopes that you don’t have to replace them in year 3-4.  For example, if the Angels didn’t give Kole his contract don’t you think they would have upgraded RF this off season instead of paying him $10 million and hope he bounces back?  If you can get guys on one year deals, there is little to no risk until the farm starts to develop talent for the major league team.  This is the second year in a row that we are seeing older guys get 1-2 year deals and they can still be productive players.  

To answer the question does it matter as long as they do, of course not.  The real question is did they do that?  Whats the seasons goal for 19, 20?  If the goal is to be good enough to keep the attendance going for people to watch Trout while the farm plan continues to develop then mission accomplished, if its anything more than that then the job is incomplete.   I for one hoped for more than that and am disappointed with the result to date. 

Lets be honest, its going to take 90-95 win to make the post, has this team improved to that level by any realistic measurement?  Sure, it could happen, anyone can have a lucky year as proven by last years As but it certainly doesn't seem likely as of today.  At best I see maybe 85-87 wins and another season of early golf.  Not terrible by any means, but also not playing meaningful baseball.  

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

To answer the question does it matter as long as they do, of course not.  The real question is did they do that?  Whats the seasons goal for 19, 20?  If the goal is to be good enough to keep the attendance going for people to watch Trout while the farm plan continues to develop then mission accomplished, if its anything more than that then the job is incomplete.   I for one hoped for more than that and am disappointed with the result to date. 

Lets be honest, its going to take 90-95 win to make the post, has this team improved to that level by any realistic measurement?  Sure, it could happen, anyone can have a lucky year as proven by last years As but it certainly doesn't seem likely as of today.  At best I see maybe 85-87 wins and another season of early golf.  Not terrible by any means, but also not playing meaningful baseball.  

Let’s be honest, they’re weren’t moves that get us 10-15 more wins that don’t require the same amount of health and luck as this plan.  Also to go get those 10-15 more wins with more proven commodities it will risk the future.  The only difference is they have options with this plan.  If Harvey and Cahill perform they could be extended or traded.  If they don’t we try again with a much better free agent pitching class next year. 

[Blarg]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not terrible by any means, but also not playing meaningful baseball. 

Then don't fucking watch. 

 

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

9 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not terrible by any means, but also not playing meaningful baseball. 

Then don't Facking watch. 

 

In other words get on board with the AW groupthink, or be shamed.

 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

In other words get on board with the AW groupthink, or be shamed.

 

Jay, you have never been a bitch, don’t act like one now.  Shamed?  Grow up.  

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Let’s be honest, they’re weren’t moves that get us 10-15 more wins that don’t require the same amount of health and luck as this plan.  Also to go get those 10-15 more wins with more proven commodities it will risk the future.  The only difference is they have options with this plan.  If Harvey and Cahill perform they could be extended or traded.  If they don’t we try again with a much better free agent pitching class next year. 

We can agree to disagree on that,  there are/were players out there better than what we got, better players get more wins.    and again as i said i am ok with the pitching choices, its the bats i question. 

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, Jay said:

In other words get on board with the AW groupthink, or be shamed.

 

No. Just don't waste your time if you don't find any enjoyment in it. Floplag has already determined it will be a failed season (by his standards) before the first pitch is thrown so why put any more thought into it? 

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

In other words get on board with the AW groupthink, or be shamed.

 

Yep, pretty much, starting 19 as we finished 18.  

[jessecrall]

This team has the best hitter, best fielder and sole two-way player in baseball. Even if they fall short of the playoffs, they're certainly watchable.

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

No. Just don't waste your time if you don't find any enjoyment in it. Floplag has already determined it will be a failed season (by his standards) before the first pitch is thrown so why put any more thought into it? 

lol, whatever dude.   What is your standard is making the post season isnt on that list?    Seems like a pretty low bar.  

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yep, pretty much, starting 19 as we finished 18.  

Just stop with the victim crap.  You don’t see us feeling wronged by you trying to convince us everything is bad and that the team should have done things differently.  Poor fucking baby, they aren’t doing it your way.  

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yep, pretty much, starting 19 as we finished 18.  

winning?

[Lou]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

We can agree to disagree on that,  there are/were players out there better than what we got, better players get more wins.    and again as i said i am ok with the pitching choices, its the bats i question. 

which bats?