2014 MLB transactions

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Castro, Barney, and Samardzija all contributed in 2011, and without them they would've been ~10 games worse than the 2011 A's. Look down the 2011 rosters for each and look at the ages, then consider how much more the A's were adding from their own system since that point. As much as you doggedly want to insist it's the same, they aren't comparable.

 

That only works if there were players from the 2011 A's who continued to contribute.

 

The only one I can think of is Coco Crisp, right? And he hit free agency in the interim.

[Guest]

What does bandwagoning have to do with anything?

 

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

 

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?) won't take long to go away once they get to where they look like they're headed.

 

I realize there's going to be underperformance and busts. I feel like we are really well positioned for success even taking that into account. There's just so much talent that is so close. So much offensive ability in an era where that is really at a premium and ours is even more at a premium because of position.

 

I mean, teams are struggling to get home run hitters at home run positions these days. We have one at [expletive] shortstop.

Edited July 25, 2014 by David

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

 

Yup.

 

Our 2015 starting rotation right now includes:

 

Jake Arrieta (massive health red flags)

Kyle Hendricks (failed to hit 90.0 in his last start)

Edwin Jackson

Left-handed Edwin Jackson

 

That's it. Teams with good starting pitching depth get sunk by runs of injuries. We're going to have to do an *amazing* job this offseason just to have OK starting pitching depth.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it.

[Guest]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

I unintentionally exaggerated here because Kris Bryant is actually going to end up in LF.

 

I could still see close to 100 a season coming from a Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Castro infield, though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

I unintentionally exaggerated here because Kris Bryant is actually going to end up in LF.

 

I could still see close to 100 a season coming from a Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Castro infield, though.

 

I'm pretty comfortable betting the under on 100 as the most HRs ever hit by those four players while all playing in the same infield in the major leagues.

[jersey cubs fan]

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

What does a bandwagon have to do with anything?

[Guest]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

I unintentionally exaggerated here because Kris Bryant is actually going to end up in LF.

 

I could still see close to 100 a season coming from a Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Castro infield, though.

 

I'm pretty comfortable betting the under on 100 as the most HRs ever hit by those four players while all playing in the same infield in the major leagues.

 

The number I had actually come up with was 95... I penciled Rizzo and Baez for 30 each, Castro for 20, and Russell for 15.

 

To be fair, I didn't mean to say a season...I meant in a season.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?)

 

I'm pretty sure all those losses and all those losing seasons were real and will remain in the record books. They are not just a figment of my imagination. It would be neat if they were, but also kind of scary.

[Sammy Sofa]

What does bandwagoning have to do with anything?

 

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

 

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?) won't take long to go away once they get to where they look like they're headed.

 

I realize there's going to be underperformance and busts. I feel like we are really well positioned for success even taking that into account. There's just so much talent that is so close. So much offensive ability in an era where that is really at a premium.

 

How is the stink a matter of perception? They've punted multiple seasons and have been the worst team in baseball. The kids that pan out are likely going to have to go through periods of adjustment and growing pains and they're coming up at different times. Some people talk like it'll largely be like flipping a switch, but honestly, it would not be surprising at all to be under 77 wins again next season and then struggling to hover at .500 the season after that. They're obviously heavily lopsided in terms of offense, and we're seeing right now what happens with the whole "who gives a [expletive] about pitching approach." Relying on Bosio to just be magic and for them to land the big FA's, much less the right ones, when they've actually been pretty shitty with that for years now doesn't seem like a great recipe for sustained success. It's a very realistic proposition for it to take a while for it to click, and when it does for it be something well below the level of expectations some seem to have here.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't know if I'd go as far as <77 next year. It's possible, but I wouldn't project it.

 

These guys are super talented and all, and even growing pains Bryant is probably a lot better than Nate Schierholtz or Mike Olt.

[Guest]

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

What does a bandwagon have to do with anything?

 

There's instantly going to be no stink is my point. If the team is popular, winning, making money, etc., who is sniffing up this metaphorical stink?

 

Damage to fan psyche?

 

Again, this only matters in debates (like the one the past few pages) about how the FO's or ownership's tenure ultimately gets perceived, but why do we really care about that?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Again, this only matters in debates (like the one the past few pages) about how the FO's or ownership's tenure ultimately gets perceived, but why do we really care about that?

 

I care about the Cubs' odds of winning the World Series. Any plan that starts off 0-for-3 was a plan that isn't maximizing those odds.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know if I'd go as far as <77 next year. It's possible, but I wouldn't project it.

 

These guys are super talented and all, and even growing pains Bryant is probably a lot better than Nate Schierholtz or Mike Olt.

 

I'm not predicting it, either, but I also wouldn't be surprised by it happening. I'm thinking/hoping more in the 80-83 realm.

[Sammy Sofa]

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

What does a bandwagon have to do with anything?

 

There's instantly going to be no stink is my point. If the team is popular, winning, making money, etc., who is sniffing up this metaphorical stink?

 

Damage to fan psyche?

 

Again, this only matters in debates (like the one the past few pages) about how the FO's or ownership's tenure ultimately gets perceived, but why do we really care about that?

 

I don't give a damn about legacy; I give a damn about a super lopsided approach to building a team and being too in love with their prospects. I'm still hugely wary that we'll see them bother to try and make any kind of major trade using these guys before it's maybe too late to do so.

 

And how about just establishing the precedent that this is an acceptable way to run a [expletive] baseball team?

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?)

 

I'm pretty sure all those losses and all those losing seasons were real and will remain in the record books. They are not just a figment of my imagination. It would be neat if they were, but also kind of scary.

 

They're there, but they're over, and in the situation we're talking about, the present and future is a young talented winning roster with money beginning to pile in more and more (with the caveat of the TV bubble [expletive] up the money thing to some extent).

[Sammy Sofa]

And I swear to Christ, the first person to come in her complaining that they thought there was some big trade because of all the discussion...

 

http://wearable-technology.co/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/b4084_LJJcT.gif

[rawaction]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it.

 

None of them have 2 of top 10 players in the league who are both under 27. Of course, the Cubs don't either......

[jersey cubs fan]

The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either.

 

What does a bandwagon have to do with anything?

 

There's instantly going to be no stink is my point. If the team is popular, winning, making money, etc., who is sniffing up this metaphorical stink?

 

Damage to fan psyche?

 

Again, this only matters in debates (like the one the past few pages) about how the FO's or ownership's tenure ultimately gets perceived, but why do we really care about that?

 

Well, the point is you seem to be assuming that at the first sign of good times there is no risk and the wins will continue for a very long time. I think winning big early with a young team is a great sign that they will be able to win big for a number of years, but it is by far not a guarantee. It's entirely possible that we see big strides next year and an 82 win season, followed by back to back 90s, and then right back to 80. The stink of the past half decade will not have disappeared if that is the case.

[Guest]

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

 

Yup.

 

Our 2015 starting rotation right now includes:

 

Jake Arrieta (massive health red flags)

Kyle Hendricks (failed to hit 90.0 in his last start)

Edwin Jackson

Left-handed Edwin Jackson

 

That's it. Teams with good starting pitching depth get sunk by runs of injuries. We're going to have to do an *amazing* job this offseason just to have OK starting pitching depth.

 

I feel like you'd argue either side of this particular debate depending on who you decided to argue with in a given conversation.

[Sammy Sofa]

All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations.

 

Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

 

Yup.

 

Our 2015 starting rotation right now includes:

 

Jake Arrieta (massive health red flags)

Kyle Hendricks (failed to hit 90.0 in his last start)

Edwin Jackson

Left-handed Edwin Jackson

 

That's it. Teams with good starting pitching depth get sunk by runs of injuries. We're going to have to do an *amazing* job this offseason just to have OK starting pitching depth.

 

I feel like you'd argue either side of this particular debate depending on who you decided to argue with in a given conversation.

 

Come on, the pitching isn't a huge question mark? Are you that confident in Bosio?

[Guest]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it.

 

None of them have 2 of top 10 players in the league who are both under 27. Of course, the Cubs don't either......

 

We might have two of the top 25-30 under 25, though. With more of that level of talent on the way.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?)

 

I'm pretty sure all those losses and all those losing seasons were real and will remain in the record books. They are not just a figment of my imagination. It would be neat if they were, but also kind of scary.

 

They're there, but they're over,

 

It is July 25th and the Cubs have a .410 W%.

 

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Sammy Sofa]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it.

 

None of them have 2 of top 10 players in the league who are both under 27. Of course, the Cubs don't either......

 

We might have two of the top 25-30 under 25, though. With more of that level of talent on the way.

 

Maybe.

 

Weren't people just laughing at a top 20 prospect list from several years ago earlier today?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I feel like you'd argue either side of this particular debate depending on who you decided to argue with in a given conversation.

 

It's one of those subtlety things that I'm used to people not getting.

 

I am of the opinion that the Cubs have a better chance of being good soon than many non-Cubs' fans think, but I also think they have a better chance of not being dynastic than many Cubs fans think.

 

It's the overreaction thing that fans do. It's hard to be bad for a really long time, but it's also hard to be good for a really long time. Predicting the Cubs will be awful because they've been awful recently is wrong, but assuming they'll be awesome for a long run just because of some prospects is also wrong. Being awesome for a long time is hard. Pretty much nobody by the Yankees have made the playoffs at more than a 70% clip lately, and those days seem to be over for them too.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Hairyducked Idiot