mtutiger

It's not even that I support management more, just feel like, realistically, thereby be more variables at play in any of these situations than we currently have as fans. Everybody "fans" differently... doesn't make it better or worse or anything.

Believe it or not, I'm skeptical too. But there really isn't an alternative, is there? From the spot the Tigers started in this time last year, there really weren't a ton of shortcuts that existed to make them big time contenders within a 12 or perhaps even 24 month time frame? On that score, seeing where they are at 12 months later, it's hard not to be pleased with where they currently sit. It will take more time, but they appear to be on the right track.

Sure, and barring some sort of miracle, this is year 7 in a row of being under .500. People aren't going to happy until it is fixed. Hard not to sympathize but, as you suggest, it doesn't happen overnight.

Whats weird about this Avila tangent to me is that it's not like they fired him after 1 year (ie. Scott Harris' current tenure)... they gave him 6 years. He got plenty of rope and, while he did do some good things (and some of us have even said as much despite push back!), literally no one can argue that he didn't get a fair shot with this org. Meanwhile, Harris is about a year in and a lot of the outward facing presences in this fanbase already seems done with him. Despite the team beating expectations so far and the farm system, by all accounts, experiencing a significant uptick. I dont get it, but it is what it is.

I can tell you right now that if, for instance, the ERod thing had happened on Avila's watch, I probably would have had the same reaction. And I feel the record, much of it spent being lumped on with the hardcore Avila slappies, would back that up. Perhaps some of us just aren't hung up on "blame" more than trying to assess what actually happened, I don't know. I can't speak for others, but that's how I tried to approach the Avila era, and that is how I am trying to approach Harris.

I'm sure that impacts the Tigers calculations when considering a call up.

Yeah, I think there's a middle area between the bargain bin offseason of 2022 and the shopping at the top of the market type of free agency experience that you see teams closer to contention generally occupy, and that's probably where the Tigers will be this offseason IMO.

Was at the game today, that Tork bomb was absolutely majestic... what a tank!

This is reasonable to me.

Feel free to question him all you want. It doesn't mean we're all obliged to agree with you in every case. I'd suggest your position on this is the majority one as well and the rest of us are the ones pushing back on the conventional wisdom that Scott Harris is 100% to blame for how everything went down wrt ERod.

Rodriguez held the no-trade clause, so he had the leverage. And it doesn't matter what org he was in at the time both executives had to negotiate that gulf. It is what it is. I dont have understand why Al Avila matters when discussing what actually happened in the ERod situation. Other than it was Al Avila who signed him to the deal that gave him Uber amounts of leverage and likely made it harder to trade him anyway

Referring to the comment made earlier, in the case of ERod, I'm not clear how the situation could not involve parties having to take each other at their word. And yes, that involves stuff that was outside of his control. Just as it was outside of Andrew Friedman's control, who is by many's estimation an elite MLB executive and the other executive involved in the trade.

Not to revisit this conversation / debate again, but it bears repeating that there's really no getting around having parties take each other at their word when dealing with a no-trade clause. It's a leap of faith that literally any GM/PBO in that situation would have to take, regardless of the player or teams involved That's the thing that makes it hard for me to stick it all on him...

Front office personnel: I'll be honest in saying that I don't know the ins-and-outs of the front office personnel like Ed does, but it does appear from the outside that each level seems a lot more in-sync with each other than at times in the past. Some of that transition did start during the Avila era, but Harris has his fingerprints all over this as well. I would also add a comment about AJ Hinch in here - he seems bought into this new approach in a way that he didn't seem be as much during Avila. Contrary to some occasional social media commentary about there being daylight between Harris/Hinch, I have seen little actual evidence this is the case as well. A PD: Lets take a trip down memory lane to.... February 2023 (around 6 months ago). The Keith Law's/Pipelines/Kiley McDaniels were all releasing their collective rankings of the farm system, and Tigers fans were losing their collective ****s over the results. The farm system sucks, it'll take years to fix this, the Tigers are hopeless, yada yada yada. Fast forward to current day, MLB Pipeline has them at 13 (up from 25), Kiley McDaniel also has them at 13 (up from 21).... I don't believe Keith Law has done a rerank thus far, but some Tigers prospects have risen in his top rankings and he has suggested some complementary things about the Tigers system.The usual caveats about farm system rankings being stupid apply, but it does suggest a pretty significant improvement regardless. Does this org still have a long way to go? Yes. Are there problems that need to be addressed? Sure. But having said all that, I don't know how you can look at the results over the past six months and not see that as a smashing success for PD for this new regime. A+ Player Acquisition: Probably the one area where some improvement may be needed.... Harris gets graded overly harsh by the "smartest guys in the room" on Tigers Twitter in this category and, partially, I think he gets dinged a lot because a lot of his successes have come from the deals that don't get a ton of fanfare, as Ed suggests. He has managed to bring a few guys on cash deals that have helped prop up the farm system and are guys that, theoretically, could wear a Tigers uniform at some point down the line. Eddys Leonard is probably the best example... for whatever came of the ERod deal falling apart, that's a pretty solid consolation prize. Zach McKinstry as well.... not a franchise altering deal, but he's been a useful pickup regardless. As far as the trades and free agency are concerned, I'm mostly fine with the trades.... Maton has not played out as expected, but in terms of value, I think he received back a fair value for an inconsistent reliever with control issues. And I do believe that a number of Tiger fans, when evaluating this particular deal (or exhibit their frustrations with the players acquired) probably overvalue Gregory Soto juuuuuuusssst a little bit. The Jimenez trade was pretty good... Malloy has defensive issues, but at the very least, he seems like a player that could provide some value with the bat at the ML level. Again, not bad for a reliever who, up until last year, really hadn't found Jesus on the mound. The ERod trade falling apart wasn't great and he bears some responsibility. Letting Candy walk was fine, no, they didn't need to keep him.... the bigger issue was the lack of viable replacement. If I had to pick one thing to criticize, it would be that, it was a risk that didn't work out. As far as the waiver wire is concerned, I don't how people criticize Harris over this stuff... sure, they haven't all worked out, but for as much as we heard regret over not resigning Andrew Chafin on this board earlier in the season, they basically found his replacement (Tyler Holton) on the waiver wire. No org is gonna hit 100% of the time on this stuff, but even hitting on a couple of these can help.... pretty satisfied here. B Draft: It's too early to really say, but the difference in approach was apparent. Additionally, it's been nice to see the org be a little more aggressive with these new kids and getting them playing early. INC I would love to submit an additional category for judgment: Tigers Social Media During Scott Harris' first year. Harris inherited a mess all around with this organization. Farm system was in rough shape, very little positive to say, it was common, it not expected, for this team to finish high 90s/100s for losses. And a few months later, the organization is probably in better shape that it has been in a long time.... in the case of the farm system, it's possible that it's a better and more sustainable farm that it has been in my lifetime even. Despite all of that, despite the fact that they are beating the low expectations set for them at the outset of the season, I get the impression that a lot of folks think Harris is doing a terrible job or think he should be run out of town. And it's sort of ridiculous. I get the disappointment after the ERod trade fell through or the fact that the Candelario decision didn't work out.... I also get the urge to just promote Colt Keith as fast as possible (certain folks with podcasts were ready to promote him after 80 ABs in Erie this year, iirc), but I also think that we've seen examples in the past of guys getting promoted too fast or before they are ready (ie. Spencer Torkelson) and how hard that pressure can be on those players. I understand that this fanbase is jaded after years of bad teams, but the way that the outward, social media portion of the fanbase has treated this first year isn't far removed from the "Jeff Riger" or "Mad Dog Russo" style of shock jock commentary that brings out the worst in sports fans. And given the results on the field and the marked improvement, it's completely unwarranted. D-

I dont know what he plans on doing for sure at GM (he did say that it would likely happen at some undetermined time in the future iirc). But realistically, it became apparent that it would like come during the next offseason the moment the last offseason ended - with a few exceptions (see the White Sox), front office changes at that level more often than not happen during an offseason. Like you, I don't really understand it as a point of criticism... I imagine that he has a cadre of people that he talks and confers with when decisions are made regardless of whether someone with the title "GM" is in the room.

Looks like I picked the wrong day to go! Lol

Maybe the Tigers can help the Sox get to the bottom of the mysterious shooting lol

I pretty much watch local news at this point... My only point is that acknowledging one of the two cable news channels is significantly worse on a number of levels doesn't make you a "fanboy"... Unfortunately, that requires nuance to parse that... hard to have nuance when the argument starts having names like "Mao" and "Hitler" thrown around.

Bothsidsin' is bothsidsin'

The argument (and perhaps accurate, hard to say tbh) is that they called it too early based on the information that the Fox Elections desk had at the time. You are correct that it wouldn't have affected the outcome and that, ultimately, I doubt that Chris Stirewalt or Arnold Mishkin lose their jobs if not for the absolute fury that the de facto head of the GOP and his cohort unleashed on FOX.

I mean, come on...

One of the reasons they don't suck as bad... FOX's news side has a few good people mixed in, but that number has thinned out over the years. And, not surprisingly (see the 2020 election, Arizona call specifically), that thinning out was in part due to political pressure from people associated with the GOP. (ie. FOX's de facto bosses) You add that to the defamation suits, and it paints a really clear picture of how one outlet is orders of magnitude more ****ty. And it doesn't make one "love" MSNBC to be up front about the differences.

I'm not fine with MSNBC... MSNBC sucks imo. But Fox just sucks more.

Spent years trying to argue this level of nuance, on multiple boards and with posters who didn't make the transition to the new board, to no avail. I dont take in any of it, cable news is largely garbage. But MSNBC having a liberal slant, in and of itself, does not make them a mirror image of Fox News, or mean that they have the same editorial issues that Fox News has.

It says a lot about Republican donors think this, and not the fact that Scott is polling in low-single digits, is alarming.