mtutiger

Exactly. The front office needs to do what it can to replace these guys, but it would be a mistake to read so far into them being let go as to suggest that it means anything about paying guys like Skubal or Greene or Tork down the road... it doesn't. With the exception of maybe Candelario, they are all MLB Cannon Fodder.

Reyes, the Castros, even Candy earned their non-tenders through performance. If they weren't mediocre (or in the case of Candy, unreliable), hard not to imagine them being tendered a contract.

1,280 plate appearances wasnt enough I guess. He needed a few more lol

I'd call it "old news"

May these folks rot in hell

Ahh yes, the fact that Trump's party is doing the exact same thing they do every time he finds himself in controversy, *that* is the story. Just incredible...

No doubt, its like Veep in real life...

Ahh right, staffing issue. Give me a ****ing break.

Wouldn't it be easier / make more sense to fire Avila with the intent to hire someone with the idea they can build a winner?

lol

So firing Al Avila and replacing him with a different PBO, something that was literally a required condition for fixing this franchise, is a "stall tactic"? That doesn't make any sense... a "stall tactic" would have been to make a bunch of excuses for why it was a bad year while retaining Avila.

Ahh, cool, nothing to see here... just the 45th President having dinner with a literal neo-Nazi

A couple of things: superiority doesn't factor into anything, I just don't agree with your opinions on this. Nothing personal. Second, I wouldn't even consider my opinion "rosey"... Avila left this organization in poor shape and Harris will have a lot of work ahead of him fixing it. Individual signings alone (such as Aaron Judge) aren't going to fix it. The standard you alluded to earlier was Dombrowski: it took four years for him to fix this and turn it around. I dont know if it will take that long or not this time, but realistically, it wouldn't matter who the owner or PBO is, it would take at least a couple of years to fix this mess. Expectations, imo, should be set accordingly.

To add to this, it's worth remembering that before Harris took this job, he pulled himself put of consideration one year earlier with the Mets, an org who, despite whatever flaws it may have, has an owner who will spend exorbitant amounts of money on free agents. Put another way, he wouldn't go to work for Steve Cohen but would for Chris Ilitch. Which tells me that he values being given the space to build an organization as he wants to build it. Which Chris, for his part, will do because he seems about as hands-off an owner as they come in MLB.

Alternatively, maybe some of us would prefer to actually see how Harris does over the first couple of years before automatically declaring his tenure a failure. It doesn't require sky box bribes to think that way.

Kinda like how going 66-96 with the Tigers was supposed to groom AJ for a contender job?

It's easy to forget as time goes by, but it's worth remembering the expectation-setting that occurred before February 24: that Russia would roll over the Ukrainian government, that much of the country would accept it, and that it would be over in a matter of weeks. And that's not just the western media - that is what the Russian government themselves (both Putin and Russian state media) projected. None of that has happened. And yet that does not stop people from saying that Russia is winning this war because reasons. It's bizarre.

OTOH, it's hard to win a war when your stated objectives are to decapitate the government and subdue the enemy and fail to do neither, show an inability to hold any sort of gains for any length of time, and proceed to have your military decimated, sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths. And now, evident in the clip shared this morning of Pashinyan, when your collective security partners appear to no longer feel you are a reliable partner. That doesn't look like winning to me. Saying the contrary over and over again doesn't really change it.

Four years.

The flip side is that if you don't bleed clock, you could end up settling for a field goal with too much on the clock. The strategy of trying to be the last one to possess the ball at the end is the correct one. It was just poorly executed.

Very possible... As far as the clock management is concerned, 32 seconds with 32 yards to go was actually a good place to be in. Maybe it looks conservative, but when you play a Buffalo, you have to burn as much clock as possible. As they proved in that final drive, if you give them any time at all, they will put it to use.

Would you have preferred they lose by three touchdowns?

The biggest mistake I saw was not taking advantage of 32 seconds being put back on the clock. On a 3rd and 1, you have to go to something more high percentage and try to get it. In general, I didn't mind that they let a lot of time off the clock, but a low percentage throw on 3rd and 1 is not a good strategy imo.