chasfh

No, I am not sure of that.

This makes sense if all development is a random crapshoot and past performance is zero indication of actual ability. But based on the track record available to us, it is safe to assume that when it comes to developing players, Al Avila did not know what he was doing, and Scott Harris does.

I do poopoo about what Avila. He gave us plenty to poopoo. Maybe that's why he spent so much time under Dave Dombrowski as a number two. 😉

I would have to work hard to make a good GM look bad, but I don't think I have to work much at all to make Avila look bad. I don't believe Carpenter and Skubal were anything like "great picks". They were lucky picks, seen by him as the best available at nineteen and nine that just happened to work out, the latter of which only because he had the presence of mind to go outside the system to fix himself. If Avila knew something everyone else didn't about either of these guys—if he knew they were All-Star or Cy Young or Hall of Fame caliber—he absolutely would have taken them a lot earlier than nineteen and nine. And OK, I will go ahead and concede Avila was a genius for following the consensus and picking Riley Greene at 1/5 and allowing Scott Harris to turn him into a 2-win player and 2x All-Star.

And I said how little Avila had to do with being a genius on those acquisitions and with developing them into good players. Where was I wrong? As for Hinch—you will dismiss this idea out of hand, and I grant it's a difficult hypothesis for Avila fans to entertain, but I wouldn't doubt that Avila thought that with Hinch he was getting damaged goods who also happened to win a ring, so I think Avila might have thought Hinch would be grateful for any managing job and be easy to control. I'd bet if Avila had any idea how mentally strong Hinch is, he would never have made that hire. I also believe Hinch was instrumental in pushing Avila out the door. Again, reject all this as you see fit.

I mean, yeah, they are being assholes in general, but that doesn't mean that's the only reason they're doing it. They do have an interest in keeping as many people as possible from seeing what they are doing—witness their blocking of government reports on jobs and inflation—so I think my little hypothesis holds water.

So, no areas you can provide in which he routinely excelled that that I am overlooking?

I'm out of reactions at the moment, but Haha.

Meaning Tork? He was the consensus 1/1 pick all 29 other teams would have made at the time, and he's not performing up to that standard yet. Meaning Casey? He was also the consensus 1/1 pick all 29 other teams would have made at the time, and I don't think anyone would confuse him with being a star. Meaning Riley? He was the consensus 1/5 pick all 29 other teams would have made at the time, and he is not performing at the consistent All-star-level quality people expect from a fifth overall pick. Meaning Carpernter? No 19th-round pick is a genius GM move, and he's a flawed hitter who can't field, either. Meaning Skubal? No 9th-round pick is a genius GM move, and besides, he helped him become great. The Al Avila Tigers had nothing to do with that. Anyone I'm missing? In any event, the issue people have with Al Avila is not his ability to draft amateur players. The guy was a head scout, for crying out loud. If he can't draft decent talent, he wouldn't have that job in the first place. It is every other facet of general management he fell short on, unless you can provide an area in which he routinely excelled that that I am overlooking.

And what? This is a problem?

Because the font was changed to help people with accessibility deficits read government documents, my guess is that they are trying to keep as many people from being able to read what it is they are putting out as much as possible.

True Christian values.

What did he do in San Francisco and on the north side that leads you to believe this? Honest question.

If Baseball's commissioner were to ever try to force owners to do this, they would immediately have him removed and replaced with another Manfred.

How hard would it suck if we ended up having to trade the guys who can play in the majors to get those deals done and we end up having to keep the guys who can't?

TBF, that's a problem for at least sixteen other franchises as well.

The best way to woo fans is to put a winner on the field, and Scott Harris has done that in two of his first three years after inheriting an organization that got flattened by a hurricane.

If this is true, then he is a lot more articulate when he is uncomfortable than I could ever be when I am totally comfortable.

I wasn't talking about traditional fans.

best comment from there:

The rumor hasn't been picked up more probably because the Pinafore guy behind it is a nobody and Sports Illustrated is an AI slop farm that bears no resemblance to its former self.

At the risk of drawing more fire on this point, a key reason I would like to re-sign him is that it would send a signal to the market that we are committing to winning, although that might help us a lot more this offseason than next.

I agree with you on balance, although I do think it would behoove us to loc up in the bullpen and maybe even one of the positions to take advantage of Skubal’s peak while he still has it. Flip side, I believe we’re missing out on the top-most bullpen help that are going other places mainly because we can’t effectively compete for them with the Dodgers and the eastern teams, at least not at this point. At least we got Finnegan to come back, for what that’s worth.

I can practically guarantee that the return on any trade Harris would make for Skubal this winter would be hammered by just about everyone in this forum.