casimir Posted July 28 Posted July 28 47 minutes ago, chasfh said: I think the first one might be Tork—I had posted an RISP table and he was up near 1.000. Is the second one McGonigle? That would be the likely flip side surprise, although maybe not because of the strikeout totals … maybe Riley, then? First one is Torkelson. Second one is Greene. Yet all we hear about with respect to RISP shortcomings is Torkelson. 1 Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 28 Posted July 28 4 hours ago, Sports_Freak said: ... Possible draft picks are more important to him than winning is? How much winning are we doing this year? 50-57? That seems like quite a lot of winning there...!!! So much that we should screw our future in order to get a few more wins!!! Quote
Sports_Freak Posted July 28 Posted July 28 18 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: How much winning are we doing this year? 50-57? That seems like quite a lot of winning there...!!! So much that we should screw our future in order to get a few more wins!!! Sure, just lose every year just to get better draft picks and collect "prospects." We need 15 middle infielder prospects in our organization to...never use as trade bait. Hopefully, Erie and Toledo can win championships with all of that minor league talent. 😅😅 Quote
NorthWoods Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Just now, Sports_Freak said: Sure, just lose every year just to get better draft picks and collect "prospects." We need 15 middle infielder prospects in our organization to...never use as trade bait. Hopefully, Erie and Toledo can win championships with all of that minor league talent. 😅😅 So your solution is to get old and lose by keeping the same players that are losing now? Or is it that you have no solution, you'd rather just complain? Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 28 Posted July 28 17 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: Sure, just lose every year just to ... So now you think we're losing each and every single year? We made the playoffs the last two years. Your wild exaggerations are pretty annoying, to be honest. This year... Just... isn't our year. A retool is required. IMO. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted July 28 Posted July 28 12 minutes ago, NorthWoods said: So your solution is to get old and lose by keeping the same players that are losing now? Or is it that you have no solution, you'd rather just complain? Trade an overabundance of prospects for established players who can help the current major league team. How many middle infielder prospects does a team need in it's system? Or just keep collecting prospects and just sign the bottom feeder teams discards off the waiver wire. We can worry about winning in 3 to 5 years. And if the current prospects don't work out, like most don't, just rinse and repeat. SMH Quote
Sports_Freak Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Just now, 1984Echoes said: So now you think we're losing each and every single year? We made the playoffs the last two years. Your wild exaggerations are pretty annoying, to be honest. This year... Just... isn't our year. A retool is required. IMO. Did we make the playoffs because of the great Scott Harris moves, or in spite of him? I say it's the later. Cut and paste that... Your defense of a very poorly run organization is REALLY getting annoying. But I guess some people don't mind watching a team flush a season down the toilet? Quote
Sports_Freak Posted July 28 Posted July 28 5 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: So now you think we're losing See how annoying cut and pasting out of context is? Sure, I can see the standing and see we're losing. 🤣🤣 Quote
Nate7474 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 10 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: Did we make the playoffs because of the great Scott Harris moves, or in spite of him? I say it's the later. Cut and paste that... Your defense of a very poorly run organization is REALLY getting annoying. But I guess some people don't mind watching a team flush a season down the toilet? This is not a poorly run organization anymore and teams have bad years all the time. Injuries all at the same time and the bullpen universally taking a step back is what sunk this team. If you want a team the spends a ton of money every year and trades any prospects they have every year for existing talent I would suggest you find a different team to route for in the mean time. Detroit simply is no longer a top market both from an economic standpoint or a desirable one for players to live. The only way this organization is going to be successful year in and year out is to be disciplined in the approach to building a strong foundation of minor leaguers to replace aging vets. Harris, Hinch and Company have done a good job of building on what the prior leadership left them to get back to relevance quickly but you can’t change and entire organizational model over night and they should not deviate from that plan. They have built a much stronger scouting and development team, they have changed philosophy on players they want to acquire and have been much more competitive with top international talent. The AL central can be winnable every year with a healthy organization which gives you a shot to win the World Series every year and the Indians/Guardians have proven that. I believe the Tigers want that model with more winningness to spend to actually be able to get over the top compared to what the Guardians ownership has done. 1 2 Quote
NorthWoods Posted July 28 Posted July 28 57 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: Trade an overabundance of prospects for established players who can help the current major league team. How many middle infielder prospects does a team need in it's system? Or just keep collecting prospects and just sign the bottom feeder teams discards off the waiver wire. We can worry about winning in 3 to 5 years. And if the current prospects don't work out, like most don't, just rinse and repeat. SMH How many years could you maintain trading "an overabundance of prospects for established players"? Seems to me that one would run out of an overabundance rather quickly. But I forget that you'd be fleecing all of those foolish GMs rather than having them fleece you as they do Harris. Quote
NorthWoods Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 hours ago, casimir said: First one is Torkelson. Second one is Greene. Yet all we hear about with respect to RISP shortcomings is Torkelson. Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 28 Posted July 28 2 hours ago, Sports_Freak said: ... I guess some people don't mind watching a team flush a season down the toilet? Catch up son. The season was flushed in the month of MAY. News flash!!! Or were you not paying attention? Valiant effort in June and July to get back in it... but just not quite enough. Time to start retooling for next year. Quote
Dan Gilmore Posted July 28 Posted July 28 12 minutes ago, NorthWoods said: Since the bottom of that image is hidden.... What are the numbers for OBP & OPS? BA skips whether opponents choose to pitch around someone. 2 Quote
casimir Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Rogers DFAed for Baez seems odd to me. I was looking over the 40 man earlier and seems like there's a few names that would have made more sense. This commits Valencia as the back up C. Now, there's not much playing time there, but he certainly needs more playing time behind the plate to hone his defensive skills. I guess I would have cut one of the nondescript RPs that they don't feel comfortable bringing up. Vanasco or Granillo as examples. Do they really need to protect these 26/27 year old guys on the 40 if they aren't going to be called up? Quote
LongLiveMaroth Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, casimir said: Rogers DFAed for Baez seems odd to me. I was looking over the 40 man earlier and seems like there's a few names that would have made more sense. This commits Valencia as the back up C. Now, there's not much playing time there, but he certainly needs more playing time behind the plate to hone his defensive skills. I guess I would have cut one of the nondescript RPs that they don't feel comfortable bringing up. Vanasco or Granillo as examples. Do they really need to protect these 26/27 year old guys on the 40 if they aren't going to be called up? You have a maximum of 13 pitchers on the 26 man so a position player has to be moved for a position player. Now Outman probably should have been released but 🤷♂️ Quote
gehringer_2 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 8 minutes ago, LongLiveMaroth said: You have a maximum of 13 pitchers on the 26 man so a position player has to be moved for a position player. Now Outman probably should have been released but 🤷♂️ yeah, Valencia as Dinglers relief is going to end up coating them, and Outman is superfluous if Javy can play CF. Salary driven maybe? if so a measure that Harris didn’t leave ghimself enough room to maneuver. Quote
NorthWoods Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Just now, gehringer_2 said: yeah, Valencia as Dinglers relief is going to end up coating them, and Outman is superfluous if Javy can play CF. Salary driven maybe? if so a measure that Harris didn’t leave ghimself enough room to maneuver. Silly as this sounds. The thought occurred to me that this is a PR move. DFA Rogers for Javy would be more easily accepted than DFA Rogers for some random prospect acquired at deadline - which is going to happen to Outman. Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 28 Posted July 28 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: yeah, Valencia as Dingler's relief is going to end up costing them, and Outman is superfluous if Javy can play CF. Salary driven maybe? if so a measure that Harris didn’t leave himself enough room to maneuver. Do you believe in Baez's health at 100% for the balance of the season? I think the wager is (A) Hold onto Outman, just for now. (B) Trading Vierling for something of value MIGHT be a consideration. (C) They HAVE another "jake rogers" in Toledo right now who could step in, if needed, by dropping someone else from the 40. His name is Carlos Perez if anyone didn't know who we picked up in the past week... He's a valid 3rd (defensive) catcher who we can use in a "break-glass-if-necessary" role... IMO. Quote
LongLiveMaroth Posted July 28 Posted July 28 8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: yeah, Valencia as Dinglers relief is going to end up coating them, and Outman is superfluous if Javy can play CF. Salary driven maybe? if so a measure that Harris didn’t leave ghimself enough room to maneuver. OK, lets not go overboard here. Jake as a backup wasn't playing that often to begin with so I really don't think Valencia is going to be costing them all that much and it allows for a backup of Tork at 1B. Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: yeah, Valencia as Dinglers relief is going to end up coating them, and Outman is superfluous if Javy can play CF. Salary driven maybe? if so a measure that Harris didn’t leave ghimself enough room to maneuver. You can't really trust Baez to stay healthy, so Outman is insurance Not having a centerfielder cost them a lot in May. 1 Quote
Nate7474 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: You can't really trust Baez to stay healthy, so Outman is insurance Not having a centerfielder cost them a lot in May. Agreed. Outman goes when Clark comes up in the middle of August. I guess it could be when Meadows comes back as well but I’m not sure that happens at all this year as I haven’t heard any updates. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I would love to see Jake offered a position somewhere in the organization if he wants one. Let him manage in the minors for a couple of years. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.