OnlyBucs

223A383F3F28393E232234510 wrote: [quote author=4C40411A131A121F18071D2A0  [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]link=1601767363/5#5 date=1601815389]Bad timing.  Off by a year.  Too bad (for us) that they didn't do it last year.
______

Maybe they will hire Cherington and then we can get a real GM.
I would hate to see Cherington leave. I think a real GM would take Nick Gonzalez in the draft rather than passing on him for a lesser talent player. A real GM acquired two players who are listed in the Bucs top 10 prospects for Marte. A real GM replaced Kyle Stark for Steve Sanders. A real GM brought in a pitching coach with the ideas that other teams have been using. He made some waiver claims such as Evans and Alford which might be players who may be late developing players. I think we should give BC a chance. He plans to bring in a new Farm Director. I expect that a couple more individuals will be added to the FO. His hiring in late November last year and the pandemic with a short season, and no minor league season has been difficult to evaluate players as well as people in the Operations Area of the team. I expect trades this offseason, and let’s see what value he receives when he makes trades. I am sure he won’t receive Mike Trout for Adam Frazier, but if he does decide to move Frazier let’s evaluate the return.
http://onlybucs.net/board/yabbfiles/Smi ... umbsup.gif

A real GM would improve the team right now instead of kicking the can down the road.

7F646968616D620C0 wrote: A real GM would improve the team right now instead of kicking the can down the road.




Now, Shed. You know full well that it's just not possible to improve upon a 19-win club. The same guys who won those 19 games will get better next year, and we'll be in good shape.

People are so quick to judgment after one freakish half-a-season where we were not going to be any good anyhow, and where we have nothing by which to judge the minor leagues because there weren't any.

142136363D0436363D3A36530 wrote: A real GM would improve the team right now instead of kicking the can down the road.




Now, Shed.  You know full well that it's just not possible to improve upon a 19-win club.  The same guys who won those 19 games will get better next year, and we'll be in good shape.
_______

Yup. all of our players will play better next year and all of the other teams players will not play better despite their GM's efforts to improve their teams with FA's.

I'll bite, should we have really made a deal to make this year's team better? What player should we have gotten to increase our number of wins by approximately double?

7F4D41415567444D40454A4D2C0 wrote: I'll bite, should we have really made a deal to make this year's team better?  What player should we have gotten to increase our number of wins by approximately double?
----

Here are the top 10 excuses and alibis for not acquiring a player.



1. He is an aging veteran on the decline.

2. He is too injury prone.

3. Acquiring him would bring us no closer to a championship.

4. He would never sign to play in Pittsburgh.

5. He would be a clubhouse cancer.

6. Acquiring him would upset the team chemistry.

7. Signing him would lose financial flexibility for a 1 year player.

8.We already have players just as good as him.

9. We are not the Red Sox or Yankees and they would outbid us.

10.He would block this LMG or that LMG from development.



Is that #3?

083A36362210333A37323D3A5B0 wrote: People are so quick to judgment after one freakish half-a-season where we were not going to be any good anyhow, and where we have nothing by which to judge the minor leagues because there weren't any.


Now, Sammy, don't be using logic and facts.

2C373A3B323E315F0 wrote: I'll bite, should we have really made a deal to make this year's team better?  What player should we have gotten to increase our number of wins by approximately double?
----

Here are the top 10 excuses and alibis for not acquiring a player.



1. He is an aging veteran on the decline.

2. He is too injury prone.

3. Acquiring him would bring us no closer to a championship.

4. He would never sign to play in Pittsburgh.

5. He would be a clubhouse cancer.

6. Acquiring him would upset the team chemistry.

7. Signing him would lose financial flexibility for a 1 year player.

8.We already have players just as good as him.

9. We are not the Red Sox or Yankees and they would outbid us.

10.He would block this LMG or that LMG from development.



Is that #3?


Since we can't improve at all 9 positions at once, we shouldn't start with any.

5C697E7E754C7E7E75727E1B0 wrote: I'll bite, should we have really made a deal to make this year's team better?  What player should we have gotten to increase our number of wins by approximately double?
----

Here are the top 10 excuses and alibis for not acquiring a player.



1. He is an aging veteran on the decline.

2. He is too injury prone.

3. Acquiring him would bring us no closer to a championship.

4. He would never sign to play in Pittsburgh.

5. He would be a clubhouse cancer.

6. Acquiring him would upset the team chemistry.

7. Signing him would lose financial flexibility for a 1 year player.

8.We already have players just as good as him.

9. We are not the Red Sox or Yankees and they would outbid us.

10.He would block this LMG or that LMG from development.



Is that #3?


Since we can't improve at all 9 positions at once, we shouldn't start with any.


_________

Yup, if we can't get Mike Trout then we should just fill the team up with LMG's and wait until the year 2032.