OnlyBucs

775156434A4651474F240 wrote: So if a team signs a legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player, but trades away a legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player and the team that gets the guy in the trade gets a higher "What real GM's do" grade than the one they signed, hasn't that "Real GM" actually weakened his team, going by your standards? I mean, doing the math....if they traded away a player you graded as a "1", that's making the team worse by "1" but somehow, you claim "What GM do" grading of a signing with a score of .5 somehow makes the team better?  Isn't 1 greater than .5?



Need some splainin' Lucy.



Asking for a friend.


I'm sure there are going to be some inconsistencies.  I don't keep a list of how I rate a guy.  Maybe I should.  If the guy a team gets is rated higher than a guy it gave up, then the GM's improved the roster, at least on cyberspace paper- heading toward the season.  I probably should give a fair share of 0s for guys who don't make much of a difference.  Yeah, I guess the "legitimate, bonafide, whatever MLB player" is probably aimed at the guys who get the points.



The "real GMs"- That's probably humorous, I admit.  I don't know anymore.  I've seen too many fake ones around here.   



It's The Off-Season Thread.  It's what we make of it. If you want exact science, this ain't the place for it. )

0A5C4A5E514B5B505D4A785F55595154165B380 wrote: I tried this logic before, Sugar, but it didn't take.  I doubt you'll have any luck, either.  You see, when Cherington didn't make a single transaction within his first few minutes on the job, he became worse than Huntington.  Because we all know that running a major league ball club is exactly like running a fantasy league team.


LOL, I was just reading at the beginning of the thread to see how it read, because possum had mention deleting it. I saw the GW quote directed at someone mentioning some sort of low level moves.



So, I just couldn't resist pointing out how serious this whole thing seems to be, until it isn't.



It was the fact they even gave Luke Maile a .5 for a grade. I guess they weren't allowed to give zeros, because if they had, I never would have thought I'd point out those "inconsistencies". You can't lay claim to BC "doing nothing like a train passing a bum" when he in fact upgraded the catching position, albeit probably minimally. But better is better right?

3F242928212D224C0 wrote: The Dodgers get on the board by getting Corey Knebel from the Brewers for a 1.  What say you Greenweenie and Wildwood Dave?



The current standings are:



Braves - Almonte (.5),Tomlin(2),Smyly(3),Morton(2.5)...............  8

Mets - Stroman(3.5),Williams(1),May(2.5)..................................7

Royals - Minor(2.5),Taylor(1)..................................................3.5

Giants - Vosler(1),Gausman(2)...................................................3

Astros - Gurriel(3).....................................................................3



Marlins - Marte(3)......................................................................3

Yankees - Britton(3)...................................................................3

Cubs - Rizzo(3).......................................................................3



Blue Jays- Dolis(2),Ray(1)..........................................................3

Phillies - Neris(3)......................................................................3

Orioles - Iglesias(2.5)..............................................................2.5

Angels - Igesias(2)....................................................................2

Indians - Perez(2.5)...................................................................2

Diamondbacks - Kelly(2)............................................................2

Nationals - Harrison(1),Clay(1)...................................................2

Mariners - Graveman(1).............................................................1

Dodgers  Knebel(1)...................................................................1

Reds - Hoffman-(.5)................................................................0.5

Rockies - Stephenson(.5).........................................................0.5

Brewers - Maile(.5).................................................................0.5



Meantime Cherington continues to "wait for the market to be set"


Ok have some catching up to do

Igesias 2

knebel 1

Neris- have to give him a 2.5. Phillies bullpen was terrible last year

103631242D21362028430 wrote: I tried this logic before, Sugar, but it didn't take.  I doubt you'll have any luck, either.  You see, when Cherington didn't make a single transaction within his first few minutes on the job, he became worse than Huntington.  Because we all know that running a major league ball club is exactly like running a fantasy league team.


LOL, I was just reading at the beginning of the thread to see how it read, because possum had mention deleting it. I saw the GW quote directed at someone mentioning some sort of low level moves.



So, I just couldn't resist pointing out how serious this whole thing seems to be, until it isn't.



It was the fact they even gave Luke Maile a .5 for a grade. I guess they weren't allowed to give zeros, because if they had, I never would have thought I'd point out those "inconsistencies".  You can't lay claim to BC "doing nothing like a train passing a bum" when he in fact upgraded the catching position, albeit probably minimally. But better is better right?


________

The reason Maile was scored was that he was given a major league contract by the Brewers. The players scored all have major league contracts. Arbitration deals do not count. Instead of apologizing for Cherington, he needs to sign some major league ballplayers to major league contracts. If you want Cjerington's minor league acquisitions to count, then I suggest you keep track of all the minor league acquisiitions around the league. You can even use this thread to post the results.

362D202128242B450 wrote: I tried this logic before, Sugar, but it didn't take.  I doubt you'll have any luck, either.  You see, when Cherington didn't make a single transaction within his first few minutes on the job, he became worse than Huntington.  Because we all know that running a major league ball club is exactly like running a fantasy league team.


LOL, I was just reading at the beginning of the thread to see how it read, because possum had mention deleting it. I saw the GW quote directed at someone mentioning some sort of low level moves.



So, I just couldn't resist pointing out how serious this whole thing seems to be, until it isn't.



It was the fact they even gave Luke Maile a .5 for a grade. I guess they weren't allowed to give zeros, because if they had, I never would have thought I'd point out those "inconsistencies".  You can't lay claim to BC "doing nothing like a train passing a bum" when he in fact upgraded the catching position, albeit probably minimally. But better is better right?


________

The reason Maile was scored was that he was given a major league contract by the Brewers. The players scored all have major league contracts.  Arbitration deals do not count.  Instead of apologizing for Cherington, he needs to sign some major league ballplayers to major league contracts.  If you want Cjerington's minor league acquisitions to count, then I suggest you keep track of all the minor league acquisiitions around the league.  You can even use this thread to post the results.




You completely miss the point of the comments. No one's asking you to score anything other than what you want. It's the ridiculous parameters you set up that end up making this whole thing look foolish. You can throw around all the little snide remarks you want about "apologists". You claim this thread shows GM's improving their team. So I'll ask you, based upon YOUR parameters, exactly how did the Brewers GM improve his team, by signing Maile, but dealing Knebel? He got a plus .5 for Maile, but doesn't he get a negative 1 for Knebel?



Please, feel free to actually answer the question. Asking for a friend.

74525540494552444C270 wrote: We dont deal with suspects in the Off-season Thread.  It's to give (other, obviously) teams credit for improving their rosters by signing and trading for legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB players; you know- things that real GMs do.


So lemme get this thread straight then. We're giving credit to GM's who sign players who were DFA, cleared waivers with every other ML team, outrighted and the player becoming a free agent, yet a team signs a guy like this and actually gets credit for signing, and I'm trying too hard to keep from laughing at this ridiculous statement, a "legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player"....because you know, things a real GM do.



You guys set the bar pretty low for a, "legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player".  Career OPS of .556 required.



BC doesn't have to be busy then. Every single position player on his roster with more than 50 career AB's surpasses your legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player  minimum requirement.



BTW, a waiver claim by BC is a superior player to the "legitimate, authentic, bona-fide MLB player" you goof balls actually graded with a 0.5.....and the guy didn't even play last season!



I can't make this up!  And they said there was no laughter during a pandemic. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D




At least i am not the only one lost.

664047525B5740565E350 wrote: I tried this logic before, Sugar, but it didn't take.  I doubt you'll have any luck, either.  You see, when Cherington didn't make a single transaction within his first few minutes on the job, he became worse than Huntington.  Because we all know that running a major league ball club is exactly like running a fantasy league team.


LOL, I was just reading at the beginning of the thread to see how it read, because possum had mention deleting it. I saw the GW quote directed at someone mentioning some sort of low level moves.



So, I just couldn't resist pointing out how serious this whole thing seems to be, until it isn't.



It was the fact they even gave Luke Maile a .5 for a grade. I guess they weren't allowed to give zeros, because if they had, I never would have thought I'd point out those "inconsistencies".  You can't lay claim to BC "doing nothing like a train passing a bum" when he in fact upgraded the catching position, albeit probably minimally. But better is better right?


________

The reason Maile was scored was that he was given a major league contract by the Brewers. The players scored all have major league contracts.  Arbitration deals do not count.  Instead of apologizing for Cherington, he needs to sign some major league ballplayers to major league contracts.  If you want Cjerington's minor league acquisitions to count, then I suggest you keep track of all the minor league acquisiitions around the league.  You can even use this thread to post the results.




You completely miss the point of the comments. No one's asking you to score anything other than what you want. It's the ridiculous parameters you set up that end up making this whole thing look foolish. You can throw around all the little snide remarks you want about "apologists". You claim this thread shows GM's improving their team.  So I'll ask you, based upon YOUR parameters, exactly how did the Brewers GM improve his team, by signing Maile, but dealing Knebel? He got a plus .5 for Maile, but doesn't he get a negative 1 for Knebel?



Please, feel free to actually answer the question. Asking for a friend.


_________

It is you who is completely missing the point. This thread is NOT an attempt top measure how much a GM has improved the team. There are many ways to improve the team including major league acquisitions, minor league acquisition, drafting, player development, etc, etc, etc. This thread is an attempt to measure a GM's acquisitions

of major league ball players.



If a player is DFA's, that would be an indication that he was a minor league ballplayer and would not be scored. However, if that player is acquired by another GM and that GM gives the player a major league contract, he would be scored. If that player is given an invite to spring training with no major league contract, he would not be scored.

If you have some evidence that BC acquired a player during the off season and gave him a major league contract, please let me know and we will score him.

312A27262F232C420 wrote: I would much rather BC had acquired 1 player to help the 2020 team then playing for a undefined future that NEVER arrives in Pittsburgh.  That is nothing more than kicking the can down the road and apologizing for a GM who has done nothing.  Now my only concern is what BC will do to improve the 2021 team.  This playing for the future is a movie I have seen more times than I have watched the movie Titanic.  Relying on the draft is a hopeless strategy in Pittsburgh.  Those drafted players will reach FA and be dashed off long before their prime years.  I will measure BC solely on how well he does to improve the team right now.


He improved the team by claiming Michael Perez. In fact, he should be given credit for Jacob Stallings being kept, so the catcher position has been shored up. But hey, I can't make this stuff up.



You asked, you received. So here's your own words stating the expectations. Yet somehow....the only way to improve a club is by ending up on this list? Well, of course, we already know that isn't the case, at least as it stands for now with the Brewers GM. That negative .5, does that mean the freight train passed him like a bum, then backed up and did it again?



Asking for a friend

OK.  So I wasn't specific enough.  I assumed that everyone understood that we were addressing MLB players alone.  It's been written more than once.



I should have written that it was "rating MLB players alone. Whether it improves the roster is another matter.



How we rate players is how we rate them.  If someone disagrees, they can ask to join in next year.



I think Ben came down with Covid Amnesia.  He can't recall how to go about acquiring MLB players.  Maybe he will snap out of it.  Does anyone know the Secret Word?

645146464D7446464D4A46230 wrote: OK.  So I wasn't specific enough.  I assumed that everyone understood that we were addressing MLB players alone.  It's been written more than once.



I should have written that it was "rating MLB players alone.  Whether it improves the roster is another matter.



How we rate players is how we rate them.  If someone disagrees, they can ask to join in next year.



I think Ben came down with Covid Amnesia.  He can't recall how to go about acquiring MLB players.  Maybe he will snap out of it.  Does anyone know the Secret Word?


I don't know the secret word but the password is Swordfish.