I get what you’re saying about the Rangers and O’s, but have a different take on it. Yes, the O’s put their fans through hell with a tank job. But they (like the Royals) weren’t going to pay silly money like the Rangers, and more importantly, the O’s actually had a plan AND executed on it.
They absolutely executed. How many teams don’t? The idea of tanking for five years or whatever and then magically winning is great but it doesn’t always work. And then you’ve just beaten down your fan base to try again. I truly don’t think the Royals have ever really tanked. I think they’ve been most incompetent. But we see the impact of losing followed by losing followed by more losing. Good on them for executing, but it was no guarantee when that organization decided their fans didn’t need to see 60 wins for nearly half a decade.
At the end of the day I don’t care if it is the Orioles way or the Rangers way. Just get competitive. As hard as it is in baseball to lose 100 games. Getting a .500 season out of your organization should be a pretty regular occurrence for any team. It’s not like football where that is almost every year. But in an 8 year stretch here…..we should have at least 3 .500 seasons by now. They make it look that hard…but I don’t think it should be.
I can't argue with any of that. But from a global perspective, I think it's good for the game for teams to see other teams spending and moving on. Of course, that's also counterintuitive to the other point that the playoffs are largely random, so maybe I'm just arguing with myself.
I think the playoffs are random but I do think you need some key ingredients. It’s random, but you don’t usually see teams win for instance without a top of the rotation piece, good bullpen, and a few big hitters in the middle. And maybe that statement is “duh”. But I see the Phillies and see exactly that. Braves too for that matter. Basically all the teams left seem to have a number 1 with a good lineup. I’m rooting for the Rangers. The way they did it was exciting. I’m 100% sure the backside is going to hurt. But I do like that they just said screw a full rebuild. Didn’t work for the Mets, but has for the Rangers for whatever reason.
Like everything, there isn't just one way to go about it. I think you can win in the postseason with a deep lineup that doesn't have holes or you can win with a lineup with a big middle of the order. Both is obviously better. I think you can win too if you've got eight pitchers you can trust or you can with two great starters and three great relievers. But yeah, it's a duh moment that you need good players.
I also think saying it didn't work for the Mets may not be entirely accurate. No, they didn't win the World Series and they were bad this year, but they won 100 games last year and I wonder how they look if Diaz doesn't have a fluke injury in the WBC. I don't know. I think it's kind of funny that people are very quick to point out that spending doesn't always work, but only point to the successes from a full-scale rebuild while ignoring how many times *that* doesn't work.
So IDK if there is something to this. But I always feel like it is the people in the smaller markets that are super quick to point out that spending big doesn’t always work. IDK that the teams in the big markets point that out as much. Or maybe it just an ownership thing pointing that out. But in general you’re right. You never really hear about the rebuild not working. Lol.
While I think there should be a cap of some sort (and a floor to go along with it), I think there's some pride that people have in pointing out when a team that spent doesn't win. I've certainly been guilty of it. I think what people don't realize is that they're putting an emphasis on ownership keeping money rather than reinvesting it in their players. There is no shame in spending money in baseball. I'd much rather the players have their pockets lined than owners having *more* money.
<<You don’t have to look any further than our beloved Royals. One of those teams in the ALCS is a team the Royals swept on the road when that team was legitimately fighting for their playoff lives. If the Royals can do that on a random weekend, can’t an actually good team?>>
We were all thinking this, really.
I’m rooting for the Rangers versus the Diamondbacks in the series, but I acknowledge the Diamondbacks will have to seize momentum and luck. The Braves were shockingly limp.
I think I'm actually rooting for the Phillies. They're fun to watch. That goes against basically my whole identity as a baseball fan, but I like them for some reason. But yeah, definitely Rangers over Astros.
And yeah, the Braves looked pretty bad. It was the fewest runs they'd scored in any four-game period this year, but they'd scored nine in three different stretches and 11 in another. I saw an article in The Athletic saying that changes had to be made, and maybe, but also, there's just so much randomness in four games.
Changes have to be made? With the Braves? Not sure I get that one if anyone has watched them the last two years. Lol. I don’t think you can make any statement like that with a four game sample. It’s just the playoffs. Lol
Really appreciate the good content and insight as always! Ive really enjoyed all your offseason articles, and looking forward to more! Very happy to hear that there will potentially be some development hires soon! That was probably at the top of my offseason wish list. Pairing that with a new scouting director looks promising when it comes to the FO self awareness and process. It's going to be a very intriguing offseason for sure!
Thanks, Nic! Yeah, nothing is done until it’s done, but I feel like I’ve heard enough rumors from enough smart people to believe there are things in the works.
I get what you’re saying about the Rangers and O’s, but have a different take on it. Yes, the O’s put their fans through hell with a tank job. But they (like the Royals) weren’t going to pay silly money like the Rangers, and more importantly, the O’s actually had a plan AND executed on it.
They absolutely executed. How many teams don’t? The idea of tanking for five years or whatever and then magically winning is great but it doesn’t always work. And then you’ve just beaten down your fan base to try again. I truly don’t think the Royals have ever really tanked. I think they’ve been most incompetent. But we see the impact of losing followed by losing followed by more losing. Good on them for executing, but it was no guarantee when that organization decided their fans didn’t need to see 60 wins for nearly half a decade.
I think we know one team that hasn’t executed despite years of many losses.
At the end of the day I don’t care if it is the Orioles way or the Rangers way. Just get competitive. As hard as it is in baseball to lose 100 games. Getting a .500 season out of your organization should be a pretty regular occurrence for any team. It’s not like football where that is almost every year. But in an 8 year stretch here…..we should have at least 3 .500 seasons by now. They make it look that hard…but I don’t think it should be.
I can't argue with any of that. But from a global perspective, I think it's good for the game for teams to see other teams spending and moving on. Of course, that's also counterintuitive to the other point that the playoffs are largely random, so maybe I'm just arguing with myself.
I think the playoffs are random but I do think you need some key ingredients. It’s random, but you don’t usually see teams win for instance without a top of the rotation piece, good bullpen, and a few big hitters in the middle. And maybe that statement is “duh”. But I see the Phillies and see exactly that. Braves too for that matter. Basically all the teams left seem to have a number 1 with a good lineup. I’m rooting for the Rangers. The way they did it was exciting. I’m 100% sure the backside is going to hurt. But I do like that they just said screw a full rebuild. Didn’t work for the Mets, but has for the Rangers for whatever reason.
Like everything, there isn't just one way to go about it. I think you can win in the postseason with a deep lineup that doesn't have holes or you can win with a lineup with a big middle of the order. Both is obviously better. I think you can win too if you've got eight pitchers you can trust or you can with two great starters and three great relievers. But yeah, it's a duh moment that you need good players.
I also think saying it didn't work for the Mets may not be entirely accurate. No, they didn't win the World Series and they were bad this year, but they won 100 games last year and I wonder how they look if Diaz doesn't have a fluke injury in the WBC. I don't know. I think it's kind of funny that people are very quick to point out that spending doesn't always work, but only point to the successes from a full-scale rebuild while ignoring how many times *that* doesn't work.
So IDK if there is something to this. But I always feel like it is the people in the smaller markets that are super quick to point out that spending big doesn’t always work. IDK that the teams in the big markets point that out as much. Or maybe it just an ownership thing pointing that out. But in general you’re right. You never really hear about the rebuild not working. Lol.
While I think there should be a cap of some sort (and a floor to go along with it), I think there's some pride that people have in pointing out when a team that spent doesn't win. I've certainly been guilty of it. I think what people don't realize is that they're putting an emphasis on ownership keeping money rather than reinvesting it in their players. There is no shame in spending money in baseball. I'd much rather the players have their pockets lined than owners having *more* money.
<<You don’t have to look any further than our beloved Royals. One of those teams in the ALCS is a team the Royals swept on the road when that team was legitimately fighting for their playoff lives. If the Royals can do that on a random weekend, can’t an actually good team?>>
We were all thinking this, really.
I’m rooting for the Rangers versus the Diamondbacks in the series, but I acknowledge the Diamondbacks will have to seize momentum and luck. The Braves were shockingly limp.
I think I'm actually rooting for the Phillies. They're fun to watch. That goes against basically my whole identity as a baseball fan, but I like them for some reason. But yeah, definitely Rangers over Astros.
And yeah, the Braves looked pretty bad. It was the fewest runs they'd scored in any four-game period this year, but they'd scored nine in three different stretches and 11 in another. I saw an article in The Athletic saying that changes had to be made, and maybe, but also, there's just so much randomness in four games.
Changes have to be made? With the Braves? Not sure I get that one if anyone has watched them the last two years. Lol. I don’t think you can make any statement like that with a four game sample. It’s just the playoffs. Lol
I realize you aren’t saying that. Just the Athletic article. Seems extreme.
Yeah, it was a bad article, I think.
Remember a week or so ago when everyone was worried the Braves might get tripped up by their lack of pitching? Oops.
To be fair, if they'd just thrown a bunch of shutouts, they'd be moving on.
Really appreciate the good content and insight as always! Ive really enjoyed all your offseason articles, and looking forward to more! Very happy to hear that there will potentially be some development hires soon! That was probably at the top of my offseason wish list. Pairing that with a new scouting director looks promising when it comes to the FO self awareness and process. It's going to be a very intriguing offseason for sure!
Thanks, Nic! Yeah, nothing is done until it’s done, but I feel like I’ve heard enough rumors from enough smart people to believe there are things in the works.