That's partly true, but if you want a tear down to get rid of old players, you definitely don't bring back your 35 year old catcher on a 3 year deal nor sign a 36 year old OF to a two year deal.

i think both the chooch and byrd deals are moveable if they're having decent-ish seasons, and neither are crippling in the long term. maybe one of them is raking at the all-star break and you can trade them for some prospects

td11 wrote:i think both the chooch and byrd deals are moveable if they're having decent-ish seasons, and neither are crippling in the long term. maybe one of them is raking at the all-star break and you can trade them for some prospects

And fwiw, if one of them was raking for us at last year's All-Star break, we would have been very much in the mix

#pollyanna
#kissit

fucking brilliant Woodrow.

Amaro sucks ass. He gets a F-- for this disaster.

td11 wrote:i think both the chooch and byrd deals are moveable if they're having decent-ish seasons, and neither are crippling in the long term. maybe one of them is raking at the all-star break and you can trade them for some prospects

sure, "if they're having decent-ish seasons" but that's not assured with old folks. What's more, do you normally see teams involved in a tear down sign those types of contracts to old players? Why not? Because there's no point to it at best and at worst it gets you two more albatrosses you can't move. This isn't my position by the way (tearing down), it's just that you should absolutely be pissed off with our moves if you wanted a tear down.

I'm the opposite, I think you could have gotten 15 more wins and really contended if you had made some real signings and not this stop gap garbage.

sydnor wrote:

td11 wrote:i think both the chooch and byrd deals are moveable if they're having decent-ish seasons, and neither are crippling in the long term. maybe one of them is raking at the all-star break and you can trade them for some prospects

I'm the opposite, I think you could have gotten 15 more wins and really contended if you had made some real signings and not this stop gap garbage.

I think I disagree with this--not the fact that they could possibly make playoffs next year with some breaks, internal improvement, and key additions--but that there are moves that would make that likely ex-ante. Given that, I'm fine with our hopefully lame duck GM not tying up any more future assets trying to win bidding wars in a seemingly hot FA market for (IMO) flawed and risky top FAs

joe table wrote:

sydnor wrote:

td11 wrote:i think both the chooch and byrd deals are moveable if they're having decent-ish seasons, and neither are crippling in the long term. maybe one of them is raking at the all-star break and you can trade them for some prospects

I'm the opposite, I think you could have gotten 15 more wins and really contended if you had made some real signings and not this stop gap garbage.

I think I disagree with this--not the fact that they could possibly make playoffs next year with some breaks, internal improvement, and key additions--but that there are moves that would make that likely ex-ante. Given that, I'm fine with our hopefully lame duck GM not tying up any more future assets trying to win bidding wars in a seemingly hot FA market for (IMO) flawed and risky top FAs

yeah basically. i don't want amaro trying to sign ellsbury or choo or any "star" according to what he thinks they're worth. that's a terrifying prospect.

also, jeff, of course nothing is assured with old folks-- that's why i said "if." plenty of teams, contending and non-contending, sign aging players to short/medium term deals and hope for the best. "there's no point at best" is a silly absolutist statement. at best, they're playing well and the team is winning. or, at best, they're playing well and can be moved for other assets.

I just love that the best we're hoping for is for Byrd and Chooch to get super lucky in the first half with the hopes that we might con some other team into foolishly taking their freshly inked contract. it's come to this!

Woody wrote:Grote would you give Amaro the D

So I guess you don't want this Crispin brothers coconut oil dispenser for Christmas

Woody wrote:I just love that the best we're hoping for is for Byrd and Chooch to get super lucky in the first half with the hopes that we might con some other team into foolishly taking their freshly inked contract. it's come to this!

we can win the wildcard!

Woody wrote:I just love that the best we're hoping for is for Byrd and Chooch to get super lucky in the first half with the hopes that we might con some other team into foolishly taking their freshly inked contract. it's come to this!

Exactly. TD, you're wrong. Teams engaged in a tear down don't sign those players. It's not even my position. I didn't want to tear it down, but the idea that people who wanted to would not be enraged by these two signings is silly.

I am neutral to ever so slightly positive on the Byrd signing. I am blinded with rage at the Ruiz signing since the numbers for people like Navarro and Salty were way better and I'd probably rather have McCann/Ruf than Byrd/Ruiz.

Table's point is a good one: I absolutely don't want Amaro overseeing the rebuild. As noted earlier, I also don't want him making dumb win-now moves that won't and thus simply extending the pain.

But to shore's point, I think the teardown was and is the right way to go. What I hope the FO understands is that Amaro is no more capable of overseeing a rebuild than a Kardashian would be of running a kibbutz. I'd much much rather they just rehire Wade.

My D grade was in absolute terms. So maybe if we're grading on an Amaro Curve, it's more like a B.

</Grote?>

Woody wrote:I just love that the best we're hoping for is for Byrd and Chooch to get super lucky in the first half with the hopes that we might con some other team into foolishly taking their freshly inked contract. it's come to this!

C'mon, that's far from "the best we're hoping for." Gonzalez and Boner/Kendrick could be huge upgrades over Halladay and Lannan, the bullpen could/should be better, and several guys in the lineup should play more and hopefully more productively

If some or much of that goes right, any improvements from last year's RF and C from Byrd and Ruiz would really help

the red sox signed napoli last year coming off a down/injury plagued year entering his age 31 season during their "teardown"

That's terrible evidence, td. You're the leader in internets, get better.

Reason 1: It was a one year deal. Not a 3 year deal.
Reason 2: They were trying to build back up, the tear down was complete.
Reason 3: 31 is a fuck load different than 35 and 36.

Also, if any of you steal my "Kardashians' Krazy Kibbutz!" idea, so help me.

sydnor wrote:That's terrible evidence, td. You're the leader in internets, get better.

Reason 1: It was a one year deal. Not a 3 year deal.
Reason 2: They were trying to build back up, the tear down was complete.
Reason 3: 31 is a #$!&@ load different than 35 and 36.

Point of clarification: It was originally a 3/39 deal until his medicals came back.

Ok, along those lines, hopefully Ruiz was a 1/7 deal before the Phils learned he was allowed to mainline Adderall

choco wrote:

sydnor wrote:That's terrible evidence, td. You're the leader in internets, get better.

Reason 1: It was a one year deal. Not a 3 year deal.
Reason 2: They were trying to build back up, the tear down was complete.
Reason 3: 31 is a #$!&@ load different than 35 and 36.

Point of clarification: It was originally a 3/39 deal until his medicals came back.

To feel better about our own shitty team, this might be a fun time to remember that the Angels traded Mike Napoli for Vernon Wells.

i guess there just aren't that many teams doing "teardowns"