Terry Ryan's hand picked replacement? I thought we had pretty well narrowed our sights - who needs a host of scapegoats when it's really just one guy that embodies all the problems?
Another draft with us taking Dunn. Draft him, let him learn with Rubio this year, and then use Rubio as a big trade chip next offseason? Assuming Dunn is basically Rubio with a better shot as he's often described.
Answer: Everyone who is 2 years or less of arbitration eligibility. That's basically everyone but May, Berrios, Duffey, Rosario, Arcia, Buxton, Sano, Escobar, Polanco, Park, Kepler, etc. Everyone else should be shopped aggressively.
I think the Cubs are demonstrating how you have to have a really specific plan for what you like and what you don't and build with that. I think Terry comes from an era where you just assembled assets and tried to fit them as you go. Epstien has brilliantly targeted hitters with high picks and high value trades because he knows that scouting their future impact is generally more reliable. (Plus they are less likely to have injury issues and longer careers) He's supplemented the pitching staff with buy-low moves and free agent dollars. That basic framework is so easy to replicate. Or, hell, do something else smart for all I care - but time for a total change in organizational framework. Gut the whole front office.
Firing Ryan and replacing him with Anthony would be utterly pointless. I'm sure Rob Anthony is a fine person, but he'd be a god awful replacement choice. No one should be fine with this organizations nepotism any more.
Sure you do, the problem is not consistency vs. competency, it's what degree of competency you'll accept from a player on your bench. Would I be totally opposed to Aaron Hicks the 4th OF? No, but I was arguing against the suggestion that Aaron Hicks is more than that. I also would prefer a significantly better Plan B for Buxton than him. The Twins could've signed someone capable of playing CF and played them in RFuntil he was needed. Now this required adding someone like Fowler (who I said all offseason would've been my top priority) and it would've required dumping the asinine idea of moving Sano to RF by trading Plouffe. However they did it, the point was that no one on the roster was a sufficient Plan B for Buxton including Hicks. They needed to go outside and avoid the mistake they made when they rushed Hicks, instead they doubled down with Buxton.
I agree, it's hard to find anything on the internet that isn't readily replaced. What it brings us is what we already have but in a more convenient and accessible way. It brings tangibly valuable things to us at an intangibly helpful rate. But nothing, in and of itself, would I rush to save before the plug was pulled. I'd be more worried about pulling all my cash out of banks and stuffing it in my mattress.
For me, I think Polanco needs to take primarily Escobar's at-bats. We should see if the kid can be our shortstop. I'd rather test him there first and find out he can't do it. Kepler-Polanco-Mauer-Sano-Park-Arcia(or Rosario)-Dozier-Murphy-Buxton. I'd like to see that by no later than August 1st. That's the group that needs to be invested in at this point. Berrios-May-Duffey should all be in the rotation too.
Yeah, the loss of the internet wouldn't necessarily be tangible in the same sense as it would if a library is burned, the loss would be felt in how it would decouple so much of our economy, monetary systems, etc. We'd feel it, but it isn't because we lost something we can't get back. We'd feel it because a whole way of living would be suddenly pulled out from under us.
Yup, this is the path back to contention, it's also the only thing to hold on to for positivity. I hope we can be seeing this going in the right direction in August.
Much of our science and books are catalogued elsewhere, what is exclusive to the internet? I'd venture something like a "best of youtube", but most of the truly important things in this world predates the internet so they'd still be safe I'd imagine.
"Where are the prospects" doesn't require a literal answer. The question is really "Why aren't they helping if you've kept telling us they're so good" That's the question that needs answering. Or, perhaps, if you like these guys so much...why do you keep bypassing them for organizational filler?
No, it's not. My opinion of him is based on him being a bad baseball player and there is ample evidence of it. We're talking about a player that came back in July last year and was pretty good - other than that one short stretch of the season he was considerably below average. A guy who hits 10 homeruns in a week and then absolutely sucks for 5 weeks may normalize into a semi-competent player but that didn't change the fact that he was a black hole of terrible play for 5 weeks. That's what Hicks is. He can't do anything consistently enough to be a competent player you can rely on.
If that's the extent of your bar for backup plans than you must have liked Danny Santana and Jordan Schafer? I guess my bar is "be at least competent baseball players" - of which we've had no one who qualifies for about 5 or 6 years now. And Aaron Hicks would've been no different.