Craig Breslow hired as Head Of Baseball Operations

[notin]

You didn't mention Bregman in this post. WTH?

 

I don’t because that’s a personal matter between me and Alex…

[notin]

No, but you selectively chose just a 3 year period, when they tanked for longer than that.

 

I also think it was worth tanking for Correa, Appel and Aiken, combined. That's a better haul than most lower draft teams get in a 3 year period of 1st round picks. BTW, the Astros did draft Bregman with the comp pick for not signing Aiken, so they basically got Correa and Bregman from that 3 year period.

 

I also maintain it is more than just the 1st round pick that matters, despite MVP's rebukes.

 

 

How bizarre of me to limit the tanking to the 3 year stretch where the Astros failed to win even 55 games in a season…

[Bellhorn04]

How bizarre of me to limit the tanking to the 3 year stretch where the Astros failed to win even 55 games in a season…

 

The idea of that kind of tanking is that you do get better, ya know.

[mvp 78]

How bizarre of me to limit the tanking to the 3 year stretch where the Astros failed to win even 55 games in a season…

 

They really sucked those years!

[moonslav59]

How bizarre of me to limit the tanking to the 3 year stretch where the Astros failed to win even 55 games in a season…

 

You can tank and the team does better than 55 wins, right?

 

Also, the Bregman pick was a result of not signing Aiken, so it is not bizare to count him as a tank year addition.

 

BTW, the Astros spent less in 2014 and 2015 than they did in 2011, according to cots opening day roster budgets.

 

They tanked for 5 years, but won more games in 2014 and 2015 than the 3 years you want to limit it to.

[notin]

They really sucked those years!

 

They didn’t suck; they were tanking…

[notin]

You can tank and the team does better than 55 wins, right?

 

Also, the Bregman pick was a result of not signing Aiken, so it is not bizare to count him as a tank year addition.

 

BTW, the Astros spent less in 2014 and 2015 than they did in 2011, according to cots opening day roster budgets.

 

They tanked for 5 years, but won more games in 2014 and 2015 than the 3 years you want to limit it to.

 

So you’re saying the Bregman pick was compensation and NOT a result of tanking. I mean, if they went 92-70 in 2014, they still that pick, right?

[Bellhorn04]

They didn’t suck; they were tanking…

 

You really seem to hate the idea that there's a big difference between trying to compete but sucking, and trying to suck.

 

Is throwing a fight in boxing different from trying to win but getting beat?

 

Is throwing a fight a "subset of losing"?

[notin]

You really seem to hate the idea that there's a big difference between trying to compete but sucking, and trying to suck.

 

Is throwing a fight in boxing different from trying to win but getting beat?

 

Is throwing a fight a "subset of losing"?

 

YES!!

 

Throwing a fight is absolutely a subset of losing!! How does throwing a fight appear on the boxer’s record?

 

The set of reasons for losing a fight includes (but is not limited to):

 

1. Overmatched

2. Poorly prepared

3. Didn’t try (aka tanked).

 

So if that is the set of reasons, is it or is it not a subset?

 

Agree or disagree?

Edited October 27, 2023 by notin
Fixed an egregious and hasty boo boo

[Bellhorn04]

YES!!

 

Throwing a fight is absolutely a subset of losing!! How does throwing a fight appear on the boxer’s record?

 

The set of reasons for throwing a fight includes (but is not limited to):

 

1. Overmatched

2. Poorly prepared

3. Didn’t try (aka tanked).

 

So if that is the set of reasons, is it or is it not a subset?

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Well, for starters I don't think much of the list of reasons. You somehow left out boxers throwing fights because they're paid or otherwise coerced to do so.

 

And how is being overmatched throwing a fight?

[Bellhorn04]

"This is just a subset of that" would be downright offensive in many instances. "Being tortured and murdered is just a subset of dying." "Terminal cancer is just a subset of being sick." Nobody says these things.

[notin]

Well, for starters I don't think much of the list of reasons. You somehow left out boxers throwing fights because they're paid or otherwise coerced to do so.

 

And how is being overmatched throwing a fight?

 

 

Typo. Typing too fast and not checking. Those were the set of reasons for LOSING a fight. Not throwing a fight. I did say “not limited to,” leaving the door open for other reasons.

 

Bottom line - team trying and sucking vs not trying and sucking both have the same net result - sucking. How much difference does it really make to fans at the time? Neither one bolsters ticket sales over the other. The trying time might get more before the season, but as the season wears on, they will see a sharp decline in interest.

 

Which do you prefer as a fan - a tanking team hoping to provide hope for tomorrow? Or an expensive flop? Which do you drop cash down to go watch?

[notin]

"This is just a subset of that" would be downright offensive in many instances. "Being tortured and murdered is just a subset of dying." "Terminal cancer is just a subset of being sick." Nobody says these things.

 

But are they incorrect? Not even sure how this post I’m quoting is even relevant or what point it is supposed to be making.

 

And how exactly is calling tanking a subset of sucking offensive?

 

Also, nicely deployed use of “just” to further emphasize the insensitivity…

Edited October 27, 2023 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

Typo. Typing too fast and not checking. Those were the set of reasons for LOSING a fight. Not throwing a fight. I did say “not limited to,” leaving the door open for other reasons.

 

Bottom line - team trying and sucking vs not trying and sucking both have the same net result - sucking. How much difference does it really make to fans at the time? Neither one bolsters ticket sales over the other. The trying time might get more before the season, but as the season wears on, they will see a sharp decline in interest.

 

Which do you prefer as a fan - a tanking team hoping to provide hope for tomorrow? Or an expensive flop? Which do you drop cash down to go watch?

 

I hate tanking, I'd rather have an expensive flop, and I think a lot of other fans feel the same way.

[Bellhorn04]

But are they incorrect? Not even sure how this post I’m quoting is even relevant or what point it is supposed to be making.

 

And how exactly is calling tanking a subset of sucking offensive?

 

It's not so much offensive as misleading. To me it seems like an attempt to gloss over the huge difference-maker known as "intent"...

[moonslav59]

So you’re saying the Bregman pick was compensation and NOT a result of tanking. I mean, if they went 92-70 in 2014, they still that pick, right?

 

The Bregman pick WAS a result of tanking. I am firmly a believer the Astros were tanking for more than 3 years. Where are you reading into my statement that? The Aiken pick was from one of your 3 tanhk year drafts. They did not sign him and got Bregmnan the following draft, as a result of tanking. That is clear, to me.

 

They did not start spending way more until 2016. It's my opinion that the tanking was for 5 years. It did not mean every year it resulted in a top pick or a top pick that worked, everytime. It did not, but the overall strategy paid off, and then some.

[moonslav59]

YES!!

 

Throwing a fight is absolutely a subset of losing!! How does throwing a fight appear on the boxer’s record?

 

The set of reasons for losing a fight includes (but is not limited to):

 

1. Overmatched

2. Poorly prepared

3. Didn’t try (aka tanked).

 

So if that is the set of reasons, is it or is it not a subset?

 

Agree or disagree?

 

If the fighter admitted he threw the fight, I'd say that is evidence.

 

The Astros admitted they tanked.

[notin]

I hate tanking, I'd rather have an expensive flop, and I think a lot of other fans feel the same way.

 

It’s a tough call. The advantage to tanking is there is a hopeful ending. An expensive flop can carry on for as long as Mike Trout and Anthony Rendon’s contracts drag your team down while watching Shohei Ohtani as a visiting Ranger (not a prediction, but certainly a possibility Angels’ fans would hate to see).

[Bellhorn04]

The only season I can think of that the Red Sox have ever tanked was 2020. And it seemed like the perfect time to do it, with a 60-game season and Sale and E-Rod and Cora out and rest of the post-2019 shitstorm... But I'll always have kind of a queasy feeling about that season and getting Mayer with the #4 pick. We've had other losing seasons of late, but this was the only one that felt like they were fine about it.

[Bellhorn04]

It’s a tough call. The advantage to tanking is there is a hopeful ending. An expensive flop can carry on for as long as Mike Trout and Anthony Rendon’s contracts drag your team down while watching Shohei Ohtani as a visiting Ranger (not a prediction, but certainly a possibility Angels’ fans would hate to see).

 

But the Angels have just been making bad decisions for a number of years now. There are always going to be losers in this zero sum game. And the Red Sox have been in that class themselves far too much over the last dozen years...

[notin]

If the fighter admitted he threw the fight, I'd say that is evidence.

 

The Astros admitted they tanked.

 

I’m not a huge boxing fan, but I am aware that the professional boxing world is rife with fighters whose sole job is to lose fights to bolster the records of their opponents. This is perfectly legal in that world. And the wins and losses count.

 

The Astros admitting they ranked is legal, too. But no one has been saying they didn’t tank. My only point was they showed that it’s not always effective because of the complete crapshoot of getting even the overall number one pick. That they succeeded in other ways doesn’t change that fact…

[notin]

But the Angels have just been making bad decisions for a number of years now. There are always going to be losers in this zero sum game. And the Red Sox have been in that class themselves far too much over the last dozen years...

 

Ok. How does that make tanking not a subset of sucking? I fully acknowledge making poor decisions is also a subset of sucking. And there are many other subsets. Rampant/key injuries and bad luck, for example…

[mvp 78]

It’s a tough call. The advantage to tanking is there is a hopeful ending. An expensive flop can carry on for as long as Mike Trout and Anthony Rendon’s contracts drag your team down while watching Shohei Ohtani as a visiting Ranger (not a prediction, but certainly a possibility Angels’ fans would hate to see).

 

You need to have a good front office if you want to turn a s***** team. The Orioles sucked from 2000-11, but they weren't doing it on purpose. There wasn't a quick turn around either. However, after being horrible from 17-21, they did turn it around quickly because they built a quality front office that other teams (including the Sox) now want to poach.

[mvp 78]

There are always going to be losers in this zero sum game. And the Red Sox have been in that class themselves far too much over the last dozen years...

 

Who talks like this?

[notin]

It's not so much offensive as misleading. To me it seems like an attempt to gloss over the huge difference-maker known as "intent"...

 

But that’s a personal choice. Honestly, I’d prefer a tanking team over one that made poor decisions. But a team that sucked due to rampant/key injuries might be understandable, albeit frustrating…

[notin]

Who talks like this?

 

People who get offended by the word “subset”?

[Bellhorn04]

Ok. How does that make tanking not a subset of sucking? I fully acknowledge making poor decisions is also a subset of sucking. And there are many other subsets. Rampant/key injuries and bad luck, for example…

 

OK, they're all subsets of sucking. I guess the next question is, so what?

 

If you don't think intentionally losing is a big difference from unintentionally losing, so be it. I disagree, obviously.

[Bellhorn04]

Who talks like this?

 

People who get offended by the word “subset”?

 

Yeah, you two make a cute little tag team.

[Bellhorn04]

Why did the Black Sox take so much heat for throwing the World Series, BTW?

 

All they had to do was explain that it was a "subset of losing"...

[Hugh2]

Guys guys guys gusy, arguments like this about nothing, where we complain and argue about everything down to heated semantics battles are not ALLOWED until after the world series.

 

You can't wait 10 more days????