moonslav59

I'm not a big Manaea fan, but I like one year of him more than Hill or Wacha or Paxton. I don't think Yorke equaled what the A's ended up settling on. I'd prefer trading for someone better, but who knows the cost.

The return of JD?

Again, I'd have traded for someone like Manaea, but yes, in general, I think the odds are better on $11-20M pitchers than $5-10M guys. Apparently, the GMs that give those contracts agree. That's not to say every starter who signed for over $10M I wish we'd have signed. I'm on record saying I did not like this year's class, exept for some of the older guys on shorter term deals. My point is, I can't see us being top favorites by counting on guys like Richards, Perez, Wacha, Hill and Paxton, every year. It worked out okay, last season, but we are pushing our luck, IMO.

I'm glad you finally answered. OK, maybe right on the CWS, but I said 3-4th best in MLB. I'm not the one who brought up season records, but how does finishing 3rd in the division support your position we were top 3-4 in MLB? My opinion? I don't think the team who wins the final 7 game series of the year is necessarily the best. I think the Dodgers and Giants were the best teams in MLB, last year- maybe not for a couple weeks in October, but yes, the best teams in MLB. I think the Astros, a team that has made the ALCS, five straight years were better than us. The Rays were better. At best we were 5th, but certainly the Brewers, Yanks and yes, the CWS and Braves could have been ranked equal or higher than us. Wins are part of it. Run differential. WAR. Playoffs. A lot goes into who I think was the best, but it's not all about the winner of the World Series. I respect your opinion, and I'm sure many agree with you, but I still don't think we were a top 4 team, last year. Schwarber and some over-the-head play by Iggy, Shaw and a guy named Kike, who some want to platoon now, got us closer, but I'd be hard pressed to call us #5 in 2021.

Or, had we gotten good SP'ers, we'd have had a decent pen with Houck and Whitlock at 1-2.

I hope this season doesn't quickly turn into one where we end up caring about the farm more than the big club. There sure is a lot to be excited about, and at every level on the farm. Will some of the very promising prospects be promoted earlier than expected?

The D was a big part of one of those 2 loses, but a homer is a homer, even if the game should have been over.

Why not answer? Do you really think the Sox were a top 4 team, last year? How about top 3? Do you really think the Braves were the best? Does good luck make a good team a top 4 team? Does a playoff structure that forces the 2 best teams in MLB to play each other before the League Championship series affect who we might think is top 4?

Jacko, many good and even some great starters struggle after 2 times through the line-up. Teams can win with a lot of starters like that, and a strong pen helps- something I'm pretty sure we don't have, now that Houck and Whitlock are starters- Whitlock maybe temporarily.

You don't think $15-20M gets you better than $5-10? Again, though, I thought trading for a solid SP'er was the way to go, this winter, so it was not really my position, this winter. It's not like I forgot what the Price contract did to us, among other deals, but counting on us to build a solid rotation from only the system and $5-10M starters is a long shot. At some point, I feel like we'll need to trade some promising prospects for one or at least pay over $10M for a FA starter, if Bloom can't bring himself to deal for one. I'm not saying it has to be a $30M deal. The Eovaldi deal worked pretty well. Look, I hope I'm dead wrong. I hope Wacha, Hill and Paxton lead us to the promise land, or at least a couple have a big part in a long run, this year, but I think we are fighting the odds that most teams around the 8th to 12th highest contender status is in, right now. If you are a believer in the crapshoot playoff philosophy, then that helps. I'm not. I don't think my position is all that extreme.

That was addressed to the point about we need to be a top 4 team "on paper" before the year starts. I never said or implied that, but being good on paper by the end of the year does improve your odds. Yes, the 2018 team was top 4 before we added Eovaldi and Pearce, but that doesn't take away from the point that having a stronger rotation is important to become a top 3-4 contender and have better odds at winning a ring.

If you think last year's team was a top 4 team in MLB, I still say, "if you say so." I don't think we were. (Of course, how far we went does not help my position on the playoffs are largely not a crapshoot.)

And you’re moving the goal posts. You’re original notion was Bloom needs to spend money on starters. That he has never spent $10mill on a starter. Wrong. I said I'd rather spend more than $10M on a starter than get 3 for $20M. I also said I did not think any starters this year, were worth the big plunge, and trading for one made more sense. I have also showed how trading for starters has worked way better for us than FA signings. The rest of your post was based on a faulty idea of what my position is.

IMO, we were a top 2 contender at the start of 2018, and one reason was we had Sale AND Price, plus some other starters who looked pretty good. (We also had a closer, who underperformed from ST'ing expectations, but the rotation carried us. (Other pen pieces stepped up, when needed, too.) Nate and Pearce put us over the top, or one might say, were "icing on the cake."

Okay. Look, I'd prefer better starters than better pens, but we need a legit closer, too.

Where did I ever come close to saying or implying that? If you think planning should involve or plan on good luck, don't count me in on that idea.

No, I don't think we were a top 4 team, last year, at any point, even the end. For one thing, the Dodgers played the Giants, the two best teams, before the NLCS. Adding Schwarber and the fine play by additions like Iggy, Shaw and, at times, the pen additions helped get us closer, but I still think TBR, TOR, NYY, CWS and HOU were better than us, last year- just in the AL. Although I do not think the playoffs are a total crapshoot, like many fans do, there is some luck involved on who advances. Having a better team increases your odds of winning, and do not have some unique point of view or philosophy, as Bellhorn thinks I have, to think having a strong rotation greatly improves your odds. The whole "on paper" thing is not something I quite understand. Framber Valdez was not a recognized ace, last year, but he looked like one to us. I fully understand, we could have a solid rotation, by the end of the year without making any flashy, glitzy or under the radar rotation additions, but I'd feel a lot more confident, if we had some more known solid starters, so if that means "on paper," I'm not sure that makes me all that "different" from the way many fans feel about their team's chances. It's not like history is working against my idea. We had Pedro and added Schiiling> ring We had Schilling and added Beckett> ring We had Lester and added Lackey> ring We had Price and added Sale> ring. These are not coincidences. Does this "ring" the bell? We had Eovaldi and added Pivetta. Or, we had Sale and added Eovaldi. Maybe, it does, but I think we need to do better to have a strong chance at winning, this year. Can Houck and or Whitlock fill that role? Possibly. I'm not writing off this year. Plus, maybe Sale does fill that role. Hell, maybe Paxton does. It's not like our rotation is hopeless. I just wish it was better.

2013 and 2021 proved that is not true, but I do think you have a much better chance of being a top 3-4 contender, if you have a stronger rotation. Also, you can add pieces during the season- like Eovaldi and Pearce in 2018, to put you over the top, so no, you don't have to be one of the best to start the season.

If you say so.

Getting a win after being no hit through nine is not very common. It would have been great to pull this one out.

If the bus runs me over, how can I start a game thread?

Maybe not playing 2B all that much is part of it, but this loss really sucks.

You promise to now not bitch about the pen? (BTW, I wanted Whitlock starting and Houck closing, but once Sale went down, again, the writing was on the wall.)

Well, now!

He did very well in a very short time with us, last year. Maybe, they are hoping he will continue like last year. He hasn't played mush, this year, and the frustration over Dalbec's slow start should not factor into the Shaw evaluation. I'm not saying I'm okay with the production we've seen from 1B, and other positions, for that matter, but I'm not sure we expected to see Shaw playing this much.