Tiger337

The Tigers are all set. They just got their injured pitcher:

We didn't even get socks. They took away our tramsistor radio as a punishment and then gave it back as a gift for Christmas.

Still need to sign an injured pitcher.

Yes, in one lost year, it is good to get a high pick, but if it requires gutting your organization to do so, that's going to lead to several lost years. It worked for the Astros, but it doesn't usually work that well.

Chas and I are agreeing on something again. Feels good. 😄

Not the kind of re-building where your team is crap for 3 or more years. That's not necessary.

Average is deceptive, because there is a small number of top players that inflate it. The median player is much closer to zero. It is good to get high picks, but the value gets overstated. I don't believe the risk/reward is worth going through multiple years of crap teams to try to get good again.

I've been told that tanking is a necessary part of baseball for small and mid market teams, but I've never believed it.

They can make the playoffs and thus compete for a ring. I'd just like a little push to make it more likely.

Good question. Why do so many teams do that? I think it's more owners wanting to save money on salaries during lean years than anything else. I means it's good to get high draft picks because a moderate percentage do end up making good contributions, so if you collect enough of them, you'll get some hits. However, I have never been a proponent of deliberate total re-builds.

Chatgtp did not used to to have links which is why I stopped using it. It's good to hear that it now does. edit: I just compared chatgtp to perplexity on a couple of searches. Perplexity gave sources and chatgtp did not. So, maybe chatgtp sometimes gives sources but not consistently.

I will be happy (and I expect him to be Tiger), but I'd like it even better if more talent was added to support him.

Correlation does not prove causation and saying phrases like "I have no words" is not not a persuasive argument either. I see Hinch and Fetter having an impact at the major league level. I don't see Harris having as much of an impact at that level, at least not yet. The Tigers would not be doing what they have done the last two years without the players, manager and pitching coach which Avila provided. Avila was terrible, but when you collect prospects for long enough (way too long in his case) you can build up a good base of talent.

I like Perplexity, because it provides sources.

Adduci has already recruited him.

Avila never should have traded Cody Ross

Lynn Henning finally called something correctly.

I have seen clear evidence of Hinch's influence. And yeah, Avila hired him.

I have seen no credible evidence that there even any ink.

I really don't see much evidence that the team performance of the last two years is all because of Harris. I expect to see more evidence at the MLB level of Harrises influence soon, but I have not seen it yet.

I understand that, on average, players have a better chance to succeed under the new system, but you still can't quantify how individual players would have performed under one system versus the other.

So, you are sure that Greene would be a bum if Harris were not the GM?

Sure, but how can we know how Skubal, Carpenter and Greene would have developed if Avila was still the GM? And maybe the current administration didn't develop Torkelson and Mize very well. I don't think that's true, but there is a lot of speculation in determining how much was talent and how much was development.

You could do the same thing with almost any teams draft picks if you want to make them look bad. As for Greene, I think you are vastly overestimating the value of draft picks. The median value of a 5th pick in the draft is zero career WAR. He is already at 10. Carpenter and Skubal were great picks, no matter how hard you try to rationalize that they weren't. Also, you forgot Dillon Dingler.