Longgone

How about if he replaces some of them with unproven talent who turn out to be valuable players. Buying old veteran players isn't the only way to build a team, he needs to use all avenues.

What, pray tell, have you discovered in Scott Harris background or experience gives you "SINCERE CONCERNS"?

I don't have to, thank god, and I feel sorry for anyone who does.

Why are you ranting about a guy who's been on the job for a few weeks? Are you that damaged?

Not Useful

Might want to give a guy more than a couple of weeks before being too judgemental.

Oh for heavens sake, many prospects struggle with premium velocity as they rise, you struggle with what you haven't consistently faced before. The question is, do you adapt?

He was in the visitor's clubhouse, so that would have been good.

Assume they see him as a cheaper depth upgrade, not as an answer to the need for a RH outfielder.

All it means is that the didn't think Candy was worth 7 mill., doesn't mean anything else regarding overall strategy.

They already have seven left handed outfielders, I think they're good.

There will be more moves, many more.

He did not look promising at 3rd in the AFL, there is no assurance he is going to be able to stick there.

Right field, the way he's trending.

Upgrade at every opportunity, but don't make moves just to make moves, that's dumb.

What Harris has repeatedly stressed is that his focus will be on accumulating young talent and development. This wouldn't preclude prime contracts to aging players on the downside of their careers, but I doubt it. I think he will look for ascending players, player who could rebound from injury or poor performance, or players he could flip.

Isn't that what they just did this past year?

They did. He's a free agent.

Pitching IS volatile, on the other hand, you gotta have it and to have it, you have to gamble on it.

Sure there is! It's just called "Down River", or "Windsor".

Tigers have signed over 45 international players the last four years alone, per Baseball America, it's more, but for some reason they don't include signings later in each year, like Clayton Campbell from New Zealand.

The Spotrac info is "spotty" and in no way complete. Avila's draft record in the later rounds, by any objective measure, not including your smell test, is not at all bad. Your assertion that Avila's administration didn't try very hard has no substance. Not very successful, sure, but baseless speculation on effort is petty.

Couple of things, not to be one to defend Avila. First, where did you get the info that Avila signed less latin players than average? I don't think that is true. Also, where did you get the info that they made less waiver claims than average? Second, you place a lot of faith in what "someone reported". Avila's record in the later rounds of the draft is not abysmal, as you would imply, but rather averageish. Third, you missed the point, being in a rebuild, or not, is not decided by administrative competence, but rather by strategic circumstances.

If you think he's going to add big ticket free agents, I think you'll be disappointed. He said he was going to focus on adding young talent, and I believe that's what he will do.

Not sure why you are presenting low fly ball rate and low launch angle as positive traits. Yes, Tork's low hr total is statistically fluky given his baseline stats, but i think that's all it is, a fluke, and it will normalize given time.