| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Was Fake Contention™ the way to go? |
| Yes |
|
20% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
79% |
[ 19 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 24 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert S.
Everyday Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 530
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: Fake Contention™ '06: Was It Worth It? |
 |
|
I'm curious. If it helps, pick a deadline and elaborate:
1. Not cleaning house before the season.
2. Not cleaning house by the non-waiver deadline.
Does this season change your thoughts on Diamondbackian Fake Contention™? Other examples include: 2003 (limit this season to non-waiver house-cleaning), 2004, 2005. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shoewizard
Hall of Famer
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3245
Location: In front of my computer
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wasn't worth it....but too many mitigating circumstances.
past is past....it's what happens from here forward that counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moviegeekjn
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1224
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't favor that the first year they implemented the "fake contention" tag (2004), so certainly didn't favor it this year. Am glad to see progress towards actual rebuilding towards future, but it could have been taking place MUCH earlier... Just am hoping that we are full bore into our REAL future team as soon as this year is over.
* I'll only begin considering season ticket "investment" again once clear signals are made that the organization IS fully committed to the future (meaning certain p.v.s are no longer part of the equation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1749
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meh, I'm not really upset that much with the way things have been handled this season. I did vote 'no' however because I think it's dishonest for teh team to act like contenders when everyone knows they aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryan
September Call-Up
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With Drew and Q playing regularly, Green gone and Josh Byrnes not parting with any of our top prospects along the way, I'd agree with Matt. There was progress made towards the future this year, even if there wasn't as much as there could've been.
_________________
Ryan
D-Backs die-hard fan in enemy territory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert S.
Everyday Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shoewizard wrote: |
wasn't worth it....but too many mitigating circumstances.
past is past....it's what happens from here forward that counts. |
To that end, it'll be very curious to see how many of Estrada, Hudson, Byrnes, Clark, Counsell, and Gonzo are here next season.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TAP
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert S. wrote: |
| shoewizard wrote: |
wasn't worth it....but too many mitigating circumstances.
past is past....it's what happens from here forward that counts. |
To that end, it'll be very curious to see how many of Estrada, Hudson, Byrnes, Clark, Counsell, and Gonzo are here next season.
|
At least half will be gone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1749
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As long as Estrada, Gonzo, and Counsell are gone, I'll be happy. Ditching Clark would be really smart as well. Byrnes and Hudson are solid players who won't make a lot of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tmar
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1185
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the biggest part of the fake contention was the NL & wild card talent not developing itself until the end. We were actually "in" contention until about a month ago.
To try to put a positive spin on things <really not my style>, we did accomplish the following:
-Green gone
-Ortiz gone
-Jackson getting decent playing time <thanks to Clark's injury and poor performance>
-No stupid deadline trades to "go for it"
-With the above, no emptying of the prospect line for a Willis
-No bid to keep Gonzo around <yet>
On top of all of that, I'm hopeful the ownership has "learned" from the Ortiz/Green experience and will no longer overpay for questionable talent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dirtygary
Everyday Player
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 903
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was not fake contention and this poll is total bullshit, Rob. Of course it's not worth it now that we're eliminated. This is all second guessing after the fact, and attacking the performance of Josh Byrnes when I think he's done a hell of a job
2005 was fake contention with a bunch of high profile, high dollar singings that presented an illusion of contention.
2006 was prudent competitiveness. Either way, I voted yes. Never Concede!!!! Besides, what were the options? Did Byrnes turn down offers from teams that wanted to take Ortiz, Gonzo, or Green off our hands over the winter break? Would the fan base have accepted another 2004? Was there a dominant team in our division that we were just not going to beat? Nomar was the difference for the Dodgers winning the division. Who saw that coming?
2003: You mean when Schilling and RJ went on the DL? Was that a bunch of fake contention also because we didn't win?
2004: Might be why the FO was reluctant to attempt to sell us on another Babybacks season. No Season Ticket renewals.
This is a bullshit poll/thread.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert S.
Everyday Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dirtygary wrote: |
| This was not fake contention and this poll is total bullshit, Rob. Of course it's not worth it now that we're eliminated. This is all second guessing after the fact, and attacking the performance of Josh Byrnes when I think he's done a hell of a job |
I can guarantee you (see post #5) that I'm not second-guessing here. I figured 75 wins.
| Quote: |
| 2005 was fake contention with a bunch of high profile, high dollar singings that presented an illusion of contention. |
No argument here.
| Quote: |
| 2006 was prudent competitiveness. Either way, I voted yes. Never Concede!!!! Besides, what were the options? Did Byrnes turn down offers from teams that wanted to take Ortiz, Gonzo, or Green off our hands over the winter break? Would the fan base have accepted another 2004? Was there a dominant team in our division that we were just not going to beat? Nomar was the difference for the Dodgers winning the division. Who saw that coming? |
I think the more important question: How hard did Byrnes try to remove Ortiz, Gonzo, and Green during the offseason? Did he think that Quentin was MLB-ready? This was never going to be another 2004. It could have been a better version of '06 Marlins, though. They could've had even more development time for every prospect. Even if everything broke right for the veterans, this team was nowhere near as good as the Mets, to say nothing of the AL playoff teams.
The real issue is that prospects improve, have ceilings, and can surprise you. The only surprise from the veterans was how much they collapsed; there was no upside to playing any of them - that's what stings.
| Quote: |
| 2003: You mean when Schilling and RJ went on the DL? Was that a bunch of fake contention also because we didn't win? |
It was fake contention when the FO looked at that winning streak and decided to keep going for it. The team should've been dismantled then. Given that it took less than two years for Johnson and Schilling to be moved for pathetic return, there is plenty of reason to believe that the organization wasn't married to the pair.
| Quote: |
| 2004: Might be why the FO was reluctant to attempt to sell us on another Babybacks season. No Season Ticket renewals. |
Even in '04, the team didn't make a full commitment to the rookies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shoewizard
Hall of Famer
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3245
Location: In front of my computer
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This was never going to be another 2004. It could have been a better version of '06 Marlins, though. |
I agree with most of what you are saying, but here I dissent.
The D Backs did not have, and still do not have, pitching prospects the caliber of what the Marlins had to throw out there every day.
They MIGHT have had a better prospect or two if they traded Glaus for pitching prospects instead of Batista and Hudson. But they were never going to get anything of value at all for the likes of Green and Gonzo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert S.
Everyday Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shoewizard wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This was never going to be another 2004. It could have been a better version of '06 Marlins, though. |
I agree with most of what you are saying, but here I dissent.
The D Backs did not have, and still do not have, pitching prospects the caliber of what the Marlins had to throw out there every day.
They MIGHT have had a better prospect or two if they traded Glaus for pitching prospects instead of Batista and Hudson. But they were never going to get anything of value at all for the likes of Green and Gonzo.
|
You are right: they wouldn't have done it with pitching, it would have been with position players. I don't think that "championship-caliber" pitching is a necessity as long as the runs are saved/added elsewhere.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dirtygary
Everyday Player
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 903
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How hard did Byrnes try to remove Ortiz, Gonzo, and Green during the offseason? Did he think that Quentin was MLB-ready? |
You are questioning the desire of Josh Byrnes to move the dead weight? Does it matter how hard he tried if there were no takers?
Quentin was obviously not MLB ready at the start of the season. Neither was Chris Young - broken wrist/hand aside. Conor was the only one ready at the beginning of the season, and his numbers have been avg. Q's are below that, we'll see where Young winds up. Drew is ready, and might've been at the beginning, but he did have a limited amount of AB's in the minors.
| Quote: |
| This was never going to be another 2004. It could have been a better version of '06 Marlins, though |
The thought that we could have had a season like FLA with Tucson's starting rotation plus Webb is ludicrous. And the position players weren't going to cut it either. This season was the right blend of competitiveness til the last month, and working in rookies.
You don't just concede because you won't be the best team in the league. Byrnes stayed competitive without sacrificing anything, really. He hired stop-gaps that played way better than what we were paying them for. And I've never liked the bringing up a wave of players. You work in one or two rookies at a time so the pressure isn't solely on them, and there are vets to provide examples of professionalism.
This year should have been Jackson and Drew, and next year should be Q and Young, maybe Callaspo as a utility. Montero gets another call-up next year and the job in '08.
For all this bitching about fake contention, we're in it if we don't have the Grimsley scandal and 3 wins in June.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
qudjy1
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1123
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The thought that we could have had a season like FLA with Tucson's starting rotation plus Webb is ludicrous. |
I agree with that.. they have some serious talent over there.
| Quote: |
| And I've never liked the bringing up a wave of players. You work in one or two rookies at a time so the pressure isn't solely on them, and there are vets to provide examples of professionalism. |
This is really a matter of opinion - the marlins are proving this isnt the only way to go., but ok... i can see where you are coming from...
The only thing i really disagree with here, is that there is some need to have veterans for the sake of itself. The best players win. Period. whether they are 2nd year guys, or grizzled vet. the guys who produce should play. This teamhas seemed to have sacrificed some of the learning for Gonzo's and Greens, and counsells, clark PT. Shoudnt we have gottena look at Hairston?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moviegeekjn
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1224
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dirtygary wrote: |
| And I've never liked the bringing up a wave of players. You work in one or two rookies at a time so the pressure isn't solely on them, and there are vets to provide examples of professionalism. |
A total wave of rookies likely wouldn't work as well with the Dbacks as it did with the Marlins. One for the reason Shoe stated elsewhere about the pitching rotation. But a second reason would be BoMel's managerial style. Girardi's "take charge" style balanced with his patience worked fine with the kids. Hard to see BoMel adjusting to that situation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dirtygary
Everyday Player
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 903
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously it depends on what vets you have, but for the most part I think they provide stability and consistency, and show the rookies what it takes to stay at the MLB level.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TAP
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moviegeekjn wrote: |
| But a second reason would be BoMel's managerial style. Girardi's "take charge" style balanced with his patience worked fine with the kids. Hard to see BoMel adjusting to that situation. |
Chip Hale?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EvilJuan
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1877
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TAP wrote: |
| moviegeekjn wrote: |
| But a second reason would be BoMel's managerial style. Girardi's "take charge" style balanced with his patience worked fine with the kids. Hard to see BoMel adjusting to that situation. |
Chip Hale?
|
That would be fine.
Or Joe Girardi, if the Marlins, do, in fact, fire him, as rumored of late...
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TAP
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EvilJuan wrote: |
| TAP wrote: |
| moviegeekjn wrote: |
| But a second reason would be BoMel's managerial style. Girardi's "take charge" style balanced with his patience worked fine with the kids. Hard to see BoMel adjusting to that situation. |
Chip Hale?
|
That would be fine.
Or Joe Girardi, if the Marlins, do, in fact, fire him, as rumored of late...
|
Fire the FL owner, keep Girardi.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shoewizard
Hall of Famer
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3245
Location: In front of my computer
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are right: they wouldn't have done it with pitching, it would have been with position players. I don't think that "championship-caliber" pitching is a necessity as long as the runs are saved/added elsewhere. |
It would be very easy to get lost here at this point in the conversation, because you are suddenly talking about two different things. The Marlins are one game over .500, and 3 games behind the NL Wild Card. They are in contention for a playoff spot. But thats it. They are still a longshot. (11.57% chance of making the playoffs)
Then you shift gears to "championship caliber pitcher", and that is something else altogether. So before we go any further, lets be clear. This conversation could get very confusing very fast. 
I don't think there is any doubt that NEXT year, the offense and defense should be improved, simply by getting rid of the dead weight and playing the young players every day and watching them improve. And I also agree with your premise that next years offense would have been even better if Drew and Quentin and Young played every day in the majors in 2006. No matter how much they struggled in 2006, they probably would have reaped a large development benefit from the experience and could carry that forward to 2007
BUT, in 2006, do you really really think that starting Drew and Quentin and Young every day from the beginning of the season, and foregoing their 2006 AAA time, (in a fantasy world where they could have actually traded Green and Gonzo during the off season and had the balls to sit Counsell) would have upgraded this team on offense and defense enough to make up for the fact that the pitching was not very good? I find that hard to believe. I think they would have taken turns struggling and adjusting like all rookies do...especially if they played in the majors without the benefit of their 2006 minor league experience.
Basically you are saying that if from April 6th Drew, Quentin and Young were in the majors and playing every day, the D backs would be a .500 team. You are saying the offense would have been good enough to make up for the crappy pitching. You are going to have to prove that to me...because I don't see it.
Now...on to the segway about Championship Caliber teams:
If we want to talk about Championships, and what it takes to win the NL, you gotta have really good pitching. Without diminishing the role of good defense helping the pitchers keep their ERA's down, lets look at the NL Pennant Winners since 2000, and their league ERA+ Rank. (I'm using ERA+ to tune out the ballpark noise a bit)
| Code: |
Yr. Team ERA+ Lg Rank
2005 Houston 118 2nd
2004 St. Louis 112 2nd
2003 Florida 100 9th
2002 San Fran 120 1st
2001 Arizona 118 2nd
2000 New York 105 T-5th
|
From 2000-2005, the NL Pennant winner usually has had a top pitching staff. The lone exception in the rankings is the Marlins....and clearly the staff they had pitched quite differently in the first half than they did in the second half. They pitched poorly, (except for Willis) in the first half, but rocked the house in the second half and got hotter still through the playoffs.
Of course these teams also all had good offenses, (with the exception of Houston last year)
| Code: |
Yr. Team OPS+ LG Rank
2005 Houston 97 12th
2004 St. Louis 116 1st
2003 Florida 107 4th
2002 San Fran 120 1st
2001 Arizona 103 6th
2000 New York 107 4th |
So....lo and behold....you need BOTH good offense and good pitching (and good defense) to have a championship caliber team. Pretty novel idea, huh?
Anyway......you predicted 75 wins for this team this year....and I had said often that the 2006 would be better than 2005 team, but might win fewer games. They have been outscored by 27 runs, and have 2 less wins than their Pythag. Their AEQR has them at a -53 run differential, and one win less then their actual record.
Better than last year -160 Runs anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dangerfield
Everyday Player
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 666
Location: worm factory
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know, everyday, I get excited about the rest of the way, then I get reminded by the line-up, of having to watch Gonz, Estrada, Clark Easley, and Davanon. They're not even bad players, but its too many of them for a team to overcome and win.
What I'm trying to finger, its not the fake contention, because this was as good as every-other team in the West except for 1 player, that was never capable of being the guy, but unfortunately is not recognized as major hinderence to us winning, irregardless of the staff. If we would have replaced the head of the snake, earlier on we'd be closer right now.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dirtygary
Everyday Player
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 903
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm all for a U of A guy (Hale) taking over the team. It worked for Boston. Also, there are only six other schools in the nation with as many national championships as Arizona, and one of them (ASU) hasn't won it in 25 years!!!!
So the U of A has the last college baseball championship won in this state, the only basketball championship, and the last top-5 football finish.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TAP
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EvilJuan wrote: |
| TAP wrote: |
| moviegeekjn wrote: |
| But a second reason would be BoMel's managerial style. Girardi's "take charge" style balanced with his patience worked fine with the kids. Hard to see BoMel adjusting to that situation. |
Chip Hale?
|
That would be fine.
|
This year's PCL Manager of the Year as announced this week.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EvilJuan
Veteran Presence
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1877
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TAP wrote: |
| Chip Hale: This year's PCL Manager of the Year as announced this week. |
Congrats to Chip Hale!
Here's a second to McCray's hope that he doesn't follow Rizzo and leave the Dbacks organization.
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
