D-backs offer arbitration to trio

Really?

We didn’t offer arbitration to Dunn? Wasn’t it pretty much assumed that we would?

Well, that trade seems to largely suck now.

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 1, 2008 11:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the level of confidence that many have in our “new FO???”

No arb offer to Dunn???

I really don’t see how that make any sense. Wasn’t JB telling everyone that an extension would be a nice thing but the worse case was that it would bring two picks if he didn’t extend?

He’s sounding like more and more of a mouthpiece to me.

by foulpole on Dec 2, 2008 12:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I feel the need to repeat what has already been said:

WHY THE %&*# are we NOT offering arbitration to Adam Dunn???!!

I mean…. what’s the benefit of NOT doing it?? We’re missing out on two comp picks!!

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think I agree with foulpole this time.

Does this FO actually have a plan? In Byrnes We’ve Trusted….

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"It appears the Diamondbacks are leaning against offering salary arbitration to slugging outfielder Adam Dunn, who has hit at least 40 home runs the last five years (actually, it’s exactly 40 the last four).

While Dunn certainly was productive — 40 HRs, 100, RBIs, .236 — the Diamondbacks don’t sense a thriving market for him and don’t want to chance Dunn accepting arbitration, which could result in a salary of $16-18 million in arbitration.

If, as expected, they decide not to offer arbitration, any team that signs the Type A free agent would not have to forfeit a first-round draft choice. The Nationals may be a candidate to sign Dunn."

So yeah, we suck.

Gravity Says: Believe in Aaron Rodgers

by Gravity on Dec 2, 2008 2:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

So.... if he DOES accept arbitration,

and we can’t trade him, then we get “stuck” with him, paying $16-18 million — CLEARLY busting open the budget. /sarcasm

And…. he actually makes us competitive.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He sure did

last year.

It’s not that I don’t want the guy, but I can see why they wouldn’t want to commit to a deal they can’t pay. On the other hand, are there rules in arbitration to just lowball someone? I imagine that wouldn’t work, though.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bad timing

Agree with you. This economic downturn just came at a terrible time for a team to have a lot of arbitration eligible players. Why wouldn’t they accept and wait until the market is better in a year? And while I’d like Dunn to stay as well, it sure seems likely that he’d be back for 18 mil if offered, and I DONT want him back that much.

by Counsellmember on Dec 2, 2008 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the team intentionally and blatantly lowballs Dunn,

then the arbitrator would most likely just award him the salary requested by his agent.

What I can’t understand is why we gave up Pwnings, et al, and are now just content to watch Dunn walk away in FA. Part of the justification for giving up 3 young players was the guarantee that if he rejected arbitration, we’d get the draft picks. If we got “stuck” with him and had to open the budget a little more for one season, so be it — he’d always still be a tradeable commodity.

Look — I understand the importance of fiscal discipline, especially in the case of this franchise, but at the point that Moorad is willing to make an exception for a very average OF in Eric Byrnes for 3 years, then I don’t see why one year of paying more than we’d like to pay for an actual premier OF like Adam Dunn is such a big deal.

Despite Jim’s protestations, D-Hacks was right, you know — among many fans and local would-be fans, this organization DOES have an image issue. And they’re not doing themselves any favors. I could understand the reasoning behind not wanting to take a risk with Randy Johnson, although it still made me cringe to think of him leaving, even after offering the Dbacks a “hometown discount”. I can even understand the FO not offering RJ arbitration, because he’d almost certainly accept it.

But in not offering arbitration to Dunn, this blatantly looks like a move that’s designed to eliminate ANY CHANCE that the organization has to pay more money than it would like, should Dunn possibly accept arbitration and stay a Dback, (seems unlikely to me, since all indications have shown that Dunn has been looking forward to being a FA for the first time) to the CERTAIN DETRIMENT of the team’s competitiveness, since not only are they losing their best offensive threat, but they’re willing to give up the draft compensation in exchange for tighter control over the budget.

If the Dbacks had shown any propensity to take this money they might be saving on Dunn and put it towards improving the team, by signing, for example, a good FA 2B, then I could handle it. But I can’t see any way in which this move improves this team’s chances at contending this coming season or in the future, save the vague promise of “future financial stability”. Does anybody here, whether defenders of the new regime (like many of us) or loyalists to the old, REALLY think that NOT offering arbitration to Dunn will improve our chances in the future of re-signing Stephen Drew, Justin Upton, or Conor Jackson?

We have just passed into the Mirror Universe. In the very same thread, I’ve now agreed with both foulpole and Diamondhacks. I wonder if we all have beards now.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In the sense that there might be more money available?

I can see this helping the D-Backs resign some of their young players. But when it comes time to resign these guys, I doubt it will make much difference. Two things come to mind:

1. The front office is wildly inconsistent. Most of the time, they pinch pennies until they bleed. That’s understandable, and largely commendable. But then they binge on questionable contracts to players like Ortiz, Byrnes and Young. By the time Drew, Upton and Jackson are ready for new deals, I’m worried that we’ll have so much money tied up in Chad Tracy’s new 3-year $48M contract, that we’ll have to let the young players go.

2. The front office lacks credibility. This is what upsets me the most about Adam Dunn. When the team traded away three young players for a few weeks of Dunn, they sold the idea as an investment in the future. Even though we were losing three young players, we’d make it up in this year’s draft. Except now we won’t. Now, we’re likely to hear that not offering arbitration to Dunn is an investment in the future. I don’t have much faith that the front office will use the financial flexibility for anything worthwhile.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"It's the economy, stupid."

[Note: I’m not calling anyone stupid, just using the famous quote from 1992 ;-)]

When we traded for Dunn [and certainly, when we extended Byrnes], the economy was still glowing rosy-pink, and the expectation was that the free-agent market would continue to boom, as it has over the past few years. That was then, but this is now, and it’s a radically different situation economically. It’s far from just in Arizona that teams appear to be looking to exercise fiscal restraint. It seems that the perception was that Dunn would accept arb, rather than going for free agency in the current climate: he’s young enough that waiting a year would not hurt his chances, and the outlook could be radically different by early 2010. I’m curious to see how the rest of the free-agent signings play out.

Recent decisions do seem somewhat inexplicable. I think the front office needs to make at least some effort to explain the reasoning behind these, because you’re right, they seem baffling to a large number of people. Heck, even I, who fully understands the need for fiscal restraint, am hard pushed to explain them.

It’s beginning to feel as if the contract extension to Eric Byrnes was the moment when this franchise jumped the shark. There have been so many decisions since then that are not what the general consensus – and that includes much smarter and more baseball-savvy people than myself – would have done. At the moment, it’s hard to tell what the organization’s plan is: if it’s to win now [as the Haren trade implied], then they don’t seem to be trying very hard. It may just be a matter of unfortunate timing.

by Jim McLennan on Dec 2, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say

unfortunate timing coupled with exuberant planning. They hoped that the Baby Backs would grow into a crew to be reckoned with (though still possible, the strikeouts and untimely defensive blunders are becoming harder to swallow). They hoped that Byrnes would perform at the level or at least near the level when they re-upped him (and no one can predict a season ending injury). They hoped Dunn would send them over the top last year with a Manny Effect (ignoring that it doesn’t matter if the big guy gets on if only one or two players consistantly hit). They hoped that the bullpen would be lockdown again (picking up two normally above average relievers to help). They believed that Quentin didn’t have a future, or at least with the Diamondbacks (instead he goes to Chicago and becomes an MVP candidate).

I guess the lesson to be learned here is to temper optimism and realize that even good moves can end up not working.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

What a miserable start to the off-season.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 9:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

So

this is what downtrodden feels like.

by Azreous on Dec 2, 2008 12:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No,

2004 is what downtrodden feels like. This is just disappointment and discouragement.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All right, you got me.

Let’s put it this way: I hope this isn’t a precursor to downtrodden.

by Azreous on Dec 2, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 2, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

this is also disillusionment. Too many "dis"’s there for my tastes.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Distressing.

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 2, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It could be worse, we could be using this word instead:

antidisestablishmentarianism.

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 2, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except that

that would be completely unrelated…… in a historical sense OR a more generic sense.

Now, if we were talking about the Rockies…..

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true,

gotta keep it relevant.

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 2, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we were talking about the Rockies?

The word would apply because they opposed the state of Colorado no longer supporting the Anglicans in their war against the Catholics? I thought that was all done on the hush-hush by the club, we’ve got to root out some moles again.

by Rox Girl on Dec 2, 2008 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hehe....

but as I mentioned offhand, in a generic sense, it might be relevant to the Rox….

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And it gets odder...

Hang on – weren’t we short of money?

The D-backs, according to a major-league source, made one last run at Dunn, proposing a two-year deal shortly before the arbitration deadline at midnight ET Monday.

Link [in the sidebar there]

That’s an interesting article in general, discussing the impact the economy is having, even on the Yankees – who refused to offer Abreu arbitration, in similar circumstances to Dunn.

by Jim McLennan on Dec 2, 2008 1:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No sense

If this is true, I can’t imagine the offer they made that would justify not offering him arbitration now. If money is tight and young players are scheduled to earn more in the next few years, wouldn’t you prefer the one year commitment over the two?

Regardless, it seems sure that Dunn would have been a D-back if offered arbitration this year, which was wildly unthinkable when we picked him up. Small consolation, but at least the Dodgers balked at Furcal as well.

by Counsellmember on Dec 2, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What the hell?

They had the money to make an offer to Dunn, but couldn’t match the discounted rate Randy was asking for?

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 2, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I really don’t understand this at all.

by Azreous on Dec 2, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because

a huge priority for the Diamondbacks is an improved offense? It was never the Diamondbacks didn’t have the money for Randy, it was they wanted to commit the same amount of money elsewhere.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

$7 million

isn’t going to get you much of an offensive upgrade. I highly doubt that their 2 year offer to Dunn paid $7 million a year, meaning, if they could afford to pay Dunn, then they should have that money still lying around…. right??

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think so

the budget is $10 to $15 million isn’t it? So if it’s a two year deal to Dunn at $20 or 30 million, there’s not much room for Johnson even if he’s willing for a major cut. I would think it’s likely Johnson was never high on the club’s wishlist for the offseason.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've made the excuse for the franchise

on multiple occasions that RJ probably just wasn’t that high a priority — and as I stated above, if that’s the reason, and they have a legitimate plan to replace him without a significant dropoff in performance, then that’s fine.

But the stated reason has repeatedly been the money, and if they were willing to pay Dunn, and he rejected the deal, that means that the money is still there. For the FO to flat out claim that they “can’t afford to keep” RJ is just disingenuous, especially now that we’ll need to find a 5th starter anyway.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's pretty much my problem

If they’re saying they can’t afford the $4 million difference between what they offered Randy and what he wanted for a position we’ll have to replace, how are we making an offer to a guy who made $13 million last year for a position we’re already fulled stocked at?

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 2, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems

that the Diamondbacks wanted to commit their budget to offense (Dunn) not starting pitching (Johnson). Obviously they could afford either, but they wanted Dunn.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A short, two year proposal,

described in Jim’s article as “one last run at” Adam Dunn, doesn’t really sound like a very serious commitment to improving the offense.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One year

of Johnson isn’t a very serious commitment to improving the pitching. Either way they were screwed though, so our ire really should be directed at the fact that they brought Dunn around in the first place.

He’s a great player, but costs the club Owings, an extra draft pick, and potentially Randy Johnson.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait --

how did Adam Dunn cost the Dbacks “an extra draft pick and potentially Randy Johnson”?

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 3, 2008 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oy

because they didn’t offer arbitration and went after him instead of Johnson. If Dunn wasn’t on the team then yes, that draft pick would never have existed, but it was all something we had hoped and assumed would be apart of the package since he wasn’t going to stay.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 3, 2008 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, yeah....

firstly, it’s silly to say that Dunn “cost them an extra draft pick”, since that draft pick was only going to ‘be there’ because of Dunn to begin with. Secondly, Dunn didn’t “cost them Randy Johnson” either, since Dunn turned down their offer. The money is there either way. If Dunn had accepted, THEN you could make the argument. But the fact that Dunn rejected the offer means that if they really wanted to make a play for RJ, they still could.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 3, 2008 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

But the fact that Dunn rejected the offer means that if they really wanted to make a play for RJ, they still could.

That’s pretty much my annoyance over the issue. They said that they couldn’t offer RJ the money he wanted, but the offer to Dunn- and subsequent rejection of said offer- shows that they can, but are choosing not to.

Unless they had some brilliant deal to get rid of Byrnes that they would only pull the trigger on if Dunn had agreed, freeing up the salary and spot in left field. That’s the only other reason I can think of in this scenario, and it seems rather unlikely.

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 3, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I recall

the FO saying they couldn’t afford him was because there was/is other things they need to do as well. They can afford him, and they know it, it’s a question of did they want to spend part or all of their budget solely on Johnson. The reports seem to claim they felt they Dunn was worth this commitment but Johnson was not.

Josh Byrnes: “Probably more economics,” Byrnes said when asked if it was more about economics than a disagreement on what Johnson’s value was. “I think the spirit of conversation, and I give Randy and Barry and Alan a lot credit, I think we were seeing a lot of things the same way, we just couldn’t get the numbers to where they worked out for both sides.”

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting stuff dug up by TAP on DBBP

Mike Chipman is one of the five general partners who possess the largest financial stake in the franchise, and while he takes a low-profile approach to his role, his business acumen is invaluable when the partners assemble to make executive decisions regarding the shaping of the D-backs. He has been an owner of commercial real estate in Arizona for more than a decade during which time he became one of the primary investors in the D-backs.

Link

…CDK Partners, foundering. That real estate development company — headed by Dozer, Diamondbacks Managing Partner Ken Kendrick and Cardon Development founder Don Cardon — recently pulled out of the condominium project it was slated to build as part of the CityScape development in downtown Phoenix. With lending woes, liquidity issues and a battered local real estate sector, Dozer said the timing of the condo project “couldn’t have been worse.”

Link
This kind of thing may help explain why the financial purse-strings appear to be being seriously tightened of late.

by Jim McLennan on Dec 2, 2008 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

oh boy!

Really don’t like the sounds of that. maybe I’m reading too much into it….

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 2, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds vaguely

like the contention, believed by many, that San Diego is dumping payroll primarily because the Padres’ owner is in the midst of a divorce.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It sounds uncomfortably

like that.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Please rephrase this

using the prefix “dis-”.

For example, “It sounds disquietingly like that”?

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

someone was disturbed by all the dis’es.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By now

A lack of them is just disconcerting.

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 2, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Better to momentarily distract ourselves with puns

than contemplate our possibly dystopic future as Dbacks fans.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 3, 2008 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully

Our despair will dissipate as the distance of time distorts our memory.

"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"

by kishi on Dec 3, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

disingenuously well done

on sneaking in the dis’s….

(okay, that’s the best i could come up with for the cause)

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 3, 2008 3:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reminds me

of “Mad Men.” Who is Duck in the situation?

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was particularly amused by

“His business acumen is invaluable when the partners assemble to make executive decisions regarding the shaping of the D-backs.” If he had real business acumen, he probably would no longer be an owner of commercial real estate in Arizona…

by Jim McLennan on Dec 2, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or

holding on to his chips for when values inevitably stabilize and go back up.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except

that general inflation means that increase in property values may not actually bring in a profit, and in the meantime, you’re still paying taxes on it.

The opportunity cost of NOT investing that money elsewhere also has to mean that, from an economic standpoint, you’ve almost certainly suffered a net loss, WHENEVER you end up selling it — and the longer the period of time before real values stabilize, the greater the opportunity cost.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand this

but that’s a danger in any investing (well, excpet for the tax part). Obviously he (if he still has Arizona holdings, which I would assume he does) must feel differently and probably neither of us know his situation well enough to say.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

But it’s also very possible that he doesn’t really know other investments the way he knows real estate, which would naturally cause one to hesitate in selling the property he’s got now — that is, if there’s anyone to buy it. So there’s another opportunity cost that comes with a dearth of information and experience in alternative investments.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 3, 2008 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense

no use spending a ton of money on a toy like a sports franchise in the middle of a recession.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A professional sports franchise

isn’t supposed to be considered a “toy”, though. If that’s the way it’s being treated, then we need owners who are much more serious.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's

a flippant description, but it’s a large luxury item in many respects. Yes, it is a business and should be taken seriously as one. I’d say the current owners take that more seriously then the previous administration, but the point is he probably shouldn’t be investing more money in the team at a time like this unless things get really drastic.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What bothers me

is, between the dumb Dunn situation, the Randy Johnson situation, and the inexplicable Jamie D’Antona situation, the FO is creating an image that says that they’re not concerned about competing — they’re just concerned with turning a profit. This would be compounded if the report that they got cash for Jamie D’Antona turned out to be true.

I don’t want the freaking Dbacks to turn into the Oakland A’s; a farm system for richer clubs. I want them to be the Atlanta Braves — a team that can keep its costs down and STILL compete.

4/1/1983-11/27/2007 * RIP#21 * The Eternal Redskin

by DbacksSkins on Dec 2, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

if I recall their run during the 90’s was largely due to excellent scouting and the ability to retain guys with a higher payroll. Unfortunately the Diamondbacks aren’t at the level, but I’d love to see that type of commitment to developing and finding players. The Red Sox are also very good at this.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good discussion gentlemen

pretty much sounds like the conversation I am having with myself.

It's a job that's never started that takes the longest to finish.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 2, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's

screwed up all around. In many ways the Diamondbacks seem well run. In many other ways you can’t help but scratch your head in wonder.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Since the season ended

I’m doing a lot more head-scratching than I used to. The team used to look like it had a long term strategy for team and player development. Now it looks like their tossing it out the window in favor of a short-term loss-reduction approach. I’d like to believe that the team is in good hands, but the little chicken in my head is running around and screaming. It doesn’t take very long for this kind of approach to cripple a team for years.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The discussion I'm having

involves a lot more profanity. But this one is much better.

"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson

by Scrbl on Dec 2, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Profanity

is fun too!

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The data

from ’94 to ’00 they were in the top 5 every year, in ’01 they were number 6, in 2003 they jumped back to 3rd before sliding back to the middle of the pack.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Dec 2, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs