Quote:
Originally posted by letsgojunior
I wouldn't call winning 93 games self-destructing.
|
I agree. I prefer to use the word "choking"
I stand corrected Raisor. Though I think $$$'s had something to do with it also. And I hate "no trade" clauses :mad: . Talk about hamstringing an organization. It's not like they aren't giving these players the "sun and the moon" already.
lgj says further...
"We've been drafting as high as Oakland in the recent years, yet don't have a pitcher to show for it while they have three bona fide studs. That reeks of an organizational deficiency and not pure luck."
You hit the "nail on the head" right there girl
. IMHO, this is the one area where this organization has
shown me that they have huge deficiencies (possibly
).
If you're telling me that, as a small market team, you can't afford to enter the FA market and basically "run with the big boys", so you must therefore focus your attention/efforts on scouting, drafting and development youth. Then you had better have the right personnel in those places to accomplish this goal. And I'm referring to scouts, coaches, trainers, etc. And I've stated that numerous times over the last few weeks on here. Marge Schott completely down played the importance of this, and destroyed these progams throughout most of the 90's. She hated paying scouts.
Building new facilities, such as in Dayton & Louisville, and reorganizing your farm system is great. And this organization has done that in the last 3-4 years, and I think that is movement in the right direction.
But when I hear of guys like Grant Jackson walking out, and also hear stories of scouts quiting, then that disturbs me somewhat.
And we seem to have a huge "turnaround" in some of our coaching areas.
Now does that necessarily mean that there is something wrong, or that they were simply tendered better offers elsewhere? That I do not know. But that still shows me an indication of a problem somewhere, if we can't retain these people.
And we seem to have made great strides in drafting when it comes to developing "position" players, such as a Dunn, Kearns, etc.
And while in the last 2-3 years we have loaded up on alot of young arms... how many times have we fans seen us make a deal/trade a player and get a pitching prospect in return?... how long (in years) should it take before we start to see results, or if this young pitcher has it or not?
Because I really don't think we seriously started loading up on alot of these young arms until around the '99 season. We traded for Graves. Willy was brought up through the system. But beyond that...our program for most of the 90's was stripped and in shambles.
So, if we didn't start seriously making this effort until within the last 3 years.... how long before we start seeing results?
Or are we going to make the same mistake we did in 2001, nd end up rushing (and possibly ruining) some of these young arms?
Is it feasible for us to expect to see some of these pitchers to show they are ready for 2003? or should we be showing more patience, and expect it more in '04 or '05?
Especially when we are drafting high school kids? I mean, to me, it would look like they'd have to be in the system for 5-6 years before we would be able to see results, if any at all.
I'm not making excuses here. Just asking a question on this issue... "Are we expecting too much too soon when looking at the starting point when this FO started to seriously pursue this?"