Are you saying that it’s unlikely that Kendry Morales will end up on the Level of Excellence?
This was a fascinating read. From afar I can only go on what I see, hear and read. To me the large crowds this year seemed to be enjoying the stadium and the buzz behind the team. But the attendance for the Texas series really surprised me. After having good attendance all year, it suddenly decreases when you have your most important series of the year to date?
Was some frustration threshold reached or does it just show the true ambivalence about this team? But we were seemingly on a roll after the KC series? Odd.
But the natives are restless and if we have a shitty road trip and then stink out the joint in the next home series it could get real ugly indeed. Almost the antithesis of 2015. It could have a whole range of implications moving forward.
Part of it is that kids are back in school, I think. That will cause numbers to drop in non-playoff years, and… well… I guess that’s what this one is feeling like to a lot of people maybe? I really am only guessing—maybe there was something else going on. But Monday’s result surely didn’t help Tuesday’s walk-up crowd. A bit weird though, ya. Can’t blame anyone for not being entertained by this team though!
And the fan alienation will only get worse next year when long time season ticket holders behind home plate and along the dugout areas are bumped back pretty far to allow for "the corporate experience".
The season ticket holders I know are some of the most committed, enthusiastic fans out there but this outrage will burn that.
Absolutely. And I suspect a better performing team would have helped smooth that over at least a little bit, but here's everything laid bare. Ugly stuff!
> It hasn’t worked, and it doesn’t feel like it ever will, but no one was wrong for expecting that it would. The failures of this season are far more about Vladimir Guerrero Jr., George Springer, Matt Chapman, and Alejandro Kirk than they are about Ross Atkins.
While I mostly agree with this - there was every reason to think this roster was quite good and would perform very well - I do think there's one spot where blame can be laid at Atkins door, and I think it's actually a pretty big one: the trade deadline.
The universal opinion going into the trade deadline was that the team needed one more bullpen arm and a big bat from the right side. We got a bullpen arm, but we did not get the bat. And I would say, from what we say in the first half, adding a bat was actually a bigger priority.
The problem with this team for most of the season has been scoring runs, so I would say that was both with foresight and hindsight a pretty big screwup. We have continued to struggle to score runs (regardless of the overall offensive numbers). And while that is indeed on the shoulder primarily of the players you named, Ross did have a lever to pull to control that outcome to an extent, and he elected not to pull it, and that may have made all the difference.
I'm not saying we necessarily needed a 1992-level gutsy move like "The Trade", but I would say that Atkins is constitutionally incapable of taking that kind of risk or making that kind of move even if it was required and available. We didn't even get a part-time lefty-masher bench-rider added on, let alone some crazy and inspiring move.
And I think that these moves say a lot to the players. Letting Eddy go and bringing in Morales told the players loud and clear that the FO was not serious about competing, just like bringing on Ryu told the players that they were. Essentially letting things ride at the deadline I think may have told the players - whether it's true or not - that the FO was sort of lukewarm on the season and maybe didn't have full faith in this team. And that's a circumstance in which it's hard to do your best work.
The trade deadline bat likely would have made it much harder for Davis Schneider to be a thing, so would they have even been better off? I know what you mean though. But it would be much worse in my view had there actually been a bat like they needed that was traded, which there really wasn't. Believing in the guys on the roster to play more like themselves and that there might be some help from the farm seemed and seems fair enough to me. If guys aren't available they aren't available, and with even fewer teams as sellers these days I think it's a harder needle to thread than it looks.
I must say, I also have to also disagree about Atkins' constitution—there are plenty of examples of risk-taking from this FO so I don't really know why this idea persists—and about them being lukewarm on the season or giving the players any kind of message as such. They traded twelve years of control of guys with real potential to be back-end starters—valuable if unsexy pieces the Jays have lacked in recent years—for a couple months of maybe the best reliever available. That's far from a move a lukewarm FO makes.
It's definitely harder than sitting on my couch shouting "GET A BAT YOU BASTARDS", for sure! It may simply have not been possible, it's true. But I do think it stands out as a missed opportunity. Just because nobody appropriate _did_ move, doesn't mean that a deal wasn't possible.
But I do stand by the "Atkins isn't much of a risk-taker" stand. I'm far from a rabid anti-Atkins person (anymore!), and think that the FO has put together a solid team and done a commendable job for the most part. I was bullish on the year to start, and I think that was a rational position at the time, even if it didn't turn out that way.
Atkins/Shapiro (forget which, but they seem kind of hard to separate in terms of who is doing and thinking what lol) are pretty much on the record saying Anthopolous was a moron for going all-in on 2015, which is one strong data point. They haven't done anything similar since, and it doesn't really look like they will. They've made some good gets in free agency (still love the Ryu deal, even if it wasn't "good value" and give them tons of credit for that, ditto Springer), but have let some other good fits go by.
But I would say they're more into solid, defensible moves, and strongly opposed to "moonshots". And I'm not even saying they're wrong to be like that, it's probably closer to the game-theoretical optimum. But I do think that's who they are, and I think it's a fair comment on their character - and probably one they would agree with, I think.
It's a less exciting kind of FO style than it could be. Moonshots, when they pay off, are fucking amazing in a way that lots of solid success simply isn't. 2015 will be etched in the minds of any fan around at the time, not just because of the batflip and the crazy way the postseason happened, but because it rested on an act of faith that took serious guts and was exciting in and of itself. We've never had that same kind of jolt since then.
Are you saying that it’s unlikely that Kendry Morales will end up on the Level of Excellence?
This was a fascinating read. From afar I can only go on what I see, hear and read. To me the large crowds this year seemed to be enjoying the stadium and the buzz behind the team. But the attendance for the Texas series really surprised me. After having good attendance all year, it suddenly decreases when you have your most important series of the year to date?
Was some frustration threshold reached or does it just show the true ambivalence about this team? But we were seemingly on a roll after the KC series? Odd.
But the natives are restless and if we have a shitty road trip and then stink out the joint in the next home series it could get real ugly indeed. Almost the antithesis of 2015. It could have a whole range of implications moving forward.
Part of it is that kids are back in school, I think. That will cause numbers to drop in non-playoff years, and… well… I guess that’s what this one is feeling like to a lot of people maybe? I really am only guessing—maybe there was something else going on. But Monday’s result surely didn’t help Tuesday’s walk-up crowd. A bit weird though, ya. Can’t blame anyone for not being entertained by this team though!
Ah I forgot about school. How much does it cost to go to a game these days anyway? I have no idea.
$23 plus a $4.75 processing fee for the cheapest seats!
Do you know if there was dynamic pricing for this series?
And the fan alienation will only get worse next year when long time season ticket holders behind home plate and along the dugout areas are bumped back pretty far to allow for "the corporate experience".
The season ticket holders I know are some of the most committed, enthusiastic fans out there but this outrage will burn that.
Absolutely. And I suspect a better performing team would have helped smooth that over at least a little bit, but here's everything laid bare. Ugly stuff!
> It hasn’t worked, and it doesn’t feel like it ever will, but no one was wrong for expecting that it would. The failures of this season are far more about Vladimir Guerrero Jr., George Springer, Matt Chapman, and Alejandro Kirk than they are about Ross Atkins.
While I mostly agree with this - there was every reason to think this roster was quite good and would perform very well - I do think there's one spot where blame can be laid at Atkins door, and I think it's actually a pretty big one: the trade deadline.
The universal opinion going into the trade deadline was that the team needed one more bullpen arm and a big bat from the right side. We got a bullpen arm, but we did not get the bat. And I would say, from what we say in the first half, adding a bat was actually a bigger priority.
The problem with this team for most of the season has been scoring runs, so I would say that was both with foresight and hindsight a pretty big screwup. We have continued to struggle to score runs (regardless of the overall offensive numbers). And while that is indeed on the shoulder primarily of the players you named, Ross did have a lever to pull to control that outcome to an extent, and he elected not to pull it, and that may have made all the difference.
I'm not saying we necessarily needed a 1992-level gutsy move like "The Trade", but I would say that Atkins is constitutionally incapable of taking that kind of risk or making that kind of move even if it was required and available. We didn't even get a part-time lefty-masher bench-rider added on, let alone some crazy and inspiring move.
And I think that these moves say a lot to the players. Letting Eddy go and bringing in Morales told the players loud and clear that the FO was not serious about competing, just like bringing on Ryu told the players that they were. Essentially letting things ride at the deadline I think may have told the players - whether it's true or not - that the FO was sort of lukewarm on the season and maybe didn't have full faith in this team. And that's a circumstance in which it's hard to do your best work.
The trade deadline bat likely would have made it much harder for Davis Schneider to be a thing, so would they have even been better off? I know what you mean though. But it would be much worse in my view had there actually been a bat like they needed that was traded, which there really wasn't. Believing in the guys on the roster to play more like themselves and that there might be some help from the farm seemed and seems fair enough to me. If guys aren't available they aren't available, and with even fewer teams as sellers these days I think it's a harder needle to thread than it looks.
I must say, I also have to also disagree about Atkins' constitution—there are plenty of examples of risk-taking from this FO so I don't really know why this idea persists—and about them being lukewarm on the season or giving the players any kind of message as such. They traded twelve years of control of guys with real potential to be back-end starters—valuable if unsexy pieces the Jays have lacked in recent years—for a couple months of maybe the best reliever available. That's far from a move a lukewarm FO makes.
It's definitely harder than sitting on my couch shouting "GET A BAT YOU BASTARDS", for sure! It may simply have not been possible, it's true. But I do think it stands out as a missed opportunity. Just because nobody appropriate _did_ move, doesn't mean that a deal wasn't possible.
But I do stand by the "Atkins isn't much of a risk-taker" stand. I'm far from a rabid anti-Atkins person (anymore!), and think that the FO has put together a solid team and done a commendable job for the most part. I was bullish on the year to start, and I think that was a rational position at the time, even if it didn't turn out that way.
Atkins/Shapiro (forget which, but they seem kind of hard to separate in terms of who is doing and thinking what lol) are pretty much on the record saying Anthopolous was a moron for going all-in on 2015, which is one strong data point. They haven't done anything similar since, and it doesn't really look like they will. They've made some good gets in free agency (still love the Ryu deal, even if it wasn't "good value" and give them tons of credit for that, ditto Springer), but have let some other good fits go by.
But I would say they're more into solid, defensible moves, and strongly opposed to "moonshots". And I'm not even saying they're wrong to be like that, it's probably closer to the game-theoretical optimum. But I do think that's who they are, and I think it's a fair comment on their character - and probably one they would agree with, I think.
It's a less exciting kind of FO style than it could be. Moonshots, when they pay off, are fucking amazing in a way that lots of solid success simply isn't. 2015 will be etched in the minds of any fan around at the time, not just because of the batflip and the crazy way the postseason happened, but because it rested on an act of faith that took serious guts and was exciting in and of itself. We've never had that same kind of jolt since then.