Agreed but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good enough to put the fear of God into them til almost if not the end of season and the wild card still is a real possible goal.

Agreed the M’s have the setup guys they just need to let them do their job Sherrill/Green/O’Flaherty and with the recent addition of Lowe you have more than enough arms to bridge to JJ with great success.

Again Agreed unless a deal is offered that has a very low trade cost with a good upside like the the rumored Sexson for Matt Morris one withthe Giants.
Best deal would be the aquring of P Aaron Harang from the Reds provided they don’t ask a unreasonable trade price (namely Jones/Balenien/Morrow).

My #1 gripe about Geoff Baker is his belief that we need to trade for a set up guy

like this?

I think that’s the rub about this team. And why we (collectively) seem so “pessimistic” about them.

Does anyone here really believe the Ms are the best team in baseball? Or are even close? I have a hard time calling them top-5, maybe even lower than that.

They’ve got a good record, which is better than having a bad record, but that doesn’t make them a great team. They’ve overachieved, which is great.

But they are a deeply flawed team. Terrible 3-4-5, worst DH in baseball, mediocre-to-bad starters, 2/3 bad outfield defense, and consistenly bad managing.

So, we get all emotional, we complain. Not because they’re doing “badly”, but because they could be SOOO much better. AJ in left, Sherrill more than a loogy, etc. All the pieces we’re discussing. And, to take the wish-casting even further, how ’bout a dominating righty setup guy (oh, name rhymes with “taffy”) that we didn’t need to trade away? Etc.

The team is a tease. We want them to do well, we see how the could do better. That’s not pessimism, that’s realism.

Do you think the losing streak is some kind of regression since M’s expected wins are much lower than actual wins? (I’m sorry if somebody has asked this.) After the cruel sweep they still have a +4 advantage (index = 1.82) and that’s the highest in AL.

And if their overachievement keep on decreasing then trading some good prospects for a slim chance may not be a good idea…

Nope, no-one agrees with you. We finished 6 games in front, and Slocumb was very mediocre.

I also don’t believe that the trade lead to us being 6 games ahead of Anaheim that year, and would bet money that we would have beaten the Angels without him. (Can you honestly argue that he was worth 6 games???) So, IMO it was a trade that did not truly effect the outcome of the year, and thus didn’t need to be made, AND went on to hurt the M’s for the next several years.

Which comes back to this year. Would a trade like that be worth while? IMO, no. Not when it would only help a smidgeon this year, but hurt us for the next few years. I’ld rather miss the playoffs this year, and have a real shot at them for the next 3-4yrs.

I also don’t remember him agreeing with you more than admitting that he wasn’t as horrible as every one else. That’s not agreeing that the trade was a good idea. Just that dog poop is better to step in than elephant poop. Either way, it’s still poop.

I don’t know how you can go from Dave’s concession that Slocumb’s FIP was not as jaw-droppingly awful as the rest of the bullpen’s to dismissing the badness of the trade with a simple “we’ve discussed that trade.”