Jump to content

O'sWhyNot52

Members
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About O'sWhyNot52

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 6/30/1980

Personal Information

  • Location
    Parkville
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Jake Arrieta
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Joe Orsulak
  1. O'sWhyNot52

    Naming a child after an Oriole

    I would say this theory is only relevant in extreme cases. If a child is named Mark or Calvin or Brett, do you really think they are being branded for life and being given a cross to bear? These are common names and just because the sports hero they were named after turns out to have gambled, used PEDs, or even cheated on his wife, I don't see that as reason for public criticism. There is a huge difference in naming your child after a known murderer, rapist, terrorist....especially if the name is only associated with that individual. That is not the case with 99% of sports inspired names.
  2. O'sWhyNot52

    Naming a child after an Oriole

    Pathetic? Really? It is a name, it doesnt dictate the morals and values the child will have..that is determined by the parents. BTW-- if you want to post a worthless remark at least know how to spell McGwire's last name
  3. Do you own a TV? Just wondering how someone could get that impression after actually watching Matusz pitch last night:laughlol:
  4. O'sWhyNot52

    What a bunch of losers!

    BTW-- One last thing and I'll be done with my rant.. I find it ridiculous that comparing teh whining and complaining of grown men to that of little girls would be viewed as "sexist" or "crude"! seriously--if you really feel that way you need some de-sensitivity help
  5. O'sWhyNot52

    What a bunch of losers!

    Alright--so I think I know who hit me with it and the only reason I am making a big deal about it this time is because I think it ridiculous. There are certain posters who are like little girls and when someone disagrees with them they take it personal. Look at my posts in this thread and tell me exactly what I said that was inappropriate or offensive. I was under the impression that this was a message board where we post opinions. So-- just because I dont have 10,000 posts doesnt mean that I am a "Newbie" buddy ( You know who you are). I have been on this board for 4+ years, and I think my opinion holds just as much weight as anyone else. Just because you can sit around all day and copy and paste links to articles from other sites doesnt make you any smarter or give you the right to act liek some sort of enforcer of the Hangout
  6. O'sWhyNot52

    What a bunch of losers!

    Well maybe those exact words arent quoted--but when you say things like: "What a bunch of losers" "They deserve to lose" "If we are losing past the 7th inning I never expect them to win" "This team is stupid" ...that says to me that you dont have much faith in teh team's future. Why? because a good portion of the 2009 Orioles are expected to be a huge part of the winning Orioles in the coming years, and when people make those kinds of comments then it is pretty obvious that they are being reactionary--or are just negative. I don't need you to explain to me that a team needs to do all the little things right in order to win...and I highly doubt the players dont know that either. Yes--they need ti improve their baserunning and fundamentals---but there are alot of good things these young guys are doing this year as well.
  7. O'sWhyNot52

    What a bunch of losers!

    But it is reactionary....because some of the same posters whining like little brats this morning, will be praising the potential of the team after their next winning streak.
  8. O'sWhyNot52

    What a bunch of losers!

    This thread is the biggest collection of reactionary whining I have ever seen on here. It is ridiculous. We lost a 2-1 game and we are all of a sudden a team with no future! Ill check back in with all the Bi-polar posters on here after our next 8-1 win when everyone is clamoring about the talent and promise of the team and how we might be competing in 2010 instead of 2011.
  9. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    Ok..breath taken "tough guy" exactly. I stand by my point and it seems like a dozen or so posters in this thread agree too. How else do you break a player into the bigs? Does every prospect, or non-prospect for that matter, come up from the minors directly into the role they will fill for their career and suceed 100%? All I am saying is if we want to infuse our young pitching into the majors and have them get experience and be ready to help us win ball games, whether that be this year or next, then the only way to do that is give them oppurtunities. And guess what--we are limited on starting slots--so let's make the best use out of those arms that could help in the BP. You can work in new young arms and still have a strong BP--they are not mutually exclusive!
  10. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    Haha-- No I guess that is just expert opinion. Now if he would have said " FWIW - all those guys blow" it could have been some inside info
  11. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    What are you even talking about? AM disagrees with me huh? So is the only way to fix the bullpen to ensure we keep Baez and Sherill here at all costs? To make sure we have a veteran presence?? Well he didnt hesitate to cut bait with Walker this year or Bradford last year,both for nothing.... so what makes you think that he wouldnt move a Baez or Sherril when he could actually get back some valuable pieces to fill holes on our team. I am not talking about trying to lose this year or not caring about what our current performance is. Do you really think that with the amount of young pitching we have moving up that we couldnt adequately survive without imploding by replacing Baez and Sherrill for a few months? If so then I am glad you arent running the team. All of our young starters can't fit in the rotation to start. So couldnt Koji , Berken, Hernandez etc... contribute out of the pen while Johnson or Ray closes? Those are just a few options that the team could have.
  12. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    But what does the short-run matter when we are focused on the long-run? If we can trade Baez ( who is gone at season's end) and/or Sherrill ( who is a solid loogy but has been playing an imposter role as a closer) and get talent back to help this team the next few years, then does it really matter if we take a few more lumps while these younger bullpen arms get experience at the big league level?
  13. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    I guess we just disagree on this point. I do not think that he will just be shipped off to save a few bucks this year. Reports already are hyping him as a targeted bullpen arm by multiple teams. I think we may even pair Baez with another player ( Guthrie? Huff?) to bring back a valuable haul.
  14. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    Ok--well I guess I can agree more with that scenario. I have no problem with adding more young pitching, but I also hope that we can actually develop a nice surplus of ML ready pitching talent which could force some guys into bullpen roles making the staff stronger as a whole.
  15. O'sWhyNot52

    Rosenthal: O's more willing to deal Baez and Sherrill

    Unless you are team in a pennant run with a hole at the closer position, trading for a closer is typically a stupid move. You are mostly trading for the name that comes with the label of "closer". That is why smart teams (Oak) place pitchers in the role, let them get some success and then trade them while their stock is high. This is why we should be looking to trade both Baez and Sherrill if they can continue to stay hot the next couple weeks. I would be confident that between D. Hernandez, Ray, Johnson.. we could backfill our set-up and cloers guys.
×