Plus Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,540 All-Star

About Ohfan67

  • Rank
    Plus Member Since 2/2016
  • Birthday 4/13/1967

Personal Information

  • Location
  1. Love your optimism. Hope you are totally correct.
  2. I totally agree that the Orioles have to make the deals. I think you are looking at the glass half full and I am looking at the glass half empty. I think you are only looking at the successful trades. But maybe I am just remembering all the worthless trades of the past.
  3. I hear you. So, if we agreed on a definition of "small deals" and excluded them then you would agree that we could test the hypothesis that most deals are pretty meaningless? I'm too lazy to actually do this, so just "pondering".
  4. Definitely a bit of a head scratcher.
  5. It would be fun to look at the data to really test my hypothesis. I found a few studies that kind of sought to address this question with things like Trade WARP (TWARP), but reading the articles gave me a light headache. I like statistics, but the articles were just very poorly written and didn't really explain the concept well. I will have to dig into it at some other time, but mainly a poster knows more about this already? I don't think your reply really addresses the question. Of course trades are great if the prospects you get back turn into valuable ML players. But unfortunately many of them don't. Likewise even very good players that go to other teams, especially as rentals, sometimes don't perform great after the trade. Or they perform well and some other part of the team performs poorly and the end result is no different than if the trade wasn't made. Again, I'm not discouraging the Orioles from trading, but I have seen enough of these deadline deals to know that most are just shrugs in a few years. Of course the Orioles should roll the dice because you can't win if you don't play, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath that the future of the organization will be dramatically changed because of the acquisition of a couple of prospects. Might happen. Might. But probably not.
  6. I hear you and I know you are among a strong consensus regarding his arm. So, why do you think the Orioles are playing him at 3B? Do you think they are just going to give him as many chances as possible to be an infielder? Just curious about your thoughts/ideas about their possible reasoning.
  7. Many trades are ultimately meaningless. A significant percentage of the players involved in deadline deals do very little for either team. I'm not against deadline trades, but I'm pretty confident that if you examined all the deadline deals from the last 10 years you would find that a sizable percentage of them didn't do diddly for either team. Maybe even half of them (or more...probably more). And another chunk did just a little. Not saying that teams shouldn't make them, but I am saying that fans shouldn't hold their breath that the future of the O's will be remarkably better even if they score a couple of top 50 players. I think the O's should deal Britton, Castilla (if anyone needs a catcher enough to give up something half decent), and maybe others, but my expectations of what the returning players will actually deliver are pretty low. p.s. I actually think DD is better than the average GM at finding useful players ("nuggets") that are not highly ranked and highly coveted by other teams, so DD might actually do a better job of selling than some fear.
  8. Sadly most trades kind of end up being meaningless. Even getting two top 50 prospects may have little impact. In 2007, for example, Billy Rowell and Felix Pie were both top 50. Not trying to be a party pooper, but couldn't help but think about how pie-in-the-sky some trades can be (pun intended in this case).* *and yes, I know the O's didn't trade for Pie in 2007, just noticed that he and Rowell were both ranked top 50 BA in 2007. All that glitters is not gold.
  9. Definitely. I guess this promotion is not that aggressive. I know many of you guys thought he would be promoted in time to make the fall league deadline. But I am surprised the promotion is accompanied by an immediate position change. That's definitely throwing Mountcastle a lot. Hopefully he handles it well.
  10. I wonder if they are thinking something weird like Mountcastle at 3rd and Machado at SS next year? Seems crazy to think that the O's would push Mountcastle that hard, but they are aggressive at times. But that's kind of nutty, right?
  11. Edit: Posted in the wrong thread!
  12. That's a surprise.
  13. Holy smoke, we are down the rabbit hole. Complete miscommunication. Of course Hays is a wonderful prospect and Yaz is an organizational guy. You referenced that when you joked or half-joked about Yaz's performance making you wonder about Hays and Mullins performance at Bowie. I did not take your comment to mean that you truly questioned their status as prospects. I said I felt something similar regarding Mountcastle when I looked at the list of players who hit a ton of doubles during a season at Frederick. Specifically, the number of doubles hit at Frederick does not, by itself, predict future success. In fact the leaders list includes many organizational types and a few busts. Of course Montcastle is still a fantastic hitting prospect. But the names on that list turned the volume down on my glee about Mountcastle's double record, for sure. But I still think he's a fantastic hitter for his age and am excited for the future.
  14. You are being obtuse. I specifically said that setting a doubles record by itself doesn't mean much. Obviously age is a big factor. When I brought up the doubles record I was specifically referencing your statement: "In a funny way, Yaz's dominance at AA is bumming me out, because it's making me think that the numbers put up by Hays and Mullins are nothing to get excited about." How the he!! is what I said different from what you said? I guess I should have lectured you about Yaz's age blah blah blah.
  15. The number of doubles you hit in A ball does not predict future success. That was glaringly obvious when we were all looking at/making lists of the doubles per season leaders when discussing Mointcastles year. I didn't say that overall performance at a certain age didn't matter. Some names on that doubles list, however, were definitely reminders that it's a big leap from A ball to the majors. setting a new doubles record is fun and exciting, but doesn't mean a lot or basically anything by itself.