Jump to content

Flash- bd

Plus Member
  • Posts

    2882
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Flash- bd last won the day on July 5 2012

Flash- bd had the most liked content!

About Flash- bd

  • Birthday 07/13/1986

Personal Information

  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Cedric Mullins
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Jim Palmer

Recent Profile Visitors

4675 profile views

Flash- bd's Achievements

Veteran All-Star

Veteran All-Star (12/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

343

Reputation

  1. Cool to get big Jim's thoughts on it from you, cheers Roy!
  2. Yeah, I agree for the most part. It's really hard to be anything but chuffed with how the organization is at the moment!
  3. This, basically. Losing Hall hurts, IMO. I kinda would've rather seen say, Johnson and Povich go. Or Johnson / Povich and Norby. But who knows if Milwaukee would've accepted that, it might be that they really wanted Hall. In which case, is kinda scary, given Milwaukee's record with pitchers. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think we probably lost this trade. 6 years of Hall for 1 of Burnes, I just don't know...and I don't think we have arms the upside of Hall (hopefully this means they really rate McDermott? He's one who might have a similar upside, I guess...besides De Leon who is a long way off, of course). Hopefully this is just Arrieta-itis on my part, but as a big fan of Arrieta who hated to see him go, a pitcher who had similar problems to Hall and a similar upside, I really worry about Milwaukee fixing him and him becoming a top starter. Taking the devil's advocate to my opinion, I can see an analytical approach with Hall saying: between the fluctuations in velocity we've already seen due to injury, the injury issues in general, and the issues already present as a starter even when fully healthy, we're talking a small possibility that it works out for him. I'm guessing that's why they made the trade.
  4. Losing Hall hurts, IMO. I kinda would've rather seen say, Johnson and Povich go. Or Johnson / Povich and Norby. But who knows if Milwaukee would've accepted that, it might be that they really wanted Hall. In which case, is kinda scary, given Milwaukee's record with pitchers.
  5. “Ain't no sense worryin' about the things you got control over, 'cause if you got control over 'em, ain't no sense worryin'. And ain't no sense worryin' about the things you don't got control over, 'cause if you don't got control over 'em, ain't no sense worryin'.”
  6. Very fair points, you've kinda convinced me to come back around and agree that we should acquire a starter. Fair as well, thanks for the explanation!
  7. Absolutely. As with most pitching prospects, injuries are my biggest worry with Hall. That said, his current stuff is certainly still plus, and that's what I focus on. Certainly, further velocity drops in the short-term would really hurt my opinion of him, as it would with anyone. Yeah, no doubt, I definitely take this point, and perhaps even more importantly, it's just such a small sample size so to be almost irrelevant. It's more the overall package + lack of development as a SP that makes me think: "it's too early to not think of this guy as a future starter."* *We've discussed the other relevant questions here a bit (needs of the team, short-term vs. long-term, etc. here so I won't say more on that) Interesting. I like McDermott a lot, but on the face of it here's a pitcher who doesn't have that many less IPs as a starter in the minors given the stipulation I put above (242 or so to 288), and is a college pitcher (so different development trajectory), yet in his last 119 IP has a 5.1 BB/9. I suppose you're referring to the fact that he lowered his BB/9 to 4.3 in those 50.2 innings at Norfolk, which, definitely, is better than what Hall has done in his most recent innings at Norfolk.* Or is there more from a scouting perspective that you're seeing that makes you say this? (Genuine question, in a discussion like this it might sound like I'm making these kind of questions in part in a spirit of provocation or challenging your opinion, but as I say, I say it with genuine deference to people who have far more baseball knowledge than I do and interest in them sharing it with me...internet tone is tricky!) *As I say, I can't help but take a lot of his recent work in the minors with a big grain of salt, due to his lesser stuff after the injury. But you're also right to point out that the two things (injuries and projection) shouldn't necessarily be separated so cleanly as I do.
  8. I think Hall's repertoire, how good he looked with a number of pitches and commanding them to a decent extent (I think the biggest issue here, or critique of my idea, is that I'm probably working off a recency bias / SSS, which is why I totally get why you don't see it my way, but...), and the fact he has had such an interrupted development as a starter (COVID, injuries, lost 2021 to injury, even last season's innings I would really scratch off, as he was without his stuff for the majority of the season due to his injury in spring training), should give us reason to view him as a rather unique case as a 25 year old SP. We're talking about a high school pitcher who has 288 IP as a starter under his belt before last season where he was pitching without his real stuff for most of it. Those 288 IP interrupted by a season lost to COVID, and a major injury. Grayson compiled 334 in a period of a year less. So, I think it would be fair to consider Hall somewhere similar to where Grayson was coming into last season, in his development. I guess, even if you see it my way in that respect, you could make the argument, can we afford a potential development season (but with less innings, as we agree Hall has less ability to maneuver his way through lineups without using as many pitches) like Grayson's last? I don't know. I take your other points about his already established value to our bullpen, too. Probably ultimately comes down to philosophical differences. I tend to want long-term value maximization even at the expense of short-term results. I could be wrong with this philosophical stance--it would probably take a very complicated analysis to parse it all out--but it's the way my mind works.
  9. I know, Tony, I have read your thoughts on Hall. It's not that I disagree with it--hard to disagree with analysis from someone who knows far more about baseball than I do (understatement of the century)--I just have a different view of it, tbh, and feel like not enough credence has been given to how interrupted his development has been as a starter and the room for growth there. Yeah, there's surely a bit of gut feeling / intuition there--orange pixie dust--but hey, it's my (rather useless) opinion and I can't help expressing it! I don't offer my opinion too often and mainly just limit myself to asking questions or being rather positive or trying to offer a bit of 'perspective' from my point of view, as I generally defer to people--you first among them--here who have far more baseball knowledge than myself, but what I can say, I just can't help but have a different opinion / feeling on Hall.
  10. I think he's a really interesting arm and think he gives us pretty good depth behind potential DL Hall / Tyler Wells injuries (or potential poor performance) should we not add a SP and decide to go with the better of those two in ST as the #5 starter and the poorer as a high leverage bullpen guy. The more I think about it the more I really just am not sure trading for a SP is the best use of our assets. Really feels to me like an upgrade on one of our OFs or in the bullpen is. DL Hall feels like the one who's being underestimated above all, I know relieving isn't the same as starting, and that it's a SSS, but his 2.3 BB/9 and 4.60 SO/W rate suggests to me he might just offer better upside as a starter than any of the options that are being discussed to trade for. And a healthy Tyler Wells is not a half bad back-up plan, along with McDermott and Irvin as further depth.
  11. I think this would be a tougher question if option two had us getting to the ALCS. For me it's gotta be the first option. If you change it to 90 wins and losing in the ALCS it becomes a difficult one. I tend to think objectively that the 100 win and AL East champion season is still better but that emotionally winning a couple of playoff series maybe wins out...would be a tough question.
  12. Last two seasons: 298 IP, 3.74 ERA, 4.21 FIP Not sure how you can make an argument for that being anything less than a good 4th starter. I'm not even sure, like I said in my post on the last page, that there's a very good argument that John Means should be considered higher than him on the rotation hierarchy.
  13. Indeed. Kremer is chronically underrated everywhere, it seems.
  14. The main thing I get from the article is that Elias is doing something different and that the media / world doesn't know how to react to it. This is basically the definition of doing something different. If this is were the Rays people would be talking about D.L. Hall and McDermott (and Wells, even?) very differently as potential 5th starters. I'm still a bit baffled about how dismissively Kremer is talked about in the national media. I'm not sure there's actually a good reason why John Means is consistently considered a better option / higher in the hierarchy than him. I'm not worried. My biggest worry is how we're going to find spots for all of our ML-ready prospects in the lineup over the course of the season. To alleviate that concern a bit I'd like to see us look for above all a Mountcastle / O'Hearn or Halls / Santander upgrade and a big time relief arm, but given their track record I suppose the latter they feel they can work out with internal solutions, and the former seems difficult to find on the trade market. In short, I trust Elias, and really couldn't care less about the common strain of thought among the outside media.
  15. Baumeister looks to me like he has big potential. I'd go with Povich or Johnson, IMO. Probably Povich.
×
×
  • Create New...