Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    54,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    439

Everything posted by Frobby

  1. If he's out of options, then they'd have to pass him through waivers at the end of spring training.
  2. 2009 ZiPS projection for Scott Moore: .236/.301/.397. Indispensable.
  3. Thank you for saying it. If Salazar didn't get claimed, there is little chance Moore will be.
  4. Amen. I enjoyed Miggy when he was here, but I'm glad this isn't our headache now.
  5. I would be saddened beyond belief. Cal's pretty much the poster boy for doing things the right way, and if he was tainted it would really be a crushing blow. I'd say the odds that he took steroids are very low, but I would never rule it out as to any player who played in any portion of the era when steroids were generally available.
  6. I think at this point, MacPhail will wait until the end of spring training before deciding if he needs more pitching help.
  7. Let's not sugarcoat this. The O's are taking a risk. I don't think any of us expected the SS situation last year to be as bad as it was. I think most felt we'd have somewhat above average defense and very weak offense at the position. As it turned out, even the defense was bad. This situation with the pitchers is similar. We have to acknowledge that if this strategy goes poorly, the outcome could be extremely bad, at least as far as 2009 is concerned. Hopefully it doesn't turn out that way, but it could.
  8. First, let me say that I agree with the general idea of this post, though my emphasis would be a little different. I do think that we can construct a bullpen that is designed to withstand a fair number of short starts by having several guys who can go 2+ innings if necessary. That softens the blow of not signing another starter who should average around 6 innings per start. However, it does not eliminate the danger that we see a repeat of last year when the bullpen essentially collapsed under the strain of overuse; it merely lessens that danger. Second, I want to make clear that not signing an innings eater doesn't make the offseason a failure, and we shouldn't make more of this than it is. 80% of Hangouters (including me) said if we did nothing further this winter, MacPhail would deserve a B or better. Even bigbird said C+ to B-. So while I wouldn't call the failure to sign an innings eater a minor quibble, it doesn't rise to the level of a make-or-break move, either. You are correct that if things break the right way, we'll be happy we didn't sign Looper. If Uehara translates well to the big leagues, if Hill returns to form, if two guys out of Penn, Pauley, Hennessey, Liz et al. step up or if a couple of the younger prospects are absolutely demanding (throught their performance) to be in the rotation by August, we could be glad Looper (or another innings eater) wasn't signed. But there are a ton of "ifs" in there, and I think the odds are against enough of those scenarios falling into place to eliminate the need for an innings eater. I'd rather have had the problem of needing to find a team to send Looper to (if things worked out well with our prospects) than have the problem of wondering who on this staff is going to give me more than 5 IP per start. If we shouldn't make too big a deal over the failure to sign an innings eater, we shouldn't say that signing one to a reasonable two-year deal would have been "horrible" either. I do feel the need to say that the statement "a guy like Hendrickson should be able to easily handle 100 innings out of the pen" defies reality. Last year there were 141 pitchers in MLB who threw 100 innings, none of whom had fewer than 9 starts. There were only 9 pure relievers who threw 80+ IP last year, none of whom cracked 90 IP. Only two of those averaged more than 1.3 IP/appearance. So if the bullpen does struggle from overuse, as many of us fear, please don't give me this "it's because Trembley is mishandling the bullpen" stuff. Nobody uses relievers the way that Goose Gossage and Mike Marshall were used, and if Trembley doesn't either, don't pin it on the manager. (We can argue some other time about whether the current pattern of usage for relievers throughout MLB is logical.)
  9. This is my concern. The bullpen can only pitch so many innings. When this year is over, MacPhail either will be vindicated or deservedly pilloried for going into a season with one proven starter.
  10. I have to agree here. The criticism isn't not signing Looper per se, it's not doing anything to acquire an established pitcher who was a good bet to throw 180-200 innings. As I said in another thread, this is more of a 2009 issue than a long-term issue, but I still feel MacPhail has made a mistake here. He's done a nice job of shoring up the bench and the defense, but that will all go to waste if the opponent is into our bullpen by the 6th inning in more than half the games, which I believe will be the case as things currently stand.
  11. Agreed, but so what? If nobody would pay Huff's salary while he was in the middle of a career year, then why would they pay him now, when they don't know how he'll perform this year, and with the market for players having dropped precipitously? The Manny situation was similar. At the time the Red Sox put him on waivers, the market had taken a significant dive, and at that particular time $20 mm for one of the 5 best hitters in the game just didn't seem like that good a deal.
  12. As a non-Facebook user, I'm curious -- what does this add? What do you get out of being an OH'er on Facebook that you wouldn't get just from being on OH? I've mainly stayed off Facebook to avoid the temptation of spying on my kids.
  13. It's not really 37 pitchers. There are maybe 10 who are serious candidates for the rotation: Guthrie, Uehara, Hill, Penn, Pauley, Hendrickson, Liz, Waters, Bass and Simon. The odds that five will be better than Looper are pretty slim IMO.
  14. I'm glad the Looper offer is still out there. My gut tells me he ends up here.
  15. I just want to say that I said from the very outset that the Orioles' disinterest in Sheets was probably due to medical concerns. Those who criticized the Orioles for not pursuing him should reconsider that criticism. Of course its possible that the O's weren't interested for other reasons. In any event, it's a moot point now with Sheets going under the knife.
  16. When does minor league camp formally open? I thought it was usually a week or two after major league camp started.
  17. If there is one thing that is clear about Reimold, it is that there is no "scouting consensus" on him. It has been mentioned by Tony and also some of the BA staff that Reimold has both supporters and detractors among scouts. I can't imagine the Orioles have given up on the guy, or consigned him to AAAA status before he has ever set foot on a big league field. They just don't feel he's in the best position to succeed yet. I'm not about to second-guess their judgment on that. I'm glad he'll be in spring training and I hope he gets more than a token number of ABs so that Trembley and Crowley can get a good look at him. I have very little doubt that he'll get a call up by September (at least) if he's healthy and has a decent year (and yes I know Norfolk will depress his stats).
  18. We had 4 first rounders: 13. Paradis 18. Stahl 21. Bigbie 23. Reed and three supplementals: 34. Cenate 44. Rice 50. Roberts One was our own pick, then we got a 1st rounder plus a supplemental pick for each of Raffy, Alomar and Eric Davis. When discussing all those picks we blew in 1999, let's not forget we also picked: 187. Erik Bedard
  19. Now that's funny! Props to you! But honestly, I thought SG asked a fair question.
  20. I must say, I'm shocked that you graded him that high, because it seems like most of your comments this offseason have been very critical. I'm glad you recognize that even thought there have been some disappointments, a lot of positive things have happened too.
  21. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not a good thing. A good thing would be to sign him to a reasonable extension or trade him for a good package of younger players. Obviously, having the situation unresolved is better than signing him to a grossly overlong, overpriced deal or trading him for an underwhelming package.
  22. I have to say, I think his offer was reasonable, especially given the current market conditions. Orlando Hudson still hasn't found a home and BRob ought to be looking at that and wondering whether he really wants to find himself in that spot next year. And in any event, both parties have pretty much said they'll keep talking through mid-March, so there's definitely time for something to happen here. I also should say that although I marked MacPhail down to a B in part because he didn't get another solid starter, that is a 2009 concern more than a long-term concern, which is why I didn't mark him down further. It's possible that if some of our top prospects develop nicely and 1-2 of of the many guys we've brought in come through this year, we'll be very happy next winter that we didn't ovecommit to a no. 3-4 type starter. (That said, I'd still like to have Looper on a 2-year deal at a reasonable price.)
  23. According to both Roch and Schmuck, and MacPhail's own comments on the Scott & Anita show, it appears Andy MacPhail is done for the winter. Now, we know that can always change in the blink of an eye, and the BRob situation remains a pretty big issue. But assuming that this is the team we are bringing to spring training, what's your grade for Andy this winter? Personally, I give him a solid B. Thought about a B+, but I'm still very nervous about the starting pitching for 2009 and the BRob situation remains something of a dark cloud. Long term: - Signed Markakis (by far the most important thing that happened this winter) - Acquired Pie (not a sure thing, but very significant upside) - Acquired Hill (in my estimation a long shot, but still very significant upside at low cost) - Broke into the Japanese market (Uehara himself is not a long term move) Short term: - Greatly improved the defense - Greatly improved the bench - Improved flexibility of the position players - Improved the depth of pitching, though no assured improvement of quality
  24. Fair enough. I do see 2009 as something of a litmus test for both MacPhail and Trembley. Andy has chosen not to go to hard after a no. 3-4 quality starter, and instead bring in a bunch of guys who could be no. 3-4 starters if we get lucky, on the theory that if you have enough candidates you will get lucky with at least a couple. I buy that, but holding 3 rotation spots open based on that is going pretty far out on a limb IMO. (I gather you agree.) So if his plan fails and the staff is just as bad in 2009 as it has been the last two years, I do think he's open to criticism. On the other hand if his plan at least modestly succeeds, then I think you have to tip your hat and admit his judgment was correct.
×
×
  • Create New...