Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 4/22/2009 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Well we're not playing him ahead of Scott, he's still manning the DH spot and performing just fine in that role. No reason to make a change there. Reimold has a grand total of 47 AAA at-bats, I have no problem with leaving him at Norfolk for a couple more months to ensure he's completely ready. Montanez is what he is. A typical late bloomer, and ultimately a low ceiling type of guy. I see a guy who plays average defense at best, and might put up an .800 OPS in the majors in a good year. With all that being said, I don't see why we can't give Pie a couple more months to try and figure things out. From all accounts, Crowley has completely destructed and rebuilt his swing and approach from the ground up. Let's give it a little more time to see if he can make it work. Again, what do we really have to lose?
  2. 2 points
    Wow, someone gave me neg rep for THIS post? Really? Please, anyone, tell me what is wrong with my post above.
  3. 1 point
    Let me say, first of all, that I continue to favor giving Felix Pie regular playing time and letting this experiment play out for a while. Nevertheless, there is a line of thinking that goes like this: "Nick Markakis hit .182/.270/.288 in April. What if we had given up on him then?" That logic is a bit superficial, in my view. I think anyone could see, from his very first game, that Nick had an advanced understanding of the strike zone and a very patient, disciplined approach at the plate. The fact that he managed a .270 OBP despite his .182 average was testament to that. And although Nick struck out quite a bit that April (16 times in 74 PA's), his K rate was certainly not unreasonably high, and it wasn't due to problems in strike zone judgment. Mostly, it had to do with his difficulties hitting fastballs up and in. And of course, Nick had jumped to the majors after only 130 AA AB's the year before, so a lengthy adjustment period was reasonable to expect. And it wasn't like the O's had lots of other candidates vying for his spot. So, we should be careful when we use the Markakis analogy to justify sticking with Pie. Right now, I'm still on board for a half season of Pie getting regular time, but that trial period shortens if he keeps hitting .135 and playing questionable defense. He does need to show more than he is showing now to keep his trial going through June.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    I really don't see the problem. It's win win IMO. If Pie fails to show progress and Reimold continues to hit in AAA, you call him up. If Pie shows progress, you have yourself a talented player.
  6. 1 point
    Wow, there is a lot of unwarranted aggression towards JTrea. At this rate, Ackley WILL be taken before any of those pitchers, and is most definitely NOT a reach at #5. Nowhere did I see him say that Matzek, White, and Crow sucked, but only that position players are usually rated more highly than pitchers, most likely because there is less of a chance of injury and it is easier to correctly evaluate how they will translate in the MLB.
  7. 1 point
    I'm sure other guys get more than that. Still, I think it's crazy that they would pocket $500 for the honor of having people fawn over you for a couple of hours. At the very least, they should direct that money to a charity. Better yet, do it for free. Use your celebrity to help these organizations. Youth sports organizations have dozens of folks who donate hours and hours of their lives so that kids can play some ball. Right now, there are some guys spreading dirt around a muddy infield so that my kid can play T-ball this evening. They are doing that for free. The juxtaposition of that scene with Dukes cashing a $500 check for signing some autographs is pretty striking.
  8. 1 point
    Wow. The cackling of the announcers was a little distracting at times. It being ESPN and all, I'm surprised one Mr. J. Maier didn't make the list for his "Wall Moment". Otherwise, some interesting highlights there.
  9. 1 point
    That is pretty unfair. Many of us are trying to determine what value lies in these players. None of us are flawless and I am certainly not concerned about the community view of my perspective. If I see that I error in my analysis, I will say so. Just dismissing us because you think I am being protective of my rep is rather insulting. I'm not sure how you can be so sure there is only one way to look at this and think all those who oppose have some self-serving purpose to it.
  10. 1 point
    Ah the never ending battle between the analysts and the fanatics. I tend to respect Stotle's views on these subjects. He knows much more than me about this stuff and I hope he continues to post his take on what he saw, despite the criticism he and others have taken on this thread. I too enjoyed a well pitched game by a pitcher that potentially could help us in 2010, 2011, 2012..... Pretty exciting stuff to me as a fan but I also like to hear what other more knowledgable posters saw. I liked that virtually nothing he threw was straight (hopefully Liz was watching) and very few seemed to go down the middle. I loved the pace and poise. I didn't like some of the nibbling in counts where he was ahead and there were a good many balls that were hit hard with 0-2 counts. By his own admission he was extremely nervous so it will be interesting to see where he goes from here. All in all, it was just nice to see a well pitched game.
  11. 1 point
    I somewhat agree with this. He has great fastball command, and I'd venture to say his 2 seamer/sinker were good at times. I did see that he was getting hit a lot harder the second time through. He is very good at getting ground balls, so he may be best suited to come in and get a crucial ground out like Bradford was used for, but for now he's probably our #3 starter. His delivery looks pretty effortless. I'd like to see some video on him just to get an idea of his mechanics. Overall, he looks like he could be a solid starter in the back end of the rotation, or a Jim Johnson type reliever who could dominate an inning or go a few innings of solid pitching.
  12. 1 point
    Absolutely. Between feedings I will be there. That and Drake's Fortune 2 and God of War 3. I hope the kid finds the sound of people being stabbed in the kidneys, shot in the head and decapitated by mystical blades soothing.
  13. 1 point
    No worries. I certainly don't mean to pee in anyone's cheerios. I think everyone was happy to see Bergesen poised and in control of the game. He was confident and handled himself well -- what more can you reasonably ask from a first start?
  14. 1 point
    That's nice of you to try and twise my argument but no thanks. I am commenting on the start tonight and I never said you guys were crazy. I just question how some of you can make such judgements (he's a middle reliever) off of one start. That's just as silly as someone saying he's definitley going to be a mainstay in the rotation from one start.
  15. 1 point
    Nahh.... I'd love to have a 360, not necessarily for the exclusive disc titles, although Fable II sounded cool. I'm interested in Virtual Arcade. If I can scrounge the money, I'll consider getting the new Elite with Halo and Fable packaged in. The only question is whether it's worth the money seeing how I won't have much time to play once the new baby arrives. The only thing I would say is that touting Netflix as an incentive for Xbox is a bit deceptive. There are several other services out there that let you stream Netflix. I use PlayOn to stream through my DirectTV box. It also streams Amazon, CBS, Hulu and a ton of other channels. It also works with the PS3, although I've never tried it. As far as OnLive, it seems great in theory, but I want to have games in my hand or at the very least on my hard drive. I just pulled out my Genesis and I can play those games from 14 years ago. Same with any other old system. If I buy a game through OnLive and they decide to stop hosting it because it's not popular in several years, I've lost a game that I paid for.
  16. 1 point
    Great job by "The Kid." He was done after this inning anyway. Trembley took him out so he could get the standing "O".
  17. 1 point
    We are more than a month away from draft and only two weeks into the MLB season and there are already a few things concerning me about comments about specific players from posters on this board. I was reading the Ackley thread and found a poster saying that he's counting on this year's 2nd round pick being better than last years, Xavier Avery. How can we be saying things like this already? Avery was drafted as a toolsy project. I was shocked to see him in Delmarva. I had him penciled in as the centerfielder for the IronBirds and still think he'd benefit from more time in Sarasota, refining his craft, than striking out and being overmatched in A-Ball. But this isn't about Avery. This is about people in general rushing to judgement about players in this finicky sport of baseball. Two years ago, Brandon Snyder was completely written off as a draft bust. Now, he's one of our best offensive prospects, crushing the ball in Bowie and figured as a future major leaguer. On another thread we are asking if we'd trade him straight up for Justin Smoak. Honestly, I don't know if it's as open and shut a case as everybody else thought. The two players were born a month apart, one when to college, the other when straight to the pros. Smoak was drafted 11th, Snyder was drafted 13th. Right now, at the same age, they are at the same level putting up similar numbers. While Smoak may be better long term, it seems he is the one everybody wants because he's the hot name for the last year and we'd rather jump for the new thing than wait out for Snyder who is progressing at a fairly reasonable rate. Then we have Billy Rowell. I'm not going to call him a bust. I'll call him a disappointment. He could still be a major leaguer, but will likely not be of the caliber we hoped when we drafted him. But my overall reaction to a first rounder not panning out? Oh well. It happens and just because one doesn't work out doesn't mean our system is broken and our franchise is in ruins. The majority of first rounders don't pan out. Rowell was a big, powerful, projectable bat and when we took him, it was the right pick at the time. Now heading into June 9, I'm sure we'll have read everything available on every player that we could take. We've hyperanalyzed and found every potential flaw with Strasburg, Green, Ackley, Matzek, Purke, etc. And half the board will probably be angry depending on who we take and then call for McPhail's head for another draft "wasted." Fact is, we don't know how this draft is going to turn out until 2012 at the earliest. If we pull in 40 some players and 3 of them end up in our Top 10 prospects three years from now, we can say it was fairly successful. And if two of those three end up in the majors, it's a success. And if one of those two end up being a starter for five seasons, it's a major success. I've waited 11 seasons for a winning team and I'm not broken. I'm patient, and I'm not going anywhere as an O's fan. I love this board because there is so much passion, but I really get sick and kinda depressed at the pessimistic venom spit sometimes in regards to players and decision makers within the franchse. Let's sit back and wait for once because no matter how many people on here clamor for a given player, our scouts know more than we ever will. In them, I trust.
  18. 1 point
    I couldn't find any pitch count stats on Hernandez so I used TT's pitch count estimator. That formula gives DH a pitch count of 88 pitches per game. If that's true, the 5.2 innings/start is not important. 17 pitches/ inning is not great, but he's not laboring. If he's getting through 5.2 on 88 pitches (which seems likely considering how the Orioles don't allow their minor leaguers to run up high pcounts), then he should be able to get through 5 or 6 innings in the majors. That's not desirable, but he can build on it.
  19. 1 point
    TV rating stinks. Radio ratings stinks. Attendance stinks. Gotta cut costs somewhere...
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    OK…per baltimoron's request, I'm giving a brief review of the book "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Schlaes. Let me start off by saying that the author has more of a libertarian or conservative view of economics…basically, the assumption that governmental forces should be limited in how it can regulate business. I think she does a good job, though, of explaining how these times were very difficult and our government really had no idea how to handle this crisis. Also, I need to emphasize that I am not scholarly, but will give you my general impressions about the era she describes. It won't be long… Hoover initially botched things up with the Hawley-Smoot tariff, even after being warned about it by his own advisers. That act really ticked off Europe, and led to decreased importing, and the Europeans spitefully did the same thing to American goods. Another Hoover miscue was not recognizing that deflation was a problem. Instead of pumping more money into the system, he did just the opposite, and tightened the money supply. The book goes into much more detail, but I don't want to ramble on about it. Many of the folks that would be policy makers in the Roosevelt administration were intrigued with the Soviet Union and the communist ideas of Stalin. I'm not saying that they were Communist (with a big "C"!), but they really thought the socialist model was the way to go. Most of these folks had developed their ideas well before the Great Depression as well. The depression gave them the opportunity to put some of those ideas into motion. I was completely unaware that the Federal Government DOUBLED the federal budget in Roosevelt's first term. Keep in mind that today, a 1 or 2 percent increase in the fed budget is a big deal. I find this point absolutely mind-blowing! The good thing about the New Deal was that it created millions of jobs. The bad thing is that these were usually short-term jobs that lasted normally for months, not years. Surprisingly (sarcasm alert!), the jobs were very politically motivated. It seemed that they just wanted to show that the government was "doing something". One thing that really stuck out to me was Roosevelt's "war" against big business. He was a master politician who seemed to play the "have nots" against the "haves" to the hilt. He was very aggressive as painting the big companies and the rich as the bad guys. He did what he could to advocate union membership, which at the time was not a good thing for businesses, as wages would go up at a time when businesses could not afford it. One industry that really suffered was the burgeoning utilities industry. Roosevelt thought the government needed to be in control, and wound up really hurting private utilities companies with the development of the TVA. There was a general feeling among companies that the government was now competing with the private sector, and it was frightening people away from investing in and developing new companies. Another thing that came up that I did not know before. Roosevelt tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices in order to help further along some of his policies that the court had declared unconstitutional. Fortunately, many Democratic politicians were able to talk him out of it and it never came to fruition. Two quotes that stuck out at me more than any others were from John Keynes and Henry Morgenthau. Keynes' was: "It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians". Morgenthau's (who was FDR's Treasury Secretary): "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we ever spent before and it does not work…After eight years (this quote was from 1939) of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot!" Overall, I'd rate this book as a very good read and provided a lot of insights into the political aspects of The Great Depression. I'd also conclude that a lot of the issues we faced then appear to be happening right now as well. I fear that the more the government takes control of things, the more it will scare business from investing, employing, and being prosperous. I have more opinions about that, but I don't want to get this thread closed! Please feel free to ask any questions about the book if you like more details, as I've tried to keep this succinct. Feel free to PM me at your convenience.
  22. 0 points
    Low-A is quite a jump for a 19-year old who played in the GCL last summer. He skipped both Bluefield and Aberdeen. It may turn out that he needs to go back to that level. Just to remind you, Brandon Snyder was 19 when he played at Delmarva the first time, and he hit .194/.237/.340 and had to be sent back to Aberdeen partway through the year. Ryan Adams was hitting .236/.296/.329 at Aberdeen at age 20. So, if Avery is overmatched at Delmarva at age 19 and needs to move down a level, it is not the end of the world.
  23. -1 points
  24. -1 points
    All I have to say is that Vlad never wanted to come here, we low-balled Delgado, and never made a serious offer to Tex...oh yeah, and we should have drafted Smoak. And yes, thanks for the suggestion...I will ignore Pie threads from now on.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...