Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    51,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    386

Everything posted by Frobby

  1. Two separate categories: 1. Garbage arms. From last year, think Shuey, Bell, Santos, Zambrano, Williams. Sorry, but I put Jim Johnson there even though he can crank it up to 91-92 on occasion. 2. Power arms who aren't ready. Here I may include Liz, and definitely include McCrory. With Bedard gone, you have Cabrera, Guthrie, Loewen, Olson, and Penn as the leading candidates for the rotation, in which case they are not in the bullpen. That is a rotation that is not going to pitch a high number of innings, so you had better have a deep bullpen.
  2. Yeah, maybe. But maybe we're better off with Bradford, Walker, AND a couple of power arms that are ready, as opposed to having a couple of power arms who are ready and then a pile of garbage arms/youngsters who aren't ready.
  3. Belkast: you don't have to tell us the details, but have you been told what has been offered in exchange, and do you feel we will be getting good value?
  4. I will be glad when these deals are done so that the rampant speculation and endless permutations of who we might receive in exchange will be at an end. I started a thread a few days back predicting that major moves would get done before Christmas because of the practical need to move on to Round 2. Looks like my (non-insider) guess may prove correct.
  5. I tend to agree, though I certainly don't know. But here is another theory: there were several pitchers who were making significant strides at Frederick at the end of last season. They wil be promoted to Bowie this year. Perhaps the organization thinks they will benefit if they have the same coach this season that they had last year, just so that they are getting a consistent message and instruction.
  6. Let's discuss once we have a concrete roster to analyze. However, I think it is a bit unrealistic to think that many of the young players we acquire are likely to perform at a high level in 2008. Some may be good right away (but not as good as Bedard/Roberts/Tejada), some will be good but not until down the road, and some won't pan out at all, most likely. I can see the 2008 team being better than 2007, but that will mostly depend on getting more out of our holdovers, especially Loewen, Cabrera and Olson.
  7. I don't assume anything. How can I, when I don't know the specific roster makeup of the team yet? However, if you want to talk in terms of probabilities, the team is likely to get worse in the immediate future if Bedard, Tejada and Roberts are traded for players who are unlikely to be near all-star level players in 2008.
  8. I think you stated the issue better than I did.
  9. I think there is a pretty big difference, from a fan's persepctive, between a team that plays .470 ball for 3/4 of the season and then collapses, and a team that plays sub-.400 ball from April 1 on. But I think you are reading a bias in my thread title that I am not intending. The Detroit Tigers were abysmal in 2002 and 2003, but one could argue that was a necessary step for that franchise to do what it needed to do to rebuild. My thread was more intended to raise the question, than to provide the answer.
  10. I don't see this as evidence of homerism by Gammons. He's just using what the Yankees have done this winter to illustrate a point that relates to all MLB. I doubt he would deny that the Red Sox are just a mini-version of the Yankees in terms of their spending -- but not this winter, so far.
  11. This relates to SG's thread about why keep Walker or Bradford around if we are rebuilding? On the one hand, if we are rebuilding, it makes sense to get as many veterans as possible out of here, including veteran middle relievers. On the other hand, do you want your young players in an environment where they are terribly overmatched day after day? Those last 5-6 weeks of last season were pretty chastening for me. I would not want to watch that kind of baseball for 162 games, and I doubt the players would want to play in an environment like that, either. I think there may be some minimum number of solid veterans you have to keep around to avoid having a complete debacle on your hands. If so, who are they?
  12. Frobby

    Orange Throat?

    It would be pretty funny if this blog was about some other team entirely.
  13. Feel free to change the thread title to "reassigned." My main point was that this move was dislclosed here a couple of weeks ago. I wish I could remember who reported it.
  14. I forget who reported a few weeks ago that Scott McGregor was getting demoted, but Roch confirms it today: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/roch/blog/2007/12/this_and_that_32.html
  15. Frobby

    Orange Throat?

    I've racked my brain for who this could be, and I can't come up with it. Some of the biopgraphical information must have been invented to protect this guy.
  16. I thought I had read that the Orioles had reached agreement with a bunch of minor league FA's but were waiting until after the Rule 5 draft to make them official. Since the Rule 5 draft was just last Thursday, maybe we'll hear about a bunch of signings this week.
  17. I think there will be some fan backlash, but nothing really all that significant. Even casual fans know that Brian Roberts has never been part of a winning team here, and that the team needs to be dramatically recast.
  18. http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.maese07dec07,0,2259424.column I thought this deserved its own thread. Nice job by Maese digging up numerous past quotes from Gibbons and showing his hypocrisy. I'm glad Jay acknowledged what he did and is going to accept the penalty without further maneuvering. His "medical excuse," however, is laughable, and just a further emabarassment. The article does point out, though it sort of glosses over it, that Jay and his wife also have been active members of the community who have done a lot of good things. I think this has to be considered in judging the whole man. It doesn't excuse what he did, but it allows me to forgive him after he's served him penalty.
  19. Yes, for three reasons: 1. He's giving MacPhail more autonomy than the prior GM's. 2. The team is losing and he needs to do something. 3. We tried to sign Roberts for longer last winter and he would only commit to 2 years, so we know he's gone after 2009 unless the team improves greatly. As to Murton, he is nothing great but he is a big upgrade over what we've had in LF the last several seasons. His best years should be in front of him. If he's the second piece in a three-piece offer, that's not bad.
  20. Not too any people outside of Baltimore would put Teixeira in the category of a superstar. He's very, very good, but not quite in the perennial all-star category.
  21. I don't see the Dodgers giving up that much. The Angels deal may be doable. The Cubs deal looks fair but not sure it'll happen that way.
  22. Thanks for the info, Belkast. If you're happy about the winter meetings, then I'm happy. As to last night, I'll go read the rants section.
  23. Nobody can argue that the team has done a good job on the trade front over the last 10 years. But it is very important to be dealing from strength. Look at Detroit. They acquired Cabrera and Willis because they had the bargaining chips to do it. Look at how we view the teams making offers for Bedard. The Mets desperately want him, but can't get him because their farm system just ain't that great. Meanwhile, the Dodgers could probably come up with 4 or 5 different combinations that would work for us and still leave them with a boatload of talent in the minors. But they aren't sure they want to, because their talent is so good that they might be better off just keeping it. In the last 10 years, how many really good prospects have the Orioles traded away? Virtually none, and yet our top-tier talent in the minors is middle of the pack at best and the homegrown talent on the ML roster is minimal.
  24. The number one reason the organization has sucked for the last 10 years is drafting, acquisition of foreign players and player development. On a scale of 1 to 100, that reason is 100 and poor trading is about a 12. If you don't have talent in your organization, you aren't going to fool too many teams into just giving it to you in trades.
×
×
  • Create New...