Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Frobby

  1. Uh, because in my mind, until I say it, it really hasn't been said. No, I suppose you are right. I just find it funny when people argue so vehemently about the ceiling of someone who, chances are, they have never seen play. One thing we know - Votto is no Helton defensively.
  2. Can I inject a little common sense here? The fact is, (1) we don't really know exactly what any highly regarded prospect's ceiling is, but (2) the odds that any prospect in the minors is going to be as good as Todd Helton has been are very small.
  3. Just a little more -- John Sickels ranks both Votto and Cueto as A- prospects, which is very high praise in his ranking system. Homer Bailey rates a B+, which Sickels said still should make him a top 20 pitching prospect and maybe even a top 10. So that pegs Cueto as a top 10 pitching prospect in his view.
  4. Mind you, I'm not saying that there haven't been great contributions by executives. My point is that the fans who go the Hall, or argue about who should be in, really don't know or care about whether these guys are in the Hall or not. By the way, the Orioles have five -- FIVE! -- broadcasters who were nominated for the Frick award this year.
  5. Your first point is very well taken. But what, in your mind, is "premium" talent? According to MILB.com, Votto is the no. 34 prospect in baseball, Cueto is no. 47. Where's the cutoff?
  6. He turned 26 when the season ended. What I meant to say was that he had accumulated an .820 OPS through age 25, not that he'll be 25 next season. The point is that he hasn't hit what should be his prime yet and still he is putting up solid numbers. I'm not in love with the guy, I just thought your "light hitting" comment was not warranted. We know what light hitting OFs look like. Both Murton and Scott have decent platoon splits, but I think if you platooned them in LF and gave each some time at DH, you could get an .850 OPS in each spot.
  7. I think you are selling Murton a little short. He's 25 years old and has an .820 career OPS. Seems like a pretty good bet to be in the .850 range over the next 3-4 years. Also, he's RH and mashes LHP, something we are a bit short on.
  8. A couple of days ago, Diggety Don reported it was these three plus Guzman: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1128428#post1128428 Have we lost ground here?
  9. Who-o-o-a, du-u-u-de! So I took steroids o-o-ne ti-i-i-me! Chilllll outtttttt! I'm sor-r-r-y, du-u-d-e! Don't get so hy-y-y-per!
  10. I'd love to see Brian take some fan phone calls. Now that would take guts!
  11. Great info, but you posted this in the wrong forum. I've put a link on the main board so that people will see this. Thanks!
  12. Interesting rumor re the Reds and the Orioles, mistakenly posted in the MLB forum: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56537
  13. This is prompted by RShackleford's comment that it is going to irritate him when Barry Bonds is denied Hall of Fame induction but Bud Selig is voted in. I understand that sentiment, but.... DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT EXECUTIVES WHO ARE IN THE HALL OF FAME? I can tell you this -- I could not care less. I've been to the Hall of Fame twice, and I don't remember spending even one second lingering over the plaque of some bozo wearing a suit and tie (OK, maybe Connie Mack). The Hall of Fame is what it is because it honors the greatest players of the game, and, OK, maybe a few managers. The executives, journalists and announcers who are in there are pure surplusage so far as I'm concerned. Have you ever heard a heated argument over whether some Suit belonged in the Hall? Maybe Selig will be the first.
  14. This is a smart move by Roberts. Take all the heat now and get it over with.
  15. There are a couple of misconceptions here: 1. Many, many people, after they are arrested, make their own deals with the cops without involving lawyers. About 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police, according to this: 2. More often than not, criminal convictions are obtained without a trial or cross-examination of the accusing witnesses. A defendant, knowing that others are going to testify against him, often will cut a deal based on whether he believes the witnesses will be credible or not. I do realize that in a criminal case the defendant at least has the "opportunity" to cross-examine his accuser if he chooses to take the case to trial, whereas Roberts would not have had that opportunity. But then, Roberts isn't going to jail, either.
  16. Do you know how many drug dealers are in prison because someone who worked with them was "under high stakes pressure from the state and possibly facing jail time?" This happens every day in criminal courts across the nation. In this case, I doubt Bigbie bought himself any extra credit by naming Brian Roberts.
  17. Forgiving and believing are two different things. To me, it's easy to understand why people would be quicker to forgive Brian Roberts than some other random player, in light of all the good, charitable work the guy has done and the fact that he has no other blemishes on his record. Believing him is a tougher call (though I've chosen to give him the beneift of the doubt, myself).
  18. No queston he lied before. But that was still a more general, non-specific denial. Particularly given the context, this statement is so definitive and specific that if it turned out to be false I would see it as much worse than his prior denials.
  19. Well, you should care. Because there are little kids running around with Brian Roberts' jersey on their back, and his poster on their walls. And I could forgive Brian for making a mistake back in 2003, but I woud not be able to forgive him if it turned out he was lying now.
  20. Barry Bonds did it. Roger Clemens did it. Rafael Palmeiro did it. And most everyone believes Mark McGwire did it. So where do you go with this, insofar as the Hall of Fame is concerned? I have to admit, I am having a hard time with this one, mostly because there are so many players where we will never know if they used steroids or not. If I could draw a bright line with steroids/HGH users on one side and non-users on the other, I'd gladly keep the users out of the Hall of Fame. But that isn't possible. So where do you draw the line? Do you have to be convicted in a criminal case? Named in the Mitchell Report? Have a positive drug test? Give evasive answers at a Congressional hearing, without ever admitting anything? Get named in Canseco's book or Grimsley's affidavit? Just look like the type? And what about the guys we never suspected? What happens when we learn, after a player is in the Hall of Fame, that he used PEDs (or that there is serious evidence that he did). This one isn't easy.
  21. So - do you buy it? Brian used steroids one time in 2003, realized it was wrong, and never did it again? And no other PEDs? Call me gullible - I'll buy it.
  22. It's true, and 9 of his 18 homers were in April. I feel strongly that his steroid use and his fluky HR year are unrelated. Basically the guy had one month where all the breaks went his way.
  23. If the guy puts up an .850 OPS and plays hard every day (which is his reputation), that's all I ask.
  24. From the Houston MLB.com site: http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071212&content_id=2324247&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou
  • Create New...