Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    55,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

Posts posted by Frobby


  1. I like how everyone assumes that getting younger means we will be much worse than we have been.

    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.


  2. I had a similar variation on this question.

    It's easy to argue that of all the problems the O's had last year, none was bigger than the bullpen. And a lot of the snowball effect you saw last year was attributable to winnable games being turned into losses by a parade of overmatched and ineffective relievers coughing up runs by the bushel.

    So my question is, is it at all plausible for MacPhail to make an already awful bullpen even worse, by trading guys like Bradford and Walker and replacing them with other young and/or cheap "upside" guys with major questionmarks?

    The "blow it up" crowd will say, yes, and who cares how many games you lose in '08, etc.

    But I'm not sure that is a plausible approach to running a ballclub, even a rebuilding one.

    I think you stated the issue better than I did.


  3. The title of your thread suggests that we've been respectable in the past. Our record indicates otherwise. Is there a real difference between 24 games below .500 and 35-40 games below .500? This overconcern for present respectability is one of the reasons we never truly rebuilt.

    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.


  4. 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.


  5. 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?

    • Upvote 2

  6. 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.


  7. Seems like a waste of time to even discuss this trade. Does anybody seriously think Peter will ok trading B- Rob?

    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.


  8. And Mark Teixeira was 27 when the deal was made, had already put up two .900+ OPS seasons and one that was damn close. The Braves were also dealing an elite prospect who happened to be blocked at his position by another young guy not even to arbitration.

    Sorry, Brian Roberts is a great second basemen. But he's not even in the same discussion as Teixeira. It would be a bit like faulting the Pirates for not giving Adam LaRoche Pujols money. There are good players. There are even great players. But then there are Superstars.

    If the Cubs were trading for Mark Teixeira and he could magically play SS, I'd have no problem with the discussion including Pie. Or Hill. Or any of our players wives. Or their mistresses. Or our GM's soul. Whatever. Sadly we're discussing Brian Roberts.

    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.


  9. Sounds good. Thanks for the info.

    I'm going to hope it's

    Bedard for Kemp, LaRoche, Hu and maybe Elbert

    Tejada for Wood and Saunders or Weaver if we take on Matthews contract.

    Roberts for Hill or Pie and another lesser pitcher

    If AM is holding out, this is the type of talent I expect back. We'll see...

    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.


  10. A lot of truth in this...However, because we were a poor drafting team, we should have done more in the trade market to bring in the right young talent and, on top of that, we should have done a better job of getting more picks.

    had we done a better job making the right trades and cheap pick ups, maybe we aren't losing picks and making bad decisions like signing baez.

    It is a big cycle.

    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.


  11. This team, FOR TEN YEARS, has been piss poor in the trade market...It is the NUMBER ONE reason why this organization sucks.

    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.


  12. HgH ≠ Steroids.

    Correct. And while I don't "forgive" Gibbons, nor do I think this makes him the anti-Christ. I'm just glad he will be able to put the issue behind him, both for his sake and the team's.

    I'm fully prepared to hear that other Orioles also were users of banned substances.


  13. We always walk away.

    Seriously, i hate this team. If they come back next year with basically the same team, i may just be done with them.

    Well, that will leave a gaping hole in your day. Perhaps you can take up Sodoku. :D

    In the other thread, you said there weren't any deals known to be on the table that you would take. It's not for lack of trying on AM's part. If he decided nothing was going to happen until a little time passed, I have no problem with his decision to leave.


  14. How in the hell can you just leave????

    Maybe he left Mike Flanagan down there to close some deals. :P

    Seriously? Sometimes the best thing you can do in a negotiation is walk away from the table for a few days. I'd think you'd know that in your line of work.


  15. That's not the problem. The problem is if we do not trade these guys now, and even IF we do then trade them in July, then you've just lose 6 MORE months on our endless rebuilding project. You gotta sell NOW and go into Spring Training with the young guys in the lineup every day getting playing time and gaining experience. Waiting until July MAY get us more in the deals, but it also sets us back 6 more months. Act NOW!

    Why, are the players we acquire going to get more experience between now and Feb. 15?

    We trade these guys when we feel we are getting good value in exchange. Not before. We don't necesarily wait because we think we might get a better deal by waiting, but if the players offered don't provide enough long term value, you turn down the offers and wait it out.


  16. I think its a pretty safe bet that Roberts will continue to be a good base stealer. His main asset for stealing bases isn't speed as much as it is reading pitchers and getting unbelievably good jumps. Even if he loses a step, I still think he'll be a very efficient basestealer.

    I was going to post something similar. Roberts doesn't really have blazing speed, but he's very smart.

×
×
  • Create New...