Jump to content

MCO'sFan

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by MCO'sFan


  1. 7 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

    Love GM ...But always have to add Old Bay to it. Had Jimmy's once a long time ago as its on the wrong side of town for me in Westminster. Also want to mention Costa's as they have good Crab Cakes. My father likes Pappas better than GM because he can get them fried.

     

     

    The wife and I had lunch at Rocksalt Grille today. 


  2. 40 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

     Assuming you are referring to the date, they were 71-70 on September 8, 2017. They started last year 4-1.

    I forgot how bad that September collapse was. They finished 75-87 or 4-17 after that date.


  3. 4 hours ago, Frobby said:

    Morris was 7-1, 2.60 in the postseason prior to his poor run in 1992.   So, he did deserve his reputation for being good in the postseason, but then he undid it.   

    Objectively, he was a very good pitcher but probably a little short of what I’d expect from a Hall of Famer.  But it doesn’t offend me that he’s in there.   
     

    I'm going to go with that I blocked out all memory of the 92 series because the Blue Jays won. 🤣🤣

    • Haha 1

  4. 6 hours ago, Philip said:

    That’s a really hard choice, I really like Schilling, And even though he says some really stupid things, his politics don't really bother me. But I think I would probably want Mussina in a must win game. 

    You maybe right... There are two images that I thought of when I made that comment. Schilling: bloody sock of course. I don't think Mussina pitches in that game. Mussina: After a Yankee's loss saying (I am paraphrasing a little) Well, I did my job and gave the team a chance to win. 


  5. 2 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

    I believe there is evidence that there was bad faith bargaining on both sides of this disagreement.

     

    I agree. It makes no sense to actually say this out loud. He clearly thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. 


  6. 1 hour ago, Philip said:

    It’s human nature. Some people want the whole package and some people don’t care. If someone is a repellent jerk they will lose some votes. I think that’s probably what has kept Schilling out so far.

    That and his politics. Since the HOF has turned into more of a place for very good players (IMHO) and I get that they need to put in players every year to keep the money rolling into town. I think Schilling should be in. I would rather have him pitch in a big game than ole' I did my job by giving my team a chance to win, Mike Mussina. 


  7. 1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

    Going 21-6  at the age of 37, surely does help your team get into the playoffs.

    I wonder if at 37, his arm was a bit worn out by the post season that year.

     

    That's an interesting question. It certainly is possible. I enjoy the twists and turns of threads sometimes. Like how an 5 1/2 year old poll turns into a thread about the HOF. 


  8. 31 minutes ago, makoman said:

    He sure did! 3.80 ERA in the postseason, compared to 3.90 in the regular season. Clutch!

    The Blue Jays were lucky to win the WS the year after his legendary Twins performance, with Morris having a 6.57 ERA in the ALCS and 8.44 in the WS.

    I had not remembered it that way. Should've done more research. I guess that's what I get for trusting my memory.


  9. 42 minutes ago, SteveA said:

    There would be no need to ever remove him.

    The "hard to take them off" thing is the rationale for not filling up the 60 man roster right now.   Just putting the guys on who have a shot at the Opening Day roster.   Let those guys work out and prepare for the season.

    Once the season starts and 30 of them are no longer practicing at [Bowie or wherever] as they are on the major league team, then you can add a bunch of guys.   Probably won't fill the full 60 to allow wiggle room.   But certainly go to 57 or 58.   And there's absolutely no reason Mountcastle wouldn't be part of that second wave of people added to the roster.   

    Seems to me to be a pretty smart way for a club in the O's position to manage the roster. I really hope that things get to the point where there can be some type of expanded fall league for MiLB players. The fall is really nice weather for baseball until mid-october.

    • Upvote 1

  10. 31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

    Because they don't have enough slot money.

    Let's say that at pick #130 the Dodgers have Carter Baumler as their top guy.  They probably don't have enough pool money to sign him so he goes to the O's at #133.

    By board I mean BPA board.

    Gotcha, I understand now. Makes complete sense. 

    • Upvote 1

  11. 27 minutes ago, Frobby said:

    I’m trying to understand the “stubbornness” point in the context of this discussion.   Nothing has happened since the college season was interrupted that would give them a reason to change whatever opinion they had at that time.   I do agree that BA sometimes hangs on to a prospect they like too long, or refuse to acknowledge that someone not initially on their radar has become a top prospect.   

    Frobbly, I wasn't speaking specifically about Martin here. I tried to say that when I said "historically." I was trying to say exactly what you said in this post.


  12. On 6/30/2020 at 5:13 PM, Can_of_corn said:

    I don't think teams can go into the draft and just pick the top player on their board every round.

    I find this post very interesting. Why do you think this. I didn't see where you expanded on this so I am sorry if you did. 

     


  13. 4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

    If everyone agreed here it would be a very boring place. 
     

    Is not changing my mind or position winning? If so I guess that would make you right. I really don’t agree with your perception of my need to win. Besides when it comes to prospects we won’t know the answer for years on winner/loser of this discussion. But, I will probably still be here and willing to admit that I got it wrong. Sadly, it’s doubtful 60 games will be enough to determine whether Villar is closer to the guy from the second half of last year and whether it was the right decision to sent him packing. 

     

    I wonder since you are engaging me.... about a year ago on Villar you went through 2-3 threads and negative rep’d 10-12 of my consecutive posts regardless of what I said. 
     

    Im certain @weams will confirm the validity my claim

     

    You’ve been a member since late 2004 and have a whopping 284 posts. I’m rounding up when I say that amounts to about 2 per month. But you have given out that much rep since Sunday. It seems like you enjoy passing judgement, no?

     

    Personally, I’d like to see you make more of a contribution to the forum and less with the rep button! Just my two cents 

    WOW! I find this post a little weird. But I will respond. I have no idea what I did or didn't do on a message board a year ago. I don't know how to go back and look at it nor do I want to spend the time to figure it out. But I'll take your word for it. Not sure what it means.

    But in this case I posted something about BA ranking Martin at 16th and stated my opinion that it was too high and that BA has historically been stubborn to admit when they had over/under ranked draftees/prospects (not specifically Martin). Then you came at me with the opening line of "This is just flawed logic." as if you get to decide what is logical.... you don't. You have opinions and I have opinions.

    Yes, I have been a member since 2004 and yes, my counter is currently at 284.... SO WHAT! I could have thousands of posts if I wanted to repeat my OPINIONS over and over and over and over... I have actually many more posts than that but I have lived through several resets that took my count back to zero. There are long periods of time when I have not had the time to engage on this board. That doesn't lessen my knowledge or interest. Ironically, I would engage more but for the folks who aggressively jump on posters like they just pooped in their yard or something. Just my two cents!

    I have a solid reputation on this board with zero warnings and a decent amount of rep points for my meager 284 posts.

     

     

    • Upvote 2

  14. 1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

    The only problem is there are to many guys here that you have to agree with or else!

    You are absolutely correct!! I posted about this earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, you can be one of those posters. I respect your arguments but, you seem (at least to me) to have a need to "win" a discussion. We are all usually talking in opinion and the hypothetical. There is no "winning." 

    • Upvote 1

  15. 8 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

    It is difficult to post with someone who has already said they can't be convinced of changing their opinion.  I certainly understand those who had a large preference for the Os to simply select Martin and move on down the line.  I was comfortable with that line of thinking and posted such before the draft, but I have little issue with our GM going in the direction he did.  A couple things to note:

     - it appears highly likely that Martin will receive less $ from the Jays than he/Boras requested from the Os.  This isn't right and IMO is an indication that Boras failed to get his client the most $ possible.  

     - Kjerstad outhit both Martin and Torkelson on the collegiate national team.

     - Elias has said that he thought Kjerstad was on his way to a monster season given the improved BB and K ratios.  Elias said the Os did research on whether college juniors with improved BB and K ratios in the first portion of the season were likely to carry that improvement through the balance of the season - the answer to that research would appear to be that such improvement is sustained throughout the year.

     - teams viewed the shortened college season in different ways.  It appears that the Os projected out the remainder of the unplayed 2020 college season and used that 2020 projection as a key factor in how players were ranked.  

     

    Great post. I wish I had written it!

    • Upvote 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

  16. 4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

    I don’t agree with the opinion of @MCO'sFan that Kjerstad was the Orioles highest rated player. I also don’t think Elias believes that either. I think he likes Kjerstad and his potential. But they sacrificed the #2 pick value to have money to considerably over pay Mayo and Baumer. 
     

    Id still think they made a mistake! I won’t hate it as much as I would if Kjerstad turns out to be a high strikeout .240 hitter that hits 20-30 home runs with a low OBP. If you look at prior drafts as I have mentioned over and over, only 30ish % of 1st rounders will be all star players. That number drops as the rounds move along and then drop off the table. 
     

    Also, I’m not a big fan of drafting high school players, All you have to do is look at guys like Dylan Bundy, he was the can’t miss TOR guy that the Orioles desired. He was a major disappointment. Giving up the best player at 2 for a couple of lower probability lottery tickets is not a good strategy. I’m not saying it won’t work out. It may indeed! I’m saying I don’t like the strategy or passing on the best pure hitter in the draft. And unlike somewhere I’m not trying to convince myself that Elias thought Kjerstad was the better selection.

    I agree that this is a good post and represents a good sound argument for your opinion. I want to clarify one thing. I may not have been clear. It is not my opinion that Kjerstad was ME's top BPA. How could I know that? What I said was (IIRC) that I have no reason not to believe him when he says that. People were saying that Correa couldn't have possibly been their BPA when he was drafted. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. Let's just hope as O's fans that it works out as well. 

    • Upvote 1

  17. 1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

    Not trying to speak for you ....This is what you said dude!

    , I am suggesting that it is a farce to have Martin ranked 16th when three teams passed on him after Torkelson was taken (not just the O's).

     

    If the post wasn't clear then I will try to do better in the future but I am not sure how this means I don't think that underslotting had nothing to do with it? We won't know if these teams sign their picks for under slot until they are signed. I think it is widely expected that Lacy signs for slot. If that is true then it wasn't an issue with that pick. What I meant is actually what I said and not your interpretation. I am done discussing this with you. I will agree to disagree. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...