Jump to content
isestrex

Would you have matched SEA offer to keep Cruz an Oriole?

Would you have matched 4y/$57M for Cruz?  

160 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Would you have matched 4y/$57M for Cruz?

    • Yes, that's reasonable
      42
    • No, let the Mariners have him.
      118


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And, strangely, the Hall's rules specifically say you can't use a single game or instance (like Van Der Meer's back to back no hitters) as justification for induction.  But I guess a 10-inning post season win along with a 4.00 ERA gets you there.

I think the Morris election was the Vet's way of sticking it to the Sabermetric crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris election was the Vet's way of sticking it to the Sabermetric crowd.

I have no problem with giving bonus points to a guy who comes up big in the postseason.   It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Reaching A Particular Statistical Threshold.

And he came up big in several postseasons with multiple teams (and yes, had the bad one too).

But those big moments are watched and remembered by millions.   I'm not saying they should automatically put in you, not at all.   But a guy with a very good career and some what of a case, I have no problem with great postseason moments putting him over the top.   His Game 7 10 inning game will be remembered long after most of the rest of that season will be forgotten.

People who want to boil it down to some sort of WAR threshold for the HOF, I say -- set up your Hall of WAR Achievement and put guys whoever meet the threshold in.    It will be a respected list but I doubt fans will ever enjoy it as much as the Hall.

And I know that there are guys in there who clearly don't belong and guys out who clearly do belong.   I just don't think that regular season WAR should be the end-all and be-all criteria, which it seems like a lot of people do.   The postseason is special.   And yeah, it's not "fair" that some guys never got tot he postseason or that due to small sample size they didn't do well and other guys did do well.   So what?   Them's the breaks.   Archie Manning was a great QB who never had a good team around him and he'll never touch the NFL HoF (with the exception of a couple sperm cells).   He was a way better QB than Joe Namath, to pick one example.

But the postseason matters, a lot, and it should matter for the HoF too.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I have no problem with giving bonus points to a guy who comes up big in the postseason.   It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Reaching A Particular Statistical Threshold.

And he came up big in several postseasons with multiple teams (and yes, had the bad one too).

But those big moments are watched and remembered by millions.   I'm not saying they should automatically put in you, not at all.   But a guy with a very good career and some what of a case, I have no problem with great postseason moments putting him over the top.   His Game 7 10 inning game will be remembered long after most of the rest of that season will be forgotten.

People who want to boil it down to some sort of WAR threshold for the HOF, I say -- set up your Hall of WAR Achievement and put guys whoever meet the threshold in.    It will be a respected list but I doubt fans will ever enjoy it as much as the Hall.

And I know that there are guys in there who clearly don't belong and guys out who clearly do belong.   I just don't think that regular season WAR should be the end-all and be-all criteria, which it seems like a lot of people do.   The postseason is special.   And yeah, it's not "fair" that some guys never got tot he postseason or that due to small sample size they didn't do well and other guys did do well.   So what?   Them's the breaks.   Archie Manning was a great QB who never had a good team around him and he'll never touch the NFL HoF (with the exception of a couple sperm cells).   He was a way better QB than Joe Namath, to pick one example.

But the postseason matters, a lot, and it should matter for the HoF too.

My issue with it being a literal Hall of Fame is that you can construct an argument for hundreds and hundreds of players that's just as valid as Jack Morris or Harold Baines or Jim Rice.  And you have to consider the Hall's own behavior, which is to induct any number of players who aren't famous until the Hall makes them so.

A few years ago the Hall inducted Deacon White.  If you went around OPACY in 2000 (heck, 2019!) and asked every single one of the fans in the stands who Deacon White was likely not a single person could have told you.  Not unless I'd been there that day.  White has been dead for 80 years.

So, no let's not make it a WAR leaderboard.  But I'd like to have some kind of standards.  When you put Harold Baines and Jack Morris in but exclude dozens or even hundreds of players who were better and arguably just as famous it makes for good discussions, but doesn't do much for logic and sense.  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris election was the Vet's way of sticking it to the Sabermetric crowd.

I love (read: find it insane) that the hundreds of BBWAA members said no to Morris for 15 years, then a group of like a dozen old guys overruled them sitting around a table in a committee meeting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

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. 

The Hall's first class was 1936.  Depending on your point of view the first group of non-inner circle (i.e. very good) inductees happened in either 1939 or 1945.  By 1950 there were something like a dozen guys in Cooperstown who were no better than, say, Jimmy Key and John Olerud.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

Add Julio Franco, Buddy Bell, Dave Parker, maybe even Kevin Brown, Who was really underrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Add Julio Franco, Buddy Bell, Dave Parker, maybe even Kevin Brown, Who was really underrated.

I'd have a special wing of the Hall for players who had epic, far-wandering careers like Julio Franco.  You know that in 2001 he hit .437 in the Mexican League?  He debuted in Rookie ball in Montana in 1978, and played his last pro game for a Fort Worth indy league team in 2014.  And in the middle he played 23 years in the majors.  Plus stints in Korea and Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My issue with it being a literal Hall of Fame is that you can construct an argument for hundreds and hundreds of players that's just as valid as Jack Morris or Harold Baines or Jim Rice.  And you have to consider the Hall's own behavior, which is to induct any number of players who aren't famous until the Hall makes them so.

A few years ago the Hall inducted Deacon White.  If you went around OPACY in 2000 (heck, 2019!) and asked every single one of the fans in the stands who Deacon White was likely not a single person could have told you.  Not unless I'd been there that day.  White has been dead for 80 years.

So, no let's not make it a WAR leaderboard.  But I'd like to have some kind of standards.  When you put Harold Baines and Jack Morris in but exclude dozens or even hundreds of players who were better and arguably just as famous it makes for good discussions, but doesn't do much for logic and sense.  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

The weird thing is many of those guys like Key and Viola (WS MVP!) and Stieb and Chuck Finley and even David Cone (5 rings!) and Gooden and Saberhagen (WS MVP!) and Kevin Brown got like 10 votes and were off the ballot their first year, like it was a no brainer that they no way no how deserved to be in. Yet Morris who was probably-maybe-slightly-better-or-maybe-not lived on, due I guess to wins and 1 night in 1991.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I love (read: find it insane) that the hundreds of BBWAA members said no to Morris for 15 years, then a group of like a dozen old guys overruled them sitting around a table in a committee meeting.

I think that's how the world in general works. The needs of the few outweigh the many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, OsEatAlEast said:

I think that's how the world in general works. The needs of the few outweigh the many.

As a relatively old guy who sits in a lot of meetings, we're asked to make decisions because all the smarter people ran away and want nothing to do with far reaching decisions half of everyone hates. 

But in the Hall's case I wish they'd take their job a little more seriously than just hanging out and voting for dudes they like.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

As a relatively old guy who sits in a lot of meetings, we're asked to make decisions because all the smarter people ran away and want nothing to do with far reaching decisions half of everyone hates. 

But in the Hall's case I wish they'd take their job a little more seriously than just hanging out and voting for dudes they like.

I think the Morris vote, as well as the Baines vote now that I think about it, was to troll the stat guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris vote, as well as the Baines vote now that I think about it, was to troll the stat guys.

There has to be a very, very long list of decisions made in the history of the world by old guys in power giving the middle finger to new guys who've figured out a better way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MCO'sFan said:

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

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.   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just sucks because losing Cruz led to us trading Tarpley and Brault for Snider.  Then we compounded the mistake even further by trading Davies for Parra.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


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






  • Posts

    • Bundy is a decent comp, but he's been able to log innings at a consistent rate since his Tommy John.  Harvey seemingly can't go 10 innings without having tightness in his arm or something and having to be shut down.  He had to be shut down last year, he had to be shut down this year.  I'm too lazy to look up his entire injury history but I don't have any confidence that he can throw a lot of innings out of the bullpen without having issues.   But Bundy's arm isn't Harvey's arm.  They're two separate entities and should be treated as such.  Comping injury probability is tricky because everyone has different DNA, everyone has different issues.  
    • So you think a platoon of Valaika (-0.1 rWAR this year, -0.6 rWAR last year) and Wilkerson (-1.0 rWAR last year and taken off the 40-man roster this year) would outperform Alberto (0.4 rWAR this year, 2.9 rWAR last year)?     I recognize they might improve their numbers in a platoon situation, but I don’t think it’s very likely they would increase them by enough to outperform Alberto, and of course you’d have to use two roster spots to do it.    As to finding someone better on the waiver wire or a cheap purchase, I asked who you wanted and don’t have an answer.     What this comes down to is you don’t think Alberto is as good as his WAR figures say he is, because he’s had bad splits vs. RHP the last two years.    We simply disagree about that.    I think the numbers have been a fair reflection of Alberto’s value.    I’d peg him as a 1-2 WAR player for next year, and at $3 mm, that’s not bad.    As to Bannon (also mentioned by SG and Philip), I am interested in him long term but he’s had very little AAA experience (20 games), struggled in the AFL last fall and wasn’t given a 60-man roster spot this year so I doubt the team is ready to roll the dice on him     It’s a shame the minor league season wasn’t played, because if it had he’d either be in the majors right now or at least we’d know more about whether we could pencil him in for 2021.
    • He hasn't. That doesn't mean he can't. No point in being doom and gloom about it. Look at Bundy. He was never what he once was but he has gone on to a productive career. There is all the more reason to think that could be the case with Harvey due to the freakish and unrelated nature of several of the injuries. 
    • Agreed. Ruiz isn't good enough though, so I'd move Alberto to 3B and sign Schoop (or someone similar) to play 2B.
    • Sums it up perfectly. As tantalizing as he is, as good as his stuff is, I really don't see the need to keep giving him chances.  And I'm sure that the trade value is low, it's not like we're the only ones who understand what's going on with him but we need guys that can stay healthy.  Unfortunately, he can't.
    • I didn’t see it but I like that he threw 72% of his pitches for strikes and that he had a swingstr% over 20%.
    • I have no idea what he looks like defensively but offensively, his numbers seem to be fine...at least enough to give him a chance while waiting on a guy like Vavra. Alberto isn’t a guy I care if he’s here or not.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...