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.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 170 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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

    • Cobb in his postgame interview was solid and doesn't want to be traded. When told Palmer thinks he could be dealt if he continues to pitch well he had a change of facial expression like he was upset. He thinks their team is real and are in every game and likes it here.  The perfect answer after giving the team  basically nothing so far on his big contract. If he keeps going around 6 innings and giving up 3 runs or less he will be in demand and will be dealt. We have too many young pitchers ready to move up and they will  move his salary the first chance they get to a money team like the Dodgers, Angels or even the Red Sox. 
    • Ben predicts pitches regularly and is very informative. Is Ben on all of the shortened season games? I hope so. He is awesome! I think somehow he is helping the players and coaches. Not illegally just being around. Scott doesn't have much enthusiasm but think he will get better. I think no fans makes him that way. Ben is fantastic and holds things together.  Change is good!
    • I agree with everything said. The cutouts and noise will keep the players from getting bored or falling asleep.
    • Can't say I've been enjoying the commentary. Garceau has the same mispronunciations and inaccuracies as Thorne but without any of the energy and excitement. Ben McDonald just goes on about productive at-bats and bunting like it's 1990. Palmer had a little bit of that too, but he seems to have kept up with the advances in the game more, despite being 20 years older. The one positive is that McDonald identifies the pitches correctly and is pretty good at describing a pitcher's repertoire.
    • Horn blasts arent phony.  There's a group of 10 or 12 real fans who go to a gate of the stadium where they can see a tiny sliver of the field through bars and they sit in lawn chairs and stand on ladders and follow the game and blow horns and do some chants.  They wear masks and say they social distance.  The Phillies even turned on TVs over concession stands in their view so they can watch the game. They call themselves the Phandemic Crew or something like that. Aaron Boone and the Yankees actually complained about them saying the horn blasts were timed with pitches just like fans who try to disturb golfers by making noise just as they swing. Google Phandemic, you'll find articles about the m.
    • I like it.     Thought it was really a fun vibe in Philly.    I like their phony crowd noise too, complete with random horn blasts.    Overall, I think the sound engineers are getting better at what they’re doing with experience.   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...