Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Jim Henneman: Despite Progress, Kevin Gausman, Dylan Bundy Have Catching Up To Do

Recommended Posts

Jim Henneman says when it comes to Kevin Gausman and Dylan Bundy, the Orioles have a tough task of trying to build and restrict innings at the same time.


Disagree. Gausman is fine for a full season. He only missed a few weeks last year on DL. Bundy, he's a reliever. This year.

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information

Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports


2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

  • Posts

    • I take yellow, because that would have had positive ramifications for several years, whereas blue, which is second place, maybe gets us past KC (maybe, as w were swept) and maybe gives us a chance against the Giants in the WS.  Yellow for me.
    • Case closed. 
    • Orioles did offer Cruz a contract, IIRC.  I believe they offered him a 3-year deal, which seemed reasonable considering his age.  It was a bit of a surprise that he got a 4-year deal from Seattle.  There really wasn't much of an outcry over the Orioles not going 4 years.  It seemed like a prudent decision at the time.
    • I understand.  I just think he was decent here in 1990 and decent in Houston in 1991, I'm not sure why he wasn't more highly regarded by both teams.  I agree he wasn't an obvious HoFer until his late 20s.   I think Finley was great.  An OF of Brady, Devo and Finley in the 90s would have been borderline elite defensively.  But he, too, really didn't kick into gear until his late 20s and early 30s.  And while I don't think he was ever named in the Mitchell report, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was using. Glenn Davis was very good, probably tied with Will Clark and Jack Clark as the preeminent slugging first baseman in the NL in the late 80s.   
    • I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic.  He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing.  IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy. That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis.  I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy!  The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
    • No but it was short lived.  He didn’t really become the obvious HOF pitcher (it’s absurd he isn’t in) until his late 20s. Finley was good but you don’t regret losing him or Harnisch.     And let’s not forget, Glenn Davis was really good for several years before we got him.
    • I voted Glenn, but honestly didn't think through SG's point of likely failed development.  I still think its Glenn though.  We could have been a much different team heading into the mid 90s.  The Chris Davis contract shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.  In modern MLB, you've got to be able to mitigate or fix these mistakes, and be willing to eat all/some of the costs.    While the contract itself was a disaster and a waste (I think most said that at the time), the team should have moved on in any direction at this point but we are a cheap, poorly run franchise who values staying afloat rather than building a competitive team.  
  • Popular Contributors

  • Create New...