Jump to content
Sessh

vs. ROCKIES, 7/27

Recommended Posts

Ok? So that means everyone is bound to get hurt coming back? PrettyFairly sure Fernandez and plenty of others came back fine and pitched more than 70 innings.

We are posters on a message board. The Orioles can talk to doctors, experts, and are with Bundy day to day. Until Bundy goes down or gets hurt, I'm going to back what they do. If Bundy gets overworked and something serious happens than go ahead and be critical. Everyone comes back differently, didin't work with Harvey. Bundy had half a season to take it slow and get stamina up, NOW he's returning and pitching a little more. He was in 3-4 inning stints before.

No. What is means is that when you take a plan and then you throw it out the window bad things can happen.

Harvey pitched 189.1 innings last season coming off of TJ. That's the most since...Tommy John.

They had a plan and they scraped it and now his career might be over. Did the usage last year cause it? No one knows.

But I don't want any increase to Bundy's long term health risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl would have had a stroke with video replay.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Earl would have found some kid to hack their way into the command center so he could yell at the lounge chair NY umps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between Matt's complete inability to frame a pitch, his slowness behind the plate getting in front of balls and his molasses like speed on the basepath, Matt is playing himself out of a significant anount of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. What is means is that when you take a plan and then you throw it out the window bad things can happen.

Harvey pitched 189.1 innings last season coming off of TJ. That's the most since...Tommy John.

They had a plan and they scraped it and now his career might be over. Did the usage last year cause it? No one knows.

But I don't want any increase to Bundy's long term health risks.

I agree, but I don't think 100 IP is going to increase the risk at all compared to 70 IP...I really don't. I think that's quite different than damn near 200 IP Harvey had.

Edit: Also, although DD and Buck didn't say it, I still don't see how we can sit here and say they definitely had 70 IP limit here. I'm sure their plan depended on how he came back. You think he'd be in rotation if his velo was in low 90's like it was to start the year? He has looked phenomenal and looks to be well on his way back to pre-injury form.

Edited by ISU94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question about whether you feel relief or anger if our division opponents lose, and the O's lose, too?

Tonight, it's definitely anger.

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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • One last thought. When the reserve clause died in court and all players could become free agents every year, the players union was smart and agreed to a service requirement. It was good for salaries and good for the sport to control supply/demand, even if it seemed like a giveaway by the players. If there was a non-performance clause built into free agent contracts that gave some level of relief to owners, it would benefit salaries and the sport. Small to mid size teams would have more ability to chase top talent because the affect of a bad contract would be less calamitous to their limited payroll means if it was discounted by some percentage for non-performance. Ask Scott Boras if he’d rather have three teams bidding for his client or six. Our very own Albert Belle contract made insuring contracts fairly cost prohibitive (though it kinda seems like we’re keeping Davis on the roster for some reason other than insanity). But that practice of insuring contracts showed that there’s more money to spend on players if you give owners some level of protection from disaster contracts like Davis. Owners used to pay huge amounts to insure contracts before they became cost prohibitive. So if it’s good for competitiveness by allowing smaller teams to be more aggressive, and it’s good for player salaries, and it’s good for owners by protecting their investments, by what principle is a player entitled to the full value of a contract that they have essentially defaulted on for non-performance? 
    • By the way, I agree that Davis’ contract was insanely stupid long before he showed us how stupid it was by his performance. Angeles victimized himself. But I’m talking more generally about non-performance of contracts. I think the top earners would fare even better if not for the associated risks by ownership. They aren’t playing with Monopoly money. The risk builds a discounting into what owners will spend. And smaller market teams are less able to take risks because the affect of one Davis-like contract on their smaller payroll is huge. On what principle should players receive the full value of a contract they unable to satisfy competently? We’re rained out tonight....I wouldn’t be asking otherwise. Wait, did you call me noob?  
    • How about a 10 minute deep cleaning between each use of a bathroom stall.  That would be a smarter measure to stop the spread of Covid.  (Or even hourly cleaning of bathroom stalls).  How many Covid infections have really been spread by "outside food"?
    • “Congratulations Mr. O’Corn, I’m thrilled to hire you as my new GM. I’ve always had a real respect, I mean that most sincerely. Obviously we all want to win, I want to win a championship. And I know you want a long career in baseball. and you’d like to keep your kids in school here in Baltimore. Now tell me, should I give you $123 million to work with or $100 million? Which is going to give you a better shot at delivering me a World Series champion?”
    • A catcher can block the plate once he has possession of the ball. Just not before.  Here is the full text of Rule 7.13(2): Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.  If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.
    • Tony - I’m not a HIPAA lawyer, but you shouldn’t assume that because the O’s were authorized to disclose he had myocarditis that they are authorized to provide further details or updates.   Even within the organization, except on a need to know basis.    Still, I do find the situation weird and mysterious.  If I were Kjerstad, I’d want Oriole fans to know that I had a good reason for being out.    I hope he will be OK and gets on the field as soon as he can.    
    • MFYs have had numerous examples of big contracts gone bust (the "Fat Toad" comes to mind, LOL). No sweat; just move on to the next.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...