Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On Pandora Jimi is playing his version of Born Under A Bad Sign. Instrumental. I KNOW that' not on youboob!

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.

Orioles Information

Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores


Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports


2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

  • Posts

    • We just had two former 2nd rounders go, so I'm going with two former 1st rounders.  People are so down on Tate, I don't get it.  Ok, so he's not a SP, but he showed enough to be a solid reliever at the MLB level.  He also reached that MLB ceiling and showed that he could have success.  So no point in having A ball "relievers" ranked over him.   Sedlock had a big time bounce back year.  Over a SO an inning across two levels, while logging around 100 IP.  Next year will be a big year for him to see if he can be a SP.  Even if he's not, he's still likely got a solid chance at being a MR in the MLB.   Harvey, Tate, Sedlock, could be the core of our bullpen when we compete again.  
    • I don't agree with non-tendering Villar (and I don't think it will happen) but it's because I believe he has more value than $10M as a trade asset.  I have no problem non-tendering a guy you don't believe has value above the arb figure and replacing him with a 6 year minor league guy you believe might provide similar production. 
    • Having said all of this, I don't think we're full-on tanking. I am 100% in favor of keeping Villar and Mancini (I don't consider them to be investments, per se), and we could be far worse than we have been over the last 2 years if we really wanted to be. We're about as bad as you can be while being capable of getting 24-27 outs 162 times a year. 
    • You can be bad without tanking. Heck you can trade off expiring assets while being bad without tanking.  Yankees did it, worked out really well for them. Taking a team and tearing it down to a bare framework is not the only way to build a winner, even if you don't have unlimited payroll.  
    • I really don't consider there to be much difference between losing 94 and 104 games. Both teams are bad, and I'd imagine that at the start of a season that if Team A was projected for 104 losses and Team B was projected for 94 losses that Team B could easily finish with a worse record than Team A.  Also, the Cards and Giants are two of the best orgs in baseball. Hopefully we get to that level soon.
    • I'm sure they could.  If they had a desire to.  Neither side seems interested in that. BTW I'm not at all opposed to guys in AA and below needing to have jobs in the offseason.  I don't think someone in short season ball, for instance, should be making 32K just for playing rookie league ball.
    • I don't think your suggestion is quite the fix-all that you believe it to be. It doesn't eliminate this so-called incentive to lose.. you'd still have to be a bad team. It doesn't incentivize winning, imo. It would create a tank war between the last and next-to-last teams within most divisions for the last part of each season. It gives hope to many more teams of stealing that no. 1 overall pick.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

  • Create New...