-
Who's Online 44 Members, 1 Anonymous, 139 Guests (See full list)
- LookinUp
- Number5
- luismatos4prez
- 7Mo
- AnythingO's
- Big Mac
- Hallas
- sportsfan8703
- Sanfran327
- Can_of_corn
- HarlowFan
- Spl51
- O's84
- RVAOsFan
- dabirds
- Philip
- CallMeBrooksie
- webbrick2010
- ShaneDawg85
- e16bball
- DirtyBird
- AZRon
- thezeroes
- Oriole1940
- joelala
- ScGO's
- El Gordo
- BamaOsFan
- PaulBlairfan
- byrdz
- justD
- Deadwood Fan
- Moose Milligan
- oh-wee-ohs
- Luke-OH
- Redskins Rick
- WalkWithElias
- Brian88
- eddie83
- Roll Tide
- SilverRocket
- Aristotelian
- wildbillhiccup
- atomic
Orioles Information
Orioles News and Information |
Daily Organizational Boxscores
|
Orioles Prospect Information |
Statistics |
-
Posts
-
By sportsfan8703 · Posted
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. -
By Sanfran327 · Posted
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. -
By Can_of_corn · Posted
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. -
By Sanfran327 · Posted
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. -
By Can_of_corn · Posted
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. -
By CallMeBrooksie · Posted
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
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
-
Popular Now
-
