Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Burnett has some of the best "stuff" in baseball, but his career thus far has been good, not great. I wanted the Orioles to sign him and would have loved to have seen what Mazzone could do with him.

That being said, ultimately none of us really know if we could have signed him. Would he have come here if we'd offer $60 million over 5 years? Maybe, but there's no guarantee. And then you're talking about tying up a LOT of money with a starter who hasn't had a single great year (career high in ERA+ is 121). $55-60 million could get us another star player next year, or a couple of very good players.

Anway, we didn't sign him, so there's not much point in dwelling on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just expressing my own opinion, which was apparently shared by the front office which wasn't willing to take that risk either.

Unless some here know better then them :rolleyes:

Was it the front office or was it the owner who publicly complained about the cost? I'm just expressing my opinion as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we still would have needed one.

Burnett was the third best starter on his own team, has an injury history, and when he had the chance to prove himself down the stretch went 0-6 in his last seven decisions.

I'd rather go with what we have then pay at least $11 million for five years, if not more if the Blue Jays continued to bid, for potential.

Third best starter on his own team, and look who is a head of him Beckett & Dontrelle, not exactly some no talent scrubs. Regardless of what his rank was on the Marlins, he'd be clearly the #1 starter on OUR team.

Everybody has an injury history, especially pitchers. If you shy away from anyone who's ever been hurt, your never going to improve. Eventually you have to take some kind of chance on a guy.

Yes he costs and arm and a leg, but I'd much rather see some of the money we got from the Nats settlement going towards a player like Burnett, rather than just sitting around lining Angelos' pockets.

I trust Mazzone's opinion as more than a "hunch". Considering the Braves and Marlins are in the same division, Mazzone has seen plenty of Burnett to evaluate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that with Birds madly flying from all different directions (in this thread alone!), the worm would be frantically turning to and fro.:SuN049:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnett has an injury history, and when he had the chance to prove himself down the stretch went 0-6 in his last seven decisions.

Not only that, but he stinks at math.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you ever hear the expression that one man's trash is another man's treasure? Being the "third best" starter on the Marlins doesn't mean he would be that low on the Orioles rotation. Ponson was our de facto "ace" based on his salary and if he makes the Cardinals rotation, it will be as the 5th starter.

Since you mentioned the Cardinals, Tony, they will be in an interesting situation if Ponson and Anthony Reyes both pitch well this ST. They will have 6 starters. After this season, Mulder and Jason Marquis will be FA's. I understand they want to sign Mulder, but would let Marquis walk. If they are heavy on SP, they figure to try to trade him. Are we interested, and if so, for whom? Javy doesn't seem to be a fit (sorry SG).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you mentioned the Cardinals, Tony, they will be in an interesting situation if Ponson and Anthony Reyes both pitch well this ST. They will have 6 starters. After this season, Mulder and Jason Marquis will be FA's. I understand they want to sign Mulder, but would let Marquis walk. If they are heavy on SP, they figure to try to trade him. Are we interested, and if so, for whom? Javy doesn't seem to be a fit (sorry SG).

I don't know how much of a fit Marquis is with us -- and Leo.

My Braves-fan coworker has repeatedly mentioned to me about Leo's no nonsense attitude with his pitchers. When he was in Atlanta, Braves fans apparently could "read between the lines" of who was buying into and listening to Leo, and who was not.

According to my coworker, the (often young) stubborn non-listeners were traded away -- and fairly quickly. Past Atlanta guys who fit this MO include Bruce Chen, Odalis Perez, and Jason Marquis.

Now, I'm not saying that Marquis still has that stubborn streak. Nor am I saying that Mazzone would put the kibosh on a deal. But, there was a reason Atlanta -- and Leo -- gave up on Marquis.

Maybe some of our Georgia friends can shed some light? :)

Witchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Braves-fan coworker has repeatedly mentioned to me about Leo's no nonsense attitude with his pitchers. When he was in Atlanta, Braves fans apparently could "read between the lines" of who was buying into and listening to Leo, and who was not... stubborn non-listeners were traded away -- and fairly quickly.

Maybe some of our Georgia friends can shed some light? :)Witchy

Leo never, ever bad-mouthed anybody in public. He never, ever made an issue of anything in the press. (Hell, it was pretty rare that he even made a trip to the mound.) He would sometimes talk about a guy's pitches, or about what a guy needed to do. But always in a constructive manner. He could be quite patient, giving guys lots of chances and working with them to get it right. But he didn't seem interested in babysitting anybody. The pitchers that stayed got better than they had been. The pitchers that left, left. There was never any overt clue of any kind about exactly why a pitcher left. Was it Schuerholz? Was it Leo? Your answer depends on your tea leaves. Whatever happened was handled in a very professional manner. Players who left usually got compliments on their way out the door. 'Hard to argue with that way of doing things. 'Hard to argue with the results.

Having said that, it tells us nothing about why Chen or anybody else got gone. A decision that they weren't gonna cut it? The need to clear a roster spot for somebody else? Their worth in a trade? We never really knew. Of course, everybody had their opinion based on the circumstances. It was pretty much a closed-mouth operation. Everybody said the right things. Nobody said the wrong things. There were no "unnamed sources". The FO's job was to provide ATL with a collection of players that could win. Bobby's job was to use those players to finish in 1st place. Leo's job was to have his pitching staff playing over its head. Our job was to watch good baseball. Pretty simple, huh?

EDIT: I left ATL in '99. I don't know if any of this changed later. I still follow them, but it's different if you're not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is, is it worth a $55 million risk because our pitching coach was anxious to work with him?

It is one thing to talk that way about our own pitchers, or retreads who are cheap and he has a track record of turning around. It's another to overspend on a hunch.

Besides, I'm not at all saying I know more then Mazzone, and I'm sure he would be insulted that you are insinuating that. I'm just expressing my own opinion, which was apparently shared by the front office which wasn't willing to take that risk either.

Unless some here know better then them :rolleyes:

Doubt you'd be singing the same tune if we did sign him.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Third best starter on his own team, and look who is a head of him Beckett & Dontrelle, not exactly some no talent scrubs. Regardless of what his rank was on the Marlins, he'd be clearly the #1 starter on OUR team.

Everybody has an injury history, especially pitchers. If you shy away from anyone who's ever been hurt, your never going to improve. Eventually you have to take some kind of chance on a guy.

Yes he costs and arm and a leg, but I'd much rather see some of the money we got from the Nats settlement going towards a player like Burnett, rather than just sitting around lining Angelos' pockets.

I trust Mazzone's opinion as more than a "hunch". Considering the Braves and Marlins are in the same division, Mazzone has seen plenty of Burnett to evaluate him.

Just because Burnett would have been the #1 starter on OUR team is NOT a reason to plunk down $55 million on him. BY your argument, EVERY team has a #1 starter. So does that mean that every team should be paying their number 1 starter 11 million per season? Would I like to have Burnett in black and orange? YES! Would I have paid him 11 million per season. NOPE! I am giddy over the potential of our starters. Say what you want about wins and losses meaning nothing, but he has pitched on 2 world championship teams in Florida, and yet never won over 12 games? THAT DOES speak volumes to me!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our farm system is showing promise

Our front office is begin aggresive

Our players are kicking ass in the WBC

Our staff is responding to Mazzone (just read the interviews)

The perception that guys dont want to come here is gone.

There is so much talent on this team that is not "crazy" to think this team can be exciting this year and even stay in the WC race.

Despite what some, actually very few, posters seem to feel, this team is headed in the right direction. What a difference 5 months can make.

Still think so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is, is it worth a $55 million risk because our pitching coach was anxious to work with him?

No. It's that Rick Peterson said to Duquette when the Mets acquired Zambrano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it really necessary to bump this, Sapper? Just to prove a point you've been hammering home in your own threads? Salt in an open wound much?

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, 129 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

    • As I mentioned in the NBA thread he was my favorite NBA player of all time.  Sad news.
    • Just my two cents, but I didn't think it was an insult either, just respectful playfulness to a well known poster with well known posting traits.  As for thread, the reading has been great and I think I am leaning mostly to Martin as my preferred choice (or Torkelson if he falls to #2).  Just will be great to see anything baseball related, looking forward to the draft, even truncated as it is.  
    • No I don't.  I don't know if he would be a good or a poor pick because the information is unclear.  What I'm saying that the error bars in Gonzales' performance are greater than those accompanying Martin or Torkelson because of the obscuring effects of an environment where teams score 10 runs a game.  If the Orioles' projections for Gonzales are good enough that the uncertainty is less relevant, than great, draft him.  But the uncertainty is still there, it doesn't go away.  Of course the offensive environment has a huge impact on his numbers, I don't see why that's even a point of discussion.  But maybe that fact is less important than the scouting reports and other information. Also, New Mexico State's park isn't small.  It's 345-385-400.  Dimensions aren't everything.  It's altitude, wind and other effects.  Coors has perhaps the largest outfield in MLB.
    • There's strange quirks of the BBWAA voting even today that I don't fully grasp.  Like why Scott Rolen got no support.  And then there's the fact that nobody is ever officially excluded, you're always a Vet's Committee candidate as long as you played 10 years.  So who knows what things will look like in 20 or 30 years. Evan Longoria is just tremendously better than Pie Traynor, and Pie Traynor used to sometimes be called the best third baseman of all time. I guess I should really try to remember that "Hall of Fame Standards" aren't really a thing.  All along the Hall has included guys like Ray Schalk and Bill Mazeroski while keeping Alan Trammell and Bert Blyleven waiting for decades.
    • Great player.  Terrible news.  RIP, Wes.
    • The single biggest difference between hitting for the Colorado Rockies and NMSU is the pitching you are facing.  As with every college and high school player ever entering a draft, Gonzales has not been facing major league players.  The numbers he put up, though, were not solely because he was playing in a small park in New Mexico.  At least, there isn't any evidence to support such a claim.  Hitting home runs is not his sole skill.  The smaller dimensions actually detract from doubles and triples, yet he excels in those areas, as well.  Even hit an inside-the-park grand slam.  He makes contact and hits the ball hard all over the ballpark, and runs well.  College career: 89 walks and 79 strikeouts (plus 18 HBP).  Coupled with his high batting average, the guy gets on base.  That is not a park thing.  The altitude is 1300 feet lower than Denver, by the way.  I'm not the one saying "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" …  and if you aren't saying that, what, exactly, are you saying?  The sole argument you have mounted in all of these posts amounts to exactly that, as far as I can see. I can see that I am somehow being unsuccessful in convincing you that your argument is based solely on geography and it is for certain that you aren't convincing me otherwise.  We will obviously remain in disagreement here.  Hey, I'd be real happy with Tork, Martin, or Lacy, as I said earlier.  I also would have no problem with Elias should he make Gonzales our choice at #2, especially if that can somehow help us have some extra money to sign a guy like Nick Bitsko at  #30.  You clearly think that would be a bad move.  I get that.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...