99ct
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 99ct
-
-
Eduardo Rodriguez was signed rather than drafted, so he doesn’t literally fit Frobby’s list. However the spirit of this thread (uncovering young talent) does include ERod. Probably in the top ten. Schoop as well.
-
Great question. I think I would - not to run from NYY and BOS (although that would actually be a valid reason, too) but rather for an interesting change of scenery and because I like NL ball.
-
42 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:
The AL East has sent a team in the WC just about every year. Every team in the division has won a playoff round (WC or series) in the last five years. I don't think any other division can claim that.
I know. IMO its the toughest division in MLB, but I was poking a little fun at the idea that all five teams are good at the same time.
-
3 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:
five organizations that are at least competent
I only count three lol
-
Hmm #16? Wei yen Chen is the only one who matches the description of being a lefty who worn #16 during the seasons Villar was in Houston
-
Did anyone see Matt Weiters take a foul ball off his glove and then snag it bare handed to complete the strike out? Ah good old Weiters.
-
Thanks for posting some interesting stats. I always hate losing to the Yankees, but tonight, a small smile appeared on my face as I remembered that this helps our draft position. Thanks, Yankees!
-
1
-
-
From a "pure economics" stand point, it wouldn't make much sense to be "growing bats" when the league currently has a surplus of hitters - even if its due to the allegedly juiced balls. Pitching is at a premium, as it almost always is, so going to buy it doesn't seem like a great idea. My guess is the reason the draft focused on position players is because the front office wanted the best players available, regardless of position. Might go dip into the pitching pond next draft.
-
I voted content. The team is in the hunt for 1:1 without being historically bad. This recent run has actually been a little fun, dare I say! And even though the MLB team is clearly bad, there are enough players providing hope, or at least entertainment value.
In the minors, we added Rutschman, and I’m giving Elias the benefit of the doubt on some of these prospects.
I couldn’t vote “pleased” because it’s your top choice and to me that would require some sort of unusual surprise to the upside (for example, some serious talent infusion in the minors, or killer trades) and I don’t think we have that yet
-
2 hours ago, pstroms333 said:
Does Sports Guy post anymore?
He's been replaced by other know-it-alls who are never wrong and talk down on everyone else. lmao
-
20 minutes ago, jabba72 said:
And Detroit's 3-14 since July 28th. They might finish last.
Is it already the middle of August
-
20 minutes ago, Sessh said:
.. of course, I just realized you were probably talking about R5 picks that might be available in the next draft, but hopefully useful nonetheless.
I was thinking of current players on mlb rosters but the discussion is interesting even with broader scope. Thanks for pointing DOD out, I didn’t realize he was rule 5 as well
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AceKing said:
Obv not the best in baseball over the last few years, but is he the best of the bunch from these past several years (the years since we seem to have them every year)?
I hope he continues to get better....he sure is a tough out right now.
It might actually be interesting to expand the question to rule 5 picks across all of baseball. I imagine there must be some good ones other there, but I have little exposure to other teams R5 picks.
-
2 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:
Yeah that's a contradiction. . The platers say the owners are keeping certain players in the minors and thus keep him from being a free agent and leaving the team, for another year. But if the teams are doing on a wide scale, that then why are the MLB players getting younger?
From a purely mathematical standpoint, it may be because there are far fewer players getting contract through ages 38-40. Take away the old dudes and the average automatically gets younger, even without regard to when the youngest are being promoted
-
9 hours ago, osfan83 said:
But limiting the performance of 30+ year olds actually helps smaller payroll teams. Now having the ability to overpay for a 32 year old slugger has no value. If we hold peak performance to 27, then most of the players value is when teams have control before free agency. I don't want to go back to a time when the Yanks and Sox can buy every 32 year old All Star, and those players perform at peak level until they are 37.
Interesting take, but my counterpoint is this: players being good until ~37 means more “supply” of good players, and thus a better chance at competing. Back in the early 2000s, the yanks were dumping prospects left and right
-
3 hours ago, ChuckS said:
If everything was equal, I would keep Mancini. But it's not.
But that’s what makes this such an interesting question
-
2 hours ago, atomic said:
Don't have to watch football to know who Pacman Jones is. He transcends the sport in an O.J. sort of way.
To be fair, his star faded pretty quick. If you didn’t know who he was in his first few years, there would be no reason to know him
-
8 hours ago, LA2 said:
What exactly is the traditional, majestic term for a fourth outfielder? For a third baseman playing on the right side of second base?
Did anyone see Matt Carpenter get a double by bunting down the third base line, away from the shift? A funny moment, and one that I thought the OH would appreciate
-
Perhaps the most interesting question - and also most difficult to answer - is, how have the guys we “wanted” but didn’t trade for performed? Obviously that involves a lot of speculation as to who was a realistic trade target.
-
27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
To me the only logical reason to keep him is that you think he might at some point retire or accept a buyout for less than his guaranteed contract.
That would be nice, but I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this and decided there was no precedent for this, nor would the MLBPA be totally cool with it. I guess one can always hope though.
-
22 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:
Those are valid reasons to let Davis go. However there are also reasons to keep him.
*Hope that he will start hitting again like he did after he hit .192 for Texas.
*Big money owed on his contract. Releasing him would mean paying him while he sits at home cashing the checks..
*If he continues to hit like a pitcher, he may be ashamed and be willing to take a buyout and retire and the Orioles could avoid paying full price for the rest of his contract. Releasing him now would eliminate that possibility.
*On a rebuilding team of youth he could help teach the younger players the ropes.
*Name recognition for the fans. Some occasional fans don't like going to a game and not recognizing any names in the Orioles starting lineup.
In my opinion, the only reason to keep him on the team is that we’re paying him, and the idea of paying him without making him give effort is offensive, on principle.
Sooner or later we’ll need that roster spot. I don’t think we’re there yet, but Davis’ clock is ticking.
-
50 minutes ago, Aglets said:
How many GMs have worked out trades for the same player twice?
I guess with Jones it would technically be thrice if you include last year. Heh. The sweater vest is relentless yo.
Too lazy to look it up right now and confirm, but I’m pretty sure Theo Epstein traded for Rizzo twice
-
Just now, weams said:
It was. Duquette told Boras that the Orioles were out. Boras got Peter back in. Peter was an extremely poor owner. But Baltimore is no jewel.
What is Peter's current status as owner, has he officially transitioned out? Lol for some reason my mind seems to have blocked out most of the last year
-
1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:
The race card has been mentioned a few times
Oh ok I didn’t realize that. That changes my opinion.
A small experiment on WAR and aging
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Unfortunately it seems there's some serious survivor bias here. Not only does this fail to account for players who left MLB between the ages of 30-36, but, as I understand it, the sample is limited to players who are still top 100 players at age 36+. How do you know that Rendon will be a top 100 player at age 36+? That's part of the question your seeking to answer, so it really can't be used as an assumption also.