deward

Also, sure, the change will probably make the stats for our pitchers look superficially better, but won't it also do the same thing for visiting pitchers? What advantage does it give the team? How does that help win more games? I don't see how it helps the current staff, other than making the numbers on the back of their cards look a little better. The W-L records aren't going to change.

I'll continue to stand by my position that the team will attract better pitching when they actually start making top of the market offers for good pitchers. The park never mattered in that regard, and will continue not to matter. No one turned down more money to avoid the park and no one will give a discount because of the park.

Aesthetics will be subjective for each observer, of course. I still don't like anything about how it looks. I would argue that moving the fans further away from the field (by virtue of a 13 foot wall) makes the park feel less intimate, thus removing character, not adding to it. Like I said though, a highly subjective topic.

I'm pretty sure I saw him hit 98 once or twice

I agree that this is definitely the plan, but the risks of this approach strike me as very high. The Matt Harvey talk got me thinking about the Mets collection of prized young pitchers from a few years back, and how they turned out. Harvey, for example, hit the big leagues at age 23, but was done as a TOR starter by age 27. Noah Syndergaard made 24 starts in the big leagues at age 22, but seems like he also might be done as a TOR starter by age 26. Jacob DeGrom stands out as the oddity, not making his debut until age 26, but still looking dominant until he got hurt last year. That Mets trio is just one example, but I think it illustrates the point that, as much as we all hope for Rodriguez to anchor a rotation for 15 years, it's entirely possible that 2022-2024/5 are his best years, and Elias may well let him burn half of one of those years in AAA. The logic behind manipulating service time if there is no intention of trying to compete this year (which there obviously isn't) makes sense, but it's also a gamble that GrayRod's prime is still ahead of him, rather than right now.

I'm getting flashbacks to the scene in Bull Durham (I think) where the minor league radio broadcaster is getting wire updates on the road games and making up his own story and sound effects to go along with it.

I was told that baseball is more exciting with less home runs. The O's are just leading a return to the purer days of the 1910s.

I'm just going to assume the all-star break at this point and let myself be pleasantly surprised if it's sooner.

I know AAA uses the ML ball, but does anyone know if they're using the same, potentially softer, baseball that MLB is using this year?

They've been taking the fan base (what's left of it) for granted for the past four years. Whether or not that's a calculated move, or just a combination of arrogance and incompetence, I couldn't say.

That gets at a point that I've been trying to work out for myself for a while now. On the other side of this rebuild, what level of winning do we need to see in order to call it a success, and worthwhile? Do they need to have a stretch of winning 100 games a year like the Astros did? Do they need to be doing toe to toe with the rest of the AL East for the division title every year? What if they only start winning 85 games a year and just stay on the fringes of the wild card race? Will that be enough to restore the damage done to the fan base? I don't know the answer here, I just know that this approach has always seemed risky to me. Especially when you have another team right in your backyard to siphon off fans during the down years (something the Astros didn't have to worry about).

And then maybe keep him in the winning environment of Norfolk rather than exposing him to a hopeless atmosphere in Baltimore. Then decide that maybe it's better not to burn his first year of service time on a team that's going to lose anyway and just for next spring and start fresh. (joking, sort of)

I didn't say that, I wouldn't be posting here if I had. I'm just saying that 4 (going on 5) years of them not even trying has had an impact on my relationship with the franchise. At least in 98-11, there was an attempt to win games. They weren't competent, but it wasn't that they weren't trying. I can live with that a lot more easily than with full-on tanking. YMMV

Winning always matters, no matter how much Elias says it. Every season that is thrown away costs the team fans who either won't come back, or won't come back with the same level of enthusiasm. Punting year after year can't help but damage the relationship with the fan base. Speaking for myself, I've been following this club for over 30 years and the past 2-3 years, for the first time, I find myself not watching games regularly, and just generally emotionally distancing myself from the team. Not to mention that years are being wasted out of the careers of guys who could have been part of better teams. It feels like players like Mullins, Means, and Mancini only have value as trade bait at this point, rather than as pieces of the puzzle for a contender. Another year or two and Mountcastle will be in that same boat. All of this matters. It might all get fixed if the team goes the route of the Astros and starts to dominate the division and becomes a regular World Series contender, but will that really happen?

Wouldn't the impact on the field, at best, be neutral over an extended period? What would cause it to help the O's more than it helps other teams? Maybe a little better idea how to play the caroms, but I can't see that being a significant factor.

Sorry, didn't read it as such.

The Rays have a long track record of success that Elias doesn't have. I'm willing to assume they know what they're doing, Elias hasn't earned that yet.

Do you enjoy watching 100-110 losses a year, with most games being totally non-competitive? Many of us don't. I don't see how it at all slows down the rebuild to put a little effort into making the ML product at least a little entertaining. What damage does that do to the plan? A team that goes 70-92 while working in the first wave of prospects would be a much more enjoyable experience this year than Elias' evident intention to neglect giving the fans anything to watch once again. I don't consider not having any reason to turn on the tv for the last four years to be acceptable. It wasn't necessary for a successful rebuild. It was only necessary if the goal was to spend as little money as possible during the process.

You know, I'm coming around on it. Trey doubling and getting stranded at 2nd was a much more entertaining brand of baseball than him hitting a home run would have been. I've just been thinking about it all wrong, that's all.

No need to rush him like that, you have to be cautious about these things. 2027 will be soon enough.

Nope. Never came into play at all.

I read somewhere that it was $3.5M. I thought the club paid for it, but I could be wrong. Better pitching would alleviate some of the home run issue all on its own, for sure.

The place never looked close to full, I'm perplexed by them saying it was a sellout.

Was the stadium an issue from 2012-2017? Will the change not help pitchers from other teams for some reason?