deward
-
Posts
1432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by deward
-
-
4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
They used to say Babe Ruth would roll into Cleveland and hit 3-4 homers every series at League Park, which was 280 to RF and maybe 325 to RC. If this limits Aaron Judge's ability to do that in Baltimore I'm good with it.
Given where Judge's home runs tend to land, I'm not thinking this is going to stop him.
-
2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Positives to this change: Makes baseball at OPACY more of an athletic competition with fielders given space to run, and hitters not being able to sit back and wait for cheap homers as much. If teams across MLB were to do things like this it could force the game to adopt more contact and speed oriented strategies and rosters, rather than wall-to-wall Chris Davis clones. Ballparks have long been designed to the specs of the 1920s, and players are much larger and more athletic, parks should be scaled appropriately.
Negatives: It's not how Camden Yards looked in 1992, so it's dumb and stupid and I want them to put it back.
The warning track flyouts will be very entertaining.
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
Exactly right. The people pushing back on this are so absurd and btw, many of those people probably hate the 3 outcome sport it has become.
Does this make the team better? If nothing else changes, does this add more wins?
-
2 hours ago, SteveA said:
Even the fan sight lines will miss a spot from many places in the ballpark. That often happens in the corners, but it is pretty rare to have a spot in the middle of the outfield that isn't visible from every single infield/baseline seat.
I suspect that the fan experience was very low on the list of considerations when they came up with this dumb idea.
-
2 hours ago, Ripken said:
The eyesore.
I second this one. I also like Elias' Folly.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think the reputation of the team physicals are more of a detriment to attracting pitchers.
I think you're right. We spent decades complaining about how the team couldn't bring in a big name pitcher because A) Angelos wouldn't pay market rates, and B) Angelos was unreasonable regarding the physicals. Now everyone has suddenly forgotten about that and decided that the ballpark was obviously the REAL problem all along. When/if Elias does sign a star pitcher, it'll be the dump truck full of cash and the perception that the team finally has enough talent to win that gets the job done, no other factors.
-
3 hours ago, interloper said:
He's already told us: establish elite talent pipeline, spend appropriately when it's time, acquire good ML talent from trades. The LF wall is part of an effort to actually be able to finally maybe attract a decent pitcher in free agency, something that has almost never happened in Camden Yards history.
To me it's not that hard to see what the plan is, mostly because he told it to our face when he was hired, and everything he said he would do so far he's done.
I think the idea that the LF wall is suddenly going to allow us to sign pitchers that otherwise wouldn't have signed here is a fallacy. Good pitchers will sign here when the team is willing to make the top offer on the market, which hasn't happened under Angelos. I can't think of a single instance where the team made the best offer for a pitcher and he walked away because he was afraid of the park. They're going to have to be willing to pay the price to either trade for a good pitcher or pay the free agency premium, if they want to supplement GRod and Hall.
-
1
-
-
Aside from my emotional reaction to (from my perspective) the mangling of a park that was visually perfect, I truly don't understand how this is supposed to make the team better. Because it will be harder to hit home runs? Both teams play in the same park under the same conditions, what inherent advantage does that give to the Orioles? I would suggest that they should try assembling pitching staffs that aren't historically bad, that seems far more likely to improve the product on the field. Because it will make Baltimore a more attractive option for free agent pitchers? Who have we been making competitive offers to the past several years that turned us down because of the park? Perhaps they should actually try to spend some money before they assume people won't take it. If anything, I would suspect that pitching in the AL East is a more significant deterrent than the park. I've heard the argument that this will lead to a more exciting brand of baseball, and I can sort of see that, but having an actual good team in the park has always been exciting. I just don't understand what problem got solved here.
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, interloper said:
It's quirky. I don't get hideous though. I think this is going to be so normal looking after about a month, we won't even be thinking about it.
I hate everything about it. I think it's a major detriment to the aesthetics of the park. Not all changes are good.
-
On 1/15/2022 at 12:49 AM, ExileAngelos said:
Come on dude. 364 power alley was a joke. That was obvious the day the park opened. Routine deep fly balls to that area will now be caught or off that 13 foot wall. I absolutely love it.
Nothing about how the park has played over the past 30 years has ever bothered me. The only joke has been the recent pitching staffs.
-
1
-
-
So....my gut reaction is to hate everything about this. Partly due to the hideously ugly aesthetics of the new configuration, maybe partly a sentimental reaction to such a drastic change to the park I grew up with. I can think of at least a dozen memorable moments that don't happen with this configuration. Cal's home run the night of 2130 becomes a routine fly ball. I'm not sure the one he hit the next night would be out in this configuration either. Some of the key home runs that Reynolds and Jones hit during the wild card run in 2012 would have been fly ball outs. I'd really like to know what free agent pitcher turned down top dollar to sign elsewhere due to the park. I can't think of one off the top of my head that we've heard about. I'd also like to know what the home run figures in the park would have looked like the past few years with a pitching staff that even approached being competent. When (if?) they finally build a better pitching staff, the results will improve, not because they screwed with the dimensions of the field.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Herman said:
I started taking them less seriously after they signed him to that ridiculous contract and my interest in the team was reduced even further when they botched the Machado trade. They will have to earn my attention and respect back. Drafting Heston Kjerkstad didn't exactly inspire confidence.
Not to derail a thread about Davis, but there was nothing wrong with drafting Kjerstad. His medical issues are unfortunate, but no one could have known about that at the time of the pick. You could take it as proof that the org is cursed, I suppose.
-
1
-
-
The big contract turned out to be a predictable disaster, of course, but he was a blast to watch in his good years. Some of his bombs are on my list of favorite O's memories, and who can forget the pitching performance in Fenway? I won't have much difficulty remembering the good over the bad.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, survivedc said:
We’re in big trouble if the success of a 3rd and 4th round pick in a single draft dictate if we’re in big trouble.
Exactly this.
-
Anyone catch this exchange in last night's Fangraphs chat?
8:49 Guest: Hi Eric and Kevin,If Rutschman and Torkelson were in this year’s drart, where would they go, respectively? I say both 1-1 but friend disagrees. Settle a be on who pays the others MLB pass next year!8:49 Eric A Longenhagen: both 1-18:49 Eric A Longenhagen: Adley killed BP today, he’s a freak -
37 minutes ago, foxfield said:
This is a good post. I think the easy criticism of the pick is that Lawler or Rocker would have had sizzle. Of course that means nothing to results. Cowser doesn't excite and he is an example of the analysis the Orioles have employed.
I said I would accept any pick in the realm of conventional wisdom. Cowser is among the least exciting of those names but he was there. The mocks in general were not good. Davis #1 is a small but not huge surprise. Lawler especially will be watched here as the idea of an all star ss is difficult to have an opportunity for and not get. But the idea that Elias still took Cowser means one of a couple of things:
1). He thinks Cowser in the long run will be the more successful player.
2). He decided Lawler was too big a risk.
3). He decided that the Orioles system is still not populated with enough talent to to trade the risk of hitting on the pick for the allure of high ceiling.
All of us can agree or disagree on good pick or bad. You and Tony have pushed back a great deal here because people are making judgements when the simple fact is that it will be years before we know.
It is hard for me to think that $ alone drives this but there are obviously many that do. I will only say every time I read Austin Martin, I feel better about what Elias is doing, even though it is still too early to have any defense of what he ultimately chose. It's a crap shoot. Trout went 25. Elite talent is there.
The post above I think very well captures why the lack of excitement on Cowser exists. The Orioles have gone to lengths to underperform at the MLB level and get well placed positions in the draft. We see that and say it's to get guys like Lawler and that makes perfect sense.
But Cowser is not out of the blue and he is not some unheralded player. The first round was littered with folks that did not show up in the Mocks. The point is, that the people who we look at as knowing the most, don't know all that much at all. They still don't have near the access to the teams as they think and the GM's are looking at still more information. The important thing to remember is that all of those folks...the GM's, those doing the mocking...they all have more info than we do.
We wanted sizzle. We got steak. Time will tell if it was worth the suck. And saying patience or trust the process doesn't make anyone feel better about sliding into the break on a 51 win pace or whatever. But that is where the Orioles are...and for what it's worth....I am hanging on for the ride!
I think you have to consider one more possibility - Lawler didn't want to be here. There was plenty of buzz that he would be comfortable going on to Vandy and shooting for 1-1 in 2023 if he was unhappy with yesterday's outcome.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
But the team can’t really know what he’s worth to them yet.
While I agree in principle with what you are saying, Mullins start is so completely out of nowhere that we just don’t know what we have yet.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say he is worth a ton or that the team shouldn’t consider trading him or that we should just accept anY fair offer because he’s destined for a major decline. We just don’t know yet what we have or how valuable he is.
They absolutely should be shopping him to see because, why not?
I would hope that the team's talent evaluators have SOME idea of whether or not they should expect this to continue, and aren't just taking it day by day. Not that their evaluation can't be revised over time, but surely this is a question they've put some thought into.
As far as shopping him, sure, they're in the middle of a painfully long rebuild, anyone should be shopped in the interest of ultimately putting a competitive team on the field.
-
21 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I love it when people say Mullins IS worth a ton. We have no idea what his worth is. His worth is what someone will pay
That's not entirely true, the team should know exactly what he's worth to THEM. His value to other orgs is an open question of course.
(Edited - my original second sentence felt too pedantic)
-
7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well first of all, waiting too long was likely not DDs call..that was Buck and Peter screwing us over.
And whether or not they waited too long is irrelevant to the deal itself. The deal itself is what was on the table, so to say it’s a bad deal means you think/know they had a better offer at the deadline or that you think they should age taken the draft pick.
Philosophically, if you're forced to accept poor value for your asset, then the chain of events that got you to that point has to be considered in the overall evaluation of the deal (IMO). If you want to shift the blame to other players in the org rather than DD, that's fine, but it doesn't change that they bungled the opportunity to trade a franchise player for fair value. To bring this back around to Mullins, I'd be particularly disappointed if they traded him for a similar package any time soon, as none of the duress of the Manny situation applies here.
-
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Wasn't a lot of teams that needed and could afford a Machado at that point in the season. I don't think the O's would have been willing to pitch in for his salary.
Without information to the contrary I'm going to accept that Dan got the best deal he could. Diaz was pretty highly regarded at one point.
That would suggest that Duquette waited too long, no? I'm open to the possibility that the deal he got was the best available, but that's still a pretty disappointing return. Wasn't there legit concern at the time that Diaz would turn out not to have enough power for a corner OF spot?
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
No it wasn’t.
The deal itself was fine.
What would make it a bad decision is if DD had other deals on the table where he could have gotten quality over quantity or something like that.
The deal was fine only as an alternative to getting nothing. As value for a player of Machado's caliber, it was very disappointing. I wasn't sold on any of those players ever providing major league value at the time and nothing since then has made me feel more positive about it. If all of the deals on the table were as bad, then DD made a major miscalculation with the timing of when he put Manny on the market.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
So you would have kept him and took the pick?
I disagree with the quantity over quality approach to that deal. I would have looked for a better prospect than Diaz, even if it meant a smaller overall package, up to and including doing a one for one swap. If it came down to the deadline and Diaz was the best prospect on the table....then I guess I would have reluctantly pulled the trigger, but I wouldn't have been happy about it.
-
5 minutes ago, wildcard said:
Here is what the O's traded Manny for at the time of the trade.
Dodgers' farm system was ranked 10th in 2018.
Diaz, 21, MLB Pipeline 84th prospect, Dodgers 4th prospect.
Kremer, 22, Not ranked by MLB Pipeline, Dodgers 27th prospect, 14th round pick 2016
Bannon, 22, Not ranked by MLB Pipeline, Dodgers 28th Prospect, 7th round pick 2017
Pop, 21, Not ranked by MLB Pipeline, Not ranked by Dodgers, 7th round pick 2017
Valera, 26, on the 40 man roster, cup of coffee with the Cards and Dodgers
https://www.mlb.com/news/manny-machado-traded-to-dodgers-c286340444
Would you trade Mullins for this level of prospects today?
I would not. That was a bad deal at the time and it looks even worse now.
Left field at OPACY going through a big change
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Sanchez isn't with the Yankees anymore, but if he was, he'd hit less home runs in OPCY when the team has pitchers who aren't just throwing batting practice out there. Looking at his spray charts since 2019, I only see one obvious home run that this takes away. I suggest that a better solution to that issue might be not feeding Judge, Stanton, and Sanchez with guys like Adam Plutko, Spencer Watkins, Asher Wojciechowski, Jorge Lopez, David Hess, Dan Straily, etc, etc, etc....