theocean
-
Posts
1153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by theocean
-
-
12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Go through an objective checklist. Women's soccer today is a lot more like 1800s or early 1900s baseball than it is today's major leagues. Small crowds, small salaries, leagues folding, limited history, teams playing in essentially community parks. Just the salaries are a big indicator - the max individual salary for the league is $46k, and this is one of if not the top league in the world. I have administrative assistants who make more than stars in the NWSL. The minimum salary is $16k - you can make that working fast food. I'd guarantee you players have dropped out of the league because they can't make any money. The talent pool expands and contracts with salary, and $46k isn't buying much talent. The USWNT players make a lot more, the rank and file make the kind of salary you get as a starting elementary school teacher in Alabama.
In 1871 many of the best players in the world were in the National Association. It was the best baseball league in the world. But objectively the NA is a low-level minor league compared to today.
You can wish and want that today's NWSL is a high-level pro league. But it simply is not. Objectively it's on par with the BaySox or the Baltimore Blast. It's a minor league paying minor league salaries, playing in front of minor league crowds, and on shaky financial footing.
What are you even talking about, dude? Sure, NWSL isn't commercially strong - but there is absolutely tremendous, elite talent in that league. To look at a couple stats and say it is on par with 1800s baseball is really silly. You're ignoring a ton of other variables of the 1800s - like segregation, wars, a completely different US economy, limited transportation...
Gymnastics, swimming, etc aren't selling out stadiums either - but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the talent-level.
I read back and I'm not even sure what you two were arguing about - but I had to call this lunacy out. Not sure your motive here. Just because women have to fight for equal pay (like they have to fight for in every industry) doesn't mean their leagues are lacking in talent or play. It's us men who need to wake up and realize that we should be paying attention to the talent of the NWSL, WNBA, etc. Not dismiss it to be equal to an indoor soccer league.
-
12 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:
I expect he will be unless his spot on the 40-man roster is needed to protect a legitimate prospect.
I think you nailed it. I don't see him going anywhere until his spot on the 40-man roster is absolutely needed, which likely isn't going to happen anytime soon.
-
1 hour ago, weams said:
If Mancini gets traded at all - I'd put money he ends up here.
-
1 hour ago, atomic said:
Peter Angelos is very old. If you were an owner who was in his mid 80s and a GM says if we sign this guy there is a 1 in 20 chance that he might help the team in 6 to 8 years what would you say. Hey even I might get to be retired by the time these guys have any remote chance of helping the team,
Peter Angelos isn't involved in decision-making anymore, as far as pretty much every report has said.
But I agree with you - and I totally see why they put all of their resources into the major league roster during the 2012-2016 stretch. Can't fault Angelos for wanting to try to win while he could. Illich and the Tigers did the same thing. It was fun while it lasted.
-
1 minute ago, Philip said:
We got two 17-year-old kids. We haven’t any idea what we got. We got a pocket full of mumbles, we got stock options from Enron, We got promises of eternal love, we got the hope of eternal salvation, we got two 17-year-old kids who probably don’t speak a word of English.
They are probably nothing. They are lottery tickets, signed for very little, and probably worth less. I’m not even going to bother trying to spell their names, because we probably will never see them again.
I am in the “we could’ve gotten more if we had waited” crowd.
It doesn’t really matter if we know what we got. Just matters if Elias knows what he got. We’re not privy to all the scouting info they have.
They’re really young. Time will tell. I’d rather have two high-risk, high-reward players than Dillon Tate or somebody like that.
-
4 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:
That’s interesting. They only save $1.68 million. Not exactly a salary dump - Elias must like the players they got back.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
You wouldn't.
That doesn't mean others feel that way.
We don't know where they want payroll to be, we know they added as little as possible and were looking to dump Cashner during the offseason.
It's a possibility that they will be happy to be shed of Cashner's contract.
They're done with his contract after this season if they want, right? I can't really see ownership just wanting to dump Cashner over his August/September paychecks. Not really that much money in the grand scheme of things.
I also think Cashner will be in demand and they'll be able to find someone to take the contract as-is anyway. He's not particularly expensive. Hell, the team trading for him might be interested in exercising his option next year. $10M for a 5th starter ain't bad at all.
-
3 hours ago, jabba72 said:
I think the prospect return is minimal at best for all 4, so I wouldn't move them unless the goal is to cement the #1 pick. Losing Cashner would hurt the most out of all of them IMO. So if he goes it likely will increase the chances the O's finish last.
I think Cashner could actually bring back something pretty good. He's got some value - and he's a good alternative to Stroman/Bumgarner/Wheeler who are going to cost a pretty penny. I don't really understand the "salary relief" thing - a half season of Cashner really isn't expensive whatsoever for a veteran starting pitcher. There will be a market for him.
Givens has been pretty good recently - the O's are in good position to make a trade there. I think most Front Offices will look past his bad start. The only downside is there's going to be a lot of relief pitching on the trading block to compete with.
Mancini is tricky. The article mentions CJ Cron and 1B-types not being valued much - but there are some matches for a trade out there. Mancini is a pretty good fit for the Rays, Ji-Man Choi isn't exactly the most dynamic player and Mancini would be a cost-effective option for them. Whereas I could see Elias trading Cashner and Givens for the best offer at the deadline, I could see him only moving Mancini if the return is right. There's no rush to make a trade here.
Villar - I don't know. I think he sticks around, can't see him being in high demand. We'll see.
-
1 minute ago, Philip said:
Even if you subtract Davis, Mancini and Mountcastle are both best at 1B. Would you rotate them between DH and 1B? I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I hope you’re not suggesting either as a regular OF
Between DH, 1B, and LF - there's plenty of room for the three of them. And Davis shouldn't be playing everyday anyway.
And - is Mountcastle's defense really that bad? I know he has that wonky arm motion, but is there any reason he can't play competent LF?
-
Prospect for prospect trades are pretty rare. The only two I can think of are Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda and Andrew Cashner for Anthony Rizzo.
I think a big reason is that there is a ton of positional flexibility in baseball - so if you truly have a great prospect, you'll find a way to get him on the field. The DH also helps in the American League.
As for the O's prospects - I don't think any of them are being "blocked." There's room for Adley and Sisco on the same team. There's room for Mountcastle and Mancini on the same team. Besides that, I don't think the O's really have any super slam dunk prospects at the moment that'd require any kind of trade.
-
1
-
-
On 7/8/2019 at 10:22 PM, sportsfan8703 said:
SP trade candidates,
Bumgarner - NTC to Boston, Rental
Stroman - Not a rental
Matt Boyd - will cost a ton
Andrew Cashner - Rental owed $4 million
Tanner Roark - Rental, owed $5 million
Lyles, Duffy, Jeff Samardzija, Leake
Maybe Cashner is being undervalued
I'd add Zach Wheeler to that list. Looks like the Mets are going to sell.
-
1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:
I wish people could spell Sisco correctly.
I think autocorrect causes a lot of the issues.
-
30 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:
Not to be flippant, but who cares. These men are being paid to do a job (win or lose). And half of them wouldn't even have jobs if the Orioles weren't such a terrible team. We need young prospects more than we need pitching. Stop gap pitchers can be signed. Young, high end prospects cannot unless you draft them.
I'm not saying they should sell low on any of their players, but it seems like now is definitely the time to at least listen to offers for Means, Mancini and Cashner. You could argue that their value will never be higher.
The Tigers seems to be in a similar situation with Matt Boyd and they are clearly entertaining offers for him. We should be doing the same with Means. If I were Elias I'd be calling the Astros (rumored to be interested in Boyd) and trying to pry away Whitley, James or Tucker. They're desperate for another reliable SP.
I really disagree with this. Clubhouse culture, morale, all the behind-the-scenes stuff definitely matters to a winning ballclub, especially over a 162 game season. You can have all the talent in the world - but it takes discipline, dedication, preparation, etc to make the most of that talent and succeed at the top level. I think Hyde's biggest job this year is to create the organizational culture he believes will be successful and have it ready so that future players come into a situation where they can succeed.
John Means has pitched 86 pro innings. He's started 14 games. He's been great - but the numbers suggest he isn't this good. He was also out with a shoulder strain earlier in the year. I don't think any smart Front Office is going to look at that and fall over themselves to trade for John Means. The value the O's would get for him at this point would not exceed his possible future value. If he's pitching great next year - different story.
And for the Astros - Tucker or Whitley gets them Stroman or Bumgarner. John Means isn't bringing that back at this point.
-
27 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:
You guys say this now. But my question was would you rather have Huira or the all the players from the Dodgers and Brewers trades. With the caveat that we don’t get the Brewers package because they wouldn’t have needed Schoop if they had Manny.
I know it’s a Huira love fest, but an injury to Kremer, and a semi-slow start to Diaz shouldn’t take away from the two packages. Plus Ortiz could be a solid BP arm and Carmona is a wild card.
Moving on, I think the Brewers make the most sense for a Bundy/Cashner and Givens package. The question is what would they give up? Bundy and Givens, even if bullpen arms for them in the playoffs, are huge additions. Is that worth SS B. Turang?
To me, Bundy to NYY for Frazier is a pipe dream, but Bundy to Mil might be a good fit. Then it’s just a matter of doing a bigger deal to include Givens. I’m all for improving our left side of the IF depth.
I'd think Milwaukee would pursue Cashner before Bundy - who wouldn't cost that much. I also can't see a cost-conscious team like the Brewers moving their best prospect and a recent first round pick for a bad starting pitcher and a so-so reliever.
It's probably inevitable that Frazier gets traded - but it will be for Bumgarner or Stroman. I'd put my money on a Frazier for Stroman swap.
-
1 hour ago, bpilktree said:
People are still undervalueing Givens. He has been pretty good since the start of June with era under 3. His strikeout numbers are great and career highs and still two years plus of control. Having control of a guy that is pretty cheap is a huge asset. If he continues strong he will bring back a top 100 guy if traded. Givens had a tough week stretch but beside that his numbers are solid.
I think the issue is that there will be a number of relievers available at the deadline who are better than Givens. Also, Givens made $2M this year - I'm not an expert in arbitration, but he's not going to be "cheap" by the end of that team control either.
I think it is likely that Givens is traded, but I'm not expecting to get anything impressive. But I agree, he's been better and I think a smart front office will be able to see beyond the ugly ERA.
-
4 hours ago, ScGO's said:
Cashner - Eat some salary and get a Top 30 Organizational prospect or 2
Villar - Trade for cash, PTBNL, or intl signing money.
Mancini - I don't see much of a market. An injury might on a contender might create a market, but I think a lot of teams want to see how he finishes 2019 to determine his real value. If he finishes 2019 with strong numbers I would think his trade value would be way up this offseason and more likely to be deal then.
Givens - Pitching much better of late. Good K numbers. Limiting hits. Been phenomenal away from Camden Yards. I do believe there is a market for him. I think he gets traded as he would be a good 7th inning guy for a contender. Two or three top 30 organizational prospects should do it.
Bundy - I don't see a market for him as he is average at best right now. Personally, I would move him to closer next season if we do move Givens along. See if you can reestablish some trade value that way while potentially improving the back end of the bullpen. This could lead to an uptick in velo and compliment his already decent K numbers.
If the O's eat some salary, I think we could all be quite surprised by what the O's could get for Cashner. Bumgarner and Stroman will likely be the big names - but Cashner could bring back something decent from a team who misses out on those two.
I can't see much of a market for Villar. He maybe gets traded for slot money if the O's don't play to pay him in arbitration next year. I can't see a team offering much for Bundy.
Mancini is obviously a good player, but I can't really see a team giving up much for him - just because there are so many players like him.
Givens is a question mark, I think it depends on how he pitches the rest of the month. But, the market is pretty flooded for relief pitchers this deadline: Will Smith, Tony Watson, Jake Diekman, Ken Giles, Sam Dyson, Shane Green, Alex Colome.
-
3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think a free for all already existed not that long ago and everyone was fine with it until the wrong guy broke the wrong record.
Maybe. I think the tide had turned before then. Media coverage of BALCO and Canseco's book really played a big deal. That sparked congressional hearings in 2005. The Mitchel Report was commissioned in March 2006. Bonds had just missed the entire 2005 season and wasn't even at 700 home runs yet. I remember many people were even wondering if Bonds could still play due to his injuries. The PEDs definitely helped him prolong his career.
I feel like Palmeiro's finger-wag and then being suspended shortly after hitting 3,000 in 2005 was a big deal. Sammy Sosa forgetting English at the congressional hearings was also something the late-night-shows could latch onto.
By the time Bonds broke the record, I think pretty much everyone cared.
-
3 minutes ago, baltfan said:
One thing that hasn't been said much is that it doesn't appear issues were at the major league level. None of our ex-players are really playing any better for other teams. And of the holdovers, there really aren't any that are having a better year. In other words, our problems weren't on Buck and his staff.
At the end of the day, the athletes have to perform. I could look at analytics chart all day and still would never catch up to a major league fastball. Talent plays.
-
49 minutes ago, atomic said:
Roberto Clemente walked in 6 percent of his at bats.
Same with Ichiro.
-
42 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:
Hyde owes no one anything for pulling Hess during that game.
As for his bullpen use, I have no idea how good he is at that. Let's get him an actual bullpen first and then maybe we'll know.
It isn't the best bullpen by any means - but it certainly isn't inept. If anything, most people probably thought it was the strongest aspect of the team coming into the season.
I don't think I really agree with the "give him an actual bullpen" take. Elias certainly hasn't done Hyde any favors by giving him a weak rotation and no reliable depth to call upon from Norfolk when the pitching staff is gassed. But, nothing seems to be working out for Hyde - and at a certain point, one has to reason that there's a correlation there.
-
7 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:
Yup, don't miss Gausman. Actually, 8 earned runs for him tonight.
He had a bad game. He's been decent for them overall. He's certainly not a front-of-the-rotation starter, but Max Fried and Mike Soroka are taking care of that for the Braves.
-
13 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I was also at that start in 2017. Castillo called for the slider close to 40 times if I recall correctly.
Does anyone know of a site where you can see statistics based on what pitch a pitcher throws? For instance, seeing BABIP for a pitcher's slider?
-
23 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
How soon until the O's are good?
I'm thinking at least thee years from now.
In three years Mancini will not be the type of player you want on the roster.
If you can trade something for him now why wouldn't you?
Just so some of the fans can watch him play during the rebuild?
Sure - if they can get something back for him, they should trade him. But, I guess the debate is what "something" is. If it's a right-handed AAAA pitcher, that's not really worth it, is it?
If someone gifts me a brand new TV - I'm not going to sell my current one for a low-ball offer. I'd put it in another room in the house. It still has value.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
Cobb and Davis are 31M. You think Villar gets non-tendered or traded?
Also it isn't a matter of being able to afford him. It's a matter of spending intelligently, something the O's have been poor at under Angelos.
They do need to field a team - and they need veterans for plenty of reasons. Mancini probably makes around $2M in his first year of arbitration. I think spending $2M for a guy who can adequately play 1B/LF/RF with solid offense is intelligent spending.
There is plenty of room for Mancini, Mountcastle, and a 60-Day-IL Davis on the team. Trumbo is gone next year and I don't think the O's should be making plans based on a Renato Nunez hot streak.
Everybody here wants to trade a decent player as soon as they hit arbitration so that a player from the minors can be called up and eventually traded when they hit arbitration. How can the O's ever expect to get better when they are making lateral moves at every position? The approx $2M they save from trading Mancini is going to let the O's finally land that big free agent? They can't afford new analytics infrastructure with a $40M payroll versus a $42M payroll?
Who is next?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Everyone knows that the Astros weren't the only team in MLB history to do a rebuild, right? I know Elias worked there - but come on. They're two different teams, in two very different sized markets, with two different situations, with very different television deals, with a Chris Davis sized difference between them. The O's rebuild isn't going to perfectly mirror the Astros'.