Pickles
-
Posts
5900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well, it doesn’t say they were going to make a counter and they didn’t. It said they refused to. It’s semantics but there is a big difference between the 2.
If they said, we will definitely counter and then gave them the giant middle finger, I agree it’s bad.
If the players just assumed, through the course of a negotiation, that they would get a counter, that’s different.
The statement explicitly states, "Two days after committing a counter proposal would be made...."
It seems fairly clear-cut. At least their statement does.
I can't attest to the honesty of their statement.
-
1 minute ago, wildcard said:
I have not read that the owners agreed to offer a counteroffer.
The statement by the MLBPA provided by Sports Guy on the previous page said as much.
I don't know if that is true, but I would be surpised if they would put out such a bald-faced lie.
-
Just now, Tony-OH said:
Why would this change anything? What is what the players countered with is so off the mark that the owners felt it's best to just bring in mediation?
Anyone who turns down mediation knows they are not trying to get a fair deal, but believe they have a chance of beating the other party. My guess is the MLBPA is secretly negotiating with the big market owners and trying that angle.
It changes it for me.
If the owners agreed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, and went straight to pushing mediation, then they have broken a promise.
Generally, a bad thing to do in negotiations.
Let them deliver their counter offer- as they promised- first.
-
3 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I do agree next year’s FA class looks underwhelming.
The Astros leveraged their farm system via trades more than FA. At least initially.
-
3 minutes ago, wildcard said:
I don't like where this is headed. These two sides hate each other. Its not about finding an agreement. It about one wants to beat the other.
It's been like that for 50+ years.
We've never lost a whole season before.
And we won't this time either.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
No team went from 60 to 95 wins in one year, which is what I was talking about.
Your meaningless record prediction means nothing in this discussion so other than to pay yourself on the back, I don’t know why you keep mentioning it.
Your argument is about wasting a year of a player when you aren’t contending. Same principle.
So what are you even arguing about?
You wouldn't sign Correa but you want the O's to?
Or something like that?
P.S. The Rays went from 66 wins to 97.
The Cubs went from 66 to 97 in two years.
The Stros went from 51 wins to 86 in two years.
None of these teams signed a major free agent in order to do it either.
I expect the Orioles to get in that 66 win area this year. And I hope true competitveness comes in 2024.
I keep mentioning that I've been more accurate in my predictions the last few years than 90% of the board because it's a fact. And because you keep using your predictions as basis for your projected moves. Which time and again have proven to overrate the O's baseline talent and been premature in when expecting the MiL talent to influence the W-L record at the ML level.
-
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Correa would be a move that would theoretically payoff in 2023 and beyond.
Me I don't want to block Druw Jones, the Shortstop of the future.
Theoretically, yes.
And it's why I am even willing to entertain the thought.
But it comes with risk. And you point out: opportunity cost.
I find it funny that the poster who has explicitly stated he wouldn't sign Correa, now wants to use Correa as yet another cudgel.
-
6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Just FYI folks don't respond well to that argument.
Probably cause it's a bad one.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
So what? Do you think every FA signed by a team plays in the playoffs every year? It’s just a poor way of looking at it.
This team should and could contend in 2023. Landing elite talent now is fine. They aren’t going from 60 Wins to 95. It’s just dumb to think that will happen. There needs to be real improvement first.
Should they keep Adley and GRod in the minors until 2023? Why waste a year of service time for a last place team?
Again, you can think "could" and "should" all you want. Others have a different opinion.
And in my case, an opinion that has been far more accurate.
There's no need to make hyperbolic analogies. There's a world of difference between bringing up young players to a last place team and paying 30+ million to an external free agent to a last place team.
As far as they aren't going from 60 to 95 wins, that's actually proven time and again largely how these rebuilds go. If they work.
The Rays did it. The Cubs did it. The Astros did it over two years.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well, Correa shouldn’t be the only move but you certainly should be able to field a 70-75 win team with Correa, Adley, et al. If you can’t, Elias should be let go because that’s not exactly difficult to do.
Yeah, signing Correa could and maybe should lead to 72 wins next year.
Guess what?
You're still finishing in last place in this division.
-
3 minutes ago, wildcard said:
I don't expect to see MLB baseball this season.
You expect them to lockout the whole season?
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.
-
13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
If the owners were supposed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, that changes the situation for me.
-
9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well I don’t think this should be a tough year and I think you should contend in 2023 and if you signed Correa, that should be the thought process for everyone.
Also, there isn’t much in free agency next year.
I mean, I guess opinions vary on how good this team will be this year. I don't think anyone can make a good argument though that adding Carlos Correa to this team next year somehow makes them competitive. Maybe if you squint and EVERYTHING goes right you could see it come together in 23.
I think it's fair to point out I've been one of the more pessimistic predictors of the O's the last few years.
I think it's also fair to point out I've been one of the more accurate.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
The year away stuff is the worst reasoning out there. I really hate reading it.
As for the contract itself…I’m not concerned about the first 4-6 years..it’s the 4-6 years after that.
If we could sign him to a 7 year deal for about 250M(if an opt out has to be in, make it after year 4), I would do that knowing the last year or 2 will probably suck but that would be ok.
But it will probably be more like 10/350 and that’s a no go for me.
You might not like reading it, but you immediately appeal to the logic of it.
If you're worried about the backend of the contract, and not the frontend, then you want the frontend to be as impactful as possible on Ws and Ls that lead to playoff appearances.
If you sign a guy to a 7 year contract you think is going to be rough the last year or two, and you aren't really going to compete in the first two years of the contract anyway, what have you gained? And more importantly, what have you gained that wouldn't be available later with less risk?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
It’s sound logic as to why we should sign him but the contract will be atrocious.
I'm not so sure- as far as FA contracts go- it will be atrocious.
He's as good a bet as Manny was imo, and Manny's contract is working out pretty well for the Padres- with the obvious caveat that there's a ways to go.
My issue with it would be that I don't think we're one year away from legitimately competing, and the opportunity cost.
Paying Correa 30 million a year for 5 WAR is well enough. Paying 1:1 500 K a year for 5 WAR is how you win in this division.
-
24 minutes ago, Frobby said:
The things you guys find to bicker about is amazing. Even when you agree, you disagree.
I find it refreshing. The ol' "Let's disagree to agree."
-
I know it's arbitrary, and it's a laughably low bar, but I don't want to lose 100 games this year.
Winning 65 games might not mean the team was successful, a lot would depend on how those games are won and lost, but if they lose over 100 games this upcoming year that means I would almost certainly classify that as a disappointment.
-
21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I'd include him but you could certainly make a case that Ruth doesn't belong on the list. It all depends on what definition of greatest players you are going with.
What definition of greatness would exclude Babe Ruth from that list?
I suggest it would require a definition unrecognizable to the rest of us.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Paul in Virginia said:
He looks to be bigger than 170 lbs.
-
24 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Please stop with the idea that just because Elias has spoken approvingly about Tampa’s organization, he’s going to slavishly follow everything Tampa does. That isn’t happening.
And guess what — improving our bullpen is a must no matter what model we’re following. We had a 5.70 bullpen ERA last year, worst in the majors by more than .6 runs per game and more than 1.5 runs worse than league average. Our save rate was 29th, at 48%. We don’t need to worry about what Tampa is doing to know that our bullpen needs to be much, much better.
The interesting thing is that the 2020 bullpen, with many of the same pitchers, was way better — 3.90 ERA (9th in the majors) and 61% save rate (13th). Could just be that their 2020 performance was a small sample size fluke, and that they didn’t have as much time to wear down from being overused thanks to the lousy starters.
Load.
It's pretty damn impossible to have a good bullpen when you need 5 innings out of them every night.
-
12 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Definitely not the only alternative. Quite arguably the best alternative. Still waiting to see what else the team will do once the lockout ends and transactions can occur. I’m not expecting high profile signings or trades, but there could be things that are smaller but meaningful.
I'm sorry, but there was NO WAY forward- "rebuilding" or not- that sees the Orioles NOT losing a ton of games moving forward from Elias' hire.
The decisions which made that INESCAPABLE had been made before he arrived.
You could argue that "rebuilding" could have been quicker, etc. You can't argue that losing wasn't inevitable- not in good faith.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
He has made people buy into the idea that this is what needs to be done to compete long term. That’s been his obvious point from day 1.
That is a sell job because not only is it bs but it’s also cover for ownership who just doesn’t want to spend money.
There was no alternative to years of losing when Elias took over. The die had been cast.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Way to totally F up what I said, not that I expect you to actually represent me properly.
What I said was that if they sign a few short term deals that don’t work out that the money won’t hurt them..and it won’t.
I assume you understand simple math and player contracts. It’s not hard to figure out what the payroll is going to be over the next 3-5 years with the players we think will be here.
If we pissed away 15M on a player who fails, it won’t hurt the team. The payroll will be so low and the players on the team will be so inexpensive that it won’t matter.
This isn’t a difficult concept to figure out.
I put together multiple teams that wouldn’t cost more than 70M right now and long term would be very cheap and have plenty of payroll to add and I’m doing that while not mortgaging any future or losing any long term flexibility.
It’s not hard to do. In fact, it’s the exact thing Elias is aiming to accomplish. Literally nothing different than what I’m saying…except I think they should start now and he wants to keep waiting…or should I say ownership wants to keep waiting.
Then what have you been bitching about all this time?
Nobody can "represent" what you say, because you change what you say to fit what ever temporal argument you happen to be trying to make.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
No sh!t. There is a risk with any plan. You don’t think the plan Elias is going with has risk?
Well, you've made statements such as lighting tens of millions of dollars on fire with terrible contracts doesn't "hurt" the O's chances to be competitive and successful in any way.
Which of the remaining Free Agents are the best fit for the O's?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
What does that do for the Orioles?