Pickles
-
Posts
5900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
No, you are advocating for someone getting "Jammed up". When presented with a scenario in which such manipulation could not occur you repudiated it. You didn't say, "Yea that would be great but under the current system...." You want the current system in place because you feel it benefits your personal fandom.
In this particular case, yes.
I don't need to apologize for that to anybody- least of all you and your pedantry.
And to be clear, you never presented a scenario in which such manipulation wouldn't occur. You at best presented a system in which other manipulation would occur.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
The Orioles could unquestionably be a far better team in 2022 while still having the long term plan in tact.
Doubting that is just ignorance.
That’s not an opinion thing..that’s not my ideas are better than yours. That’s just a fact.
No one denies this.
What you ignore time and again is that there is risk associated with any such plan such as you have laid out.
-
1 minute ago, MijiT88 said:
Is there not more excitement on OD than 15 days later? Would it not be much more exciting for the players and the fans to see the future of their club on OD? There is excitement anytime someone comes up but obviously I am not talking about the assumed excitement I am talking about what would be more exciting or "generated" I hope I spelled this out well enough to not get a smart response again.
I understand the sentiment. And you're not wrong.
But under the current rules, the O's would be foolish to bring AR up before 4/15.
And any change in those rules would certainly result in the Orioles having team control of AR for one less season. I can't root for that just to see him two weeks earlier.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Sure looked like you did just a short while ago.
No, I simply live in the real world.
The one in which no matter the rules there will be teams operating within those rules to benefit themselves primarily.
If that means every decade or so the Orioles keep some guy down in the MiLs for two extra weeks, I can live with that.
That is not a soapbox I feel the need to climb up on and use as a bully pulpit.
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:
I am not saying anything about us doing it or not. I just think the fact that teams will hold someone in AAA for the first month or so of the season to get more service time is not good for the sport, IMO. I am not saying or accusing any abuse but I just think it is a change that would generate a lot of excitement, especially in Baltimore.
Do you think if he's up 4/17, instead of 4/1, there won't be any accompanying excitement?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:We have no clue what this CBA will mean as far as that but I am all for anything that helps players that deserve to be in the bigs get there faster. I personally think its a waste of talent and time when teams play the service time game. You can't disagree that AR on the OD roster is the most exciting this we could have going into this season
Nobody wants to see guys get jammed up in AAA just because of service time constraints.
However, the frequency of such events is wildly exaggerated on this board- usually to support a small cadre of posters who assert they could have returned the O's to competitiveness earlier- the basis of which is usually they would have brought AR up earlier.
-
5
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Hey, maybe you will get lucky and they will bring back the reserve clause.
You're not Cesar Chavez.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, MijiT88 said:
I am really hoping the new CBA will make it so AR will be up for opening day rather than holding him back for a month
I don't as that would almost certainly mean he would be under Orioles control for a shorter time.
-
1
-
-
I don't like the concept of "nothing left to prove in AAA/minors" because it is often buttressed with the support of very small sample sizes, and it also ignores the fact that players can perform well in AAA/minors, and that performance is not transferable to the MLs.
I agree however with the general takes on the players above- including that Baumann is probably the most controversial of those listed- and with the idea that the days of slow-rolling promotions are over.
-
5 hours ago, Tony-OH said:
He looked heavier than his list weight and although we've seen a bit of velocity bump for him since signing as an 18-year old, there's not a ton left in there.
I think he'll settle in as a 89-93 guy will top occasionally around 94.
I know it's a different era and all, but that sure seems plenty to me for a LHP to be successful. I don't think the determining factor in his success or failure will be velocity.
-
1 minute ago, wildcard said:
Yep
Is it sustainable?
-
2 minutes ago, wildcard said:
In baseball, a control pitcher, also known as a finesse pitcher, is a pitcher who succeeds mostly by using accurate pitches, as opposed to a power pitcher ... From Wikipedia.
I think Rom qualifies as a finesse pitcher.
So you think he's striking out 10 per 9 mostly on control?
-
1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:
I think a lot of it has to do with the collective bargaining agreement and how it all shakes out with arbitration and free agency.
If there is nothing holding them back, I could see Rom getting some starts in September since he'll need to be added to the 40-man next year anyways (assuming everything stays the same).
I've been higher on Rom than most because I see a guy who really can pitch. He drops arm angles, can add and subtract velocity, and can really bury that breaking ball to the back foot of righties.
I'd really like to see his statcast info before getting too high on him, but I do think he's going to outperform his mediocre velocity readings.
I've asked before and I ask again because I've never seen him:
How much physical projection does he have left?
He's listed at 6'2" 170. That's quite thin. Does he have the frame to add good weight, and perhaps velocity?
-
51 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I’m pretty high on him. I wouldn’t have started the thread if I wasn’t. I assume he will start in AA but could move to AAA pretty quickly if he has a good start, as Bradish and Smith did last year. Then we’ll see how he does there. Bradish was in AAA from May 25 on but was a bit erratic there until September when he did very well. He finished with a 4.26 ERA in AAA but was over 5.00 before September. I think Rom would have to do better than that in AAA to get called up. I don’t think they’ll want to burn an option on him, so they’ll only call him up if they plan to keep him up the remainder of the season no matter what.
Yes, I think you and I have been his biggest boosters- not counting Tony.
And of course, this all depends on his performance.
But if he picks up where he left off in AA next year, he'll be in AAA by June, and from there anything can happen.
-
16 minutes ago, wildcard said:
Its pretty easy to said Rom could make the majors this season but its much harder to say he will. As a finesse pitcher he will have to earn everything he gets. The O's have a bunch of pitchers that were starters at AA and did well including Lowther, Kremer, Akin, Zimmermann, Baumann, Bradish, and Smith. So its too early to say Rom will do well at AAA just yet. He is behind Grayson and DL Hall. He will have to elbow his way passed the other guys to get to the majors.
Rom is something several of those other guys aren't:
Healthy.
And in regards to him being a "finesse" pitcher, he's racked up large K numbers his entire career, and did not fall off in that regard as he climbed the ladder.
I realize he doesn't have top-notch velocity, but until he stops striking out 10 per 9, I'm not inclined to call him a finesse pitcher.
-
I think this whole argument about "success' is a pretty silly semantic distraction.
From a personal perspective, make the MLs should be seen as a great accomplishment and a 25 year career of playing baseball ultimately a success.
However, from an organizational perspective, developing amateurs into replacement level players cannot be seen as a success.
-
2
-
-
The short answer is "yes."
The Orioles need pitchers. Rom has performed decently in the upper minors. It's virtually certain they won't bother to play service time games with him.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say I expect to see Rom in the Majors this year. Maybe not until September, but I do expect him to make his ML debut this year.
Part of that expectation is that I am higher on him as a prospect than anybody else, and I expect him to continue to perform well.
-
1 minute ago, Frobby said:
Stewart was worth 0.6 rWAR in 2020 in 31.games, when he had an .809 OPS that was very heavily walk-driven. Projected over a full season, that would be pretty valuable.
I don’t like the term “nugget” because I don’t think people use that term consistently. Is it a player who’s a full-time starter? Is it a guy who can have a useful role on a team? Those are two very different things. Was John Lowenstein a nugget? Benny Ayala?
I want to be really clear that I’m not saying Stewart has a long term role as a useful piece on a good team. I’m just saying I don’t think it can be ruled out. That doesn’t mean we should give him infinite opportunities, especially if someone comes along we like better.
But I think it’s wrong to assume he can’t be a useful player.
I don't think we're really in disagreements here.
The only point I'll add in reference to your Lowenstein comment is that Stewart would have a much better chance at carving out a lasting ML career if this was 45 years and there were 7-8 men benches, and pitcher's were hitting. Then a role more appropriate for Stewart would be more readily available.
-
10 minutes ago, jabba72 said:
Depends if they have anyone better to DH. Next year they'll have Mancini. Im not really expecting Stewart to morph into an .800 OPS player though.
I'm not advocating getting rid of Stewart- yet. He deserves another chance. But I'd be absolutely shocked if he became a valuable ML player. And I don't consider 800 OPS LH DH, with negative defensive and baserunning value, to be valuable.
-
53 minutes ago, Frobby said:
At .800 OPS, almost anyone would be a nugget.
Big Mac below makes my point. An 800 OPS with negative value everywhere else, pretty extreme negative value at that, isn't very valuable at all.
-
12 hours ago, Frobby said:
I disagree with you on two fronts:
1. “No one can call him a success.” Sure someone can. Success is a relative term. He’s more successful than most. Let me ask, do you consider yourself a success in your profession? How many musicians are better than you? Hundreds? Thousands?
2. Stowers “is a question mark, but DJ is not.” I don’t think we know everything there is to know about Stewart. I guarantee you I couid come up with a long list of players who had less success than Stewart through age 27 and 619 PA, who turned out to have pretty good careers. Sure, there are things we know - that he’s not a good defensive player, that he has more swing and miss than we’d like - that limit his upside. But we are talking about a guy whose performance has fluctuated a lot in his four years, who has played hurt at times. Would I be shocked to see Stewart pop out a .250/.350/.450 season? Nope. I don’t expect it, but it’s not remote, either.
I said in another post I think Stowers has about a 60% chance of being a better hitter than Stewart. The uncertainty isn’t just that we don’t know what Stowers is capable of. It’s also that we don’t know for sure what Stewart is capable of.
So, while I wouldn’t be surprised to see Stowers supplant Stewart, there are reasons to just let things play out and not force premature decisions, IMO.
Well, I think that's kind of the point: We know enough to know that even in the most optimistic scenario, Stewart isn't a very useful player.
Even with that 800 OPS he's not a nugget.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
Sure, and I similarly object to posters deciding that since they personally believe something is true that they have no need to defend their statement.
If you say A is true and I ask for supporting evidence and you refuse to provide it I'm going to assume A isn't true. How is that a bad process?
I think it is, in general, better to be skeptical of claims made on the internet than to not.
Agreed.
I'm not defending the original statement or its support in any way, shape, or form.
-
17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I disagree.
I think questioning someone's unsupported claims is good process.
I think refusing to support your claims by stating that it's common knowledge is bad process.
Again, you seem to be very hung up on this specific claim, which was not my point.
I objected to the sentiment that because it couldn't be proven true, that is proof that it is false.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
I'm not sure how saying I think something is true so I'm going to state it as a fact without bothering to provide supporting data when questioned counts as a process.
Again, I wasn't referring to the original claims, but the manner with which they were immediately rejected. That's bad process.
O's players that have nothing more to prove at AAA.
in Orioles Talk
Posted
I repeat, you're not Cesar Chavez.
You're not Mother Theresa.
You're just a pedantic, annoying poster, with a strange need to protect your virtue by "protecting" the "rights" of a multimillionaire, who is almost sure to make tens of millions of more in the next decade.