Pickles
-
Posts
5857 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:
At this point in our rebuild I hope they keep service time manipulation. I want 6.5 seasons from all of our young guys.
Now, you're starting to get it.
We're not talking about 6 vs 7 years.
We're talking about the difference between 6 and 6.5. And really 99% of the time it's the difference between 6 and 6.2.
Such a rule change might get guys to FA quicker. It won't get them to the MLs any faster. I can see scenarios where it will actually slow it. So doesn't that defeat the whole point?
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
Can someone else explain it to him? I've got to log off.
Yeah take a break. Come back and someone will explain it to you.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
Math are hard.
Logic seems to be harder.
-
1 minute ago, waroriole said:
Huh? No, he’ll be a FA one year sooner.
If you change the rules to make any day on the roster a full service season, then guys like Wieters and AR will be called up like two weeks earlier.
That's the whole point. The manipulation will still take place; the date will just change. And it won't add more than a month or so to a guy's ML experience.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
WTF are you talking about?
He'll be a free agent a full year earlier.
That's a BFD.
No. He'll see two weeks more time in the MLs than otherwise. I repeat: BFD.
Take Rutschman. The old rules he gets up here April 17. The "new" rules he gets up here April 1. BFD.
Just seems an odd soapbox to preach from.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
It's going to decrease it. If you want your future star at all for a given season you might as well start the season with him. Do you think the 2021 Rays keep Franco down for all of 2021 or do they start the season with him? Do you think the 2022 Orioles can withstand the PR hit of leaving Adley in the minors for the whole season?
It will decrease by about two weeks. BFD.
-
22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
One day on the 26 man rosters counts as a year for service time.
So you call up Adley for opening day, on April 15th or June 20th you get six years.
Get rid of Super 2 while you are at it.
Now mind you that won't stop the O's from not promoting him in 2021 but it's more fair than what we have now.
That still doesn't prevent service time manipulation. It's just going to change when they do it.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'll take the under.
-
4
-
2
-
6 minutes ago, connja said:
I suspect there is a chance, and perhaps a good chance, that service time manipulation is addressed in the new CBA. I'm hopeful that the O's will have no reason to keep AR in the minors, and he will be our OD starter in 2022.
I keep hearing this.
How exactly do you "fix" service time manipulation?
-
I think the expectations cited in the OP are pretty reasonable ~750 ops.
However, I HOPE he could get his ops above 800, stay healthy and show good defense again.
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I'm the opposite. I see Rom as a guy that's going to at some point get called up to make a few starts and soak some innings but who doesn't have the raw "stuff" to have much of a ML career. I think Hall has a better chance to whiff entirely or get moved to the pen but if he does make it as a starter I think he can make a real career out of it.
Fair enough. I think I am higher on Rom than anyone else.
-
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Technically speaking I agree. I think Rom is more likely to make at least one start in the majors than Hall is.
You change the threshold to say 30 starts, and I think it's Hall.
I actually think the more you stretch out the minimum, the more likely it is Rom and not Hall that will reach them.
Now, that isn't to say I prefer Rom as a prospect, because you have to take the immense upside of Hall.
But I am quite bullish on Rom, and put an Eduardo Rodriguez comp on him, and I have a hard time seeing Hall consistently pitching 180 innings a year.
-
1 hour ago, Frobby said:
One interesting projection I didn’t list was Drew Rom at a 4.85 ERA. Lower than several pitchers expected to compete for a rotation spot this spring, and lower that DL Hall. Pretty aggressive projection for a guy who’s only thrown 40 innings in AA.
Here’s an interesting statistical comparison:
Rom in AA: 40 IP, 3.83 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, 10.6 K/9, 2.0 BB/9
Hall in AA: 31.2 IP, 3.13 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, 15.9 K/9, 4.5 BB/9
Rom career: 233.2 IP, 2.89 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 10.4 K/9, 2.5 BB/9
Hall career: 217.0 IP, 2.94 ERA, 2.24 WHIP, 11.8 K/9, 5.1 BB/9.
Hall is much tougher to hit (6.1 H/9 vs. 7.6 for Rom), and misses more bats, but Rom does pretty well in those categories and walks half as many batters. Perhaps Rom is a bit underrated, but that will probably remain the case unless he proves it in the majors, because his velocity is a tick below average.
If I had to bet, I think it is more likely Rom becomes a ML starter than Hall.
-
47 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I’m against any deal that doesn’t bring in an actual good player…especially since we do we have a player like Mateo who, while he probably isn’t good, does represent some kind of potential and upside.
We didn’t have that last year, so Galvis was ok then.
You've also consistently said for months now that in no way should Mateo be handed a starting spot.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Those 3 things do matter…but MD is the destination of those local kids. Recruiting is so different now, especially with the power of social media.
There are tons of attractive urban areas, so that really isn’t much of a factor overall. It may help vs some Midwest school in podunk but up against a lot of the power 5 teams, not as much.
Lots of schools have top notch facilities. I mean, look at their recruiting rankings.
They have had 1 top 10 Class in the last decade. They had more classes ranked outside the top 35 than inside the top 20.
Had you asked me 5+ years ago, I would have agreed it was a top 25 job. It’s just not the case anymore.
Well, agree to disagree.
-
I'm pretty sure these guys call the Summer Eve's Douche Bowl.
-
27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I read them..but a lot of them don’t matter and/or don’t provide the advantage it used to.
Being the number one destination by a long shot in an area with top 5 amateur talent still matters.
Being in an attractive major urban area still matters.
Having top notch facilities and fan base still matters.
Leaving the ACC hurt the programs standing. But there's a reason the school has had such sustained stretches of success in the past. Even under Turgeon the team was generally a top 25ish team.
If you get fired for being generally top 25ish, that's because people have higher expectations for the program. And they should. Because the school has all the advantages to be a top 20 team annually.
Now, that's not saying this hire will end up well for MD. They could conceivably get worse. But that won't be because of the program's potential.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Then you aren’t paying attention.
BTW, the players of today don’t care about the “storied history”.
You ask kids nowadays and some of them don’t even know who Jordan was or how amazing he was. If they don’t know MJ, they don’t know Bias, Lonnie Baxter and Juan Dixon.
That's a pretty broad brush to paint an entire generation.
I just laid out all the reasons that makes UMD such an attractive job. Seems like you're the one not paying attention.
Gary Williams had MD as a top 10 program for over a decade. It can surely be done again.
-
1
-
-
I reject the idea that MD isn't an easy top 20 gig in the country. Maybe a little luster is off because of leaving the ACC (worst decision ever), but you're talking about a large fanbase for college basketball; top-notch facilities; a long and storied history; a campus in a large and attractive urban market; and you're the home town team, and really only major player, in probably a top 5 area for amateur talent in the country.
There's no reason that MD shouldn't consistently be in the Sweet 16 and a coach/AD who can't produce those results should not be tolerated.
-
2 hours ago, Morgan423 said:
Even if you're a reliever commonly inheriting runners? Sure, a lower WHIP means you give up fewer hits and homers in the first place yourself, but if you commonly have guys on when you pitch that you weren't responsible for, it'll inflate your runs allowed per HR metric artificially.
I'm sure the correlation is not as direct in regards to relievers, as you and Frobby point out. However, the general trend will still hold true.
-
9 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Probably a loose one at least. It's also worth mentioning that relievers often come into games with runners already on base, so they are probably a little more prone to giving up multi-run homers, as a percentage of their home runs allowed.
Not perfect but direct.
Good point regarding relievers.
-
I'm sure there's a direct correlation between this and a pitcher's WHIP.
-
2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
When Elias took over were you expecting 110 loses in 2021?
I would have bet on 100.
-
5 minutes ago, Philip said:
I have consistently been opposed to long free agent signings. Even Manny, who is maybe young enough to have a fully productive 10 years, I wouldn’t of signed him. Instead, I would’ve traded him two years earlier.
So I definitely think the Rangers are stupid: they’re not going to have a good team, but they are going to have an expensive team. They spent $500 million on two guys in the lineup but they still have some glaring spots in the rotation.
Better them than us.
I'm not convinced they'll be good, even as soon as next year. They look like a .500 team to me, without much pitching.
Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Or am I missing the point of the proposed rule change?
If it's to get guys to FA sooner, then yeah, it will do that.
If it's to get guys to the MLs faster, then yeah, it really won't do that.