Pickles

I googled it but couldn't find anything using that specific terminology, but I very clearly remember reading it described as a "spiral fracture" at the time of the second fracture.

Well, I gave reasons for it. It's been done. Including by this FO. It hasn't worked out yet. It's risky. It doesn't seem to do the club much in terms of saving money. I believe they have considered it, and have rejected it, because it doesn't make sense- which is exactly why nobody else does it either.

Yeah, I don't expect Mullins to hit .320 every year from here on out. But that isn't going to be largely a product of his BABIP. If he's hitting .280, he's still an all-star.

How could I be arguing with you when you refuse to take a position? LOL. Your point seems to be they should "consider" these extensions. Again, that is so nebulous as to mean nothing. How do you know they haven't?

Well you seem to acknowledge that the O's will do their due diligence at the least, and then you want to criticize them just in case they're not doing their doing the diligence? Seems odd. BTW, Hall has a stress fracture in his throwing elbow. Perhaps it's things like this that suppress contract extensions for MiL prospects?

So he'll be worth 4.5 wins going forward instead of 4.7?

What kind of extension do you think they should look to sign D.L. Hall for?

But, yes, this sucks.

For those remember Loewen, his injury was specifically a "spiral fracture," which is basically what it sounds like, and about the worst injury you can get. I have no idea about the severity of Hall's injury, but it is very possible he has a stress fracture, which is not nearly as bad as Loewen's.

He's a lefty hitter, with 95 percentile speed, and probably the best bunter in the game. How low you think that BABIP is going to go? He hasn't even reached arbitration. If we can't afford to keep guys like through ARB-1 let's just fold the franchise and all find better things to do with our time.

Eh. That's not very compelling. And again, if you want me to speak intelligently on what you're proposing, you have to actually propose something. Other than a generalization that we should look to sign guys to favorable contract extensions. It's the same logic as proposing that we should trade guys for more than their worth going forward. Well, nobody argues differently with such generalizations; it's just about how realistic they are.

Depends is a diaper for old people. Mullins has four years of team control remaining. He hasn't even reached arbitration. He's currently in the middle of a breakout season, which looks to be based on real improvement, and he's probably going to finish top 10 in the MVP race. Wake me up when that becomes the kind of guy you trade.

Several people have made the same comment. I see no justification for it. You don't trade Mancini just to do it. And he was the only one really that it makes sense to trade.

I find these kinds of generalizations to be useless to be quite honest. Give me some numbers and years and I can speak intelligently on what you're proposing.

Agreed. I would like us to stop losing 105 games annually before I start looking for the dawn though.

I'm saying there's not a lot of upside to save a ton of money. The risk outweighs the upside at this point.

How many MiLers have signed these kinds of deals? I can remember two. And neither worked out for the club. I get the idea behind it, but it doesn't happen for a reason: Clubs have likely determined that it is way too risky, without a lot of upside.

They're not going to sign anybody in the minors to any kind of extension, so that's a non-starter. The only people I see on the team worthy of an extension are Mullins- and I am in no hurry to give him one- Means- ditto- and Mancini- who I think is best traded. Even if you could extend Mancini on a team friendly deal- say 4/40- would you? I don't think I would.

Is there anybody worthy?

Well isn't that kind of the Op's point? We don't have a core or depth. Bringing up some top prospects- if they're even successful- might give us a core, but that won't make us a good team.

It isn't always appreciated. 47 wins. The best talent from that team all gone. With no major league assets left. In spite of that firesale, one of the worst farm systems in baseball. And an overpriced roster.

Well, it's meant to be rhetorical really. I've made similar analogies in the past, but they're imperfect at best. Figuring out the timeline for this rebuild isn't simply a matter of comparing it to what happened under Andy MacPhail.

Regarding Means' trade value: I don't accept that it is at its peak. There's definitely upside here. I wouldn't even consider a package that didn't start with two top 50 global prospects. Depending on the farm system that's probably 2 out of the top 3. And then the conversation continues with your international guys. Or no deal. It's actually a great position to be in, as there's no real need to negotiate much.

Brian Roberts, no?

I think another thing worth pointing out is that rebuilds almost never go in linear fashion. There seems to be a belief that we'll win 70 game and then 80 and then 90 and we'll be right in contention. That's doubtful. Go look at the Ray in 08 when they finally got good. Or the O's in 12. Or the Cubs and Astros. Those teams got good overnight. So even if you believe we'll be competitive in 2024, it's very possible that we won't be any good until then, and well under .500 in 23.