Pickles
-
Posts
5798 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
If that makes you feel better about being completely wrong about what I’m saying, be my guest.
Well, then what are you saying, man?
Cause it sounds to me like you're saying they should have "spent money" and/or traded "depth" (presumably prospects and/or young MLers cause we don't have anything else) for immediate middling upgrades on a bad team in a rebuilding year.
Even using your example of Adames. Even if the Rays would just gift us Adames, we'd still stink. It wouldn't change the needle in any appreciable way- in terms of actually competing.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Cool
I'll take that as a concession. I know that's not easy for you.
-
4 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:
A team trading a veteran FA who can contribute is going to want prospects/young talent. It makes no sense for a rebuilding team to make a trade like that. Instead we would be the ones unloading veteran talent for prospects. We may very well do that this offseason with Mancini.
I agree. I'm not talking about now.
In 2-3 years, when the time comes, they won't be rebuilding anymore.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Lol..ok, if you don’t actually want to look at you things logically and make excuses for them, in just going to bow out and say we can agree to disagree.
What logic am I missing?
Spending money in a rebuilding year to improve your baseline ability from 63 wins to 66 wins, is not logical. You know that- or at least you did in 2006.
Likewise, trading talent in a rebuilding year ti improve your baseline ability from 63 wins to 66 wins, is not logical. You know that- or at least you did in 2006.
How much "ink" was wasted on this website alone during that 14 year Roman wilderness of losing about the futility of spending money and talent on middling upgrades to the short term improvement of a bad team?
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I don’t think promoting Adley is anything remotely close to what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about bringing in outside talent. I’m talking about using your money to bring in talent. I’m talking about using some of our depth to bring in talent.
I mentioned Wily Adames in the offseason. He was just traded for a few relievers. He was an obvious trade target.
There are guys like that out there. Use your advantages and get better in areas that you need a lot of help.
You don’t need to sacrifice the long term view of the team to accomplish this.
I’ll say the same thing I said months ago...we should not be watching AAAA type guys at this point. Every player out there should be MLB quality talent.
On top of that, this team needs to stop jerking these young kids around. They can’t get any rhythm. They can’t get any momentum. It’s just poor management of assets that you claim you are going to rely on long term.
Elias has proven that he can build a MiL system. He has not proven that he can translate that for the ML team.
I like Hyde a lot but Tony is right, players aren’t getting better with this coaching staff.
They're not going to spend money now. That's perfectly reasonable. And I'm sure at some point in 2006, when they signed a bunch of generic relievers to improve a 64 win team, you wrote a 3,000 word post- rightfully- nailing them about it. (I'm not saying that actually happened. But I bet it did.)
What needle does Wily Adames move for this team? Is he going to make them "good?" No, they're still a bad team, and thus, will look like crap for weeks on end.
I don't see them jerking young kids around. In fact, I see a lot of people criticizing them for being slow in their promotion of prospects.
Guys aren't getting better?
Mullins and Means would like a word with you.
-
Yes.
I don't believe they are the worst team in the MLs but they're in the conversation.
They have faced and will continue to face an extremely challenging schedule.
I think the outlier is the #5 pick this year.
-
16 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:
I have to disagree with this, at least a little. It's true that Elias took over a woeful team and a very bad situation. But if the Orioles had spent a little more money on acquiring talent, they would not be as bad as they are. If the team were managed with more emphasis on trying to win games, they probably would win a few more. If they had a manager and coaching staff who were effectively teaching these guys the right way to play, the team wouldn't be as painful to watch.
A word on payroll. As listed by Spotrac, the teams with the lowest player payrolls are Miami ($59 mm), Baltimore ($57 mm), Pittsburgh ($57 mm) and Cleveland ($50 million). Only the Pirates and Orioles are paying substantial amounts to completely useless players (not counting those who might be contributing except that they are injured). The Pirates are paying the suspended Felipe Vasquez $7.75 million. The Orioles are paying Chris Davis $21 million and Alex Cobb $7 million. If you adjust for those useless salaries, the Orioles' payroll is $29 million, just under 60 percent of the next two lowest player payrolls. To me, as a fan, it's indefensible for the Orioles to spend so much less than every major league team on potentially productive talent. If that's what the team's decision-makers think they can afford, they should get the hell out of MLB -- as I think they will.
Bottom line: I would like to have seen this team acquire a little more talent, especially infield defenders who play defense the right way. I would like to see more effort to milk some more wins out of the meager talent that's there -- like having hitters regularly go up to the plate with a plan about what they'll do there -- and I would like to see some effort to improve the hustle, determination and will to win. Maybe that's happening, and I just don't see it. What I do see is a team that often plays dumb baseball and looks disappointed, but not overly concerned, about getting outplayed and outclassed game after game (when John Means isn't pitching).
My response to you is similar to my response to SportsGuy:
What specific moves should have been made?
I think this team plays pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions.
Our infield is undoubtedly a weakness- organizationally. How could they have improved it without trading talent, or spending money? Neither of which this team is in a position to do.
These guys aren't turning it on and off depending on if Means is pitching or not. It looks like that because the question is one of ability not effort.
Rest assured, this is a bad team. But there will be a few weeks at some point later this season when we'll be on here saying, "These guys don't look too bad."
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Without question, they could have fielded a more competitive team while still being focused on the long term.
Its complete bs to act like they still have to field a crap team.
Rebuilding/tanking was needed for a season or 2...going beyond that is just an excuse for ownership to “steal money”.
Be specific.
That's all I hear. They could be better if they tried a little harder.
What moves, that are not just pure hindsight, could have been made in the last 14 months, which would improve this team in the here and now, and not cost them in the long term?
I think Rutschman is a perfect example. Yes, if we called him up now it would improve this team. It would cost us a year of his prime theoretically. I'm perfectly fine with that decision.
I think a lot of people have a misguided and linear view of a rebuild. And I think a lot of people got overly encouraged by a SSS improvement last year.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Robh21223 said:
I would think you would bring in a few stud veterans to mix with a good young nucleus. I don't think you can go all young and win. You need a few veterans.
They don't have to be FAs.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, accinfo said:
Would they be better with Adley right now? Yes defensively but he isn't setting the world on fire with the bat yet. If he is hitting 340 and is pushing himself for a promotion then you can make that argument. It makes no sense for him to be called up and have his major league clock start on a team he isn't going to help even if he was knocking the cover off the ball in the minors. I get tired of watching them be non competitive but what did everyone expect this year? What minor league player has performed that well that they are screaming to come up to the majors? When Mountcastle started hitting well they brought him up. I will be happy if Mountcastle and Hayes have good seasons. I know it has been mixed so far but there is a lot of games yet to play. I am hoping for Baumann to show something this year in the majors and maybe DL Hall late in the season. That I would consider a success.
I agree with most of this.
I'm not advocating calling up Adley for the reasons you listed.
But I do believe he would improve this team tangibly.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
They don't have to be this bad. It was a choice to completely forgo attempting to be competitive this season.
What would you have them do to improve that wouldn't take opportunity from future seasons?
You're not wrong, but it isn't a particularly strong argument.
Yeah, they could bring up Adley tomorrow, and improve the team. Is it worth it?
They could trade prospects for improvement in the infield. Is it worth it?
-
1
-
-
Who was the big FA signing that led to the competitive window of 2012-2016?
How would those teams have fared had they successfully signed in 2009 Tex?
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Some truth to this..some bs as well.
Well, explain.
-
6 hours ago, Three Run Homer said:
Are you saying that just because he's hitting opposite field home runs?
Facetiously, yes.
-
Teams that lose 95 games often go through week long stretches where they look atrocious. It is indeed painful, but entirely expected.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
And the fan base continues to buy into the idea that you need 5 years to rebuild. It’s all bs but yet people do it anyway.
It has been thrown around here ad infinitum here, but it's worth noting that the O's aren't bad in 2021 because of decisions made in 2021. They are bad because of decisions in 2017. Unless Elias was in possession of a time machine when he got here, this was always going to be a long, painful process.
-
2
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Frobby said:
6 innings allowing one baserunner, a solo homer. 8 k’s, 44 of 64 pitches were strikes.
I find myself tempted to get excited about this kid.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Aglets said:
.231 / .412 / .442 through 68 PA so far. Fantastic BB to K ratio of 14 to 18. Things seem to be tentatively pointing up. Hopefully between 100 to 150 PA we are ready to agree he belongs in AAA.
The only thing you could ask if for a higher average. He's looking like advertised.
-
Slow bat.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, maybenxtyr said:
The most disappointing part so far is not seeing any building blocks for the switch flipping days.
This is really inaccurate.
Means alone should have us doing backflips.
-
12 hours ago, InsideCoroner said:
Isn’t Pujols easy? I would believe the Angels are forced to pay his (ridiculous) guaranteed salary, and so the Dodgers get him for next to nothing, hoping he still has something to prove. Or do I have that wrong?
He could be an okay acquisition if you want to sell tickets to a guaranteed HOFer in his final year or so. But that’s about it. He already has a World Series ring, and he was an incredible player in his prime, but I don’t know what more he has to prove unless someone plays against the Angels in the postseason.
Cutting Pujols doesn't cost money at this point for the Dodgers. But if they do it at some point, it won't be "quiet." It will draw press attention, and possibly some negative attention as it did for the Angels.
-
So Means looked fine to me. Obviously not his best performance, but for those concerned with his health, I think tonight should have alleviated their concerns.
-
18 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
I know you were being facetious in regards to playoff chances. But as you said, addition by subtraction. This team sucks but I've enjoyed watching more this year so far knowing that Davis isn't batting .125 or whatever and still getting at bats. Mancini/Mountcastle need to be the rotation at 1B/DH.
The Pujols signing is a head scratcher, but I read an article that highlighted that he can still hit lefties at a decent clip and there are some advanced stats that show he was getting a bit unlucky so far this year. I'd go with Pujols > Cabrera >>>> Davis if I had to pick my poison between the three of them.
I don't want to see CD ever again. I'd literally rather give Ryan Ripken 200 abs than give CD 2.
As far as Pujols and Cabrera, before this year they had faded remarkably similarly. Pujols keeping more power; Cabrera keeping more hit tool. Both of them were averagish hitters, and, as you might expect, poor runners and defenders. They were only disasters in context of their contracts. Davis was just a disaster.
If I was looking for a guy to give me 50 abs as a pinch hitter vs lhp, I could do worse than Pujols. My reluctance in signing him would simply be it won't be easy to cut him.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
Nah, last year I just resigned myself to the idea that he's going to play out this contract.
But seriously, the Dodgers...the World Champion Dodgers...signed Pujols, arguably one of the two other players (Cabrera) that could give Davis a run for his money as the worst contract in baseball.
I was just being facetious. We don't have playoff chances, and obviously nothing fulfills the adage of "addition by subtraction" like "losing" Chris Davis at this point.
I agree with the idea that he'll be back out there next Spring. Whether they'll be willing to cut him or not, I'm not sure, but at that point, I don't see why they wouldn't. In the fullness of time.....
The Pujols signing puzzles me. I think there are considerations which extend beyond baseball in that case.
Good Golly this team is painful to watch right now...
in Orioles Talk
Posted
I mean you can have goals in this life. That's great. But have goals in one hand, and sh-- in the other, and tell me which fills up first.
The idea that they should be .500 this year, while simultaneously building for the future, seems rooted in delusion.
Trading "depth" now, when you don't know who is going to pan out, is reckless.
If you want to argue they should spend 10 more mil this year to bring in upgrades to 2b and 3b, like.... ok. Sure. Again, maybe we'd win 66 games and get your nips all hard, but I don't see that as some kind of strong condemnation because I don't care if they win 66 games this year or 62.
You know all these things.
Your last paragraph shows us the motive here: Anger. It also reveals your total detachment from reality and rational analysis. To suggest that teams haven't lost outrageous amounts of money the last two years is....... detached from reality. There's no other word for it.
You're angry that the team is playing poorly. I get that. You don't like the ownership. I more than get that. And yeah, they're not operating optimally. But don't tell me it's logical. Because it's anything but that.