Pickles
-
Posts
5804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Which tells me you either don’t understand or don’t care about many of the statcast stats, advanced stats, etc…because all of them say he’s going to be worse next year.
I’m interested in upgrading the talent of the rotation. I’m not interested in guys who don’t miss bats, don’t get Ks, etc….Im interested in guys who could be playoff difference makers and guys like Kremer are not that.
You still have 162 game season. This micro focus on the playoffs, and again, false narrative, that we lost because we didn't "upgrade the rotation" is silly and fool's gold.
-
6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I still say the WS will want ML help back and by that I mean established ML help.
Kremer or Mountcastle make sense to me.
I know the fan perspective is that you only want prospects. That would be mine. But the team definitely could want some kind of a representative product and then in a year or 2, they may be able to trade that guy for something too.
And btw, when I say this I mean in an expanded deal where we get multiple guys back. If it’s just Cease, im not sure they want that.
Your eagerness to trade Kremer while insisting we "upgrade the rotation" and improve the margins is really inexplicable.
If we lose Kremer and Gibson this offseason, and gain Cease, it's very possible the starting rotation is worse next year.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
The Orioles have done nothing but draft college OFers for several years.
We can trade OFers, just as we have to trade IFers too.
Your outlook on all of this is very wacky to me. You should belief in the talent in this org and the belief that Elias can find replacements through drafting and developing.
Considering the slurping you routinely do about Elias, you seem to be talking out of not sides of your mouth here.
We could trade Cowser and Ortiz and within a year not even know they were gone because the impact is likely minimal because of what we can replace them with.
And that’s not a slight on them but they aren’t elite prospects (only so many of those imo) and we just have guys that can come behind them and play.
You know the slurping talk you should really lose from your vocabulary. It's nice to say such things on the internet but in the real world such statements are highly frowned upon.
I've conceded I'm willing to give pieces like this up. I'm just not sure if Dylan Cease would be my target.
-
1 minute ago, RZNJ said:
I don’t think it’s the outfield depth as much as the specific players. If I said, Cowser, Fabian, and Povich it’s still two outfielders but I bet a lot more people would prefer that over including Bradfield, who btw, hasn’t done anything yet.
Well, I value Bradfield over Fabian. That's the consensus is it not?
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
If I’m trading 4-5 guys to them, Kopech needs to be coming back.
That trades more reasonable to me but I don't like giving up that much outfield depth so it's still a no. Replace Bradfield and Norby and now it's getting more interesting.
-
Just now, RZNJ said:
Their point was that we act as though all of our prospects are going to work out which is what you’re doing. Sure, it’s going to sting if Cease is 2023 Cease for two years and both Cowser and Ortiz become above average regulars. Of course, it won’t sting if Cease is somewhere between 2022 Cease and 2023 Cease and neither Ortiz or Cowser hit ML pitching very well. I’m nervous to give prospects up too.
No, I willing to say they're not. I pointed it out myself. Not my problem. Pick one and live with the consequences. That's my stance as a trade partner.
-
From the Sox board:
Anyway, from the Orioles, how unreasonable am I being here?
Kjerstad, Bradfield (should have been the Sox pick once Teel was off the board), Povich and Juan Nunez for Cease and any random throw in like Jimmy Lambert.
-
1 minute ago, waroriole said:
I’m not interested in moving anyone in our 4-6 for Cease. I’d move 3 in that 8-15 range. Probably not enough, which is fine because I don’t value Cease very highly, but I’d trade Stowers, Horvath, Povich for Cease.
Unfortunately for Stowers, and us, nobody gives a hoot about him. It's easy to squint and see Stowers in the bigs in 3-4 years with a role on a competitve team, but he's nothing more than a throw in at this point in a trade.
I'd say they can pick amongst Ortiz/Cowser/Kjerstad and have a 10-15 prospect as well.
But again, only if I was motivated to get Cease, and I'm not sure that I am.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
If you think that any realistic trade shortens our competitive window, you must not have much faith in Elias or the players that would be left.
TBH, in such a scenario, it would feasible that we wound with nothing but two years of Dylan Cease (and who knows how that goes) for two top 5 picks.
That would sting.
-
1
-
-
To me I'd let them have their pick from 4-6 and like 10-14 on our farm. Two guys in that range and nothing more.
That's if I was motivated to get Cease. I'd have to do more of a deep dive to say.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I agree that some are overvaluing the prospects..just as some of them are overvaluing Cease.
They think that because it’s what happened to their team but their team was run by incompetent people who didn’t have a clue as to what they are doing.
Well, I think making a trade like Cowser, Ortiz, and Povich for Cease would shorten our competitive window.
Here's something that's undeniable when looking at it from their point of view: Not all these prospects are going to pan out so they want to get multiple guys to cover themselves.
But that's not something the O's should concede. If you want multiple guys, you need to get out of our top six.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Let me guess..they think Cease is great and we should be trading big packages for him?
They think we overvalue our prospects.
The only hard offer I saw was on the first page and it was "Cowser, Ortiz, Povich." While maybe not indefensible, I would not make that trade.
There seems to be a narrative there, that exists here to an extent as well, that we "got spanked in the playoffs because we didn't upgrade our rotation."
I categorically deny that. While I'd like to upgrade the rotation, we didn't get swept by the Rangers because we didn't have a Cease type on the roster.
If Rodriguez gets blown up again next year in the playoffs we ain't winning that series no matter who is pitching around Rodriguez.
They seem to think our window to compete will be shorter than we assume, and should be more motivated to be more "all in."
-
It has a lot more to do with the other guys than Holiday himself.
A rash of injuries would be his best chance and of course he has no control over that.
-
20 minutes ago, forphase1 said:
Why though? None of them are so elite that they couldn't/shouldn't/won't be replaced. That's not to say none of them won't still be around in 2025, but just that I wouldn't plan on it. Cedric is fairly obviously never going to get close to his magical year again, and while awesome in the field only had a .721 OPS last year, below league average. Hays was terrible at the plate the 2nd half of the year (.667 OPS), though of course he was great in the first half. And Santander, while posting the best OPS of the 3, also isn't someone elite to build around. I'm not saying all three are terrible and MUCH be replaced, but I'm not sure than any of the 3 are so good they can't be replaced in two years by a younger version.
I was responding under the mistaken impression the OP was talking about 2024.
I think it is possible that all three of those guys are replaced by 2025, but I'd bet one of them is still here in 2025.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Going Underground said:
The financing for public money was capped at $500 million. The Rangers got private financing for $600 million.
Don't believe everything a politician promises. There were numerous loopholes exploited to benefit the Rangers to far more than 500 million.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Well sure but i disagree about the marginal difference. If you attract even just 300 people more per game, that’s a lot of money extrapolated out over a full season…and you didn’t spend any of your own money to do it.
It’s all free money and it all counts.
I mean 300 a game at $75 a head comes out to about 1.8 million. So not nothing. And the things I'd do if you 1.8 million out in front of me are probably more shameful than I'd like to admit to myself.
But for a MLB franchise 1.8 million annually is a rounding error; it's the definition of marginal.
But yeah, it is free money, and frankly, they don't deserve it.
-
12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
They absolutely could put things in the park to help push attract people. It won’t be the same impact as a new stadium but if they do it correctly, it will help and, any revenue they get off of it is basically found money for them.
Sure they could do stuff, but it won't make more than a marginal difference.
Consistently winning is what's going to put people in the seats.
-
10 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I want to be clear. I believe the Orioles could afford to spend much more than they’re spending, based on the annual estimates Forbes puts out, as well as their own past spending history. The team is going to get more expensive regardless of FA acquisitions the next couple of years, but not to the extent that the O’s couldn’t afford some outside acquisitions.
I just choose not to agonize over how much money they spend. We’ll see what they do.
I get that and wasn't trying to suggest differently or put words in your mouth.
-
1 minute ago, Ripken said:
In two years, I very much don't expect Hays and Santander to be in Baltimore. I suppose Mullins could be. Sure looks like a team that's going to move on from expensive veterans who aren't major contributors.
I didn't notice the 2025 specification. I thought they were referring to 2024. Well, that certainly changes things.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, interloper said:
The sound system is absolutely abysmal. Has to be one of the worst of all the stadiums.
I think this is less about ticket sales and more about the Orioles needing to keep up the reputation of the park, because it's slipping a bit. It's still beautiful but it's a noticeably poor audio/visual experience. That's before we talk about the food/concessions, which were - by far - the worst I can ever remember in my years going to the park.
The skeleton of the stadium still can't be beat.
But they are clearly pinching pennies in the maintenance and operation of the stadium.
Giant flat screen TVs are dirt cheap. Literally every stadium I've been in for the last decade plus, has had their concourses and even bathrooms plastered with screens. It was very noticeable that there was nothing in the concourse of Camden.
It was literally like stepping back into the 90s.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Os are getting ready to have that type of money handed to them too.
As geschinger points out below, it won't drive an increase in attendance the way a new stadium does. I mean, does anybody really think people are going to show up to see the new scoreboard?
I went to the opening playoff game this year; it was the first time I'd been in Camden yards in 20 years.
It's noticeably dingier and...... just sparse... than any other park I've been into recently.
For God's sake, they don't even have televisions set up in the concourses.
-
Just now, geschinger said:
No doubt, their gate receipts for the years prior to opening the new stadium hovered in the 75m range and they were 115m in 2022.
As one of those taxpayers, I'm not thrilled about it. Particularly because everybody hates the new stadium and much preferred the now vacant old one.
-
10 minutes ago, Ripken said:
@Tony-OH What's your best all-in-system lineup for OD 2025?
1 - Holliday - 2B
2 - Rutschman - C
3 - Henderson - SS
4 - Mayo - 3B
5 - Basallo - DH
6 - Kjerstad- LF
7 - Westburg - 1B
8 - Cowser - RF
9 - Bradfield - CF
(Ortiz, Norby, Beavers, Horvath)
P - Rodriguez
Weird that anyone would think our best lineup could possibly not have a single one of our regular major league outfielders in it.
-
Just now, geschinger said:
Gothca. I will be interested to see what the Rangers revenue increase ends up being. They increased payroll by ~60m and increased attendance by 500k. Is that a net gain or net loss for the bottom line and their ability to raiser payroll further to retain some of their young talent.
They also just had a billion dollar stadium built for them by taxpayers. That was what funded their lavish spending.
Cease vs everyone else
in Orioles Talk
Posted
He's thought provoking enough, but extremely myopic.