Sanfran327

It's a bad look if they don't.

That's the hope.

Sorry, I gotta disagree. He was bad. But he bounced back and he was never nearly this bad.

I'll give you that. But what else do we need to see from Chris Davis at this point? Is there any reasonable chance that he revives his career? I'd say 98% no.

Good grief. Thank you.

This has nothing to do with spending money. The money is already spent and gone (in a certain sense). We're not talking about asking for additional resources. We're talking about opening up a dead, wasted roster spot. Yes, there will be a cost to adding a player to fill his spot, but in all likelihood, it will be a league-minimum rookie player.

I guess if you want to isolate my post to that part of that sentence, you can leap to that conclusion. But if you read the whole thing, or anything else I've said in this thread, it's pretty clear that that's not at all what I think. I'll bite though, and say that if Elias himself wants to keep Davis on the roster beyond the end of the 2019 season, that absolutely makes me question his judgement. I have the luxury of being an armchair GM though, and not a real one.

Disagree with the first part, but agree 100% with the second. I like Elias a lot. Huge fan of him and everything he's said and done so far. My only point is that if Davis is on the roster to start Spring Training in 2020, it's a sign that he does not have full control, which is a big problem, and further, a huge warning sign that he will not be able to implement his plan exactly the way he wants to (or potentially needs to) to achieve the level of success we all hope for. Davis is making a ton of money, but he shouldn't be on the roster anymore. Simple economics tells you to just walk away and swallow the sunk cost. Big pill to swallow, I know. But it needs to happen.

His presence on the roster is not what separates us from being screwed or not. It's a sign that our GM either doesn't have full control of baseball operations, or that he's showing that he's just not a smart GM. I would really hate to start thinking the latter so quickly, because I have extremely high hopes for him and the future of our team. But moving forward should not include Chris Davis any longer.

I'm not here to trash the guy, either. If anything, I'm sad for him. But enough is enough, and it's time to part ways with him.

The poll is intentionally binary. Knee-jerk response yes or no based on your gut feeling. I'm inclined to say yes, because we're really pretty screwed if not.

You're much closer to it than I am, but multiple blowups in the dugout suggest a bigger problem than just "losing will get to ya." Bad manager hires happen all the time. Like I said before, one-and-done situations are counter productive in most ways. In others, trying to make a bad situation work longer than it has to is an even bigger drag on progress. I'm not saying that Hyde should be gone after this season, merely that he could be, and that I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't advocate for or against him at this point. You're right though. Pinning any of the losses like last night on Hyde is not right, and misplaced blame on my part. He's got to figure out how to finish 162 games with the players he's got one way or another, and he can't make them execute. Having said that, I do think it's a little crazy to keep putting the same players into the same situations where they've failed over and over again and expecting a new result.

Nobody as far as I know. Just my thought/hope. Forgot to cite my source and post my bibliography. After this particular disaster of a year though, with the dugout blow-ups and the constant gut-wrenching blown leads, bad team or not, I don't think anyone can really ignore what's happened under Hyde's watch. It's not just bad play because of bad players, it's dysfunction. That's much worse.

I have this crazy scenario in my head where the Cubs fire Maddon because they miss the playoffs or lose the WC game and we hire him to replace Hyde. I know that one-and-done managers are counter-productive, but I've said all year that Hyde was not going to manage a contending O's team. Turns out, he may not even manage next year's terrible team, either.

Didn't think so. Question for the group, I guess.

Good job, hall monitor. Curious though. Why turn off the language filter if it's not allowed?

All I saw last night was a guy that was effectively wild. The Nats could never really zero in on him because one pitch could paint the outside corner, the next could be a 52' fastball, and the next could be in your earhole. He had a good bottom line though.

Probably stating the obvious, but the offers are probably just too low. Givens is the worst he's been as a pro, so it makes sense for us to wait a year to let him rebuild value rather than sell low. As for Villar, they have to have 25 MLB-ish players on the roster to play games. Without anyone that can handle full-time duties ready to backfill him, maybe they're deciding to hold on to him in leiu of a poor return.

Agree. I'd like to keep Villar and Mancini until next year at least. I think both of them can continue to build value, and they represent 40% of the watchable players on this team.

This is the first time he's been a full-time player in his career. Hopefully it was a matter of the league adjusting to him, then him adjusting to that (and figuring it out).

I think Means is a mid-to-back-end rotation guy on a contender and Mancini is a bottom-half hitter. Personal opinion. That's it as far as O's on contenders go.

I like Trey. He's one of 5 guys or so that I actually enjoy watching (Villar, Smith Jr., Stewart, and Means). But it's hard to be excited about any of them. I'm still of the opinion that we're a full 25 roster away from contention. Maybe Means is the exception if he is the real deal.

It's a miracle.

Would that make Mancini our load-bearing poster?

Everybody does. But there are 160 million reasons why A will be the choice for a while.