StottyByNature

I remember being so disappointed seeing Wieters' swing after seeing his numbers in the minors. He had such an odd way of delivering top spin to the ball. Obviously he was a good player but not close to what I'd hoped he'd be. Rutschman is the opposite. When I watch his at bats I am continually impressed with his batting eye and the good swings he takes. He's the real deal.

I'd be wary of going after DeGrom - he's going to cost a ton and he just doesn't have the track record of staying healthy. Let someone else overpay. I like the idea of Rodon at that price, though I might be more inclined to do something like 3/80 rather than 4/96. But we absolutely need to be aggressive in getting a TOR guy.

This is great to hear. I found the OH when I was in college and have been reading it for, my goodness, almost two decades. I moved away from Baltimore in 2010 and this place has become my reconnection with home. I so appreciate what you do, and if it helps, the first place I go to for O's information/discussion is the OH and not any of those credentialed publications. The depth of knowledge and quality of conversation here is second to none.

Not Can of Corns or Cans of Corn?

Thank you, Trey. It was so cool getting to watch you at my two biggest sports loves - Notre Dame and the O's. What a treat that was, made even more special because you made both places better. We will be pulling for you - thanks and Go Irish!

I have to say this is more of a return than I was expecting. I was thinking we might get a low-ceiling reliever and a lottery ticket. Obviously Johnson's value to the Rays was diminished because of the injury and roster crunch, but that doesn't make him a bad player. Given that we can wait a bit on him, this has a higher upside than I would have thought. Obviously Mancini will be missed, and his value a leader and clubhouse presence will be sorely missed, but baseball-wise we got a good return here.

I'd say Jeff Conine needs to be on there.

That's interesting, I was watching the game on the Yankees broadcast and they immediately knew it was an arm issue.

I'm more inclined to trade Hall for a known, controllable pitching commodity. While Hall's upside is obvious, he is also a risky proposition. With his injury history and struggles with command I'd strike while the iron is hot. Obviously I'd only deal him if it brings back a long-term pitching solution. (And there is the usual "it depends on what else needs to be sent with him.") In theory the Santander/Snell deal carries very little risk with a fair potential for reward. I just think he is far removed from being a good pitcher and I think we can get a bit more of a sure thing for Santander (plus a reliever/prospect).

I agree with this. No need to trade a guy just to trade him. Tate is definitely a sell-high guy right now even though I don't think he'd fetch much. Maybe he would just be a sweetener in a Mancini or Santander deal to push it over the top. I'm having a tough time understanding why it would take much to get Snell. He is a few years removed from having a good season and nowhere near where he was during his his Cy Young campaign. He gets a lot of K's still but does not go deep in games. His WHIP is 1.3+ for the second year in a row. I get why we'd be interested but I'd only do it if the player/prospect cost is low. Taking on his salary is enough of a risk.

It still upsets me that they used that money on Chris Davis. I was saying it at the time, but all long-term money should have been reserved for Machado, a once in a generation player. Having said that, I'm not sure he would have signed, and I'm not sure he would have lasted through a long rebuild. I'm glad Manny is having great success and wish him well.

Adam Jones is one of my all-time favorite Orioles. Good player who played hard and embraced being a leader. But what made him unique was his honesty and general sense of the bigger picture, as evidenced again in this article.

Do people really think Bryant is remotely possible? Seems to me like someone like K. Seager is much more reasonable. He would solidify the position for a year or two and you know what you're getting. I can't see someone like Bryant signing on with us.

Seems to me like Fry is the only guy I'd like to see traded, and we wouldn't be talking a big return. It would also be easy to argue that he could command approximately the same return at this time next year given how much team control we have. Mancini makes sense to move on paper, but my guess is that if we did trade him we would be highly disappointed in the return. He's a solid hitter who kind of has to play first base or DH. I just can't see teams thinking he is a needle-mover. There is no way a team would pay for Mullins' production this year, so if we honestly believe he is the player he has shown to be (I think he is) then it makes the most sense to let him have another year to establish premium value. Similar story with Means.

Absolutely, he got dealt a crappy hand and am just hoping he can pull through with a relatively normal quality of life.

While I understand being frustrated about Davis, I believe that frustration should be pointed at the front office. They were the ones who decided to hand out a 7 year deal to a guy entering his age 30 season (and a guy who had some red flags in his performance.). Would any of us have turned down that deal? I am sure he is professionally frustrated with his inability to deliver. I say just leave him in peace. I said at the time and it is even more clear now that any spending money at that time should have been reserved for Machado.

I agree. He is clearly the outlier so the truth probably trends closer to the pack. Of course, none of this really matters, it comes down to development and what happens on the field and in the GM office.

I'm no expert and I can't speak for him, but I think he would say our top-end talent is good but we do not match the depth and upside of other organizations because we haven't been in the international market. I know that trend is changing but we haven't been in on the "big fish" international prospects yet so that improvement in depth is probably a few years in the making still.

Logically, it is possible to have a top system without international prospects; talent is talent no matter where it comes from. However, I think his point is that since we have been solely relying on the draft for so long we simply are playing against a stacked deck as it relates to other teams. Thus, we have to have a higher hit rate on our prospects since we have no shot at high end talent internationally, which is a recipe for a lack of depth. I don't know if he's right for this year or not, but I believe he is saying that we are pulling from a shallower pool so our depth just isn't there, not that he is simply penalizing us for what he believes is an organizational failure and is slapping us on the wrist for it.

I agree. He was loyal to the team (to a fault) and I hope he gets a decent chance for a send-off. However, he was repeatedly nails-on-the-chalkboard for me with his blind homerism and longevity with a job doesn't insulate you from being let go if you're not connecting with your audience. I see this as the club really trying to show its new direction as we are hopefully on the upswing towards competitiveness. Hunter may be simply a casualty of being too associated with the down years and we want a fresh face to go with the rebuild. Can't fault them for that.

The commissioner isn't going rogue here. He would never do this without at least the tacit consent of the owners. He was hired for a reason.

I still think it was the right move. We were a really good team last year, when you have the chance to strike you go for it. Unfortunately we could not predict Machado's injury and Davis' suspension. We also ran into a ridiculously hot team. Miller was not just a reliever, he was a shut-down guy that is so valuable during the postseason. If you win a World Series that banner stays up forever. When the opportunity is there, you have to go for it. I think it is unwise to evaluate a trade like this in hindsight as it is much more about the amount of risk taken on versus the potential reward. In this case, the potential reward was so great that it was worth taking the risk.

I don't think this is a difficult question for me at all. I would rather be the one with the good season and let-down. Hell, I give up watching the O's generally around late August every year, because I just can't take it. The moment at the end was nice, but in reality I would way rather be in that game with something to lose rather than nothing to lose. Let-downs mean that at some point you were up. The O's are just a perpetual let-down for me.