Can_of_corn

I would have thought the Dodgers and Braves would have known how to win in the postseason.

Who would you put in Center?

Yes, I oversimplified things. It's just I get frustrated with the hording mentality I see here. There just always seems to be a reason to turn down any possible deal that contains an O's prospect that might possibly turn into something at some point. Wasn't targeting you in particularity with the comment. For the record going by what I've seen I don't want Cowser in Centerfield for 150 games either.

Right, so everything is an overpay.

I think Bradish is in line for a pre-arbitration bonus if he finishes top 5 in Cy Young voting. It's 1.5M if he finishes third if I'm reading this correctly.

Yep. I read somewhere, years ago, that at this point in their careers players would be better off just hiring a good lawyer and paying them hourly to go over the contracts.

A big part of that is the number of postseason at bats he's had. I'm not saying he's hasn't been great but he's played over a hundred postseason games. I felt the same way when folks would mention that great defensive play Jeter had in the postseason, he played a season's worth of playoff baseball, I'd hope he'd have a couple impressive plays on defense.

See the problem? You can't have it both ways. You can't say any team can get hot and then say you could be sure that the O's couldn't be that team.

From what I understand of the current situation it would be the O's situation but the new GM can't get rid of Buck and Brady.

Didn't Mussina extend once?

Markakis.

So players should go form their own rival league in a foreign nation? You think that's a viable option?

I'm not going to bother touching most of this but this one line I'm going to address because it's such a phenomenally bad take. The US Supreme Court allows Major League Baseball to exist as a monopoly. Players have no opportunity to "start their own business" in their chosen field.

But the player isn't in an even position with ownership. They are forced to ply their trade for a certain team at a certain rate. They can be cut during Spring Training and not get full compensation. If you want to add a clause to a contract with a free agent that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Where did I say it wouldn't be prudent for the owner? The assertion was that a clause like that would be fair to both sides, I disagree and feel it would be advantageous to ownership.

A deal with that proviso is less advantageous to the player than a deal without it. That clause is solely about mitigating risk for the team.

Sure they are. Signing marginal guys to one year deals and hoping they work out is also risky. Teams have to accept some level of risk.

No team has a very good chance at winning a World Series in a given year.

I don't see how that type of clause is fair for the player. Sounds like it is only an advantage to the team.

To paraphrase Brady, Why wouldn't he cheat all the time? If he has some magic way to cheat..on the road..that lets him hit HR at will why not just hit 50 every regular season. Stuff like this is why I don't mind if they win again, I love watching how salty people get.

Or the Astros.

I don't think he watches.

Maybe could add the Tanner Scott trade on that. And of course the Flaherty trade.

As is the case a lot of the time I'm both joking and not joking. The only reason the O's could get Cruz on that one year deal was because of his PED suspension cratering his market.