big_sparxx
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by big_sparxx
-
-
Much of this is presumptuous that Anthony Santander doesn't get traded... which is very unlikely.
With Holliday earmarked for 2b, and if AS is traded, the logical answer is to keep Cowser and move Westburg.
-
21 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
They may want that long term but they can use the disguise of rebuilding as a reason to rake in profits now because there is zero reason to suck for 4+ years on purpose.
And btw, there is plenty of evidence of ownership being cheap and valuing saving money.
Like the Chris Davis contract.
Once bitten...
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Here’s an even better question…why should we care about how long it took Houston?
Again, the component to rebuilding that people don’t seem to get is that ownership wants it. Why does ownership want it? Do you really think it’s to build a sustained winner? No, of course not. They want it to be cheap and pocket as much money as possible.
The Angelos family are lawyers. Big Pete made a lot of money off of asbestos. They didn’t buy this for some love the sport or the team. They bought it to make money. And the way this has played out has made them money.
This has never been about Elias, his plan or anything like that. It’s about ownership not caring about the product.
In your comparison, the Orioles could be sending out a rotation that includes Stroman AND ERod if they wanted. They could have a much better left side of the IF they wanted. They could have a better BP if they wanted.
But ownership doesn’t want that. And don’t worry, when this team starts winning, ownership will be out there saying, we hired the right guy, this was our plan all along, blah blah blah. It’s all bullish!t. It’s a lie.
If you actually want to compare the teams, which we have done recently, Houston is clearly a year ahead at the same point and when you factor in the divisions, they are more than a year ahead. But it’s not because we aren’t as smart as they were or that Elias isn’t doing his job. He is doing a good job but he’s doing it with one arm tied behind his back and that’s the problem.
You're making assumptions about ownership based on what? Is this the same ownership that paid $170m for Chris Davis?
I'm using the basic logic that's in front of us. Elias came from Houston and was hired not on his ability to not spend money, but to build a franchise. You might have hired Mike Bordick if you wanted a company guy.
I understand the frustration in your reply, but I have never viewed winning as a birthright, and whether or not there is any truth in the idea that the Angelos brothers are being cheap, you have not answered the questions I asked, and if you're struggling to see the future of the Orioles, I wonder how many Astros fans felt the exact same way after losing their 3rd straight 100+ loss season.
Good luck to you. I choose to accept the fate that we have been historically bad dating back pre-2012 where we had 15 seasons of below .500 ball every year, and before that there wasn't much to write home about either. Again... not sure what you expect.
I don't know what it takes to be a fan I guess. I live to be surprised by this organization, and can not be bothered about conspiracy theories and the like.
-
1
-
-
major league comparables question...
If we look at Houston as the model, considering that's where Elias immediate frame of reference comes from, and that they were, for all intents and purposes in the same boat (4 seasons of 90+ losses in a row, 3 seasons of 100+ losses 2011 - 2014), they didn't actually turn the corner until 2015 (wildcard) and then didn't win a championship until 2017.
The O's are VERY similar in that we have 3 straight 100+ loss seasons (with 2020 stuck in the middle)
While it is extremely difficult to compare minor league progressions, we might assume that for the most part, Houston might have at one point looked very familiar in most aspects of an organization.
So the question must be asked, why should we expect more? Why should we be any different? Add to that, we play in the Luxury tax hell of the AL East, why should we expect to be better, faster than the Astros?
I think Elias has begun the project he was hired to do. To think he would leave, or be fired at any point in the coming years is highly delusional. His benchmarks (Houston) are there for all to see.
-
If owners think they're losing money in March and April...
-
typos suck...
-
1
-
-
I see this as the only way forward. Bring the season down to 100 games maybe. Start the season in May.
-
1
-
-
So how much money should a last place team spend?
I'm not sure investing heavy at this point makes us contenders any time soon. The other question is, how does signing FAs stifle progress of up and coming talent.
I really need to see what this team is gonna look like fully loaded. We can debate their readiness until the cows come home, but we haven't committed to this process for this length of time to all of a sudden jam it up by signing players who are not part of the long term agenda.
-
not entirely sure why people are beefing here. You might have had a case for the top 2 Vandy guys Leiter and Rocker... but anything below that was gonna be a stretch. If you're playing the slot game... which seems to be the norm nowadays, why are you moaning over guys who are projects?
If you're looking for hope from mid round picks...
-
so let's get this straight then... it's cheating when you let the batter know what pitch is coming, and its cheating when the pitch is doctored....
why not just let it all go?
-
The reason for optimism is simple... this is the ONLY way we are working now. No big spending in the FA market, and the investment in developing as much lower level talent as possible. History has taught us one thing... that we're in it for the long haul, that there are no get rich quick schemes, and that while it'll probably take a lot longer than any of us imagined... we can live in hope while we are pontificating the vales of those that are in the system.
You really can't ask for any more than that.
-
As I said in a previous thread. I think traditional starters are doomed. As Fangraphs notes the average innings per start has been getting lower and lower over the past several years.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/starting-pitcher-workloads-have-been-significantly-reduced-in-2020/
The nature of the game I believe is based on pitch counts now. Sure it's great to have guys who can throw 100 pitches over 7 or 8 innings, but I think there aren't that many guys who can do that any more.
We're gonna move to 3 innings per pitcher and hopefully the effective guys won't get through the oppo lineup more than once.
-
Just imagine... if he hits 50 points higher he could be in the reckoning for "comeback player of the year"
That would mean he'd be hitting above the mendoza line at around .215
Something to shoot for.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 Words...
Trey Mancini.
Our season is a success the minute he takes the field.
-
6
-
8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Why hit to the opposite field when you can pull the ball over the fence? As a hitter I would much rather hit a dong than a single to the opposite field.
I remember reading one of the launch swing guys talking about this, maybe it was Donaldson. He said the old school idea hit was the line drive up the middle. Why do I want to do that? It's a single.
You know what else beats the shift? Hitting it over the wall. They can't shift into the seats.
and that idea has given us Chris Davis... sorry... but home runs are great... but if I can get disciplined guys who can drive a pitch, get on base more and hit the occasional home run... I'll go with that 9 times out of 10.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
I'm good with limiting teams to eight pitchers on the roster. But I understand that to do that you need to make a series of other changes including deadening the ball, making bats heavier, and perhaps making the parks bigger.
And I also anticipate some teams going to a system where everyone throws 2-3 innings every 2-3 days to continue to get the advantages of short outings.
It's hard to get around the fact that the optimal pitcher usage appears to be largely anonymous pitchers throwing a handful of innings a week as hard as possible.
The idea actually came from the non designated starter idea that has popped up in recent times. I'd rather have 5 or 6 guys who can pitch 3 innings than a guy who can only come in against left handed hitters.
-
36 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Since we have the best pitchers of all time now, I'm not sure how much room there is for immediate improvement.
I disagree... I think for the game to improve we need less specialist pitchers, more hitters who can hit to the opposite field (defeats the shift), and more chances to get guys chances to improve in all aspects of the game. The game is so.... meh nowadays.
-
9 minutes ago, Philip said:
I remember the 30 to 3 game, and at the time I was a Rangers fan and I remember feeling terrible for the Orioles, and being furious at Ron Washington for not clearing his bench. Afterwards he spewed some BS about how it’s important to play hard and other nonsense, but he should still be ashamed of himself. However, it is true that if the team is scoring 30 runs it’s up to us to stop them.
The reality is that a game where a team gets blown out really does 2 things:
1) Fans leave the park or if watching on TV change the channel.
2) By the 7th inning what are you achieving in a blowout?
In basketball or football (pro) tv stations will change to a more competitive game.
-
10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
But you have to do something about the ball and the ballparks if you even want to consider this.
Unless of course you think a much higher scoring environment is a "better game overall".
Why cant we have better pitchers overall? Shouldn't that be the goal?
-
7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
It's not that they can't deal with it, it's that essentially every pitcher ever pitches more effectively the shorter his outing. Without rules limiting the number of pitchers (or roster sizes) every team would use at least a different pitcher per inning.
This is the point. The more pitchers you have, the less hitters you have. You are more inclined to allow a struggling hitter to exist without having any real competition for the position. If you have a starter that can go 5 or 6, and can divvy up the rest between 2 guys, you have a better game overall.
-
17 minutes ago, Philip said:
Sign stealing IS allowed, Just without any artificial assistance.
Foulouts don’t increase base runners, and more activity on the base paths is what we want, so that that one is counterproductive. It’s better to allow the runner to take first after a certain number of fouls. Remember that fouling off a ball takes skill. Sometimes the foul results from a mis-aimed bat, Other times, the hitter recognizes that the ball is going to be in the strike zone and fouls it off to get another pitch. Given how hard it already is to hit, rewarding the hitter is a good way to increase base activity, and helps tilt the needle between pitching and hitting back towards a balance of power.
mercy rules are stupid, no offense.
I don't think guys should be rewarded for hitting foul balls. I remember Keith Hernandez saying one time that you only get one real good chance per ab. Not that I necessarily agree with that idea... but with variable strike zones, I'd like to see pitchers get an out and keep their PCs down.
Mercy rules are dumb... but getting down 5+ runs is also dumb..
-
15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
You are OK with a reliever going 80 pitches because the team can't bring in a replacement and he doesn't have it that night?
re-define relievers... We have, for far too long had to keep specialists, setup men, 7th inning guys... it's truly madness... and it all takes time away from the game. If you have pitchers who can't deal with 3 innings work...
-
A couple of suggestions.
1) Three pitchers a game (unless one gets injured during the game).
2) Mercy rule - a team up by 5 or more after 7... ballgame.
3) Allow sign stealing. (It happens anyway so why not just make it a part of the game?)
4) 5 foul balls = out (no matter if the fouls happen on strike 1 or strike 3).
-
A complete organizational rebuild... on a timetable?
Why are we asking this question exactly?
I apologize for asking this... but who are we to expect anything by any certain period of time?
I get it... we want a competitive organization, filled with up and coming studs that will set the mothership right for years to come.
Irony is that this vision was never important to any other GM... nor to the owner who abused his role. So now that there is a culture shift, we are expecting magic to happen as if it has always been the case? Apologies, but the concept of unrealistic expectations is stuff of Yankees/Red Sox lore. 1983 was our last championship. Lest we forget, aside from the Rays, every other team in the division has won at least 1 world title since
We can sit back and reminisce of the past decade (how many WS appearances did we have?) and the questions still exist...
1) Where was the foundation of top minor league talent breaking down the walls to get into the ML team?
2) Why do we expect Elias to be more than what the owners will let him be?
3) Why can't we just be pleased to have a GM that is doing what he can to rebuild an organization after years (YEARS) of neglect?
Sorry folks. We have a GM and a structure in place to do something different. I don't know squat about the nature of what he's had to do here. I'm not sure many... even the die-hards do, but to assert an idea that you need to see results in 2,3,4,5 or 10 years is your problem... not his.
I wonder if other teams have this conversation about their GMs.
-
3
-
Hays Interested in Extension
in Orioles Talk
Posted
does arbitration make it less likely that the player will extend?
I see most think it's a foregone conclusion. I'm not so sure. We better hope that these young guns live up to the hype. Hays would be the kind of player to come back to haunt us in the future.