tntoriole

Basically the same lineup that finished last year, except minus Villar and Bundy without replacing them. Yeah, that will work.

Or mine...lol. Or Trey’s mom. Or Trey’s.

Merry Christmas to everyone! Have a lovely holiday!

I am not convinced that signing either of these guys to a long term deal given the many unknowns as to their value makes any sense at all.

Well, we still have to watch him ...unlike if he was in Texas.

Trey Mancini deficiencies.

Good list. I generally agree, but I think Baumann is earlier.

Rendon signs 7 years 245 million with Angels....this will be one bad investment I predict. And no, I am not upset in the least that we are not playing in that end of the pool. It is usually where stupid goes to die anyway. Build up the base, get the young and the hungry and then go forth to do battle!

Or get this really small guy from Venezuela whose father was a shortstop....

If they draft a young ambidextrous guy out of Arkansas to play third base, then develop a righthander who has a fastball and a huge leg kick, have some big guy who eats a lot of BBQ take over at 1b, and a guy who wants to be a manager play second, and develop this guy who looks like Lurch to catch, then trade Milt Pappas for.....

I think that him being in Colorado is where the 120 homers over 3 years comment was speculated. I think he will hit 35-40 wherever but I think he will reduce Ks, increase walks, increase doubles, and increase OPS significantly.. But mine is a minority opinion on this board.

Perhaps. But I don’t know that the Dodgers or Angels are going to follow the Yankees much farther up that ladder.

Trey does not concur with your assessment.

What you say is true, but the other side is that our current options are so horrible, that it makes the likelihood of improvement by signing anyone higher than it would otherwise be. So, yeah, do I think they can possibly find somebody marginally better than David Hess? Probably.

I would have signed that so fast it would make your head spin.

Hard to get a fair return when the common wisdom out there has for years convinced most all the decision makers that Trey is "limited", "not good" "liability" "dime a dozen" etc..lol. That is really why I think he will end up staying...that Elias and Hyde believe like I do...i.e. that he is actually more valuable than the analyses would suggest but that the market right at the moment is not going to move off the common wisdom as it has labelled Trey. When Trey is tearing it up at an MVP type level in the summer of 2020, then maybe a top contender's first baseman breaks a leg.....that is the only scenario that produces a fair return, imho. Otherwise we are going to get less than fair if he is traded pretty much under any other scenario. Although Elias may well just decide to push the button anyway and move on and just take "OK" return rather than a "fair" return despite his protestations to the contrary in public (which any GM would say).

A fair percentage of this board last winter predicted Trey to do poorly in 2019 and that his 2018 season was basically who he was. In 2020, I think Trey will exceed his 2019 stats in every major category both offensively and defensively. Mark it down....December 2019 prediction...lol.

It just remains to be seen whether his game continues to grow. Some people think he has peaked and some, like me, think he can and will continue to still improve offensively AND defensively if some team (like maybe one that has lost over 100 games two years running) would simply keep him at 1b for 150 games.

He would likely have had no idea who either of those individuals were.

I hear you. I just don't agree with you. And neither does Trey. It is the same analytic assumptions that said he wouldn't be productive at the big league level at all.

Nope...not buying it. Just because someone has a long history of affairs does not necessarily mean that in the specific instance of this situation that they were obviously having an affair.

Yes, yes....i have been on this board for awhile. I understand and have bashed ownership as much as anyone. My point is that I believe Dan gets too much of a pass as to EVERY decision that went right, somehow that is Dan being a genius but every decision that was foolish, then kick it up to Angelos. I just don't happen to believe that narrative as much as some on this board.

Maybe they meant Jackie Jensen.....he had a cumulative 27.9 WAR....oh, he would be 92....so probably not...lol.

No I don't agree with that. I think that was Dan Duquette's call period. I get a little tired of palming off EVERY bad decision away from Dan and on to Angelos. Davis, sure. But the Parra trade for Zach Davies? I don't believe he was likely involved any at all unless you can show me evidence somewhere that proves your point.

Not from me. It was not a good move then or now. But, it is irrelevant that's for sure because Dan is no longer running the Orioles and we are going to be doing things very differently I believe and already have been.