CheeryO

Santander was the O's best offensive player this year, and he's controllable for some time. It's not like the O's have some great offense -- or some great defense. Trading him makes little sense unless the O's think he's an injury risk going forward or because the player(s) coming back is someone they obviously couldn't refuse -- a steal of some kind.

Thanks. I'm curious about this Kevin Smith kid the O's got from the Mets. MLB.com has him ranked at the 12th best prospect in the O's system, just behind Kremer and Lowther, with an ETA of this year. Could be the O's think he's not quite ready to start, however.

Curious if any one knows -- why was Zimmerman promoted ahead of Michael Baumann, Zac Lowther or the new pickup from the Mets, Kevin Smith? Are any of the other guys hurt? Or did Zimmerman just completely outperform them in training?

Not that worried about the outfield because of injuries and because so many guys are so young. Most likely some of the hot guys will regress and some the struggling guys will suddenly improve. It's such a weird year and such a small sample size. 1B/DH will be the real logjam if Mancini comes back healthy (which is hardly a given) and whenever Rutschman gets promoted. If Mancini is ready he's probably more likely to DH or play first than the outfield. Anything is possible with him, but it's hard to imagine him playing the outfield any time soon. Do Severino and Sisco just become bench players when Adley is ready? They both can hit and should see a good amount of time at DH if not 1B as well if Adley is ready next season. I'd hate to see either get traded, but if Rutstchman is tearing it up soon it's hard to see the O's keeping all three. Rutschman may need more time though.

The precedent I was thinking of was Gil Meche of the Royals, who forfeited $12 million after retiring because he didn't think he could earn it. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html

Why, because the Yankees have been anything but dominant in the postseason for the past decade? Because the Yankees haven't been to the World Series in 10 years? The Yankees are very close to being a house of cards. Take away a brilliant season from DJ LeMahieu and some brilliant starts from some small sample sized youngsters like Urshela and German, and you have a team that gets by mostly on beating up on very weak Orioles and Blue Jays teams, a not quite arrived Rays team and a head case, off-year Red Sox team.

Since 2001? This Twins team is clearly different than any other recent Twins teams.

The Twins have hit more home runs than the Yankees this year, and they have a better team ERA.

True, but I'm guessing most people don't think the Yanks can get past the Astros even if they do get past anyone else.

Not just the Astros. The Yanks most likely have to get through the Twins or Indians too -- two very good teams.

Having a dry sense of humor on a message board --- with people you don't know -- is difficult. Jonathan Swift didn't need emoticons not just because he was Jonathan Swift, but because he wasn't texting and posting his modest proposals across the internet of things.

I agree, and I'm a Dodger fan -- though an Oriole fan first.

Someone must have mentioned this already but you forgot: Red Sox: Steve Pearce, Eduardo Rodriguez Brewers: Josh Hader Braves: Darren O'Day

Glad the O's are rid of Schoop and Machado. The Schoop trade may be one of the worst in Brewers history. I love Schoop but he's not proving to be a special player. Machado is a great player but let him be a tool on some other team, some other team that'll probably regret signing him. The Gausman trade, however, was a terrible one for the O's. Another trade where the O's undervalue their young, controllable pitching. I'm sick of seeing former Orioles pitch in the postseason for other teams. Now it's Josh Hader.

Nick Markakis is known for his ability to get on base. He has a .380 OBP this year, and the worst OBP he ever had was .329. On the other hand, the best OBP Adam Jones ever had was .335. To top it off, Markakis leads the NL in hits, which is a pretty stunning achievement at any age. Clearly, next to Markakis, Adam Jones is known for other things than getting on base; but I think in this case the higher OBP and the extraordinary number of hits probably leads to an older player get a better contract than the little bit younger player. Jones' skill set may be perceived to be more in decline than it really is, while with Markakis this is clearly not the case. It all depends on whether teams think Markakis discovered something in his swing and made an adjustment -- or whether he just had an unusually lucky season.

Maybe, but should they considering their budget, what Manny will cost and the fact that they aren't close to competing? Considering the O's are the worst team in the league this year (ok maybe second worst) why would Manny stay?

The only kind of organization that can keep a player like Manny is a successful one. As long as the Orioles have one or two years of success for every 4 or 5 years of losing then they'll most likely be forced to trade their very best players.

Yes, I see what you're saying, but we're talking about grown men who play a game that, on some level, has always tolerated a certain level of cheating. There's that line in the sand of what's acceptable cheating and what's not, but you're the only person I know of that cites a failed attempt at cheating as being as bad effective cheating and getting away with it. Even murder is worse than attempted murder; but again we're talking about grown men playing a game with some level, however small or big, of cheating in it. Someone who is ingesting sugar pills is not hitting more home runs or striking out more batters. He's trying to gain an advantage but failing. Of course the effective cheater who actually gains an advantage over other players is the one committing the real offense.

Do you really think the PEDs guys were taking twenty years ago -- or even the designer ones today -- have the mere side effects of aspirin? I don't know how much info there is on this on Google but it is an interesting topic.

Of course I wasn't saying that athletes A, B and C would never cheat if they were the best in the game. In fact, one of my other points stated why these some of these same players might cheat -- mainly their bodies and skills start to decline. I was pointing out the best have far less incentive to cheat, especially when you consider the drawbacks. For every Barry Bonds and ARod, how many others are there at the top of the game that were never suspected of cheating? How man Griffeys, Pujols, Trouts, Frank Thomas's, Jim Thomes, etc. were there? I can only assume that the great players who presumably never did cheat didn't do so because of the point I originally made. I'm already better than everyone else, so why take the chance damaging my body and my legacy? The lesser players have more incentive to cheat because they have a better chance of losing their job -- or losing the big payday -- without that extra boost in performance. You are right that I can't prove this statement, but I'm making an argument, not a proof.

I suspect there's really no drug without any side effects, but I'm no expert.