Mondo Trasho
-
Posts
864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mondo Trasho
-
-
7 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:
So, 7 games, 7 possible outcomes and we only need 1 to go our way?
Yeah but I say we just take all the suspense out of it and win tomorrow. No need to involve anyone else.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
I just don't understand why he can't keep his mouth shut until the season is over.
Is he actually this stupid?
What is the benefit of doing this now?
There's a surprising number of people who grew up around the public spotlight, and have PR people giving them advice on what to say/not say, who simply can't help themselves and blurt out whatever dumb thought crosses their mind. Politicians, business owners, executive officers, team owners, etc.
-
1
-
-
Not only did they have that 17 inning game in Boston, they also had an 18 inning game in Seattle later that year. I remember staying up until what must have 3 or 4 am watching that. I also remember how hyped the crowd was that first playoff game at OPACY.
-
2
-
-
Obviously, sweeping the Rays would have been great and would have all but locked up the division. But the Rays burned 4 games and have nothing to show for it. That's not bad at all. Now we just need to take care of business with the remaining 13 games.
-
6 hours ago, Frobby said:
Thing is, it was an 89 win team that barely scraped into the wild card. Good team, far from a great one. I enjoyed the 162-game ride. I’m not going to obsesses over losing the wild card game. The way our offense was playing that night, that was no better than a 50/50 game, and probably less, regardless of any managerial decisions. So, I didn’t want to dwell on that here.
My thoughts exactly. Obviously we all wanted them to win, but in my mind I didn't see them going far in the playoffs even if they had won that game.
-
The 2014 team was talented enough to at least get to a WS (if not win it), even without Machado, Davis and Wieters. They just ran into a white hot team and got swept. Happens.
This team has great talent, but lacks experience. I'd love for them to win a championship, something they haven't done in my lifetime. But there are no guarantees. If they continue to have a great process in place for building the team, having this kind of talent won't be an anomaly but a norm. Hopefully.
-
1
-
-
I'm neutral on it. Mostly because I'm neutral on retiring numbers in general.
-
I don't know anything about rebuilding baseball teams or what players to sign or pick or whatever. I just know as a fan, I don't see the wisdom of adding additional payroll to win another 10-15 games. So I don't blame the O's for "tanking" if that's what it takes to eventually build a winner.
I do think baseball has a problem though if the general perception is that every year 3-5 (or so) teams aren't even putting forth an effort to win that season. I'm not someone who thinks that a salary cap is the answer, but MLB has to think of something to make teams not have to resort to being uncompetitive. Maybe the answer is being much more selective on who gets to own a team. I don't know.
As for the Elias and the O's, I'm skeptical that we're going to compete anytime soon. Not because of any flaws in the process or in Elias. But just that the fundamentals of the organization have been so bad for so long that it seems unrealistic to expect a 5 year turnaround. Unless the goal is to compete for 3-5 years, then rebuild for 5-7 years.
I don't know, just my thoughts about the process and "bashing the O's."
-
11 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:
And this is different than baseball, how?
At least NFL teams don't control your rights for 7-10 years after they draft you. So if you can produce while still young, you have a good shot at landing a life-altering contract after your rookie deal is up in 3-4 years.
The difference in football is you don't have these mega contracts for players into their 30s long past their shelf life. The NFL has a better grasp on which players are likely to decline so they are smarter with their money. The flip side is the younger players reach FA sooner.
With a salary cap, I don't think you see guys like Freddy Garcia pitching into his late 30s, or Kenny Rogers pitching in his 40s, or BJ Surhoff playing until 40. That might be a good thing, or it might be a bad thing, I'm agnostic on that question. My only point is a salary cap is not what makes the NFL have more parity than the MLB (to the extent it does, because even that is debatable). Football has advantages that cannot be replicated in baseball.
-
2 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:
Or MLB has to emulate the NFL and implement a salary cap and forced revenue sharing to give the smaller markets a chance to compete. Problem is I can't see the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. agreeing to give up their golden goose.
I know this has long been the "in vogue" thing to say, but it ignores the inherent advantages football has over baseball in maintaining some sort of competitive balance. The biggest one being that randomness is a bigger factor when you only play 16 (and now 17) games and you have a single elimination playoff tournament.
The real impact of the salary cap in the NFL is guys in their mid to late 20s with marginal talent (relative to the rest of the league) end up unemployed and out of the NFL because their production can be replaced (or much of it anyway) by incoming college players at a much cheaper price tag.
Even implementing a floor isn't going to help as all you'll get is rebuilding (or otherwise tanking) teams race to pick up the worst contract to eat up salary space while the rest of the team is ripped down to the studs.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know a salary cap is not a magic solution.
-
Back during the pits of 1998-2011 streak, I stopped watching after Bedard was shelved in 2007. He had been one of the only reasons I had been watching (that game he pitched against the Rangers was unreal). It wasn't because I didn't care, it's just...it was too depressing. As that 1997 team retreated further and further into the rear view mirror (I was in 4th grade when they lost to the Indians in that ALCS) turning things around just seemed impossible. That changed in September 2011 when the team just seemed to come alive, especially in that infamous game 162. And obviously the great five year run they had afterwards.
My feeling when MacPhail came in back in 2007 was that turning the franchise around was a long term thing, like 10+ years. It wasn't about draft picks or particular trades, it was about changing the way they did things from the ground up. Which not only takes time to put in place, it also takes time for the impacts to be seen at the major league level. My fear then (as it is now if I'm honest) was that ownership would not have the patience to see a rebuild through to the end. Meddling owners might give up control in order to win, but giving up control to still be losing wears thin eventually.
To the original point of this post, I too have stopped watching. I'm not mad, I'm just sad. The team doesn't have to win a pennant for me to watch, it just has to be more exciting. And it's stopped being that. I'm an Orioles fan much more than I've ever been a baseball fan, so even paying super close attention to the minors has never been my thing. I used to be a 13 game plan holder, but as my career has progressed, making the drive up from Virginia has become less and less feasible. I hope fans come back, and I hope TV ratings (or however people end up watching) get better when the team gets more exciting, but honestly, this franchise has been on almost 40 year slide, with brief upticks every so often. And now that is complicated by the return of baseball to DC, especially that team has had some recent success. It might take some work to get fan interest back.
I don't know, just some random thoughts I guess. But I understand the frustration, I really do.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Roll Tide said:
Don’t care about Rosen....Before it’s all over Darnold will have had a really nice career. He has all the tools, just plays for a bad organization.
Darnold went third overall, do you think the Ravens should have traded up from 16 to take him? The Ravens typically don't make a move like that and I'm having a hard time thinking of any quarterback who was worth trading up into the top 5 to get.
-
38 minutes ago, Aglets said:
Imagine drafting Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen. Imagine the possibilities...………….
I checked, Mason Rudolph went in the later rounds and Kyle Allen went undrafted. Maybe they think we should have gone with them.
-
I think everyone is going to need to get used to the "hot takes" that are going to be making the rounds this offseason about Lamar and the Ravens.
Lamar might not be Drew Brees, but he's not Woodrow Dantzler either. He can be very effective and a potent weapon. If you couple that with a great defense that shuts down opponents or at least limits them to FGs instead of TDs at least some of the time, and a good running game you have a solid plan to win games and potentially a championship. That's not to say he can't be a better passer, but he doesn't have to be. My disappointment is with the defense which failed to stop the Titans from doing the one thing they wanted to do the most: run. And it's something I've noticed all year.
What I find so puzzling about the people who are critical of having Lamar at quarterback is what exactly they expected the Ravens to do. Did they want the Ravens to trade up in the 2018 draft to pick one of the other QBs taken? Did they want us to stick with Flacco? Did they want us to dump Flacco in favor of trading for Alex Smith or signing Kirk Cousins? Did they want us to punt on 2018 and try to draft someone in 2019? I don't understand it. There's not one other QB you could put on this team and have them finish out last year strong and go 14-2 this year.
-
1 hour ago, ShaneDawg85 said:
First round byes haven't exactly been the best for the Ravens. 2006 they had the bye and lost to the Colts 15-6, and 2011 they beat the Texans but it was against a backup QB and the Ravens didn't have the best performance.
My heart still says the 2006 loss hurt far worse than this one. That one was flat out demoralizing because the game was in reach pretty much the entire time, and that you had Peyton Manning have a bad game and STILL couldn't win. This one the game never really felt within reach once the second half started.
The part that really stung about 2006 was that with the Chargers losing, we would have hosted a depleted Patriots team in the AFC Championship game. And almost certainly would have beaten the Bears in the Super Bowl. In retrospect, it would have also meant at least another 5 years of Brian Billick as head coach. Harbaugh isn't perfect, but he's better than Billick. So at least there's a silver lining.
After watching the Chiefs yesterday, I think it would have been hard to beat them this year, even at home. It sucks that we won't get the chance to find out, but at least it might not have cost us a Super Bow.
-
I don't have a hard deadline on when I'd like to see this team winning, making the playoffs and contending for a world series. Obviously the sooner the better, but I'm not fixed on a certain date or a certain number of years. What I want to see is an organization committed to consistently making sound decisions, even if all of them don't work out. Because if you're making the right decisions and putting the right systems and processes in place eventually things will turn out well. If we do that, today's decisions will not only pay off in 2023 or 2024 but in 2033 and 2034.
-
I think the genesis was Brian Billick banning the word "playoffs" from the locker room until they clinched. Which is why the playoffs became referred to as "Festivus" and the Super Bowl "Festivus Maximus".
-
2
-
-
I've been watching this team since 2000. When I look back, my first thought is that the 2006 team was at least as good (and probably better) on defense than the 2000 team, and that offensively they were much better. The fact that they didn't win the Super Bowl was just having the misfortune of playing the Colts at the wrong time (Bob Sanders really made all the difference) and having a few key mistakes offensively in that playoff game.
Offensively, the numbers don't support that conclusion. Their points per game average was only 2 points higher in 2006 than it was in 2000 and they only had 4 more yards per game. It's harder to interpret the defensive numbers. They gave up almost 2.5 points and 18 yards per game more in 2006, but you could look at that as being a product of defensive rules changes that made it easier on offenses and more difficult to play defense.
Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say the 2006 team was pretty good too, at least that's how I remembered them and what the stats appear to suggest. The 2019 team is unquestionably the best regular season team we've seen.
-
1
-
-
We're probably never going to know exactly what would happen if the Nationals didn't exist (or if either of the two Senators incarnations never moved), but another factor to keep in mind re: DC and NoVa folks: the traffic. The traffic has gotten remarkably worse in the past 10-15 years, especially in western Fairfax and Loudoun counties. A trip to Baltimore to see the Orioles in 1998 was a lot easier to make than it is now.
In theory, those who weren't going to games would at least be watching on TV, so I don't know how to factor that in. But I'm sure it's a factor.
-
1
-
-
On 8/29/2019 at 11:18 AM, Redskins Rick said:
So throwing money away on the Nationals Stadium is wrong?
Yet, Md did the same thing for the Ravens, and I dont remember DC giving the Expos owner, a 750 million dollar incentive to move.
At the end of the day, if you factor in, wages, people put to work, taxes, it will pay for itself.
Just like both OPACY and Ravens stadium has.
In fact, Nationals stadium is expected to be fully paid off 10 years sooner than planned.
There's a good podcast that goes into the issue of whether government funded or subsidized stadiums are ever worth it in terms of making money on the initial investment (multiplier effect, etc.). Occasionally an indoor one will break even because it can be used year-round, but almost always they are money pits.
What one does with that information is entirely up to them.
-
I don't know, when he was in Montreal he pulled off a huge heist by sending the Dodgers Delino DeShields and getting Pedro Martinez in return.
-
Re: the Nats impact:
I live in Loudoun County, Virginia. Up until 2015 we had 13 game season plans and made the two hour trek to see the O's. Since then, I've gotten married, moved to a different job, and have commitments that make it hard to go up to OPACY consistently to see games. I had some training in Baltimore last year and went to a game afterwards, but otherwise I haven't been much. Traffic down here sucks and it basically requires the commitment of an entire day to see a game. Hard to justify that when the team is where it is. Just saying.
I happen to be a fan because my parents were O's fans (both from the Baltimore area), but most of the people I know down here who are Nats fans now were never really Orioles fans. They might have gone to a few games here and there because it was closest team to go see but they weren't really fans. In middle school and high school I think I was the only person who ever wore Orioles shirts or hats. I'm sure the Nats had some impact on attendance but not an overwhelming one.
-
1 hour ago, atomic said:
No it is a lazy stat. These figures sometime co-relate with ERA but not all the time. I have called FIP a stat for simpletons. Just because FIP corelates sometimes with ERA doesn't mean it is good measure.
Why is ERA the end all, be all of statistics? I don't have any preference for any particular metric, but it seems like having a wide variety of stats to look at that try to account for various factors would be valuable. Not something to be sneered at.
-
13 hours ago, Frobby said:
- I thought the O’s made the right choice by allowing Markakis, Cruz and Miller to go and prioritizing JJ Hardy (on the assumption that the O’s really couldn’t afford to keep more than one of them).
To be fair, I don't think that those were the wrong choices. They were choices that didn't work out, but they were the right choices to make.
-
1
-
The O’s - Rangers ALDS
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Personally, I was hoping for a three game series between them, with games 2 and 3 going at least 15 innings each.