sgillespie31

Nate Mclouth brought his bat. That was about it. Still pushed the Yanks to the limit at least.

I'll settle for Yelich or Acuna as well.

Just an awkward situation for all. Trey's tweet today was very well spoken and after reading, hopefully people will feel less desire to pick at the situation. I know I will.

Its totally just my memory but I recall him saying he slimmed down in the hopes it would help his body stay healthy and avoid injuries as his contract went on. I thought it was curious at the time. I think CD can really over think things at times.

We live in a world with implied meanings, context, slang, multiple word definitions, media... So I mean yeah. I don't love it either but its reality.

I think what Frobby is getting at is that I highly doubt Markakis actually wants those guts beaten in the literal sense, but rather that they should have been punished and need to take their lumps one way or another. A harsher, firmer way of saying that they got off far too easy and need to be punished. He probably could have used better wording, no doubt, but there isn't actually much of a story here.

My thoughts exactly. There is a chance at upside. Maybe (certainly) nothing spectacular, but he could turn out to be a useful gamey type and those guys are always fun

I've played the game. Just think there are better ways to police a sport or vent frustration than huck a ball at someone.

I don't think he's looking to be outraged, just pointing out that throwing at players has at least some chance of injuring another human being and therefore probably should be avoided. He isn't saying that the risk is not minimal or that systemic injury is common, but rather that injuries have occured and intentionally throwing a hard projectile at another human is pretty ridiculous. Just the vibes I got.

Man, how did I forfet Miguel Gonzalez... So clutch. Luis Ayala was pretty underrated for us too and a fun veteran presence.

Me too. There's no way the other teams are all innocent. The fallout of all this will be interesting.

Thanks @Luke-OH. You will be missed... I read lots of your content when I was lurking around here. Best of luck to you and our O's. You might not need it, but they sure do!

Spot on take. I totally agree. Yeah totally fair. I kind of forget that Mancini is essentially an outfielder now whether we want him to be or not, and is clearly superior to Mclouth overall. Trumbo and Cruz though... They had some OF work but were mostly DHs for us, especially Cruz. I wouldn't really pit them against Mclouth in this conversation. Mancini though, absolutely. So, I guess you proved me wrong technically : ) The one thing i've never forgotten about Mclouth is that was a complete player on both sides of the ball... I just miss having a guy who can play offense and defense in LF, that's all! I actually remember an interview with Jones when he was still a decent CF and he essentially said the only time the O's had a full OF that he considered a bonafide strength of the team was when it was him, Markakis and Mclouth... And I agree. I look forward to when we have that again.

@Frobby Markakis and Jones were here long before him, but you are right about Gentry and and Lough. Honestly I totally forgot about David Lough. Probably cause I saw him get thrown out trying to steal second in seattle once. The game just ended with him lying in the dirt. I don't think Rickard was much stronger, probably about the same but I could certainly be wrong. I'd say Mclouth was a better all around player for us than any OF we've had since (again, Markakis and Jones were here prior). By a wide margin, too. In fact, i'd say Mclouth, Jones, and Markakis was the last time we had a "complete" outfield aka three guys who could hit and defend like regulars. That said, you are right about his arm and Lough and Gentry, being better defenders but I would have taken 2012 Mclouth over those guys easily.

That's pretty much how I defined it. If the guy is a huge signing brought into to be a star here then he is probably a core player regardless of how little time he spent here. Just my definition though, you define it however you want.

Fair about the arm... But we haven't had a better defensive OF since... I'd take plus speed, reads and glovework in LF with a mediocre arm over most. That home run though... That is a harsh critisism. He was pretty much the only guy who brought his bat to the postseason for us and throwing a tamtrum would have just got him ejected in a tight game. Would only have hurt our chances more.

I'd have no qualms if we signed him, and none if we don't!

Inspired by Moose's 'favorite bad orioles players' thread, this is similar but a bit more kind to our lesser stars. Who are your favorite guys who were part of O's teams but not really core players? Some Modern guys who i'd consider core players, for better or worse: Brian Roberts, Jeremy Guthrie, Tejada, Darren O'Day, Brad Brach, Zach Britton, Adam Jones, Nick Markakis, JJ Hardy, Nelson Cruz, Manny, Schoop, Chris Davis, Mark Trumbo, Chris Tillman, and Chen. Not a lot of starting pitchers there, interestingly. For me, a few guys who really stuck with me were Jason Hammel (should have resigned him), and Joe Saunders (clutch vet that outdueled Darvish in an unforgettable wildcard game). But, my pick is... Nate Mclouth I just loved the game Mclouth played. Great hustle, good instincts, played hard but never dirty... A very well rounded player who didn't do much great (except learn languages) but did absolutely everything at least reasonably well and had splendid intangibles. Plus, he resurrected his career here briefly and showed up in the postseason. I remember him being a master of sliding (not diving) catches. I really miss having a complete outfield! I went with more modern guys (and i'm sure I forgot several core guys too), but who would your pick be?

A ton of the guys being mentioned were not bad... Mark Reynolds was frustrating and quite literally hit or miss, but he also had some decent time here. Same with guys like Guthrie and Tommy Hunter.

JJ Hardy as an infield instructor.

This is the most reasonable, and in many ways, the best case scenario when taking into consideration all parties (outside of Davis suddenly becoming the all star slugger he used to be). I'm just not sure it is the most likely. It is, however, just likely enough that we can cross our fingers and hope it becomes reality.

I would consider 2, 3, and 8 to be succesfull for different reasons. I want a world seriea win, and would consider that a success even if we only made the playoffs the year we won it all. I would also consider 4 playoff appearances a success, though probably only if that included winning at least one division series. Multiple playoff appearances and a world series loss would be pretty good too, but tough to swallow. All of those would constitute a successful decade to me, but of course the only way to say that any future success was an absolute and not debatable is to win the frickin' world series!

This makes more sense to me. I do think its much more complicated than that though, as many locker rooms would villify him and proclaim it the opposite of leadership for complaining etc, but that is horsesh*t and I agree if it continued that long it probably shouldn't have, but I do think its much more complex than that. I just think as a newer player being hazed he was likely caught between a rock and a hard place. Oh they do, but they also teach men to be quiet and endure, not to complain, to do whatever veteran players want etc. A lot of these values clash with each other. Example: Always stand up for yourself and real men don't complain. Telling someone to stop and f*ck off can be viewed as complaining. And decking a five year veteran in the jaw could get a guy optioned to the minors. Plus, if you are a young guy coming up in the league you don't want to ruffle the status quo and piss anybody off who could damage your career, especially if you still have options remaining or you are a fringe major leaguer. That's why so many guys are more outspoken once they get a good deal in free agency; they don't have to worry as much anymore. I am in the same boat as you: you gotta stand up for yourselves, but pro sports (and sports in general) have very complex social dynamics at play and a lot of guys are probably more intimidated by those dynamics than they are of each other. A lot of guys are going to make the safe play: be quiet and take all the crap until you get a big pay day. That's why the huge shift in the nhl right now is so interesting and pretty cool to watch unfold: decades of locker room politics are being questioned as guys stand up for themselves.

Oh absolutely, i'm in the same boat. My point is that if someone really wants to critisize a player for something as absurd as being hazed, then they will find a way to make that critisism no matter what. Wieters could have, A) Ask the perpitrators to stop (good luck) B) fought back to end the hazing (as you would). C) inform a superior Or D) if he doesn't want to cause fallout from any of the above options, wait calmly for the hazing to end. Or any combination of the above. We don't know what he tried or even what happened (making this whole argument about judging Wieters based on this even more absurd), but Corn would find a way to nitpick any of the above options, had Wieters chosen them. He is after all, suggesting that because Buck intervened in hazing directed towards Wieters, Wieters therefore must not have any leadership skills as a ball player. There might be other reasons he does or does not have leadership skills, and better examples for either opinion probably exist. Thus, its pointless to judge someone just for being hazed. Corn doesn't think Wieters was a good leader. That's fine, he is entitled to that opinion. I'm pointing out that just because Wieters was hazed doesn't make him a poor leader. Find someone on the baseball field, or something he would have more defined control over, and i'll happily critisize his leaderships skills, but saying he isn't a leader because he was hazed? That's a bias that is pretty easy to put holes into. Corn is a pretty smart poster, I think he just isn't a big Wieters fan and that bias took hold a little too strongly here, but I have no real idea. My reaction to being hazed that badly would (and has been) similar to yours, but unfortunately it tends to be a lose lose kind of scenario, which is probably one of the reasons hazing is dying out.

@Can_of_corn Hazing and bullying are both a result of problematic psychosocial pressures in microcultures, locker rooms being a prime petridish for that kind of thing. Both involve violence at their worst (though probably and hopefully not in the case of Matt Wieters). The subject of fighting back was more an outcry of what exactly do you expect him to do? If he fights back to end the hazing, there are other critisisms someone looking to nitpick him could make about him. If you really want to pick someone apart for being a victim i'm sure you could find a way, that's the point. There's just a lot of evidence to suggest Weiters was a decent leader, and your counterargument is... That he was potentially hazed as a sophomore? There's just so much else at play in these types of situations. Perhaps it was new players hazing him in year 2? Perhaps he was barely even hazed in year 1? Perhaps he felt forced to go along with it due to it being culturally accepted and him not wanting to risk upsetting his chance at a lucrative future in the game baseball? Perhaps it was just harmless pranks and Buck put a stop to it even though Weiters didn't even care? We have no idea. You are just looking for any straw to make your point, and you can't find any more baseball centric ways to critisize Wieters' leadership skills so you'll judge someone for being hazed? Got it. Go right ahead, I obviously can't stop you, but your other posts are often quite well informed. I'm not used to this kind of ignorance. There's no point fighting about it though so i'll leave you to your views, which you are entitled to. You are a smart poster and I don't want to fight with you, so i'll just say this: I hope the next time you endure an unpleasant experience at the hands of others, no one judges you for it.