If BRob can't return next season.....??

[JTrea81]

What does that even mean with Angelos as the owner? I agree with you that Buck probably got some assurances before he signed on... but I doubt it was anything as big $$$ as you're expecting.

We will see this offseason...

[scOtt]

We will see this offseason...

Yes we will. Just hope you're not setting yourself up again.

[MrOrange82]

My point is we shouldn't be looking at any prospects that profile as .650-.750 OPS regulars.

You leave out one word and people jump all over you...

Besides, Cardenas doesn't steal bases or hit for power. We'd get him for his defense which seems below average according to Total Zone and his ability to hit singles.

We need proven talent that will win games at the ML level. No prospects, suspects or projects unless they are riding the bench. The time for that is done.

So you'd rather overpay for someone who's firmly established himself as a .700ish OPS player. Gotcha.

[ShaneDawg85]

You do realize of course the Orioles are in a win-now mode, right?

Buck didn't sign on to rebuild...

And what of their strategy for most of the last decade suggests that they are? Every team is trying to win. To think every single team out there is not in a "win-now mode," whatever that means, is idiotic. It's how you go about doing it that is the difference between teams, and none of what this team has done over the last decade, save for a brief, foolish blip on the radar in 2003, suggests that they are in a frantic pace about it.

[UnashamedRiver]

I wouldn't be surprised if Aaron Hill was on some type of PED early in his career. The league started cracking down on PED's in 2006, but to a greater extent in 2010 and his production has plummeted. The league average ERA is now under 4. Somebody who was PED's just a few years ago is off them now.

[JayThomas]

You do realize of course the Orioles are in a win-now mode, right?

Buck didn't sign on to rebuild...

I understand that Buck was probably given the impression that we were in win-now mode. I actually thought, going into this season, that the young pitching staff could all step up and provide us with a starting rotation in the top half of the league. I thought that if given the opportunity Reimold could've given us an .840 OPS and our outfield would've been one of the better ones in the league. I thought that a Lee/Roberts/Hardy/Reynolds infield could've been one of the better infields in the league. I too thought/hoped that we were in a much better position to compete this year, and that this offseason going after the one piece that could put us into the playoff hunt would make sense.

I was wrong. We're on our way towards 100 losses and no amount of wishing or hoping is going to change that. Spending $25M/year on one guy when you've just lost 100 games and your budget is $90M is a recipe for disaster for years to come.

If we had done what I hoped we would going into the season, then I'd be with you. (But) we haven't, and it really doesn't make much sense for you to keep chanting the same rallying cry. Context matters.

[PHRESH]

I'd trade for Allen Craig.

[cindyluvsbrady]

I'd trade for Allen Craig.

NO NO NO NO!!!!!!:angryfire:

My Perfect One:hearts::hearts:

Will be back:)

Everyone should just be good!!!

[Can_of_corn]

I wouldn't be surprised if Aaron Hill was on some type of PED early in his career. The league started cracking down on PED's in 2006, but to a greater extent in 2010 and his production has plummeted. The league average ERA is now under 4. Somebody who was PED's just a few years ago is off them now.

Considering that performance is down across the board isn't it just a teeny little bit more likely that they changed the ball?

[JTrea81]

I understand that Buck was probably given the impression that we were in win-now mode. I actually thought, going into this season, that the young pitching staff could all step up and provide us with a starting rotation in the top half of the league. I thought that if given the opportunity Reimold could've given us an .840 OPS and our outfield would've been one of the better ones in the league. I thought that a Lee/Roberts/Hardy/Reynolds infield could've been one of the better infields in the league. I too thought/hoped that we were in a much better position to compete this year, and that this offseason going after the one piece that could put us into the playoff hunt would make sense.

I was wrong. We're on our way towards 100 losses and no amount of wishing or hoping is going to change that. Spending $25M/year on one guy when you've just lost 100 games and your budget is $90M is a recipe for disaster for years to come.

If we had done what I hoped we would going into the season, then I'd be with you. (But) we haven't, and it really doesn't make much sense for you to keep chanting the same rallying cry. Context matters.

It makes sense when you accept that the Orioles are either going all-in to win now or continue half-assing things.

And I'm not rooting for them to half-ass something.

Touting a rebuild is just wasting keystrokes because that is not what is going to happen.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Considering that performance is down across the board isn't it just a teeny little bit more likely that they changed the ball?

More likely the bats. You don't see them exploding as much as they used to. Not to mention a more liberal strike zone imo.

[Can_of_corn]

More likely the bats. You don't see them exploding as much as they used to. Not to mention a more liberal strike zone imo.

MLB controls the composition of the balls, the players buy the bats. Its also just a little harder to alter a piece of wood then it is to change the formulation of a composite construct like a baseball.

[El Gordo]

It makes sense when you accept that the Orioles are either going all-in to win now or continue half-assing things.

And I'm not rooting for them to half-ass something.

Touting a rebuild is just wasting keystrokes because that is not what is going to happen.

I totally agree with this. They are either going Whole Hog, or the old Half A. No rebuild, retool etc.

[CA-ORIOLE]

MLB controls the composition of the balls, the players buy the bats. Its also just a little harder to alter a piece of wood then it is to change the formulation of a composite construct like a baseball.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100301&content_id=8643638&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

The balls have been the same for almost 100 years. Other than WW2 I've never seen anything to indicate otherwise. You could certainly argue potential Q.C. standards with the balls, but probably not the composition. It's definitely the bats. Not necessarily the composition, but the bat parameters (i.e handle/shaft/Head etc.).

[Can_of_corn]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100301&content_id=8643638&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

The balls have been the same for almost 100 years. Other than WW2 I've never seen anything to indicate otherwise. You could certainly argue potential Q.C. standards with the balls, but probably not the composition. It's definitely the bats. Not necessarily the composition, but the bat parameters (i.e handle/shaft/Head etc.).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2719191

http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/ClevelandPlainDealerReport.pdf

Both graphs show the pre 1982 balls as less lively than the current manufacture balls by a percentage as large as 9%. It is unknown as to the cause of this difference. It may be argued that deterioration due to age may be the cause and it is possible that ball construction differences may have also contributed to the lower performance of these balls.

As for bats, that is covered in the rule book, if they want to change it, they can not do it without it being common knowledge that changes were made.

1.10

1.10

(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.

NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.

(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.

© The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.