Jump to content

Orioles are "going hard" after Zack Greinke

Greg

By Greg
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Mondo Trasho Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Mondo Trasho

Posted
Posted
Machado and Bundy are a significant upgrade in talent at a very low cost.

Allegedly. And we aren't trading them, as far as I know. And it doesn't change the fact that the window for this core is now. Not two years from now.

I'm not saying we should get Greinke or not. But we definitely stepped in it when we signed AJ to an extension. We drastically overpaid for a guy who won't be a centerpiece on the team whenever we do contend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply
waroriole Hangout Grand Counsel

waroriole

Posted
Posted
Allegedly. And we aren't trading them, as far as I know. And it doesn't change the fact that the window for this core is now. Not two years from now.

I'm not saying we should get Greinke or not. But we definitely stepped in it when we signed AJ to an extension. We drastically overpaid for a guy who won't be a centerpiece on the team whenever we do contend.

I don't get it. You say the window is now, but Jones won't be a centerpiece when we contend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Haven't really thought aobut it until this thread, but I wonder how much of DD's go-for-broke perspective this year is based not on just breaking the 14 year losing streak, but on being able to say, "I came in here and in my first year I helped break the second longest losing streak in sports." I wonder if he's going to act with reckless abandon so that he can rehabilitate his own image in the game to the detriment of the team. I guess if that were the case he would have offered the bank to Fielder this offseason.

He did. Bronze Medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ampontan Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Ampontan

Posted
Posted
I would be happy to trade Jim Hoey and Brett Jacobson for a half-season of Greinke.

(sigh). As I said, "Other than the fact it took a lot less to get Hardy." Which was not the point. The point under discussion was that Angelos would not allow a GM to made a trade for someone valuable in his walk year and then sign him before he walked.

He did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
Allegedly. And we aren't trading them, as far as I know. And it doesn't change the fact that the window for this core is now. Not two years from now.

I'm not saying we should get Greinke or not. But we definitely stepped in it when we signed AJ to an extension. We drastically overpaid for a guy who won't be a centerpiece on the team whenever we do contend.

Honestly, even working through it and being generous, none of this makes any sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
(sigh). As I said, "Other than the fact it took a lot less to get Hardy." Which was not the point. The point under discussion was that Angelos would not allow a GM to made a trade for someone valuable in his walk year and then sign him before he walked.

He did.

I'm not sure how this applies. It was an off-season pick-up, for a single year, at a deeply discounted price. Of course he'd let him do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
(sigh). As I said, "Other than the fact it took a lot less to get Hardy." Which was not the point. The point under discussion was that Angelos would not allow a GM to made a trade for someone valuable in his walk year and then sign him before he walked.

He did.

Hardy was also a piece that could have been flipped at the deadline to recoup the prospects traded for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevastras All-Star

sevastras

Posted
Posted
(sigh). As I said, "Other than the fact it took a lot less to get Hardy." Which was not the point. The point under discussion was that Angelos would not allow a GM to made a trade for someone valuable in his walk year and then sign him before he walked.

He did.

I like to think of a conversation that went something like this:

Angelos-"Hey what are you doing? What are your plans?"

DD-"You worry about law and let me worry about baseball."

Angelos-"Wha..."

DD-"Look at the bank account, look at the stands, you just leave me alone"

Angelos-"Ok, sorry"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BmoreMatt Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

BmoreMatt

Posted
Posted

Is there a good precedent for a team trading for a big name player and also signing him to a long term deal? I don't recall as many trades as you guys do, but I feel like most of the time it does indeed turn out to be a rental.

If this is going to be a rental, I wouldn't even want us to give up B prospects.

If this can be a long term deal, neither of the big 2 but anything else goes.

I don't see it happening and I'm probably in the camp that doesn't want anything to do with a rental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Is there a good precedent for a team trading for a big name player and also signing him to a long term deal? I don't recall as many trades as you guys do, but I feel like most of the time it does indeed turn out to be a rental.

If this is going to be a rental, I wouldn't even want us to give up B prospects.

If this can be a long term deal, neither of the big 2 but anything else goes.

I don't see it happening and I'm probably in the camp that doesn't want anything to do with a rental.

It's a rental. Rental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ampontan Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Ampontan

Posted
Posted
Hardy was also a piece that could have been flipped at the deadline to recoup the prospects traded for him.

Theoretically, when the deal was first made, though I doubt it was made with that intention. They wanted a shortstop. And that puts aside the fact that AM wasn't much of a deadline flipper in real life, much less of the theoretical nature of message board deadline flippers. And that was all moot, IIRC, because the contract was signed with a limited no-trade, no?

So, in your enjoyment of disputations and dingleberries, you have maneuvered yourself into supporting the position that Angelos would not allow DD to trade for ZG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Theoretically, when the deal was first made, though I doubt it was made with that intention. They wanted a shortstop. And that puts aside the fact that AM wasn't much of a deadline flipper in real life, much less of the theoretical nature of message board deadline flippers. And that was all moot, IIRC, because the contract was signed with a limited no-trade, no?

So, in your enjoyment of disputations and dingleberries, you have maneuvered yourself into supporting the position that Angelos would not allow DD to trade for ZG.

J.J. Hardy was a reclamation project that went right. With a pretty big price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
Theoretically, when the deal was first made, though I doubt it was made with that intention. They wanted a shortstop. And that puts aside the fact that AM wasn't much of a deadline flipper in real life, much less of the theoretical nature of message board deadline flippers. And that was all moot, IIRC, because the contract was signed with a limited no-trade, no?

So, in your enjoyment of disputations and dingleberries, you have maneuvered yourself into supporting the position that Angelos would not allow DD to trade for ZG.

You do not recall correctly. Hardy could have been traded after he signed the deal last season. His limited NTC did not kick in until after the season was over. AM had a gentleman's agreement to not trade him during the season.

As for your second paragraph I have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Warehouse
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Warehouse · Posted

      My thoughts: - I agree that the Achilles heel is the bullpen and not the offense (especially with Westburg, Mountcastle, Urias, and Kjerstad back). - I also agree that Perez is overused in high leverage situations. This is going to come down to the degree you expect his “clutch” performance to be predictive going forward.  - I second the notion that most good bullpens are built with some degree of dumpster diving.  If you go back to offseason threads, there were not many desired bullpen FA targets (outside of unrealistic ones like Hader) that would have worked out well.  Maybe we haven’t “dumpster dived” well enough as evidenced by the success of Kaleb Ort in Houston. - Jacob Webb hasn’t been sharp since returning from the IL and Bowman has looked shaky his last few times out. - We don’t have a true closer, only a group of mostly effective set-up men in Dominguez, Cano, and Coulombe. - Part of me wishes they would be more aggressive with G-Rod and the Mountain. While we expect the team to continue to contend, you never really know how many times you’ll be back in the playoffs. However, I know in my head they are probably making the right decision. - I also feel like they should be auditioning McDermot, Selby, Young, or Strowd (who has been very good since August after rough Norfolk start). They could option Baker who I think is unlikely to have a path to trusted status after last year’s ALDS performance. This feeling may be mostly driven by dissatisfaction with the current state and wanting something better.  It might be unrealistic to expect options unproven at the MLB level to suddenly step in and be key playoff pieces.
    • waroriole
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By waroriole · Posted

      Oh if we’re talking about what they will do, I can see it being something stupid like McCann at C and Adley at DH. I do think Mullins has enough veteranosity to outweigh Hyde’s obsession with L/R matchups. 
    • Sports Guy
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      I agree…just not sure the Os will feel that way.  
    • waroriole
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By waroriole · Posted

      Yeah I can see Rivera at DH. That’s probably a better choice than Kjerstad against Skubal. I’d definitely go with Mullins and Cowser over Slater. Slater has been really bad against LH this year. Only a .543 OPS. He’s actually worse than Cowser against LH and slightly better than Mullins. 
    • sportsfan8703
      Fangraphs updated top prospect list

      By sportsfan8703 · Posted

      Not that it matters, but for some reason I took a lot of heat for suggesting mid season that Basallo would end up #1. It’s all good. We don’t have to agree 100% on everything. 
    • sportsfan8703
      Chayce McDermott 2024

      By sportsfan8703 · Posted

      I don’t think he’s gonna be a part of any playoff roster, but kudos for him to rehab all the way back just to be an option for us if needed.  Also, hopefully now he’s shaken the injury and can have a normal offseason and normal fall instructs.  He’s a dude that if he could just be another Dean Kremer, would be huge for this org. 
    • Sports Guy
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      My guess is vs Skubal or Ragans, the Os will go with an IF of Gunnar, Westy, Mounty and Urias.  Rivera will DH. Santander starts in RF. Obviously one of Cowser or Mullins starts but do both of them start?  Would they start Slater? Lefties hit Ragans much better than righties do this year. Everyone is terrible vs Skubal although lefties are worse.  

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...