Jump to content

Orioles' Duquette: "Our future is now."

Greg

By Greg
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Does it matter if they partially gutted the farm to finish with 75 wins instead 63? I would hope most fans would oppose this.

What I would oppose is any non moves that cause us to finish under .500. It's a goal to win. I agree with Jim that we should be careful who we part with, but there are obvious holes right now and they must be filled. And the Orioles must not win 63 games in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dannyboy Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Dannyboy

Posted
Posted
I agree 100%. The chance of Duquette screwing up is enormous. Personally, I think he is as clueless as they come. In fact, I'm starting to feel the same about Showalter. And we already know that Angelos has his head in the sand. The truth is, we are already done this year....the team is in free-fall and no trade is going to save it. So, rather than trying to salvage this year with futile trades for rental players,, and in the process forfeit the future, we should be making trades for the best near ML-ready prospects we can get.

Couldn't agree more. This team needed help weeks ago, and DD went out and got. Jim Thome. Nice, real friggin nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malike Hangout Grand Counsel

Malike

Posted
Posted
That sounds exactly like someone who would overpay in a trade in a futile attempt to stay relevant this season.

In a way, I feel like if he was going to overpay, a deal would have been done already. If we give talent to get talent, I'm fine with it as long as it's not for a rental or someone mediocre.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malike Hangout Grand Counsel

Malike

Posted
Posted
I agree 100%. The chance of Duquette screwing up is enormous. Personally, I think he is as clueless as they come. In fact, I'm starting to feel the same about Showalter. And we already know that Angelos has his head in the sand. The truth is, we are already done this year....the team is in free-fall and no trade is going to save it. So, rather than trying to salvage this year with futile trades for rental players,, and in the process forfeit the future, we should be making trades for the best near ML-ready prospects we can get.

I don't know, the guy did some very good things in Montreal and Boston. I'm pretty sure most of us would be more clueless than he is, when it comes to most things baseball.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scrat1 Hangout Grand Counsel

Scrat1

Posted
Posted
What I would oppose is any non moves that cause us to finish under .500. It's a goal to win. I agree with Jim that we should be careful who we part with, but there are obvious holes right now and they must be filled. And the Orioles must not win 63 games in 2012.

I don't really agree with this. Why is it important? The media narrative and outside perception of the Orioles is going to be the same if we win 63 games or 73 games. It just doesn't matter. I'd much rather win 73 games than 63 games, only because that probably means some of our younger players, especially some of our young pitchers, took a step forward. But I am totally against trading away talent in order to suck slightly less than we otherwise would. At least with 63 wins, you get another high draft pick.

I agree that the goal is to win. Win playoff games. Win pennants. Win championships. The goal is not to suck a little less than the next guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeveJones007 Hangout Veteran Council

VeveJones007

Posted
Posted
I don't really agree with this. Why is it important? The media narrative and outside perception of the Orioles is going to be the same if we win 63 games or 73 games. It just doesn't matter. I'd much rather win 73 games than 63 games, only because that probably means some of our younger players, especially some of our young pitchers, took a step forward. But I am totally against trading away talent in order to suck slightly less than we otherwise would. At least with 63 wins, you get another high draft pick.

I agree that the goal is to win. Win playoff games. Win pennants. Win championships. The goal is not to suck a little less than the next guy.

I agree with you, but I only care about the bolded one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theobird All-Star

theobird

Posted
Posted

The deals that would make sense are Headley and Richard from the Pads, and Bourjos from LAA, Smoak from Seattle. That kind of player. The ones that could make us better now, and make us better beyond this year. I can get behind trades for that kind of player. But if DD trades our good prospects for a rental run at a playoff spot this year, I will be livid.

I really do think he should be active in the trade market right now, but it has to be for players under team control for at least a couple of seasons. I think its time to put Davis back at first, and send Reynolds packing for whatever you can get. I would love to come out of this with Headley and Richard as well as Bourjos. And to do so, I would be willing to part with Jim Johnson, Brian Matusz, one of Avery/Hoes and a couple other prospects not named Machado, Bundy, Gausmann or Schoop. I propose JJ for Bourjos. Then I send the Pads Matusz, Avery, Bridwell and our newly aquired supplemental draft choice for Headley and Richard. Then I would propose a trade of Davis and Tillman for Smoak, and take a chance that Smoak needs to get out of Seattle to find himself.

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

Ampontan

Posted
Posted
I get the feeling dd wants to try to end with a winning record this year and use that to go to Peter Angelos and say "look at how much we improved and weve finally had a winning season".

I get the feeling that he's already gone to Peter Angelos (or his sons) and asked which way do you want to go, and gotten an answer that is reflected in the title of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBee Major Leaguer

TheBee

Posted
Posted

I find it hard to get upset about things that Duquette might or might not possibly be considering doing. I think I'll wait until he actually does something. Then, I'll take a bit of time to evaluate it and develop an opinion. A little too much magic 8 balling going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slappy Major Leaguer

Slappy

Posted
Posted
I agree 100%. The chance of Duquette screwing up is enormous. Personally, I think he is as clueless as they come. In fact, I'm starting to feel the same about Showalter. And we already know that Angelos has his head in the sand. The truth is, we are already done this year....the team is in free-fall and no trade is going to save it. So, rather than trying to salvage this year with futile trades for rental players,, and in the process forfeit the future, we should be making trades for the best near ML-ready prospects we can get.

Would you want guys with this kind of attitude playing for your team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sangar All-Star

sangar

Posted
Posted
I find it hard to get upset about things that Duquette might or might not possibly be considering doing. I think I'll wait until he actually does something. Then, I'll take a bit of time to evaluate it and develop an opinion. A little too much magic 8 balling going on here.

I tried to give this guy rep but somehow neg repped him. Can someone please pick him up for me?

Stupid fat fingers. :)

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

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
I don't know, the guy did some very good things in Montreal and Boston. I'm pretty sure most of us would be more clueless than he is, when it comes to most things baseball.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

You said this much more nicely than I could have.

Look, I don't think that either Buck or DD are clueless. They're smart guys, but smart guys fail all of the time. And smart guys with previous success fail all of the time. This logic could also apply to Syd Thrift, Andy MacPhail, Omar Minaya, Dallas Green, Billy Beane, etc. None of them merit deference. So, no, we shouldn't disparage Duquette hyperbolically, but we shouldn't be told to pipe down w/r/t criticism, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • EddeeEddee
      Bullpen 2024

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • EddeeEddee
      Off-season Qualifying Offer Question

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • 24fps
      Off-season Qualifying Offer Question

      By 24fps · Posted

      Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
    • emmett16
      Jackson Holliday 2024

      By emmett16 · Posted

      I think you have a good understanding and I assume you’ve read Ted Williams Science of Hitting.  It’s all about lining up planes of pitch and bat.  Historically with sinkers and low strikes a higher attack angle played and was more in alignment with pitch plane.  In today’s game of spin and high zone fastball an uppercut swing gives you minimal chance and results in top spin grounders and swing & miss. 
    • Can_of_corn
      Jackson Holliday 2024

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      I'll bow to your expertise even if it seems unlikely to my laymen understanding. 
    • emmett16
      Jackson Holliday 2024

      By emmett16 · Posted

      Actually it will.  As you noted.  MLB pitch plane is like 2-3 degrees.  The more your attack angle increased the more you’re hitting a top spin tennis return.  
    • Can_of_corn
      Jackson Holliday 2024

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      My point was an overly uppercut swing isn't going to result in that low a launch angle.  Not unless he is somehow consistently topping the pitches, which seems pretty unlikely.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...