Roch: Tigers covet Hardy

[andrewrickli]

Yea' date=' I can't wait. I was at Citi Field last year in June when he threw a one hitter against the O's. For your info the fences at Citi Field were moved in prior to the 2012 season.[/quote']

We will see. The ball flies out of OPACY in the summer. Mark my words. Shoot me if I'm wrong.

[Frobby]

A lot of people, myself included, think that the Orioles are roughly an 85 win team right now. Personally, I think that it could swing 3 or 4 wins in either direction depending on who improves and who regresses. But to say that a 93 win team that hasn't really lost anyone significant and may yet add some quality pieces has no chance in Hell if winning 86 games is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

Basically, I think we all learned in 2012 that there is no such thing as "no way in hell" in baseball. Unexpected things happen all the time.

I think the pitching basically decides how good this team can be in 2013. And just how good the pitchers will be is very unpredictable. The team had a 3.73 ERA in the second half of the season. If that's true over a full season in 2013, we are contenders again. I really think it is about that simple.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Basically, I think we all learned in 2012 that there is no such thing as "no way in hell" in baseball. Unexpected things happen all the time.

I think the pitching basically decides how good this team can be in 2013. And just how good the pitchers will be is very unpredictable. The team had a 3.73 ERA in the second half of the season. If that's true over a full season in 2013, we are contenders again. I really think it is about that simple.

Absolutely. There are certainly scenarios in which the Orioles completely collapse next year. But based on our solid defense, the quality and depth of our bullpen, the team's median age, and our second half record, I would think that the pendulum swings a bit further towards "unlikely" than "likely."

Of course, if 2/5 of the rotation falls apart, all bets are off. I keep trying to tell people that the SP will be much more crucial to our success or failure than the acquisition of this mythical MOO hitter(though that could mitigate mediocre starting pitching, albeit only slightly).

[NCRaven]

With the current roster....not a chance in H E double hockey sticks.

If you don't think that this team can win 86 games, what was your prediction for last year's team? How close did you get? You have no clue how many games this roster can win and neither do I! But, we don't know what the roster will look like on opening day; or who will be the first player lost to injury; or the second for that matter; or who will suck and need to be replaced; or who will excel and demand (through his play) to receive more innings or at bats, etc.. We were very good in the last third of the season after the arrivals of Machado, Gonzalez, Tillman, and McLouth. Those guys have already been added and the number of holes to fill are far less than this time last season.

[DrungoHazewood]

A lot of people, myself included, think that the Orioles are roughly an 85 win team right now. Personally, I think that it could swing 3 or 4 wins in either direction depending on who improves and who regresses. But to say that a 93 win team that hasn't really lost anyone significant and may yet add some quality pieces has no chance in Hell if winning 86 games is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

No, it's not ridiculous. Well, maybe literally saying "no chance in hell". But it's not ridiculous to think that a team that leaped forward by 25 games, much on the strength of historically unique and unlikely things like outplaying their run differential and being superhuman in extra inning games and getting 300 innings of a 2.50 ERA out of nondescript relievers... well, it's not at all ridiculous to think they're in for some serious regression. You'd be crazy or cindyluvsbrady-insanely-optimistic to think otherwise.

[DrungoHazewood]

Absolutely. There are certainly scenarios in which the Orioles completely collapse next year. But based on our solid defense, the quality and depth of our bullpen, the team's median age, and our second half record, I would think that the pendulum swings a bit further towards "unlikely" than "likely."

How do you define collapse? I'd say it's pretty darned likely that this is a .500ish team. The '89 Orioles lept forward by 33 games, and the '90 Orioles basically stood pat and declined by 11 games. That's not a bad model to use.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

No, it's not ridiculous. Well, maybe literally saying "no chance in hell". But it's not ridiculous to think that a team that leaped forward by 25 games, much on the strength of historically unique and unlikely things like outplaying their run differential and being superhuman in extra inning games and getting 300 innings of a 2.50 ERA out of nondescript relievers... well, it's not at all ridiculous to think they're in for some serious regression. You'd be crazy or cindyluvsbrady-insanely-optimistic to think otherwise.

I was directly responding to the "no chance in hell" statement. As I stated in a subsequent post, I can envision scenarios in which Full Collapse( to anyone that catches the reference) occurs, though I think that those scenarios are less likely than the team winning 81-87 games as currently constructed. And I doubt DD is done making moves anyway.

[wildcard]

How do you define collapse? I'd say it's pretty darned likely that this is a .500ish team. The '89 Orioles lept forward by 33 games, and the '90 Orioles basically stood pat and declined by 11 games. That's not a bad model to use.

Ye of little faith

[Scrat1]

The '89 Orioles lept forward by 33 games, and the '90 Orioles basically stood pat and declined by 11 games. That's not a bad model to use.

Why isn't it a bad model to use? Or, why is it a good model to use? There are hundreds of variables that made the '89 Orioles the '89 Orioles and hundreds of variables that made that the '12 Orioles the '12 Orioles. Picking the '90 Orioles as an indicator of what is going to happen to the 2013 Orioles makes no more or less sense than picking the '09 Rays.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

How do you define collapse? I'd say it's pretty darned likely that this is a .500ish team. The '89 Orioles lept forward by 33 games, and the '90 Orioles basically stood pat and declined by 11 games. That's not a bad model to use.

I agree on both counts, though I think that our chances of exceeding .500 are pretty good based on our age, our strong second half play and the fact that the Yankees and Rays will likely take a step back this year. As always, it will mostly come down to the SP, which looks fairly solid right now. Saunders would be a nice piece of insurance though to protect against possible regression.

[wildbillhiccup]

A lot of people, myself included, think that the Orioles are roughly an 85 win team right now. Personally, I think that it could swing 3 or 4 wins in either direction depending on who improves and who regresses. But to say that a 93 win team that hasn't really lost anyone significant and may yet add some quality pieces has no chance in Hell if winning 86 games is pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

As for trading Hardy, count me in the "no" camp- I doubt we'd be getting a quality 3B back, and there aren't really any available on the market. The gaping hole that the move would open up would be visible from the moon. Our defense on the left side of the IF was a large part of our second half success and I would have to be blown away by an offer to consider tinkering with it.

You're putting alot of faith in player development aren't you? Because they haven't improved offensively (on paper) and the odds are against them maintaining that ridiculous win rate for extra inning games. For every step forward a Machado takes someone like like Jim Johnson is just as likely to tack one step back.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

You're putting alot of faith in player development aren't you? Because they haven't improved offensively (on paper) and the odds are against them maintaining that ridiculous win rate for extra inning games. For every step forward a Machado takes someone like like Jim Johnson is just as likely to tack one step back.

It could be argued that Reynolds was an addition by subtraction- the DH platoon(or Morse if we acquire him) are pretty much locks to be better than Reynolds was for 2/3 of last year. Hardy and Machado should have better years. Whoever ends up at 2B will almost certainly outproduce Andino; at the very least, it would be incredibly difficult for them to be worse. Betemit won't get 100 PAs against lefties.

I see no reason to think that the offense won't match or exceed 2012. And the defense should be much improved overall, and save us quite a few runs- which is why I want to keep Hardy even if he's only posting a .300ish OBP. GG defense and 20+ HR power are hard to find in tandem at SS, especially at his pricetag.

[clarence]

I'd just like to know what we could get for a package of Hardy and JJ. I don't like the idea of paying a closer free agent money. If those two combined could get us an arm and a future corner infielder, I'm pulling the trigger, even if it means we maybe slide back a little next season.

[Brendan25]

I'd just like to know what we could get for a package of Hardy and JJ. I don't like the idea of paying a closer free agent money. If those two combined could get us an arm and a future corner infielder, I'm pulling the trigger, even if it means we maybe slide back a little next season.

Probably a decent offer but it makes our team significanlty worse right now.

[clarence]

Probably a decent offer but it makes our team significanlty worse right now.

If the corner infielder would be ready by 2014 then I would take that chance. I think we have a few arms that could potentially close and I want our financial resources used on other players.