Jump to content

Buck Goes Off on Bud. Calls him Out by Name.

weams

By weams
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Orioles franchise is ruined if the Yankee lure our .300 OBP catcher w/ a $100 million deal.

Does all of Soriano's contract count against the Yankee's payroll next year, or just the part they pay? (As far as the luxury tax limit)

I don't think very much. I think they paid it all this year. The part that is paid by the Cubs does not count against their luxury tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JTrea81 Hangout Grand Counsel

JTrea81

Posted
Posted
The Orioles franchise is ruined if the Yankee lure our .300 OBP catcher w/ a $100 million deal.

Does all of Soriano's contract count against the Yankee's payroll next year, or just the part they pay? (As far as the luxury tax limit)

I detect sarcasm and you are absolutely right. We likely don't want Wieters past his team control years because catchers do not age well.

He's not Mike Piazza and his value is in his defense which will most surely decline along with the start of knee and back injuries.

I get the sentimentality, but the goal should be to find and groom his replacement. Plenty of other teams have catchers that aren't Matt Wieters and they are still winning games.

We should explore trades for him after the 2014 season and then we won't worry about him going to the Yankees and leaving for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scrat1 Hangout Grand Counsel

Scrat1

Posted
Posted
They can have him. I'll be glad when he is finally traded or signed by another team. What is he now 0 for his last 24???

His defense doesn't make up for his bat, even at catcher

Uh, relative to most other catchers in the league, yes it does. Even if he's not a superstar, he's still an above average catcher and will be difficult to replace. That said, he's not a guy we should be breaking the bank on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony-OH Hangout Grand Counsel

Tony-OH

Posted
Posted
Hang on now, guys. You all are still arguing about the minutae of the ARod thing or the Wieters/Boras money type connections, but right now I'm WAY more disturbed by the fact that it was ferreted out that Buck's original quote was off the record and still got published anyways. Doesn't anyone else find that problematic? Why would someone do that?

I think Buck didn't notice who else was in the crowd when he made those remarks. Obviously the USA Today guy is not one of Buck's normal group of reporters so it's telling that he as the only one to report what Buck said. The rest have better journalistic integrity. You'd be amazed at the things we hear from time to time that never gets printed. It's part of earning the trust of the people you cover.

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

PeteU

Posted
Posted
They can have him. I'll be glad when he is finally traded or signed by another team. What is he now 0 for his last 24???

His defense doesn't make up for his bat, even at catcher

And our options are then what? Chris Snyder?

Please don't say Taylor Teagarden with a straight face.

What good free agent catchers will be out there, other than Wieters himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Rick Hangout Grand Counsel

Redskins Rick

Posted
Posted
Right, and considering the nature of the quote, there's any number of reasons why. It's still unethical if done on purpose, and if not, there should be an apology.

The writer was on 105.7 this morning and explained his side of it, and claims him and Buck go way back and he said normally Buck would say, this is off the record, or dont print this, which he didn't. He claimed Buck waved him over to talk to him and said what he said.

Jerry Coleman said, most of the beat reporters know when Buck is away from the podium, they dont print what he says, and he noted, Buck made the identical comment the next day. But, he also alluded, that is the different between local and national reporters.

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites
waroriole Hangout Grand Counsel

waroriole

Posted
Posted
The writer was on 105.7 this morning and explained his side of it, and claims him and Buck go way back and he said normally Buck would say, this is off the record, or dont print this, which he didn't. He claimed Buck waved him over to talk to him and said what he said.

Jerry Coleman said, most of the beat reporters know when Buck is away from the podium, they dont print what he says, and he noted, Buck made the identical comment the next day. But, he also alluded, that is the different between local and national reporters.

T

I wouldn't be surprised if Buck knew all of this, but wanted to get it out there without it looking like he wanted it to be out there.

President Bartlett did this on West Wing.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Rick Hangout Grand Counsel

Redskins Rick

Posted
Posted
It has been well documented for many years that Buck really disliked ARod when he managed him. He played him because he had little choice, but I believe Buck'sinput into ARod's character is a major reason why the Rangers initially started thinking about trading him.

A-Rod wanted to be a Yankee, before he was traded to the Rangers.

A-Rod wanted to play ball, with his best buddy Jeter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...