Jump to content

Per Rosenthal: Balfour (FINALLY) to Orioles...


xian4

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Source: 3rd year is still sticking point in <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a>' talks w/ Balfour. O's holding to 2-year offer, willing 2 explore other closing options</p>— Eduardo A. Encina (@EddieInTheYard) <a href="

">December 14, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What a joke just give the guy a 3rd year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Source: 3rd year is still sticking point in <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a>' talks w/ Balfour. O's holding to 2-year offer, willing 2 explore other closing options</p>— Eduardo A. Encina (@EddieInTheYard) <a href="
">December 14, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What a joke just give the guy a 3rd year.

Or give the job to Wright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're willing to have a washed up arsonist like John Axford as your closer just to avoid giving a good closer 3 years instead of 2? Will you still feel that way when Axford has an ERA of 5 and eight blown saves by the ASB next season?

Didn't say that. Simply that there is no spin whatsoever regarding Balfour. I agree we should hold at 2 years. 3 years would be a bad contract. No spin there at all. You can disagree that we should hold at 2 years, and that is OK, but don't say there is a spin. There is none.

Mr. Balfour, we'd love to have you on our team on a 2 year contract. If you need 3, I'm afraid we aren't in a position to accommodate you. It has been a pleasure meeting with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or give the job to Wright.

Or Jason Gurka. Or Steve Johnson. Or Brad Brach.

The World Champion Boston Red Sox used four closers last season and the guy who won the World Series for them was sixth on their depth chart for a good deal of the season. Their adversaries in the World Series used at least three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the lines of the Dodgers eating half. Again, we both agree it isn't likely, but I can see a scenario (though unlikely) where Ethier would make sense. At what is being discussed for Choo, I see no scenario that would make sense. That is the point I am making. Kemp is probably a little more possible, since the Orioles could reasonably decide to pay a larger portion of what he is out than Ethier, but it is still a longshot, IMO.

The problem with getting them to eat that much of the contract is that they will then expect(and rightly so) several quality prospects in return- prospects that we don't have to spare right now.

And Kemp is a whole different can of worms- I highly doubt they would trade him if they had reason to believe that he's 100% and poised to return to his previous MVP-caliber form. That whole thing just seems fishy to me(they aren't exactly hurting for cash and clearly don't need the payroll relief) and would make me very uneasy about taking on that contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't say that. Simply that there is no spin whatsoever regarding Balfour. I agree we should hold at 2 years. 3 years would be a bad contract. No spin there at all. You can disagree that we should hold at 2 years, and that is OK, but don't say there is a spin. There is none.

Mr. Balfour, we'd love to have you on our team on a 2 year contract. If you need 3, I'm afraid we aren't in a position to accommodate you. It has been a pleasure meeting with you.

Exactamundo this. I remember Baez and Walker and Kline and Gregg. Free agent relievers are landmines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this thread will get to 100 pages? You are in a bad place when your biggest hope of the off-season is signing a reliever you are scared to give 3 years to.

You mean 1000 posts?

I'm only at 18 pages... You might want to adjust your settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad you don't remember Mike Dejean? He was the worst of them all. I hated that man with a passion.

Haha, just blocked him out. I used to play Dynasty Mode on MVP Baseball 2004 for the original XBox and everytime I started a new dynasty, the first thing I did was trade Dejean lol.

Hm. I'll see your Mike Dejean and raise you Buddy Groom ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, just blocked him out. I used to play Dynasty Mode on MVP Baseball 2004 for the original XBox and everytime I started a new dynasty, the first thing I did was trade Dejean lol.

Hm. I'll see your Mike Dejean and raise you Buddy Groom ;)

I see your Buddy Groom and raise you Steve Kline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • This posts wreaks of someone who has no idea what the cost of relievers are nowadays. Which is, of course, no surprise that you aren’t informed. Now that said, I don’t have an issue if you take someone out..I asked that very question. Who do you take out or what do you not acquire in favor of keeping Suarez?
    • You always have room for another high leverage guy.  And Akin has an option left according to FG.
    • Yea.  I feel the same way.  I really do not care strongly one way or another.  Sure, I think it's kind of ugly.  I also think HR's came pretty cheap before.  I like the exciting defensive plays it fosters and of course the random triple & odd carom make for some fun and unique moments.  But I don't think it helps or hurts the team in any substantial way short of helping out the pitching a little.   I sure don't think the players are changing their approaches.  If they keep it as is, that's fine with me.  If they modify it some way, that's fine with me as well.  It does seem like there is some opportunity for some unique seats down there by modifying it slightly.  When I first saw it, it almost appeared like a construction Phase 1.  That might be reasoning for pushing it back so far, allows them some flexibility in the future.   I also don't buy that a Free Agent RH hitter is going to care at all about the wall.   They are getting paid regardless.  I'd think that 1-maximizing payday 2-playing for a winner 3-finding a location that suits your family would be your priorities and your long-term stat line would be very close to the bottom of your list of concerns.  
    • His "ability to play RF" carries about $0 value
    • Yeah but if you think most of this money is going to upgrade things that are wrong or need improving, such as the ones @accinfo lists, I think you'll be disappointed.   They will be for new features, each one designed to create revenue via premium seating or premium "experience" areas or attractions that bring non baseball fans to the park to spend or sports betting related things. I'm not saying they won't fix some basic things that need it like upgrading the sound system or improving the point of sale technology.   I'm sure they will.   But the focus is going to be on the new attractions which are all designed with revenue enhancement in mind.
    • I’m not a lawyer … perhaps @Frobbymight know. Loss of income, future revenues? Damage to their franchise….Even with MASN the Orioles lost a ton on annual tv revenues
    • Congrats to the offense on playing a heck of a game. Lamar was incredible to watch, especially the play when the snap ended up on the ground and he had to run away towards the sideline and still found Likely for the score. It's very frustrating to me that the offense HAD to play so well because of the poor coaching and abysmal defensive play.  It's odd to me that Harbaugh still messes up timeout usage after being a coach in the league for over 15 years.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...