Jump to content

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


xian4

Recommended Posts

If Axford signing with the Indians is true, (which I'm sure it is), it will have left the worst taste in my mouth of any signing this offseason. He was a player who could have helped this ballclub at a decent value and our inability to make any move besides signing Webb has us without a closer. Have been optimistic up to this point but sitting on our hands while wait for Burnett and Balfour really sucks.

I like Axford more than most, but I did not want him on this team. He has been terrible as a closer the last two years. He had nine blown saves in 2012 and had six in 2013 before he was pulled from the closer role in Milwaukee. He looked better in St. Louis, but he was not used is high leverage situations and still had some shaky moments. His K/9 was much lower last year while his hits/9 and walks/9 were much higher. His WHIP over the last two years has been 1.44 and 1.52. He had a great year in 2011, but he has not been a good closer since. So I am happy he is apparently going to Cleveland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Balfour wants the vesting option. I heard its 3 years/ 7 mill. No vesting. Balfour wants $8 mill with the vesting option. O's move and inch and Balfour's side responds by moving a mile.

That's really not that far apart IMO. If he hits is vesting option it will mean that he was worth the 3/24 million. The vesting option would have to be something like 40 games finished in the 3rd year of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Balfour, I do. We need a good closer bad and he is probably the best available. But he is 36.....

I don't like the silly idea of handing the job to Mike Wright. Insane. I think some posters think they are Jonah Hill.

No, some posters don't like the idea of allocating huge resources of payroll for the most volatile spot on the roster. It also makes no sense to to spend close to the same amount of money on Balfour that we were supposed to be saving on Johnson. That money could be put to use in other areas of need.

And last I checked, Jonah Hill is an actor. Unless someone is fantasizing about the life of a pudgy young actor your reference needs some work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, some posters don't like the idea of allocating huge resources of payroll for the most volatile spot on the roster. It also makes no sense to to spend close to the same amount of money on Balfour that we were supposed to be saving on Johnson. That money could be put to use in other areas of need.

And last I checked, Jonah Hill is an actor. Unless someone is fantasizing about the life of a pudgy young actor your reference needs some work.

Jonah Hill is the actor in Moneyball for Peter Brand. I am sure your idol since you want to throw a Chris Ray type out there...

Super plan Bud but have you noticed how that reallocation has gone so far this offseason?

So while going into the season without an established closer seems great on paper it isn't because AJ Burnett is the best we will ever get. That is the problem. In theory you want to spend that money on starting pitching and that sounds super, it won't ever happen....

So might as well get an established closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So while going into the season without an established closer seems great on paper it isn't because AJ Burnett is the best we will ever get. That is the problem. In theory you want to spend that money on starting pitching and that sounds super, it won't ever happen....

So might as well get an established closer.

Again, the volatility of relievers makes that a bad move. Jim Johnson wasn't established as a closer before he was moved into that role. Many of us believe there shouldn't be any roles at all, but baseball dogma isn't easily changed. You're proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonah Hill is the actor in Moneyball for Peter Brand. I am sure your idol since you want to throw a Chris Ray type out there...

Super plan Bud but have you noticed how that reallocation has gone so far this offseason?

So while going into the season without an established closer seems great on paper it isn't because AJ Burnett is the best we will ever get. That is the problem. In theory you want to spend that money on starting pitching and that sounds super, it won't ever happen....

So might as well get an established closer.

1. I'd be content with a "Chris Ray type" as long as it was the Chris Ray of the first two seasons of his career (ERA+'s of 164 and 167 in 2005 and 2006). As you know, he came up through the O's minor-league system.

2. If the O's are willing to spend $7.5 million / season on Balfour, I'm thinking that they might spend a lot more than that on a high-quality starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...