Justify keeping Bedard or Roberts

[RShack]

It's not that complicated, and I'm not surprised you've dodged the question.

In Actual Baseball, it *is* complicated. To think otherwise is IMO completely silly.

The only place it's not complicated is on message boards (and *maybe* in fantasy baseball, but since everybody gets all uppity if I mention fantasy baseball, maybe I won't ;-)

[Dipper9]

Good Lord, it's statements like this that make we weep for the species.

Starting pitchers who are productive as long as Glavine has been are about one in a thousand. To say that such and such pitcher "could" last as long as Glavine would be as accurate as saying we should have kept Bako because he "could" hit sixty home-runs this year.

No, its actually quite different. A backup catcher who can't hit his weight is not ever likely to hit 60 homers. Saying that a guy who is currently dominating the league (injuries aside) "could" pitch another 12 years is much more based in reality. Like somone else said...I would hate to speak to ANY of the men in the HOF, or who have ever played 20 years in the bigs, and tell them that "statistically speaking" they should have started to decline half way through their major league career. In general you may be right, but suggesting that every guy who is 28, 29, 30 should be traded as if its some magical bean is just ludicrous!

[RShack]

Starting pitchers who are productive as long as Glavine has been are about one in a thousand. To say that such and such pitcher "could" last as long as Glavine would be as accurate as saying we should have kept Bako because he "could" hit sixty home-runs this year.

That may(?) be true, but it has nothing to do with whether it's reasonable to expect a Top Notch pitcher to be good into his early-to-mid 30's. That would be the actual issue with re-signing Erik.

[RShack]

Plus, even if we are willing that, if we are to believe our insiders, there's a good chance he'd sign elsewhere if he got a similar offer. Doesn't seem like BMore is his preferred destination.

AFAIK, that's is 100% pure baloney. We don't know what he'd do if he thought the team was getting good. We have absolutely no idea.

[Dipper9]

In Actual Baseball, it *is* complicated. To think otherwise is IMO completely silly.

The only place it's not complicated is on message boards (and *maybe* in fantasy baseball, but since everybody gets all uppity if I mention fantasy baseball, maybe I won't ;-)

Come on Shackles, don't you realize that we can trade and throw these guys around like their monopoly properties. Its not like they have families or homes in the community. Its not like you'd have to pull their kids out of the schools they are in, or rip them away from their friends. They are property man!

Seriously though, I do get the poops of people wanting to just toss these guys around like there is nothing to it. And as for Shackles...he is a grown man and can defend himself, but I for one am tired of you guys badgering him. THREE times you've asked him to answer a question that he obviously (as stated at least twice) he has no dsire to answer. What's the issue? Will yuo sleep better tonight knowing How much money Shackles is willing to pay Bedard to an extension? I swear people are losing their minds!

[mweb]

In Actual Baseball, it *is* complicated. To think otherwise is IMO completely silly.

The only place it's not complicated is on message boards (and *maybe* in fantasy baseball, but since everybody gets all uppity if I mention fantasy baseball, maybe I won't ;-)

It's not nearly as complicated as you suggest. And guess what, your decision on this is not important, it doesn't have any ramifications besides influencing a message board debate, so you don't need to treat this decision as if it's your actual job. It should not be hard to at least come up with a ball park figure. When this board was talking about extending him, there was plenty of research done, so I would assume you saw some of that as well.

[Dipper9]

It's not nearly as complicated as you suggest. And guess what, your decision on this is not important, it doesn't have any ramifications besides influencing a message board debate, so you don't need to treat this decision as if it's your actual job. It should not be hard to at least come up with a ball park figure. When this board was talking about extending him, there was plenty of research done, so I would assume you saw some of that as well.

Why do you care man? Let it go for God's sake!

[mweb]

AFAIK, that's is 100% pure baloney. We don't know what he'd do if he thought the team was getting good. We have absolutely no idea.

No it's not 100%, again with an absurd absolute comment. It's not a secret that he was not happy with how the O's treated him last offseason, it's also not a secret that he'd like to play in Toronto, and there's a good chance that the team wouldn't be a real contender by 2009 anyway.

[mweb]

Why do you care man? Let it go for God's sake!

Why do you care? I care because if one is going to make a statment like he did, he should be able to define it more specifically, otherwise his stance doesn't hold up too well imo.

[RShack]

It's not nearly as complicated as you suggest. And guess what, your decision on this is not important, it doesn't have any ramifications besides influencing a message board debate, so you don't need to treat this decision as if it's your actual job. It should not be hard to at least come up with a ball park figure. When this board was talking about extending him, there was plenty of research done, so I would assume you saw some of that as well.

I agree completely with the bolded part. That's why I'm amazed that there is so much energy for everybody stating 30 times what they think AM should get from the M's (or whatever). There's nothing wrong with people doing that. I'm just surprised by how intense everybody gets about repeating themselves for weeks on end.

As for playing salary games, be my guest. Unlike some, I don't wanna go picking numbers unless they are based on more than half-assed guesses based on opinion around here. I would assume that some salary-opinion here is good and some is not, but I don't really keep up with it. I care about actual baseball more than the backroom deal-making part of it. It's fine with me if you want to debate salary numbers, I have no problem with that at all.

[Dipper9]

Why do you care? I care because if one is going to make a statment like he did, he should be able to define it more specifically, otherwise his stance doesn't hold up too well imo.

If I recall correctly, the ponit of his statement was that he would consider extending them under certain conditions. (I am paraphrasing so don't get into semantics). Why is his point any mor eor less valid if he offers what he would pay to extend him?

And truthfully I don't care, but when you keep badgering him over and over again looking for some answer that for whatever reason he doesn't want to give, it is tiresome and looks like you're a big ol' bully. Let it go man...let it go!

[mweb]

I agree completely with the bolded part. That's why I'm amazed that there is so much energy for everybody stating 30 times what they think AM should get from the M's (or whatever). There's nothing wrong with people doing that. I'm just surprised by how intense everybody gets about repeating themselves for weeks on end.

As for playing salary games, be my guest. Unlike some, I don't wanna go picking numbers unless they are based on more than half-assed guesses based on opinion around here. I would assume that some salary-opinion here is good and some is not, but I don't really keep up with it. I care about actual baseball more than the backroom deal-making part of it. It's fine with me if you want to debate salary numbers, I have no problem with that at all.

Well I haven't been posting as much on the O's forum over the past month or so because many of the threads have been repetitive. However, I'm not sure you're one to be surprised about intensity of repetitive debates, unless you are surprised with yourself.

The numbers are based on other contracts.

[mweb]

If I recall correctly, the ponit of his statement was that he would consider extending them under certain conditions. (I am paraphrasing so don't get into semantics). Why is his point any mor eor less valid if he offers what he would pay to extend him?

And truthfully I don't care, but when you keep badgering him over and over again looking for some answer that for whatever reason he doesn't want to give, it is tiresome and looks like you're a big ol' bully. Let it go man...let it go!

The point of his post, I believe was that the justification for keeping Bedard and Brob is for possible contention in 2010 and beyond. Well if that's his justification, he should be willing to do whatever it takes to extend them, otherwise the justification falls apart.

Why don't you let it go? There's no reason for you to be involved in this, at least not the way you're involved.

[Sports Guy]

Rshack...Since you are doing your normal dodging...Let me ask this question another way.

If Bedard demanded a 6/110 contract...Would you give that to him heading into the 2009 season?

[ChaosLex]

I'd probably go as high as 5/65 with Bedard. I know I'm probably in the minority here.