Per Connolly: O's intensifying interest in Morales (Roch says he's hearing no)

[CA-ORIOLE]

You are, yet again, the one that brought this up and called lineup protection "nonsense." I was replying, yet again, to your lack of understanding of this important baseball strategy that all MLB managers use. If you do not wish to derail threads, I would strongly urge you to cease doing so. Your bizarre attempts to redefine lineup protection into anything other than an offensive strategy that has the sole purpose of scoring more runs will never fly, and should be responded to. Rate stats are unaffected by lineup protection, but that is, again, not what managers are trying to do. They are trying to have their top hitters see more pitches to hit in key situations in order that they score more runs and win games. Period.

Well, yes. I am referring to the standard, commonly accepted definition and premise of lineup protection. It is nonsense. If you want to say that you think lineup protection is starving kids in Africa, then it obviously would not be nonsense to you.

[25 Nuggets]

Remember, anything Heyman says is for Boras' advantage.

He's like the creepy rat fink in a mob film that leaks information for the Boss' benefit.

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Some with <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a> prefer Morales, others Cruz. Interesting divide. Either way told nothing imminent. We'll see. Curious how plays out</p>— Roch Kubatko (@masnRoch) <a href="

">February 21, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

Nothing Imminent.

[CA-ORIOLE]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Some with <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a> prefer Morales, others Cruz. Interesting divide. Either way told nothing imminent. We'll see. Curious how plays out</p>— Roch Kubatko (@masnRoch) <a href="

">February 21, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

Nothing Imminent.

Damn, I'm gonna be really disappointed if we don't get him.

[weams]

Damn, I'm gonna be really disappointed if we don't get him.

Because Cruz don't walk? Neither does Jhonny Peralta.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Because Cruz don't walk?

Cruz isn't good and I'm fine with Lough and company in LF.

[weams]

Cruz isn't good and I'm fine with Lough and company in LF.

Is Cruz as good as Nick was last year?

[Number5]

Well, yes. I am referring to the standard, commonly accepted definition and premise of lineup protection. It is nonsense. If you want to say that you think lineup protection is starving kids in Africa, then it obviously would not be nonsense to you.

This was uncalled for.

No, you are not using the standard definition. I am. It is the one that baseball managers use. Scoring more runs. You are using a false definition based on the obvious fallacy of making up a so-called purpose for lineup protection other than the purpose the strategy is employed for by managers.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Is Cruz as good as Nick was last year?

I don't care to find out.

[weams]

Cruz isn't good and I'm fine with Lough and company in LF.

Cruz has better stats if limited to 110 games.

[weams]

This was uncalled for.

No, you are not using the standard definition. I am. It is the one that baseball managers use. Scoring more runs. You are using a false definition based on the obvious fallacy of making up a so-called purpose for lineup protection other than the purpose the strategy is employed for by managers.

I know. And it seems like it works to me as well. But when you extrapolate it, it doesn't. It really is not a fallacy. I know. Really odd. Doesn't seem right. Is.

[weams]

I know. And it seems like it works to me as well. But when you extrapolate it, it doesn't. It really is not a fallacy. I know. Really odd. Doesn't seem right. Is.

It does work in a short series though. And so does going with an inferior defense. Just not in the marathon of the regular season.

[Guest]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Career at Camden Yds: Morales (in 50 PAs) .413 avg, .717 slug, .1.177 OPS. Cruz (in 87 PAs) is .333/.481/.849.</p>— Steve Melewski (@masnSteve) <a href="

">February 22, 2014</a></blockquote>

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

[waroriole]

I'll be pretty pumped for the season if we can add Morales. Just because it's fun to write it:

Markakis

Machado

Davis

Jones

Morales

Hardy

Lough/Pearce or Reimold

Wieters

Flaherty/Weeks

That's the makings of a very strong lineup.

[SilentJames]

The key to lineup protection - get better players.

Like if you have more good players, you don't have to worry about "protection."

That being said - Morales is interesting, Morales is very interesting.