Hardy confused from lack of extension talk

[CA-ORIOLE]

Crystal.

But again I go back to that being evidence of not "wanting" that player (albeit for that price).

To get us back on track, let me attempt to more clearly restate my concern:

I fear that the FO's tactics/approach may sour players/agents on the organization, and as a result the reputation of the FO could limit the FO's ability to execute its desired strategy.

Yeah, we disagree.

i do see an issue with how the Balfour issue was handled and I hope they correct that. Other than that I don't really see anything that bothers me. In the cases of Reynolds/JJ and maybe Hardy I don't think you can be 100% straight up with them. Some of that has to left open in case of trades down the line. Certainly "JJ being part of the core" may have been a bit too much, but that is part of the business at hand. Maybe that's where some of the complaints come in here.

I have no doubt DD is doing his due diligence with players agents, is communicating with them clearly and balancing the needs of the organization. His comments always seem professional to me, even if detached a bit. I see no serious concerns about a dysfunctional organization at all. just the opposite. If anything, i think players,coaches etc are more inclined to come here than ever. You probably have a better feel for the scouting issues, as i know you've voiced concerns about that before.

Bottom line is that even great organizations don't make everybody happy and I'd argue if you don't have some unhappy people that you're probably doing something wrong. .

[jtschrei]

I think it is obvious now, and it should be to Hardy, that extension talks are on ice. When the team is not talking, then the team is obviously reconsidering what they want to do.

Sure, it would be nice to extend Hardy. He's a valued member of the clubhouse. He's played great for us. And he wants to stay here. That said, this is a business. We have certain limitations on the payroll and we have Manny just sitting there. He's younger and cheaper and he may want to play SS.

I don't think DD needs to come out and say we're not going to talk extension until after the season. His silence is saying it all. It's like when a girl doesn't call you back. There's a reason. She doesn't want to talk to you at the moment.

[weams]

I don't think DD needs to come out and say we're not going to talk extension until after the season. His silence is saying it all. It's like when a girl doesn't call you back. There's a reason. She doesn't want to talk to you at the moment.

[Babypowder]

I am concerned about his PED use. And his start to his new contract. Admittedly SSS and Hardy has been injured. I know which player I would rather have for that deal. And it's really neither of them.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/peraljh01.shtml#standard_fielding::none

Agree. There's a reason that deal may be the comp brought up however. They're very similar players in value. Over the last 3 seasons, Hardy has been worth 10.3 fWAR, Peralta has been worth 11. They're very close as overall players.

[weams]

[weams]

[weams]

[weams]

Yeah, we disagree.

i do see an issue with how the Balfour issue was handled and I hope they correct that. Other than that I don't really see anything that bothers me. In the cases of Reynolds/JJ and maybe Hardy I don't think you can be 100% straight up with them. Some of that has to left open in case of trades down the line. Certainly "JJ being part of the core" may have been a bit too much, but that is part of the business at hand. Maybe that's where some of the complaints come in here.

I have no doubt DD is doing his due diligence with players agents, is communicating with them clearly and balancing the needs of the organization. His comments always seem professional to me, even if detached a bit. I see no serious concerns about a dysfunctional organization at all. just the opposite. If anything, i think players,coaches etc are more inclined to come here than ever. You probably have a better feel for the scouting issues, as i know you've voiced concerns about that before.

Bottom line is that even great organizations don't make everybody happy and I'd argue if you don't have some unhappy people that you're probably doing something wrong. .

On that Balfour point, How do you think Jim or Grant would have handled that ninth inning gaff of Lombadozzi's? Well?

[CA-ORIOLE]

On that Balfour point, How do you think Jim or Grant would have handled that ninth inning gaff of Lombadozzi's? Well?

I'm indifferent on that I guess.

[Stotle]

Yeah, we disagree.

i do see an issue with how the Balfour issue was handled and I hope they correct that. Other than that I don't really see anything that bothers me. In the cases of Reynolds/JJ and maybe Hardy I don't think you can be 100% straight up with them. Some of that has to left open in case of trades down the line. Certainly "JJ being part of the core" may have been a bit too much, but that is part of the business at hand. Maybe that's where some of the complaints come in here.

I have no doubt DD is doing his due diligence with players agents, is communicating with them clearly and balancing the needs of the organization. His comments always seem professional to me, even if detached a bit. I see no serious concerns about a dysfunctional organization at all. just the opposite. If anything, i think players,coaches etc are more inclined to come here than ever. You probably have a better feel for the scouting issues, as i know you've voiced concerns about that before.

Bottom line is that even great organizations don't make everybody happy and I'd argue if you don't have some unhappy people that you're probably doing something wrong. .

I'm not the least bit concerned with making everyone happy. I just don't like the volume of griping from various sources in various contexts. Add that to winding up with a four year deal for Jimenez at the very end of the off-season and I'm dubious the FO is executing as it would like. I don't see what you see as far as players wanting to come to Baltimore. Coming off two solid years with plenty of opportunity in the rotation, it should be an easy sell to players -- it should not require four years of Jimenez. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not the least bit concerned with making everyone happy. I just don't like the volume of griping from various sources in various contexts. Add that to winding up with a four year deal for Jimenez at the very end of the off-season and I'm dubious the FO is executing as it would like. I don't see what you see as far as players wanting to come to Baltimore. Coming off two solid years with plenty of opportunity in the rotation, it should be an easy sell to players -- it should not require four years of Jimenez. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

As far as pitching goes winning or not they are still in the AL East and they are still playing in a ballpark that is perceived as being very hitter friendly. And of course there are the physicals...

I do agree that Jimenez on a four year deal was a disappointment.

[bobmc]

As far as pitching goes winning or not they are still in the AL East and they are still playing in a ballpark that is perceived as being very hitter friendly. And of course there are the physicals...

I do agree that Jimenez on a four year deal was a disappointment.

True dat but Angelos shouted down the naysayers with his munificence! :clap3:

[Just Regular]

Maybe it is the flapping of a butterfly wing and the price of tea in China, but I wonder if Lombardozzi falling into our laps was a bigger tipping point than the acquisition of a strong backup infielder normally would be. Consider the cliff after Schoop on our infield talent depth chart.

Pre-trade: Machado, Hardy, Flaherty, Schoop, cliff to deep replacement players like Alex Gonzalez

Suddenly that fifth infielder spot becomes Lombardozzi. In the possible event of Hardy's departure, instead of "needing" both Flaherty and Schoop to grow into regulars to deploy a qualified major league infield and confronting a vortex of suck in 2015 if they didn't both pan out, there's another decent option.

The trade didn't happen until March 24th. I think the pressure to finish a Hardy extension unexpectedly dropped significantly then, and we've communicated about it about like you'd expect given our leadership.

[Frobby]

I would be wary of Lombardozzi factoring into much of anything. He looks solid right now as a starting 2B, but let's pump the brakes here: the guy has no power, marginal speed, and while he doesn't K much, doesn't walk much either. He isn't an exceptional defender and doesn't have the arm to be a true utility guy at SS or 3B.

So.. I enjoy watching him play and I'm glad he's doing well, but I don't think he factors much into whether or not Hardy gets an extension.

I don't, either. Whether Hardy gets an extension centers on two things -- whether the O's want to move Manny to SS or leave him at 3B, and what kind of deal it takes to sign Hardy.

[Just Regular]

I would be wary of Lombardozzi factoring into much of anything. He looks solid right now as a starting 2B, but let's pump the brakes here: the guy has no power, marginal speed, and while he doesn't K much, doesn't walk much either. He isn't an exceptional defender and doesn't have the arm to be a true utility guy at SS or 3B.

So.. I enjoy watching him play and I'm glad he's doing well, but I don't think he factors much into whether or not Hardy gets an extension.

I think we're on the same page. I see him as a strong backup infielder, consider that a grade down from second division starter, and agree he isn't a starting caliber position player anywhere.