Still think O's were wrong on Balfour?

[Stotle]

I don't think that one is necessarily mutually exclusive of the other.

If the Orioles refused to honor their original offer to Balfour because he failed the physical, wouldn't one of the next logical presumptions be (on the part of the Orioles) that since he failed the physical, then there is at least a decent chance that he won't be able to pitch well because of his failure of the physical? In fact, isn't that essentially what the Orioles are/were saying by nixing the contract? Something along the lines of, "He failed the physical, he is damaged goods, so therefore we are not willing to part with a good deal of money for said player who very well might not be able to perform up to (or close to) his expected capabilities."

If that were the case they wouldn't have offered a one year deal. Their hangup was on the second year, not whether he would be competent this year.

[mdbdotcom]

If that were the case they wouldn't have offered a one year deal. Their hangup was on the second year, not whether he would be competent this year.

Perhaps they were being overly optimistic.

[Stotle]

Perhaps they were being overly optimistic.

I don't know what this means in the context of "the Orioles were right about Balfour."

[Barnfather]

Could the zero-confidence be a major factor in any recent performance issues? It can be hard for a club to climb out of a losing hole, especially for pressure positions like closer

[mdbdotcom]

I don't know what this means in the context of "the Orioles were right about Balfour."

It was in the context of your saying what I quoted. Perhaps they were being overly optimistic in thinking he would be okay for one year. Maybe he broke down earlier than they expected.

[DrungoHazewood]

Absolutely. The Baltimore panel of doctors stated that they felt Balfour would not be able to contribute the second year.

Doesn't that sound fishy? What doctor is going to say that someone's arm will be perfectly fine for a whole season but it definitely going to explode in year two?

[DrungoHazewood]

Being wrong about Ubaldo > being right about Balfour.

I don't think they were wrong on Ubaldo. They knew he was a guy who can be great when he's on, and also subject to stretches where he's not on. We're just hoping his great stretches coincide with times when the team really needs them.

[Stotle]

Doesn't that sound fishy? What doctor is going to say that someone's arm will be perfectly fine for a whole season but it definitely going to explode in year two?

That's not how to interpret that. Arm is X% likely to blow out. Do you want to gamble one year's worth of money or two? That's how teams would generally weight their options.

[Stotle]

It was in the context of your saying what I quoted. Perhaps they were being overly optimistic in thinking he would be okay for one year. Maybe he broke down earlier than they expected.

Okay, got it. I think that's close to what happened. Essentially, we think he is this category of risk, which could warrant a one year investment but not a two year investment.

[Stotle]

I don't think they were wrong on Ubaldo. They knew he was a guy who can be great when he's on, and also subject to stretches where he's not on. We're just hoping his great stretches coincide with times when the team really needs them.

I don't think they were wrong about his performance. They were wrong about making him their big four-year investment.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think they were wrong about his performance. They were wrong about making him their big four-year investment.

We'll see in 2-3 years. I think it's way too early to make a final call on that, and I still think it was a justifiable risk given that he's demonstrated the ability to pitch at a high level for extended stretches. Banking on him pitching well was more likely to push the O's to the postseason this year than going with their existing rotation of 3/4/5 starters and kids in need of rehab/seasoning.

[weams]

I don't know what this means in the context of "the Orioles were right about Balfour."

"The Orioles were right to void the contract of Balfour because of the things seen during the physical, based on his poor performance. A good thing they chose not to spend the 15 million because they were able to nix the deal due to what their three Doctors saw."

Is that better? Does that work for you or do you still have issues. Honestly. My stance is they did see things during the physical which gave them pause. As a good organization, they tried to work out a new deal that was not as risky. The player chose to forego this and signed a deal where he is making much less than the secondary offer in the here and now and is pitching poorly. Maybe as a result of wear and tear, maybe because he was not that good.

[OFFNY]

I don't think they were wrong about his performance. They were wrong about making him their big four-year investment.

I don't believe that there is any way that anybody could assert that right now.

Jimenez has had several good starts, several average starts, and several absolutely horrific starts.

He may wind up being a bad one-year investment, he may wind up being a good one or two-year (but bad 4-year) investment, and he may wind up being a good 4-year investment.

As Hazewood stated, we won't know that until about 2 or 3 years passes.

[weams]

Doesn't that sound fishy? What doctor is going to say that someone's arm will be perfectly fine for a whole season but it definitely going to explode in year two?

You are right. I interpreted that poorly. They said that from a risk standpoint, they did not advise a second year based on what they saw. I stand corrected.

[DrungoHazewood]

You are right. I interpreted that poorly. They said that from a risk standpoint, they did not advise a second year based on what they saw. I stand corrected.

That (and what Stotle said) makes more sense. I can see the logic behind "based on his medicals we'll risk $7M, but not $15M."