2015 Nelson Cruz tracker thread

[El Gordo]

Another one of these semantics arguments. Sure, their record is their record. It's hard for me to agree with someone saying a guy who has hit 6 homers in 9 games hasn't made his team better.

That is because maybe you don't get that it is about team building and not acquiring any one player. Something Theo always said. Cruz could hit 60 this season but if SEA doesn't make the playoffs he hasn't made the team better. That's not semantics IMO.

[PA724_Oriole]

Yet, you don't care about wins. They were 6-3 in their first 9 games last season. (all against playoff teams, btw). And now they are 3-6.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. I don't care about the Ms wins. I could careless. If they don't win another game and Cruz ends up with 35 HRs, he would have made their team less of a embarrassment.

[PA724_Oriole]

That is because maybe you don't get that it is about team building and not acquiring any one player. Something Theo always said. Cruz could hit 60 this season but if SEA doesn't make the playoffs he hasn't made the team better. That's not semantics IMO.

The Os brought in Peredes. I take it since we have a better record currently then the Ms, Peredes has made the Os better than Cruz is making the Ms? Hoggggwasshhh

[OFFNY]

That is because maybe you don't get that it is about team building and not acquiring any one player. Something Theo always said. Cruz could hit 60 this season but if SEA doesn't make the playoffs he hasn't made the team better. That's not semantics IMO.

I agree with your first two sentences.

However, I do not agree that if Cruz hits 60 home runs and the team fails to make the payoffs that he has not improved the team.

Cruz may be the difference between the Mariners going 66-96 and 72-90, he may be the difference between going 77-85 and 83-79, or, he may be the difference between them going 82-80 and 88-74.

In all 3 cases, he will have improved the team ...... even if they don't make the postseason.

But the larger point is the one that you made in the first portion of your post. It's about team building, not necessarily about signing individual players, and in that department, Duquette has been outstanding since being hired by the Orioles in November of 2011.

So, there are two different points/arguments:

Would Nelson Cruz make just about ANY American League team better with his bat ???

Absolutely.

Was not giving Cruz a 4-year contract therefore a mistake by Duquette ???

Not necessarily.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I think it's understandable that they didn't offer the four years. Listen, I'm thrilled Nelson is off to a great start this year. I loved having the guy but at the same time, this really is the worst time to go hindsight about the contract. If Nelson has an OPS like he did last year and stays as healthy as he did for three or even two of the years of his Seattle deal then maybe I'll concede we made a mistake. But I think it was reasonable given Nelson's OPs last year was his highest since 2010 and he had only one year before than when he played over 140 games in a season. Plus as he gets older, he becomes more and more likely a strict DH type. I am not saying t was absolutely the right move to keep him or it was absolutely wrong to let him go but that there definitely was understandable logic in not giving Nelson that extra four year. And we also have to think about that money could be going in keeping younger guys with more upside like Schoop, Tillman, and Machado. I guess in the end, it's way too early to say whether not extending Cruz was the bad move. If he were a younger man, I'd absolutely be there with the pitchforks but at the same time this is a guy who does turn 35 this summer and will be 39 by the time his contact is up. You can't ignore that when looking at the situation.

This. I do not believe that anyone here who thought the non-signing was a wise move thought so because they believed Cruz would putrid in year 1, month 1 of the contract.

[davidhusker]

Comparing Nelson Cruz to Caleb Joseph? We need a new emoticon for that. These just don't fully express the folly of that statement.:rofl::rofl::cussing:

He was referring to this:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/09/caleb-joseph-has-homered-in-five-consecutive-games/

[Redskins Rick]

What really bugs me, if DD had given Cruz a 4 year / 57 million dollar deal.

Just about all of OH would be up in arms, complaining that he mortgaged the future for the now.

DD show financial restraint and while most understand this.

Some are trying to use this as a reason to suggest DD did nothing and doesn't care about this team's winning.

[Herman]

What really bugs me, if DD had given Cruz a 4 year / 57 million dollar deal.

Just about all of OH would be up in arms, complaining that he mortgaged the future for the now.

DD show financial restraint and while most understand this.

Some are trying to use this as a reason to suggest DD did nothing and doesn't care about this team's winning.

I agree that giving Cruz that contract would have been foolish but as I have said in the past the Front Office did not really do much in the offseason to improve the team. For example, who is the leadoff hitter? The last time the Orioles had a legit leadoff hitter was Brian Roberts in 2009.

[Palmoripken]

This. I do not believe that anyone here who thought the non-signing was a wise move thought so because they believed Cruz would putrid in year 1, month 1 of the contract.

It's honestly the same thing with Andrew Miller. I'm not surprised that either is off to a nice start with their new team but that was never the argument. The argument was how they'd be in the middle of their contract by which time we will be needing to extend younger guys of our own. I just hate seeing hindsight about a contract the second week of the first year of a four year deal. That's ridiculous to do.

[CheeryO]

It would have been nice to have Cruz back, but so far at least offense has not been a big issue for the O's.

[El Gordo]

I agree with your first two sentences.

However, I do not agree that if Cruz hits 60 home runs and the team fails to make the payoffs that he has not improved the team.

Cruz may be the difference between the Mariners going 66-96 and 72-90, he may be the difference between going 77-85 and 83-79, or, he may be the difference between them going 82-80 and 88-74.

In all 3 cases, he will have improved the team ...... even if they don't make the postseason.

But the larger point is the one that you made in the first portion of your post. It's about team building, not necessarily about signing individual players, and in the department, Duquette has been outstanding since being hired by the Orioles in November of 2011.

So, there are two different points/arguments:

Would Nelson Cruz make just about ANY American League team better with his bat ???

Absolutely.

Was not giving Cruz a 4-year contract therefore a mistake by Duquette ???

Not necessarily.

SEA spent all that money risking eating the final 2 years of his contract on the addition of Cruz' bat getting them to the playoffs. If they fail then it was a waste of a lot of money. He is supposed to be that big piece that puts them over the top.

[Redskins Rick]

SEA spent all that money risking eating the final 2 years of his contract on the addition of Cruz' bat getting them to the playoffs. If they fail then it was a waste of a lot of money. He is supposed to be that big piece that puts them over the top.

I thought that was the jusitification for Cano's contract, he was the last piece of the puzzle that puts them over the top?

[PA724_Oriole]

It's honestly the same thing with Andrew Miller. I'm not surprised that either is off to a nice start with their new team but that was never the argument. The argument was how they'd be in the middle of their contract by which time we will be needing to extend younger guys of our own. I just hate seeing hindsight about a contract the second week of the first year of a four year deal. That's ridiculous to do.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm just arguing that if indeed the Os were scared off by an extra year ( understanding they might have very well been worried not only by year four but year three of that contract as well) that, that one or two years of sub par play would have been worth the first two years considering he could have put the offense over the top in what could be a WS contender.

[OFFNY]

SEA spent all that money risking eating the final 2 years of his contract on the addition of Cruz' bat getting them to the playoffs. If they fail then it was a waste of a lot of money. He is supposed to be that big piece that puts them over the top.

The Mariners' signing of Cruz may wind up being a waste of money, as I alluded to in my example of the 10-year, $252 Million contract that the Texas Rangers gave to Alex Rodriguez prior to the 2001 season.

But you stated that Cruz would not make the team better unless they make the playoffs:

Cruz could hit 60 this season, but if SEA doesn't make the playoffs, he hasn't made the team better.

I believe that to be false, and stated why in my previous post.

[PA724_Oriole]

SEA spent all that money risking eating the final 2 years of his contract on the addition of Cruz' bat getting them to the playoffs. If they fail then it was a waste of a lot of money. He is supposed to be that big piece that puts them over the top.

You can't put a team not making the playoffs on one player. Yes, they did think their team was already good and that Cruz would put then over the top. However, if Cruz has an AllStar year but they dont make it, you will blame him and the FO for signing him?

Do you blame the Os signing Cruz as the reason why we couldn't beat KC last year? I believe we dont get out of the first round without him.