Jump to content

Making "No" Sound Like "Yes"


Number5

Recommended Posts

Nor would another agent be able to say "You were giving 154 to Davis, give it to us."

Weams, doesn't that mean "No?" If we aren't going to consider paying thast money to someone else, then the answer to the question is "No." That's all I am saying. I am less upset at the obvious fact that we aren't going to use the money that was earmarked for Davis if we don't sign Davis than I am that DD is somehow trying to make us think that we are. It simply rubs me the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think in layman's terms what you are saying is that Davis is a special case and the Orioles have no one else targeted that would provoke that type of offer. This year. It's not like they would need to find someone to take that confederate money should Davis not choose to.

Jefferson Davis took the Confederate money.Will the other Davis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if we sign Kim for $4 million and Alvarez for $6 million, I would consider the $6 million to be out of the Davis money, since we would have had to have signed one of the two even if we had signed Davis. If we sign Alvarez for a second year at $6 million, we are still short, because we would have spent an additional $22 million for Davis in the second year. Under that scenareo #32 million of the Davis money would go unpaid in the first two years ($16 million each season).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in layman's terms what you are saying is that Davis is a special case and the Orioles have no one else targeted that would provoke that type of offer. This year. It's not like they would need to find someone to take that confederate money should Davis not choose to.

Can I still hope against hope that it's a negotiating tactic with Upton? Haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weams, doesn't that mean "No?" If we aren't going to consider paying thast money to someone else, then the answer to the question is "No." That's all I am saying. I am less upset at the obvious fact that we aren't going to use the money that was earmarked for Davis if we don't sign Davis than I am that DD is somehow trying to make us think that we are. It simply rubs me the wrong way.
I can see your point. But if he uses that money over the seven year timeframe he was still telling you the honest to God's truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if we sign Kim for $4 million and Alvarez for $6 million, I would consider the $6 million to be out of the Davis money, since we would have had to have signed one of the two even if we had signed Davis. If we sign Alvarez for a second year at $6 million, we are still short, because we would have spent an additional $22 million for Davis in the second year. Under that scenareo #32 million of the Davis money would go unpaid in the first two years ($16 million each season).

Alvarez would never be signed were there Davis. And what if he gives all 32 to Manny in 2017? Even if he doesn't come to Fan Fests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thread is debating something Duquette never really said. Here is a link to the season ticket holder forum.

At 9:15, Duquette is asked about negotiations with Davis where he describes the situation as "tough" and that they are still trying.

At 19:45 is a question about spending the money elsewhere. Everyone can listen for themselves and draw their own conclusions but Duquette certainly never said anything about spending over the next 8 years and that it won't be on one player. The closest he gets to anything like that is saying that he is not sure "the company would reinvest all of that at one time."

https://vimeo.com/148750958

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thread is debating something Duquette never really said. Here is a link to the season ticket holder forum.

At 9:15, Duquette is asked about negotiations with Davis where he describes the situation as "tough" and that they are still trying.

At 19:45 is a question about spending the money elsewhere. Everyone can listen for themselves and draw their own conclusions but Duquette certainly never said anything about spending over the next 8 years and that it won't be on one player. The closest he gets to anything like that is saying that he is not sure "the company would reinvest all of that at one time."

https://vimeo.com/148750958

He spoke on the issue several times and at several forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alvarez would never be signed were there Davis. And what if he gives all 32 to Manny in 2017? Even if he doesn't come to Fan Fests.

Exactly, that is why I said the $6 million to Alvarez is what could be considered to be out of the Davis money. I hesitate to call a Manny extension out of the Davis money. Do you really believe that signing Davis has anything to do with whether we attempt to extend Manny? The effort to extend Manny should occur in any case. Getting him to puch back the date he can try for the free agency gold is a tall order, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, that is why I said the $6 million to Alvarez is what could be considered to be out of the Davis money. I hesitate to call a Manny extension out of the Davis money. Do you really believe that signing Davis has anything to do with whether we attempt to extend Manny? The effort to extend Manny should occur in any case. Getting him to puch back the date he can try for the free agency gold is a tall order, though.

I really don't know. I don't. I don't know who will pull the strings in 2019. Either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thread is debating something Duquette never really said. Here is a link to the season ticket holder forum.

At 9:15, Duquette is asked about negotiations with Davis where he describes the situation as "tough" and that they are still trying.

At 19:45 is a question about spending the money elsewhere. Everyone can listen for themselves and draw their own conclusions but Duquette certainly never said anything about spending over the next 8 years and that it won't be on one player. The closest he gets to anything like that is saying that he is not sure "the company would reinvest all of that at one time."

https://vimeo.com/148750958

I took this to mean it wasn't likely they would make another 7 year investment for 154 M to just one player. I isn't their MO to put that many marbles in one basket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He spoke on the issue several times and at several forums.

That is just not true. Duquette spoke on two panels (the season ticket holder one with Buck and the front office one). I also have the full video of the front office forum up and he didn’t make any comment approaching what you said he said in that one. I haven’t seen the reporters report anything close to what you have Duquette saying during their session with him.

Obviously what Duquette did actually say concerning Davis can be interpreted in a few different ways but the stuff about “over the next eight years” and “not on one player” was either not said or is twisting what he did say. You seem to have a tendency to paraphrase what people say in interviews and twist their words a little bit, rather than just accurately reporting back the quotes.

I took this to mean it wasn't likely they would make another 7 year investment for 154 M to just one player. I isn't their MO to put that many marbles in one basket.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just not true. Duquette spoke on two panels (the season ticket holder one with Buck and the front office one). I also have the full video of the front office forum up and he didn?t make any comment approaching what you said he said in that one. I haven?t seen the reporters report anything close to what you have Duquette saying during their session with him.

Stomper, thanks for posting the video. That was me asking the question of whether the monies for Davis would be available to other signings. And my brave 10 year old nephew at 27:10 asking in front of 1000 people, whether O'Day gets tired.

If you have them, can you post the videos of the later session with Duquette and Brady, and also the session with Buck and the coaching staff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Yeah both Burnes and Hyde said after the game it's because Burnes is going on regular rest to start the first WC game and so he was shortened up a bit. 
    • You seem to pine for guys in AAA and then (with one notable exception) judge them very harshly if they don’t perform well instantly in the majors.  This is not the time to start experimenting with Young, and that’s no reflection on him at all IMO.
    • I agree with the part about Elias. He needs to operate with a little more humility (regarding his bullpen approach) and pivot in the offense regarding how he puts a pen together. He needs to get away from the arrogant thinking in believing that we are always "the smartest guys in the room" and can fix other teams junk/unwanted parts. That is fine to do some time (regardless of how much you spend). But you can't construct an entire pen made of castoffs and almost no guys with elite/power/strikeout stuff. Yes it worked great with Felix, Perez/Lopez in 22', Cano in 23'. But the problem is that we are in '24. And some of those lightening in the bottle guys have reverted back to what their talent says that they are - mediocre. We have a pen full of decent/league average/mediocre arms. That's not what you really want heading into October.
    • Also, since there’s another interesting discussion going on here, I think it’s time for Hyde to have an uncomfortable conversation with Adley. I hate everything I’m about to say, because Adley is my favorite Oriole. But we have to acknowledge where we are.  Over the last few months, the only sensible approach with Adley — other than the IL, which apparently he hasn’t been eligible for — has been to keep penciling him into the lineup almost everyday and hoping he figures it out. He has a track record of consistent lifelong excellence, so it’s felt like just a matter of time before he busts the slump and rights the ship.  But he hasn’t. Adley’s line over the last 3 months, almost half a season now, is so bad that it requires a double check to be sure it’s right: .186 / .274 / .278 / .552. A 61 wRC+. And -0.2 fWAR. He has been a below replacement player for 3 months now. He has been the 3rd-worst qualified hitter in baseball over that span, and the 7th-worst overall qualified player. The “qualified” part does make it a little misleading — most of the guys who’ve been this bad have long since been benched. I think you have to consider McCann, at least in Burnes’s starts. He’s been hitting a bit (114 wRC+ since the ASB), and even if he wasn’t on a bit of a heater, his normal baseline is still better than a .552 OPS. If you do continue to play him full-time, you just can’t treat him like he’s *Adley* anymore. You have to treat him like the bad backup catcher he’s been. He has to hit at the bottom of the order. The very bottom. There’s really no reasoned basis upon which you could want to have him get more ABs than guys like Mullins or Urias right now. And you have to PH for him liberally — whichever of Kjerstad/O’Hearn doesn’t start should be looking at Adley’s slot as their most likely opportunity.  As I said, I love Adley. It’s been brutal watching him. But there are 25 other guys on the team who deserve the best shot to win a ring. And that means you can’t just keep stubbornly handing all the ABs to a guy who is desperately lost, on the blind hope that he’ll suddenly find it. 
    • I didn’t post it in the game thread no, but I’m also not looking for credit. I thought it was a bad move at the time to remove Burnes in the first place, and choosing Cano at that point after he’d been bombed by those exact hitters, felt odd and off to me. The only real defense I could come up with was who if not Cano?  But taking Burnes out is essentially admitting that winning that night wasnt your top priority anyway, so why not also rest Cano, who you absolutely need in the playoffs and has pitched a lot?  I just didn’t get it in real time, and I still don’t. 
    • I was at a meeting and came out to the Orioles down 1-0. I looked away for what seemed like a minute and it was 5-0, then 7-0. Do we know why Burnes was lifted after just 69 pitches after 5 innings? Was he hurt? Do we know why Cano was brought into the game in the 6th (Have to imagine his adrenaline may not have been as flowing at that stage of the game)?  Obviously the bullpen was pretty horrific last night, but could some of this be because Hyde was using guys who typically are late in game relievers in the 6th inning?  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...