Jump to content

Darren O'Day Expects A Happy, Healthy 2017


PressBoxOnline

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

He won't be this bad going forward but it was hard to not see some level of regression in his future after 2014-2015.

I wouldn't have re-signed him but I wouldn't have brought back Hardy, Davis or Trumbo either.

I saw the box score, ouch.

Would you lock up anyone LT out of curiousity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

I saw the box score, ouch.

Would you lock up anyone LT out of curiousity. 

I was fine with the Markakis deal.  I was fine with the Jones deal.  I was fine with the first Hardy deal.  I was even OK with the first O'Day deal.

What do those have in common?  The player wasn't over 30.

I'd be interested in extending Machado, Schoop and Gausman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was fine with the Markakis deal.  I was fine with the Jones deal.  I was fine with the first Hardy deal.  I was even OK with the first O'Day deal.

What do those have in common?  The player wasn't over 30.

I'd be interested in extending Machado, Schoop and Gausman.

Decent logic. Hard to say that's a bad approach. 

The Davis deal was terrific for fan morale but will hamper is for years.

Ambivalent on Manny: that's a LOT of cash and his ties to Arod as Roy noted previously scare me a tad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

Decent logic. Hard to say that's a bad approach. 

The Davis deal was terrific for fan morale but will hamper is for years.

Ambivalent on Manny: that's a LOT of cash and his ties to Arod as Roy noted previously scare me a tad.

I would also be pushing hard to extend them in their pre-arbitration years.  At this point you would be paying the perceived market value for Machado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FanSince88 said:

OF COURSE it's the one bullpen guy we signed to a long term guaranteed big money deal who's struggling to stay healthy and effective.  Of course.  Because the universe hates our team.  

Seriously?  Already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

He won't be this bad going forward but it was hard to not see some level of regression in his future after 2014-2015.

I wouldn't have re-signed him but I wouldn't have brought back Hardy, Davis or Trumbo either.

Eventually dedicating so much payroll to non-performing/under-performing veterans past their prime will bury this team below .500

I have bee amazed that Buck has somehow won with the few younger performing players that we have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was fine with the Markakis deal.  I was fine with the Jones deal.  I was fine with the first Hardy deal.  I was even OK with the first O'Day deal.

What do those have in common?  The player wasn't over 30.

I'd be interested in extending Machado, Schoop and Gausman.

For what we offered or what the Braves did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...