Jump to content

Orioles Officially sign Catcher Welington Castillo


Machado13

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 475
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Over his career he has rated toward the very bottom in both pitch framing and sequencing.  So worse than Wieters in two areas the OH had the most issue with.

Last year Castillo was better than Wieters at pitch-framing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frobby said:

Let me ask a question: if Player A is non-tendered by his team when he could be retained for about $6 mm, and then is signed by another team to a one-year deal with a player option for a second year, and Player B ends up signing a 2-3 year deal at about double the annual salary of the other guy, do you really expect them to have equal production?    I realize their stats have been relatively close, but I don't think other GM's are that stupid.    I think Castillo adequately fills the hole left by Wieters, but he is a downgrade IMO.

He might be, but there is a potential for him to be better than Wieters as well and at the significant savings, this looks like a great deal for the Orioles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Yes I know.

What would you rather use, more data or less data?

Hopefully he does a great job next year.

I'm not convinced he's a worse defender than Wieters, who I think was overrated as a defender his entire time here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Got it ,,,,,I said okay 

Can you replace Manny with a sandwich pick?

Apparently, you don't got it.  Your question clearly shows that you didn't read what I posted.  Again, please read the first thirteen words of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crawjo said:

I'm not convinced he's a worse defender than Wieters, who I think was overrated as a defender his entire time here. 

To include 2011 when he won the Fielding Bible award?

I can't agree with you there, he had a monster year on defense.

Of course it has been downhill ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

He might be, but there is a potential for him to be better than Wieters as well and at the significant savings, this looks like a great deal for the Orioles.

I'm not complaining about the deal.   It makes sense to me given the likely disparity in pay and length of commitment, especially with Sisco on the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • 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.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...