Jump to content

Issues with Brady?


notfast

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

This much is true. And worth far more of a story than Brady Anderson's role. Why have the O's run through pitching coaches so much the last few years? Is it Buck? Is it from further up on high?

I thought that was the trend around the league, normally pitching coaches don't stick around long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

The O's need more employees like Brady.  He does everything he can to make the O's better.  He helps with so many things from strength and conditioning in the offseason to roving hitting instructor and gives advice for pitchers.  Maybe he can bring in a new "Oriole Way" like when Cal Sr. was here.  If anything, the O's need more guys like Brady and less me-first guys like Wieters. 

I can't believe the grief Wieters is getting in this thread.    The guy never did a single selfish thing while he was here that I can recall.   And his comments in this article are very mild.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I can't believe the grief Wieters is getting in this thread.    The guy never did a single selfish thing while he was here that I can recall.   And his comments in this article are very mild.      

I agree and I never have got how so many posters could be so critical of the man. Granted he wasn't the switch hitting Johnny Bench as advertised, but MW had a good run here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Es4M11 said:

Matt Wieters can thank himself for no longer being an Oriole. He made his bed, and now he can lie in it. I'd bet Boras had little to do with Matt's decision to seek more money - Boras is just the tool Matt used to get what he wanted. Can we retire this lame argument that Boras decides where players go? It's not supported by facts.

I'd be shocked to find out Wieters did not receive at least the same offer Castillo did. If Wieters wanted to be in Baltimore so bad, he could have instructed Boras to make it happen.

Why hire an agent then? I never said Boras instructed Matt where to go. Don't put words in my mouth. 

You don't know what went on behind the scenes no more than I do. And your opinion can't be back up by facts either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coaches have their own lockers/office now.  Separate from the clubhouse.

i thought this was a fascinating article free of any supposedly agenda.  It simply highlighted an unusual arrangement and the tension that has resulted.

For the most part I think Anderson has been a big benefit and credit the Os for doing something different and innovative. He clearly has value and good for the Orioles not caring about tradition snd shoehorning him into one spot.  And good for Brady for looking at things differently.  

But the chain of command has to be concerning.  He needs to report to Duq because now it leaves ambiguity about who is on what page.  And he has to stay out of the clubhouse in that respect too.  

It is never easy doing something different in baseball, which you see from Wallace and Chiti and their resistance.  And it's clear a few things need cleaned up even if the net gain is positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Good people have disagreements sometimes.  Everyone in the article is perceived as a good guy.  Why do some have to turn it into the good guy verses the bad guys?

Good question - I think it has something to do with psychology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

The article suggests that Brady pushed for the O'Day and Trumbo contracts. That's the most alarming thing in the article to me!! :);)

But seriously, one of DD's strengths to me is his cold blooded-ness. I don't want a GM/VP who forms strong attachments. I would worry about that with Brady. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

The article suggests that Brady pushed for the O'Day and Trumbo contracts. That's the most alarming thing in the article to me!! :);)

All it really says is he worked in the process of getting them both re-signed.  I didn't get a strong feeling from the piece that he, personally, was advocating for their return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

So the Davis deal, and 36 million to a 34 yo setup man.

Pretty sure Brady was also involved with the Hardy deal. 0 for 3.

His strength and nutrition input I would think is as good as you'll find though. That is a huge positive. Not a coincidence Arrieta stayed in touch with Brady and gets his body and head right and winds up best starter in baseball while around the same time Britton works with Brady and becomes best closer in baseball. Now obviously both guys had all the talent in the world and had to put in the work but still, Brady helped. Getting on the right lifting program/getting your meals right .. this stuff makes the difference.

Also like Brady sticking up for the fringe guys. Kept hearing about how Wright was a head case. Reminded me of Arrieta. Why does he get that label? Because a pitching coach tries to change a guy at the major league level and it doesn't work? That always rubs me wrong. Way to help guys is get their body/mind right, feed them helpful hitter/pitcher data and tweak minor mechanical stuff if something is obvious (this last one seems a major point of contention and it's certainly not easy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

All it really says is he worked in the process of getting them both re-signed.  I didn't get a strong feeling from the piece that he, personally, was advocating for their return.

I was mostly joking about those deals. 

 

 

Mostly. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Finisher said:

Pretty sure Brady was also involved with the Hardy deal. 0 for 3.

His strength and nutrition input I would think is as good as you'll find though. That is a huge positive. Not a coincidence Arrieta stayed in touch with Brady and gets his body and head right and winds up best starter in baseball while around the same time Britton works with Brady and becomes best closer in baseball. Now obviously both guys had all the talent in the world and had to put in the work but still, Brady helped. Getting on the right lifting program/getting your meals right .. this stuff makes the difference.

Also like Brady sticking up for the fringe guys. Kept hearing about how Wright was a head case. Reminded me of Arrieta. Why does he get that label? Because a pitching coach tries to change a guy at the major league level and it doesn't work? That always rubs me wrong. Way to help guys is get their body/mind right, feed them helpful hitter/pitcher data and tweak minor mechanical stuff if something is obvious (this last one seems a major point of contention and it's certainly not easy).

I personally think that keeping Hardy and O'Day were a good ideas, but I think keeping Davis was just because of the piss poor season we had that year. Would have kept him, but not at the $ and years we gave him. Wouldn't have resigned Trumbo due to Mancini (I called it and told you guys, btw), but I agree with the rest of your points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Finisher said:

Also like Brady sticking up for the fringe guys. Kept hearing about how Wright was a head case. Reminded me of Arrieta. Why does he get that label? Because a pitching coach tries to change a guy at the major league level and it doesn't work? That always rubs me wrong. Way to help guys is get their body/mind right, feed them helpful hitter/pitcher data and tweak minor mechanical stuff if something is obvious (this last one seems a major point of contention and it's certainly not easy).

Buck has been fairly open with frustration with Wright. He has strongly suggested that Wright wasn't doing what he was asked to do.

 

The proof is also in the pudding...has Brady helped make Wright a better pitcher? Wright is still very mediocre, so that hasn't happened yet. And probably won't...because the player is >>>>>> than the coaches input. 

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...