Jump to content

Issues with Brady?


notfast

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
26 minutes 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 think Wright's reputation as a head case -- whether or not deserved -- stems from his demeanor on the mound when things aren't going his way, and some of his statements to reporters where he hasn't been accountable for his results.   It's not anything the team has done to label him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I think Wright's reputation as a head case -- whether or not deserved -- stems from his demeanor on the mound when things aren't going his way, and some of his statements to reporters where he hasn't been accountable for his results.   It's not anything the team has done to label him.  

They were harder on Arietta, apparently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I think Wright's reputation as a head case -- whether or not deserved -- stems from his demeanor on the mound when things aren't going his way, and some of his statements to reporters where he hasn't been accountable for his results.   It's not anything the team has done to label him.  

And the antics in the dugout.  That's the one that really caught my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

It wasn't up more than a few days.

I guess it's possible parts of it were quoted in a thread here.

He took the team to task for the conditions during ST before they moved to Sarasota.

Back in Fort Lauderdale in 2010? In terms of team quality and personalities, or in terms of the facility being utter garbage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

2010 was his rookie season. Why did the team give him flak for it? Stadium in fort lauderdale is older than dirt and never been renovated. 

If I recall correctly it was the workout facilities and minor league fields.  Once again it may have been prior to 2010.

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...