Jump to content

Which O's prospects helped themselves the most in ST?


wildcard

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, George Zuverink said:

So who made the decision not to see whether Mancini could be a corner OF? They were giving Walker a shot and it seemed like they regarded Mancini to be the stronger prospect. Was it solely because Walker had a good ST last year?

The projection last year was that Mancini was to replace Pedro Alvarez at DH and the O's probably couldn't afford to  re-signing Trumbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, wildcard said:

The projection last year was that Mancini was to replace Pedro Alvarez at DH and the O's probably couldn't afford to  re-signing Trumbo.

That's a joke right?

I think a more likely projection was Mancini was to replace Alvarez at DH and the O's wouldn't be interested in re-signing a stop gap like Trumbo.

How much do you think it would have cost to extend Trumbo in Spring Training last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Aquino to have an impact on the '17 O's, if reports about him having 4 solid pitches and command are true. Mancini if he can show he's for real in RF will definitely help himself out. I thought it was a waste to use Walker in the OF last season, when Mancini was already the better prospect, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's a joke right?

I think a more likely projection was Mancini was to replace Alvarez at DH and the O's wouldn't be interested in re-signing a stop gap like Trumbo.

How much do you think it would have cost to extend Trumbo in Spring Training last year?

I wasn't talking about last spring.   I was talking about during the 2016 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ruzious said:

Did people in power positions in the O's org really think it made sense to favor Walker over Mancini in any way, shape or form?  If so... wow.    

Mancini was still in AA last season.  He was always behind Walker time-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weams said:

Mancini was still in AA last season.  He was always behind Walker time-wise.

No, you're misunderstanding, and they were together in AAA last year.  If anyone chose Walker to play OF because they thought the one who could play OF would have a better chance to go and stay in Baltimore, there's an issue.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ruzious said:

No, you're misunderstanding, and they were together in AAA last year.  If anyone chose Walker to play OF because they thought the one who could play OF would have a better chance to go and stay in Baltimore, there's an issue.    

I think that they had already made the decision that Mancini wasn't an outfielder.  Then they went and brought Trumbo back so they are going forward with it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that they had already made the decision that Mancini wasn't an outfielder.  Then they went and brought Trumbo back so they are going forward with it anyway.

Ok, that's what I had originally thought.

Btw, this is a really good thread.  Carry on.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

53 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Did people in power positions in the O's org really think it made sense to favor Walker over Mancini in any way, shape or form?  If so... wow.    

 Not to mention I doubt many even considered Walker as a legit prospect going into '16, when Mancini had the better track record and is a year younger. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I haven't seen much of the spring training games.  What are everyone's thoughts on Mancini as an OF.  Is he as good as Trumbo in the OF (which isn't saying much)?

I've read that he was outstanding so I am expecting Jason Heyward 2.0 out in right.

:P

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...