Jump to content

Dylan Bundy question


Dark Helmet

Recommended Posts

How does his contract work? I know he had to be in the majors last year. Is that still the case? Does he have to clear waivers to be optioned?

 

I only ask, because if he struggles as a SP sending him to the BP doesn't help his development. It sets him way back imo. 

I hope it's an issue we don't have to worry about, but he is still very inexperienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Helmet said:

How does his contract work? I know he had to be in the majors last year. Is that still the case? Does he have to clear waivers to be optioned?

 

I only ask, because if he struggles as a SP sending him to the BP doesn't help his development. It sets him way back imo. 

I hope it's an issue we don't have to worry about, but he is still very inexperienced.

He signed a ML deal which meant he had to be put on the 40 man.

The O's asked for and received a fourth option year.

He is out of options.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Just like last year.

Except they need him in the rotation all year instead of half of it.

There is always the disabled list. I mean. If he's hurt. Again. There is no development. This is your guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's developed enough, in my view.   Having seen him in action last year, I wouldn't start him in the minors this year even if I could.     Of course, it would be nice to have that alternative if he struggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Frobby said:

He's developed enough, in my view.   Having seen him in action last year, I wouldn't start him in the minors this year even if I could.     Of course, it would be nice to have that alternative if he struggles.

I agree. I wouldn't have him in the minors. I would just like to have options incase he struggles. But I don't think he has much to prove in the minors right now.

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...