Jump to content

Buy Low On Jurickson Profar


Matt Bennett

Recommended Posts

1) He hasn't done much in his big league experience so far, but we have a former #1 prospect of our own in Bundy whose career at one point looked hopeless.

2) Elvis Andrus and Rougned Odor are signed by the Rangers long term at SS and 2B, respectively. Being as those the middle infield is Profar's primary position, he clearly has no future in Texas. He's not even getting playing time right now as their super utility.

3) Wouldn't really take a whole lot to get him.

4) His floor is Ryan Flaherty's ceiling, so it would be an upgrade for the current team in that aspect. After this year, if Profar does utilize some of that talent that made him so highly regarded a few years ago, we would have three young infielders(Machado, Schoop, Profar) capable of playing shortstop. I don't think anyone wants to keep Hardy around for another year, so Profar would give us a replacement. The free agent class for shortstops next year is weak anyway, with only Mountcastle as a possible SS replacement from the system, but even that would take a couple more years. And it's a big if for him staying at short.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

It would be great if we had a MLB ready young SS/3B. Problem is he is not much cheaper than Flaherty at this point and he will start to get expensive. Not sure what Texas would want. Probably Givens, but I would not do that. 

Well he won't get expensive unless he gets good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Crazysilver03 said:

Well he won't get expensive unless he gets good.

The time to strike on Profar, then, is when his arbitration numbers start to rise.  He's got two years of arbitration left and he's making 1.05 mil this season.  If the number exceeds what they're comfortable with for a backup, and he remains mediocre, they'll get rid of him.

Really though, Profar's floor is worse than Flaherty's ceiling.  Flaherty has given plus defense at multiple positions in his best years... Profar hasn't done that in his worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • 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.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...