The O's plan to get into the playoffs: "Fingers crossed, you guys!"

[ArtVanDelay]

2 minutes ago, Cumberbundy said:

Not everyone thought Hellickson was an improvement. Some, correctly, gave the move a cool F-.

 

Oh, I know.  Only 23% in the poll thought it was a good trade. 

[Cumberbundy]

3 hours ago, interloper said:

The larger point I'm trying to make with this thread is that the Orioles have lacked a plan all season. 

1. They didn't sell when it was clear they should.

2. When they bought, they bought another bad starting pitcher that didn't move the needle at all.

3. Now that they've gotten lucky with Beckham and gone on a run, they failed to improve the pitching staff to help get them over the hump, instead just hoping for the best.

I get believing in your team. But at some point, you have to not be ok with the pitching staff. And if they just miss the playoffs, they'll have done so without improving the team when they could have.

The playoff spot is still there to be had, our boys can go get it. These guys just won 7 in a row, in dominating fashion. Toronto is a AAAA team - we will take the next 2. 

[Cumberbundy]

Now to continue to the positive, Asher & Verrett were both vital in Ws this season. It's hard to remember Verrett being on the club, but he had a few brilliant outings that kept us this close.

 

[tntoriole]

4 hours ago, weams said:

Gonzo is not a top 3 guy. 

He is on this staff. 

[foxfield]

4 hours ago, interloper said:

Just realized I forgot Hellickson in there. Which doesn't move the needle any more anyway, which is why we should have never traded for Hellickson in the first place. But while we're here and this close, my opinion is that we should go for it.

 

4 hours ago, interloper said:

Hey, fair enough. I know we aren't privy to the inner workings at the Warehouse. As fans, we'll never know the details of what's going on. I'm just here on a message board writing some stuff. 

As a fan, I think there was a chance to move more decisively in one direction or the other. As usual, they decided to ride the fence. From my perspective, that rarely works, and hasn't worked the last few years. But I know it's not that simple and things are more complex than they seem. 

But also, if we're not going to share opinions here, we might as well agree to close the website, right? 

You are presenting this as a choice: 1 direction or the other and then equally complaining both sides as wrong here.

We should not have made a move and wasted assets to get Hellickson who's era slotted as our #3.  Then we SHOULD have made a move and traded something to get Miggy who's era would slot as our #3.  And in doing this you are ragging on our GM for doing the same wrong thing over and over.

Look you don't like DD.  Fine.  Pitching has been our achilles heel for 25 years.  He has signed the most expensive FA contract in history to get pitching, traded for middling inning eating pitching and tried to develop some pitching.  Some of this has worked and some has not.  If you want to make the point that pitching is still the #1 hold up and that too often our choices have not worked, I do not think you will find many who argue.  But you simply cannot categorize two choices and then criticize both ways as being equally flawed and equally poor. 

The fact is neither are really likely to move the dial and and you make this point yourself by accusing Weams trolling you in a debate over who would be the #3 or #4 pitcher on a universally described horrific staff.  It says here that it doesn't matter which one of you are right.  If we win it will be because Bundy and Gausman continue to improve and everyone else sort of just holds their own.  

If we were not in it for Verlander I for one am fine with standing pat and its the first time DD has done that, not the same as always, as you say above.  

[NCRaven]

4 hours ago, interloper said:

You're borderline trolling me. You know what I mean.

Actually, I thought the funniest part of this thread was Interloper accusing Weams, or anyone, of being a troll.

[weams]

18 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Actually, I thought the funniest part of this thread was Interloper accusing Weams, or anyone, of being a troll.

[tntoriole]

17 minutes ago, foxfield said:

 

You are presenting this as a choice: 1 direction or the other and then equally complaining both sides as wrong here.

We should not have made a move and wasted assets to get Hellickson who's era slotted as our #3.  Then we SHOULD have made a move and traded something to get Miggy who's era would slot as our #3.  And in doing this you are ragging on our GM for doing the same wrong thing over and over.

Look you don't like DD.  Fine.  Pitching has been our achilles heel for 25 years.  He has signed the most expensive FA contract in history to get pitching, traded for middling inning eating pitching and tried to develop some pitching.  Some of this has worked and some has not.  If you want to make the point that pitching is still the #1 hold up and that too often our choices have not worked, I do not think you will find many who argue.  But you simply cannot categorize two choices and then criticize both ways as being equally flawed and equally poor. 

The fact is neither are really likely to move the dial and and you make this point yourself by accusing Weams trolling you in a debate over who would be the #3 or #4 pitcher on a universally described horrific staff.  It says here that it doesn't matter which one of you are right.  If we win it will be because Bundy and Gausman continue to improve and everyone else sort of just holds their own.  

If we were not in it for Verlander I for one am fine with standing pat and its the first time DD has done that, not the same as always, as you say above.  

All in all, Dan and Buck mishandled the Miggy Gonzalez situation last spring from the getgo, imho.  And I wonder if that mistake led them to be even marginally reluctant to trade for him back.  

Just as a fan, adding Miguel AND Hellickson would still not have been too much to ask if we are really going hard for it this month, imho.   Verlander, no, that was never going to happen.   But we shall see.   I would have much liked to have had the experienced Stone Cold Yankee Killah as we go head to head with them, but, nope. 

[Enjoy Terror]

26 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

All in all, Dan and Buck mishandled the Miggy Gonzalez situation last spring from the getgo, imho.  And I wonder if that mistake led them to be even marginally reluctant to trade for him back.

When they cut Gonzo it was a bit surprising to me, but it's not like he was pitching well. I was surprised because they had no back up plan for his starts. But his Spring was disastrous and when he was cut it was like..."yeah, see that's what happens when you're terrible". His velocity was down. It wasn't looking good for him.

Him being a serviceable 4-5 with the Sox is only something you can see in hindsight.

[foxfield]

36 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

All in all, Dan and Buck mishandled the Miggy Gonzalez situation last spring from the getgo, imho.  And I wonder if that mistake led them to be even marginally reluctant to trade for him back.  

Just as a fan, adding Miguel AND Hellickson would still not have been too much to ask if we are really going hard for it this month, imho.   Verlander, no, that was never going to happen.   But we shall see.   I would have much liked to have had the experienced Stone Cold Yankee Killah as we go head to head with them, but, nope. 

I don't have a problem with this at all even if I don't share the identical opinion.  My issue was Interloper was arguing one was  bad for doing the trade and then it was bad to not do it....

And As Enjoy Terror said.  It was somewhat surprising when Miggy was cut, but he was pretty bad and at the time it seemed like a good shot across the bow to pitchers.  Not having a back up for Miggy and then not having a back up for Tilly and not getting anywhere near enough of good Ubaldo...well, that pretty much explains our mediocrity.

[tntoriole]

9 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

When they cut Gonzo it was a bit surprising to me, but it's not like he was pitching well. I was surprised because they had no back up plan for his starts. But his Spring was disastrous and when he was cut it was like..."yeah, see that's what happens when you're terrible". His velocity was down. It wasn't looking good for him.

Him being a serviceable 4-5 with the Sox is only something you can see in hindsight.

Nope I said it then... at the time.  On the day he was released. 

There is ZERO hindsight for me.  

The last game he pitched in the spring was better than all the others (as if other veterans had such great springs that year) and  he has been an effective pitcher on a terrible team for two seasons while we went with Ubaldo and Gallardo and Wright and Wilson and Miley and Hellickson etc..  And, remember, he still had an option.  They didn't want to pay his 5 million to see if he could do it.  He could have gone to Norfolk, regained whatever and returned to us JUST like he did with the White Sox.  And, supposedly he was let go because the judgement was that Tyler Wilson, Mike Wright at the time and then Yovani Gallardo later that spring were better starting options than he was. 

It is ridiculous to say oh he was just a "serviceable 4-5"  as if we had a full staff of serviceable  pitchers rather than the disasters we have run out there instead in the last two seasons.   I wish we had a staff of serviceable pitchers and we would have won it this year AND last year. 

[Enjoy Terror]

11 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

It is ridiculous to say oh he was just a "serviceable 4-5"  as if we had a full staff of serviceable  pitchers rather than the disasters we have run out there instead in the last two seasons.   I wish we had a staff of serviceable pitchers and we would have won it this year AND last year. 

I didn't say that. I said he is a serviceable 4-5 with the Sox. He is exactly that. That's not ridiculous at all.

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

When they cut Gonzo it was a bit surprising to me, but it's not like he was pitching well. I was surprised because they had no back up plan for his starts. But his Spring was disastrous and when he was cut it was like..."yeah, see that's what happens when you're terrible". His velocity was down. It wasn't looking good for him.

Him being a serviceable 4-5 with the Sox is only something you can see in hindsight.

He had options remaining.    I would have just let him start the year in the minors.    It would have cost some $, but I certainly would have done it.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, Enjoy Terror said:

I didn't say that. I said he is a serviceable 4-5 with the Sox. He is exactly that. That's not ridiculous at all.

Yeah,  2.94 ERA in last eight starts over 55 innings, playoff veteran twice...yeah...serviceable.    We should have such  "serviceable"  4-5 pitchers. 

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

I don't have a problem with this at all even if I don't share the identical opinion.  My issue was Interloper was arguing one was  bad for doing the trade and then it was bad to not do it....

And As Enjoy Terror said.  It was somewhat surprising when Miggy was cut, but he was pretty bad and at the time it seemed like a good shot across the bow to pitchers.  Not having a back up for Miggy and then not having a back up for Tilly and not getting anywhere near enough of good Ubaldo...well, that pretty much explains our mediocrity.

Cutting Miggy was a mistake.  Believing that Mike Wright and Tyler Wilson and Yovani Gallardo and Ubaldo were better pitchers than Miggy  was a bigger and  costlier mistake.  By Mr. Duquette.