Jump to content

Assume we don’t trade Manny and he walks


Frobby

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

“At this point” being a key phrase.   Hardy was a very key member of the team when Manny arrived, and won Gold Gloves from 2012-14, valued overall at 10.5 rWAR in that span.   The O’s certainly weren’t going to move him off SS then, nor did they sign him for 3/$38 mm planning to move him from SS.    Even though Hardy was just average defensively (and a strong negative on offense) in 2015, I think you can chalk that up to injuries, and he returned to being a solid SS in 2016.     It’s really only in 2017 that it became clear he was done being an above average player, and the O’s reacted by trading for Beckham.

Should have hit him with a QO, taken the pick and moved Manny to short.  Some of us said as much at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 11/24/2017 at 4:39 PM, Frobby said:

You’re guessing at what Manny wants, and frankly, what he wants is secondary to what’s best for the team.   If Buck decides, from a baseball standpoint, that Manny at SS is our best alignment, I’m fine with that, but I see no reason why Manny’s feelings come into this unless he’s signed a long-term deal and that has been part of the discussion.    

My personal opinion is that Beckham at SS, Manny at 3B is our best alignment.    But that’s for Buck to decide.   

I agree with everything in your post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Frobby said:

So if Manny wants to play SS and won’t extend without that, does that make him a team first guy?

I actually think you’re not giving Manny enough credit.    I think Manny wants to win and will play wherever the manager thinks best, and won’t sulk about it.     Also, last week on Wall to Wall Baseball, Roch says he’s heard that Manny is on the fence about whether he’d be better off at SS or 3B, due to the extra wear and tear at SS.   So I don’t think it’s a given at all that leaving Manny at 3B would cause issues with Manny.

Also, I said nothing in my post about catering to Beckham.    It’s a matter of what defensive alignment Buck decides is best.    Manny has won a Platinum Glove and a Gold Glove at 3B and undoubtedly is one of the best in the game there.    Beckham’s metrics have him slightly above average overall at SS, though to be certain, he’s more error-prone than we’d like.    Who’s to say that switching them wouldn’t be a worse alignment?     Manny’s had far more pro experience at 3B than SS, and Beckham has started 5 games at 3B in his entire big league career.    I think it’s highly unlikely that we’d improve the defense by having them switch positions.    But again, all I’m saying is that Buck should decide that.   

TZ has Beckham at a -4 Rtot at SS in 70 IN at TB and +5 at SS for BAL in 40 IN.at SS.   SSS for sure but a possible indication that he responded well to JJ's and Dickerson's coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2017 at 8:05 AM, sportsfan8703 said:

We need to just offer Manny 10/300 and stop messing around.  Just stagger it so it doesn't start hitting big until after AJ, Trumbo, and O'day come off the books.  

At this point get creative.  Promise Manny that he can play SS and lock up Schoop too.  Sell him on the idea of he and Schoop being a double play combo for a long time.  

I say pay Manny and let him relax.  He's been a team guy so far to play 3rd.  Some of the best 3rd of all time.  Give him is big payday and the position he wants to play.  Plus bat him 3rd.  Sell him on the idea that he's going to be able to play with his boy Schoop, at the position he wants, and be able to go down as one of the greatest SS's ever.  That's the type of sell job it's going to take to keep him away from the NYY.  

I wish the O's had made their best effort to sign Manny and Schoop 2 years ago.  The O's could have probably signed Manny and Schoop long term for less than what it will take to sign Manny.  A competent organization would know what it would take to sign Manny by now.  I doubt the O's have any idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2017 at 9:14 AM, OriolesMagic83 said:

I wish the O's had made their best effort to sign Manny and Schoop 2 years ago.  The O's could have probably signed Manny and Schoop long term for less than what it will take to sign Manny.  A competent organization would know what it would take to sign Manny by now.  I doubt the O's have any idea.

They did two years ago. The negotiations fell through at the last minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • I dont think it matters in the playoffs. You need a little bit of luck in a 5 or a 3 game series.
    • I don't think most of the issues with Rays attendance and engagement is because of the roster churn. It's because of the stadium, the competition from the Lightning and Bucs for entertainment dollars and the transient fanbase mostly having allegiances to other teams. 
    • Would you rather have Atlanta's roster or Texas?
    • It's been said many times already but the Rangers won with pitchers NO ONE would have said were much better than Cole Irvin last year. In addition, Atlanta lost in the NLDS despite having maybe one of the best rosters ever assembled. As for ownership,  as stated all evidence is Elias is not going chips all in on one season as much as you may want him to. Rubenstein has said hes taking a hands off approach especially in this first season as has totally faith in the front office.  Unless you want a repeat of the Duquette years, going all in, prospects be damned, is a strategy from a bygone era.
    • Is Justin Verlander toast?     Maybe the future resembles the past. In Bradish's presumed absence, he's an interesting possible character as one of the three lead SP. I do believe the Astros staggered his start this year knowing at his age 26 weeks + October is too heavy a lift.    He's presently sidelined with a sore neck after getting scratched a couple days ago (and the Astros getting routed when they had to accelerate a kiddo).  Last October he had two good games and one bad game against MIN and TEX. Astros this week have a cold/hot mix with the White Sox before us this weekend, when we might get a live look.
    • IMO because all big contracts come with various degrees of risk. The wisest course is to spend on the best/most talented player. They are the ones who most likely have the longest run of great to good in them, even if they cost the most. What you don't want to do is spend money on guys who fall off of cliffs early or are injury prone or who do not have the mentality to handle success or who do not have very strong work habits and will likely become comfortable after getting paid. That is why I think (like many others) that Gunnar is the guy you want to extend even if you have to move heaven and earth to do so. I just don't see anything in his profile/short history that are any kind of "red flags". It is likely to be worth it (at least for a long time - at least next decade). Also taking into account the momentum that the O's are riding with winning, so many young homegrown stars, and new ownership. IF they were to extend a Henderson and/or Rustchman IMO it will take the org to a new level and provide even greater momentum and fan interest/marketplace growth. That is how you become the next "big player/franchise" that can sustain winning beyond a short/6 yr team control window. I've stated before that I worry that a Rays model of ongoing rebuilding, never spending meaningfully, and never being invested enough as an org to be fully committed to winning sends the wrong message to your customer/fanbase and will never really engage a community/marketplace fully. 
    • I doubt they give him a 2-3 year deal, I do think if he's here it's because they give a QO and he takes it, which I also doubt he'd do, because someone is going to pay him more for longer.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...