How Come The Brewers Can Make An Offer For Darvish And Not The Orioles?

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Il BuonO said:

What is “good baseball”? It’s subjective, no? I want them to play good baseball with a plan in place to win the whole thing. For a change. If there are a couple of down seasons because of that, I can get excited watching the kids who I think will contribute to that happening. Intensely. Exciting.

Straddling the fence is frustrating, not exciting.

Not during the Syd Thrift years, that was some sorry arse baseball.

How about the year, they have 5 clowns playing SS, and none of them was any good.

We was so happy to see Manny come up, a real glove on 3rd that could actually play the position.

[Il BuonO]

17 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

It does matter, meaningful games in Sept means the season was worthwhile.

You say this now, but I find it hard to believe you weren’t hoping for them to be sellers at the deadline like most here. Meaningful losing the bulk of games in September? They really had no chance and had a mini streak at one point.

They were four or five games back with six teams in front of them. Nothing meaningful about that. 

Trading Britton and maybe Machado would have been meaningful.

[wildbillhiccup]

19 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

It does matter, meaningful games in Sept means the season was worthwhile.

 

I love the Orioles, but lets be realistic. As this team is currently constructed, and given the improvements the other teams in the AL East have made, they aren't going to be playing meaningful games in September unless they have a "Why Not" type season. Do you really want to risk the next five years in hopes of that type of season? Having them contend this year would be great, but I want them to be competitive for the next 5 - 10 years. Right now they're poised to drop off of a cliff after this season. That's why it's so important that they trade Machado. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

But, like I said in another post, it was still meaningful games in Sept.

You know how hard it is, to truly be interested in baseball in June, when your team is already out of it.

 

ORIOLE33’s original quote that started this discussion was: “We fell off late, but we were in the thick of the WC race until late September.”    That’s flatly wrong, because we fell off drastically in early September, not late September.

That to one side, yes, I’d rather be somewhat in the race in early September than be completely out of it by June.    But when you look at 2017, we spent much of the season with no more than a puncher’s chance.   We spent the first 61 games over .500, then were .500 or below for the next 69 games, spent the next 11 games over .500, then were .500 or below for the final 21 games.     We were under .500 more than we were over it, and were never more than 3 games over .500 after June 8.    Following our 22-10 start, we went 53-77 the remainder of the season.       It was not really a season where we were “in the thick of the WC race” a lot of the time, even if we weren’t hopelessly out of it.   

[Il BuonO]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

ORIOLE33’s original quote that started this discussion was: “We fell off late, but we were in the thick of the WC race until late September.”    That’s flatly wrong, because we fell off drastically in early September, not late September.

That to one side, yes, I’d rather be somewhat in the race in early September than be completely out of it by June.    But when you look at 2017, we spent much of the season with no more than a puncher’s chance.   We spent the first 61 games over .500, then were .500 or below for the next 69 games, spent the next 11 games over .500, then were .500 or below for the final 21 games.     We were under .500 more than we were over it, and were never more than 3 games over .500 after June 8.    Following our 22-10 start, we went 53-77 the remainder of the season.       It was not really a season where we were “in the thick of the WC race” a lot of the time, even if we weren’t hopelessly out of it.   

And this perfectly encapsulates why they should have been sellers at the deadline.

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

You say this now, but I find it hard to believe you weren’t hoping for them to be sellers at the deadline like most here. Meaningful losing the bulk of games in September? They really had no chance and had a mini streak at one point.

They were four or five games back with six teams in front of them. Nothing meaningful about that. 

Trading Britton and maybe Machado would have been meaningful.

Ive have never been in favor of trading, from day 1. Thats my fandom, pay them, get acquire some more pieces and lets win this damn thing.

Would we have traded Cal Jr??????

If they get traded for meaning pieces, like Bedard, then I will be okay with that, but, I am never been in favor, just for the sake, we have to get something back.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

And this perfectly encapsulates why they should have been sellers at the deadline.

But hey, the O's now get to pay Britton 12M to pitch maybe half a season.  That is so much better than the lackluster returns they were offered for him.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

But hey, the O's now get to pay Britton 12M to pitch maybe half a season.  That is so much better than the lackluster returns they were offered for him.

Of course, you know he would blow out his achilles working out, didn't you?

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

And this perfectly encapsulates why they should have been sellers at the deadline.

Agreed, though I don’t have big misgivings over the Beckham trade, given the long-term hole we had at SS.    I just wish they’d done some selling at the same time.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Ive have never been in favor of trading, from day 1. Thats my fandom, pay them, get acquire some more pieces and lets win this damn thing.

Would we have traded Cal Jr??????

If they get traded for meaning pieces, like Bedard, then I will be okay with that, but, I am never been in favor, just for the sake, we have to get something back.

So you are only in favor of trades that turn out really well in hindsight? 

You get something back in every trade, even if it is only cash.

[Il BuonO]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Ive have never been in favor of trading, from day 1. Thats my fandom, pay them, get acquire some more pieces and lets win this damn thing.

Would we have traded Cal Jr??????

If they get traded for meaning pieces, like Bedard, then I will be okay with that, but, I am never been in favor, just for the sake, we have to get something back.

Don’t be absurd. What team trades for the sake of trading? Well, Miami, but I’d argue even they have a stated purpose.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Of course, you know he would blow out his achilles working out, didn't you?

Nope.

But I knew I didn't want to pay a closer 12M to pitch for a team that should have been rebuilding.

[Il BuonO]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

Of course, you know he would blow out his achilles working out, didn't you?

It doesn’t matter! He should have been traded anyway.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Il BuonO said:

Don’t be absurd. What team trades for the sake of trading? Well, Miami, but I’d argue even they have a stated purpose.

You spelled Mariners wrong.  (That Dipoto is a trading fool)

[Il BuonO]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You spelled Mariners wrong.  (That Dipoto is a trading fool)

Yes, yes, he just likes the process of trading. No thought involved there.