Davis vs. Davis

[spiritof66]

IMO, the Glenn Davis trade hurt the team more, but the Chris Davis signing was dumber.

I didn't like the Storm Davis (Davis to the Padres for Mark Williamson and Terry Kennedy), either.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

The conversations with Peter Angelos went something like this:

"The big guy with the swollen cheek... yeah... the one who hits home runs... Sign him forever....

And pay him twice the going rate."

And later... when trying to fix Davis... they hired a medium to commune with the spirit of Babe Ruth.

Ruth Said: "The kid's too skinny, and he needs to drink more, and smoke cigars....  And who the hell told him to think about not striking out? It ruined him".

Well maybe it’s better suited for a long form magazine article. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

IMO, the Glenn Davis trade hurt the team more, but the Chris Davis signing was dumber.

I didn't like the Storm Davis (Davis to the Padres for Mark Williamson and Terry Kennedy), eithet.

How about Elrod Hendricks for Tommy Davis?

[Moose Milligan]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

How about Elrod Hendricks for Tommy Davis?

DeCinces for Dan Ford.  

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

DeCinces for Dan Ford.  

Sorry, only Davis trades allowed here.   

[spiritof66]

12 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

DeCinces for Dan Ford.  

You have to trade, sign, or trade for a Davis to qualify for this thread. A lot of D's here -- Doug, DeCinces, Dan and Disco --- but no Davis. 

IIRC, part of the reason for trading DeCinces was that the Orioles had a promising youngster named Cal Ripken who looked like he was ready to become their third baseman. It's easy to see in hindsight that that assessment was off by 50 feet or so, but I'm not sure anyone but Earl knew that when DeCinces was traded.

 

[Moose Milligan]

10 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

You have to trade, sign, or trade for a Davis to qualify for this thread. A lot of D's here -- Doug, DeCinces, Dan and Disco --- but no Davis. 

IIRC, part of the reason for trading DeCinces was that the Orioles had a promising youngster named Cal Ripken who looked like he was ready to become their third baseman. It's easy to see in hindsight that that assessment was off by 50 feet or so, but I'm not sure anyone but Earl knew that when DeCinces was traded.

 

Ah, well, in my fog I thought the conversation was delving into bad Orioles trades, as threads here usually have taken a turn or two by the third page.  For a reference, look at the Jose Iglesias trade thread, it's covered a whole range of topics including when we'll see AR, Diaz, manipulating time clocks and other fun topics.

Storm Davis was better after leaving Baltimore than I remembered.  But we got back the underrated Mark Williamson, too.  

[LookinUp]

I thought this was easy when I saw it posted. Glenn Davis trade was worse by a mile. I'll admit that there are really good arguments on both sides. The what ifs around player development, picking up Erickson and Key, signing Machado and others...are many. I for one would have loved to have Machado here for his whole career. I think there's value beyond wins and losses in having your own HoF guy from start to finish.

That said, I'm a prospect mark. I want more and have made that clear in other threads. I'd rebuild longer than most. I hate giving them up. I think the evidence is clear from a ton of examples, but the Glenn Davis trade is as good as any. You need as many good prospects as possible to maintain a great organization. That means you don't trade 3 good ones for a guy who everyone knew was toward the end of his prime. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I thought this was easy when I saw it posted. Glenn Davis trade was worse by a mile. I'll admit that there are really good arguments on both sides. The what ifs around player development, picking up Erickson and Key, signing Machado and others...are many. I for one would have loved to have Machado here for his whole career. I think there's value beyond wins and losses in having your own HoF guy from start to finish.

That said, I'm a prospect mark. I want more and have made that clear in other threads. I'd rebuild longer than most. I hate giving them up. I think the evidence is clear from a ton of examples, but the Glenn Davis trade is as good as any. You need as many good prospects as possible to maintain a great organization. That means you don't trade 3 good ones for a guy who everyone knew was toward the end of his prime. 

Do you think the team would have held onto Machado through a rebuild like this?  Do you think Machado would have been happy on a rebuilding team?

[LookinUp]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Do you think the team would have held onto Machado through a rebuild like this?  Do you think Machado would have been happy on a rebuilding team?

I think the aging owner decided to give it a run and hoped that they could pull it off while Machado was still here. So money was available. I think a smarter aging owner would have used that money on Machado earlier and spent the rest somewhere else. 

I do think they could have resigned Machado if they approached him when they approached Davis. I'm not sure how long he would have stayed, but you start to build a love affair when you draft a guy and pay him into his prime. It's possible our whole outlook would have changed.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I think the aging owner decided to give it a run and hoped that they could pull it off while Machado was still here. So money was available. I think a smarter aging owner would have used that money on Machado earlier and spent the rest somewhere else. 

I do think they could have resigned Machado if they approached him when they approached Davis. I'm not sure how long he would have stayed, but you start to build a love affair when you draft a guy and pay him into his prime. It's possible our whole outlook would have changed.

I think current ownership would want to cut the payroll and that Manny wouldn't want to be on teams that are built to lose 100 games a year.

 

[LookinUp]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I think current ownership would want to cut the payroll and that Manny wouldn't want to be on teams that are built to lose 100 games a year.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. But you certainly might not be right. I also think in that scenario that Machado would net us a nice trade, so we'd still be much better off.

[Just Regular]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:48 PM, jamalshw said:

This is such a hard question because it has so many trickle down implications. Do the Orioles acquire Scott Erickson in 1995 or Jimmy Key ahead of the 1997 season if they had Pete Harnish and Curt Schilling? Assuming he develops the same, Schilling over Erickson in 1996 and 1997 makes sense, but while Harnish pitched alright for the Mets in 1996, he was a disaster in an abbreviated 1997.

I'm sure Mussina and Schilling would have been amazing buddies.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OrioleDog said:

I'm sure Mussina and Schilling would have been amazing buddies.

Probably would have.

[Just Regular]

5 hours ago, LookinUp said:

 

That said, I'm a prospect mark. I want more and have made that clear in other threads. I'd rebuild longer than most.

Some of why I'm antsy not to waste  '22 Rutschman (aside from boredom at waiting out the blah) is the great unknowable of whether the 6.95 years of club control / ~3.50 years of MLB minimum will even endure in the next CBA.   Adley will be 23 in Spring Training, 24 in the strike-spring of 2022 and 25 by 2023.   Heaven forbid something sensible for baseball like age-based free agency happen, though I guess with any groundbreaking change like that existing contracts could be grandfathered.