Jump to content

Schmuck on Tex


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.schmuck01nov01,0,3356395.column

Why did he even waste his time with this article?

Does Schmuck, the same guy who felt we shouldn't break up this team back in May, really think we are signing Tex for 2009?

What is it with this attitude? We see it in the media...We see it on this board.

Tex would be signing a 6-7 year deal deal...2009 is just year 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because realistically it might take 6-7 years to develop a fram system and a cohesive organization that has the ability to win. Passing out a free 20+ mil to to hometown pretty boy doesn't help the team get better, it wastes the teams resources. We shouldn't be talking about aquiring FA's this year or the next, we should all be talking about how to make the fram system better. We have no depth - yea i'm sure someone in response tho this is going to list off 10 names as AA and AAA - wup-dee-doo - same thing will happen again next year that happened this year and last. We will play well for half the year, but when pitchers begin to wear (AND THEY WILL) we will call up some P.O.S. AAAA pitchers and then we will go into a drastic tailspin and achieve our 12th loosing season in a row. TEX does nothing to this team. This team needs to focus on young inexpensive pitching options. PITCHING, PITCHING, PITCHING. Pitching and defense win baseball plain and simple...but yes everyone is correect...Tex would sell more tickets....in April, May...and june if we are lukcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.schmuck01nov01,0,3356395.column

Why did he even waste his time with this article?

Does Schmuck, the same guy who felt we shouldn't break up this team back in May, really think we are signing Tex for 2009?

What is it with this attitude? We see it in the media...We see it on this board.

Tex would be signing a 6-7 year deal deal...2009 is just year 1.

I read the article this morning and the part that rang true to me was the Kendrick comment about Tex playing for a contender. I get your point about Tex being for more than 2009 but the problem that the Orioles will have to overcome is the loser stigma that 11 years of dismal performance brings. Schmuck used be a voice of reason IMO but he has become another in a long line of agenda driven columnist that the Sun seems to encourage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.schmuck01nov01,0,3356395.column

Why did he even waste his time with this article?

Does Schmuck, the same guy who felt we shouldn't break up this team back in May, really think we are signing Tex for 2009?

What is it with this attitude? We see it in the media...We see it on this board.

Tex would be signing a 6-7 year deal deal...2009 is just year 1.

I agree... It really doesn't make any sense. I'm not sold on Teix as I don't think he'll be a worthy investment at the price he'll get... However, if I'm wrong (and I hope I am) and he can be purchased for a reasonable amount it still isn't going to make us a contender in 2009. No matter what else we do. But he would be a key contributor when we should be at some point over the next few years.

One correction though is that realistically I think you need to say 8-10 year contract rather than 6-7. It'll be shocking if he signs a 6 year deal, and surprising if he only gets 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.schmuck01nov01,0,3356395.column

Why did he even waste his time with this article?

Does Schmuck, the same guy who felt we shouldn't break up this team back in May, really think we are signing Tex for 2009?

What is it with this attitude? We see it in the media...We see it on this board.

Tex would be signing a 6-7 year deal deal...2009 is just year 1.

His most valid point, I think, is not about that Tex doesn't make us a contender next year and thus we shouldn't sign him - in fact he never says one way or the other, and I doubt he thinks this teams winnability next year is a basis for the Orioles' decision-making. Rather, it's based on the Kendrick comment that Tex won't sign for a team that won't contend from the start. This leaves two options:

1. Sign with a team that is a yearly contender (i.e., Yanks, Sox, Angels).

2. Sign with a team for whom the addition of Tex makes them a contender (insert whatever hypothetical team here.)

The Orioles are neither, according to Schmuck, and thus at a serious disadvantage to signing Tex. He doesn't make this point cleanly or clearly, to be sure. But that's the point I got out of the article, and it's a legitimate one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because realistically it might take 6-7 years to develop a fram system and a cohesive organization that has the ability to win. Passing out a free 20+ mil to to hometown pretty boy doesn't help the team get better, it wastes the teams resources. We shouldn't be talking about aquiring FA's this year or the next, we should all be talking about how to make the fram system better. We have no depth - yea i'm sure someone in response tho this is going to list off 10 names as AA and AAA - wup-dee-doo - same thing will happen again next year that happened this year and last. We will play well for half the year, but when pitchers begin to wear (AND THEY WILL) we will call up some P.O.S. AAAA pitchers and then we will go into a drastic tailspin and achieve our 12th loosing season in a row. TEX does nothing to this team. This team needs to focus on young inexpensive pitching options. PITCHING, PITCHING, PITCHING. Pitching and defense win baseball plain and simple...but yes everyone is correect...Tex would sell more tickets....in April, May...and june if we are lukcy.

I agree with most of your post. I do not think Tex alone stops us from being losers in 2009 and 2010. I really question whether the organization can afford to wait 2 or 3 years let alone the 6 or 7 you propose. The print media and certain radio stations enjoy pounding the Orioles and even though their rants are partly a vendetta, perception often becomes reality. The perception is that the Orioles will not spend.

I agree 100% that pitching and defense wins. If you can pitch and catch you will be competitive. I have said many times in other post that the team does not tank in August and September it collapses due to lack of pitching depth. AM obviously agrees and is trying to add arms and to that point.

I think everyone agrees Tex would improve our offense and defense. Instead of losing games 9-5, we would lose 8-6, so IMO if we do go all in for Tex we should be prepared to go all in for Burnett or another impact pitcher and then also sign another solid starter after that. We would not become next years Rays but would be much improved and to SG's point Tex is an investment in 2009 and beyond. The signing of a solid pitcher would be the same.

Signing a stud pitcher comes with injury risks, but so does signing Tex or any other FA. Success comes with taking risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His most valid point, I think, is not about that Tex doesn't make us a contender next year and thus we shouldn't sign him - in fact he never says one way or the other, and I doubt he thinks this teams winnability next year is a basis for the Orioles' decision-making. Rather, it's based on the Kendrick comment that Tex won't sign for a team that won't contend from the start. This leaves two options:

1. Sign with a team that is a yearly contender (i.e., Yanks, Sox, Angels).

2. Sign with a team for whom the addition of Tex makes them a contender (insert whatever hypothetical team here.)

The Orioles are neither, according to Schmuck, and thus at a serious disadvantage to signing Tex. He doesn't make this point cleanly or clearly, to be sure. But that's the point I got out of the article, and it's a legitimate one.

If he is basing an article about what some Vegas oddsmaker thinks, in terms of where Tex signs, then Schmuck should be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he is basing an article about what some Vegas oddsmaker thinks, in terms of where Tex signs, then Schmuck should be fired.

I don't think he is - he's just using one independent measure. When I said "based on" I suppose I should have written "centered around." There's a difference. Do you deny that the issue of being a contender will be a factor? And do you think Tex alone makes the O's a contender?

If not, then you seem to agree with Schmuck's premise. But that can't be, can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because realistically it might take 6-7 years to develop a fram system and a cohesive organization that has the ability to win.
IF the Orioles believe this right now, they should all quit or be fired and bring in some people who have a clue as to what they are doing.
Passing out a free 20+ mil to to hometown pretty boy doesn't help the team get better, it wastes the teams resources.
This is foolish...Tex improves us more than any single player we can bring in. We
shouldn't be talking about aquiring FA's this year or the next, we should all be talking about how to make the fram system better
Um, you can do both. This is why you don't do stupid things like extend BRob and Huff...Its why you make deals and get young ML ready players...it is why you deal for guys like Vazquez...guys near the end of their contracts who end up netting us draft picks, so in essence, you trade for picks(ala the A's).
We have no depth - yea i'm sure someone in response tho this is going to list off 10 names as AA and AAA - wup-dee-doo - same thing will happen again next year that happened this year and last.
You can sign Tex and still get depth...it is fooish to think these things are related.
TEX does nothing to this team.
Except give us a 6-8 win improvement.
This team needs to focus on young inexpensive pitching options. PITCHING, PITCHING, PITCHING.
More foolishness...Again, Tex has no impact on what you do about the pitching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why he feels the need to write this particular column at this particular moment, but I don't find much in it to argue with.

A part that most are ignoring is the paragraph where the odds lower to 50-1 with the addition of "significant pitching help " and a "solid SS". The same oddsmaker puts the Orioles at 80-1 with the addition of Teixiera alone.

IMO This would have been a more worthy column if he had spent a little more time tackling the difference in approach to the off season implicit in those two sets of odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he is - he's just using one independent measure. When I said "based on" I suppose I should have written "centered around." There's a difference. Do you deny that the issue of being a contender will be a factor? And do you think Tex alone makes the O's a contender?

If not, then you seem to agree with Schmuck's premise. But that can't be, can it?

Tex will sign here because he wants to be here, likes the direction of the team and, most importantly, we give him more money than anyone.

The idea that we are a contender or not will have no bearing on this...It really boils down to the money.

And no, Tex doesn't make us a contender but he puts us closer to contention than any single player we can realistically bring in this offseason and probably over the next several offseasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article seems like some sort of filler-non-sense.

Not sure I am aware of one poster here who believes Tex makes us a contender next year - so the premise of the article that Tex only improves our 2009 WS odds from 100-1 to possibly 80-1 - still far away from contender status - is hardly a revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why he feels the need to write this particular column at this particular moment, but I don't find much in it to argue with.

A part that most are ignoring is the paragraph where the odds lower to 50-1 with the addition of "significant pitching help " and a "solid SS". The same oddsmaker puts the Orioles at 80-1 with the addition of Teixiera alone.

IMO This would have been a more worthy column if he had spent a little more time tackling the difference in approach to the off season implicit in those two sets of odds.

But so what? This is totally meaningless. Tex isn't signed to make us better in 2009...Yes he does that more than anyone else could but he is signed to be one of the cornerstone pieces in 2010 and beyond, when we hope to start to compete.

That is the reason...Anyone even discussing 2009 in relation to Tex and his contributions to the team is totally missing the point of why you sign him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except give us a 6-8 win improvement.
Great. Now we win 75-77 games and still finish under .500
More foolishness...Again, Tex has no impact on what you do about the pitching.
Yes, he does. One has to assume, that like every other year, the Orioles are operating under a limited budget. Angelos is not going to fling open the vaults and let the (Confederate) money flow despite the rumblings otherwise. We have heard that tune before.

Tex or Burnett is one decision MacPhail may have to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But so what? This is totally meaningless. Tex isn't signed to make us better in 2009...Yes he does that more than anyone else could but he is signed to be one of the cornerstone pieces in 2010 and beyond, when we hope to start to compete.

That is the reason...Anyone even discussing 2009 in relation to Tex and his contributions to the team is totally missing the point of why you sign him.

I don't see where the article purports to be about about whether we should sign Tex. I do see where it is about whether we can sign Tex.

You can discount Tex's desire to play for a winner if you want, SG. But the "direction" of this team isn't so written in stone that anyone can bank on it being a contender even in the next two years.

So, sure, Tex may consider the Orioles out of some desire to "come home", though I'm not convinced of that (hopeful, but not convinced). That said, say it gets the Orioles in a conversation they wouldn't otherwise be having with Tex, i.e., it "gets them to the table."

The real question is, if the O's are bidding against the Angels, Yanks and Sox (if), how much more will the Orioles have to pay than any of them to compensate for not being a contender?

I can easily see Tex discounting any Orioles offer with the fact that we're not yet, and show no real signs of being, a contender. Even if this isn't a legitimate factor, it's a bargaining tool that could lead to a serious overpayment for Tex.

That said, I'll reiterate what I said earlier: this article isn't about whether we should sign Tex. It does state one complication in our pursuit, however. It's not a great article, or a startling opinion. But it's not saying what you're maligning it for saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...