Jump to content

Matusz 2011, Tillman 2017, Harvey 2021


TonySoprano

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Another dishonorable mention:

1998 Doug Drabek 23 G, 21 GS, 7.29 ERA, and gave up 20 home runs in 108.2 innings pitched. 

Was the 2009 Adam Eaton Experience too brief to get mentioned here?

8 starts, 8.56 ERA, 9 home runs in 41 innings, 1.829 WHIP.  I get the shakes just thinking about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Orioles Jim said:

Dishonorable mention:

2006 Russ Ortiz 20 G, 5 GS, 8.48 ERA, FIP 8.33

There are some important differences with Ortiz. Unlike Harvey et al, the O's did not go into the season with Ortiz even on their radar after a poor 2005 with the D-backs. He was a desperation signing near the end of June, 2006 prompted by newly-arrived supposed pitching guru Leo Mazzone's exasperation with the Oriole pitching staff and training up and down the franchise (outside of Bedard), which he openly considered incompetent and irreparable. After all, Ortiz had had six seasons of success under Mazzone at Atlanta up until a year and a half before--why not see if they could recapture the magic? Also, I had the sense that Mazzone, unable to fix the bad pitching quickly, felt humiliated after such a long and illustrious career with the Braves and made a panicked move to wrap himself in past glory.

Different from and more understandable than going into a season counting on someone unreliable to be your number 2 or 3 starter (Harvey, Jiminez, Gallardo, etc.).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LA2 said:

There are some important differences with Ortiz. Unlike Harvey et al, the O's did not go into the season with Ortiz even on their radar after a poor 2005 with the D-backs. He was a desperation signing near the end of June, 2006 prompted by newly-arrived supposed pitching guru Leo Mazzone's exasperation with the Oriole pitching staff and training up and down the franchise (outside of Bedard), which he openly considered incompetent and irreparable. After all, Ortiz had had six seasons of success under Mazzone at Atlanta up until a year and a half before--why not see if they could recapture the magic? Also, I had the sense that Mazzone, unable to fix the bad pitching quickly, felt humiliated after such a long and illustrious career with the Braves and made a panicked move to wrap himself in past glory.

Different from and more understandable than going into a season counting on someone unreliable to be your number 2 or 3 starter (Harvey, Jiminez, Gallardo, etc.).

 

I remember Mazzone saying, I believe it was, that it was an “arm slot” issue with Ortiz that had been hexing him and that he thought he could fix it. I remember that being roundly ridiculed here, and hoping against hope that the pitching Oracle of Mazzone would be able to fix that.

Like most things during that era of the Orioles, I was left quite disappointed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Is he injured?  I hadn't heard that he's injured.

I interpret IL eligibility very liberally. He's either broken physically or mentally. Either way, he needs a reset. Might not work, but he's broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I interpret IL eligibility very liberally. He's either broken physically or mentally. Either way, he needs a reset. Might not work, but he's broken.

Just be careful not to complain about steroids, sign stealing or sticky balls.  ?

Cheating is cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Just be careful not to complain about steroids, sign stealing or sticky balls.  ?

Cheating is cheating.

If he's relying on cheating or is generally unable to compete at this level any longer, you just cut him. My IL idea is essentially a last-ditch effort to reset, reduce his tension and restart one more time. If he can't do that, cut the guy. 

I don't mean to be cold about it, but he doesn't deserve special treatment just because his name is Matt Harvey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • At least relative to the rest of the league Santander has an interesting profile because he is comfortably above-average at making contact; his whiff rates are much better than Trumbo's so he's not really as much of a TTO player as you would think.  This gives him hope that he will age a little bit better than someone like Trumbo.  Though he's still got a good shot of being out of the league in 3 years.
    • It's not the money, it's the years.  I wouldn't mind signing him for a year or two, even at what I'd consider to be stupid money.  But what I DON'T agree with is signing him for any more than 2-3 years as I don't think he's going to age well.  And I expect him to get more than 3 years from someone, so I'm a hard pass.  Can we afford him?  Money wise, sure.  But I don't want to see us stuck with him 4-5 years down the road when his skillset has greatly diminished, but he's still playing every day because we owe him a lot of money and a lot of loyalty.  Let some other club take that risk, get the QO pick and move on.  
    • Santander does exactly ONE thing very well: Hit HRs He doesn't hit for average, he doesn't get on base, he's a very slow runner, and he is a very poor defender. If he stops hitting HRs so often, his value completely evaporates and his contract basically becomes dead money, and the Orioles cannot afford to eat large amounts of dead money like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees of the world. I am simply using Trumbo, whose basic tool kit is very similar to Santander's, as a fairly recent, Orioles-related cautionary tale. Trumbo had his big walk year with the Orioles at age 30 and instead of doing the smart, obvious thing and taking the free draft pick, we gave him a big money extension that everyone except the FO knew was probably going to end poorly. Baseball Savant has Santander in the 22nd percentile in terms of overall fielding value. However you want to slice it, he isn't going to make up any lost value from declining offense with his defense. If his ability to slug goes south, the whole contract goes with it, because he has no other tools to make up for that with.
    • Santander is -2 OAA this year. He’s averagish to below average. There but there are much worse defensive right fielders such as Adolis Garcia and Castellanos -9, Lane Thomas and Renfroe -8, and Soto -4. Acuna and Tatis are also -2 OAA.  In 2016, Mark Trumbo was -15 OAA. They’re not even in the same universe.
    • Anthony Santander (age 27-29): .245 / .317 / .477 / .794    124 OPS+   9.0 rWAR Mark Trumbo (age 27-29): .244 / .299 / .443 / .742   105 OPS+  2.6 rWAR Is it really very meaningful that Trumbo was the better player when they were significantly younger? 29-year-old Santander is a better player by miles than Trumbo at the same age, and he has been for years. I think that’s what matters most to how you’d project them over the next few years.
    • I love Tony and I honestly think we are gonna miss his veteran leadership as much as anything. I’m very happy we have him for this year. But I do think he’d be a bad long term investment. 
    • He’s the best player in history. No one can convince me otherwise.  I didn’t say he has the most records or the most counting stats or the most MVPs. That’s not what I said.  He’s just the best player in baseball history. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...