Tanner Scott and Cole Sulser traded to Marlins

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

No idea.  If they suddenly won their court case with the Nats, that would change things, but I don't see it happening.  If Peter Angelos passes away, that will change things in some ways, I'm sure.  But in the recent past, I'm not aware of anything that would cause Elias or ownership to make a sudden shift.  

 

We have had a global pandemic recently right?  I didn't imagine that?

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not sure why you think it was specifically this move that elicited the response.

Could have been literally any other move Elias made since the season ended.

Or, didn’t make.   

My only dispute with Clemens is that we weren’t trying to lose in 2017-18.   And from there, we didn’t have a lot of choice  IMO.   Not that I’m enjoying it.  
 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Or, didn’t make.   

My only dispute with Clemens is that we weren’t trying to lose in 2017-18.   And from there, we didn’t have a lot of choice  IMO.   Not that I’m enjoying it.  
 

I kind of view an absence of a move to be a move.

 

[interloper]

3 hours ago, Pickles said:

This idea that the O's/Elias just decided to NOT win games is profoundly stupid and childish and shows a deep misunderstanding of the actual situation facing the franchise.

I was going to post a Baseball Prospectus article outlining the O's upcoming season, but it was basically a whinefest about how it's "gross" they aren't "trying to win."  This was, of course, preceded by legitimate praise for bringing in Odor to "shore up" second base.

Shallow morons with no appreciation of the reality of the world parroting what they read other shallow morons tweet on twitter.

The modern American press, ladies and gentleman.

The O's haven't even really sucked for that long. It's only been 6 years since their last above .500 season. Prior to the most recent good stretch under Dan/Buck, we had a stretch of 15 years. Certainly not long enough for an all-caps "LONG". I would accept a lowercase "long". But even that's a stretch considering the O's have only re-entered the international market for 3 of those 6 years. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

The O's haven't even really sucked for that long. It's only been 6 years since their last above .500 season. Prior to the most recent good stretch under Dan/Buck, we had a stretch of 15 years. Certainly not long enough for an all-caps "LONG". I would accept a lowercase "long". But even that's a stretch considering the O's have only re-entered the international market for 3 of those 6 years. 

How many teams go six plus years between 500 seasons?

Here we go, Orioles are tied for second with the longest active streak.

http://mcubed.net/mlb/strkau5.shtml

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How many teams go six plus years between 500 seasons?

 

Dunno, probably a few? Doesn't really matter nor does it seem that long to me considering the state the organization was in and the amount of work required to re-establish it as a properly functioning entity with entire departments not existing where they have existed for 20 years in other organizations. I am quite at ease watching this thing be run correctly for the first time in .... quite possibly ever? But stay mad about free agents or whatever. 

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I kind of view an absence of a move to be a move.

 

I was just embellishing your point.   

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How many teams go six plus years between 500 seasons?

Here we go, Orioles are tied for second with the longest active streak.

http://mcubed.net/mlb/strkau5.shtml

 

I wouldn’t have guessed the Angels have had six straight losing seasons.   

[waroriole]

12 minutes ago, interloper said:

The O's haven't even really sucked for that long. It's only been 6 years since their last above .500 season. Prior to the most recent good stretch under Dan/Buck, we had a stretch of 15 years. Certainly not long enough for an all-caps "LONG". I would accept a lowercase "long". But even that's a stretch considering the O's have only re-entered the international market for 3 of those 6 years. 

Only 6 seasons is a weird way to put it. At what point do you think it’s too many?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I wouldn’t have guessed the Angels have had six straight losing seasons.   

I was also surprised.  I was thinking Pirates.

[Going Underground]

1 minute ago, waroriole said:

Only 6 seasons is a weird way to put it. At what point do you think it’s too many?

Having four winning seasons in the last 24 years is also not exactly something to hold your hat on. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Going Underground said:

Having four winning seasons in the last 24 years is also not exactly something to hold your hat on. 

I remember how pleased some folks were they finished with a winning streak to get to .500 in 2015.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

You may be right.  But, per my response to Corn, above, I'm not sure that Elias thinks this is the right time to spend $80 million.  If Rutschman, Rodriguez and Hall perform the way we expect top 50 prospects to perform, he may decide 2023 is the time to begin spending.  If they don't (over the long term, not an early short sample period), we're doomed anyway.

There is never a “right time”.  Or, in other words, it’s always the right time, if the signing makes sense.

Players like ERod or Correa or Stroman wouldn’t have made sense in 2019 or even 2020…maybe not in 2021 although I think you always add talent when you are getting closer.  
 

However, there is no argument that it’s not the right time now.

We sit here everyday talking about how good the future looks, how a lot of this guys are ready soon, how we shouldn’t waste the time of Adley and others.  And yet, we then say it’s not right to add players.  I don’t get that at all.  It’s just not logical.  All of those things don’t go together.

If you believe in the talent and you believe in the process, then you know that there is no long term payroll issues.  You know that signing guys isn’t going to hurt you.  Yet everyone acts like it will.  I just don’t understand the whole discussion.

[jamalshw]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is never a “right time”.  Or, in other words, it’s always the right time, if the signing makes sense.

Players like ERod or Correa or Stroman wouldn’t have made sense in 2019 or even 2020…maybe not in 2021 although I think you always add talent when you are getting closer.  
 

However, there is no argument that it’s not the right time now.

We sit here everyday talking about how good the future looks, how a lot of this guys are ready soon, how we shouldn’t waste the time of Adley and others.  And yet, we then say it’s not right to add players.  I don’t get that at all.  It’s just not logical.  All of those things don’t go together.

If you believe in the talent and you believe in the process, then you know that there is no long term payroll issues.  You know that signing guys isn’t going to hurt you.  Yet everyone acts like it will.  I just don’t understand the whole discussion.

I agree to an extent. Adding Correa this year would have made sense, but not at the contract he got in Minnesota. For it to make sense, you would need him locked up for at least 4-5 years before his first opt out. And while adding a Stroman or E-Rod would have made some sense to help stabilize the rotation and be there in the middle of the rotation when it came time to compete in a year or two but I'm not sure they're high-enough end arms that I would overpay to get them here and that might have been necessary to lure them to Baltimore. 

[Jammer7]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is never a “right time”.  Or, in other words, it’s always the right time, if the signing makes sense.

Players like ERod or Correa or Stroman wouldn’t have made sense in 2019 or even 2020…maybe not in 2021 although I think you always add talent when you are getting closer.  
 

However, there is no argument that it’s not the right time now.

We sit here everyday talking about how good the future looks, how a lot of this guys are ready soon, how we shouldn’t waste the time of Adley and others.  And yet, we then say it’s not right to add players.  I don’t get that at all.  It’s just not logical.  All of those things don’t go together.

If you believe in the talent and you believe in the process, then you know that there is no long term payroll issues.  You know that signing guys isn’t going to hurt you.  Yet everyone acts like it will.  I just don’t understand the whole discussion.

I don’t disagree, but has to be a certain player. One who adds multi-year value, and fits into the culture they have created/looking to create. Correa fit that need, for me anyway. Marcus Stroman, IDK. That is the kind of attitude you have to do your homework on. He has his fans, and detractors. Solid performer and competitor, yep.

In a young clubhouse, I think you have to be mindful of who you bring in. I’m not looking for Wally and the Beaver, but you cannot have a cancer in there either.