Halfway to 74 wins?

[Sports Guy]

42 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Some examples of how this year's team affects development of prospects: not signing Correa or Bryant means more opportunity for Mateo and not blocking Gunnar or Westburg at any position. Signing Lyles means we are not precommitted to anyone in the rotation, so more opportunities for prospects. Not signing a bullpen arm means we get to try Jorge at closer etc.

Mateo playing is meaningless.

You could have signed a good arm for the pen and Lopez still be your closer, which is also meaningless btw.

Bryant can play all over and the DH exists, so that’s not a worry either.

[Aristotelian]

51 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Mateo playing is meaningless.

You could have signed a good arm for the pen and Lopez still be your closer, which is also meaningless btw.

Bryant can play all over and the DH exists, so that’s not a worry either.

If you don't see how not signing a bunch of veterans has allowed more opportunities for development you are just being willfully dense. If we had gotten a veteran bullpen arm it is highly unlikely that Jorge closes. If he closes, than Felix and Perez are getting lower leverage. DH exists but last I checked we have Mancini and Rutschman taking those ABs.

 

 

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

Lew Ford is a free agent. Could spark the offense.

[Pickles]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Yep.  He was always a gamble in that the bat had been off in recent years, while the defense was elite.

He is signed to a very reasonable contract where he can kept through 2025 or be done after 2023.

He has certainly been terrible although you have no idea how a change in scenery would have effected him.  I don't think we would be any worse off now if we had him and Mateo playing more of a UTI role and I would still like the potential of DeJong finding his offense again more than Mateo finding something he has never had.

He may be done or he may just be having a terrible year.  Maybe he has a nagging injury of some sorts?  Who knows.  

The only reason I would currently not want him is because Gunnar looks like he can play SS moreso now than before.  Its not a guarantee but its looking better. 

 

Well, this is certainly... a take.

I think you had reasons for some of your proposals this offseason.  Not all I disagree with.

But I think it is more than fair to point out that you spent most of the offseason ranting for "improvements," and when anyone pushed back you basically called them either "bootlickers" or "brainwashed."

And it is fairer than fair to now point out that when you actually gave concrete examples of what kind of "improvements" you wanted they would have all made the team worse in the short term and almost certainly the long term as well- with the benefit of hindsight.

This isn't a personal shot at you and I'm not trying to make it as such.  And as I'm about to acknowledge to Frobby I actually appreciate your content and input.

However, maybe a little personal reflection is in order: Maybe you're not always right; maybe what you think you know isn't always true; and maybe people can in good faith disagree with you without being "stupid" or "moronic" or "bootlickers" or "brainwashed."

[Pickles]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’ll say this for SG: he throws out specific ideas and you can look back on them later and see how they might have worked out.  The idea on DeJong was he was a buy-low salary dump, not unlike JJ Hardy in 2011 (someone who SG also wanted us to chase, long before we did).   That looks like it wouldn’t have worked out, but I kind of liked the idea, so long as there was little cost in talent traded back.  

And I'll willingly give him that credit: He creates a lot of content and sparks some good (often) discussions.

But let's also be honest: He has a lot of very strong opinions; he defends them in a manner that isn't always conducive to civility (and I understand the irony of ME saying that); and he spent all offseason advocating for moves that in hindsight would have made the team worse in the short and long term, as many predicted at the time.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

If you don't see how not signing a bunch of veterans has allowed more opportunities for development you are just being willfully dense. If we had gotten a veteran bullpen arm it is highly unlikely that Jorge closes. If he closes, than Felix and Perez are getting lower leverage. DH exists but last I checked we have Mancini and Rutschman taking those ABs.

 

 

No, being dense is acting like talent doesn’t rise to the top.  Talent always gets playing time.  Every single team battles with this.  This is the thing you and so many others don’t seem to understand.

There is nothing unique about this idea just because the team is rebuilding. The best teams in baseball play unproven talent.  The best teams find a way for young unproven talent to get at bats even if they have vets there.  It always happens and it happens every year..acting like you can’t have both is both wrong and naive.

[Sports Guy]

39 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, this is certainly... a take.

I think you had reasons for some of your proposals this offseason.  Not all I disagree with.

But I think it is more than fair to point out that you spent most of the offseason ranting for "improvements," and when anyone pushed back you basically called them either "bootlickers" or "brainwashed."

And it is fairer than fair to now point out that when you actually gave concrete examples of what kind of "improvements" you wanted they would have all made the team worse in the short term and almost certainly the long term as well- with the benefit of hindsight.

This isn't a personal shot at you and I'm not trying to make it as such.  And as I'm about to acknowledge to Frobby I actually appreciate your content and input.

However, maybe a little personal reflection is in order: Maybe you're not always right; maybe what you think you know isn't always true; and maybe people can in good faith disagree with you without being "stupid" or "moronic" or "bootlickers" or "brainwashed."

Never said I was always right but I am right a lot and guess what, now all of you are starting to see what I did…that this team can contend in 2023.  Most posters on here laughed at that.  Most felt you can’t bring up guys yet because we are too far away.

That is, was and always has been bs.  If they had added talent to this team, we would really be looking at something.

I kept saying, adding talent a year too early is not a bad thing.  The pushback I got was that we were 2+ years away.

Ironically, for all the stuff I get from most of you and how I’m negative, I’m one of the few that felt contention was far closer than most thought.  It was always going to be about the commitment of ownership to put the team over the top.  

[Sports Guy]

43 minutes ago, Pickles said:

And I'll willingly give him that credit: He creates a lot of content and sparks some good (often) discussions.

But let's also be honest: He has a lot of very strong opinions; he defends them in a manner that isn't always conducive to civility (and I understand the irony of ME saying that); and he spent all offseason advocating for moves that in hindsight would have made the team worse in the short and long term, as many predicted at the time.

Well this isn’t accurate and you aren’t talking about several others who have done well like Pablo Lopez or Brian Anderson.  There was and always is many different ways to build a team.   I made several different mentions of ways to do it and you are focused on a JJ Hardy like SS as if that proves some point.  
 

How about all the misses from the actual GM over the years?  Are you making posts after posts about that?

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Never said I was always right but I am right a lot and guess what, now all of you are starting to see what I did…that this team can contend in 2023.  Most posters on here laughed at that.  Most felt you can’t bring up guys yet because we are too far away.

That is, was and always has been bs.  If they had added talent to this team, we would really be looking at something.

I kept saying, adding talent a year too early is not a bad thing.  The pushback I got was that we were 2+ years away.

Ironically, for all the stuff I get from most of you and how I’m negative, I’m one of the few that felt contention was far closer than most thought.  It was always going to be about the commitment of ownership to put the team over the top.  

You are the only one who saw we could compete in 23? Dude, literally everyone on this board has been saying that. The only disagreement was whether/how much it is worth adding talent in 22, and most on here wanted more than Lyles and Odor.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

You are the only one who saw we could compete in 23? Dude, literally everyone on this board has been saying that. The only disagreement was whether/how much it is worth adding talent in 22, and most on here wanted more than Lyles and Odor.

Lol.  

You quoted a post where the end of it said “I’m one of the few who…” and you start this post with “you are the only one…”. 

I mean, you can’t make this up.  You must work for CNN.  You literally just lied about what I said while quoting a post showing that I didn’t say what you are saying I said. 

And no, what you are saying is either a lie, you being disingenuous or you just didn’t pay attention to what people said because very few people saw that this team could contend in 2023.

[foxfield]

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No, being dense is acting like talent doesn’t rise to the top.  Talent always gets playing time.  Every single team battles with this.  This is the thing you and so many others don’t seem to understand.

There is nothing unique about this idea just because the team is rebuilding. The best teams in baseball play unproven talent.  The best teams find a way for young unproven talent to get at bats even if they have vets there.  It always happens and it happens every year..acting like you can’t have both is both wrong and naive.

I continue to wonder what talent you are referring to?  Other than Adley who you wanted up last year, who is the talent that needed to be added to?  You said this team was pathetic and that they were trying to lose. 

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Never said I was always right but I am right a lot and guess what, now all of you are starting to see what I did…that this team can contend in 2023.  Most posters on here laughed at that.  Most felt you can’t bring up guys yet because we are too far away.

That is, was and always has been bs.  If they had added talent to this team, we would really be looking at something.

I kept saying, adding talent a year too early is not a bad thing.  The pushback I got was that we were 2+ years away.

Ironically, for all the stuff I get from most of you and how I’m negative, I’m one of the few that felt contention was far closer than most thought.  It was always going to be about the commitment of ownership to put the team over the top.  

Um, you did in fact say this team could contend in 23.  But in order for it to contend, you would have invested about 200MM to make that happen and much of the roster they began the 2022 season with to be jettisoned.  That they are being competitive now...and looking to contend in '23 is definitely NOT the same thing and definitely not what you predicted.

And I think teams, not the Orioles per se, are much more likely to bring up talent when they are playing well. Machado didn't get slow rolled.  Talent rises for sure.  I do not think anyone questioned that. The Orioles did not need to bring up AR last year and while he certainly could have come up.  It seems clear that if the Orioles were an 85 win team it would have been worth it, but for a 52 win team, not as much.  

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Well this isn’t accurate and you aren’t talking about several others who have done well like Pablo Lopez or Brian Anderson.  There was and always is many different ways to build a team.   I made several different mentions of ways to do it and you are focused on a JJ Hardy like SS as if that proves some point.  
 

How about all the misses from the actual GM over the years?  Are you making posts after posts about that?

Everyone enjoys the concrete things you bring to the table.  It's makes for a great read and its always good for debate.  The rub is that in defending those concrete things, you are not really debating as much as name calling.  All of which is fine on a message board.  None here are perfect.  

Comparing the misses of the GM to yours.  Well, for starters there isn't a comparison because the primary difference between you, or any of us here, and an actual GM is that moves are not one off line items that do not impact other things.  IF you spent 100MM or 200MM dollars last year to compete that impacts what you can do going forward.  Dismissing mistakes as if it is Monopoly money doesn't change the fact that contracts once signed cant be ignored for the next group of signees that are presented.

The mistakes that you called for...are not mistakes...they are/were great conversation.  The Orioles should sign Stroman.  Hell everyone here would have loved the idea of having a pitcher with his potential.  

Of course the other difference is between an actual GM and your calls is that an actual GM cannot hide from the accountability of moves or modify moves after the fact.  Like saying you expected this team to be ready to compete on the path it was on in '23.  When what you actually said was that this team was a pathetic excuse for a team that was intentionally trying to lose.  

Again, personally I really appreciate what you bring here and missed it when you left before.  But it is a style that centers around what the team is doing is terrible, what I would do is brilliant, and if you don't agree with me you're stupid.   That works better when the team sucks and thankfully with Peter Angelos as the owner, we have had about a quarter century of suckitude.  

So keep up the ideas and keep em coming.  But have a cup of humility...you don't have to drink it...but it will look better.  And I do hope to meet you at an Oriole game soon.  I want to buy you a beverage.

Cheers

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Lol.  

You quoted a post where the end of it said “I’m one of the few who…” and you start this post with “you are the only one…”. 

I mean, you can’t make this up.  You must work for CNN.  You literally just lied about what I said while quoting a post showing that I didn’t say what you are saying I said. 

And no, what you are saying is either a lie, you being disingenuous or you just didn’t pay attention to what people said because very few people saw that this team could contend in 2023.

One of the few is not even close to the truth. Everyone here would agree 23 is a reasonable target for the O's to be competitive.

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, foxfield said:

I continue to wonder what talent you are referring to?  Other than Adley who you wanted up last year, who is the talent that needed to be added to?  You said this team was pathetic and that they were trying to lose. 

Um, you did in fact say this team could contend in 23.  But in order for it to contend, you would have invested about 200MM to make that happen and much of the roster they began the 2022 season with to be jettisoned.  That they are being competitive now...and looking to contend in '23 is definitely NOT the same thing and definitely not what you predicted.

And I think teams, not the Orioles per se, are much more likely to bring up talent when they are playing well. Machado didn't get slow rolled.  Talent rises for sure.  I do not think anyone questioned that. The Orioles did not need to bring up AR last year and while he certainly could have come up.  It seems clear that if the Orioles were an 85 win team it would have been worth it, but for a 52 win team, not as much.  

Everyone enjoys the concrete things you bring to the table.  It's makes for a great read and its always good for debate.  The rub is that in defending those concrete things, you are not really debating as much as name calling.  All of which is fine on a message board.  None here are perfect.  

Comparing the misses of the GM to yours.  Well, for starters there isn't a comparison because the primary difference between you, or any of us here, and an actual GM is that moves are not one off line items that do not impact other things.  IF you spent 100MM or 200MM dollars last year to compete that impacts what you can do going forward.  Dismissing mistakes as if it is Monopoly money doesn't change the fact that contracts once signed cant be ignored for the next group of signees that are presented.

The mistakes that you called for...are not mistakes...they are/were great conversation.  The Orioles should sign Stroman.  Hell everyone here would have loved the idea of having a pitcher with his potential.  

Of course the other difference is between an actual GM and your calls is that an actual GM cannot hide from the accountability of moves or modify moves after the fact.  Like saying you expected this team to be ready to compete on the path it was on in '23.  When what you actually said was that this team was a pathetic excuse for a team that was intentionally trying to lose.  

Again, personally I really appreciate what you bring here and missed it when you left before.  But it is a style that centers around what the team is doing is terrible, what I would do is brilliant, and if you don't agree with me you're stupid.   That works better when the team sucks and thankfully with Peter Angelos as the owner, we have had about a quarter century of suckitude.  

So keep up the ideas and keep em coming.  But have a cup of humility...you don't have to drink it...but it will look better.  And I do hope to meet you at an Oriole game soon.  I want to buy you a beverage.

Cheers

First of all, I really don’t care “how I’m look” to you guys.  The reality is that most of you have no idea of tone or you are too sensitive or you just don’t like people saying they are right, you are wrong, etc…people hate the truth. It’s the nature of the person to hate being told the truth because the truth hurts.  
 

I never said much of the roster we started this season with needs to be jettisoned.  What are you even talking about?  There are players that I would have dealt if the offers were there but I’m not sure we would be worse off if we did.  But most of the roster?  I mean, are you counting guys like Odor?  If so, that’s not even worth discussing.

The Orioles currently have a payroll of nothing.  The future payrolls are nothing.  They could and should and will have to gamble on some bigger contracts to compete.  I don’t like big contracts.  I don’t like free agency and I don’t like having guys past the age of 30.

You have to remember something, many moves I suggest are done with the backdrop of what options we have and need.  If it were up to me, many of the options wouldn’t even exist.  So, if I say I want to sign Joe Schmoe, had I been in charge, I wouldn’t need/want to sign Joe schmoe because I wouldn’t need to replace the guy.

Now  I’m not saying every thought and move I would make would be right but what I am saying is that because of last mistakes and decisions, I’m making suggestions based on having to cover those up.  If it were up to me, we would have very few players on the team past the age of 30 or so and wouldn’t sign guys to major contracts. That said, I think there are also times major contracts should be given and it’s not always just because of performance.  Sometimes it represents more than that, like the Werth/Nats deal.

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

One of the few is not even close to the truth. Everyone here would agree 23 is a reasonable target for the O's to be competitive.

Lol.  Ok.  It’s just impossible to discuss this with someone who clearly doesn’t read the board or if you do, you are just not comprehending the thoughts or lying about what you are reading.

Either way, don’t lie about what I said.  I know it’s your favorite pastime to run to Tony and cry because you feewings got hurt about something but lying makes you way worse.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I mean, you can’t make this up.  You must work for CNN.  You literally just lied about what I said 

Please keep your political leanings to yourself.