Jump to content

O's on the edge of contention in July


wildcard

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

You do not get nothing, you get two months of a good bat and strong veteran leadership.  If Mancini's next two months are nothing why would anyone trade for him.

Not what I meant.  You get nothing that can help us in the future.  So that is a change in strategy.  What I’m saying is that I wouldn’t want to put any eggs in the 2022 basket unless our mathematical playoff odds had reached at least 20% by the time we have to make a decision.  They’re increasing every day right now, so we’ll see where they are 2-3 days from the trade deadline.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

The strategy of winning now affects more than this year.  If you want to make a case to Joe Musgrove to play here, coming to a winning team with a bright future makes for a great sales pitch.

How would Joe Musgrove and his agent look at a team that refused to upgrade for 2023 and beyond because they had a 10% shot at the 2022 wildcard?  Especially if the likely case happens and even keeping Mancini and Santander the Orioles win 78 or 82 games or something and are eight or ten games out of the last wildcard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

How would Joe Musgrove and his agent look at a team that refused to upgrade for 2023 and beyond because they had a 10% shot at the 2022 wildcard?  Especially if the likely case happens and even keeping Mancini and Santander the Orioles win 78 or 82 games or something and are eight or ten games out of the last wildcard?

We’re 38-30 over the last 68 games with a +15 run differential. We’re 28-19 over the last 47 with a +25 run differential. It’s ok to believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, waroriole said:

We’re 38-30 over the last 68 games with a +15 run differential. We’re 28-19 over the last 47 with a +25 run differential. It’s ok to believe. 

I certainly believe that the Orioles are capable of having a 68-game span where they're a bit above .500 when things break right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Orioles traded six years of Eduardo Rodriguez for 27 innings of Andrew Miller? They lost that trade 15-1.  That's what I don't want them to be on the wrong side of this year, not when the very likely case is they don't even get a wildcard birth.  At least the 2014 Orioles were a 96-win team with a real shot.

I get that its unlikely Mancini and/or Santander brings back a piece.  But then remember that Bud Norris cost Josh "534 Ks in 312 innings" Hader and additional stuff. Lost that trade about 12-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Remember when the Orioles traded six years of Eduardo Rodriguez for 27 innings of Andrew Miller? They lost that trade 15-1.  That's what I don't want them to be on the wrong side of this year, not when the very likely case is they don't even get a wildcard birth.  At least the 2014 Orioles were a 96-win team with a real shot.

I get that its unlikely Mancini and/or Santander brings back a piece.  But then remember that Bud Norris cost Josh "534 Ks in 312 innings" Hader and additional stuff. Lost that trade about 12-1.

Yeah, I'm not advocating for a trade.  I say stand pat and let this play out.  I believe what we have is more valuable then anything we would get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

Yeah, I'm not advocating for a trade.  I say stand pat and let this play out.  I believe what we have is more valuable then anything we would get.

I'd be ok with not trading away Mancini and seeing where things go. That trade isn't likely to change the course of the organization one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wildcard said:

What change in strategy?  Are talking about delaying trading players for a few months.   That does not change the strategy.  Its just delays it a few months in order to keep a together  a team that is surging trying to achieve a playoff berth.   

Offering players to teams who have decided they are in the race and are thus willing to pay more is a tremendously important factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

I believe it is time to stop adding random pieces and lottery tickets.  The Orioles need to start targeting what we need and that is starting pitching.  I think the best way to add starting pitching  twill be thru free agency. 

Really?  What potential FA pitcher would you like to see the Os go after? And is it realistic to think they will pay for them for 3+ year deals.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2022-23-free-agents-by-position

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

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...