Jump to content

Scott Boras and the O’s


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Read this about Boras today in a week-old article on Jackson Holliday in The Athletic:

“Boras has had a limited roster of Orioles in the last few years, but it’s growing. He now represents O’s prospects Holliday, D.L. Hall, Gunnar Henderson, Jordan Westburg and Yusniel Diaz, among others.”

So, get used to seeing Boras around.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Non story Imo.

Not completely a non story.  It sets expectations accordingly that those guys are not going to be possibilities for buying out FA years with long term extensions.  There won't be any Wander Franco / Ronald Acuna type possibilites with any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not completely a non story.  It sets expectations accordingly that those guys are not going to be possibilities for buying out FA years with long term extensions.  There won't be any Wander Franco / Ronald Acuna type possibilites with any of them.

1) This is wrong.

2) For the most part, this likely doesn’t matter anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

1) This is wrong.

2) For the most part, this likely doesn’t matter anyway.

Is it?  When I see quote like this from him:

Quote

Great young players are getting what I call 'snuff contracts, and a snuff contract is that they're trying to snuff out the market. They know the player is a great player, and he's exhibited very little performance. So they're coming to him at 20 and 21, and I'm going to snuff out your ability to move, to go anywhere, to do anything, and your value. And I'm going to pay you maybe 40 cents on the dollar to do it. What's my risk?

It doesn't give me any confidence any of his clients will be signing an extension like that.  But that quote was from 2019.  Maybe he's changed his tune?  Which of his many clients has signed an extension buying out FA years?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Is it?  When I see quote like this from him:

It doesn't give me any confidence any of his clients will be signing an extension like that.  But that quote was from 2019.  Maybe he's changed his tune?  Which of his many clients has signed an extension buying out FA years?

https://twinsdaily.com/news-rumors/minnesota-twins/alex-kirilloff-and-the-truth-about-scott-boras-and-contract-extensions-r10429/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not completely a non story.  It sets expectations accordingly that those guys are not going to be possibilities for buying out FA years with long term extensions.  There won't be any Wander Franco / Ronald Acuna type possibilites with any of them.

Boras does extensions occasionally.  Strasburg did one a year before he would have been a free agent.  There have been others.  

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

    • Btw, i understand what he could mean to the team. He could put a ring on our fingers if he can be healthy and be there where and when we need him in October.    That’s the conundrum.
    • It’s just the up and down roles. I agree the opener aspect is the best way to go(to keep him on routine) but you are going to go from pitching 1-3 innings and then hoping he can go 5-6 again, when he is already likely to wear down because of the total workload. It’s all a big risk. I mean, there is a reason he has whatever deal with the WS he has and that if they went against that, he wanted an extension. Even he understands that it’s a risk.
    • You’re actually making the most sense of just about anyone on here.   Hate to say it.  Lol
    • If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?
    • Ah. So you can only get one pick per player? That’s a bummer. Reasonable, I suppose. But a bummer nonetheless 
    • It's true that this has been discussed, and there are differing schools of thought.  Some, like myself, feel that the resources required in a Crochet deal, might be better served addressing a more impactful need for 2024: a ToR starter.  As a starter beginning next season, it's likely Crochet's impact will be higher as a strong ToR starter through the final two years of control.  In the meantime, there are quite a few very solid veteran late inning relievers that we could deal for in order to satisfy that need, and that wouldn't require near the cost of a Crochet.
    • It makes sense to me for multiple reasons. 1) IMO we do not have the requisite pitching talent in order to matchup favorably against the leagues best in a 7 game series in October. That needs to change. 2) We don’t need extra offense IMO. Nor a back up catcher. We will be fine offensively if we don’t have one considering without both we are number one in the sport. 3) We could resign Burnes with that 50 million (not sure where you are getting that number). But so many here believe it will be a bad deal. And having another #1 in house protects us from having to be leveraged against signing him.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...