“Orioles big game shopping & most believe it's exclusively rotation”

[DrinkinWithFermi]

12 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Now, after he got nabbed in the BALCO investigation he had a decision to make.   I know which way I'm leaning on that one.

Nah man, 40 year olds routinely post the highest exit velocities in all of baseball and higher OPS's than they did in their 20s.

Totally normal stuff, nothing to see here 

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

There is a reason why everyone that gets caught is using "old tech" and are almost always Latin American.

Just like there are so few caught using in the NBA/NFL/PGA/ITF ect.

It also seems like the majority of failed tests occur in the minors now, which makes sense in light of the pay disparity. I am sure the state of the art, nigh impossible to detect stuff doesn't come cheap.

[forphase1]

3 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

 

Sure …81-81 in 2015 was just fine. 

Again, hindsight.  I bet you could also tell the lottery numbers from last week and yell that I didn't know the right ones and bet accordingly!    Yes, obviously the smart decision ended up being the wrong decision.  But it was still the smart, right decision based on the historical evidence we've got from a 100+ years of baseball.  You can only make the best, right decision you can based upon the facts that you have when making a decision.  There was no way to KNOW that Cruz was going to defy father time and produce like he did.  The likelihood of that happening were INCREDIBLY small.  Just because it happened doesn't mean the decision was wrong.  But I'm done going back and forth about it.  You are convinced you are right, and I'm clearly not going to change your mind, just as you are never going to change mine.  We don't need to continue clogging up this thread with going back and forth with the same arguments repeatedly.  We will just have to disagree...it's ok, I'm sure it's neither the first or last time you've been wrong.  (joking, incase you couldn't tell). 

[emmett16]

35 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

He never failed a test before BALCO but it was shown that he was getting supplied all of that time.   His career trajectory where he got better into this late 30's than he ever was before?   At the age of 33 Cruz had his best season by OPS (.856) in four years.  5 of his next 6 years going into his late 30's he was over .900.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

People will happily turn a blind eye to something that helps them.   It's not up to the GM's to prove Cruz used.   They simply signed him, with absolute plausible deniability.   They weren't stupid.   They got a great hitter.   As long as he passed his tests everyone was happy.    The question was if he's ever get unlucky and pop a positive for a test.   Yes, the tests are a joke.   Apparently, you have to be using and really, really unlucky or really stupid to get caught.

Dang.  That’s pretty harsh and I’m a pessimist.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  With that said, fair enough.  

[tntoriole]

Just now, forphase1 said:

Again, hindsight.  I bet you could also tell the lottery numbers from last week and yell that I didn't know the right ones and bet accordingly!    Yes, obviously the smart decision ended up being the wrong decision.  But it was still the smart, right decision based on the historical evidence we've got from a 100+ years of baseball.  You can only make the best, right decision you can based upon the facts that you have when making a decision.  There was no way to KNOW that Cruz was going to defy father time and produce like he did.  The likelihood of that happening were INCREDIBLY small.  Just because it happened doesn't mean the decision was wrong.  But I'm done going back and forth about it.  You are convinced you are right, and I'm clearly not going to change your mind, just as you are never going to change mine.  We don't need to continue clogging up this thread with going back and forth with the same arguments repeatedly.  We will just have to disagree...it's ok, I'm sure it's neither the first or last time you've been wrong.  (joking, incase you couldn't tell). 

Actually one of the very rare instances on this board when I was right lol .. and there was no hindsight with me saying it back then.  I said it on this board throughout the offseason after 2014 and I clogged up those threads too. Lol 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

3 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

 

Sure …81-81 in 2015 was just fine. 

You're just being intentionally disingenuous now. Other posters have repeatedly said that DD not replacing Cruz's production was the real problem, and they are correct. He had one foot out the door for a would-be future promotion and he neglected his present responsibilities as GM of the Orioles to fill holes with quality players.

Not re-signing the mid-late 30s DH-only guy with a long injury history coming off a ~career year to a large, 4 year contract was objectively the correct decision at the time though. Cruz performing in the 99th percentile of all MLB players in history at his age doesn't change that. It was simply an outlier of an outlier.

[emmett16]

23 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

There is a reason why everyone that gets caught is using "old tech" and are almost always Latin American.

Just like there are so few caught using in the NBA/NFL/PGA/ITF ect.

Wait, are you saying it’s not normal for 320lb lineman to run 4.7 40’s?  Again, benefit of the doubt

[tntoriole]

17 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

You're just being intentionally disingenuous now. Other posters have repeatedly said that DD not replacing Cruz's production was the real problem, and they are correct. He had one foot out the door for a would-be future promotion and he neglected his present responsibilities as GM of the Orioles to fill holes with quality players.

Not re-signing the mid-late 30s DH-only guy with a long injury history coming off a ~career year to a large, 4 year contract was objectively the correct decision at the time though. Cruz performing in the 99th percentile of all MLB players in history at his age doesn't change that. It was simply an outlier of an outlier.

So were you Ok with Duquette offering Cruz 3 years?  And if Cruz had taken the 3 years? 
If so, what we are really talking about is 1 year , not 4 years because the GM here happily would have signed up Nelson for three. 
My point was if you are in for three, a fourth year is not such a wild and crazy disastrous move as everyone here is painting it. 
 … if the deal was .. well we are not signing Cruz but hey we are going to replace him .. hello  ,Colby Rasmus..  then would you have wanted a fourth year of Cruz?  I think Duquette knew exactly what he was doing when he didn’t keep Markakis and Cruz and Miller. And he knew he wasn’t going to replace them either. 
Angelos Payroll management.  Sign Colby Rasmus, jettison 3 high salaries and our payroll advanced just marginally in 2015. 

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, tntoriole said:

 

I cannot recall another person on OH at the time who agreed with me and I was raked pretty good about it then. Most fans agreed with you.   And occasionally over the following 6 years when Nelson was beating us over the head, I admit to taking a certain pleasure in revisiting the decision. 

Oh, there are plenty of people here who wanted Nelson back.  I have a memory of running a poll about it, but I can’t find it.   Let’s just say most would not have matched Seattle’s number, but there was a healthy minority who would have.  I definitely wouldn’t have, and still hold that view now even though Cruz proved to be a unicorn.   

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Just now, tntoriole said:

So were you Ok with Duquette offering Cruz 3 years?  And if Cruz had taken the 3 years? 
If so, what we are really talking about is 1 year , not 4 years because the GM here happily would have signed up Nelson for three. 
My point was if you are in for three, a fourth year is not such a wild and crazy disastrous move as everyone here is painting it. 
 … if the deal was .. well we are not signing Cruz but hey we are going to replace him .. hello  ,Colby Rasmus..  then would you have wanted a fourth year of Cruz?  I think Duquette knew exactly what he was doing when he didn’t keep Markakis and Cruz and Miller. And he knew he wasn’t going to replace them either. 
Angelos Payroll management.  Sign Colby Rasmus, jettison 3 high salaries and our payroll advanced just marginally in 2015. 

No, I was in favor of hitting him with the QO and letting him sign elsewhere to snag a draft pick, and then trading for/signing another big bat to replace him.

Obviously that did not end up happening, which was the actual mistake.

[Roll Tide]

6 hours ago, tntoriole said:

Nelson Cruz was a professional hitter who excelled at his craft in my view.  And who kept getting better by refining his hit tool and figuring out pitchers better and better as the pitcher quality got worse and worse. 

Nellie was an outstanding contributor and team leader  in the best season since 1983 .. but hey, the “data” said no.    My real problem was the complete lack of any replacement or upgrade strategy by Duquette who was distracted a bit perhaps during that offseason. 
 

I cannot recall another person on OH at the time who agreed with me and I was raked pretty good about it then. Most fans agreed with you.   And occasionally over the following 6 years when Nelson was beating us over the head, I admit to taking a certain pleasure in revisiting the decision. 
 

But hopefully Abreu will not be Nellie or Ortiz and will  underperform for the Astros and we will not regret not pursuing him. 

Don’t forget Harold Baines

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

Did you know that before they resigned him to the big contract.    He certainly improved from the time he was in Texas to his time in Baltimore.   Whatever it was, he went from a so-so player to the best slugger in baseball for a few years.

The lack of Adderall!

[emmett16]

4 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Don’t forget  HOFer Harold Baines

 

[tntoriole]

7 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The lack of Adderall!

Which I also believe was very unfair to Chris. 

[byrdz]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Oh, there are plenty of people here who wanted Nelson back.  I have a memory of running a poll about it, but I can’t find it.   Let’s just say most would not have matched Seattle’s number, but there was a healthy minority who would have.  I definitely wouldn’t have, and still hold that view now even though Cruz proved to be a unicorn.   

Maybe this one?

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by byrdz

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, byrdz said:

Maybe this one?

 

Yep, that’s the one.  Good dig by you!  As you can see, it was about 3-1 against, but there certainly were a number of posters who wanted Cruz back at the price Seattle paid.  

The thread doesn’t show how people voted, but from tntoriole’s post at the bottom of page 5, I would have guessed that he voted against matching the Cruz deal, though it’s not clear.

“I think Wieters in his walk year is going to be exponentially better than the Joseph/Hundley 2014 production. And a healthy Machado in 2015 upgrades Flaherty/paredes etc 2014 production. And Chris Davis will be in the most important year of his career..any uptick at all towards 2013 would certainly be much more production than we got in 2014 and would also replace some of Cruz 2014 production. Throw in an unexpected 2015 year like, say, a breakout year for Schoop. All of these have to be essentially noncontributors for us to truly be worse in 2015 without Cruz. And Cruz of 2015 will be likely worse than the Cruz of 2014. And we may still yet add a bat in the offseason. DD has a plan and plans involve a budget process and a valuation process and not wavering when the dollars go up beyond what you believe the player value to be.”