Jump to content

Greinke and Profar Interest


Bahama O's Fan

Recommended Posts

If they’re not going to sign anyone who actually helps make the team better, I’d rather just see the young guys play. But after watching they way they handled guys like Vavra and Stowers, I have absolutely no confidence that we’ll see extended periods of time being given to anyone who isn’t a bonafide prospect. 
 

Remember when we all talked about guys like Bassitt and Taillon like it was an actual possibility? Now we might get “lucky” enough to land Wacha or Profar. Ugh, what a terrible offseason this has been 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure we’ve spoken with a lot of players about one year deals. Gibson, Frazier, and Givens, we’re the ones that said Yes. 
 

I’d take Stowers over Profar next year. I’m sure we’re doing our due diligence to see what vet FA SP wants to be this year’s Matt Harvey. Maybe Matt Harvey again. I’m personally predicting a Bundy reunion on a ST NRI deal. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’m sure we’ve spoken with a lot of players about one year deals. Gibson, Frazier, and Givens, we’re the ones that said Yes. 
 

I’d take Stowers over Profar next year. I’m sure we’re doing our due diligence to see what vet FA SP wants to be this year’s Matt Harvey. Maybe Matt Harvey again. I’m personally predicting a Bundy reunion on a ST NRI deal. 

Agree, I'll take Stowers over Profar. 

I would absolutely take Zack Greinke, but he seems very specific in what he wants in terms of teams at that this point (and given he's made nearly half a billion dollars at this point in his life I doubt he's doing it for the money). Greinke is far above what Harvey and probably Gibson will offer. I'd wager, if Greinke chooses to pitch this season, he'll have more value than Harvey, Gibson or Jordan Lyles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oriole said:

If they’re not going to sign anyone who actually helps make the team better, I’d rather just see the young guys play. But after watching they way they handled guys like Vavra and Stowers, I have absolutely no confidence that we’ll see extended periods of time being given to anyone who isn’t a bonafide prospect.

Not sure what you're saying here. One conclusion could be that they don't consider Vavra or Stowers to be bona fide prospects. I share your desire to see the kids play. So maybe this time around they'll have better prospects on hand and we'll actually see them play more.

Edited by now
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

    • Personally I take rushed to mean something a bit milder. I think you're using the word more absolutely than many do, and that's the disagreement.  I would call a player rushed if they were brought up before they were ready to perform, and it damaged or delayed their development. Particularly if there was reason to doubt their readiness before the callup. But it doesn't have to be something that ruins them or that they never recover from for me to be willing to call it rushing.  Now I'm not sure they rushed Holliday under either definition, since there was tons of evidence supporting the idea of bringing him up. 
    • IMHO defensive prowess at premium positions generally benefits your pitchers to a more significant degree than offensive prowess. So C, CF, SS, 2B are positions that I would be OK with one or two players who profile +10 D/-10 O. I think the corners, (LF, RF, 3B and 1B) are where you can have one or two +10 O/-10 D types. 3B tends to be a corner spot where a stellar defender can change the course of a game or series, however.  I also believe that defensive skill is more highly correlated with superb athleticism; whereas offensive skills are less highly correlated with athleticism.  In other words, it's rare to see a great defender who is not a great athlete; but there are many excellent hitters who are not very athletic.  I think the O's like players who can defend at a very high level. I think they like exceptional athletes who are versatile defensively. They have been fortunate that many of their prospects are superb on both sides of the ball.   
    • Boring answer but I’m going with the average hitter, average defender. Everyone loves a great hitter but just wait til they have a DJ Stewart bonk on the head moment time after time and the offense won’t seem so great. On the other hand, Izturis was cool to have on the team until he came up to bat.    Give me someone who will make most of the plays and won’t kill you at the plate. 
    • He wasn’t rushed because the org and everyone who saw him felt he was ready. He’s mature, he’s confident and has dominated the minors. So, unless you want to ignore all of that, I don’t see any logical argument that he was rushed.
    • I think he gets more games. They gave Cowser 77 PA last season, Holliday isn't halfway there yet.
    • When people say a player was rushed, it usually  means the player has no chance to compete, is in over their heads, confident shot to hell and may not recover. What you are saying isn’t that.  You are saying they could use more seasoning iyo. Again, this may be semantics but rushed is usually a negative connotation that comes with ruining a players career.     So no, I don’t think that exists unless it’s an example like I said.,going from HS to the majors or something over the top like that..which doesn’t happen.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...