Are the Orioles a legitimate playoff contender (Going into Spring training)?

[AnythingO's]

A #1-3 starter IMHO simply meant someone better than Kremer and Bradish were last year

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Are you suggesting that Elias will never do a blockbuster deal?   Or just that he won’t do one this year?

Personally?

As the Orioles GM/VP?

Only if he's selling.

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

A #1-3 starter IMHO simply meant someone better than Kremer and Bradish were last year

OK, to me a #1-#3 starter means an actual #1-#3 starter.

I'm sure you could spin facts long enough to make Irvin sound like a #3, but he's not.

[emmett16]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

#1-#3 starter.

 

I think Elias is too risk adverse to do a "blockbuster" deal and I don't think ownership will take on the type of contract you generally see in a "blockbuster" deal.

Some smaller deals?  Sure.

That’s a fair take. I hope you are wrong. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

A #1-3 starter IMHO simply meant someone better than Kremer and Bradish were last year

Honestly, what Kremer did last year was at least #3 worthy.  Of the 140 pitchers in MLB who threw 100+ Innings last year (roughly 5 per team), he finished 42nd in ERA.  He was only 99th in IP, but that’s because he started the year on the IL.

The issue, of course, is whether he can repeat that performance.  But I don’t expect my no. 3 starter to be better than that, just to hopefully throw more innings.  

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Personally?

As the Orioles GM/VP?

Only if he's selling.

 

I think the dynamic could change if we’re a strong contender (by which I mean, a team on track to win 93+ games).  

[AnythingO's]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

OK, to me a #1-#3 starter means an actual #1-#3 starter.

I'm sure you could spin facts long enough to make Irvin sound like a #3, but he's not.

I agree with you but when ME said that, IMHO, he only meant someone better than Kremer, Brandish. We here, hoped he meant a real #1-3 SP.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I agree with you but when ME said that, IMHO, he only meant someone better than Kremer, Brandish. We here, hoped he meant a real #1-3 SP.

I'd consider that being less than honest.

I wouldn't call that person a liar but I wouldn't trust what they said going forward.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the dynamic could change if we’re a strong contender (by which I mean, a team on track to win 93+ games).  

You might be right, I was only giving my view, which we all know tends to be on the pessimistic side.

[emmett16]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You might be right, I was only giving my view, which we all know tends to be on the pessimistic side.

I think we also have to give him some room to develop as a GM.  It’s his 5th year as a GM.  What he does years 6-10 should be quite different than what he did years 1-5.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I think we also have to give him some room to develop as a GM.  It’s his 5th year as a GM.  What he does years 6-10 should be quite different than what he did years 1-5.

I wonder how many GM's get more than five years in the job?

[emmett16]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wonder how many GM's get more than five years in the job?

11/30 current GMs have been with their team for more than 5 years.  

Edited February 17, 2023 by emmett16

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

11/30 current GMs have been with their team for more than 5 years.  

Thanks for that but I was thinking of a much larger sample size and have no idea if that percentage is consistent over time.

[Since1984]

Voted yes, because of the talent 2022 represented and made for the first exciting team inseveral years.

Any regression or injuries in 2023 will be be offset by breakout seasons, or bounce back seasons from the veterans, IMO. And depth

The pitching depth will fill the necessary holes, or traded for higher upgrades.

Elias cannot hold onto the mil talent before it becomes a must and need to hit the 40 man roster.

Expect a ST trade, or significant trades by this time next year. The next two years will be interesting. If not, then why the X are the O’s talking about liftoff!

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, foxfield said:

I agree that the heading and the questions do not really match.

This is the kind of stuff irritates me to no end.

Why, because it doesn't match whatever the heck is in your head as to what a contender means? It's a simple thread with a criteria that I clearly defined (so people could vote WITHIN the criteria) that was meant to spark conversation. It matches just fine. Just because it doesn't match whatever criteria you have in your head for whatever a contender means doesn't mean it doesn't match.

You want to make Foxfield's version of what it means to be contender, have at it, but I don't appreciate you telling me my criteria and header doesn't match. 

Was this thread called, what do you think makes a team a contender? Was this thread called tell me why my header and questions don't match? Nope. 

Now you could have come in here  and said "I have a different criteria that I use ...." and that would have been fine, but trying to squat on my criteria in my thread is great way to piss me off.

Especially when your "criteria" not a criteria, but something you just made up that includes "improved pitching" "lack of regression" and "much stronger offensive performance." 

Please, tell us 'ol criteria master, how do you determined what improved pitching and "much" stronger offensive performances means? Your comments don't match your concern over my completely made up "40% chance" on September 1st.

Yet, we can look at Fan Graphs playoff odds on September 1st and use my criteria now can't we?

If you plan to come at me in my thread, at least come at me with better criteria. And before you say my heading and criteria doesn't match, make sure you understand the definition of the word of criteria.