Jump to content

Looks like this is how the rotation shakes out


interloper

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Probably throw 6 shutout innings his first start.   Get the rough ones out of the way in ST.   I think he'll be fine.  

Hope so. I don't flinch when a position player prospect struggles in spring but man am I jumpy about our pitching prospects. It's been since Erik Bedard after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gurgi said:

I want to see Greyson start even if they have to piggyback a guy like DL Hall with him.   A tough righty followed by a tough lefty could be interesting.  Each getting four innings.   I would do it.   

Maybe later in April.DL Hall has thrown 1 2/3 innings in spring training games so far and will have one more appearance on Saturday. He is not stretched out enogh and said after his first appearance that he got tired in the second inning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pickles said:

I'm starting to think he won't start the year in the majors.

Yeah I think we take advantage of his poor spring and send him down to game his service time. If his innings are limited, there’s not a lot of risk of losing the extra year because he’s runner up for rookie of the year like Adley did last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wildcard said:

Houston, we have a problem.

We do? What’s that?

7 hours ago, Pickles said:

I'm starting to think he won't start the year in the majors.

Been saying this is a distinct possibility all winter. They’ll look for every excuse to game his clock. Hyde not committing to him being in the rotation looks like it could be the start of the excuse making. 

5 hours ago, Gurgi said:

I want to see Greyson start even if they have to piggyback a guy like DL Hall with him.   A tough righty followed by a tough lefty could be interesting.  Each getting four innings.   I would do it.   

I swear, if that whole “they need to have Hall pitch on the same day as G-Rod in relief” talk keeps going….

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

    • 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.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...