Knott DFA'd?

[geschinger]

The long run is what matters. I don't think Knott makes us better now OR in the long run. It's not a big deal.

When you look at the (lack of) offensive production of the guys we send out there every night how could you possibly think that he wouldn't have made us better now? It's baffling to me that anyone would hold the opinion that he wouldn't of been a help to this team.

In the long run? It depends on what we do in the off-season but looking at whom remains on the 40 man roster he could do a lot more for us now and in the long run than quite a few of the guys who remain on it.

[DrungoHazewood]

In the long run? It depends on what we do in the off-season but looking at whom remains on the 40 man roster he could do a lot more for us now and in the long run than quite a few of the guys who remain on it.

Like Jack Cust, like John Stephens, like Marino Salas... the O's discard or ignore a guy who may or may not have ever helped help the team, while keeping any number of people on the 40-man who definitely, absolutely, no question will not. The O's have quite a history of treating players that don't fit their vision as zeros, not even worth as much as AA utility players, or injured mediocrities, or players who haven't done anything meaningful in years.

[Mad Mark]

Like Jack Cust, like John Stephens, like Marino Salas... the O's discard or ignore a guy who may or may not have ever helped help the team, while keeping any number of people on the 40-man who definitely, absolutely, no question will not. The O's have quite a history of treating players that don't fit their vision as zeros, not even worth as much as AA utility players, or injured mediocrities, or players who haven't done anything meaningful in years.

The thing that frustrates me at this point is not knowing who made this decision. Are Flanagan and Duquette still calling these shots, while MacPhail plots our glorious future, or is this a MacPhail decision?

As someone who has been treated like garbage by a (former) employer, I know how it feels, and also how unnecessary it is. You can move a guy out of an organization w/o tearing him down, or treating him like a zero.

Can't imagine Knott is going to have anything good to say about this organization. He has to be wondering why he left the West Coast.

(Probably wind up tearing it up for Oakland next year, but that's another story! )

[NewMarketSean]

Like Jack Cust, like John Stephens, like Marino Salas... the O's discard or ignore a guy who may or may not have ever helped help the team, while keeping any number of people on the 40-man who definitely, absolutely, no question will not. The O's have quite a history of treating players that don't fit their vision as zeros, not even worth as much as AA utility players, or injured mediocrities, or players who haven't done anything meaningful in years.

That is what I was getting at. Thanks for saying it better than I ever could have Drungo.

[Gurgi]

Unless otherwise told I would have to belive this is McPhails idea. Granted he probally doesn't know the player intimately and may have accepted Flannagan or Jordans or Duqs advice.

From what I heard before our meltdown a couple of weeks ago McPhail liked our young pitching. He planned to help them with defence up the middle.

I think he just finds Knott redundant.

[Why Not?]

When you look at the (lack of) offensive production of the guys we send out there every night how could you possibly think that he wouldn't have made us better now? It's baffling to me that anyone would hold the opinion that he wouldn't of been a help to this team.

In the long run? It depends on what we do in the off-season but looking at whom remains on the 40 man roster he could do a lot more for us now and in the long run than quite a few of the guys who remain on it.

I would have liked to see Knott get a chance and I understand the frustration with seeing him walk. If nothing else, he would have been somebody different. But after signing Payton/Huff/Millar/Gibbons/etc., it was always pretty unlikely Knott was going to get at-bats. I'm not saying those guys are the answer or that they are very good, but Knott will probably never be as good as any of them.

[ColumbiaOriole]

I would have liked to see Knott get a chance and I understand the frustration with seeing him walk. If nothing else, he would have been somebody different. But after signing Payton/Huff/Millar/Gibbons/etc., it was always pretty unlikely Knott was going to get at-bats. I'm not saying those guys are the answer or that they are very good, but Knott will probably never be as good as any of them.

Knott is already better than Gibbons and Payton. Just because those two make big money doesn't make them better players.

[RShack]

For myself, I don't know if Knott is worth a hoot or not. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing him play some. But this discussion has me confused. As I understand it, people are saying things that are strongly contradictory. Various people who are irate about Knott's DFA are precisely those people who don't want deadwood and clutter clogging up the roster. They don't want roster decisions to be based on who helps now. Instead, they want AM to clean house of people are aren't part of the future. Right? So, if AM has an idea about what he wants to do and how he wants to get it there, and if AM has decided he does not believe Knott is part of that future, then isn't DFA'ing him exactly what he should do?

[hoosiers]

I am not going to get excited about losing Knott. It seems like some people want to draw a line in the sand as this being a defining move of AM or something of that nature. I was pleased when we signed him and was hopeful that we could get him 300+ at-bats in Bmore like many here. Didn't happen.

I'm not going to enter the argument about Bako or Stern (other than his first name being Adam) being more or less valuable than Knott. I understand what people believe Knott COULD produce as a major leaguer, but it hasn't happened yet and he should be on the downside of his career going forward. I'd be interested if someone could post Knott's major league OPS equivalent based on his stats this year.

IMO, from a depth chart point of view, depending on where you would play Knott, I believe House, Jimenez, Moore and Reimold are more valuable pieces to the organization than Knott. Also, it sure seems like these type of guys are available every year. Last offseason, we picked up Knott, House and Phelps. I'm sure there will be similar guys this offseason as well.

If we buy out Jay Gibbons in ST next year (something I expect to be a better than even bet), who do you want to get those at-bats? If your answer is Knott, then I could see how this would be a disappointing roster move. If your answer is someone else, this move probably means as little to you as it does to me.

[orioles119]

There you go again, NMS. Questioning the baseball knowledge of other posters because they don't agree with you.

As for Knott... he is 29 already and I thought the idea was to get younger? 29 isn't young. 29 should be prime years, yet Knott is toiling in the minors.

[geschinger]

For myself, I don't know if Knott is worth a hoot or not. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing him play some. But this discussion has me confused. As I understand it, people are saying things that are strongly contradictory. Various people who are irate about Knott's DFA are precisely those people who don't want deadwood and clutter clogging up the roster. They don't want roster decisions to be based on who helps now. Instead, they want AM to clean house of people are aren't part of the future. Right? So, if AM has an idea about what he wants to do and how he wants to get it there, and if AM has decided he does not believe Knott is part of that future, then isn't DFA'ing him exactly what he should do?

The biggest problem I have w/the move is whom remains on the 40 man roster. If we had a 40 man roster bursting at the seams w/talent and had to DFA Knott that would be understandable. But when you look at some of the players on the 40 man roster the decision to DFA Knott is indefensible.

[geschinger]

As for Knott... he is 29 already and I thought the idea was to get younger? 29 isn't young. 29 should be prime years, yet Knott is toiling in the minors.

He was under the control of San Diego who did have better options at positions he can play so it is understandable why he never got a chance there - he was blocked. Unfortunately for him, he sabotaged his career by signing w/the Orioles - team seemingly uninterested in maximizing the talent that they have on their roster. A team that prefers to run to fill out the lineup card with sub .650 OPS players on a consistent basis.

Knott will never be a star but he can help a lot of teams. Hopefully for his future he'll make his way to a competent organization w/a need at one of the positions he can fill.

[DrungoHazewood]

Last offseason, we picked up Knott, House and Phelps. I'm sure there will be similar guys this offseason as well.

If we buy out Jay Gibbons in ST next year (something I expect to be a better than even bet), who do you want to get those at-bats? If your answer is Knott, then I could see how this would be a disappointing roster move. If your answer is someone else, this move probably means as little to you as it does to me.

I'm also sure there will be more Houses, Knotts and Phelpses available this offseason. But with the way they've treated those three this year I'd be highly surprised if a) they even wanted more players like that, and b) players like that would want to sign with the Orioles given their track record of using Knotts as AAA filler even when the mediocre major leaguers in front of them underperformed or got hurt.

If they buy out Gibbons I'm sure they'll fill those at bats with someone like Rondell White. A guy who's proven his worth to the front office because another MLB team gave him at bats recently, a player who brings veteran leadership, a player who fits nicely into the Oriole budget (not too expensive, but not so cheap they'll assume something's wrong). A guy who's under the age of 43, so he's sure to have 2-3 more good years in the show. And about the 29th guy this decade who signed their last meaningful contract with the Orioles while fading away to retirement.

[markdublya]

I understand the sport of baseball just fine. You don't build for the future with 29 year old AAA talent. It amazes me people like you are making it out to be a big deal. Let's just move on and agree to disagree.

It may very well not be a long-term move at all, but in the short-term it was senseless to keep Bako.

The A's recently got a guy who'll be 29 this Winter that nobody wanted, now he hits clean-up for them...

[markdublya]

You are arguning MY POINT! WHY is he here??? Why is he here now?

2 questions for you to answer:

1. Should Bako be on the 40 man over Knott?

2. Should Bako be on the 40 man over Jimenez?

So to be CLEAR, there are 2 or 3 of you on here answering BAKO to both questions, as of RIGHT NOW??!!