Jump to content

Should we have signed Holliday for 7/120 with a Full NTC


TiredofLosing20

Should the O's have offered 7/120 with a Full NTC to Holliday  

240 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the O's have offered 7/120 with a Full NTC to Holliday


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just goes to show you how much I love Orioles baseball and talking Orioles baseball.

And how badly I want this team to win.

I certainly don't blame you for loving your team, we all do. Keep on man, eventually it will all work out and we will all be happy. We're just going to all have different opinions on how to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, we'd have obviously had to beat this deal to sign Holliday, though we don't know by how much. I wonder what the cost/years threshold would have been for the 6 voters who favored the deal.

I honestly get the feeling that Trea would have supported anything up to 9/180.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, we'd have obviously had to beat this deal to sign Holliday, though we don't know by how much. I wonder what the cost/years threshold would have been for the 6 voters who favored the deal.

I honestly get the feeling that Trea would have supported anything up to 9/180.

I honestly think Trea will think the Orioles have 'won' when they give out a $100m contract, regardless of whether it leads to actual wins or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think Trea will think the Orioles have 'won' when they give out a $100m contract, regardless of whether it leads to actual wins or not.

I agree. I get the sense that he's more concerned with "doing something big" than whether or not that something big is reasonable.

If there is an actual methodology to what he'd be supportive of, in terms of $$ and years, I'd be interested to hear it and try to understand his bounds a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I get the sense that he's more concerned with "doing something big" than whether or not that something big is reasonable.
That's absolutely the case and is true of several other posters around here. MSK in particular.

They can deny it all they want, but ultimately their reasons for making these hugely stupid moves come down to "they have to do something!"

These folks are much more interested in sending messages to the fans than they are in actually producing a winning product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's absolutely the case and is true of several other posters around here. MSK in particular.

They can deny it all they want, but ultimately their reasons for making these hugely stupid moves come down to "they have to do something!"

These folks are much more interested in sending messages to the fans than they are in actually producing a winning product.

The thing is that it's not unreasonable as long as it has some sort of definitional component.

Maybe you're willing to spend 20%/year and 2 years over a player's expected value. At least that's debatable.

The generic, "we need a big bat in the middle of the lineup" stuff isn't debatable. Of course we do. Everyone agrees. The details just matter more to some than others. I think it comes down to people who just think differently from one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...