Jump to content

Royale: LaRoche bid made

Carllamy

By Carllamy
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

waroriole Hangout Grand Counsel

waroriole

Posted
Posted
"Nope"

Possible -a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization <a possible but difficult task>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Conceivable : capable of being conceived : imaginable <every conceivable combination>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So......yes, it is basically the same word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
maybe2050 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

maybe2050

Posted
Posted
So......yes, it is basically the same word.

Dude, you're just too funny. But no, if it's showing a diffrent definition, then I'd say Websters would be able to shorten their list. 2 diffrent defs mean 2 diffrent words. I'll try to make this a little easier.

Since MacPhail likes to keep everyone in the dark about what he's actually doing, would it be too much of a reach, to feel he's actually signing Lee instead of Laroache ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur_Bryant All-Star

Arthur_Bryant

Posted
Posted
I know this is a reach for some, but isn't it possible that Laroche would do a good job for 3 years? Some already have him traded in the 3rd year. If the man has been a pretty solid player so far, shouldn't we look at him as a problem fixed, instead of a upcoming problem?

It's possible. But most players fall off their peak levels as they get into their thirties. The exceptions are the really great players, but LaRoche doesn't qualify. As you say, he is "pretty solid." And the problem is that when "pretty solid" players start to fall off, they don't have far to fall before they become mediocre. There's a lot to like about the player LaRoche has been for the past five years or so, but expecting him to continue to be that same player for the next three years isn't realistic.

If he were 27 and coming off a 25 HR 100 RBI year, a lot of the people here who are lukewarm on him would be much more enthusiastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maybe2050 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

maybe2050

Posted
Posted
It's possible. But most players fall off their peak levels as they get into their thirties. The exceptions are the really great players, but LaRoche doesn't qualify. As you say, he is "pretty solid." And the problem is that when "pretty solid" players start to fall off, they don't have far to fall before they become mediocre. There's a lot to like about the player LaRoche has been for the past five years or so, but expecting him to continue to be that same player for the next three years isn't realistic.

If he were 27 and coming off a 25 HR 100 RBI year, a lot of the people here who are lukewarm on him would be much more enthusiastic.

See, I guess sometimes that is where I differ. This isn't tennis, or gymnastics, where a player is considered over the hill a few years in. The man is 31 years old, and some good players are signing big contracts well into their late 30's and early 40's.

Carl Crawford - 28 years old / hit .307 / 19 HRS / 90 RBIS /110 RUNS

Adam Laroche- 31 years old / hit .261 / 25 HRS / 100 RBIS/ 75 RUNS

Crawford signed a 7 year $142 million contract, and we're debating whether Laroche is a super risk to a 3 year deal for like $7 million a year and only 3 years older? Now I might not be a rocket scientist, but wouldn't Crawford be much more of a risk considering that his contract would run longer (even in terms of player's age) by 1 year?

He plays a position where injuries happen at a much higher frequency, and this guy would be making $13.25 million more per year. At some point we need to sign someone that won't be bagging groceries in 6 months. Debate over, and give this man the 3 year deal at anything $9 million or under per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur_Bryant All-Star

Arthur_Bryant

Posted
Posted
See, I guess sometimes that is where I differ. This isn't tennis, or gymnastics, where a player is considered over the hill a few years in. The man is 31 years old, and some good players are signing big contracts well into their late 30's and early 40's.

Carl Crawford - 28 years old / hit .307 / 19 HRS / 90 RBIS /110 RUNS

Adam Laroche- 31 years old / hit .261 / 25 HRS / 100 RBIS/ 75 RUNS

Crawford signed a 7 year $142 million contract, and we're debating whether Laroche is a super risk to a 3 year deal for like $7 million a year and only 3 years older? Now I might not be a rocket scientist, but wouldn't Crawford be much more of a risk considering that his contract would run longer (even in terms of player's age) by 1 year?

He plays a position where injuries happen at a much higher frequency, and this guy would be making $13.25 million more per year. At some point we need to sign someone that won't be bagging groceries in 6 months. Debate over, and give this man the 3 year deal at anything $9 million or under per year.

Carl Crawford doesn't really have anything to do with this. They aren't at all similar players--despite your use of selective stats to make it appear so.

If you're trying to say that the O's would be risking less on LaRoche than the Red Sox are risking on Crawford, then yes. Obviously. But I think the Red Sox are smart enough to know that when he gets to age 33, Crawford won't be as valuable as he is right now. They're willing to accept that, though, so they can have him for his peak years, which should be the next three to five seasons.

For LaRoche, those peak years are coming to an end. They aren't going to continue through age 33. He will certainly be an improvement over what they've had, but don't assume that you can pencil him in for three more seasons like the one he has just had. It almost certainly isn't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...