Jump to content

Zrebiec: At impasse with LaRoche; turning attention to Lee

section36

By section36
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

hoosiers Hangout Grand Counsel

hoosiers

Posted
Posted

Good to hear LaRoche is not three guaranteed.

I think many here would be on board with exploring one plus an option with Lee before going ahead with three guaranteed for LaRoche. As long as Lee is not crazy $, I'd like to see it get done.

Not sure what it would take for Lee to get here, but one plus option would be nice. Hopefully, Lee would agree not to accept arbitration if he qualifies. Also, both sides should understand Lee would be dealt to a contender in the right situation (Os not competing, 1B vacancy on a competing team, Lee producing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Peace21 Veteran All-Star

Peace21

Posted
Posted
If Lee signs wth Texas or the Pads then LaRoche has the hammer with both the Gnats and the O's bidding for him. That's what he's waiting for. If Lee signs with the Gnats then LaRoche has to take what AM offers or or take a lot less in $$ and years from the Pads or Rays, etc. Lee is holding out to see if Texas has an interest. If Lee is a real option for the O's why haven't they been on him already. He makes much more sense than LaRoche. What were they thinking if they preferred LaRoche....:scratchchinhmm:

Could it be Lee's thumb? That turned Os off?

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

maybe2050

Posted
Posted
Good to hear LaRoche is not three guaranteed.

I think many here would be on board with exploring one plus an option with Lee before going ahead with three guaranteed for LaRoche. As long as Lee is not crazy $, I'd like to see it get done.

Not sure what it would take for Lee to get here, but one plus option would be nice. Hopefully, Lee would agree not to accept arbitration if he qualifies. Also, both sides should understand Lee would be dealt to a contender in the right situation (Os not competing, 1B vacancy on a competing team, Lee producing).

I'm not against Lee either. I just hope that it's for 2 years. I don't see the reasoning in saying you've filled a spot, if it last no more than one year. Before you know it, we'll be right back on here next year trying to solve the same problem. I'm a realist, and Pujols and Fielder will never see orange and black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsebllfan4life Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

bsebllfan4life

Posted
Posted
I'm not against Lee either. I just hope that it's for 2 years. I don't see the reasoning in saying you've filled a spot, if it last no more than one year. Before you know it, we'll be right back on here next year trying to solve the same problem. I'm a realist, and Pujols and Fielder will never see orange and black.

It is possible, that the reasoning is as simple as you need to crawl before you can walk. (you can't walk into walking) If FA do not want to come here, and the only way they will is with a 1 year deal, then do it. Once you have some winning under your belt then you can get the attention of other FA. Not to mention that if we got Lee (or others) for 1 year and he has a great year, then you offer them arb. and if he walks away you can get some picks out of the deal. As long as there are players to fill the positions you need, and there are fewer and fewer needs each year, IMO as a front office, you have done your job. All teams would love to have all of their positions locked up for a long term and not have to worry about things in the winter, but is usually not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VAB2110 AAA

VAB2110

Posted
Posted

I'd much rather see Lee. A right-handed bat is preferable and he'll probably command a shorter term deal. I can't see a National League guy from the west coast signing in Baltimore but if they can get him he's a better option than LaRoche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tank Hangout Veteran Council

Tank

Posted
Posted
I haven't yet seen anyone explain why Lee is so much better than Laroche. They both look like equally mediocre to me.

Seriously? I've seen it explained many times on here. Lee's second half of 2010, the fact that his down side appears to be equivalent to LaRoche's average season, right handed batter that hits well against LHP, higher upside, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bradysburns All-Star

Bradysburns

Posted
Posted
Seriously? I've seen it explained many times on here. Lee's second half of 2010, the fact that his down side appears to be equivalent to LaRoche's average season, right handed batter that hits well against LHP, higher upside, etc.

Yeah, I was of that thinking too - they were about the same. But as I looked more closely at the numbers, Lee is obviously a much more talented player. Now, he's coming off an injury, and a tough year, and he's well into his mid-30s... So he ain't perfect. But I would imagine he'll put up better number than LaRoche next year.

To me, we win whichever guy we get. I just hope we don't miss out on BOTH. That would truly suck mule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur_Bryant All-Star

Arthur_Bryant

Posted
Posted
Seriously? I've seen it explained many times on here. Lee's second half of 2010, the fact that his down side appears to be equivalent to LaRoche's average season, right handed batter that hits well against LHP, higher upside, etc.

Not to mention, his career.

Yeah, he'll be 35, but he has been a superior player for years. The really good players tend to maintain production longer than others. One mediocre half-season, while playing with injury, isn't a reason to write him off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tank Hangout Veteran Council

Tank

Posted
Posted
Not to mention, his career.

Yeah, he'll be 35, but he has been a superior player for years. The really good players tend to maintain production longer than others. One mediocre half-season, while playing with injury, isn't a reason to write him off.

Plus if you sign him to a one year deal and he bombs (don't think its likely), you get someone else for 2012. You're stuck with LaRoche for at least two years, looking more like three.

Again, I'd be ok with LaRoche on a two year deal in the $15 million range but would much prefer Lee.

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...