Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

The New Orioles


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Underseige

Underseige

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 05:44 PM

Yes it is time the Orioles just get rid of anyone over 27 and let them go. The young birds can do no worse in a season of reddiness than the Vets we have on this team. Is it not the time to give them experience. These young Birds really lit it up today.

Wilson Betemit, Chris Davis and Trent Mummey each homered and outfield prospect Xavier Avery had two doubles, a single, one RBI and two runs scored.

#2 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:03 PM

I'm completely in favor of dealing everyone with less than 3 years of team control left. Wilson Betemit however is 30 years old, a journeyman, and probably the worst starting position player in the majors. He can go too.
The kids are alright.

#3 LarryN

LarryN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,905 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:26 PM

Yes it is time the Orioles just get rid of anyone over 27 and let them go. The young birds can do no worse in a season of reddiness than the Vets we have on this team. Is it not the time to give them experience. These young Birds really lit it up today.

Wilson Betemit, Chris Davis and Trent Mummey each homered and outfield prospect Xavier Avery had two doubles, a single, one RBI and two runs scored.


Wilson Betemit is 30. There are only six guys on the 40 man roster that are older.



Jim Johnson is 28. You want to get rid of him, too? J.J. Hardy is 29. Gone?
"She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her." --- Ann Coulter, discussing Sarah Palin

#4 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:40 PM

Wilson Betemit is 30. There are only six guys on the 40 man roster that are older.



Jim Johnson is 28. You want to get rid of him, too? J.J. Hardy is 29. Gone?


Yes and yes. Their numbers this year will be irrelevant, all that matters is players that will maybe be here in 4 or 5 years, or that we have a prayer of resigning.
The kids are alright.

#5 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:42 AM

I can't imagine how much worse this team would be if you guys called the shots.

You guys make DD and PA look like great baseball minds. lol

#6 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:59 AM

I can't imagine how much worse this team would be if you guys called the shots.

You guys make DD and PA look like great baseball minds. lol


Once you're in permanent last place, the actual numbers of your record become somewhat irrelevant. The only chance this team has of ever climbing out is to capture lightning in a bottle with a bunch of great prospects at once, because as time goes by, the decent players they have will leave, one by one, and the team won't get anywhere. So what's the point of keeping guys like Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Hardy et al when they have no place in the team's future?
The kids are alright.

#7 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:06 AM

Once you're in permanent last place, the actual numbers of your record become somewhat irrelevant. The only chance this team has of ever climbing out is to capture lightning in a bottle with a bunch of great prospects at once, because as time goes by, the decent players they have will leave, one by one, and the team won't get anywhere. So what's the point of keeping guys like Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Hardy et al when they have no place in the team's future?


If the team stays the way it is, sure. You can't predict the future.

#8 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:49 AM

If the team stays the way it is, sure. You can't predict the future.


I've predicted it pretty well for the last 6 years or so...
The kids are alright.

#9 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:59 AM

I've predicted it pretty well for the last 6 years or so...


You really went out on a limb.

Never forget 1989. Bet that year you predicted like everyone else did that they would suck.:o

#10 Far from home

Far from home

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,761 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 09:04 AM

Once you're in permanent last place, the actual numbers of your record become somewhat irrelevant. The only chance this team has of ever climbing out is to capture lightning in a bottle with a bunch of great prospects at once, because as time goes by, the decent players they have will leave, one by one, and the team won't get anywhere. So what's the point of keeping guys like Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Hardy et al when they have no place in the team's future?


TB has managed to sustain with that model.

I think the O's could do it, and I think they have the right people in place, for the first time, to get it done.

One of the hallmarks of management is to have a consistent philosophy that is teachable and sensible. That is what they are putting in place. That was the "Oriole Way" - and it can get there again.
Ideological gravy trains lead to poor decisions.
Learn from the last President, and make this next era one of rebuilding what has been torn down.
Instead of being loyal to your party, be loyal to your country and your people.

#11 Bird Brane

Bird Brane

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,414 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 09:53 AM

You really went out on a limb.

Never forget 1989. Bet that year you predicted like everyone else did that they would suck.:o


Ah, 1989, last year of the Reagan Presidency, the Year the Berlin Wall came down, also the first liver transplant... has it been that long that the Orioles have been in the crapper? :eek:

#12 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:54 AM

One thing to note about the "new" pitching staff this year. So far this ST they have the second lowest era in mlb 3.05 and have a 1.22 whip. Why not.

#13 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 01:44 PM

One thing to note about the "new" pitching staff this year. So far this ST they have the second lowest era in mlb 3.05 and have a 1.22 whip. Why not.


Because they have less than half a roster that could compete for a starting position on most teams in MLB. That's why not. Also, I was 4 in 1989. As far as I'm concerned it's an irrelevant relic from a different era of baseball, when the Orioles could actually develop players, and weren't run like the owner's personal cash cow.
The kids are alright.

#14 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:08 PM

Because they have less than half a roster that could compete for a starting position on most teams in MLB. That's why not. Also, I was 4 in 1989. As far as I'm concerned it's an irrelevant relic from a different era of baseball, when the Orioles could actually develop players, and weren't run like the owner's personal cash cow.



Same as in 1989. :o

Your argument that they could develop players back then is simply not true.Cal was already a star. With the exception of Mussina they didn't develop jack. Maybe you could make a case for Brady. They ruined Ben Mac. Hoiles, had a little success. Anybody else,no. If you knew anything about the O's you would know that after 1989 the were very mediocre till Davey managed for two years then we all know the results after that. It's not an irrelevent relic because it really happened and could again. Why not :eek:

I'm done with you. You don't know what you're talking about junior.:o

#15 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:45 PM

Same as in 1989. :o

Your argument that they could develop players back then is simply not true.Cal was already a star. With the exception of Mussina they didn't develop jack. Maybe you could make a case for Brady. They ruined Ben Mac. Hoiles, had a little success. Anybody else,no. If you knew anything about the O's you would know that after 1989 the were very mediocre till Davey managed for two years then we all know the results after that. It's not an irrelevent relic because it really happened and could again. Why not :eek:

I'm done with you. You don't know what you're talking about junior.:o


It's not the same, sorry. Hoiles actually a very good major league catcher for some time, Mussina was an absolute stud, and Brady Anderson turned into the leadoff man for the next decade. The Orioles have developed ZERO starting pitchers of quality since Mussina. Zero. None. They've developed 3position players in the last 15+ years - Roberts, Markakis, and Wieters. That's HISTORICALLY bad for a team picking in the top 10 every year. Hell, it's bad for anybody.

The 1989 team had 3 starters with an ERA under 4.5. That hasn't happened since I was in grade school. And they have marginal pitchers at best, and play the ridiculously strong lineups in their division 18
times a year. The 89 team was more patient at the plate, had a lockdown closer and a much better overall bullpen, and much better starters. The current roster has WILSON EFFING BETEMIT as their everyday DH. We have a utility player as our starting DH. In the AL East.

This team isn't "why not." It's "not a chance in hell." But by all means keep fooling yourself into thinking they have a snowball's chance in hell of being watchable any time in the next 3-5 years.
The kids are alright.

#16 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,594 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:56 PM

One thing to note about the "new" pitching staff this year. So far this ST they have the second lowest era in mlb 3.05 and have a 1.22 whip. Why not.


How many actual ML starting line ups have they faced?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#17 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:57 PM

It's not the same, sorry. Hoiles actually a very good major league catcher for some time, Mussina was an absolute stud, and Brady Anderson turned into the leadoff man for the next decade. The Orioles have developed ZERO starting pitchers of quality since Mussina. Zero. None. They've developed 3position players in the last 15+ years - Roberts, Markakis, and Wieters. That's HISTORICALLY bad for a team picking in the top 10 every year. Hell, it's bad for anybody.

The 1989 team had 3 starters with an ERA under 4.5. That hasn't happened since I was in grade school. And they have marginal pitchers at best, and play the ridiculously strong lineups in their division 18
times a year. The 89 team was more patient at the plate, had a lockdown closer and a much better overall bullpen, and much better starters. The current roster has WILSON EFFING BETEMIT as their everyday DH. We have a utility player as our starting DH. In the AL East.

.This team isn't "why not." It's "not a chance in hell." But by all means keep fooling yourself into thinking they have a snowball's chance in hell of being watchable any time in the next 3-5 years.



You remember that at 4 years old. :o You are so full of it. Go study some baseball and get back to me. Till then see ya loser.

#18 Han Solo

Han Solo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:58 PM

How many actual ML starting line ups have they faced?



Just as many as every other club has.

#19 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Resident Good Luck Charm

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,561 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:00 PM

You remember that at 4 years old. :o You are so full of it. Go study some baseball and get back to me. Till then see ya loser.


It's called on base percentage. Have you heard of it? It's a new fangled metric that you might have heard about. Also, way to ignore every other point I made. Maybe because you have no answer to it.
The kids are alright.

#20 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,594 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:18 PM

Just as many as every other club has.


So probably 0 right? Kind of puts a perspective on those numbers you posted
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users