Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rob

This offense stinks

81 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, CROUSEMAN said:

Buck pushed for the return of Davis and Trumbo,  Two broken down, declining sluggers that account for roughly 20% of the payroll or $35mil.  And zero production!!!!   Is it any wonder this offense blows.  Brady has his thumb in the soup too.  Sounds like DD is just a convenient fall guy since his power was stripped in 2015.  Just utilized for picking up carry out food from Dempsey's.:D 

Coming off career years. Yeah, bad deals but hindsight is 20/20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

He's got his favorites, I agree. But if we had better talent coming through the system, he'd be playing them instead of using the dreck he's been forced to use.

Maybe,  but he likes guys with a track record!  That's a punchline now, but its so true.  He is a dinosaur stuck in his ways. It ain;t working anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CROUSEMAN said:

Maybe,  but he likes guys with a track record!  That's a punchline now, but its so true.  He is a dinosaur stuck in his ways. It ain;t working anymore. 

i don't really disagree and I am sick and tired of the "track record" stuff too...believe me. Most of the guys he's been saying that about have recent track records of not being very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pickle20 said:

Coming off career years. Yeah, bad deals but hindsight is 20/20.

Uh, no.  most everyone thought they would be bad deals, especially Davis.  And Trumbo can't hit unless he plays the field.  And they signed him to be a DH.  Dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CROUSEMAN said:

Uh, no.  most everyone thought they would be bad deals, especially Davis.  And Trumbo can't hit unless he plays the field.  And they signed him to be a DH.  Dumb.

I wanted Davis back...not at the price he was given, though.

I did not want Trumbo back.

But you have to think that they gave you better production regardless of their contracts. They have essentially done nothing since. Worst case scenario come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pickle20 said:

He's got his favorites, I agree. But if we had better talent coming through the system, he'd be playing them instead of using the dreck he's been forced to use.

I asked this rhetorical question recently. I'll mention it again, since it directly relates to your point about developing talent. Why extend Davis, when they had Mancini ready to come up? At the most, all they needed was a 1 year bridge player to hold down 1B, until Trey was promoted. So why invest in a franchise record, 7 yr deal, when the 1Bman of the future was all but totally ready? 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, weird-O said:

I asked this rhetorical question recently. I'll mention it again, since it directly relates to your point about developing talent. Why extend Davis, when they had Mancini ready to come up? At the most, all they needed was a 1 year bridge player to hold down 1B, until Trey was promoted. So why invest in a franchise record, 7 yr deal, when the 1Bman of the future was all but totally ready? 

  

IDK but Mancini wasn't a Machado type prospect that you clear roster space for.

The O's bid against themselves for Davis. No one wanted him, but we still gave him $161 million when we could have gotten half that for half the years.

Edited by Pickle20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pickle20 said:

i don't really disagree and I am sick and tired of the "track record" stuff too...believe me. Most of the guys he's been saying that about have recent track records of not being very good.

Yep , Buck has zero foresight on when to cut the cord on a player.  And then to compound matters, he hangs on way too long when its obvious the guy can't play.  He has to have continued disastrous performances before he will let go.  He would rather lose games then admit he was wrong or hurt the feelings of one of his guys.  This is why he is no longer an effective manager.  Personal feeling over what is good for the club.   Its just inexcusable and he needs to find another line of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CROUSEMAN said:

Yep , Buck has zero foresight on when to cut the cord on a player.  And then to compound matters, he hangs on way too long when its obvious the guy can't play.  He has to have continued disastrous performances before he will let go.  He would rather lose games then admit he was wrong or hurt the feelings of one of his guys.  This is why he is no longer an effective manager.  Personal feeling over what is good for the club.   Its just inexcusable and he needs to find another line of work.

He also doesn't have any replacements for these scrubs either. He's forced to keep playing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pickle20 said:

IDK but Mancini wasn't a Machado type prospect that you clear roster space for.

The O's bid against themselves for Davis. No one wanted him, but we still gave him $161 million when we could have gotten half that for half the years.

Yep, that's why it can only be a rhetorical question. All we can do is ponder it. But I have often wondered if Mancini just completely took Buck by surprise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weird-O said:

I asked this rhetorical question recently. I'll mention it again, since it directly relates to your point about developing talent. Why extend Davis, when they had Mancini ready to come up? At the most, all they needed was a 1 year bridge player to hold down 1B, until Trey was promoted. So why invest in a franchise record, 7 yr deal, when the 1Bman of the future was all but totally ready? 

  

What's sad is they passed on Mancini twice!!!!!   They signed Trumbo when Mancini was sitting there ready for a regular role as DH.  Lucky he was good enough to play LF. Oh my, looking back that Trumbo signing was really dumb.  And the Davis red flags have been well documented.  Buck didn't trust Mancini.  He wanted Trumbs back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weird-O said:

Yep, that's why it can only be a rhetorical question. All we can do is ponder it. But I have often wondered if Mancini just completely took Buck by surprise. 

Yeah, another Buck surprise on Mancini.  Even though he tore it up in AA and AAA.  Oh lord.  What is he looking at these days???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, weird-O said:

Yep, that's why it can only be a rhetorical question. All we can do is ponder it. But I have often wondered if Mancini just completely took Buck by surprise. 

It really is a miracle Mancini is still with the team.  I bet he was close to being traded back in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CROUSEMAN said:

Yeah, another Buck surprise on Mancini.  Even though he tore it up in AA and AAA.  Oh lord.  What is he looking at these days???

Mancini played in 147 games last year as a rookie. Trumbo 146 and Davis 128.

There was space for all of them, not like Mancini was blocked by either player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, weird-O said:

I asked this rhetorical question recently. I'll mention it again, since it directly relates to your point about developing talent. Why extend Davis, when they had Mancini ready to come up? At the most, all they needed was a 1 year bridge player to hold down 1B, until Trey was promoted. So why invest in a franchise record, 7 yr deal, when the 1Bman of the future was all but totally ready? 

  

Buck could care less about the young talent coming up.  He just brought up our 3 most ready starters in AAA/AA for one day as long relief cannon fodder.  They never pitched to one batter.  Yeah that will do these guys wonder on staying on track to replace Tillman if Buck would ever get that sack off his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

He also doesn't have any replacements for these scrubs either. He's forced to keep playing them.

I don't think that's a valid excuse. When the manger chooses Valencia over Neil Walker, you can't give him a pass for only having Danny as the back up for 3B.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

Mancini played in 147 games last year as a rookie. Trumbo 146 and Davis 128.

There was space for all of them, not like Mancini was blocked by either player.

He had to play LF which he had never done for years!!!   it was a complete fluke he was able to be so good in the field.  The O's never counted on that.  They lucked ouit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, weird-O said:

I don't think that's a valid excuse. When the manger chooses Valencia over Neil Walker, you can't give him a pass for only having Danny as the back up for 3B.  

Yep or Rasmus over Jon Jay.  or Tilly over Jake Odorrizzi.    Oh lord this is making me ill.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm running out of bullets here.  :unsure:

Edited by Pickle20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pickle20 said:

I'm running out of bullets here.  :unsure:

:lol:  Good one Pickle Man.  Same here.  I'm turning into Pitbull 2 with my Buck rants (no offense Pit I enjoy your DD rants).  Is it too early to crack one????   Weird always thought I was on a day time bender when I got wound up :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CROUSEMAN said:

:lol:  Good one Pickle Man.  Same here.  I'm turning into Pitbull 2 with my Buck rants (no offense Pit I enjoy your DD rants).  Is it too early to crack one????   Weird always thought I was on a day time bender when I got wound up :D

The kind of passion that can only be achieved by a starting a steady flow of Boh by mid-morning, and sticking with it through the afternoon :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

I'm running out of bullets here.  :unsure:

Good one :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, weird-O said:

The kind of passion that can only be achieved by a starting a steady flow of Boh by mid-morning, and sticking with it through the afternoon :P

:lol: I'd be napping by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The "track record" thing floats when the player's good track record is his fairly recent resume. If a guy was good for 4 years before signing somewhere, that's a good track record. Maybe he had one bad year in the last 4? Okay, could have been an outlier or he had a good reason. Reasonable. When a guy like a Ubaldo Jimenez hasn't pitched a good full season for years prior to being acquired, then his "track record" should be considered NOT good. What you did 4 years ago doesn't matter much when that was the last time you were good...

Edited by Ravens2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pickle20 said:

Not saying it isn't true, but your posts and threads have melted into something resembling that big fatburg they dredged from the city sewers recently. At least for me.

Understood. You should know i’ve  been on this forum for 18 years beginning with Syd Thrift.

(1) Syd Thrift was incompetent. Undebatable.

(2) Flanagan/Beattie: Flanny poured his heart into the team. Undebatable. Results on the field were unacceptable. Also, two-headed GM system was utter lunacy. Spoke volumes about the state of the organization.

(3) MacPhail: the team absolutely sucked during his tenure. Undebatable. It was only years after he left when the fruits of labor cane to fruition (see also: playoff years) that I (as a long-term plan) appreciated his service.

(4) Big Dan: can’t assemble a lineup. Can’t assemble a pitching staff. Organization has no clue how to develop pitching or develop pitching. Can’t judge prospects. No organizational philosophy for manufacturing runs, small ball, getting on base or how to advance runners. Offense is one-dimensional.

Just wanted to lay out some facts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0