Welcome to the Orioles Nation Forums! Like most online communities, you must register to post on our message board. However, posting is free--it always will be--and registration is a simple process. Become part of the growing Orioles Nation community and register now!

2012 infield, how much change to expect

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #31 by Matt P » October 5th, 2011, 12:29 pm

Reynolds was one of the worst defensive 3B in baseball in 2011, no way do I put him back at 3B next season, I am OK with him at 1B though. Adams didn't show enough in his limited time to take over 2B, that injury hurt any chance he had at staking a claim and his defense is lacking. Andino played better than expected but I don't like him as the everyday 2B, superb UTIL though. Davis had 5 errors at 3B in his games there but he was also injured and he didn't look as terrible there as Reynolds did. I wonder how he would look defensively after a full off season and Spring Training there. I have no faith in Brian Roberts at this point and I think the O's should work hard to come to terms on a settlement with him this off season. Hardy is a joy to watch at SS and is locked in there for the next few years.
Reynolds at 1B
??? at 2B
Hardy at SS
??? at 3B

I would look at Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson to fill 2B. Both are alright defensively and have some power.
I would look at Casey Blake for 3B. I know he is old (I would consider him for a 1 year deal with a team option) but he plays good defense and knows how to get on base.

Robert Andino and Chris Davis both would be on the bench and both would fill in at 3B if Blake got injured. Andino would obviously be the main backup to Hardy and Johnson with Davis the main backup to 1B. I would platoon Andino and Davis if there was an injury to Blake at 3B. Both players could also backup OF positions and fill in OF spots in case of emergency.

Also, not sure who would be available via trade this off season. Depending on who is available I would also seek the trade market for 2B and 3B.

If the O's do end up signing Fielder or Pujols (I highly doubt it but who knows) I would still rather have Blake at 3B than Reynolds. I would put Reynolds at DH.
Matt P
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: October 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Reputation Score: 37

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #32 by A_K » October 5th, 2011, 1:49 pm

Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?
A_K
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 608
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 43

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #33 by Matt P » October 5th, 2011, 2:05 pm

A_K wrote:Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?

The defense is improved which would help the pitchers. Casey Blake knows how to get on base, stick him in front of Reynolds in the batting order and he would have more at bats with a man on base and maybe some of those solo HR's turn into 2 run HR's. Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson both have more offensive upside than Andino. It wouldn't cost a great deal of money, it's not like we would have to break the bank for either guy.
Matt P
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: October 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Reputation Score: 37

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #34 by Tucker Blair » October 5th, 2011, 2:19 pm

Matt P wrote:
A_K wrote:Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?

The defense is improved which would help the pitchers. Casey Blake knows how to get on base, stick him in front of Reynolds in the batting order and he would have more at bats with a man on base and maybe some of those solo HR's turn into 2 run HR's. Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson both have more offensive upside than Andino. It wouldn't cost a great deal of money, it's not like we would have to break the bank for either guy.


How's it going Matt!

I think Hill and Johnson are interesting signs. I don't know about Blake though. He is 38 years old and pretty much has seen the height of his career. I think we would be better off giving Davis a year to show what he has over signing Blake.
Back to Hill and Johnson; They would be low risk signings that could prove to be beneficial though. I am not sure how much they would be to sign, but I would assume not an overwhelming amount. I'd prefer Johnson though, as Hill is essentially Reynolds and Davis at 2nd (with far less K's and a little better at getting on base). Not sure if it's a good idea having that many hit-or-miss players in one lineup.

I'd prefer the Orioles to go out and sign a guy like Wilson Betemit over Blake if they did try and find a decent stop-gap/platoon guy. He would be just as cheap and probably put up similar numbers as Blake
User avatar
Tucker Blair
Orioles Nation Staff
Executive Editor
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: October 2011
Location: Elkridge, MD
Reputation Score: 45

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #35 by A_K » October 5th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Matt P wrote:
A_K wrote:Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?

The defense is improved which would help the pitchers. Casey Blake knows how to get on base, stick him in front of Reynolds in the batting order and he would have more at bats with a man on base and maybe some of those solo HR's turn into 2 run HR's. Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson both have more offensive upside than Andino. It wouldn't cost a great deal of money, it's not like we would have to break the bank for either guy.


You're right, they wouldn't break the bank, but they certainly would cost multiples more than Andino or Adams. And for what? Below average players who've had successful years in the past? To what end? Why even bother? If Hill makes what he made this year ($5 mill), he'd be set to make almost 12 times more than what Andino made this year ($421,000). Is he really 12 times better? Is he even twice as good? For the difference in what those two make, we could sign TWElVE Hector Velozes, otherwise known as "the most expensive international prospect we've ever signed." We could bring in 12 guys like that, or we could upgrade from Andino to Hill on a team that will still lose over 90 games. I ask again, what is the point?
A_K
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 608
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 43

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #36 by Jordan Tuwiner » October 5th, 2011, 4:35 pm

A_K wrote:You're right, they wouldn't break the bank, but they certainly would cost multiples more than Andino or Adams. And for what? Below average players who've had successful years in the past? To what end? Why even bother? If Hill makes what he made this year ($5 mill), he'd be set to make almost 12 times more than what Andino made this year ($421,000). Is he really 12 times better? Is he even twice as good? For the difference in what those two make, we could sign TWElVE Hector Velozes, otherwise known as "the most expensive international prospect we've ever signed." We could bring in 12 guys like that, or we could upgrade from Andino to Hill on a team that will still lose over 90 games. I ask again, what is the point?

My thinking as well. On top of that, we'll see the same thing we saw with Vlad this year. The older players just get in the way of the younger players and you don't get an idea of what kind of contributors guys like Nolan Reimold or Chris Davis could become.
User avatar
Jordan Tuwiner
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: September 2010
Location: Israel
Reputation Score: 57



Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #37 by Matt P » October 5th, 2011, 8:08 pm

TuckerBlair89 wrote:
Matt P wrote:
A_K wrote:Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?

The defense is improved which would help the pitchers. Casey Blake knows how to get on base, stick him in front of Reynolds in the batting order and he would have more at bats with a man on base and maybe some of those solo HR's turn into 2 run HR's. Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson both have more offensive upside than Andino. It wouldn't cost a great deal of money, it's not like we would have to break the bank for either guy.


How's it going Matt!

I think Hill and Johnson are interesting signs. I don't know about Blake though. He is 38 years old and pretty much has seen the height of his career. I think we would be better off giving Davis a year to show what he has over signing Blake.
Back to Hill and Johnson; They would be low risk signings that could prove to be beneficial though. I am not sure how much they would be to sign, but I would assume not an overwhelming amount. I'd prefer Johnson though, as Hill is essentially Reynolds and Davis at 2nd (with far less K's and a little better at getting on base). Not sure if it's a good idea having that many hit-or-miss players in one lineup.

I'd prefer the Orioles to go out and sign a guy like Wilson Betemit over Blake if they did try and find a decent stop-gap/platoon guy. He would be just as cheap and probably put up similar numbers as Blake

Hi Tucker.
Wilson Betemit may put up similar numbers but he isn't nearly as good a defender as Casey Blake. I'm not saying to sign Casey for his bat I only am interested in him because of his glove.
Matt P
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: October 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Reputation Score: 37

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #38 by Matt P » October 5th, 2011, 8:12 pm

A_K wrote:
Matt P wrote:
A_K wrote:Answer this honestly. What good comes of a 69-win team signing Aaron Hill and Casey Blake? What's the point? I agree with everything you said about Davis, Reynolds, Adams and Andino. But let's say we sign Hill and Blake to go along with Reynolds at first and Hardy at SS. What have we accomplished, except spending a great deal more money to maintain the worst offense and worst infield in our division? Why do moves like this make any sense whatsoever?

The defense is improved which would help the pitchers. Casey Blake knows how to get on base, stick him in front of Reynolds in the batting order and he would have more at bats with a man on base and maybe some of those solo HR's turn into 2 run HR's. Aaron Hill or Kelly Johnson both have more offensive upside than Andino. It wouldn't cost a great deal of money, it's not like we would have to break the bank for either guy.


You're right, they wouldn't break the bank, but they certainly would cost multiples more than Andino or Adams. And for what? Below average players who've had successful years in the past? To what end? Why even bother? If Hill makes what he made this year ($5 mill), he'd be set to make almost 12 times more than what Andino made this year ($421,000). Is he really 12 times better? Is he even twice as good? For the difference in what those two make, we could sign TWElVE Hector Velozes, otherwise known as "the most expensive international prospect we've ever signed." We could bring in 12 guys like that, or we could upgrade from Andino to Hill on a team that will still lose over 90 games. I ask again, what is the point?

You bother to upgrade the defense to help the young pitchers. I have no problem with your idea of trading everyone off and going through a complete rebuild but it is unrealistic and Buck will never go for it. They have money to spend, and they aren't going to spend it on international talent. So, why not improve the defense to try and help the young pitchers? It's not like either would block Schoop or Machado since they won't be ready for 2 years and I wouldn't give any of the three players I mentioned more than a 2 year deal.
Matt P
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: October 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Reputation Score: 37

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #39 by BuckMagic » October 13th, 2011, 9:28 pm

Jordan wrote:
Rising O's wrote:Agreed even though I was more for Hardy being traded. You need some good clubhouse guys who want to lead this team and want guys to play the game the correct way. You can hope that Hardy is that kind of guy and has had an influence over say Robert Andino and Ryan Adams.

Definitely true. I'm hoping Wieters becomes the main guy in the clubhouse soon.

IIRC Buck has said that Wieters stepped up a ton this year. Will look for a link. :)
User avatar
BuckMagic
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 323
Joined: September 2010
Reputation Score: 5

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #40 by Rising O's » October 14th, 2011, 8:18 am

I agree with what has been said about defense being very important for our young pitchers. They have to be able to trust that the guys behind them will catch the ball. Thing is though, only Britton is considered a ground ball pitcher, of Matusz, Arrieta and Tillman (even Guthrie), all are fly ball guys. So how much of an impact will above average defenders have? I still feel MacPhail's infield would likely have been unchanged if he stayed. Since he's left, and with Reynolds possibly being the 1st baseman (Buck's decision?), DH or even LFer maybe there will be some big changes coming.
Rising O's
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 10

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #41 by Rising O's » December 16th, 2011, 8:57 am

As it stands right now, not much change at all. Other than Matt Antonelli and Ryan Flaherty the Orioles still appear to be going with MacPhail's plan for another year. Will either of these players surprise in spring training or will Andino or Adams win the job outright? Does the ghost of Brian Roberts return or does he just continue to create a distracting illusion? And of course we're still stuck on the who plays first routine as well.

The infield as it stands today makes me realize just how much the Orioles could use Cespedes to improve the offense and outfield defense to make up for the current shortcomings.
Rising O's
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 10

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #42 by ofahn » December 16th, 2011, 9:10 am

Rising O's wrote:As it stands right now, not much change at all. Other than Matt Antonelli and Ryan Flaherty the Orioles still appear to be going with MacPhail's plan for another year. Will either of these players surprise in spring training or will Andino or Adams win the job outright? Does the ghost of Brian Roberts return or does he just continue to create a distracting illusion? And of course we're still stuck on the who plays first routine as well.

The infield as it stands today makes me realize just how much the Orioles could use Cespedes to improve the offense and outfield defense to make up for the current shortcomings.


I think there's an excellent chance they will pick up a 3B with a good glove. If they do it will push Chris Davis (rotating with others) into the DH spot and end their interest in Luke Scott unless they make another trade.
User avatar
ofahn
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 4409
Joined: May 2011
Reputation Score: 85

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #43 by birdwatcher55 » December 17th, 2011, 7:40 am

Just my two cents: we drafted our 3B of the future last June. How many good glove 3Bs are out there with some pop?? It's a tough next to impossible position to fill. What you see right now on the roster is what you got 8-)
birdwatcher55
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: November 2011
Reputation Score: 11

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #44 by ljmillar22 » December 17th, 2011, 8:46 am

I presume you are on about Jason Esposito. He is IMO 2years away from the bigs, so we need a stop gap till then. I would take a better defensive 3B than another reynolds. I do like Blake, also Andy Laroche is out there and he has both decent defense and abit of pop.
ljmillar22
DSL Orioles
 
Posts: 53
Joined: December 2010
Reputation Score: 0

Re: 2012 infield, how much change to expect

PostPost #45 by Rising O's » December 17th, 2011, 9:34 am

Its almost as if Duquette has no choice, or has made the choice, too all but to waive the white flag for 2012.
Rising O's
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 10


PreviousNext

Return to Baltimore Orioles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron