

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.



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.




Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests