Ben and Sam talk to Jack Moore about the history of Orioles physicals and Peter Angelos' time with the team.

Download Here (21 MB; 22:59)
RSS Feed
iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
Facebook Group
Email Us
Sponsor Us

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Doesn't seem like you're being fair to Angelos / the O's about their use of physicals here.

You cite the Sele contract as proof they were wrong...his case quite clearly proves they were right. They pulled their four year offer, and offered him two (the deal he ended up signing with SEA) and he was excellent for two years...and then in years three and four (the ones the Os were worried about) he fell off a cliff (210+ IP @4.0 ERA for two years to avg 140 IP @ 5.3 ERA). He averaged 126 IP per season for the five years beyond the two the O's were willing to offer. They suspected - correctly - his shoulder would fall apart after two years.

And didn't Balfour just sign for essentially the same contract the O's reduced his offer to? This, after the Rays doctors made huge show of saying the O's were so clearly wrong (saying his shoulder was fine...when the O's were concerned about his wrist and knee...nice medical staff ya' got there Tampa)...if the O's were so clearly wrong, why didn't the Rays make the offer the O's had initially made, and not prove the O's were right on the market with the lower offer?

You then cite the Angels as having done things the "right" way with Pujols by not asking any questions. Really? Think maybe they wish they had?

As an O's fan I know there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated that Angelos turned of the spending tap after '97. But the evidence seems fairly clear that they've been consistently proven correct about the medical issues.

You touched very briefly on the question of "does this hurt them in the FA market?" THAT is the story - does it? You seemed to conclude that no, it didn't, but THAT would be the question to prove out. Would it be better to knowingly eat a health risk contract in order to preserve standing in the market?
Also, not to pile on, but Ponson didn't just have a pair of DUIs. He punched out a judge on the beach on Christmas Day. That seems worthy of testing the morals clause.