I think this is becoming more and more likely the case. I've said for a little while now that the question shouldn't be "what's wrong with him this year" but instead it should be "what went right with him last year".
I'll be really surprised if he fully rights the ship and pitches like he did last year. I do think he'll improve, just not to that top end #2 type performance he gave us last year. I think he'll be just another one of our #3/4 type starters.
Yep. I think the biggest debate question should be, did they screw up big time by not trading him? Now, I don't mean using hindsight...because looking back now, yeah, they did. But in the offseason, the only real benefit you had by keeping him was if he had a duplicate year to last year, and if that happened, then you'd have to commit big time money to him, which we don't know A) if they would have done, or B) if it would have been a good investment.
If he regresses, not only do you not re-sign him, but he loses all trade value too.
I think he should have been dealt. Easy to say now, but this is the kind of thinking that the team often doesn't think about until it's after the fact. There is such a thing as relative value in baseball. The O's never, ever take advantage of players at the right times.
Basically, they trade/get rid of players at their lowest value, and extend players at their highest value.