Jump to content
Frobby

MLB.com article on the Wright deal

Recommended Posts

"Britton was one of the bright spots in our bullpen, but from that standpoint, we feel we have other guys in the organization who can step up and fill that role from within."

They might have other guys like Hoey, Keefer, Salas, Liz, and Rakers but I'm not sure any of them can be counted on for OD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might have other guys like Hoey, Keefer, Salas, Liz, and Rakers but I'm not sure any of them can be counted on for OD.

It seems to me that this trade makes sense only if you believe that Chris Britton is unlikely to repeat (or improve on) his 2006 performance. Personally, I was impressed by Britton all year and had expected him to be one of the anchors of the pen next season. When you break it down he was only scored upon in 10 of 52 appearances all year. He also allowed only 4 of 20 inherited runners to score, which is a very good ratio. It would be asking a lot for any of the relievers mentioned above to duplicate Britton's numbers next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that this trade makes sense only if you believe that Chris Britton is unlikely to repeat (or improve on) his 2006 performance. Personally, I was impressed by Britton all year and had expected him to be one of the anchors of the pen next season. When you break it down he was only scored upon in 10 of 52 appearances all year. He also allowed only 4 of 20 inherited runners to score, which is a very good ratio. It would be asking a lot for any of the relievers mentioned above to duplicate Britton's numbers next year.

IMO this trade only makes sense if it sets up other moves that allow us to aquire major pieces that we need;a Bat, a set man etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the thinking of the front office was that once the league gets the scoop on Britton, that he's not going to look as good as he did in most instances last year.

I'm guessing they feel his fastball doesn't have enough life to it and that they think his conditioning will get to him as time goes on.

I don't know that I agree with their assessment. When it comes to conditioning, many guys have had some extra girth. I don't think it makes that much of a difference as far as pitchers go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the thinking of the front office was that once the league gets the scoop on Britton, that he's not going to look as good as he did in most instances last year.

I'm guessing they feel his fastball doesn't have enough life to it

Sounds like what they thought about John Maine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simply, Britton is a replaceable commodity. It's better to stack potential starters who can move to the pen then it is to find a setup guy. We have a ton of middle/set up relief candidates. I don't think Wright is a stud, but he does have some upside while Britton's stuff was ok, but not spectacular.

Obviously we all hope this is part of a bigger picture, but I disagree that this was a bad trade. Keefer, Rakers, Parrish are three guys all coming off injuries that could be back in the equation next year and Birkens, Burres, Olson, Morris and of course Hoey will all gets looks as well. Guys like Salas and Liz might not be that far behind and you wonder if Johnson moved to the pen, would he increase velocity and consistency?

The one thing about all those names is that besides Olson, non really will be considered in a starting role at the big league level (Liz perhaps, but I doubt it). That means you move from your strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the thinking of the front office was that once the league gets the scoop on Britton, that he's not going to look as good as he did in most instances last year.

I'm guessing they feel his fastball doesn't have enough life to it and that they think his conditioning will get to him as time goes on.

I don't know that I agree with their assessment. When it comes to conditioning, many guys have had some extra girth. I don't think it makes that much of a difference as far as pitchers go.

I'm curious. Leo Mazzone is reputed to be one of the best if not the best pitching coaches in Baseball.(of course there are many who surpass him here at the Hangout but they aren't currently in baseball) He has observed Britton in bullpen sessions and in game situations over the past season. He has an intimate knowledge of his demenor, work habits, discipline and has watched him gain weight over the course of that season. I would think he knows a lot about pitcher's conditioning. It is my guess that he was cosnulted in this decision to trade Britton and concurred. On what knowledge do you base your disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite simply, Britton is a replaceable commodity. It's better to stack potential starters who can move to the pen then it is to find a setup guy. We have a ton of middle/set up relief candidates. I don't think Wright is a stud, but he does have some upside while Britton's stuff was ok, but not spectacular.

Obviously we all hope this is part of a bigger picture, but I disagree that this was a bad trade. Keefer, Rakers, Parrish are three guys all coming off injuries that could be back in the equation next year and Birkens, Burres, Olson, Morris and of course Hoey will all gets looks as well. Guys like Salas and Liz might not be that far behind and you wonder if Johnson moved to the pen, would he increase velocity and consistency?

The one thing about all those names is that besides Olson, non really will be considered in a starting role at the big league level (Liz perhaps, but I doubt it). That means you move from your strength.

Good summation.

I'm also in agreement that this wasn't a bad trade I just think it wasn't for a guy everyone wanted, the blockbuster deal. Who else would you get for Britton anyway? When you start to think more about this trade you realize no matter what happens it was a solid trade just like the Benson and Patterson ones. Low cost/high reward, solid moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious. Leo Mazzone is reputed to be one of the best if not the best pitching coaches in Baseball.(of course there are many who surpass him here at the Hangout but they aren't currently in baseball) He has observed Britton in bullpen sessions and in game situations over the past season. He has an intimate knowledge of his demenor, work habits, discipline and has watched him gain weight over the course of that season. I would think he knows a lot about pitcher's conditioning. It is my guess that he was cosnulted in this decision to trade Britton and concurred. On what knowledge do you base your disagreement.

Mazzone was COSNULTED!!! That must have hurt.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious. Leo Mazzone is reputed to be one of the best if not the best pitching coaches in Baseball.(of course there are many who surpass him here at the Hangout but they aren't currently in baseball) He has observed Britton in bullpen sessions and in game situations over the past season. He has an intimate knowledge of his demenor, work habits, discipline and has watched him gain weight over the course of that season. I would think he knows a lot about pitcher's conditioning. It is my guess that he was cosnulted in this decision to trade Britton and concurred. On what knowledge do you base your disagreement.

While on one hand this is true, the other hand just can't let go of Jim Brower and Russ Ortiz. Because of that, I can't help but doubt his judgment ever so slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite simply, Britton is a replaceable commodity. It's better to stack potential starters who can move to the pen then it is to find a setup guy. We have a ton of middle/set up relief candidates. I don't think Wright is a stud, but he does have some upside while Britton's stuff was ok, but not spectacular.

Obviously we all hope this is part of a bigger picture, but I disagree that this was a bad trade. Keefer, Rakers, Parrish are three guys all coming off injuries that could be back in the equation next year and Birkens, Burres, Olson, Morris and of course Hoey will all gets looks as well. Guys like Salas and Liz might not be that far behind and you wonder if Johnson moved to the pen, would he increase velocity and consistency?

The one thing about all those names is that besides Olson, non really will be considered in a starting role at the big league level (Liz perhaps, but I doubt it). That means you move from your strength.

Tony,

I agree. But what of the issue of trading 5 or 6 more years of Britton at what is likely to be a below market wage for one year of Wright.

If the assumption is Wright improves under Mazzone in 07, are you aware of any push to extend Wright now while his value is cheaper than it will be if the Orioles are correct and Wright improves in 2007?

Barring some major improvements to the team, do you know if the Orioles may have some hope they can move Wright at the deadline next year to a contender, or whether he is not in the Os long term plans and will likely be allowed to test free agency after next season?

Do you think that over the long haul, 1 year Wright at 3 million > 5-6 years of Britton at a below market wage?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While on one hand this is true, the other hand just can't let go of Jim Brower and Russ Ortiz. Because of that, I can't help but doubt his judgment ever so slightly.

I wasn't talking about doubting his judgement, I was asking what information or insight you are privy to that is different from Leo's and causes you to disagree. In spite of Mazzone obviously flawed judgement re: Brower, Ortiz etc. how are you in a better position to evaluate Britton. Or is it that Mazzone's judgement is so poor that any armchair pitching coach can see beyond it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good summation.

I'm also in agreement that this wasn't a bad trade I just think it wasn't for a guy everyone wanted, the blockbuster deal. Who else would you get for Britton anyway? When you start to think more about this trade you realize no matter what happens it was a solid trade just like the Benson and Patterson ones. Low cost/high reward, solid moves.

Byrdz,

Do you think the Benson trade, even at the time it was consummated, was a solid trade? Do you still believe it was a solid trade, knowing what we know now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While on one hand this is true, the other hand just can't let go of Jim Brower and Russ Ortiz. Because of that, I can't help but doubt his judgment ever so slightly.

Yeah, the Orioles are such big spenders/traders and they wanted really badly to acquire Santana, Peavy and Halliday but because of Mazzone's recommendation instead got Ortiz and Brower.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • While Lamar did play better than RG3, keep in mind the league context.  He had a 121 Rating+ (basically OPS+ for passer rating, adjusted for that season's averages. Over 100 is good, less is bad.)  Lamar's 2019 was 128.  So Lamar is still better, but that was RG3 as a rookie.  Who knows how he would have done if he didn't get hurt/if he was drafted by an org not owned by Dan Snyder.   That said, I don't think it's reasonable to use RG3's injury problems as a reason not to sign Lamar long term.  I think that they were specific to RG3 and the team he played for. (I think the Football Team horribly mismanaged him.)   In general running QBs havent had high injury risk, any more than regular QBs.  Look at Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Russell Wilson, Newton, Culpeper, VIck.  All have been fairly durable, certainly no bigger an injury risk than any other QB.  There is some risk that some injuries are going to be more damaging to Lamar's career because of his reliance on his athleticism, but given that many running QBs have stayed productive into their 30s I think this risk is relatively low. I don't think Vick is a great comp because he didn't really figure out how to be a passer until after he came back from his jail sentence.  Vick's best Rating+ pre-jail/suspension is 104, which is worse than Lamar's 2020.  And that's taking 6 Vick seasons compared to 3 Lamar seasons. I think Deshaun Watson checks off more boxes as a good comp, because of the recency of his contract, his performance, his playoff (lack of) success, and his playing style. If we're being realistic, Lamar has no real comparables.  There isn't a QB in NFL history that generates as much true dual-threat value as Lamar.  I think this actually is a problem when trying to figure out how much to pay him.  He's got the intangibles, sure (at least when it comes to regular season play) but with no real comps, it's kind of impossible to project his development/future performance. We know that the Ravens don't really throw the ball much, but in 2019 they were pretty damn efficient at it, and in 2020 they were middle-of-the-pack.  But when you can run the ball for 6-10 yards a carry, it kind of eliminates the need to throw the ball.  Imagine how good you'd have to be throwing the ball to make it a better proposition than running in most game situations.  And we also don't know how much his running ability affects his passing game.  And there's no way to know that until he can't run anymore.  Which isn't happening for 4-5 years barring injury. Even if it's risky, I think you really have no choice but to pay him, especially if you can get a contract with an out after his age-28 or 29 season.  It's easy to point to our mistake with thinking Flacco was worth an extension, but that's no reason to deny Lamar his extension, especially given that he's already shown the ability to singlehandedly carry us into the playoffs, even if he has struggled once there.  Flacco never carried this team in the regular season the way Lamar does.  In fact it was our multiple HOFers on the other side of the ball that carried Flacco into the postseason so he could be the hero for a couple games.  Credit to him for stepping up in January, but someone has to get us there, and we don't have anyone else who can do that.  The chance that we find someone in the draft that can do that is not that great.  Certainly lower than the chance that Jackson is going to take us to the SB.  I guess we could talk swapping him for someone like Deshaun Watson, but I just don't know how plausible that really is.
    • Lol, you gotta wait until spring training for those gems.
    • Well, now we know why Jim Hunter became redundant.
    • Brob was one of those let go.  I will miss him!  But he  remains as an "ambassador" as does Demper.  
    • I must have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone mention B-rob. Is he gone? I thought I heard him on some broadcasts last summer.
    • Mike Vick, six years into his career (going into the dogfighting arrest) had a 71/52 TD/INT ratio, for a 75.7 QB rating. RG3, three years in, had a 40/23 TD/INT ratio, for a 90.6 QB rating. He then got hurt and was never the same again. Lamar, three years in, has a 68/18 TD/INT ratio, for a 102.6 QB rating. Lamar is head and shoulders above both of those players.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...