Jump to content
PaulFolk

Orioles' Starting Pitching Strategy Is Difficult to Decipher

Recommended Posts

If indeed the Orioles sign Yovani Gallardo, they will have improved their rotation, but at the cost of their No. 14 pick.

It shouldn't have come to this. The Orioles had plenty of opportunities this winter to add a quality starter without worrying about losing their first-round pick. But the Birds essentially painted themselves into a corner.

Here's how it happened: http://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/02/10/orioles-starting-pitching-strategy-is-difficult-to-decipher

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been in on Gallardo from the beginning. The strategy is to go for second tier guys that don't cost too much, sacrifice the draft pick if necessary to get a discount, and wait for the price to drop. To that extent the strategy has been clear. I don't agree with it but I think it has been consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While Duquette's reasoning makes sense on its face, he's omitting an important detail: in some cases, offering an opt-out might be the only way to sign a player you want. Theoretically, if you could sign a pitcher you like to a four-year contract with an opt-out after one year, isn't that better than not signing him at all? Sure, if he has a great season, he'll opt out -- but at least the O's will have reaped the benefits of that one great season. And if he has a lousy year, the O's are stuck with the rest of the contract -- but how is that any different than if they signed him to a contract without an opt-out?

This is what has always bothered me about DD's statement about opt-outs. I understand the hesitancy if signing the player in question also includes losing a draft pick but if it does't, what's the harm? I guess the harm would be even more steeply rising salary costs. And it definitely would make a GM's job harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Orioles are very risk averse. As a result, I think they had interest in Kazmir but felt there was too much risk with his fluctuating performances.

I think Kazmir would have been a good pickup at the right price.

I think the Dodgers paid dearly for his services, 3 years and 48 million and all guaranteed is pretty steep, at least IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. That's simply not what the O's are going to pay for a player with that many question marks.

And with the Prices of the work at 30+ a year, geeze, you have to depend on young cheap arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And with the Prices of the work at 30+ a year, geeze, you have to depend on young cheap arms.

...and your best chance of getting one is with the 14th pick. It's a vicious cycle that every team has to go through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what has always bothered me about DD's statement about opt-outs. I understand the hesitancy if signing the player in question also includes losing a draft pick but if it does't, what's the harm? I guess the harm would be even more steeply rising salary costs. And it definitely would make a GM's job harder.

If the opt out keeps Gallardo from signing than I am forever a fan of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It shouldn't have come to this. The Orioles had plenty of opportunities this winter to add a quality starter without worrying about losing their first-round pick. But the Birds' lack of a solid strategy has left them out of luck."

The lack of strategy isn't only in pitching, but sadly there's not one thing in this article with which I can disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It shouldn't have come to this. The Orioles had plenty of opportunities this winter to add a quality starter without worrying about losing their first-round pick. But the Birds' lack of a solid strategy has left them out of luck.

The lack of strategy isn't only in pitching, but sadly there's not one thing in this article with which I can disagree.

It still shouldn't come to this.

I'd rather they roll with what they got than cough up the #14 for "consistently okay"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It shouldn't have come to this. The Orioles had plenty of opportunities this winter to add a quality starter without worrying about losing their first-round pick. But the Birds' lack of a solid strategy has left them out of luck."

The lack of strategy isn't only in pitching, but sadly there's not one thing in this article with which I can disagree.

Go one further. They should have thrown in the towel last year, traded Davis and not given up Davies. You would be going into this season with more than enough depth to not worry about pitching from free agency and a protected top 10 pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It still shouldn't come to this.

I'd rather they roll with what they got than cough up the #14 for "consistently okay"

No, and as someone else mentioned it's not the first time they've employed it. Signing Jimenez basically employed the same strategy. So, it represents a pattern which is curious and runs antithetical to statements made by both Duquette and Showalter in regards to team building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If indeed the Orioles sign Yovani Gallardo, they will have improved their rotation, but at the cost of their No. 14 pick.

It shouldn't have come to this. The Orioles had plenty of opportunities this winter to add a quality starter without worrying about losing their first-round pick. But the Birds essentially painted themselves into a corner.

Here's how it happened: http://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/02/10/orioles-starting-pitching-strategy-is-difficult-to-decipher

Definitely an understatement. Whose on first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go one further. They should have thrown in the towel last year, traded Davis and not given up Davies. You would be going into this season with more than enough depth to not worry about pitching from free agency and a protected top 10 pick.

Well, "building for the future" would have softened the blow for the fanbase, but yes. If they aren't going to hold onto draft picks and comp picks they may as well trade assets that will over time become burdensome as a way of re-stocking the farm.

Again, hard to know when there's no clear strategy. I get the ever present feeling of fence-straddling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how often this happens, if ever, but what was stopping us from trading Chris Davis for prospects and then bringing him back? We certainly could have had him back for what we paid. Then the blow of the #14 pick wouldn't have been much of anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first blush I was really upset when i saw what Latos signed for. Then I realized something, if I am trying to maximize my value - I would much rather pitch in the AL Central for a year than pretty much any other division.

Large pitcher friendly parks

Weaker lineups

The White Sox have basically zero expectations this year

Why take a similar deal from the Orioles when you have to face the Red Sox and Yankees and Jays and Rays all year?

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

    • I don't think we are going to convince one another which is fine. If they placed values on certain players, they could certainly end up "accidentally" saving $222K over the course of a 5 round draft. Especially when their plan was to sign their first pick for significantly less than slot value. There is something of an information gap when drafting in the Majors. Teams don't know exactly what it is going to take to sign every single player, there is uncertainty as to which players will be available in future rounds, and they could reasonably think that a player that costs less to sign is better than a player who might cost more to sign. Coby Mayo and Carter Baumler were the highest paid players drafted in the 4th and 5th rounds. Of the 60 players taken, in those two rounds, they were #1 and #2.  They could have gotten a more expensive player in the supplemental, second, and third rounds but on the other hand they could have legitimately preferred say, Anthony Servideo at #74 for $950K over Nick Garcia who went at #79 for $1.2M. I have no idea whether they did or didn't, or whether they were right or wrong in their judgments, but especially in a draft where you only end up with 6 guys, it doesn't seem absurd to end up only using 98.5 percent of their slot value.  Maybe they thought Kjerstad would take $5.5 million to sign and they negotiated it down to $5.2 million. In a normal draft you can take a couple of high school fliers in the 11-30th rounds knowing that you can only sign one play them against each other to try to get as close to your slot value as possible. This draft was unique, that wasn't an option this year. I believe they went in with a plan to go underslot on the first pick because they thought Kjerstad plus overslot guys that would cost an additional $2.5-$2.75M was more valuable than drafting Austin Martin and not getting any overslot guys. They executed that plan. Could a part of the plan have been to cap their spend at 98.5% of the slot value? Sure, but that need not have been part of the plan.
    • Yes because you aren’t even addressing the argument and what I’m saying.  You are just spouting pointless bs.  
    • If they were that cash strapped on money they could have not resigned Sanchez and let Martin play SS this season and saved 500k and no one would blinked an eye.  They could have saved on international period and still spent way more then they ever have.  This seems like a bad PR type move and so many other ways to save money.  
    • So when I question what you claim to be facts this is the response I get? Whatever Bro! Part of the problem here is that you claim to have facts backed up by absolutely nothing and I’m being impossible? Ok ...LOL
    • I don’t necessarily disagree with you; certainly I think Stewart is useless, but putting a more positive light on things, Stewart has a good eye, Mullins offers great D, Power isn’t everything, assuming Hays won’t stay healthy is only an assumption, and Diaz hasn’t even taken the field as a major leaguer. If healthy, Hays is a fine CF, Mullins remains a fine 4 OF, Stewart shouldn’t be in the OF anyway, and Diaz will get every chance to show his stuff.
    • I thought he was better his first two years then started to rely on catch phrases and homer-isms the longer his tenure went, but I'll admit to not watching many of his broadcasts the last 3 years. 
    • Lol...ok, I’m done.  You are one of the most impossible people I have encountered with in terms of having a conversation.  It’s just not worth it.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...