geschinger

That would be the risk-averse approach. The we aren't playing to win, we're playing not to lose approach. I don't agree with it, although I can't say I don't understand that thought process.

You cannot render judgment at all let alone proper judgment when that small sample size (34 plate appearances) is split across 3 months.

That's risk aversion reasoning rather than this player is well seasoned and ready. If all three already had 700 ABs in AAA, would you think the same - one has to acclimate before we give another a shot? If so, I understand that logic even if I think it hurts the team to waste time not getting what I think will be better players in the lineup sooner.

Since their offensive production is so similar, If it all comes down to plate appearances? How many plate appearances would we have to give players like Ortiz, Cowser now and down the line Kjerstad, Holliday when he gets there etc... for you to be comfortable they've done enough at AAA if they are putting up big numbers? I think all three (JW/CC/JO) have already shown enough that they have better than even odds at outproducing the players we are putting out there and I think we're a much better team in September if those guys all had ~120 MLB ABs under their belt by then. But I understand there are differences of opinion on what the threshold for being ready might be and I while I don't like it, I can at least understand why the org would be so incredibly risk-averse considering where the team is in the standings.

It would be interesting to know what their approach to him is. I wonder if they've been mostly hands off because of the incredible success he's has so far - maybe hoping he might fail a little bit in AA to the point where they can make the case they should do some tweaking of his swing. Or maybe they are doing some tweaking now and we don't see it yet.

What do you see with Westburg that makes you think All-Star potential but not Ortiz or Cowser? I look at all three and their offensive production in AAA and it's very similar. I'm not ready to say any of them have all-star potential but I do think all three would have better than even odds of being more productivethan Mateo or Urias if given a few hundred ABs. Why prolong the inevitable instead of getting them those ABs now?

I don't know, I'm guessing a lot of players get walked in that situation regardless of talent level. Man on 3rd, 1 out, and on-deck a player who has racked up quite a few GIDP this year.

I don't think the O's are going to consider Ohtani, but just pointing out as far as salary is concerned, the difference in salary between an ERod and Ohtani rental is only ~$4m. So if taking on salary is an issue for Angelos, ERod is probably not an option either. Unless he gets hurt there will be no potential renegotiation of ER's extension. He and his agent know how the market was last year and will likely be again this offseason. He would likely end up with another contract that guarantees another 4-5 years on the FA market at a higher salary. One has to approach trading for him as if he's a rental, nothing more.

Not caring about profit and going all-in kind of equates to spending a lot on payroll, no? Already drawing close to 3m fans a year and where their payroll was as at during those years doesn't make AZ an example of an owner going all in, putting winning over profits. I suspect they were making a healthy profit at the time.

Yankees in 2009 are the one counterpoint Iof it working IMO. Marlins added a lot of FA in 97 and they definitely increased payroll quite a bit I don't recall it being among the top. Not sure at all how the Diamondbacks would fit the narrative.

No hindsight was necessary. Owners/Previous owners like Arte Moreno and Tom Hicks among others have already shown it not to be an ineffective approach to building a WS winner.

Seidler nor Cohen have not and are not making the type of moves that give their respective franchises the absolute best chance of winning a World Series title. Winning the offseason or getting the most attention, sure they are accomplishing that.

I think this may be confusing virtue signaling that one has winning as the top priority vs actually having winning as the top priority. Organizations led by ownership that truly has winning titles as its top priority would behave a lot more like Houston than for example Cohen's approach in NY.

Yep, before he got hurt, he was the one with the most missed calls against him.

Unless the Rangers think their window slams shut at the end of this year it's the type of move that makes it less likely they win a WS anytime soon. Too much randomness in the playoffs - Ohtani would improve their odds by a few percentage points in 2023 but is still vastly more likely than not to actually win it all and it will have been at the expense of next year and beyond. Best way to win a WS - keep making the playoffs and eventually with the randomness of the MLB playoff system you'll come out on top.

That's my impression as well. I think where the umps setup most of the time gives them a better view inside than out.

Cowser plays in the first 5 of those wins, gets on base every game including scoring 6 runs and now he's riding the bench. Doesn't make sense.

This is where I land. His salary especially since it's a one-year deal doesn't bother me. I am fine if the strategy is to overpay to shorten commitments when the payroll is so low. The opportunity cost of not distributing those ABs to all the prospects we have banging on the door is going to lead to more mistakes in decisions on which players to keep and which ones to move down the line.

Yes, if the expectation is acquiring good players with several years of control or under a reasonable contract that would cost a lot. Expiring contracts/salary dumps even for very good players usually can be had for maybe a fringe top ten org prospect and some lottery tickets.

Agree with this premise. I think it would have been considered a good result and "right on plan" had they only won 15 games more in 2022 that 2021 and then another 15 game improvement in 2023. While it is the same thing - I think the goal was maximizing draft pool resources. I suspect the disappointment if there was any about Detroit getting #1 overall was about losing ~$500k of draft pool money to work with than not getting first pick.

Agree with this except that I don't think Angelos matters in the equation. Even if he had carte blanche I don't think Elias would want to get into the bidding. I think Elias and even moreso Mejdal have done the analysis and know that the type of contract it would take to land Ohtani will almost certainly end up being a mistake. The Astros model is the framework I think we'll be working for. For older players like Verlander - the kept doing 2 year commitments. They wanted to extend and sign Correa but weren't willing to go more than 6 years ( I think it was through his age 33 season). They weren't going to do the 10-12 year deal that the market was dictating because I'm sure they still have guys in the org crunching the numbers who know it's a terrible decision to play a player in his mid and late 30s/early 40s at salaries commensurate with their production in their peak years.

Agreed about Gunnar and Holiday and Ortiz/Westburg wouldn't be a potential platoon in any case. But in the Westburg vs Ortiz comparison - what evidence would you point to that gives you confidence he's better than Ortiz (if you think he is)? Is the comparison of what he's done in 40 ABs over 2 weeks vs what Ortiz did in 33 ABs over 3 months? If not is it that he's put up a .899 OPS over 630 AAA ABs while Ortiz .952 OPS only over 278 AAA ABs I have no idea who the better player will be which is why I wish they'd let them both play as I think both would exceed the production Urias brings. I don't want to regret eventually trading the wrong one because the org was too risk-averse to give them both a full audition.

It's Westburg he should be compared with. Assuming there is no platooning, take the three best players and then determine what the best defensive alignment is for the regulars and if the other hasn't been traded he's the super sub and/or future trade-bait.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Drafting a true SS gives positional flexibility to play 3B/2B. Same with all the CF drafted this year. I think the plan is he will be the SS but they are getting him time at 2B and recently he got his first game at 3B. I don't think they'd hesitate to play him elsewhere if there was a clear better SS option. I don't think he's going to be given the Jeter treatment if they have an ARod alternative.

I can see why they won't as well for the same reasons. I agree it's between JW and JO because the org is a bit risk-averse right now. I'd rather play to win than play not to lose but the approach is totally understandable considering the circumstances. I wonder though if it's a decision that has been made or if it's a hot hand. I hope JW rakes and it doesn't come to it but if a couple of weeks from now JW is mired in a 2 for 20 slump and JO is raking in Norfolk, does JW receive the latitude he should get to work his way out of it? I'm not so sure.