geschinger
-
Posts
4176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by geschinger
-
-
1 hour ago, johnrambo said:
Ortiz had a sub .500 OPS. Granted very small sample size and you cant render proper judgement after limited PAs.
You cannot render judgment at all let alone proper judgment when that small sample size (34 plate appearances) is split across 3 months.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Billy F-Face3 said:
then once Westburg got really going it could be the right time to call up Cowser. And so on and so forth through the organization.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:
Westburg had alot more seasoning at the AAA level. He has 714 Plate Appearances which is well more than double of what either Ortiz or Cowser has been able to get. Realy, with how long Westburg was mashing in AAA, there was nothing else for him to do there. He was ready for a new challenge. Because of this, I see him being alot more comfortable at the plate and he's been getting more base hits compared to any of the other position players that had been called up in 2023.
Ortiz AAA number of Plate Appearance: 323
Cowser AAA number of Plate Appearances: 381
Westburg AAA number of Plate Appearances: 714 with .899 OPS, 36 HRs, 128 RBIs,
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.
-
49 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
The O's should be able to elevate his swing path.
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.
-
48 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:
If I was running the organization, for the moment, I would be focusing on Westburg getting acclimated and up & running in the Big Leagues. I really feel that he has All Star potential.
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?
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, 86this said:
Almost Barry Bonds level of respect after only 1 year after his draft year. Wow.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:
John Frickin Angelos is the owner. They aren’t going to take on a salary. They aren’t going to pay $400 million to extend him and that is the only way you trade for him and sacrifice 4-5 players that include multiple blue chip guys.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Why does it have to be among the top?
Also, the D-Backs won 100 games and got to the NLDS in year two of their existence and won the WS in year four. That involved some spending. They certainly didn't spend five years tanking for draft picks.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Diamondbacks and Marlins won with it. So did the Yankees.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
That's pretty easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.
So you win Epimetheus.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Winning a title, say for yourself as a two time cancer survivor or for your ill Father-in-Law is not the same thing as trying to build a sustainable model for winning in the hope that trips to the playoffs lead to an eventual title.
Houston is franchise that cares about turning a profit, that is one of their goals.
Cohen doesn't worry about turning a profit. I don't think Seidler cares about turning a profit. I don't think either are super worried about what the team looks like in five years. (although the Mets really aren't in that bad of shape)
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
And I don't think then Elias turns down a GM job.
How many owners do you think have winning a title as their top priority?
I can think of maybe four and we are laughing at three of them.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
Doesn't Judge get a lot of balls called strikes against him?
Yep, before he got hurt, he was the one with the most missed calls against him.
-
19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think it will be the Rangers, just saying some teams put value in world series titles.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, ChuckS said:
I have no data to back this up, but I feel umps call that outside ball off the plate a strike more than any other area outside the zone. Felt this way as long as I’ve watched baseball.
That's my impression as well. I think where the umps setup most of the time gives them a better view inside than out.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, wildcard said:
Probably because they are winning with what they have. What is it now? A 6 game win streak?
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
8M to get 450+ at bats while holding down better players is and always will be a poor decision.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Jagwar said:
If that's the case I wouldn't temper expectations for players coming back to the O's
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.
-
11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think the plan was to collect as many #1 picks as he could from at least 2019-2021 ( I think 2022 was supposed to be closer to 90 losses).
Yes they ended up with the #2 pick one year and the covid year messed them up and they ended up with the fifth pick that year. They sure didn't win more games in 2019 by dint of roster construction. You can't look at the team they sent out there in 2019 and say with a straight face that the goal wasn't to get another #1 pick, they didn't see the Tigers coming in and losing 114.
As for not getting 100 loses in 2020? Kinda hard to lose 100 in a 60 game season. The way that team was trending I do think they would have lost 100 over 162.
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.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:
Ohtani, is a 1 of 1 type player being dominant on the mound and with the bat, so he is value astronomically more than Verlander’s or anyone else in the game (ever, at least in the Free Agency era of the sport). Also, Ohtani is still in his prime, Verlander was considered an aging pitcher who was on a bad contract. I believe that he even passed through waivers at the time? Ohtani is also a pending FA who will command a projected 500 million+ contract. It doesn’t take not possessing a crystal ball to have great assurance that Angelos won’t even entertain bidding at that level, nor could he ever outbid Cohen and a few other clubs like the Yankees and Dodgers even if he wanted to.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:
Holliday nor Gunnar will be part of any platoon and it doesn’t appear thus far that Westburg needs one.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Bemorewins said:
I think most people would acknowledge that he is a better defender than probably all of our infielders not named Mateo (and some believe that he is on par with Mateo). But if say either Henderson or Holliday are a notch below with the glove at SS but 2 notches above with the bat, the value probably leans in either of their direction.
I think a credible discussion about Ortiz and whether or not that he should be a starter should include how his ability with the bat compares with Henderson’s and Holliday’s. Because that will be a part of the evaluation criteria/decision that is made.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
When the Os drafted Holliday, the stated reason by Elias, in terms of what was a deciding factor between hiM and the others, was that he is a true SS.
He did that knowing, at the time, he didn’t have a real CF prospect in the system(Jones) and that maybe there were some more advanced bats at lesser positions.
He also knew that he had an elite guy in Ortiz and that Gunnar was showing he could handle SS.
I just think the writing is on the wall for what they want to do. We can debate whether that’s what should be the case but I just feel that they already know that is where Holliday ends up.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:
I'm inclined to agree but from a risk standpoint you have a known quantity with a high floor in Urias, and these games matter. .724 isn't amazing, but he puts up good AB's, he's consistent, and it adds up to a 2 WAR pace, which is really good. I wouldn't be against bringing Ortiz back, but I can see why they don't. If you think these guys are roughly equal (even if Ortiz might be incrementally better), better to keep them where they are with Ortiz as backup than to DFA one and then risk Ortiz scuffling with no backup plan.
Now, if Frazier is getting full time-ish AB's I agree that will be more upsetting, but it seems like his competition is more with Westburg and that decision has been made.
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.
How Orioles Rookies Have Performed in 2023
in Orioles Talk
Posted
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.