geschinger

He's been serviceable and that is what I mean about the W-L record. I think that makes it more likely that Urias keeps getting ABs that could otherwise go to Ortiz. Westburg has done better at the MLB level in his 40ABs over 2 weeks than Ortiz has in his 33 ABs spread over 3 months. Does that really tell us anything that JW is part of solid IF and Ortiz wouldn't be? I'm not saying Ortiz should replace JW just that I don't think the evidence is there that points to JW being better for the Orioles this year or long-term than Ortiz would be and the team would be better served getting them both everyday ABs to see who is better for the org going forward once Holiday is in the mix. Urias has been serviceable but unless the thought process is GH is so awful defensively at 3rd that they need to limit his time there then, GH at third, JO at SS, and JW at 2nd would IMO be the most productive lineup. I think JO exceeds the ~.720 OPS that Urias gives the team if given regular playing time.

I agree with this. Seems like Ortiz's offense gets minimized some on here in comparison to Westburg. Westburg's done it longer (630 ABs at in AAA) but Ortiz has arguably been just as if not more productive in his 278 AAA ABs. The W-L record probably precludes the team from doing what I'd like to see (even though I suspect it would be the most productive approach) which is Westburg, Ortiz, Henderson playing every day and maybe moving around the diamond some.

Is it though? Since he got going after the shoulder injury Ortiz's bat has been every bit as good as Westburg's if not better. Less pop, more OBP.

If they aren't contractually prohibited, could they price it at a level that brings in enough subscribers at a price that makes sense to do it? NESN has a DTC streaming option for the Red Sox, and the price is $30 per month. I don't think it's doing great.

Not sure we should be making changes based on 30-40 ABs when especially when over his career (a much larger sample size), he's been a more productive player leading off a game than he has been overall.

Irrelevant, obviously, no. But if the O's make the playoffs, I'm not writing them off because their rotation on paper is worse than the team they are playing. Do I think the O's need more talent in the rotation? Yes. Do I think it's a prerequisite for them to have a chance this year if they make the playoffs? No

How much does it actually matter? In the playoffs, how often does the team with the best rotation on paper actually win the series?

The much more challenging question is do you mortgage the future to marginally increase the odds of winning in 2023? Do you trade a top 100 prospect for a player you think may put you over the top in 2023 only to turn around and realize that not only did you not win a chip, you just traded many years of high-level production for a 2 month rental? The Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell dilemma.

I agree, and even if it costs the team a few wins in 2023 I think it would be worth it. I'm sure not in the majority taking that point of view that we should be aggressive with the young talent. IMO, unless we win the WS, this year will not be a successful one if we go into 2024 without having gotten Cowser, Westburg and Ortiz significant at bats to see what we have with them.

If we ever have to talk about WS windows, the front office has failed to implement the blueprint successfully. That shouldn't be part of their vocabulary. It should always be what their risk/reward analysis shows as the BPA when they pick.

I completely agree they should take at-bats from mediocre declining vets to give to younger, more talented players - it's better for long-term success. But the odds are high it could come at a cost while they acclimate or in the unfortunate event they prove not to be ready or that they are a dreaded AAAA player. I would have made Ortiz the regular SS a few weeks ago and now that he's been out I'd give the chance to Westburg. But if they did that and he struggled and it coincided with losing ground in the standings there will be a lot of people in the stands, in the clubhouse, and elsewhere openly wondering why they screwed up a formula that seemed to have been working.

It's less about what Westburg has to prove at AAA and at what point the team decides it's time to move on from giving one or more of Mateo, Urias and Frazier regular playing time. Personally, I think they should but I understand the reluctance with the team's success so far this year. Then on top of that Westburg also has to pass Ortiz in the minds of the FO as the next guy up whenever they decide to move on from one or more of Mateo, Urias and Frazier. It makes no sense to bring him up while we have the status quo of Mateo / Urias and Frazier - he's better off playing every day in AAA than inconsistent playing time in MLB.

I don't think there is a huge gap offensively so I would keep the one who is the better defender which is why I chose Ortiz.

Boras does have a colorful way of describing extensions that buy out FA years Adley isn't 20/21 and he isn't a Boras client but I'm guessing his agents know that if he wants to maximize his value he cannot sign any contract that prevents him from hitting FA at 29/30.

It could be considered a miss from the pundits that he wasn't considered one of the elite 1/1 picks. During the we need content phase of the offseason there would be articles on topics like Best Draft Prospects of the Past Decade - one I recall had Druw Jones and Termarr Johnson. Not only did Holiday not make it, he wasn't even mentioned - other SS prospects that did were Witt, Swanson and Correa.

It is actually not a view of Angelos at all. I'm concerned he will ruin everything by blocking Elias. My point is I don't think there has been anything to block yet, as nothing that has or has not been done to this point is inconsistent with the Astros model. If the Orioles are where they are at now in the standings in July - will Elias be allowed to add significant salary (something equivalent to a Verlander type of acquisition) to try to put them over the top - that will be the first time whether or not Elias will be allowed to fully implement the Astros like approach will be tested.

It is definitely a concern and one that I share. However, at this point, there is nothing he has not done yet that is problematic in the context of what I believe Elias was hired to do. In an alternative universe, if Elias was tasked to implement the Astros blueprint by a perfect owner who was willing to do 100% of what Elias wanted to do, I'm not sure we'd see much difference with the org today.

I'm still hopeful the Orioles will do extensions but I think the number that Elias will want to do will be less than many posters want. I think part of the model - especially with the college draftees - is to let them contribute for 5-6 years under control and either move them at the end of that time or let them walk.

He's influential and a great salesman to get players on board with things that are often not in their best interest. More often than not, it works out, and he does maximize their career earnings. But a lot of times - as far back as Jason Varitek and JD Drew come to mind, he's successfully influenced the players to go along with things to fight back against the system or set a new precedent that was 100% not in those players' best interests.

I think this is the most likely outcome as well. He's analogous to someone like Correa in Houston another 1st overall guy who was the symbol of their franchise turnaround. A smart team like the Astros wasn't going to commit past his early 30s and he knew he could get paid into his late 30s from less smart teams so they parted ways.

For every Goldschmidt there are many Cabrera and Pujols - guys who lost about .200pts of OPS between their late 20s / early 30s production and what they produced from ~age 33 onwards. And they weren't catchers.

8 years / 160m but I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more to stay at 8 years and lock in his entire prime without saddling the team with the decline years. I just don't think it makes sense for Adley if he's willing to bet on himself. He needs to be a FA with at least a couple of his prime years as part of the package to max out a deal and make huge money into his mid 30s. Being a C I don't see anyone giving him contracts that go into the late 30s.

Gibson was the only one I think was targeted and again - my guess - willingness to be no commitment past 2023 was what was most attractive. I think they legitimately had an interest in some of the better pitchers and walked away; almost all of them ended up getting more years than anyone expected and I'm betting most will in retrospect be seen as bad signings. If they valued pitcher X at 3 years / 60m, my guess is they were disciplined enough not even considering upping their offer to 4 just to try to make a splash in FA. I have no idea why Frazier. The only thing I can think of is they expected the prospects to struggle a bit initially and didn't expect so many to seemingly be ready so soon.

I don't put much stock into owner interviews. If you google Jim Crane's interviews or Reiter's book about the Astros his take on contracts contains similar rhetoric. But they did start spending in 2017. As for an Adley extension, I'd love to know if they've had any discussions. He's a tough case as if he wants to maximize his career earnings, he cannot sign an extension unless it's a massive premium over other typical pre-arb extensions or Julio Rodriguez-type extension. His age and position necessitate that he be a FA at 29 if he wants a good chance at a massive second contract. It isn't going to happen for him if he signs say an 8 year extension and is reaching free agency as a 33 year old catcher. What happened in free agency didn't bother me as I don't think that was a case of Elias wanting to do something and being overruled. I believe Elias and SId lean on analytics and have modeled performance and past FA contracts and have a number (years and/or dollars) that they don't want to go past and if bidding exceeds that, they are done. They don't strike me as undisciplined. Here is where I become concerned - in July the Orioles are in a similar position in the standings that they are now and are unwilling be a buyer and take on payroll at the trade deadline. Nevin's OPS was about .200 lower than Ortiz and .300 lower than Westburg at the same age. Nevin's 450 AB in AAA in 2021 seems like it was a good indicator. Stowers and Vavra have not been given a chance. They need to play regularly and get acclimated before a judgement can be made. If Ortiz or Westburgh would be given the Stowers treatment at the MLB level I'd rather they remain in Norfolk.

None of this matters if Elias isn't going to be allowed to implement the plan and I have to think he'd leave. He'll have plenty of opportunities elsewhere. I think someone regarded as a plus defender who has performed at a high level offensively in AAA has a great chance to produce more than a guy with a sub .700 OPS over 4 years in MLB. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. He could get hurt, he could be a bust but if I was a betting man, my money would be on Ortiz being more productive. You mention other guys like Leiter and ask if I think he's a potential ace. No, I don't think the odds are good that he is. But those aren't my expectations for JW or JO either. I'm not expecting either to be a superstar. I'm expecting they will be more productive than Mateo and Urias.