24fps

For trade purposes, I think most people here consider Kjerstad and Cowser basically interchangeable. We all have our preference, but whichever brings back the best return is going to be okay to lose. I agree that it's way premature to draw conclusions about Cowser's MLB future.

The O's signed Alex Cobb for 4/57 in March, 2018. Obviously John Angelos' spending limits haven't been put to a real test yet, but the Orioles' finances are certainly improved from when Cobb was signed. I don't automatically rule out four-year deals in my mind, but I definitely believe three years or less is more likely.

Erod is my choice both for the contract length and the fact that he's a lefty. That said, I think some team will offer him a fifth year and Gray will get the fourth year that you included in the poll. I would be most interested in Gray at two or three years, but not at all at four.

Completely agree. Now Hyde just needs have a quicker hook when it come to those struggling vets. Barring trades, maybe the even larger logjam next season will finally increase the tempo some.

I don't think it's an iOS problem. I use an iPhone 14 and there is no problem if DuckDuckGo is your browser but stay away from Safari. I just checked and got redirected on Safari right away and I upgraded to the latest OS last night. Same situation on my iPad. Don't know about Android devices.

It's also marketing. Just think of all the hitherto unexplored frontiers Trevor Bauer merchandise can tap into.

Well goodness, if that were to happen just think of all the derision I might suffer at the hands of complete strangers on the internet. You have to think that Burnes and Williams together would generate more interest than just from the Orioles, so there would be competition for their services. Still if no acceptable deal was found then I would just have to settle for still having a couple of really good pitchers on my team for a while longer. Of course it's a consideration, but it seems to me that maximizing a player's trade value too often takes on more importance than it deserves.

If I'm Milwaukee and both are packaged together, then I would start with Holliday as headliner and work from there. I would also let it be known that I expected at least one "sure-fire" prospect for each player, so don't bother with a bunch of filler even if your organizational filler is better than most. Losing Holliday makes it a non-starter for me, but I'm also curious about what the price would be for Williams alone.

Few things in life are more predictable than come the Winter Meetings, 30 MLB GM’s will spend the next couple of months genially pumping sunshine up our collective butts. Helped, of course, by an army of sportswriters whose intimate knowledge of a specific team is less important than meeting a deadline. 83 wins raised a few eyebrows. Evidently John Angelos’ not among them. You complained in the post I responded to (correctly IMO) that Gibson and Irvin were not enough, so why were we supposed to conclude that the O’s are now serious about getting back in the game? As the publisher of this website occasionally reminds us, actions speak louder than words. 101 wins is an entirely different matter. The team is unquestionably competitive now, and I’m going to focus on what ownership does to support this new reality, not what Elias says during some pro forma press conference. BTW, I don’t get the swipe at ME. Compared to Duquette and MacPhail he’s refreshingly open.

When Gibson was signed, contender and playoffs was 2024.

Okay, but how performance is measured is at the root of the question and financial incentives for executives are commonplace. So what's the deal here? I'm curious, and I couldn't care less if it's my business or not. I do care about not jumping to unwarranted conclusions. For the record, the notion that Elias gets to keep the difference between budget set and budget spent is more than a little farfetched to me as well. In the end, I think Mike Elias is a straight arrow, but the Warehouse is extraordinarily opaque and I think it's healthy to want to know who thinks that's necessary and why.

On what do you think Elias' year-end bonus is based? Or maybe you think he doesn't receive one at all? That would be unlikely. What wildcard described might not be the exact mechanism (I certainly don't think it is), but incentive based bonuses are far from conspiracy driven craziness, they're a fact of corporate life and a completely legit source of questions around conflicts of interest.

FWIW Spotrac estimates $5.6 million for Scott in 2024.

I would see if I could trade Mateo for a solid SP candidate at AA or lower.

Not surprised. Congrats MIke.

The Orioles are currently a revenue sharing team.

The natural order is big dogs eat first.

The Yankees were genuinely dreadful (by their standards) in 2023 and Boston wasn't far behind. We all know that won't last.

I think that's very unlikely to be true. First of all, the Pythag was 94 for the O's and 100 for the Rays which I think is an accurate reflection of overall quality. O's health was also very good. Plus you have to assume that the other four teams will be working to improve during the offseason. The 2023 Orioles were good but they weren't good enough to simply stand pat.

I would make that trade for two years of 2022 Cease or even 2021, but I'm just not a believer that that's what the O's would get.

Rookies Yainer Diaz, Triston Casas, Spencer Steer, Matt McClain, Nolan Jones all had an OPS+ greater than Santandar (121) and Mountcastle (117) in 2023.

Not including pitchers, no more than two to break camp in 2024. That doesn't include Westburg who I think already passed the test, but would include Cowser, Kjerstad and Ortiz. This is not a comment on rookie talent but Elias' apparent unwillingness to distance the team too far from a reliance on vets to keep winning. I can see as many as four on the roster and playing regularly by the trade deadline. FWIW I would promote the rookies a little more aggressively than I think Elias will.

I'm not upset that no Oriole won nor am I suggesting that the winners didn't deserve the award. Rawlings has a short web page listing the selection criteria and it now shows that SABR Defensive Index is included along with the traditional subjective votes from managers and coaches. At the bottom of the page is the following: Rawlings Gold Glove Awards are calculated based on a combination of managers/coaches and SABR. Fine, but in the interest of full disclosure, I believe how each component is weighted ought to also be defined and it isn't. Perhaps I'm too suspicious but the process remains a little too fuzzy and open to being questioned for my taste. https://www.rawlings.com/gold-glove-criteria.html

No clue.

I live a couple of miles south of Nashville and given how much I've heard about her, her income is probably at least enough for Sunday dinner at Hattie B's Hot Chicken with all the fixin's. Whether there's enough left over for the Uber ride home is unclear.