Pickles

So did the Yankees and they missed the playoffs completely. We had two top 5 starters. We had top-end pitching. They didn't pitch well. It happens. Acquiring another starting pitcher would have guaranteed nothing.

We had two of the top 5 starters in the AL going into the playoffs. We lost because they pitched poorly. Not because they were poor pitchers. Teams don't win 100 games without high-end starting pitching.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and it's been said a couple times in this thread, but we have Grayson for 5 more years AFTER this one. He didn't get a full year of service time last year and won't be a FA until after 2029. IF he turns into Justin Verlander, it would be really beneficial to sign him an extension asap. However, almost any other outcome, an extension does little for the Orioles. That we have to resort to the supposed psychological advantages it would supposedly grant, I think is pretty good evidence of that.

I don't really buy that. The only reason a guy like MIller adds excess value in October is because you're going to use him differently. If you were willing to use him like that in May, he'd be every bit as valuable then. I think you could argue a top heavier team might have an advantage over a more balanced one in the playoffs all things being equal, but I don't think you can correlate that to big free agent signings or "flashy" off-season moves. I'm about to respond to another post here, but people will look at the O's last season and say they didn't have an "ace" and that's why they lost in the playoffs. If you actually examine the claim it's pretty silly. Nobody wins 100 games without some top-end starting pitching. The O's had two guys who were basically top 5 AL pitchers in the second half of last season. They lost in the playoffs because one of them pitched ok, and one of them got bombed. We've all appreciated Burns so far, but there's nothing stopping Burnes from getting bombed in the upcoming playoffs.

Are their ways to make your team better in October that don't manifest in April-September?

The playoffs is extremely volatile. This isn't the NBA or even the NFL; the best team doesn't win all the time, or perhaps even most of the time. So long as they are annually good enough to win the AL East, there really can be no rational critique of their approach.

Here's my prediction: We're going to win ~ games this season and ~100 games next season. And in between, in the next off-season, this board will have several meltdowns bemoaning the lack of FA signings.

Exactly. We've got him for the entirety of his 20s. There's no need to guarantee him anything into his 30s, and it would only really work out in favor of the O's if he has a borderline HOF career. I like him; I don't like him that much.

There's very little upside to a Rodriguez extension for the Orioles, unless Grayson becomes a generational pitcher.

Why? We already have him controlled for the next 5 years. How long of a commitment do you want to make to him?

I think that would be a pretty hard argument to make. We have him cost-controlled for five years AFTER this one. That's plenty for a pitcher.

I don't think they'll ever spend BIG on pitching. It's just too volatile and risky. I also don't think they'll spend BIG on any FA. There 100+ million contracts, the few of them they do hand out, will almost exclusively go to homegrown guys.

I get that Adley is older and probably won't have as long a career as Gunnar or Holliday, but I chose him for a couple reasons: 1) He will already be in arb 1 next year. He's the closest to FA and the closer you get the more incentivized you are to test it out rather than extend. If we don't extend him after this season, we'll lose more and more leverage. 2) I think he's underrated. I don't think traditional stats like WAR can fully evaluate his true value. This team was a historical pit of disaster before Adley showed up; since then over two years and three seasons, they've basically been 100 win team. That isn't ALL Adley, but there's something to that.

Hell, I'd imagine you could find any kind of prop bet in Vegas. You can bet on if the 11th man on the Wizards gets three or more rebounds on any given game, I'm sure you can find prop bets on WAR.

If you feel that strongly about it, take it to Vegas, because that would be a nice little payday.

Yes, Mantle got sent down in 1951 during his first year after a double header in which he struck out 5 times. His father met him in AAA, which was Kansas City as I recall. Mantle started to "cry" to his father that he didn't think he could cut it in the bigs, and is father pulled out his suitcase and started packing it for him, saying, "If that's what you think, I'll take you home and you can go to work in the mines." Needless to say, Mantle stayed and the rest is history.

Well, the winning has drawn a less informed fan base imo, but it's still far superior to Twitter.

As one who took the under, I'm not surprised that the OH seems to have better judgment than Twitter.

It's all fun and games until: Jackson Holliday: .077/.040/.117 36 runs 9 RBI 9 H 9 BB 225 Ks (-) 3.6 rWAR Austin Hays: .136/.073/.210 18 Runs 18 RBI 27 H 27 BB 199 Ks (-) 9 rWAR

Eh. I think he'll play basically every day, either in the MLB or if he keeps being essentially unplayable, in AAA.

It could be that he's hitting .150 in two weeks, but looks better doing it and they keep rolling with him. But I really have to think if he continues to K 50% of the time, his rope is not endless, and 75 PAs with 40 Ks would justify sending him down, and wouldn't be kneejerk imo.

If he's playing well enough to get the over, they're not sending him down or curtailing his playing time.

As I posted earlier, I think it's not purely about # of PAs but about how he looks in them. Gunnar struggled early last year, but he was drawing walks and putting the ball in play. Holliday is striking out 50% of his PAs. If he continues to do that for another 50 PA, which is essentially 2 weeks of playing every day, I think they'd have to seriously consider sending him down.

I took the under, and I think I would have taken the under on 3 at the time of his call up. Of course, I feel much stronger about it now. The K rate is alarming. At the time of his call up, I thought no way he'd be sent back down. But now I think if he keeps King 50% of the time, they probably would send him back down after another 50 PAs or so of that.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The only "above average" play I can recall him making was he made a nice pick with the infield drawn in and a hot shot to his left. He didn't get the runner at the plate but that was not a play that is made every time.