ChosenOne21

I seriously doubt Teheran will provide any quality as a starting pitcher. I'd rather throw McDermott or Povich to the wolves. At least they have upside.

Why? He was really good once, but now he's nothing special. Wouldn't have been upset if we kept him or not.

I'd say most likely he walks, though if he's having a good year and so are Cowser/Kjerstad/Stowers I think there's a non-zero chance he's traded at the deadline.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, although I think #25 is underrating him. I think low-to-mid teens is more accurate, and you could make the case he's better than that depending on what metric you use.

This isn't about me having a chip on my shoulder because I feel the Orioles are getting slighted. If the Brewers had a clone of Kyle Bradish who was rated where he was, I would still feel he's underrated. My point is that this method and, frankly, how pretty much everyone talks about starting pitchers MASSIVLY UNDERRATES ALMOST ALL OF THEM. The impression I'm getting is most people think there are like 2-5 #1 starters in all of baseball, maybe 15-20 or so #2 starters, twice that many #3 starters and everyone else is awful. But this ignores the reality that there are 150 starting pitcher jobs at any point in time. To me, If you're in the 80th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #1. If you're in the 60th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #2, etc. If you want to single out a few pitchers as "Aces" I guess I'm fine with that. There are prominent posters on this board who were hoping to get Dean Kremer out of the rotation earlier in the offseason because "he's not a starting pitcher" or "he's a #4 starter at best" or something like that. Granted, I'd love to have a rotation of pitchers better than Kremer, but he was something like a 70th percentile starting pitcher last year. Depending on what metric you use, he would have been the best starting pitcher on multiple teams. How is that a #4 anywhere but on a wishlist? He missed what, two starts, and had an abbreviated third because a comebacker hit his leg in the first inning? That's just bad luck, and that's something people just looking at a bunch of numbers wouldn't consider. And yes, I'm sure other pitchers had similar bad luck, but even so, Kyle Bradish pitched more innings than the vast majority of major league starting pitchers. And they were better innings than the vast majority as well. Was Steve Avery a #4 starter because the Braves had three pitchers better than him? When people talk about what number a starter is, they generally don't mean on their team--they're talking about the general ability of the player.

"Sure, you pitched like an Ace/#1 last year, but there's no way that's who you actually are. There's not even a chance. You're not even an 'applicant'" This is what I see when I read their ranking. And that doesn't make sense to me. He's done it for the last year/year and a half but there's no chance that's who he actually is? How else am I supposed to interpret that other than they think he's a fluke? If he had a multi-season track record of mediocrity then pulled last year out of his butt, I could see it, but it was his second season in the majors.

It's not that 25th overall is a bad ranking as much as it seems obviously low. Also, that's not a #1/#2 according to their silly system. They say that's a low #2, high #3 which is what I really take issue with. How is the 25th best pitcher a low #2, high #3?

Last year, Bradish was way better than the 25th best pitcher in baseball. Like I said, you'd have to think last year was a fluke to rank him that low. WAR is a somewhat reasonable metric for pitchers, though I like it better for hitters. He was 16th in fWAR for starting pitchers last year, but I think that's underselling him a bit. WAR is heavily based on innings pitched, and on a per inning basis he was better than some of the people above him. Yes, Bradish's season last year was that of a #1 pitcher. Even if we limit it to playoff teams, I'll bet his season was better than the best starting pitcher season on at least one team that made the playoffs and probably several. I don't care that they're executives, scouts, and analysts. Their distribution is way too bottom heavy, even for "playoff caliber" teams, whatever that means. Bradish was the best starting pitcher on a playoff caliber team, so even if that's their silly standard, he's a #1 by their own definition. How is Grayson Rodriguez not an "applicant" by their standards? Does he really have little to no chance to be an "ace?" I'm not claiming anti-Oriole bias here--I just can't see how they ranked other teams' pitchers. I'm sure I'd have issues there, too.

In what universe is Kyle Bradish a "number two or number three starter?" You'd have to believe his last year was a fluke. I doubt there were ten starting pitchers who had a better year than him last year by any reasonable metric. This is why I can't stand "rankings" of starting pitchers--"Ace," "number 1" etc. because they're based on this ridiculous fantasy of what the starting pitching talent distribution looks like. Thirty teams with five rotation spots equals 150 starting pitchers. Do you know how low you would have to set the innings pitched bar to get 150 starting pitchers above it last year? 70. But sure, Kyle Bradish is "mid-rotation." What a joke. It's these guys' jobs to be more informed than this.

I like this roster, though Cowser on the bench isn't ideal. I guess you can give one of Mayo/Mountcastle/Hays/Santander/Westburg/Cowser a day off every day.

Another thing to consider. Let's say Jackson Holliday becomes a star 2B. Then, one year, he gets injured in Spring Training and has to miss the entire season. I'd argue you're less likely to go out and trade for another star 2B than you would be if we were talking about a starting pitcher. If you trade for another 2B, what happens next year? You have two 2Bmen, but only one spot for them. Maybe there's some positional flexibility and you can swing it, but likely not. But if you lose a star starting pitcher to injury and go out and trade for another one, he can always replace your #5 starter next year or cover for some other starting pitcher's injury. This implies that teams are more likely to try to trade for starting pitching which increases the value of starting pitchers.

My point is that if every pitcher or most pitchers aren't producing value for 1-1.5 years of club control, and you still need the same amount of innings pitched, you need more pitchers than you used to which is going to make pitchers, especially the top ones, more valuable. Demand definitely increases as injuries increase, but whether or not throwing max-effort increases the supply of top pitchers enough to compensate is a question mark. I guess you could argue that each individual pitcher is filling less of his team's pitching needs than a 2B is filling his team's position player needs. And it might be the more stable route to try to somewhat make up for pitcher injuries by maxing out on position player talent. The Orioles are likely doing exactly this to great success! But if you want to max out the pitching side, you're going to need more players to do that than you would position players. Which, I'm saying, implies a top pitcher has more value than a top position player, assuming no significant differences in talent.

All I'm saying is if the "new normal" is that a pitcher will undergo TJ while under club control, it doesn't make sense to knock a pitcher for being likely to undergo TJ. Does the focus on max-effort throwing create enough new top-of-the-line pitchers to offset or surpass the years lost to TJ? I dunno. But if it doesn't, I'd argue that this makes pitchers more valuable because now there are fewer years of top pitching to fill demand. Maybe the shotgun approach works better than targeting top talent. The Orioles have done the shotgun approach decently well. But it's incredibly unlikely to get someone like Skenes that way. Granted, I'm assuming the game is 50% hitting/fielding and 50% pitching, but it more or less is, isn't it? And if it is, then I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to trade a top position player talent for a top pitching talent. If you think Jackson Holliday is more talented as a position player than Paul Skenes is as a pitcher, that's fine. You can make that case. They look pretty similar to me, we're rich in position player talent, and we need starting pitching.

I always thought he was Alex Wells 2.0, but it sounds like his pitches and velocity are better. Which is good, because Wells was never close to being a MLB starting pitcher.

It's fine to prefer Holliday over Skenes, but this "no thanks, pitchers get hurt" idea is getting to be a bit much. If all good pitchers get hurt and we need good pitchers to win, we need good pitchers who will get hurt. I don't know where we're going to find these mythical unicorn pitchers who aren't an injury risk.

That's really tough. Holliday is the safer bet, but Skenes would fill a huge area of need. Assuming medicals all check out, if I'm the Orioles I'd probably trade Holliday for Skenes, but that says at least as much about the Orioles' needs as it does the quality of the players.

I'm guessing Snell REALLY wanted west coast and the teams out there didn't have room for another huge long-term contract.

Would you rather have Hancock over Kjerstad + Mayo?

Mullins developed more power than you'd have expected. Maybe Bradfield can do the same, but I'm not betting on it.

$60 million in one player for one season is much more valuable than $60 million in one player over six seasons.

The more I think about it, the more likely I think it is Holliday and Mayo start in AAA. Infield is probably Mountcastle/O'Hearn at 1B, Westburg at 2B, Gunnar at SS, and Urias at 3B to start the year. Holliday's stat line looks good, but he's also striking out a ton especially against lefties. Personally, I'd start him at 2B and send him down if he struggles, but I don't think the O's are planning to do that. I think Mayo could be up quick if we trade Urias, or if Urias/Mountcastle/O'Hearn struggles. I would be shocked if the Orioles make Suarez the 5th starter over Irvin out of the gate. If Irvin struggles to start the year and Suarez looks good, maybe they make the switch. I think Webb and Akin are both in the pen to start the year and Tate isn't. Tate didn't pitch at all last year and hasn't looked especially great in spring training. I think he's first man up but starts in AAA. Both Webb and Akin are out of options, and Akin has looked pretty good so far. I agree that Cowser is more likely to make the team than Kjerstad, but who gets their playing time cut out of Hays, Santander, Mullins, Mountcastle and O'Hearn? Wouldn't shock me if they keep both players in AAA until someone gets hurt or is ineffective. I agree that Nevin, Maton, and McKenna are likely DFA.

Colby Rasmus I hope you...

I guess the outfielder is pretty highly thought of. Maybe he's more like Braylin Tavera? Still not impressed.

Thorpe is like 85th ranked-ish. Iriarte was back of their top-10 or so. Wilson's stat line looks a lot like Jacob Webb's. I think the Orioles equivalent is something like Ortiz, Povich, Webb, Thomas Sosa I guess they really wanted pitching we didn't have, because that return isn't that amazing.

Two pretty good pitching prospects, an average-ish 29 year old reliever, and a 19-year-old international lottery ticket outfielder. Doesn't seem worlds better than what we likely offered.