ChosenOne21
-
Posts
1418 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChosenOne21
-
-
Just when we thought we were safe from having an aging, below average left-handed second baseman on the roster...
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:
I was responding to the post that said Burnes replaces Bradish, it did not mention that we also lost Gibson
So we have in fact lost our innings pitched and wins leader (Gibson) and our ace (Bradish) and replaced them with Burns, don't know how folks don't see this as a major problem.
We haven't "lost Bradish." There's no reason to think he's missing the entire season or even most of it except evidence-less pessimism. It's not out of the question, but we're not there yet.
As for Gibson being our pitching wins leader, I can't think of a better argument not to use that stat. He gave us a lot of innings, but they weren't great innings.
Does Means not count as an "addition" for you? Has your bottomless pessimism ruled him out from pitching this year, too? -
10 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:
We subtracted our innings pitched and wins leader (Gibson) and added nothing
Can't believe we didn't get another starting pitcher, this could blow up
Tell me you're not concerned because we lost Gibson...
EDIT: Also, how is Burnes "adding nothing?" -
1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:
Because we have no starters behind Irvin who are major league ready.
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.
-
46 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:
We need to keep him
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
If what you are trying to say is that you are OK with him being ranked #25 but think that should be considered a low #1 - high #2 I don't disagree with you.
If you have 30 teams you should have 30 #1 starters.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
That's because you are looking for a reason to view it that way.
If Bradish pitched for the Brewers would you still feel that way?
If they viewed him as a fluke why would he be rated in the top 30?
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?
1 hour ago, Frobby said:I think you’re just reading too much into it. Bradish was a top ten pitcher in baseball last year, but on a list like this, he’s going to take a back seat to guys who have shown that they’re good year after year. If he has another top 10 ERA this year, he’ll probably move way up the list next year.
Another reason Bradish is downgraded is he barely qualified for the ERA title last year, whereas a lot of guys ranked above him are reliable innings eaters in addition to being quality pitchers. Bradish won’t establish himself as a reliable innings eater this year, even if he’s able to come back this season.
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.
32 minutes ago, dzorange said:Is this not exactly what he is on the Orioles? And was making this happen not a priority for the Orioles this past offseason?
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Frobby said:
It’s pretty simple. They aren’t ranking the pitchers based solely on last season. Guys with a longer track record of success are going to rank higher than guys who’ve had one good season. It’s not that anyone thinks Bradish was a “fluke,” but you can’t assume that level of performance will be repeated just because he did it one time.
"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. -
8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
I wouldn't say a fluke, just had a strong year.
Folks are acting like 25th overall is somehow a bad ranking. That's lower end #1 higher end #2 starting pitcher. I think that's fair considering the sample size.
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?
-
7 hours ago, dzorange said:
I don't think Bradish being ranked the 24th best pitcher is being shat on. Actually it's 25th, they numbered the article incorrectly at the time and has since been edited.
The way the rankings are broken down, it's clear that when they say number two or number three, that it's meant for playoff caliber teams.
Do people really consider Bradish to be a #1? If he is, why was getting a #1 pitcher a priority? And that doesn't take into account that the O's also have Rodriguez.
Is WAR not a reasonable metric?
They literally based this article on the thoughts of executives, scouts and analysts.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
Okay, explain. Because if they're not on the mound, they're not providing value. And while that's the new normal, it still doesn't excuse the fact that they're not out there producing value while under club control.
If the new normal includes looking at max effort guys that throw 102 like Skenes does and going "well, he's going to need TJ one day" is indeed the new normal...well, it is what it is. That has to be taken into account and you're just hoping that he doesn't need TJ when you're on the march to a World Series...or that he has TJ when you've had him for his prime years and he's pitching for the Yankees on a 5 year, 200 million contract.
I don't disagree that we need pitching, but most clubs do.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
I really don't think that it is.
More and more pitchers are going down with TJ, especially when we're in an age where it's max effort guys that are throwing 100 mph every time out. As we're seeing with Means, it takes more than a year to come back from it.
They are injury risks, to pretend that they're not would be intentionally obtuse. But say if you have a guy like Skenes and Holliday come up on the same day and you've got them for the first six years of their career, the odds favorite Skenes as the guy who is going to miss significant time with an injury. If Holliday has a significant injury, it's probably going to be an ACL or an Achilles and he can make it back into the lineup faster, most likely.
It's about maximizing value for the amount of time you have the player and if a guy has TJ for a good chunk of the time you have him, well, that's not maximizing value.
You do need good pitchers to win, you are correct about that. However, making sure they're all healthy in order to make a run is almost getting lucky...like, having a guy like Grayson, Burnes, Bradish together for a year without one going down is having all the stars aligned in your favor and we're already holding our breath about Bradish. Let's not mention Felix and how our bullpen looks without him.
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.
-
1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:
I’d rather have Hancock over Kjerstad. Lawler over Cowser. I don’t want to criticize Elias on a Monday morning 6 weeks after MLK day, but Carter Young and Willems couldn’t be the guys they were targeting. Also, Rhodes is kinda meh in a Zach Watson way.
Elias did kill that 2019 draft. Keep in mind Bradish was in that 2019 class and we most certainly targeted him in the Bundy trade. Maverick Handley likely will end up getting a cup of coffee at some point in the MLB too.
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.
-
10 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:
Just to circle back on how valuable the draft pick could be if Holliday begins the season on the roster and wins the ROY. The pick only may be ranked as a certain value in the trade simulator, but it’s much more valuable to us versus another org.
Whatever potential money/value we lose by not gaining the extra partial service year of Holliday, is value/money gained in that I trust our FO to use the pick/slot amount to nab us a contributor on our 2027-2033 ball clubs, or as a trade asset in between then.
In the range of that pick we could draft a HS pitcher/HS SS that isn’t top tier but doesn’t want to go to NCAA, or an NCAA corner guy 1B/3B/LF/RF that doesn’t have superstar potential. Like a Dylan Beavers. Or a NCAA back of rotation SP/potential top bullpen pitcher. Like the next Dylan McDermott.
We’d have those guys for 6+ service years and their value over those years could offset whatever the value is of Holliday under control in arb in 2030.
Let’s say Holliday is worth $60 million in value in 2030. Well a McDermott or Beavers type prospect could very well be right around that $60 million in value in over their six year career total.
Then Long/Short of it, let the kid eat from OD on. Get that ROY award and draft pick.
$60 million in one player for one season is much more valuable than $60 million in one player over six seasons.
-
7 hours ago, wildcard said:
The way I see it:
The games get more competitive for the rest of ST with major leaguers playing more and MLB starters stretching out.
Holliday vs Mayo: I don't see Elias putting two rookies in the infield to begin the season. It would almost be a disappointment if Holliday was not of the opening day roster but Mayo is proving his point that he can hit and play a decent 3B. Westburg can play 2B or 3B and Urias is on the team along with Mateo.
Both players are probably on the team by June if not sooner and a trade or injuries will have to happen to make room.
Irvin vs Albert Suarez for the 5th starter in April: Burnes, GRod, Kremer and Wells are in. The last spot in up for grabs. Irvin will make the team in the rotation or as the long man in the pen. (Means returns in May)
Last spots in the pen: Kimbrel, Cano, Tate, Coulombe, Baumann, Perez, and Irvin if he is not in the rotation are in.
The battle: Webb, Akin, Albert Suarez and Andrew Suarez . Webb has a 1M contract but he will be claimed if DFA'd so the O's are really not of the hook for his salary.
There is not room for Stowers and Norby though they are deserving.
Cowser is in; Kjerstad needs a big surge to push someone out.
There are 39 on the 40 man roster and Nevin, Maton and McKenna most likely will be DFA'd because they are out of options. That is 4 spots open. Plenty of room for Holliday or Mayo, Albert and/or Andrew Suarez.
We will know by opening day.
What do you think?
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.
Could the Orioles be in on Jordan Montgomery after the season officially starts?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
It's entirely possible that the ownership transfer is making it very difficult for the Orioles to hand out any kind of big-ish contract. I'm not totally convinced it is, but I guess we'll know for sure next offseason.
Yeah, it'd be worse for us if Montgomery went to the AL East, but honestly, the fact it's the Diamondbacks kind of stings more. The Diamondbacks are a mid-market team. There's no way we couldn't afford a payroll in line with theirs. We have way more room to add money and they're the ones who landed the free agent.
I seriously doubt Elias is trying to "prove" he can win with a bottom three payroll. I'm sure he'd like to spend more, but I'm guessing the reason he can't is some combination of Angelos being tight-fisted and the transfer of ownership screwing with the budget.