LookinUp

In an odd way, I'd kind of respect a smaller market team who went after a guy like Bauer and was just up front with fans. They could say something like: "We understand there's big risk and that the facts are disputed. With our position in the marketplace, we don't have the same financial resources to obtain top flight talent. That means we might need to operate in areas where there's greater non-financial risks to obtain such talent. As such, we've acknowledged and accepted the risk of signing Trevor Bauer, protected ourselves contractually to the extent practicable, and are hoping that Mr. Bauer's contention that he's innocent and will be an upstanding citizen moving forward is true."

I don't know what's right or wrong, but I don't trust him. That opinion is mostly because I thought he was a prick before all of this came out. I think he's arrogant and unlikable, so these accusations don't surprise me. It also doesn't mean he committed a crime. I'm just not sure I want that guy in my clubhouse.

The bolded is the biggest unknown, IMO. We got real contributions from Voth, Watkins, Kreibel, etc. last year. Bautista was awesome. Tate/Perez too. Starters, relievers. It didn't matter. Did the O's figure something out about their general approach to make the whole staff better? If so, it's sustainable. If not, major regression is possible across the board. I do think Gibson is better than the Lyles we thought we were getting last year, by a good margin. Will his results improve as Lyles' did after he got here? Will Lyles regress in KC? I'd bet on both happening, actually, which would mean Gibson's a pretty substantial upgrade.

Re: the poll... 1. I don't like the question. I answered yes, but the considerable improvement is really from internal guys. The FAs, so far, are small but real upgrades, IMO. (and I don't like the Frazier move) 2. Our OD roster is substantially more talented than our OD roster last year and somewhat more talented than the EOY roster. 3. More talent /= more wins or better performance (necessarily). Performance isn't linear. 4. Our talent pipeline is essentially untouched. 5. The offseason isn't over. Add a FA P or make a trade for a P and it looks better. 6. If we don't do #5, I'll say this offseason is a failure. It's really a make or break move to me. We need a top P and have assets to get one.

If I asked you who the two best pitchers were in this org on opening day last year, you'd have almost certainly said Means and Rodriguez. We got a total of 8 IP from them, but you still say we had a lucky health year. Guaranteed Elias was hoping for 200-250 innings from those two. Oh, and our best player missed the first 6 weeks (or whatever) of the season. It didn't add up to catastrophic, but we took a substantial hit from injuries last year.

It fits the platoon approach, which I assume wouldn't be a pure platoon. So if they signed Hosmer, maybe he gets 1/3 of ABs against RHP and Mountcastle gets the other 2/3ish, plus most of the ABs against LHP? Hosmer's career numbers against RHP are better than Mountcastle's, but I'm not so sure we could expect that in 2023. Conversely, Hosmer's career against LHP is much worse. Mountcastle is actually pretty much even. Either way, it would at least fit that platoon-focused approach, if that's indeed what they're trying to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Internal promotions, more of Adley and Gunnar, Gibson over Lyles, Frazier/McCann over Odor/Chirinos and Givens say we're better than last year. Add Eovaldi and we're improving still. Say the deadline hits, we're close to contending and we still are rich in prospects if we want to add a big bat and/or arm. Signing Eovaldi might just be what it takes to put us into that position at the deadline.

I didn't know this about his velo. That tempers my hope that we sign him. I essentially wanted him because I remember a very live arm. Now the idea of giving up a pick for him is a little more alarming, though not a show stopper (for me). I'm greedy though. I want them to sign Eovaldi and make a trade for another high end starter. The latter seems more likely now than the former (or both).

Really, this is the bottom line. His career OPS is .777 versus LHP and only .635 versus RHP. Look at Tampa last year. They had 4 players play 120 games or more. (including 1 who played exactly 120) That is the model. Even still, I worry this will be a "play everyone" type of team instead of a "play the best" type of team, even absent the platoon stuff. [Jamal beat me to the OPS splits point.]

I know this is beating a dead horse, but I mostly haven't been the one beating it. So, I'll just say... It was one thing to sign Odor to a bad team. Fine. It was another thing to keep him on the roster when we were in contention. Fine, I guess. It was crazy to play him as much as they did with better options on the roster and in the minors. My problem with Frazier isn't the player, it's the fact he's probably going to play a lot. He needs to exceed his probable outcomes for this to make sense, IMO.

The bottom line is Odor, Aguilar and Phillips all happened, and all in the middle of a pennant race. That's borderline unforgiveable. Now he's spending $8 million on a guy who doesn't project as better, or much better, than what we have in house. It stinks, and the "money's burning a hole in Elias' pockets" is a terrible justification. At $3 million, I like the move. At $8 million, given last year, I don't trust the move.

Right, the rest of the profile is still very good. He's a fine addition. He might even regain a MPH or 2 this year. Who knows? But if his velo comes down any more, what happens to that profile? We'll see.

Sure. I just worry a little more if he's really losing 2 MPH on the fastball. I'm not worried about him not having a great year. I'm worried that he doesn't even have the upside he used to have to have a great year.

Definitely a lot of upside in that pen. I really want that extra starter though. And I'm with Moose on this one. I think Givens slots as a 6/7th inning type. I could see him being meh. I'm actually a little surprised that we even signed him for that much. It's not the same overpay as Frazier, for sure, but feels like a bit of one to me.

I don't think as a stand alone trade they have all that much value. Could be valuable as a 2nd/3rd piece in a big deal though.

I've been around for a long time, and this is definitely a "pot, meet kettle" type of argument.

My first question is whether McCann, ignoring all costs, would be a solid backup ML catcher? I don't know the answer. Maybe others do. If that answer is yes, then you figure out a deal. It's just that the deal you proposed is not anywhere near the realm of what's reasonable. If you wanted to offer Bemboom for McCann and $18 million, they'd do it. More money? Who knows. Then you have to offer whatever it would take for Carrasco.

I know this is your site, but laughing at my post that wasn't in response to anyone, calling anyone out, or being negative in any way isn't cool. To answer your question, I've heard that Frazier DID try swing adjustments to get more lift in Seattle. That clearly didn't work, so my "wager" is that the O's are going to ask him to return to his former approach rather than continue trying to lift the ball. I don't think that takes magic pixie dust. It's identifying what a player does better and asking him to do more of it. And while you're bagging on Mountcastle, maybe you should go do your in depth scouting on his batted ball data last year. His EV, Barrell % and Hard Hit % all went up. His HR/FB went down. His Slg% was down ~60 points while his xSlg% was up ~50 points.

Honestly, part of my problem with this trade is I feel like it means we won't get Brantley. The latter likely costs more and provides less positional versatility. But his bat is so much better if he's healthy. So I think it's a fair question of whether we would have preferred Brantley at ~$12 million or Frazier at ~$8 million. I'd prefer Brantley.

My wager, btw, is the O's think Frazier made swing adjustments (e.g. launch angles) that were bad for Frazier. I think they try to turn him back into a LD/GB hitter. I think the weak contact was related to trying to elevate the ball. And I could be wrong. So there's reason for hope, but also reason I hate this for $8 million. If it was $2-4 million, it would make sense to me.

I like adding Frazier. I hate adding him for $8 million. His BABIP last year was roughly as far below his career average than 2021 was above. With a similar LD%. He also has better numbers against RHP. So there's reason to expect something better. Say a ~.650-.700 OPS, if used right (as a platoon). My biggest concern about $8 million is it implies they view him as a full time player. I don't want any FA who isn't awesome getting Odor-like innings. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the cost of WAR has simply gone up a lot, but I fear this move will block young players who honestly should be better.

I give it a D, because... Good No bad long term contracts. No desperate trades. Medium Gibson is a small upgrade over Lyles. Frazier fits in the Tampa model re: platooning (he does hit RHP better). We now have LH/RH options at 3b, SS, 2b, and LF. Bad The upgrades are not strong upgrades. We haven't really improved through FA or trade (yet). The price for Frazier seems about 1/2 or 1/3 too much. Assumptions of what is to come We sign or trade for a pitcher who fits 1-3 in the rotation. We sign a catcher who isn't worse than Chirinos. We still rely on internal options to upgrade the offense.

I think this is true, but it's spending money in an area that isn't a need. But Elias seems to think it's a need, so maybe a trade actually is coming.

Just to be clear, I don't think this is going to start making sense any time soon. Elias either really likes him for reasons that aren't apparent or he pulled the trigger too soon and paid too much doing so. It feels like if we waited a month he could have been had for 1/2 price.