LookinUp

I think you're picking at nits now. Bradish isn't a top prospect. As Tony pointed out, his spring training stats aren't that great. Live arm, for sure, but even if they're playing service time games they're doing so with a mid-level prospect for a couple/few weeks. Even if you're 100% right about the motivation, it's a very small thing.

Wish I could join you, Scarey. I don't have any of those details. It's on my bucket list though!

Disassociating the lack of mid-high level talent added to the ML team from the decision not to promote some of our better young arms... I think the latter issue is easily defensible, as was quoted in jabba's post. I do want those arms built up properly and I do see more pressure to extend them, get them caught in long innings, etc. at the ML level than the minor league level. I don't mind that they demoted Hall and Bradish, and I don't think it's as simple as saving money.

That group of players (in any order) looks better to me every time I see it. And I have no problem listing Trimble based on upside. His range of outcomes is huge at this point, but he's kind of an unknown to many even with decent upside. Nothing at all international on that list. Hopefully those guys make people take notice this year.

It's a small difference, but add to that slightly bigger bases and you could get to a larger difference. Anything that introduces greater importance to speed and athleticism is good for the game, IMO.

This post states, about 10 times, the least important thing to actually making a good team. You don't trade or not trade people based on optics. You implement a plan and see it through. For better or worse, trading Mancini would be consistent with a good plan that is already optically bad. So what.

I don't know the answer, but I'm sure Sig could cook up a formula that incorporates the value of 2+ weeks of Rutschman in his rookie year, the expected value of Rutschman's extra year, the probability of Rutschman being top 3 in ROY voting and the expected value of a compensatory draft pick and make an informed decision about whether to hold him back or not. Don't have to worry about that now though.

I have no idea what the odds of him being a top 3 ROY are. What if he gets injured and misses 6 weeks during the season? What if other rookies come up in big media markets and get more hype? What if other rookies play for actual contenders and have more meaningful production? What if the O's are a laughing stock, the manager gets fired and everyone is brought down by that? What if Stowers and Rodriguez, on our own team, out perform him? I'd rather they try to get the year and adjust if it doesn't happen.

The concern I have is that the O's trade him now not based on his trade value, but based on his salary. If his trade value isn't much now, they'll likely still trade him. I'd prefer if the lack of good offers (an assumption) would mean we held onto him and let him try to build value.

I think people put way more emphasis on fan reactions to any number of things (lockout, trades, scandals) than fans actually put on them. We have the attention span of mice these days. In a year or two when fans have something to root for they'll be in the stadium rooting, not stewing over Trey Mancini.

About 40% of the people in this poll didn't think it was a no brainer. To me it would have made perfect sense to wait 2 weeks in the hopes of getting the extra year. If he was good enough to get all of those ROY votes, you lose the year and you just accept that. If he wasn't for whatever reason, at least you got that extra year.

The only problem I have with this strategy is you could justify it forever. Give wave #1 a shot. If they suck, well we're not spending until we see what's in wave #2. If they suck...rinse and repeat. It's highly dependent on the minors, which I'm fine with and you can argue is required in Baltimore, but we're already talking about a largely unspectacular wave #1 and giving wave #2 a chance plus giving wave #1 another chance this year. At some point the priority has to be winning, and the waves will need to be the supplement, not what the org is depending on. We're putting a lot of faith in his building of the minors. Hopefully it works to the degree we need.

I mean, the O's could have signed Lyles, Davies and Ed Rod. Even one more guy. Payroll is $60 million and they probably win 70 games. Young guys compete for innings. Don't block position players. I understand the logic if they did that. I understand people wanting them to do that.

$20 million in gate receipts is a shockingly low number, to me at least.

Connolly said this morning on the radio that he thinks Rutschman was going to start on day 1 in Baltimore if not for the injury. Easy to say now that he's injured and that won't be happening, but somewhat interesting nonetheless.

I think there are folks on one side who interpret what the O's are doing like you do, as just biding their time while the talent base grows. Essentially, not wasting tens of millions on another 10-15 wins/year. Others are overtly saying they're losing on purpose. Regardless of the argument, it's clear they're being pretty extreme on the biding their time philosophy.

Not that I'm worried for Grayson Rodriguez, but I am curious if he runs into the same stumbling block as other pitchers who used the different ball going to AAA. His progression to the majors might not be as direct as some are assuming. There could be an adjustment period.

I like that they did it because I do want athleticism to matter, but I sure wish they moved the lower bullpen into CF. Plenty of space to do so. The corner is stupid, and not just because it's different. It's basically a gimmick. At least there's not a pillar or a hill right in the field of play, but it's still bad.

Your posts on the last two pages of this thread have made me recognize that the O's are just legitimately behind where the Astros were at this point. The better talent (absent Rutschman) simply wasn't ready yet. Especially remembering the Covid year, Bradish was just establishing himself last year. Rodriguez still hasn't thrown any real innings with a ML ball, plus I'm happy they were careful with him after Covid. Kremer got a big chance and stunk. Zimmerman got hurt. Wells was bad pretty much everywhere. Akin has had a real chance. The one guy that I wish was really given a real chance was Lowther. And now the team has 2 starting pitchers penciled in. That sure makes it seem to me like they're going to give innings to all of those guys and see what happens. Exactly what you asked for, just a year later.

The lighting alone had to cost $1 million/year.

Tony, I thought Zimmerman was a lock, assuming health. Did he not do enough before to earn that in your eyes? I clearly could be wrong.

Well, this is just wrong. You're opinions are generally more credible when you can differentiate between the two. I'm on board about the pace of the rebuild and think the MASN stuff is just shameful, but the arbitration processes are perfectly normal. So can we move on to more important things, like who do we get with a top 6 pick in the 2023 draft?

Right. We have to make assumptions. My assumption is this will be primarily an internal rebuild, which means our players will likely need a couple of years after getting here before really crushing it. That's certainly not true of all of them, but it's also true that several of our prospects just aren't likely to turn out to be that good. 2025 based on my assumption that they're not going to add much from outside of the org.

I know you feel the need to bash the organization every step of the way, and I'm not even saying they are right here. But the bids are fine. You can choose to ignore all of the other examples and predictions that Frobby's posted but you ignoring them doesn't make it less true. If there's one thing about arbitration, it's not to get too worked up when the two sides don't agree in advance.

I’d agree that Gunnar Henderson still has a wide range of probabilities. Very high ceilings. Pretty high risk.