StottyByNature

I get being guarded in any optimism. It's been a while since the O's have had a big time pitching prospect. The ones that have come up have rarely done well in their first year. Guys that come to mind are Arrieta, Matusz, Maine, Loewen, Gausman. Bundy was pretty good but if I recall he came out of the pen at first. Going back further Hayden Penn and even Erik Bedard wasn't anything special in his first year. Britton was supposed to be a can't-miss guy and he pitched to a 4.61 his first year. If GRod puts up an ERA at 4 or under he'd be bucking a long trend.

4 - 3 - 1 - 2. I like the Irvin trade as I think it made us go from a relatively shallow to a relatively deep (if unspectacular) rotation. G-Rod's innings will have to be managed and this helps a lot. I think the McCann trade is underrated. Our backup catcher spot has been a black hole. McCann was once considered a starter in this league before getting derailed a bit. I think there is real lightning-in-a-bottle potential here given the SSS of a backup catcher. Nothing wrong with signing Gibson, but essentially he just replaced Lyles who was decent. Frazier seems to be solving a problem that wasn't there. I also don't like that his history suggests it's more likely that he had one hot half-season and isn't that much of a bounce-back guy. I hope I'm wrong.

I like the move, presuming the player to be named is no one of value. McCann was seen as a starting caliber catcher who has struggled staying healthy. Hopefully moving him to a backup role mitigates that injury risk. While I understand that his floor is the same as Chirinos, he is still a bounce-back candidate and could supply a little pop on what has otherwise been a hole on the roster. Seems like a low-risk, decent-potential-reward type move.

Here is the entirety of your post responding to someone who pointed out that Bauer has two other accusers: "None of whom saw fit to level accusations until after the lights were on and cameras were rolling." I'd suggest that if you intended to leave open the possibility that the accusers may have merit, then it is on you to communicate as such. This, coupled with you missing my clearly stated position that "we don't know either way", leads me to believe this is not a conversation being had in good faith.

To quote myself in the post you responded to "we don't know either way in this case." My objection to you is how you accused the others coming forward of being opportunistic "after the lights and cameras were rolling." That does not read to me like someone who is remaining open to the truth either way. Again, there is a very broad gap between "not deserving to go to prison" and "not someone I want to employ." We can let the courts decide whether or not Bauer should be punished. However, as an employer, I am well within my rights to decide not to hire a man who has admitted to punching an unconscious woman even though he believes it was consensual. That is not me ruining his life, that is me making what I believe to be the best decision for my organization.

I think this is completely unfair. Oftentimes accusers are scared to come forward because they know they won't be believed and it's not worth having their names dragged through the mud. But when someone finally does it is not uncommon for others to feel like they will have more credibility. We don't know either way in this case, but I think your post is way too definitive. As for Bauer, no thank you. There is a broad gap between "not doing something illegal" and "being a decent human." I have no interest in him being on this team because regardless what happens in court the public opinion of him will remain. See what's happening with Watson on the Browns. Add on the fact that he's a bad clubhouse guy and it's a hard pass from me. Culture matters.

That's why I liked the short-term deal. It doesn't preclude us from reloading after it is done. I'm fine with re-investing the money elsewhere, but we'll have to wait and see if that actually happens. And I disagree with the WS favorite notion. The baseball playoffs are a crapshoot (but having a bona fide ace sure helps). Just get in as many times as we can during this upcoming window and see what happens.

Verlander. We'd have to be willing to manipulate that third year option if he went in the tank, but I thought he was the exact kind of top end, short contract guy we needed. I think we wouldn't have any money left for anything but spare parts, but I'd have been OK with that.

I'm with you. Free agent prices every year are always a little higher than what was projected because teams have to offer a bit more to make them the clear choice. This should not be a surprise to anyone. The difference now is that we are a competitive team with an upward trajectory. We could have offered the same as the Cubs and had a chance to land him with good recruiting. I wonder how close we were and why we felt we couldn't pony up a bit more (assuming we were in on Taillon at all.)

He's had two straight years of elite stats. I look at that as more he's figured things out rather than a potential regression. Injury is obviously a concern, but I'd say if he's on the mound he's a pretty safe bet to perform well. I'm also more willing to give 5 years to a starter that's just entering his 30's than some of the mid-30's guys.

Good post, completely agree. There are bad contracts and then there are good contracts that overpay at the end. This is the latter. The Yankees are paying for the next 5 years, anything they get in years 6-9 are gravy. And if Judge continues to have them in the playoffs for the next 5 years then it will be completely worth it. If you want to bring in a sure-fire guy you have to overpay. If you want to keep payroll flexibility you have to dig in the bargain bin and hope for the best. The truly bad contracts are the Chris Davis ones, where the guy is not necessarily surefire. That was a big mistake giving him the money and not Machado. I'd have given the same contract that Verlander got. I hope we overpay for Rodon. I'm betting we will end up with another mid-level SP or make a trade of prospects for an established guy.

I don't think it means we will get a discount, but perhaps it means that we won't have to overpay as we would have a few years ago. I am sure, at least for pitchers, it is well known that the O's have excelled at helping pitchers maximize their performance through analytics this past year. Players sign for their current contract but also want to be well set up for their next one (assuming they are still young enough.)

Rodon and Abreu (though I'd prefer Rodon on a 4-year deal) then trade Mountcastle + prospects for a controllable starter.

As always, I would start with the caveat that this is all based on the contract, and I am going off of what I believe the players will get. My big two stay-aways: DeGrom. He is going to get a lot of money based on who he is when he is healthy, but I simply would not spend that much on a guy who has his history of breaking down heading into the latter part of his 30's. If any team signs him they should feel like they could make the postseason without him and try to have him available in Sept/Oct. Correa. Other than the fact that I don't want that cheating scandal stink on our team, I just don't think he will age well. I think you'd be paying for the next couple of seasons but then have a sunk cost when he's in his 30's and not quite there defensively. I'd much rather we spend our capital on controllable arms and short-term high AAV guys to keep our roster flexibility. The only long-term deals I would hand out would be to the superstars like Turner, if it didn't limit other acquisitions, which seems unlikely.

Lyles provides consistency and takes the ball every 5th day. For an organization that is trying to grow with young pitchers, that is valuable. I think they should and will do it, even though it is a slight overpay for what he is worth. Still, it's one year and it should not limit us spending elsewhere. Emphasis on should. Now, if you told me they would take that $10m and direct it towards luring a free agent like Rodon then I'm all for it. I think it's more likely that we attempt to trade for a starter though.

I think Abreu makes a lot of sense, but not without another move. He is a proven, reliable hitter and would not get a long-term contract, which would maintain our salary flexibility. I think the issue is what to do with Mountcastle. Abreu would be an upgrade as long as he is pretty much taking Mountcastle's AB's. But that would also require either relegating Mountcastle to the bench or trading him. I'm fine with trading him but also don't want to be trading just for the sake of getting rid of someone. What we don't need is another logjam of DH's who can't really hit enough for the 1B position. I think Abreu is better than that but something else would need to give.

I wouldn't want him on a long term deal, which is obviously what he is seeking. We need to value our payroll flexibility and pursue high AAV guys with shorter term deals. I'd focus the offseason on improving starting pitching and figuring out what to do with 2B and 1B.

I think they went too far with the wall, both literally and figuratively. There is a happy medium between "comically easy to hit it out" and "damn near impossible to hit it out." We should settle somewhere in between.

For once it appears that the O's are leading the charge in something, as obviously they have figured out a way to increase pitchers' effectiveness. I don't think they have simply lucked into it given how many pitchers they have been able to do this with. It also seems to match our draft philosophy - hitters are easier to project and pitchers are easier to fix. It's nice to feel like an elite organization in this regard.

I love that he comes in throwing strikes. His stuff isn't overpowering but you never feel like he's going to enter the game and immediately get himself in trouble. I think he's a better 6th/7th inning guy but there is no mistaking how valuable he has been this year.

Wow, that was a roller coaster. Felt like we just gutted out a series win, now let's get hot!

I noticed the same. I was hoping Hyde would at least ask the umpires to check.

I think it can be both, meaning, he has his benchmarks for each level and once that last one is reached he then looks at service time. For example, I think Henderson's progression this year has been more rapid than anyone anticipated. The plan was probably for him to be in AA and then hopefully graduate to AAA next year. He has exceeded that and seems fairly obviously "ready" (although none of us are privy to the specific benchmarks.). At that point it would seem to make sense to start measuring service time manipulation versus immediate impact on the team.

I think the calculus here is fairly simple. Is it worth burning a year of a top prospect to attempt to strike while the opportunity is here, albeit with a flawed roster? Or do we exercise restraint, understanding that while nothing is guaranteed, the "window" being a year longer with a more complete team may result in greater chances of reaching the ultimate goal? Elias has chosen the latter and I respect his discipline and commitment to his plan. It has obviously worked so far. I completely understand the former as the future is always an unknown no matter how well laid the plans may be. A bird in hand and all that. But, do we really think we have the horses (especially the #1 starter) to feel reasonably confident in a single-elimination format? The playoffs should not be the goal, the World Series is. Our chances are much greater when we have aligned as many of the pieces as possible first and then make a multi-year run at it.

Not all 22 year olds are alike. I remember being 22 and while I was certainly different then I had a healthy sense of caution. As fans we can only see the play on the field and the numbers in the box score. It is up to the people in charge to decide whether a young player has the character make-up to be worth the risk. Obviously, there is potential reward to keeping a great player in their prime at a more reasonable AAV. This is NOT to say that Tatis was unworthy of the contract or that he has character issues, because none of us has enough information on that to know for certain.