Jump to content

Orioles offer Wieters extension, but no deal seems close


Greg

Recommended Posts

A's and Rays (among others) have done fairly well over the years with low cost catching platoons. Yankees are doing quite well at it this year also. As stated, our current lack of catching depth doesn't help much. Doesn't mean we can't put something together over the next year or so.

Well, in 2012:

O's had a .729 OPS at C, 25 HR, 93 RBI

A's had a .587 OPS at C, 14 HR, 69 RBI

Rays had a .636 OPS at C, 11 HR, 59 RBI.

Advantage Orioles, I'd say. 2011 is similar.

I'll admit the Yankees are close to us right now offensively, though we'll see where it is when the year is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think the point is that the team has done quite well overall, not that they've done so well at the catching position itself.

When you have elite pitching, making your catcher a nonfactor is quite easy. With our less than elite pitching, Wieters still looks great. What would the discussion be with Wieters if he had Price, Shields, Moore, Hellickson, and that bum Cobb that had that huge ERA of 4.03?

I realize that it is very difficult to quantify the impact that Wieters has had with our subpar pitching and if he has really improved any of their performances or not. It is really impossible if you ask me. But when you say that Tampa has done quite well without a top catcher, I have a hard time lending merit to that argument when the worst SP they have sports a 4.03 through an entire season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did they have the chance? Should they have picked a catcher instead of Longoria? A catcher instead of Price? They picked best player available. You can't hit on every pick. Last I looked not too many teams hit on that elite catching prospect you talk of. The point is that you can win without an elite catcher just like you can win without an elite 2B. The point is not to overpay for very good and NOT ELITE.

No they didn't.

They had Posey at #1 on their board in 2008 and they picked Beckham instead because they didn't want to pay Posey's price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in 2012:

O's had a .729 OPS at C, 25 HR, 93 RBI

A's had a .587 OPS at C, 14 HR, 69 RBI

Rays had a .636 OPS at C, 11 HR, 59 RBI.

Advantage Orioles, I'd say. 2011 is similar.

I'll admit the Yankees are close to us right now offensively, though we'll see where it is when the year is over.

1. You need to look at WAR and not raw stats.

2. It was a particularly poor year for the A's last year.

3. What did they pay for those guys?

4. What will they be paying for similar guys in the future?

5. Yeah, Wieters has been good, but what will we be paying for the future as compared to what type of production he likely be giving?

I guess I view Wieters similar to Markakis. Wieters more harshly because of suspected durability and versatility issues. They'd be nice guys to have longer term, but probably not very good economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did they have the chance? Should they have picked a catcher instead of Longoria? A catcher instead of Price?

You conveniently omitted Tim Beckham, picked no. 1 when Posey was available. ;)

It's great having 20/20 hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that CS has a lot to do with the ability of pitchers to be quick to the plate. Improved times to the plate would/could be a reason for the increased % of CS by Wieters.

I think all the emphasis on TTTP (in the general sense, any club) gives the catcher the chance to be better at CS. Matt takes advantage of those chances. Better than most or all others. That's the diff imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing to me is the consistent trend that defensive catchers fall off by the time they hit 30. It happened to Pudge, it happened to Gary Carter, its happened to pretty much any significant defensive catcher out there. So do you sign Wieters to a big contract, knowing you'll probably only get an average defensive catcher with a .750 OPS past 30? If its like a 5 year, 50-60 million dollar contract, maybe. Anything more than that isn't something the Orioles should do, especially with the other players also vying for extensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing to me is the consistent trend that defensive catchers fall off by the time they hit 30. It happened to Pudge, it happened to Gary Carter, its happened to pretty much any significant defensive catcher out there. So do you sign Wieters to a big contract, knowing you'll probably only get an average defensive catcher with a .750 OPS past 30? If its like a 5 year, 50-60 million dollar contract, maybe. Anything more than that isn't something the Orioles should do, especially with the other players also vying for extensions.

Yadier disagrees. That being said I am long on record in not being interested in extending Wieters past ~32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadier disagrees. That being said I am long on record in not being interested in extending Wieters past ~32.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7007&position=C

Yadier is having his worst defensive year in a long time and he just hit 30. Its not really a huge sample, but I don't think he suddenly defies that trend or anything either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last season he turned 30, he won the Fielding Bible award and the Gold Glove.

You see, this is what I mean by nitpicking. You don't suddenly get worse on your birthday. Its a gradual trend that around 30 years old catchers decline defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadier is also 5' 11" tall and not 6' 5".

Which is definitely a factor in why I wouldn't extend him past 32.

I am down with, and coined the phrase (I think) Catch him into the ground and let someone else pay for the decline.

I will say that getting rid of him before they have an adequate replacement will be catastrophic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see. You talk about Wieters possible effect on the pitching staff and then mention Tampa Bay with a run of the mill catcher and a great pitching staff. Hmmm.

Not even sure what you are trying to get at here. We are talking about a team that had one of the best pitching staffs in baseball and a nonfactor catcher and a team that pieced together a pitching staff and a great catcher. The team with the great catcher made it to the playoffs, the team with the nonfactor catcher didnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this is what I mean by nitpicking. You don't suddenly get worse on your birthday. Its a gradual trend that around 30 years old catchers decline defensively.

All players decline defensively as they age. Defensive is a youth aligned skill. It is very possible that Trout's best defensive year is already behind him.

I think Yadier has a long way to fall before he isn't plus on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • First.. most is not accurate as it relates to those who questioned Gunnar sticking at SS. There were concerns but it was hardly a consensus. Secondly, the questions on Gunnar as a SS were not about his skill/talent as a defender. The two main concerns were whether he could be more consistent to occupy the most premier infield position for you and if he would outgrow SS. There weren't questions around his arm, his ability to make plays in the hole, his mechanics fielding a groundball, etc. etc. so that statement above is quite misleading.  Gunnar may outgrow SS. At 22 he's 6'4ish and probably every bit of 215 lbs, if not bigger. As he matures physically he very well could add 15 lbs of muscle without the extended effort that would be required of someone like EBJ to add the same amount. But just as you point that JH's incentive to improve as a SS is the payday, Gunnar has that same incentive and he's already night and day better as a defender than JH and was two years ago at the same age as JH. 
    • Exactly right. Like all young players, I’m sure he has some things to “clean up” but he the question mark about his defense isn’t range or hands or anything like that..it’s his arm.  He needs to improve the arm strength and get the velo on the throws up.    I personally don’t think he would be the #1 prospect if people doubted he could be a ML SS. 
    • Defense doesn't peak at age 19.  Also, who is reporting that he needs to improve "significantly" on defense? He wouldn't be the #1 overall prospect if that was the case. 
    • Juan Pierre is another name that I keep thinking of as far as light hitting speedster CF's making solid WAR contribution without much power. 17 WAR, .295/.343/.704
    • Show me the national people who believe he will never be a long term answer at SS.  
    • It might be. It’s always possible. Defense is largely about effort in many ways. You have to work at it and want to work at it.  If he doesn’t do that, this is who he will be. If he does work at it, he will get better. Im sure he understands that the arm is currently lacking. Im sure his father can see it and it’s something they worked on and will continue to work on. He has the foundation outside of that to be really good, according to basically everyone. His incentive is that the payday will be larger long term as a SS than a second baseman.  So, it’s up to him on whether he wants to get better or not. A few years ago, most didn’t believe Gunnar could be a SS. Those people were proven to be incorrect in short time. I’m guessing that Gunnar worked hard at it and wanted to become better.    My personal assumption about Holliday is that he will want to work hard to get better. That may be a wrong assumption but it is my belief.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...