Orioles offer Wieters extension, but no deal seems close

[CA-ORIOLE]

They had Molina at +50 Runs in 107 starts. Not 50 runs more then the most inept framer over 120 games. Also the Rays' pitchers surrendered a higher OPS to batters when Molina was the Catcher. That seems inconsistent with a magician that turns balls into strikes..

If that's the case then I would not buy it. It also doesn't mean I'd dismiss pitch framing and I'd probably need to look at several years etc.. Do you have the ref?

The Rays are not the O's. Their ownership have the same love of profit as PA but produce less revenue. They wouldn't have offered the deals that the O's signed Roberts, Markakis and Jones to

The bottom line is efficiency and economics. We're not the Rays, but even we need to look very closely at extending guys like Nick and Wieters. The Rays (among other teams) have efficiently utilized low cost catching platoons.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

So where is this documented, this idea that catchers fall off the side of the planet defensively by the time they're 30? The studies I've seen, including this one, indicate catchers age as well or better than players at other positions. This despite catchers often having more of their value tied up in defense, and the fact that much of a catcher's responsibilities aren't easily quantified. I think it's at least plausible that catchers, taken as a group, see their defensive contributions fall off less quickly than other positions.

[AlbionHero]

I think a good comparison to Wieters early career is Charles Johnson.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=523&position=C

They had pretty similar offensive stats and fielding values up to this point, hell Johnson was actually better defensively. But then by his 30s, he lost his Plus defense and his bat got slower, and he pretty much just fell into obscurity. Thats the kinda drop off I'm worrying about for Wieters, and why I'm really hesitant to give him a big contract... it has the potential to be one of those really bad contracts.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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

It'd have to be very favorable for us. I agree with what someone else said. It should be Wieters and not us that should be in a hurry to do this.

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

I'd be content to catch him out and maybe deal him at the end of our control. In any case, nobody wants to get rid of him without a viable plan.

[Frobby]

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.

I think that's what we're looking at. There are only three catchers who have bigger deals than that -- Mauer, Posey and Y. Molina. I could see Boras gunning for Molina money (5/$75mm), but don't really see how he could justify significantly more.

[DrungoHazewood]

A lot depends on what you call adequate replacement and what you consider catastrophic. I think the statement borders on hyperbole.

I'd be willing to say that trading Wieters for, say, a couple pitching prospects, and just giving the job to Teagarden and Snyder would probably result in about a 5-win loss, with the possibility of more. It's not implausible that pulling a Yankee move (letting Martin go and replacing him with whatever is lying around) could turn a decent contender into a .500 team and a .500 team into a low-70s-win team.

Wieters is a strong starter, and the O's really have nothing resembling a starting major league catcher anywhere else in the organization.

[AlbionHero]

So where is this documented, this idea that catchers fall off the side of the planet defensively by the time they're 30? The studies I've seen, including this one, indicate catchers age as well or better than players at other positions. This despite catchers often having more of their value tied up in defense, and the fact that much of a catcher's responsibilities aren't easily quantified. I think it's at least plausible that catchers, taken as a group, see their defensive contributions fall off less quickly than other positions.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1275&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1002015&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1000826&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1010153&position=C

They all had pretty much seen their best defensive days before turning 30... there were still a few good defensive years here and there, but no where near their old defensive level. Granted, there are some catchers who still play at a high defensive level past 30, but that seems to be a rarity.

[DrungoHazewood]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1275&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1002015&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1000826&position=C

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1010153&position=C

They all had pretty much seen their best defensive days before turning 30... there were still a few good defensive years here and there, but no where near their old defensive level. Granted, there are some catchers who still play at a high defensive level past 30, but that seems to be a rarity.

Ok, so where is it documented in ways that don't involve cherry picking catchers who saw big drop offs in the age group you were talking about? I could find evidence that second basemen who have bad years at 24 are at a big risk of having bad years at 24.

[sevastras]

Haha. It's wrapped up into a nice little ball. The point is that you mentioned about Wieters possible effect of making our pitchers even better yet the Tampa Bay pitchers were great without him. Are you suggesting that the Rays pitchers might be even better with Wieters behind the plate?

I think it would be likely that their team would be better. I am not sure what the numbers would look like, specifically ERA. When you have a catcher that is holding the runners better and throwing out at a higher rate, it just makes sense the ERA would be lower and the pitchers could go deeper into games by lowering the pitch counts on the runners CS. I dont know of any way to accurately project these numbers. But the team would be better with Wieters behind the plate rather than Molina. Certainly the offensive production would have been, and correct me if I am wrong, but that is the biggest argument against Wieters.

[sevastras]

And I am not picking on you, I generally agree with a lot that you say. I think you may be just pushing some devils advocate here for some good discussion.

[Frobby]

Catcher is the hardest position on the field to measure. I think it's almost certain that a catcher's physical skills deteriorate after age 30, just like at any other position. At the same time, it makes sense to me that as a catcher gains experience, he knows the hitters better and better, knows the umps better and better, has more confidence in himself, etc. Pitch framing also strikes me as a skill that might improve with experience even when physical abilities are on the decline. But I'm just speculating here.

[sevastras]

So you are trading away Wieters, for a couple of pitching prospects, then flipping them for Castro? You are basically saying that you would give up defense for sexier offensive numbers. Castro is in the top for allowed steals and passed balls. That doesnt make sense to me.

[Can_of_corn]

I'd be willing to say that trading Wieters for, say, a couple pitching prospects, and just giving the job to Teagarden and Snyder would probably result in about a 5-win loss, with the possibility of more. It's not implausible that pulling a Yankee move (letting Martin go and replacing him with whatever is lying around) could turn a decent contender into a .500 team and a .500 team into a low-70s-win team.

Wieters is a strong starter, and the O's really have nothing resembling a starting major league catcher anywhere else in the organization.

This is pretty much what I meant by catastrophic.

[sevastras]

Another thought that I had is that most teams prefer a defensive catcher over an offensive catcher(we all would rather have both). I for one am willing to sacrifice(Wieters offensive numbers arent really a sacrifice)offense for defense at the catchers position. The position that is difficult for me to understand is having a DH that cant hit. That is their only job.

[Can_of_corn]

If that's the case then I would not buy it. It also doesn't mean I'd dismiss pitch framing and I'd probably need to look at several years etc.. Do you have the ref?

The bottom line is efficiency and economics. We're not the Rays, but even we need to look very closely at extending guys like Nick and Wieters. The Rays (among other teams) have efficiently utilized low cost catching platoons.

What Ref, the part about OPS?

It was part of a framing article I posted to the MLB section last week. The 50 runs saved over 107 innings would be harder to find but that is what one number cruncher came up with for his 2012 season.