Source: O's working on Fernando Rodney...

[clapdiddy]

While I certainly don't want Rodney you can just make a statement like "they could have gotten Matt Garza at a discount". You can't just take Garza's contract, tack on an extra twenty bucks and proclaim he would have signed it. We have no idea if Garza would have signed with the O's and what it would have cost. (or if he could have passed the physical)

I'm wondering if Keith Law is right about Garza's arm. You'd have to think that a ton of other teams would have been in on him at a higher price if he checked out OK.

[Roll Tide]

While I certainly don't want Rodney you can just make a statement like "they could have gotten Matt Garza at a discount". You can't just take Garza's contract, tack on an extra twenty bucks and proclaim he would have signed it. We have no idea if Garza would have signed with the O's and what it would have cost. (or if he could have passed the physical)

Can you say he wouldn't have signed here! Some say he would have relished the extra opportunities to stick it to the Rays.

[Can_of_corn]

Can you say he wouldn't have signed here! Some say he would have relished the extra opportunities to stick it to the Rays.

I am saying we, as fans, have no idea if he would have signed with Baltimore and what it would have cost.

[TradeAngelos]

I am saying we, as fans, have no idea if he would have signed with Baltimore and what it would have cost.

LOL. He signed with the BREWERS. You think he wouldn't have signed here instead for a similar offer or a little more? Yeah, right.

[mdbdotcom]

LOL. He signed with the BREWERS. You think he wouldn't have signed here instead for a similar offer or a little more? Yeah, right.

He did very well in the NL Central. Maybe that's where he wanted to pitch. Also, he may have made some personal connections while pitching for the Cubs that he'd like to be near. Who's to say?

[MrOrange82]

LOL. He signed with the BREWERS. You think he wouldn't have signed here instead for a similar offer or a little more? Yeah, right.

Do you think he would've wanted to risk the damage to his market by going through the Orioles' physical evaluation process and having the results leaked to the public if and when things didn't work out?

For all we know, Garza got the deal he wanted. Or he didn't. Or he might have signed with the O's if they'd made an effort. Or they did, and he didn't want to.

It's all speculative.

[Ripken]

I'd honestly bring in Neshek and Hanrahan and go from there. Just put together about 10 decent relievers (Baltimore + Norfolk) and let Buck figure it out. Rodney is a waste of money.

Where I would spend money is Morales, Santana, and Arroyo. Hell, I'd add all three but I do hate losing the picks...

[clapdiddy]

I'd honestly bring in Neshek and Hanrahan and go from there. Just put together about 10 decent relievers (Baltimore + Norfolk) and let Buck figure it out. Rodney is a waste of money.

Where I would spend money is Morales, Santana, and Arroyo. Hell, I'd add all three but I do hate losing the picks...

I agree about the relievers. I would add either or both of those guys.

[scOtt]

The eyes do it for me too.

And biting her lip. That's what I originally searched on.

[Hank Scorpio]

And biting her lip. That's what I originally searched on.

You mean it wasn't "neck tattoo?"

[Three Run Homer]

Are you capable of making off-the-cuff, player-by-player comparisons of the Orioles and the Rays/A's in order to substantiate the idea that, "hey, if those teams acquired closers, then it must also be a good idea for the Orioles." When you made the above comment, could you actually compare the rosters and finances of the three teams so as to prove your general proposition? Or does your central premise really boil down to "two good teams obtained closers, so doing what they do must also be good for the Orioles"?

If the Orioles, A's, and Rays shared identical circumstances, you'd be hearing far fewer complaints from Orioles fans over how the organization has been run. Unfortunately, those teams do not share identical circumstances, and, unless you've crunched numbers not evidenced by your sarcastic response to a well thought out post, what's good for the Rays/A's goose ain't always good for the O's gander.

Lastly, I feel like I spend half my time in these threads begging people to look up past closer statistics from around baseball, but how many "career" closers are out there right now, in your estimation? Is Balfour a "closer," or is he a guy who's closed for two full years, and didn't become a "closer" until his early/mid-30's? You sound averse to "trying a bunch of guys out" in a "closer" role, and yet many of the top "closers" who emerge each year were failed starters or journeyman relievers before they were put in charge of closing games. Of course, and regardless, all this ignores the idea that having a lone closer might not be the best strategy, which is what socal's post was driving at in the first place.

Yes, I do think the fact that the A's and Rays have paid money to sign veteran closers this offseason is a persuasive piece of evidence that having an established closer to start the season is a good idea for a team that wants to contend. The A's and Rays are two of the best run organizations in baseball. If it's so stupid to spend 5-10 percent of your payroll on a closer, as you and the original poster believe, then explain to me why two very well run organizations are doing exactly that?

As for having a closer by committee--if it's such a great idea, how come almost no major league team has done it, except out of desperation?

I have a hard time seeing what "circumstances" are so different between the A's, Rays and O's that would explain why what's optimal for the A's and Rays would be dumb for the O's. The O's actually have more financial resources than the A's and Rays. All three teams have a core of young, relatively cheap talent that has put them in position to be a championship contender, provided the front office fills in a few key gaps with talent from outside the organization.

Are there cases where it makes sense for a contending team to go into the season with an unproven closer? Sure. If you have an established setup man with outstanding numbers, no major platoon issues and no concerns about ability to handle a closer load, then by all means, save your money. JJ, Koji, Balfour and Benoit are all examples of pitchers who were clear "closers in waiting" and who succeeded.

Alternatively, if you have a young pitcher with breathtaking stuff--a Kimbrell, Rosenthal, Addison Reed--then it can make sense to put him in the closer role right away, although the Tigers' experience with Bruce Rondon last year suggests that this is not a risk-free strategy.

I don't think the O's are in either position. There is no obvious closer-in-waiting on the O's, and there is no phenom waiting at AAA. Tommy Hunter has known platoon issues and can't pitch three straight games. Matusz and O'Day also have serious platoon issues.

Socal and you seem to be willing to bet the season on hoping that Hunter will develop a pitch to get out lefties, even though he's had an entire career to develop a good changeup and hasn't done it yet. Failing that, you hope that Ryan Webb or Josh Stinson or some other guy who hasn't even established himself as a top setup man in the majors can consistently get three outs in the 9th inning without giving up the lead.

And why? Just to save some money. Why is it even necessary to take that kind of risk? The O's have the financial resources to sign Arroyo/Burnett and a real closer.

[Can_of_corn]

And biting her lip. That's what I originally searched on.

I have to wonder if she is a SG?

[Il BuonO]

I'm so glad we're not a stupid organization like Tampa or Oakland. Who needs to spend money on a closer when we can have the fun of spending the year trying a bunch of guys out, and maybe finding someone good by August?

Well, I'm all for some sarcasm but talk about missing the point. I seem to remember Boston going through a couple guys last year before they got to Koji. How'd that work out? Going out and paying a 37 year old reliever is not a panacea for this team. Look, if I had my choice I would preferred they kept Johnson, but it's not the world we live in as supporters of this team. Johnson didn't start out as closer remember? Or did you forget Kevin Gregg? Johnson had to prove himself in that role.

Now I know it's beyond imagination to think that we can ever have our relievers match up from day to day because no manager could possibly handle all the outcomes and the pitchers would be over worked. Oh, wait they do that now. Pitchers would be used accordingly in different situations on different nights. And it would solve the problem of ONE GUY with all the saves. When it comes time for arbitration that matters.

If we were spending money and and had less of a barrier with payroll I'd still think relievers is a bad allocation of payroll because of the few instances when it's been proven otherwise. I'd rather spend on the rotation and guys who can go deeper into games putting less stress on the BP.

[Il BuonO]

As for having a closer by committee--if it's such a great idea, how come almost no major league team has done it, except out of desperation?

Because baseball convention is slow to change? Who knows? Buck said he didn't believe in the save rule but he's always been more comfortable with a proven closer. I really think it's more about continuity. Recently, when asked about Aceves' role Duquette said his job was to get outs. What's the difference at the end of the game?

I have a hard time seeing what "circumstances" are so different between the A's, Rays and O's that would explain why what's optimal for the A's and Rays would be dumb for the O's. The O's actually have more financial resources than the A's and Rays. All three teams have a core of young, relatively cheap talent that has put them in position to be a championship contender, provided the front office fills in a few key gaps with talent from outside the organization.

Are there cases where it makes sense for a contending team to go into the season with an unproven closer? Sure. If you have an established setup man with outstanding numbers, no major platoon issues and no concerns about ability to handle a closer load, then by all means, save your money.

How is O'Day? Other than last year he has platoon splits?

Socal and you seem to be willing to bet the season on hoping that Hunter will develop a pitch to get out lefties, even though he's had an entire career to develop a good changeup and hasn't done it yet. Failing that, you hope that Ryan Webb or Josh Stinson or some other guy who hasn't even established himself as a top setup man in the majors can consistently get three outs in the 9th inning without giving up the lead.

And why? Just to save some money. Why is it even necessary to take that kind of risk? The O's have the financial resources to sign Arroyo/Burnett and a real closer.

Says who? You have some inner knowledge into the warehouse? We all know what they could be spending but as to what will be spent, that's another story. And when there's only so many marbles to go around, yeah I'd prefer to find the next Jim Johnson within the organization instead of sitting through another season of Kevin Gregg having wasted said marbles.

EDIT: On my phone couldn't wrap quoted text.

[quidam]

Well, I'm all for some sarcasm but talk about missing the point. I seem to remember Boston going through a couple guys last year before they got to Koji. How'd that work out? Going out and paying a 37 year old reliever is not a panacea for this team. Look, if I had my choice I would preferred they kept Johnson, but it's not the world we live in as supporters of this team. Johnson didn't start out as closer remember? Or did you forget Kevin Gregg? Johnson had to prove himself in that role.

Now I know it's beyond imagination to think that we can ever have our relievers match up from day to day because no manager could possibly handle all the outcomes and the pitchers would be over worked. Oh, wait they do that now. Pitchers would be used accordingly in different situations on different nights. And it would solve the problem of ONE GUY with all the saves. When it comes time for arbitration that matters.

If we were spending money and and had less of a barrier with payroll I'd still think relievers is a bad allocation of payroll because of the few instances when it's been proven otherwise. I'd rather spend on the rotation and guys who can go deeper into games putting less stress on the BP.

So instead of one guy getting the saves you have 2-3 guys accumulating 15+ saves with each of their agents claiming in arbitration/free agency they should be as regarded as a closer. I fail to see how that is cost efficient.

The problem is not with one guy getting all the saves, its the fact that the Orioles did not trade him a couple of off-seasons ago when they should have.

Huston Street was traded for an organization's top 10 prospect. Hanrahan was traded for 2 former top 10 organizational prospects and a pitcher in Melancon who had a 2.5 WAR season. Both pitchers had similar salaries to Johnson from a couple of years ago and had success in the closer's role.

Do I want Rodney? No, but saying to plug anyone into the role, such as Wright this year is just as crazy.