Still think O's were wrong on Balfour?

[weams]

That (and what Stotle said) makes more sense. I can see the logic behind "based on his medicals we'll risk $7M, but not $15M."

Absolutely. As I said. I stand corrected and I defer to those who have a clearer viewpoint.

[Guest]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>After Balfour's latest blowup, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Rays&src=hash">#Rays</a> Maddon says it is now closer by committee. As for Balfour: "something's not clicking right now"</p>— Marc Topkin (@TBTimes_Rays) <a href="

">June 9, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[crawjo]

Interesting to me how all the closer options debated last offseason--Tommy Hunter, Jim Johnson, and Grant Balfour--have been pretty bad this year. And yet, the A's already seem to have a good closer in Doolittle, the Orioles seem like they might have found something with Britton, and the Rays do have some good internal options if they decide to do it. It underscores for me the fact that there are only a small handful of relievers who are so elite that they are worth paying significant dollars for. Otherwise, better to just see how it plays out and promote somebody internally if necessary. Closer experience is close to a meaningless qualification. We all would do well to remember that the next time the Orioles are fretting over who their closer should be in the upcoming season.

[Can_of_corn]

Interesting to me how all the closer options debated last offseason--Tommy Hunter, Jim Johnson, and Grant Balfour--have been pretty bad this year. And yet, the A's already seem to have a good closer in Doolittle, the Orioles seem like they might have found something with Britton, and the Rays do have some good internal options if they decide to do it. It underscores for me the fact that there are only a small handful of relievers who are so elite that they are worth paying significant dollars for. Otherwise, better to just see how it plays out and promote somebody internally if necessary. Closer experience is close to a meaningless qualification. We all would do well to remember that the next time the Orioles are fretting over who their closer should be in the upcoming season.

I hope to see the day that Managers and GM's remember it.

[Stotle]

I don't believe that there is any way that anybody could assert that right now.

Jimenez has had several good starts, several average starts, and several absolutely horrific starts.

He may wind up being a bad one-year investment, he may wind up being a good one or two-year (but bad 4-year) investment, and he may wind up being a good 4-year investment.

As Hazewood stated, we won't know that until about 2 or 3 years passes.

I disagree. We can have a general idea as to what the overall production will look like and I can absolutely form a reasoned opinion that the production is not worth what Baltimore paid, particularly with cost controlled pitching in the pipeline (and the strength of the system), and a need to find position players in the coming years.

[DrungoHazewood]

I disagree. We can have a general idea as to what the overall production will look like and I can absolutely form a reasoned opinion that the production is not worth what Baltimore paid, particularly with cost controlled pitching in the pipeline (and the strength of the system), and a need to find position players in the coming years.

I think we have a pretty good idea what Ubaldo's value is, and it will probably look something like his last 4, 5, 6 years. And in that time he's been worth over 24 wins, at least by Fangraphs' reckoning. 20ish by rWAR. It's not implausible that he's paid for 2 wins a year and provides 3. Maybe it's more reasonable to expect 2.

If you're a franchise that can't tolerate 2-3 wins out of a free agent you paid to get 2 wins from you're operating under some pretty extreme constrains.

[Stotle]

I think we have a pretty good idea what Ubaldo's value is, and it will probably look something like his last 4, 5, 6 years. And in that time he's been worth over 24 wins, at least by Fangraphs' reckoning. 20ish by rWAR. It's not implausible that he's paid for 2 wins a year and provides 3. Maybe it's more reasonable to expect 2.

If you're a franchise that can't tolerate 2-3 wins out of a free agent you paid to get 2 wins from you're operating under some pretty extreme constrains.

You're a regression guy, right? High maintenance mechanics out of a big, limby body tend to age well?

You're missing my point re: constraints. We know with fair certainty Baltimore does not currently have in-house replacements for the likes of Davis, Wieters, Markakis. We have young arms that are promising. If you have a limited amount of free agent money to spend, why are you filling a short term hole (pitching) with a long term solution (4 years of risky free agent pitching investment)? Why on earth are you not overpaying for the one year or, maybe, two year contract? Four? For Jimenez? The numbers will probably work out with him being "worth it" or at least close to it. Meanwhile, I guess we'll wait and see what they do on the positional side.

[DrungoHazewood]

You're a regression guy, right? High maintenance mechanics out of a big, limby body tend to age well?

You're missing my point re: constraints. We know with fair certainty Baltimore does not currently have in-house replacements for the likes of Davis, Wieters, Markakis. We have young arms that are promising. If you have a limited amount of free agent money to spend, why are you filling a short term hole (pitching) with a long term solution (4 years of risky free agent pitching investment)? Why on earth are you not overpaying for the one year or, maybe, two year contract? Four? For Jimenez? The numbers will probably work out with him being "worth it" or at least close to it. Meanwhile, I guess we'll wait and see what they do on the positional side.

If and when the young pitchers work out you can trade from a strength to fill other holes.

[Stotle]

If and when the young pitchers work out you can trade from a strength to fill other holes.

Trade for other prospects? Trade for expensive established players? Flesh it out and follow to conclusion.

[DrungoHazewood]

Trade for other prospects? Trade for expensive established players? Flesh it out and follow to conclusion.

Established.

[Stotle]

Established.

So you'll trade your cheap young players for more expensive established players to go with your more expensive free agent established players? That doesn't seem like a sustainable model on any payroll I can envision Baltimore operating on.

[DrungoHazewood]

So you'll trade your cheap young players for more expensive established players to go with your more expensive free agent established players? That doesn't seem like a sustainable model on any payroll I can envision Baltimore operating on.

I doubt I'd make a trade that violated the budget constraints set by the owner. There's a wide continuum of "established" players from Mike Trout to David Lough. Some more expensive than others.

[Stotle]

I doubt I'd make a trade that violated the budget constraints set by the owner. There's a wide continuum of "established" players from Mike Trout to David Lough. Some more expensive than others.

True but we can agree with the general idea that the less expensive the established player is from a salary standpoint the more expensive they are from a trade piece standpoint. So if Baltimore is trading prospects for affordable, potential impact bats, it is going to be maybe one really good bat and maybe one more solid first division bat, right? I mean, the system has some talent up top, but it's not likely to see a big influx of talent before the next draft, and those guys won't be traded until the following July. So basically, look at the pieces you have now and try to figure who you might be able to land.

Again, I'm doubtful that ultimately plays, and of course you're trading your pitching depth so hopefully the more expensive Jimenez doesn't end up in a situation where you are eating a chunk of the contract for below value performance (which we have to acknowledge is a possibility).

[OFFNY]

I don't think they were wrong about his performance. They were wrong about making him their big four-year investment.

I don't believe that there is any way that anybody could assert that right now.

Jimenez has had several good starts, several average starts, and several absolutely horrific starts.

He may wind up being a bad one-year investment, he may wind up being a good one or two-year (but bad 4-year) investment, and he may wind up being a good 4-year investment.

As Hazewood stated, we won't know that until about 2 or 3 years passes.

I disagree. We can have a general idea as to what the overall production will look like and I can absolutely form a reasoned opinion that the production is not worth what Baltimore paid, particularly with cost controlled pitching in the pipeline (and the strength of the system), and a need to find position players in the coming years.

Well, I'm on the other side of the fence if you are going to make any kind of presumption about his performance for the rest of this year, plus the next 3 years (which I don't, but you are saying that you do.)

If you are going to presume that Jimenez is at least an average-to-above average starting pitcher that can stay healthy over the next few years, then he will (at the very least) be a major cog in holding down the fort UNTIL those potential star pitchers (such as Bundy, Harvey, Gausman, Rodriguez, etc.) are ready to be here and contribute on a regular basis. And to me, that makes his contract (expensive at $12.5 Million per year, but not extraordinarily expensive at $20 - $25 Million per year) very much worth it.

In fact, I believe that we are seeing it already, in the short-term. With Miguel Gonzalez going down, Tillman struggling as badly as he has been (he may or may not be due to an injury that he may not be being forthright about. We'll find out soon enough), combined with the fact that Showalter has been toying with the possibility of a 6-man or a "5 and-a-half-man" rotation, Jimenez' presence ...... in spite of his latest disastrous outing ...... is very much a stabilizing force on the team overall, in my view.

[Uli2001]

Maybe Peter Angelos' doctors know something, after all...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11056097/tampa-bay-rays-replace-closer-grant-balfour-committee