Jump to content

Should the Orioles have given Miller 4/$36M ?


Should the O's have paid the man?  

128 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the O's have paid the man?

    • Yes, they should have been aggressive.
    • No way, bullpen arms are too unreliable year-to-year

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It sounds as if there are a lot of posters that are comfortable with us finishing behind the Yanks and Sox next season.

I don't think that's true. I think there are a lot of posters who agree that passing on Miller at 4/36 was the right move. That doesn't equate to them being comfortable finishing behind the likes of Boston and NY. It it equates to them agreeing that it was a smart baseball decision. Count me in as one of those. As dominant as Miller has been recently, he just isn't worth that kind of money. Obviously, some will disagree and complain that the O's should've signed him (or tried harder to sign him). And that's what message boards are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty clear that free agents get paid based on their PAST performance, not on what they actually deliver once they are signed.

Andrew Miller pitched as well as Andrew Miller is ever going to pitch in 2014, imho.

Nasty, filthy, yes indeed. But past is past. The question is whether he might pitch that well for the next four years (or even next year). And the experience with bullpen arms is that year to year is often a dicey business to predict.

I would have like to have had him in 2015 but not at 4 years/36.

I will go out on a limb here and predict that all of our departing free agents, Nick, Nelson and Andrew will perform significantly worse in 2015 than they did in 2014 for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would be an anchor to the pen for 4 years whether he closed or set up. With our SP a strong pen is essential and worth the investment.

Yes, when a 5-6 inning SP is given millions and hailed as doing a great job to pitch so few innings per game, even going so far as to call such a start in many cases, a quality start, I say pay super relievers what the market has set. Much more wear and tear on a 200 inning/year arm than most relievers arms, especially one who can set up or close. After coming so close in 2014 with only part of our team available, it should be a no brainer to keep the team together for at least one more year, and try to win it all with that team. Now that team has been gutted, when keeping the three that have been let go, plus adding 1 or 2 relatively minor parts would have given that team a real shot in 2015. Hard telling when such another opportunity like that will come along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

  • Create New...