Jump to content

Bastardo and Sipp prediction could make Matusz a bargain


wildcard

Recommended Posts

McFarland or Cabral are low cost options. A guy who can only get LH out is usually not difficult to find. The LH in the bullpen is not something I'm worried about now. We have about 10 bigger problems, and I don't see us doing much to address them.
Can you name them? I count 5 or 6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McFarland or Cabral are low cost options. A guy who can only get LH out is usually not difficult to find. The LH in the bullpen is not something I'm worried about now. We have about 10 bigger problems, and I don't see us doing much to address them.

I agree there are bigger problems, but they require money to fix them. The O's have to know whether they will non tender Matusz or if the market has increased to the point that his salary is in line with his production.

I kind of like the McFarland idea after I looked at the numbers. He is not as good vs lefties as Matusz but he may do well enough. That allows the O's to spend the 3M elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c

1b

ss

lf

rf

dh

sp

sp

sp

bp

Ridiculous. We made the playoffs with Caleb, Hardy is still a GG caliber SS, We have holes in LF, RF DH and 1B, We need a TOR SP, but since we can't afford one we should sign two for depth. We have a great bullpen even without O'Day. That makes 6 by my count. What's the point in making things worse than they are? They are already bad enough to make most gloom and doomers happy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLBTR's predictions for lefty relievers:

Bastardo 3/15

Tony Sipp 3/12

They seem to make the projection for the O's to keep Matusz at an arbitration rate of 1/3.4 a move worth making for the O's.

What do you think?

I'll burn a third round pick every draft on LH College RP before I give Bastardo or Sipp a three year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must spread rep. Can we sticky this point?

Teams that trade draft picks to be able to handle the current roster and stay under a hard cap from ownership should not pay a left-handed pitcher 3.4 million even if the roster construction stays well under the budget in a future year. Right. Not even if there are chances of him being a valuable commodity to trade later in the season at that level of compensation. No one will ever trade for Dana Eveland. You can pick those guys up off the scrap heap any time during the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams that trade draft picks to be able to handle the current roster and stay under a hard cap from ownership should not pay a left-handed pitcher 3.4 million even if the roster construction stays well under the budget in a future year. Right. Not even if there are chances of him being a valuable commodity to trade later in the season at that level of compensation. No one will ever trade for Dana Eveland. You can pick those guys up off the scrap heap any time during the season.

Amen. And thanks for Bird II. Ironically, again, I must spread rep. Consider this an IOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams that trade draft picks to be able to handle the current roster and stay under a hard cap from ownership should not pay a left-handed pitcher 3.4 million even if the roster construction stays well under the budget in a future year. Right. Not even if there are chances of him being a valuable commodity to trade later in the season at that level of compensation. No one will ever trade for Dana Eveland. You can pick those guys up off the scrap heap any time during the season.

Are you equating Brian Matusz with Dana Eveland? If so, that's s terrible comparison. Stats as a reliever:

Matusz; 3.16 ERA, .648 OPSA

Eveland: 4.71 ERA, .792 OPSA

The argument can be made for jettisoning Matusz, but the availability of guys like Dana Eveland isn't one of them.

Since becoming a reliever in 2012, Matusz has been the 57th most valuable reliever in MLB (2.3 fWAR). There are 30 teams in MLB; do the math. He's not spectacular and he has to be used in a limited way, but he does have value. He's not the type of guy who is freely available off the scrap heap. That's a fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you equating Brian Matusz with Dana Eveland? If so, that's s terrible comparison. Stats as a reliever:

Matusz; 3.16 ERA, .648 OPSA

Eveland: 4.71 ERA, .792 OPSA

The argument can be made for jettisoning Matusz, but the availability of guys like Dana Eveland isn't one of them.

Since becoming a reliever in 2012, Matusz has been the 57th most valuable reliever in MLB (2.3 fWAR). There are 30 teams in MLB; do the math. He's not spectacular and he has to be used in a limited way, but he does have value. He's not the type of guy who is freely available off the scrap heap. That's a fantasy.

I was making a joke about when we traded for Dana. I know that Brian's stats as a loogy make him look much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous. We made the playoffs with Caleb, Hardy is still a GG caliber SS, We have holes in LF, RF DH and 1B, We need a TOR SP, but since we can't afford one we should sign two for depth. We have a great bullpen even without O'Day. That makes 6 by my count. What's the point in making things worse than they are? They are already bad enough to make most gloom and doomers happy.

All of the things I listed are much more important than which mediocre LH we call a LOOGY.

Just because we made the playoffs with Caleb and JJ doesn't mean that their contributions, or lack there of, are less of an issue than LH BP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was making a joke about when we traded for Dana. I know that Brian's stats as a loogy make him look much better.

Oh, OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell when you're kidding. You're subtle that way.

One of these days I'm going to research how much teams spend on relievers and how many guys make $2 mm+, $3mm+, $4mm+, etc., and who they are and what they do. I think the argument that says (1) every year there are lots of good reluevers making under $2mm, (2) therefore, you should never pay $3mm for a reliever who is just sort of average, is an oversimplification. I think this is an under analyzed topic. Teams can burn through a lot of bad relievers trying to find the good one who is cheap. Some years you have better luck with this than others. The O's have had pretty good luck separating the wheat from the chaff the last four years -- maybe it is skill and not luck -- but it doesn't hurt to have some guys who have been reasonably consistent so that you don't have to build more than half your bullpen that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since becoming a reliever in 2012, Matusz has been the 57th most valuable reliever in MLB (2.3 fWAR). There are 30 teams in MLB; do the math. He's not spectacular and he has to be used in a limited way, but he does have value. He's not the type of guy who is freely available off the scrap heap. That's a fantasy.

Like I intoned earlier, there are people on this board who are sick of seeing the name and call for his head every time he makes a mistake. I read it all the time especially in the game threads. They don't know how good he's been.

That said, if it comes down to the team needing that money, I'd rather they spend it on someone like John Jaso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Posts

    • emmett16 is right. Uppercut swings produce a lot of groundouts because the bat is not on the same plane as the ball for very long. The best swing stays on the same plane as the ball for a longer time. This will produce contact that creates backspin on the ball which makes it carry. That Ted Williams book is one of the best hitting books ever written.
    • I have to admit. I'm an addict. I'm an addict not of booze or drugs. I'm an addict for baseball .... It's still THE game for me and I love almost any team sport. But for me, when it's great, it's still the greatest game of them all. I hate to say it, but when my team wins ...it's like a hit of crack or coke and I have never and will never try those drugs. This one is a better high anyway. It's an adrenaline rush for me. It comes from my heart and soul. Like the other night in Anaheim I sat transfixed on the game. I dont need to look at the silly shell games on a scoreboard, nor hear what the players favorite singer is.. or eat a lot of junk, but I DO have to have my bag of peanuts. The Orioles were clinging to a one run lead, when, with the bases loaded, Mike Trout stepped up to the plate...a single and the game is tied...an extra base hit and the Orioles lose. Our pitcher Craig Kimbrel had to throw a strike to one of the all time greats, and somehow, someway, Trout looked at a third strike and the Orioles won. I lept into the air as if I had a million dollars on the game. I never bet on sports, but this was a better high than winning any bet anyway. Because it is pure and it comes from my deep place of caring when the 'Birds' win. Today in Anaheim, another nail biter, the game was in the ninth with two out and a runner on first. Suddenly the runner broke for second and catcher James McCann threw a strike to second base. Gunnar Henderson covering, made the tag and the ump called the runner out. And the game ended that way. Bang Bang. Personally I thought it was a blown call, but after review the call was upheld and the Orioles won another nail biter. I dont watch many other games, but every night I hit the crack pipe" of baseball. It's my addiction. I also love watching fantastic performers. Mookie Betts is an electric ballplayer . can do anything at the plate and in the field. The Orioles' Henderson is a must see ballplayer like Betts is. On Wednesday he hit a home run, a double, a single, drove in 3 runs got hit by a pitch , stole a base and made two game saving plays in the field. Baseball is a team sport but it's also watching the brilliant, mesmerizing individual performances. It's watching the best players in the world do what I think is the most difficult thing in sports , hit a baseball, throw a baseball, and field a baseball. It's hard to do. Anyway,it's still just April and it's a long, long season. Bryant Gumble once had a great line about the difference between football and baseball. He said "Baseball, is a never ending romance, but football is a one night stand." Yep, I'm an addict, a baseball junkie, and I make no apologies for it. I'll never go to rehab for my baseball addiction. I don't NEED to be cured. And I never will be. Jim Bouton said it best in "Ball Four" his great book. "In all the years you grip a baseball...you suddenly remember, it's really the other way around" Exactly.
    • Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
    • I think you have a good understanding and I assume you’ve read Ted Williams Science of Hitting.  It’s all about lining up planes of pitch and bat.  Historically with sinkers and low strikes a higher attack angle played and was more in alignment with pitch plane.  In today’s game of spin and high zone fastball an uppercut swing gives you minimal chance and results in top spin grounders and swing & miss. 
    • I'll bow to your expertise even if it seems unlikely to my laymen understanding. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...