Possible Solutions to the Wieters problem

[JLee2027]

Problem? What problem? The Orioles are notorious for physicals, which I would guess they made Weiters take before making a QO.

[Can_of_corn]

No physical either. It's guaranteed once it's accepted.

I was joking that time...note the emoticon.

I wasn't sure about cutting him...not that I think it would have happened even if it had been an option.

[weams]

No physical either. It's guaranteed once it's accepted.

Good heads ups!

[Can_of_corn]

A sub 2 WAR player is going to be taking up ~12%~ of our payroll.

As opposed to Ubaldo, Hardy, Markakis and Roberts in recent years?

[Aristotelian]

A buyout? Lol

Why would he have accepted the QO if his plan was to negotiate a buyout? This makes no sense at all.

Explained above. He would be able to hit the market without a comp pick attached. He could be looking at 4/$40 (plus the buyout cash) instead of 4/$32. He would be hitting the market without comp pick attached at Age 30 instead of Age 31 with compensation required (in the best case scenario).

[weams]

As opposed to Ubaldo, Hardy, Markakis and Roberts in recent years?

A .8 WAR "Half Season" player.

[Aristotelian]

As opposed to Ubaldo, Hardy, Markakis and Roberts in recent years?

That is exactly the problem. All good comparisons. We can carry a couple of those guys but the fewer the better. There is no way DD was planning on this and no way that this is a good thing for our chances in 2016. It is not a multi-year disaster because it is only one year, but I really don't see any plausible pathway for us to contend. Maybe Gausman magically turns into Kershaw?

[weams]

That is exactly the problem. All good comparisons. We can carry a couple of those guys but the fewer the better. There is no way DD was planning on this and no way that this is a good thing for our chances in 2016. It is not a multi-year disaster because it is only one year, but I really don't see any plausible pathway for us to contend. Maybe Gausman magically turns into Kershaw?

Pretty good take.

[Ripken]

And, what problem?

$41M to Wieters, Hardy, and Jimenez.

[Morgan423]

This isn't too bad from the O's perspective. Like others have mentioned, Wieters can play 1B, C, DH.

Also, as far as money goes, it's not horrible for an established player. In terms of money spent per WAR, league average for a veteran player means that he has to put up, what... 2 - 2.5 WAR this year to hit a good return on the QO? He can do that if he stays healthy, so this is basically the Orioles gambling that he will.

[sportsfan8703]

A sub 2 WAR player is going to be taking up ~12%~ of our payroll.

Gotta have somebody on the books. Alot of people on here always talk about the fear of handing out multi year deals. At least this is only 1 year. Maybe now we won't have to hand out a multi year deal to a mediocre corner guy.

This isn't the best situation. But at least we have someone. I'm not trying to see us go back to the dark days. He does have upside. He has power and defense at the C spot. If need be we could trade him at the deadline for a prospect further along and probably just as good as the draft pick.

[Can_of_corn]

That is exactly the problem. All good comparisons. We can carry a couple of those guys but the fewer the better. There is no way DD was planning on this and no way that this is a good thing for our chances in 2016. It is not a multi-year disaster because it is only one year, but I really don't see any plausible pathway for us to contend. Maybe Gausman magically turns into Kershaw?

Considering the team made the playoffs twice with those guys on the roster it makes one wonder how big a problem it is to have a couple of them on the roster in any given year.

At least this one isn't signed to a four year deal.

[BohKnowsBmore]

A sub 2 WAR player is going to be taking up ~12%~ of our payroll.

On a one year deal. Wasn't the doom and gloom inspired by us Losing these guys?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[weams]

$41M to Wieters, Hardy, and Jimenez.

And all done by the end of 2017.

[Larry18]

I was joking that time...note the emoticon.

I wasn't sure about cutting him...not that I think it would have happened even if it had been an option.

I thought you were but wanted to clarify the rule. I don't want to give the impression that there is an easy solution.