Possible Solutions to the Wieters problem

[MagicBird]

It should be self-evident but my assumption was that the problem has been addressed on multiple other threads. The question is now that he has accepted the QO is there anything we can do besides simply paying the $15.8M and moving on.

If it needs to be explicit, the problem is we have $15M committed to a player that is likely to be worth less than that, and plays a position that we have covered with a cheap alternative. It effectively prevents us from fielding a competitive team in 2016.

I seriously doubt the team would have made the QO if they felt it would keep them from being competitive in 2016.

[Can_of_corn]

Not when Joseph is capable of catching 120 and putting up 2 WAR for $500K.

What evidence do you have that Joseph can catch 120 games in a season?

He's been playing professional baseball for eight years and his career high in GS at catcher is 95.

What possible basis do you have for projecting him at 120 games?

[ArtVanDelay]

After him accepting the QO this year, I don't know how anyone could think getting a comp pick next year is reasonable.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Let's say he catches 120 games and puts up a 3 WAR season or better.

That isn't worth a QO?

Yes I know that is far from a lock to happen.

Yeah, what he said.

He put up 0.8 WAR in 75 games this year and was widely expected to decline the QO. I don't see how expecting him to be offered a QO next year is unreasonable in any way.

[weams]

Yeah, what he said.

He put up 0.8 WAR in 75 games this year and was widely expected to decline the QO. I don't see how expecting him to be offered a QO next year is unreasonable in any way.

Buck would want him to accept.

[DrungoHazewood]

What problem?

Exactly. You platoon Wieters and Joseph, one way or another. You play Clevenger at DH or 1B, and use him as the emergency catcher. Every once in a while if you get the itch, or a good looking matchup you might play Wieters at 1B or DH, as long as you don't make a habit out of it. The "problem" seems to be that you lost a little bit of wiggle room in the budget. Figure something out.

[weams]

Exactly. You platoon Wieters and Joseph, one way or another. You play Clevenger at DH or 1B, and use him as the emergency catcher. Every once in a while if you get the itch, or a good looking matchup you might play Wieters at 1B or DH, as long as you don't make a habit out of it. The "problem" seems to be that you lost a little bit of wiggle room in the budget. Figure something out.

Some folks were counting on a budget that would approach 50 million dollars per year in new acquisitions. They now know that dream is dead. The end.

[DrungoHazewood]

It effectively prevents us from fielding a competitive team in 2016.

That seems hyperbolic. And even if it's true it's a matter of degree, I suppose you could believe this pushes the median projection from 76 wins to 74 and that's below your threshold of plausible contention. But saying this is it, this took the team from a plausible playoff birth to not seems like an obvious exaggeration.

Let's say they didn't have Wieters and could use the $15M on anything. Likely case is that money buys two wins. The only way that's a huge impact is if you're VERY certain they're now an 87-win team.

Not when Joseph is capable of catching 120 and putting up 2 WAR for $500K.

Again, that seems like a matter of some debate. Is that possible? Sure. Has Joseph ever done this in his eight-year professional career? Nope. He's never caught 100 games in any professional season, not even among multiple teams in a year (well, there was that one year he just crossed the threshold if you include AFL games).

[DrungoHazewood]

Some folks were counting on a budget that would approach 50 million dollars per year in new acquisitions. They now know that dream is dead. The end.

I suppose. We'll see soon enough.

[xKHx]

Exactly. You platoon Wieters and Joseph, one way or another. You play Clevenger at DH or 1B, and use him as the emergency catcher. Every once in a while if you get the itch, or a good looking matchup you might play Wieters at 1B or DH, as long as you don't make a habit out of it. The "problem" seems to be that you lost a little bit of wiggle room in the budget. Figure something out.

So we are replacing Davis with Leave it to Cleaver and Wieters..... That sounds like winning....

[DrungoHazewood]

So we are replacing Davis with Leave it to Cleaver and Wieters..... That sounds like winning....

Who said Cleavinger was the sole solution to replacing Davis? Maybe Davis replaces Davis and Clevenger DHs some. Who was the DH this year? Paredes? I think Clevenger could at least hold serve there.

[mcgraw238]

Some folks were counting on a budget that would approach 50 million dollars per year in new acquisitions. They now know that dream is dead. The end.

And some folks were hoping to watch some playoff games in Baltimore for the 2016 season. Unfortunately, that goal took a hit today with nearly $16M allocated to a diminishing non-impact asset. I don't blame DD for offering the QO, just not the desired result.

[weams]

And some folks were hoping to watch some playoff games in Baltimore for the 2016 season. Unfortunately, that goal took a hit today with nearly $16M allocated to a diminishing non-impact asset. I don't blame DD for offering the QO, just not the desired result.

I am still hoping along with you for some of those playoff games. I hope Matt can help us win a few. We did not have that chance with him last time.

[weams]

And some folks were hoping to watch some playoff games in Baltimore for the 2016 season. Unfortunately, that goal took a hit today with nearly $16M allocated to a diminishing non-impact asset. I don't blame DD for offering the QO, just not the desired result.

As a one year deal, I'm not so overly worried. Are you? I mean, it's not like when your Shortstop tears his labrum in a Spring collision with your second baseman who later tears his PCL.

[Crazysilver03]

Yeah, what he said.

He put up 0.8 WAR in 75 games this year and was widely expected to decline the QO. I don't see how expecting him to be offered a QO next year is unreasonable in any way.

I never said him getting a QO was unreasonable. I said him netting a comp pick shouldnt be counted on.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

I never said him getting a QO was unreasonable. I said him netting a comp pick shouldnt be counted on.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

You said reasonable.

I think it is reasonable.

I am not counting on it.