Os Sign O'Day for 4 Years - It's official

[Sanfran327]

I am not sure moving O'Day to closer makes sense. He is SO good in the setup role and there are no guarantees it will translate to the closer spot. Why not keep Britton in place, unless you can get a great piece for him - which is hard to imagine, given Dan's spotty trade history. If we could afford it, I would much prefer to keep O'Day and Britton in their current roles. But I guess time will tell.

I prefer O'Day in the 8th only because he's been a little bit prone to giving up a HR here and there. They have not always translated into losses because we've been able to come back and tie it up or win it after he takes the mound, but that won't always be the case if he's pitching in the 9th. I'd rather keep Britton and his filthy sinker in his current role as our closer.

[crawjo]

I think O'Day currently occupies a more valuable position in our bullpen than the closer does. Showalter uses him very effectively and he's great at killing rallies in the late innings. I don't agree with the idea that your best bullpen arm should always be the closer.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why wouldn't it?

Magic closer pixie dust. If you blow a save or two in your first eight or ten opportunities you don't have it and never will.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think O'Day currently occupies a more valuable position in our bullpen than the closer does. Showalter uses him very effectively and he's great at killing rallies in the late innings. I don't agree with the idea that your best bullpen arm should always be the closer.

I've long thought that your best reliever should be the guy you don't care if he starts and inning or comes in mid-stream, and isn't going to complain if he comes into the 7th or 8th or 9th. Then your 2nd or 3rd best guy can start every ninth with the bases empty. That was the case in the Jim Johnson years.

[Can_of_corn]

Magic closer pixie dust. If you blow a save or two in your first eight or ten opportunities you don't have it and never will.

But even if someone were to believe that O'Day did a fine job closing last year when Britton was dinged up. He had four saves in 14.2 innings in Sept/Oct.

[DrungoHazewood]

But even if someone were to believe that O'Day did a fine job closing last year when Britton was dinged up. He had four saves in 14.2 innings in Sept/Oct.

But he knew the season was over and Britton would be back, so the full weight of the closer role wasn't crushing his spirit and soul.

[SteveO]

O'Day (33) 4/$31mm

Soria (32) 3/$25mm

Madson (35) 3/$22mm

If we had to have one of these contracts, I'd prefer O'Day's. I still wouldn't have done it, but I guess in this environment it's not outrageous.

Kinda my view on it also.

To get maximum value from what your paying DOD though, the Orioles will have to acquire enough talent at other positions of need to ensure that numbers that DOD puts up are in high leverage situations.

IMO a guy like O'Day has far more value to a team that wins 95 games than one that wins 75 as this means a greater % of his appearances occur in high leverage, game on the line type situations . I guess you can make a case for any player being more valuable on a winning team but when it comes to high priced relievers, at the very least you feel a hellava lot better paying a guy 8 million to setup or close a victory than to put up nice numbers in mop up duty.

[DrungoHazewood]

Kinda my view on it also.

To get maximum value from what your paying DOD though, the Orioles will have to acquire enough talent at other positions of need to ensure that numbers that DOD puts up are in high leverage situations.

IMO a guy like O'Day has far more value to a team that wins 95 games than one that wins 75 as this means a greater % of his appearances occur in high leverage, game on the line type situations . I guess you can make a case for any player being more valuable on a winning team but when it comes to high priced relievers, at the very least you feel a hellava lot better paying a guy 8 million to setup or close a victory than to put up nice numbers in mop up duty.

How many more high leverage situations does a good team have? I think poor teams have almost as many, but fewer games where they're ahead by 3+ runs.

[Frobby]

How many more high leverage situations does a good team have? I think poor teams have almost as many, but fewer games where they're ahead by 3+ runs.

I think it's pretty random. The AL team that pitched the most in high-leverage situations in 2015 was Seattle (1318 PA) and the second was Tampa (1296). The two lowest were Cleveland (939) and Toronto (1006). Note that Tampa and Cleveland had nearly identical records (80-82 vs. 81-80), yet one team pitched in 357 more high leverage situations than the other.

[Bradysburns]

Why wouldn't it?

I don't have a pat answer for you. But I think people talk about a "closer mentality." And that is unique in terms of relievers. You hear about closers who never want to enter the game with men on base... etc.

But think about it. If O'Day comes in and has men on base, the mentality is a bit different. He didn't put those men on. He's simply coming in to slam the door shut.

With a closer, you generally start with no men on base. You have a clean slate. So you're whole focus is on getting three outs, even if you got a couple guys running around making things exciting (see Jim Johnson years).

I could be wrong, but I just think the closer role is unique. And it's like a starting QB in the NFL. It's not nearly as hard to come into the game in the third quarter and save the day. It's much harder to start as the established quarterback -- with the whole thing riding on your shoulders from the get-go. Similarly, a spot close here and there doesn't seem the same as being anointed the closer, with all the expectations that come with it.

Plus, why screw with a formula that's clearly working?

[Can_of_corn]

I don't have a pat answer for you. But I think people talk about a "closer mentality." And that is unique in terms of relievers. You hear about closers who never want to enter the game with men on base... etc.

But think about it. If O'Day comes in and has men on base, the mentality is a bit different. He didn't put those men on. He's simply coming in to slam the door shut.

With a closer, you generally start with no men on base. You have a clean slate. So you're whole focus is on getting three outs, even if you got a couple guys running around making things exciting (see Jim Johnson years).

I could be wrong, but I just think the closer role is unique. And it's like a starting QB in the NFL. It's not nearly as hard to come into the game in the third quarter and save the day. It's much harder to start as the established quarterback -- with the whole thing riding on your shoulders from the get-go. Similarly, a spot close here and there doesn't seem the same as being anointed the closer, with all the expectations that come with it.

Plus, why screw with a formula that's clearly working?

But O'Day had six saves last season, including a stretch where he was the de facto closer. He had four in 2014.

If he couldn't handle the job from a mental standpoint wouldn't it have come up?

[NATTYBO's]

O'Day (33) 4/$31mm

Soria (32) 3/$25mm

Madson (35) 3/$22mm

If we had to have one of these contracts, I'd prefer O'Day's. I still wouldn't have done it, but I guess in this environment it's not outrageous.

If you look at O'Day over his career he has had surprisingly great numbers not just wen he came to Baltimore. Besides his rookie year and his injury year his highest ERA was 2.28....thats what he's getting paid for

[Bradysburns]

But O'Day had six saves last season, including a stretch where he was the de facto closer. He had four in 2014.

If he couldn't handle the job from a mental standpoint wouldn't it have come up?

That's the question, for sure. You seem to think it has been answered. I don't agree. If we trade Britton, we'll find out.

It does seem like a strange risk to take, though. If they signed O'Day planning to let Britton go, how is that a good move, unless they think Britton will garner more in arbitration over the next few years? In that case, they might save a few million at best... in exchange for whatever prospects we can get for Britton, and something of an experiment with O'Day at closer.

Perhaps that does turn out to be a good move... but it's far from a no-brainer, IMO.

I guess my ultimate point is: I really hope they keep both of them!! I am NOT in the trade-Britton camp.

[Can_of_corn]

That's the question, for sure. You seem to think it has been answered. I don't agree. If we trade Britton, we'll find out.

It does seem like a strange risk to take, though. If they signed O'Day planning to let Britton go, how is that a good move, unless they think Britton will garner more in arbitration over the next few years? In that case, they might save a few million at best... in exchange for whatever prospects we can get for Britton, and something of an experiment with O'Day at closer.

Perhaps that does turn out to be a good move... but it's far from a no-brainer, IMO.

I guess my ultimate point is: I really hope they keep both of them!! I am NOT in the trade-Britton camp.

I'm just thinking here but I am guessing for every "quality" reliever who wilted when put in the closer role the rest of us can name three that took over the job with little or no issues.

[srock]

For the right return I trade Britton. But I'll be pleased to keep him as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk