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

[Can_of_corn]

I think this is the only legitimate criticism.

However, it's one I don't share.

Getting performances that exceed their cost are never going to hurt you.

O'Day is as good a bet as any other FA to sign to this point to do that imo.

That sounds good but just isn't true. Merely getting excess value can't be the goal. You still have to field an entire team within a set budget.

[Sanfran327]

That sounds good but just isn't true. Merely getting excess value can't be the goal. You still have to field an entire team within a set budget.

O'Day may be just a relief pitcher, but he's still used in ultra-high leverage situations. Our investment in him is an investment in our ability to preserve a lead; arguably more important than the closer role itself. He may be a bit of a luxury expense, but one that I'm glad we retained. I hope I'm still saying that 4 years from today though.

[SpinJr]

That sounds good but just isn't true. Merely getting excess value can't be the goal. You still have to field an entire team within a set budget.

I think this year though they should make an exception to MW's one year contract in terms of a set budget. Pump the budget up to 145 just for this year. Adding Trumbo and DOD make sense it terms of what we were trying to do just finish that plan with ignoring MWs. We shall see.

[Pickles]

That sounds good but just isn't true. Merely getting excess value can't be the goal. You still have to field an entire team within a set budget.

Well, if you're talking about in terms of the FA market, it certainly is true. And, unfortunately, this team needs to be active this year on the FA market if they want to compete next year.

[DrungoHazewood]

That sounds good but just isn't true. Merely getting excess value can't be the goal. You still have to field an entire team within a set budget.

- Every team has replacement-level (or worse) players who get fairly significant playing time. Some of them paid many millions.

- A team with six six-win first basemen won't work.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, if you're talking about in terms of the FA market, it certainly is true. And, unfortunately, this team needs to be active this year on the FA market if they want to compete next year.

No, it isn't true.

Offense can win you games outright.

Starting pitching can come very close to winning you games outright.

The Bullpen can win you games that you are already winning.

In a significant number of games every year a shut down bullpen is essentially irrelevant.

To allocate significant resources to move a pen from a B+ to an A- while there are other needs isn't smart.

Even if, in a vacuum, the money makes sense for the expected production.

[Frobby]

No, it isn't true.

Offense can win you games outright.

Starting pitching can come very close to winning you games outright.

The Bullpen can win you games that you are already winning.

This is, of course, utterly false. Bullpen pitchers figure as the winning or losing pitcher approximately 30% of the time. The average bullpen won 25 games last year. In most of those, I am sure, the team was not winning when the bullpen entered the game.

All you have to do is look at the Kansas City Royals (bullpen record: 30-14) to see that sometimes, spending on the bullpen can be a very wise strategy.

Obviously, there are limits, and a lot depends on where on your roster you happen to have cheap, underpaid, productive talent. Wherever that area is, you can devote disproportionate financial resources to the other parts of your team. There is no "one size fits all" allocation of resources between offense, starting pitching and relievers in MLB.

[Pickles]

No, it isn't true.

Offense can win you games outright.

Starting pitching can come very close to winning you games outright.

The Bullpen can win you games that you are already winning.

In a significant number of games every year a shut down bullpen is essentially irrelevant.

To allocate significant resources to move a pen from a B+ to an A- while there are other needs isn't smart.

Even if, in a vacuum, the money makes sense for the expected production.

You win games by giving up less runs than the other team.

Point blank.

Whether you give those runs up in the second or eighth inning.

Signing a sp who's not as good as O'day for more money, just so you can check that off the list, is counter productive.

[25 Nuggets]

You win games by giving up less runs than the other team.

Point blank.

Whether you give those runs up in the second or eighth inning.

Signing a sp who's not as good as O'day for more money, just so you can check that off the list, is counter productive.

Tangent -- I don't know why people think a good bullpen only works when a team has a lead. If the team is one or two runs down, a good bullpen effort can help foster a comeback win.

[DrungoHazewood]

Fun fact of the day: O'Day has allowed 60 runs in his four-year Oriole career. Brian Matusz allowed 60 runs in 49+ innings in 2011.

[Can_of_corn]

This is, of course, utterly false. Bullpen pitchers figure as the winning or losing pitcher approximately 30% of the time. The average bullpen won 25 games last year. In most of those, I am sure, the team was not winning when the bullpen entered the game.

All you have to do is look at the Kansas City Royals (bullpen record: 30-14) to see that sometimes, spending on the bullpen can be a very wise strategy.

Obviously, there are limits, and a lot depends on where on your roster you happen to have cheap, underpaid, productive talent. Wherever that area is, you can devote disproportionate financial resources to the other parts of your team. There is no "one size fits all" allocation of resources between offense, starting pitching and relievers in MLB.

I would say that in a lot of those cases it was the offense that won those 25 games.

Of course I was exaggerating. You know very well I was exaggerating.

But the marginal gains in the bullpen are less then in the rotation or with starting position players.

The 2015 Royals didn't have holes in the rotation, first base and both corner outfield spots.

[Can_of_corn]

Tangent -- I don't know why people think a good bullpen only works when a team has a lead. If the team is one or two runs down, a good bullpen effort can help foster a comeback win.

Right. And if either side is ahead by 3 or more runs then the difference between a shut down pen and a mediocre pen might be one win.

[DrungoHazewood]

Tangent -- I don't know why people think a good bullpen only works when a team has a lead. If the team is one or two runs down, a good bullpen effort can help foster a comeback win.

You might get a more efficient pen if your closer was used in -1, 0, and +1 run situations rather than +1 to +3.

It would also be fun to have a "winner" role in the pen, who'd only pitch in games where you're tied or down a run or two. They might be credited with 20-30 wins.

[Pickles]

I would say that in a lot of those cases it was the offense that won those 25 games.

Of course I was exaggerating. You know very well I was exaggerating.

But the marginal gains in the bullpen are less then in the rotation or with starting position players.

The 2015 Royals didn't have holes in the rotation, first base and both corner outfield spots.

Show me the SP or OFer you're going to get for 4/30 who isn't a "marginal gain."

[DrungoHazewood]

The 2015 Royals didn't have holes in the rotation, first base and both corner outfield spots.

Until some deadline deals they had a sub-replacement 2B, a replacement-level DH, and a starter with a 5.95 ERA.