MW QO Acceptance: For or Against the QO?

[birrman54]

I think people are overestimating Caleb Joseph's value. He's a 1.5 win catcher at best.

Wieters is very likely to exceed 2 wins this season. I wouldn't be shocked if he exceeded 3 wins either. He was on pace for 2 last season in the ~80 games he played, and prior to his injury in 2014 he was experiencing one of his best offensive starts.

In 2013/14 plenty of folks here would have been happy to sign Wieters to a 5yr/80M deal. We'd be paying him $16M now and owing him for several more. It's obviously not ideal that he accepted the QO but it's not some huge barrier to producing a competitive team. He's only going to be 30 so he should still be more or less the same player we would have projected in 2014. Reasonable defense, slightly above average bat.

I'm also highly skeptical the Orioles are so cash-flow poor that having an extra $16M for one year on the payroll should prevent them from making the same kinds of long term contributions they were planning / willing to make. If you're prepared to pay Davis $120-130M over 6 years, you can just backload it a bit more and pay ~12-14 this year instead of 18-20.

[Stotle]

What if the Duquette side of the front office was not for extending the QO and the Buck/Angelos side was in favor?

Then that is a very ****ty way to run an organization and Orioles fans should be disappointed.

[weams]

I was for the QO. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into my opinion just believed that there was no way a Boras client would accept. Now with three players having accepted I probably will put a little thought into the next QO offer.

I was a believer in never until it became an ever.

[weams]

Then that is a very ****ty way to run an organization and Orioles fans should be disappointed.

So, you had not heard that there were opposing viewpoints? I'm surprised. That's not to say that there was not a corporate decision that all got behind when made.

[turtlebowl]

So you create a hole at 3B? That doesn't really solve the problem of losing, what was thought to be, a reliable anchor to our infield. Where as losing Matt is a hit this team can absorb - 2014 being the evidence. Your off base here and all the sarcasm in the world won't change it.

In comparison though you move Machado to SS and put Flarhety at 3b and you have similar offensive production as Hardy playing SS this past year with much less salary.

[Stotle]

So you create a hole at 3B? That doesn't really solve the problem of losing, what was thought to be, a reliable anchor to our infield. Where as losing Matt is a hit this team can absorb - 2014 being the evidence. Your off base here and all the sarcasm in the world won't change it.

You're operating in a universe where Hardy was the only possible solution at a particular position and Caleb Joseph is a proven everyday starter capable of shouldering a load of a full season. Both of those are assumptions and arguably incorrect assumptions.

Hardy's contract was expiring. There was no substantive difference between signing him and signing another free agent or trading for another player. It was a decision made to fill a hole.

There are plenty of smart people in the game who would look at Caleb Joseph and describe a quality back-up catcher who would be stretched very thin over the course of a full season.

You're stance is spot on so long as we take all of your assumptions as given, and discount any assumptions others might want to make to the contrary.

[Stotle]

So, you had not heard that there were opposing viewpoints? I'm surprised. That's not to say that there was not a corporate decision that all got behind when made.

Whoa whoa whoa. You're talking two very different things.

1. Duquette did not want to extend the QO and accordingly made no contingency plan for Wieters accepting a QO -- then Buck/Angelos swooped in and overruled him, placing him behind the 8-ball.

2. Duquette did not want to extend the QO but was overruled during a multi-party discussion among the highest level of decision-makers, in which case he has had plenty of time to develop contingency plans.

The former, yes, is a ****ty way to run an organization. The latter, while not optimal for the GM (ask Dipoto), still allows the GM some ability to formulate broader strategies, albeit with constraints.

[Es4M11]

You're operating in a universe where Hardy was the only possible solution at a particular position and Caleb Joseph is a proven everyday starter capable of shouldering a load of a full season. Both of those are assumptions and arguably incorrect assumptions.

Hardy's contract was expiring. There was no substantive difference between signing him and signing another free agent or trading for another player. It was a decision made to fill a hole.

There are plenty of smart people in the game who would look at Caleb Joseph and describe a quality back-up catcher who would be stretched very thin over the course of a full season.

You're stance is spot on so long as we take all of your assumptions as given, and discount any assumptions others might want to make to the contrary.

One question: Who would be your candidates to replace Hardy after 2014? And to further elaborate on the question, would said player have provided us the expected output of Hardy?

In regards to Joseph not being viewed by some professionals as an every day catcher, that is fine. I'm not advocating for Joseph to catch 135+ games a year, but I think he has shown he can do it for 100 games. His bat is not something I am majorly concerned about, in my eyes Joseph is a better defender than Wieters at this point, and works with the pitchers much better. I don't need my catcher to hit 20 HR's when he calls a crappy game.

[24fps]

Maybe the problem is I do not believe a competent front office would extend a qualifying offer without a plan for operating if the offer were to be accepted. If you think Duquette's response was "I'll think of something" then you are essentially saying you believe him to be an incompetent GM. Is that the case?

Overall I believe he has shown himself to be competent, but the decision to offer MW a qualifying offer given the level of risk compared the paucity of return was egregiously miscalculated and I've argued that from the beginning. The notion that he might have had a fall back plan may or may not exist and if it did, then I remain to be convinced that it distinguishable from "I'll think of something". Fall-back plans should neither license nor gloss over shoddy decision-making.

[Stotle]

Overall I believe he has shown himself to be competent, but the decision to offer MW a qualifying offer given the level of risk compared the paucity of return was egregiously miscalculated and I've argued that from the beginning. The notion that he might have had a fall back plan may or may not exist and if it did, then I remain to be convinced that it distinguishable from "I'll think of something". Fall-back plans should neither license nor gloss over shoddy decision-making.

Well, that's nice thinking in a vacuum. But in practice, running a baseball team is a lot more about having a good process to account for the unexpected than it is about everything unfolding exactly as you expect it to.

[Number5]

I was for the QO based on the consensus that it would not be accepted.

The impact of his acceptance has been Wieters & Trumbo for 25 million vs. Davis and Clevenger for 25 million

Davis >>>> Trumbo

Clevenger < Wieters

I hold the FO accountable for not understanding the market and/or Wieters' desires

So, you were in favor of offering the QO to Wieters before it was accepted and now against it afterward. That, of course, is an impossible real-life option. No doubt, had the QO not been offered, you would have treated us with many posts about how DD was incompetent for throwing away an obvious draft pick. You are basically stating that no matter what happened, you would be angry and blame DD. Your posts have seemed that way for a long time, but this is the first time that I can recall you actually coming right out and saying it. You were in favor of the QO, as were the majority of folks at the time. "Holding DD acoountable" after the fact for doing exactly what you were in favor of him doing is, frankly, hypocritical.

[Stotle]

One question: Who would be your candidates to replace Hardy after 2014? And to further elaborate on the question, would said player have provided us the expected output of Hardy?

In regards to Joseph not being viewed by some professionals as an every day catcher, that is fine. I'm not advocating for Joseph to catch 135+ games a year, but I think he has shown he can do it for 100 games. His bat is not something I am majorly concerned about, in my eyes Joseph is a better defender than Wieters at this point, and works with the pitchers much better. I don't need my catcher to hit 20 HR's when he calls a crappy game.

I guess I would have to go back and reconstruct my thinking circa 2014 to go through that exercise. I don't think it's a stretch to say there were options available that could have given Baltimore the same production Hardy has over the past two years for drastically less money.

Take a breath. It might end up a train wreck. It might also end-up with Wieters and Joseph combining for 4 or 5 wins behind the plate, which is far better than Joseph and [insert random back-up catcher] could hope for.

I don't think the sky isn't falling. If it is, it isn't because of Wieters and his contract.

[DrungoHazewood]

You can't change your mind after the result.

You just invalidated 97% of all sports commentary.

[Morgan423]

You can't look at whether it was a good or bad decision after the fact. It's not the correct way to look at things.

Say I'm playing a game in which I can wager my money and I have a two-pronged decision. Option A will win something for me 75% of the time, and Option B 25%. The correct play is to bet heavily on Option A every single time because statistically I will come out with better results on average than if I chose option B.

Option A is always the correct decision, no matter what the result is. You make decisions based on whether you're more likely to get a positive result with all factors you know of at the time of the decision weighed in. What makes a decision good or bad is whether you properly analyzed the variables and picked the choice most likely to have a net positive outcome for you in the end.

The result has no bearing on whether it was a good or bad decision at the time decision was made. I guess I'll never understand people who view things that way.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess I would have to go back and reconstruct my thinking circa 2014 to go through that exercise. I don't think it's a stretch to say there were options available that could have given Baltimore the same production Hardy has over the past two years for drastically less money.

Take a breath. It might end up a train wreck. It might also end-up with Wieters and Joseph combining for 4 or 5 wins behind the plate, which is far better than Joseph and [insert random back-up catcher] could hope for.

I don't think the sky isn't falling. If it is, it isn't because of Wieters and his contract.

That's not a stretch, but that includes a zero-win 2015 that would be near a worst-case you'd have used in projecting his value.