MW QO Acceptance: For or Against the QO?

[turtlebowl]

I was for the QO to MW based on estimates that MW was looking at 4/$64M in free agency. I think people exaggerate the potential impact on 2016 and the future of MW's acceptance of the QO. It is still very possible that all of this has a positive outcome. Sure, if MW stinks and puts up a .5 WAR season, the outcome will be negative, but I think a healthy MW is still capable of 1.5-2.5+ WAR season over 120 games. The Os could be in a position to offer the QO again next year or could be in a position to net a couple prospects at the 2016 trade deadline - which could be the optimal result. If Wieters has a good year up to the deadline, he could net prospects with a value far in excess of the pick that a QO would have yielded.

It's early December and I still think there are multiple ways to have this even work out before Opening Day. If Caleb Joseph has such value, then let's deal him for a prospect or young major leaguer at another position (SP or COF).

I'm fine with the risk of the QO to MW and believe a positive outcome to all of this is more likely than not (but perhaps not overwhelmingly so).

Regarding some other comments in this thread, I agree with Stotle that Hardy and Ubaldo were worse decisions, but have to express mild surprise at suggestions that other FOs don't view CJospeh as an everyday catcher. I doubt those FOs thought CJ would be a 1-1.5 WAR contributor at the major league level as it is (let alone the possibility that CJ has more perceived value than MW). Not really ready at all to accept suggestions on the limitations of CJ.

Very good post. This argument won't be decided for several more years, not today. I am still that guy that thinks we haven't seen the best of Matt Weiters yet. I was just looking at his minor league stats and still can't believe what a beast he was and it never really carried over to the majors. If, which I know is a big word, he does hit 290 with power we are going to look back at this qualifying offer in a positive light.

I like Joseph also and actually think he is better at calling a game than Weiters. You still can't ignore the fact that in his 2 years he has yet to show he can get on base 30% of the time. So a team that lacks OBP skills Weiters has shown he is much better than Joseph at that skill set. Doesn't make him worth 14 million more dollars but I have to think that the organization also believes in MW more than many of the posters.

[Beast]

Maybe DD knew something about this years budget that allowed him to take the risk of offering the QO to MW.

I think people need to seriously consider this possibility. The FO has already taken on Matt's QO and Trumbo's salary for 2016, and allegedly has competitive offers on the table for O'Day and Davis, which combined must account for $27M or more AAV. There is some risk that O'Day and Davis accept, perhaps comparable to or greater than the risk that Boras would allow Matt to accept a QO. And I do believe DD will still find a SP. So it seems to me that PA is willing to take on the risk of a substantial budget increase for 2016. Buck has said that the QO for Matt was a "win-win." DD has said that Matt's acceptance does not seriously impede the search for Davis and pitching. There are several possible ways to interpret those comments:

1) They are putting the best face on a bad outcome.

2) Buck seriously overestimates Matt's value or doesn't understand the team's financial restrictions.

3) In the management discussions regarding the QO, PA said something like "I'll cover half the salary if he accepts by increasing the 2016 budget."

If (3) is correct, then the appropriate risk-reward analysis would be comparing scenarios with Joseph for 90 games + Salty for 70 at a combined $1.4M for the O's vs. Matt for 110 games+ Joseph for 50 at $8.5M. I could see Buck believing, and convincing others that QO acceptance was then a win-win. Some of you may consider Joseph to be an every-day catcher, but it is pretty clear from the past 2 years that Buck does not. Nor has Buck shown much interest in letting Clevenger catch much. So without Matt, the team would have gone after another catcher.

The bottom line is that it is way premature to judge Matt's acceptance as a loss for the club. But then many posters seem to prefer premature especulation.

[Stotle]

Nice try. Please demonstrate how the current Wieters situation is the product of good process.

How would anyone know until they see how the offseason unfolds? Even then, you'd really need to be involved with, or have knowledge of, the actual decision-making in order to blast someone for having a bad process.

I can't believe I'm getting accused of defending the Baltimore FO process -- weams is this a first?

[Stotle]

I'm quite sure that there were a number of reasonable options. But I think Hardy's contract was one of them.

Sure. If I recall I didn't really like it but also didn't think it was terrible. It's whatever. Like the Wieters QO. Which was the whole point of the comparison.

[Stotle]

You're making this statement with 2015 in the rear view. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And I don't think many, if any, are saying that Baltimore should be averse to giving QO's in the future because Wieters accepted his - I'm certainly not saying that. But Wieters was an obvious risk to accept the QO when you considered past years performance, position, market and age. Anyone who couldn't see that obviously didn't research the circumstances surrounding Wieters, or just flat out didn't understand them.

You're certainly not claiming I didn't understand the risk, right? Do you want to pull up my posts regarding the old "It's Boras; Wieters won't except" crowd?

It is what it is. Pretending like this is the disaster that sinks Baltimore is to say Baltimore was essentially sunk before the offseason started and the FO was so incompetent that they risked the entire 2016 season on a bet that Wieters wouldn't accept a qualifying offer.

I have my issues with how Baltimore does some things, but even I am not willing to call Duquette stupid, and certainly not to that level.

[weams]

You're certainly not claiming I didn't understand the risk, right? Do you want to pull up my posts regarding the old "It's Boras; Wieters won't except" crowd?

It is what it is. Pretending like this is the disaster that sinks Baltimore is to say Baltimore was essentially sunk before the offseason started and the FO was so incompetent that they risked the entire 2016 season on a bet that Wieters wouldn't accept a qualifying offer.

I have my issues with how Baltimore does some things, but even I am not willing to call Duquette stupid, and certainly not to that level.

I'm a "It's Boras, Matt won't accept."

[Stotle]

I was for the QO to MW based on estimates that MW was looking at 4/$64M in free agency. I think people exaggerate the potential impact on 2016 and the future of MW's acceptance of the QO. It is still very possible that all of this has a positive outcome. Sure, if MW stinks and puts up a .5 WAR season, the outcome will be negative, but I think a healthy MW is still capable of 1.5-2.5+ WAR season over 120 games. The Os could be in a position to offer the QO again next year or could be in a position to net a couple prospects at the 2016 trade deadline - which could be the optimal result. If Wieters has a good year up to the deadline, he could net prospects with a value far in excess of the pick that a QO would have yielded.

It's early December and I still think there are multiple ways to have this even work out before Opening Day. If Caleb Joseph has such value, then let's deal him for a prospect or young major leaguer at another position (SP or COF).

I'm fine with the risk of the QO to MW and believe a positive outcome to all of this is more likely than not (but perhaps not overwhelmingly so).

Regarding some other comments in this thread, I agree with Stotle that Hardy and Ubaldo were worse decisions, but have to express mild surprise at suggestions that other FOs don't view CJospeh as an everyday catcher. I doubt those FOs thought CJ would be a 1-1.5 WAR contributor at the major league level as it is (let alone the possibility that CJ has more perceived value than MW). Not really ready at all to accept suggestions on the limitations of CJ.

Yes, if Joseph is really a 2+ win regular catcher at discount rates for the next four years he should return a pretty big piece in trade.

Ask weams to poke around a bit with FO contacts and see how many teams are asking about Joseph and what they are offering up (off the record/PM/whatever). I think you might be surprised.

[weams]

I can't believe I'm getting accused of defending the Baltimore FO process -- weams is this a first?

A first. But we knew you were smart enough to eventually come around.

[weams]

Ask weams to poke around a bit with FO contacts and see how many teams are asking about Joseph and what they are offering up (off the record/PM/whatever). I think you might be surprised.

I've been told that Caleb had more value than Clevenger. In the past.

[Stotle]

A first. But we knew you were smart enough to eventually come around.

Like Ubaldo -- I'm sure I my contract will look better in hindsight than it did at the outset...

[weams]

Like Ubaldo -- I'm sure I my contract will look better in hindsight than it did at the outset...

Ubaldo looks like a deal. Healthy. Front line. Can throw a no hitter out of the blue.

[Stotle]

I've been told that Caleb had more value than Clevenger. In the past.

Okay, but he'd have to have significantly more value than Clevenger to be the guy described above.

[Stotle]

Ubaldo looks like a deal.

Oh he's a *deal* alright. A real *piece of work*.

[weams]

Okay, but he'd have to have significantly more value than Clevenger to be the guy described above.

I was never told that he was valued much more.

[24fps]

How would anyone know until they see how the offseason unfolds? Even then, you'd really need to be involved with, or have knowledge of, the actual decision-making in order to blast someone for having a bad process.

I can't believe I'm getting accused of defending the Baltimore FO process -- weams is this a first?

I think unexpectedly losing 40% of your presumed discretionary budget gambling on a redundant player speaks well enough on its own. It certainly doesn't require the rest of the offseason for reasonable people to form a conclusion.