Jump to content

webbrick2010's Mike Leake threads


webbrick2010

Recommended Posts

All of this is why you don't trade a Zach Davies for a two month rental on a .500 team going no where. Look at what back end rotation pieces cost. The Davies deal was the worse deal Duquette has made so far and one a team with the Orioles payroll expectations should not make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply
All of this is why you don't trade a Zach Davies for a two month rental on a .500 team going no where. Look at what back end rotation pieces cost. The Davies deal was the worse deal Duquette has made so far and one a team with the Orioles payroll expectations should not make.

But Tony, haven't you heard, the Orioles were 2 games off the pace to get into a play-in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at what back end rotation pieces cost.

Leake's deal is what they could cost if you're a GM who's convinced himself that you have to pay free agent rates for 1-2 win pitchers, and lock that in for five years. Or you could just go get a guy out of the general mold of Miguel Gonzalez for a one-year commitment of about $5M. And then do that again every year. You certainly don't have to pay anything like 5/80 for a typical #4 or #5 starter with a 90-100 ERA+ and the ability to pitch 150 innings a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Tony, haven't you heard, the Orioles were 2 games off the pace to get into a play-in game.

Giving up would have been much more satisfying. Sure, trying to have meaningful September games is good and all. But where it's really at it is marginally increasing the odds of meaningful September games several years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is why you don't trade a Zach Davies for a two month rental on a .500 team going no where. Look at what back end rotation pieces cost. The Davies deal was the worse deal Duquette has made so far and one a team with the Orioles payroll expectations should not make.

It depends a bit on your opinion of Davies. especially in comparison with Wilson and Wright. If you think Davies is clearly the best of those three and is likely to stick at the back of a major league rotation, then it is a lousy trade. If you think Davies has less potential than Wilson and Wright, or that it is a toss-up, and that his ability to stick at the back of a rotation is debatable, then the trade becomes more palatable. I was against the trade, in part because I trust your evaluations of Orioles prospects. But there are those who are less bullish on Davies. And we were in the playoff hunt at the time, though I'd say the odds weren't great. In any event, the deal didn't work out well at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It take the O's weeks to work out deals for ...... O'day and even a chump change 7 million dollar contract for Kim

What is wrong with this organization.

They got both of them done.

Why should it matter long it took them?

You act as though the front office should be concerned about your personal whims and anxieties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got both of them done.

Why should it matter long it took them?

You act as though the front office should be concerned about your personal whims and anxieties.

Think of all of the December games these two missed while the FO fooled around!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is why you don't trade a Zach Davies for a two month rental on a .500 team going no where. Look at what back end rotation pieces cost. The Davies deal was the worse deal Duquette has made so far and one a team with the Orioles payroll expectations should not make.

I agree. That move was the worst, although closely followed by the Webb/draft pick salary dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is why you don't trade a Zach Davies for a two month rental on a .500 team going no where. Look at what back end rotation pieces cost. The Davies deal was the worse deal Duquette has made so far and one a team with the Orioles payroll expectations should not make.

I'm usually positive...and I'm not just saying this with hindsight. It is definitely not the worse deal he has made.

Giving up Hader, ERod, and Arrieta were worse. Matter of fact though hindsight will not be kind to this giving up Delmonico for FRod was not the greatest.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends a bit on your opinion of Davies. especially in comparison with Wilson and Wright. If you think Davies is clearly the best of those three and is likely to stick at the back of a major league rotation, then it is a lousy trade. If you think Davies has less potential than Wilson and Wright, or that it is a toss-up, and that his ability to stick at the back of a rotation is debatable, then the trade becomes more palatable. I was against the trade, in part because I trust your evaluations of Orioles prospects. But there are those who are less bullish on Davies. And we were in the playoff hunt at the time, though I'd say the odds weren't great. In any event, the deal didn't work out well at all.

With the attrition rate you see in young starters I would have rather held onto all three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leake's deal is what they could cost if you're a GM who's convinced himself that you have to pay free agent rates for 1-2 win pitchers, and lock that in for five years. Or you could just go get a guy out of the general mold of Miguel Gonzalez for a one-year commitment of about $5M. And then do that again every year. You certainly don't have to pay anything like 5/80 for a typical #4 or #5 starter with a 90-100 ERA+ and the ability to pitch 150 innings a year.

But how many bums do you have to cycle through at the back end of the rotation before you hit on a Miguel Gonzalez or a Wei-Yin? We got very lucky to acquire both in the same year. If Miggy was a free agent, he would be getting a three year deal at least, possibly even the same deal Ubaldo got or higher. Why? Because he's a relatively known quantity. For every Miguel there's ten other backend guys that are completely useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how many bums do you have to cycle through at the back end of the rotation before you hit on a Miguel Gonzalez or a Wei-Yin? We got very lucky to acquire both in the same year. If Miggy was a free agent, he would be getting a three year deal at least, possibly even the same deal Ubaldo got or higher. Why? Because he's a relatively known quantity. For every Miguel there's ten other backend guys that are completely useless.

I disagree that you need to go through 11 back-end rotation candidates to find an acceptable one without paying free agent rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leake's deal is what they could cost if you're a GM who's convinced himself that you have to pay free agent rates for 1-2 win pitchers, and lock that in for five years. Or you could just go get a guy out of the general mold of Miguel Gonzalez for a one-year commitment of about $5M. And then do that again every year. You certainly don't have to pay anything like 5/80 for a typical #4 or #5 starter with a 90-100 ERA+ and the ability to pitch 150 innings a year.

What if you want more than 150 IP?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you want more than 150 IP?

In my opinion there's little justification for paying an additional $75M in total commitment to get "more than 150 IP" out of your back-end starters. I don't understand why you'd allocate resources that way, it seems very inefficient.

Obviously since Leake's contract exists that's not a unanimous view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion there's little justification for paying an additional $75M in total commitment to get "more than 150 IP" out of your back-end starters. I don't understand why you'd allocate resources that way, it seems very inefficient.

Obviously since Leake's contract exists that's not a unanimous view.

I think it's more a product of the fact that #4 starters are not readily available on 1-year $5 MM contracts as you insinuate. If they were, teams wouldn't be spending $75MM on Leake.

If you can accurately predict which unproven/broken/rehabbing/aging/whatever asset is going to outperform expectations and give you 2-3 wins worth of production, absolutely do that. Otherwise, you either pay for a little more track record/certainty or you roll the dice and hope your process gets you the pieces you need to be competitive, realizing you could end up wasting $15-20 MM on riskier propositions that give you next to nothing.

Obviously the Orioles front office has seen both sides of that coin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Yeah, I admit I got baited by the thread title a bit and popped off before actually listening to the thing.  It doesn't really change that I've always been concerned about Cal being part of the ownership group, but I was definitely hasty to be like "SEE??". Anyway, I've got my eye on Cal. The guy just rubs me the wrong way. But hopefully nothing much to see here, or in the future. 
    • Meanwhile, I have a question about Mayo’s defense.  Everybody implies that it’s dreadful. I guess I can understand that he’s not Manny or Brooks, but how bad is it? Are we hoping he’s at least as good as George Brett, about whom someone once said,(paraphrasing), “his defense is so bad it’s like he carries his bat to the base instead of his glove.“? I love defense, and I see absolutely no reason to move Westburg away. if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It seems far more advisable to plunk Mayo at first and do something with the guys we currently have there?  
    • I think the thread title was misleading.  Not necessarily intentionally.  But if you just  see that without reading everything that was said and considering the context, it would be concerning.  
    • You know, for $24 a year, a measly lousy 24 bucks a year, you can edit your comment. And you can also support @Tony-OHwho has done more work online to create an Orioles environment than literally anybody else in the entire Internet universe.
    • I think there see plenty of guys who will stay with a contending team they like if the money is close.   But Burnes clearly intends to test the market.   No significant home team discount is coming, and it just takes one team to offer something crazy to knock us out of the picture unless we’re just being stupid. 
    • When Mateo is hitting well, he really makes you wonder why he can’t do it all the time.   He looks really balanced at the plate, he uses all fields, etc.  He doesn’t look like a bad hitter who happens to be on a heater.   But that’s what his track record shows he is, until proven otherwise.  I remember that Fangraphs article last year about how Mateo had changed his approach and the improvement seemed real.  Well, no it wasn’t.  But maybe his issues are more psychological than physical?   He’s just a guy who when he slumps, quickly loses confidence and starts pressing and makes it worse?   I don’t know.    As to your point about OBP: in 2024, a .299 OBP is below average but I might not say it blows.  The MLB average is back down to .312 after a spike last year after the rule changes.  Of 312 players with 80+ PA, Mateo’s .299 ranks 191st, or 39th percentile.   Honestly, in this environment, if Mateo could stay at .299 OBP he’d be a very credible player.   But he’s a .272 career OPS guy who’d been at .267 the last two years, so I’m not expecting he’ll be able to stay at .299.   I’ll enjoy it while he’s hot though.   And he is playing a mean 2B.   Took him a couple of weeks to settle in there, but he’s looked great for the last month.    
    • I broached the experiment of Holliday in CF some months ago.  It seems to be something that could make sense.  I still expect he'll be our 2B moving forward, but having such versatility is never a bad thing.  
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...