Orioles discussing a qualifying offer to Wieters again this offseason

[Aristotelian]

I don't get it. If QO was the right decision last year, it makes even more sense this year, after a full healthy year post TJ. It just seems like DD is going back on himself and admitting a mistake. Usually he is more of a process guy who is comfortable taking the long view and being OK with a good decision having bad or unpredictable results.

[Redskins Rick]

I don't get it. If QO was the right decision last year, it makes even more sense this year, after a full healthy year post TJ. It just seems like DD is going back on himself and admitting a mistake. Usually he is more of a process guy who is comfortable taking the long view and being OK with a good decision having bad or unpredictable results.

Maybe the movement of the QO to the 17.5 range made the tilt in that direction?

[Three Run Homer]

Maybe the movement of the QO to the 17.5 range made the tilt in that direction?

For the record, I support a qualifying offer to Wieters, and I hope he takes it.

Sisco is a good prospect, but defensively probably not ready to start in the majors this season. Nevertheless, I don't want to block Sisco by signing another catcher to a 3 or 4 year contract, which is what it would take to sign Wieters or anyone of comparable quality.

If Wieters takes the QO, then you have a good but overpaid catcher for a year, while Sisco continues to develop. If he doesn't take the QO and signs elsewhere, at least you get the draft pick back.

If you don't extend a QO, then you are either force-feeding Sisco, blocking Sisco, going with Joseph/Pena or signing someone not much better than Joseph/Pena to a stopgap deal. Getting Matt back for one year is the best hope for contending next year while not screwing up the future.

[Redskins Rick]

For the record, I support a qualifying offer to Wieters, and I hope he takes it.

Sisco is a good prospect, but defensively probably not ready to start in the majors this season. Nevertheless, I don't want to block Sisco by signing another catcher to a 3 or 4 year contract, which is what it would take to sign Wieters or anyone of comparable quality.

If Wieters takes the QO, then you have a good but overpaid catcher for a year, while Sisco continues to develop. If he doesn't take the QO and signs elsewhere, at least you get the draft pick back.

If you don't extend a QO, then you are either force-feeding Sisco, blocking Sisco, going with Joseph/Pena or signing someone not much better than Joseph/Pena to a stopgap deal. Getting Matt back for one year is the best hope for contending next year while not screwing up the future.

I am in total agreement.

Joseph is the unknown, if he can bounce back to pre 2016 season, he would be a more welcome solution, then what he showed in 2016, even before he was hurt.

[Number5]

For the record, I support a qualifying offer to Wieters, and I hope he takes it.

Sisco is a good prospect, but defensively probably not ready to start in the majors this season. Nevertheless, I don't want to block Sisco by signing another catcher to a 3 or 4 year contract, which is what it would take to sign Wieters or anyone of comparable quality.

If Wieters takes the QO, then you have a good but overpaid catcher for a year, while Sisco continues to develop. If he doesn't take the QO and signs elsewhere, at least you get the draft pick back.

If you don't extend a QO, then you are either force-feeding Sisco, blocking Sisco, going with Joseph/Pena or signing someone not much better than Joseph/Pena to a stopgap deal. Getting Matt back for one year is the best hope for contending next year while not screwing up the future.

This is pretty much where I'm at with this. Timing-wise, another year of Wieters fits nicely with Sisco's progression. $17.2 million seems to be a bit of an over-pay, but then again, "there's really no such thing as a bad one-year deal." We aren't likely to end up with a better catcher in 2017 than Wieters thru trade, free-agency, or what we have in-house. Offer the QO. If Matt takes it, we don't have to worry about who our catcher is in 2017. If he rejects it, great, we get a draft pick, assuming the new CBA doesn't change that. No real terrible down side to offering the QO as it stands now, IMO.

[Bradysburns]

For the record, I support a qualifying offer to Wieters, and I hope he takes it.

Sisco is a good prospect, but defensively probably not ready to start in the majors this season. Nevertheless, I don't want to block Sisco by signing another catcher to a 3 or 4 year contract, which is what it would take to sign Wieters or anyone of comparable quality.

If Wieters takes the QO, then you have a good but overpaid catcher for a year, while Sisco continues to develop. If he doesn't take the QO and signs elsewhere, at least you get the draft pick back.

If you don't extend a QO, then you are either force-feeding Sisco, blocking Sisco, going with Joseph/Pena or signing someone not much better than Joseph/Pena to a stopgap deal. Getting Matt back for one year is the best hope for contending next year while not screwing up the future.

Agreed with everything you're saying, in spirit, but I don't love the idea of paying Matt $17 million for one year. He's just not THAT good. Every time we overpay, it hurts us somewhere else, presumably. I like MW a lot, but again... could we get 17 homers and better equal/defense out of Caleb Joseph on a full season? I suspect we could... saving a ton of money for another important project, like resigning Manny, Britton or Tillman. On the other hand, if we could sign MW to a 3/36 deal, I would do that. But I wouldn't want him at 1/17.

[Number5]

Agreed with everything you're saying, in spirit, but I don't love the idea of paying Matt $17 million for one year. He's just not THAT good. Every time we overpay, it hurts us somewhere else, presumably. I like MW a lot, but again... could we get 17 homers and better equal/defense out of Caleb Joseph on a full season? I suspect we could... saving a ton of money for another important project, like resigning Manny, Britton or Tillman. On the other hand, if we could sign MW to a 3/36 deal, I would do that. But I wouldn't want him at 1/17.

But this would be risking an additional $18.8 million on Matt for two additional years when he is that much older and beginning to be potentially blocking Sisco. I think offering the QO is both less risky and a better fit for the Orioles future plans than locking Wieters up for three years at $12 million per. I'm not happy with $17.2 million for Matt in 2017, but we are likely to alternatively over-pay for another catcher. Besides, Matt may just decide to decline the QO.

[atomic]

Agreed with everything you're saying, in spirit, but I don't love the idea of paying Matt $17 million for one year. He's just not THAT good. Every time we overpay, it hurts us somewhere else, presumably. I like MW a lot, but again... could we get 17 homers and better equal/defense out of Caleb Joseph on a full season? I suspect we could... saving a ton of money for another important project, like resigning Manny, Britton or Tillman. On the other hand, if we could sign MW to a 3/36 deal, I would do that. But I wouldn't want him at 1/17.

You think you could get the same out of Caleb? A guy who had zero RBIs last season. A guy with a .412 OPS last season? A guy who will be 31 next season? Caleb should not be on the major league roster next season. I wouldn't put him on 40 man that is for sure. If we let Wieters go we need to acquire 2 catchers.

[atomic]

BTW Wieters was 1.7 WAR last season and Caleb was -1.0 WAR so a 2.7 WAR difference. I think Caleb WAR would be worse the more he played. So I would go conservative estimate and say the difference is 3 WAR. That is certainly worth 17 million.

[jtschrei]

BTW Wieters was 1.7 WAR last season and Caleb was -1.0 WAR so a 2.7 WAR difference. I think Caleb WAR would be worse the more he played. So I would go conservative estimate and say the difference is 3 WAR. That is certainly worth 17 million.

It's all about payroll. If a 17.5 million dollar catcher prohibits upgrading RF or a Manny extension then I am against giving a QO. If we can work on Manny's extension and keep Wieters, great, then let's do that.

I think it was Andy McPhail who said there is no such thing as a bad one-year contract.

[Redskins Rick]

You think you could get the same out of Caleb? A guy who had zero RBIs last season. A guy with a .412 OPS last season? A guy who will be 31 next season? Caleb should not be on the major league roster next season. I wouldn't put him on 40 man that is for sure. If we let Wieters go we need to acquire 2 catchers.

Do you forget Caleb played well here before last season. He put up a 2.0 WAR in 2015?

I am not ready to write Caleb off, just leary about giving him the keys to the starting job.

[Aristotelian]

For the record, I support a qualifying offer to Wieters, and I hope he takes it.

Sisco is a good prospect, but defensively probably not ready to start in the majors this season. Nevertheless, I don't want to block Sisco by signing another catcher to a 3 or 4 year contract, which is what it would take to sign Wieters or anyone of comparable quality.

If Wieters takes the QO, then you have a good but overpaid catcher for a year, while Sisco continues to develop. If he doesn't take the QO and signs elsewhere, at least you get the draft pick back.

If you don't extend a QO, then you are either force-feeding Sisco, blocking Sisco, going with Joseph/Pena or signing someone not much better than Joseph/Pena to a stopgap deal. Getting Matt back for one year is the best hope for contending next year while not screwing up the future.

I agree, this was the thinking last year, and I don't see how his 2016 changes that thinking. Sisco is still not a sure thing. At worst, you have the best free agent C on a 1 year contract. If he declines, then no harm done and you get a draft pick.

I don't see how adjusting the QO for inflation changes the calculus.

[Enjoy Terror]

I don't agree with positioning the team around a prospect. Chance Sisco could be the next Mike Piazza. He could pan out to be the Jason Kendall comp he is. He could tear his ACL in Spring Training and never recover.

If the team isn't ready to commit Chance Sisco to the starting role this year then they need to move and sign a catcher that fulfills the role as though we didn't have Sisco at all. That could mean 2/20 for Kurt Suzuki or Iannetta or Castro or even Wieters. But I don't agree with keeping a seat warm for a guy who is a fringe prospect on most other teams.

[MDtransplant757]

I don't agree with positioning the team around a prospect. Chance Sisco could be the next Mike Piazza. He could pan out to be the Jason Kendall comp he is. He could tear his ACL in Spring Training and never recover.

If the team isn't ready to commit Chance Sisco to the starting role this year then they need to move and sign a catcher that fulfills the role as though we didn't have Sisco at all. That could mean 2/20 for Kurt Suzuki or Iannetta or Castro or even Wieters. But I don't agree with keeping a seat warm for a guy who is a fringe prospect on most other teams.

He's not a fringe prospect on other teams. He's either the DH in the AL or moved to another spot in the NL. If you can hit, they will make room for you

[Enjoy Terror]

He's not a fringe prospect on other teams. He's either the DH in the AL or moved to another spot in the NL. If you can hit, they will make room for you

Sickles doesn't have him in his year end top 100 prospects. He wouldn't be in the Braves or Red Sox top five players.

If he's truly a Jason Kendall comp, you've got an average to below average defensive guy who will get you some nice OBP with a .750 OPS. He'll bat 7-9 for his career and won't qualify for a batting title in any season he plays because 40% of his playing time goes to his back up. I mean, he's just not the Gary Sanchez this board wants him to be.

The O's need to make decisions about their catching situation in spite of Sisco and not because of him.