SI Orioles Winter Report Card

[wildcard]

I guess this article is about right if just looking at the winter. http://www.si.com/mlb/2017/02/08/winter-report-card-baltimore-orioles

 But the O's don't try to win the winter upgrades.  They look for year over year improvement which is a different story:

Starting Pitching

A full year for Bundy and Miley.  The improvement of Gausman.  The subtraction of Gallardo.  The O's still need additional starting depth because Wright, Wilson, Verrett and Ynoa have not shown success as starters at the major league level.

Relievers

Solid top 4.  The addition of a full year for lefty Hart.  Drake out of options and needs to make the team to stay.  Doubt he gets through waivers.  Wright, Wilson, and Verrett have all shown well in relief roles. Worley gone.

Infield

Still room for improvement for Manny and Schoop.  Healthy Davis could improve.  Mancini is infield depth or trade bait to bring back additional help. Hardy at an age to expect some decline.

Outfield

Addition of Smith brings left-handed bat but little speed in the outfield corners.  A full year of Rickard could improve speed and improvement as  leadoff hitter could happen.  Tavarez is 4th OFer type with speed but little power. Kim will get trial against lefties. O's still looking for more help.

Catching

Castillo replaces Wieters.  Probably helps offense but not defense.

DH

Trumbo moved here but there is no improvement on offense expected. Mancini could fill in here.

Summary

Expect improvement in: starting pitching,  middle innings of relief and relief depth, 1B and DH depth, outfield addition of Smith could help  offense but problem little help of defense.   Full year of Rickard and Tavarez may help outfield defense.  There are about 12 players of the top 26 that may provide improvement over 2016.

O's still looking to improve starting pitching and outfield depth.

 

[Frobby]

"Tread water" sounds like an apt description of this winter's activity.  

[wildcard]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

"Tread water" sounds like an apt description of this winter's activity.  

While they were treading their payroll increased about 12M.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

While they were treading their payroll increased about 12M.

Inevitably, given the number of arbitration eligible guys and escalating contracts.    

[25 Nuggets]

Orioles get a C while the Blue jays get a C+.  Bogus.

But whatever.  Season start yet? 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Inevitably, given the number of arbitration eligible guys and escalating contracts.    

I wouldn't say it was inevitable.  It is a product of how they have built the team.

[wildcard]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Inevitably, given the number of arbitration eligible guys and escalating contracts.    

The decision to bring back Trumbo cost them about that.  However if they would have let him go there would be no talk of treading water. It would have been said they were  in decline.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wouldn't say it was inevitable.  It is a product of how they have built the team.

Inevitable that if you retain the same players they'll cost more each year.    Obviously they could have avoided re-signing  Trumbo and could have jettisoned another player or two.

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Inevitable that if you retain the same players they'll cost more each year.    Obviously they could have avoided re-signing  Trumbo and could have jettisoned another player or two.

Do you think they could have not signed Trumbo and been a playoff team without their payroll going up from last year?

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Do you think they could have not signed Trumbo and been a playoff team without their payroll going up from last year?

Do you think Trumbo is that much of a difference maker over Carter at 1/3?  Do you think Brach is indispensable?

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Do you think they could have not signed Trumbo and been a playoff team without their payroll going up from last year?

I don't know.    Handing the full time DH job to Mancini would have been risky.    Mancini might turn out to be a good major league hitter right away, or it might take some time or never happen.   I wasn't in favor of keeping the payroll flat just for the sake of doing it.    I'm more concerned with the long term, as we won't be able to retain every player as they reach free agency, and Trumbo wasn't my highest priority.    

[Spy Fox]

I don't think this is the first article I've seen that erroneously said Trumbo signed a one-year FA deal with the O's in 2016. Seems that some writers didn't bother to look up how he got to Baltimore. 

Other than that, I don't really disagree with the conclusion of the article. Having Bundy and Miley in the rotation instead of Gallardo/Wright/Wilson is probably the biggest reason to expect any improvement in 2017 compared to 2016, but those moves happened last summer and not during the offseason. 

[Number5]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do you think Trumbo is that much of a difference maker over Carter at 1/3?  Do you think Brach is indispensable?

I'm not sure that my answers to the first question are what you are attempting to lead someone to say.  Do I think Carter would have signed for 1/$3 million at the time Trumbo was signed?  No, I'd doubt it.  After all, he got 16.67% more than that from the Yankees a month later when he was the last man without a chair and the only other available chair was in Asia.  Do I think Trumbo is a better hitter than Carter?  Yes.  Do I think Carter can play right field?  No.  Do I think the Orioles have a bad contract for Trumbo?  No.  Is my understanding that Trumbo's Oriole teammates are quite happy that he was signed?  Yes.  Do I think all of these things make a difference?  Yes, I believe so.  How about you? 

I would have rather seen the Orioles go for Saunders.  Once that door was closed, signing Trumbo was a pretty good get, IMO.  We can't have Smith playing vs. RHP, that's for sure.  Trumbo is at least an option for RF vs. LHP.  We currently can go with Mancini at DH vs. LHP.  Signing Carter does nothing for RF and completely blocks Mancini, greatly reducing our options.  I certainly had no interest in Carter.  Frankly, I think the Yankees would have been better off without him, as they have eliminated Bird playing everyday and completely blocked Austin for this year.  Glad to see it.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

I'm not sure that my answers to the first question are what you are attempting to lead someone to say.  Do I think Carter would have signed for 1/$3 million at the time Trumbo was signed?  No, I'd doubt it.  After all, he got 16.67% more than that from the Yankees a month later when he was the last man without a chair and the only other available chair was in Asia.  Do I think Trumbo is a better hitter than Carter?  Yes.  Do I think Carter can play right field?  No.  Do I think the Orioles have a bad contract for Trumbo?  No.  Is my understanding that Trumbo's Oriole teammates are quite happy that he was signed?  Yes.  Do I think all of these things make a difference?  Yes, I believe so.  How about you? 

I would have rather seen the Orioles go for Saunders.  Once that door was closed, signing Trumbo was a pretty good get, IMO.  We can't have Smith playing vs. RHP, that's for sure.  Trumbo is at least an option for RF vs. LHP.  We currently can go with Mancini at DH vs. LHP.  Signing Carter does nothing for RF and completely blocks Mancini, greatly reducing our options.  I certainly had no interest in Carter.  Frankly, I think the Yankees would have been better off without him, as they have eliminated Bird playing everyday and completely blocked Austin for this year.  Glad to see it.

What causes you to feel that way?

As for me I think Carter would have signed for 1/5.  He might has signed for the 3.5 he signed for the Yankees, since OPACY is a better fit for him as a hitter.

I think Carter is a very slightly better hitter than Trumbo and is younger.

I don't think Carter can play right field but since Trumbo shouldn't be in right field I'm not sure what difference it would make.

I think anytime you sign someone for 3 years, that the market is telling you is a one, maybe two year guy you are probably overpaying.

I don't think having Carter in the clubhouse instead of Trumbo would make any difference in the field.

 

And I didn't ask if they made a difference.  I asked if he made enough of a difference.  The statement was in the context of the Orioles being a playoff team in 2017.  Do you think Trumbo over Carter makes the team a playoff team?

[Number5]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What causes you to feel that way?

As for me I think Carter would have signed for 1/5.  He might has signed for the 3.5 he signed for the Yankees, since OPACY is a better fit for him as a hitter.

I think Carter is a very slightly better hitter than Trumbo and is younger.

I don't think Carter can play right field but since Trumbo shouldn't be in right field I'm not sure what difference it would make.

I think anytime you sign someone for 3 years, that the market is telling you is a one, maybe two year guy you are probably overpaying.

I don't think having Carter in the clubhouse instead of Trumbo would make any difference in the field.

 

And I didn't ask if they made a difference.  I asked if he made enough of a difference.  The statement was in the context of the Orioles being a playoff team in 2017.  Do you think Trumbo over Carter makes the team a playoff team?

A better team?  Yes.  A better chance to make the playoffs?  Yes.  Trumbo is the better player, IMO, and gives the Orioles more options.  I believe that the Yankees are more likely to regret the move than the Orioles.  If we had Bird and Austin, I would have had no interest in signing Carter.  Heck, we don't have Bird and Austin, and I still had no interest in signing Carter.  Carter does not equate to Trumbo for us.  He equates to Mancini.  It seems that he will be playing the short side of a platoon in New York, much as Mancini is being considered to do in Baltimore.