The official "Do not call up Matt Wieters" thread

[Sports Guy]

How much value to the organization does Wieters 2014 season potentially have? Is the value of 100 ABs this season and another 100 at the start of next season more valuable? Who the heck knows. But I would say if he is the real deal I take 2014. I really find your position on this inconsistant with what you usually take. Matt is proving to have more potential than any guy we have had in our system since Eddie, he has multi- MVP type talent. Will he make it to that level? I have no idea. Will he sign an extension? again no idea? is there a risk of losing the best year of a HOFers career so we see him hit a few homers and can stop enjoing the play of Ramon the rest of the season? without a doubt. To act as if calling him up occurs in some vacum is not taking the long view IMO.

Its not inconsistent at all....I would give him the extension and when you do that, the service time becomes moot. I think gaining knowledge of the majors and the pitchers he will be catching next year is important right now..You disagree...Great...Lets move on...I am tired of typing the same thing over and over.

BTW nothing flew above my head. Your anology was flawed IMO. I would have expected you to make the argument that as a catcher projecting what kind of player he is 7 years from now is much more volitale than other position players. Which I think is a reasonable case to make and really is the one thing that says to me have him start the game tomorrow in Baltimore.

So, you are ready to GUARANTEE that Boras will still be his agent in the next 5 years?

[TommyD4207]

There are an awful lot of cliches being used here.

You can't say one side of the argument is using cliches (I think I can make a guess at which side you're siding with) and then say that the other side isn't. Personally, I think neither is (to be honest) but the "we shouldn't worry about chemistry because I said so" is just as "cliche'd" as "we should worry about the chemistry of a team, regardless."

[Mashed Potatoes]

You can't say one side of the argument is using cliches (I think I can make a guess at which side you're siding with) and then say that the other side isn't. Personally, I think neither is (to be honest) but the "we shouldn't worry about chemistry because I said so" is just as "cliche'd" as "we should worry about the chemistry of a team, regardless."

Tommy's here! :clap3:

So I guess it's not just JR House that brings you into the fold, it's conversations regarding the promotion of minor league catchers?

Stay awhile!

[bej6789]

The chances of him doing that right now are exactly the same as those of him doing that to start next season after finishing this season in Bowie, or in 2010 after a full season at Norfolk.

Now we are just getting into ridiculous rationalizations here.

Look, if people don't think Wieters is ready, or that the front office is right here, that's fine. I disagree, and I will argue why I disagree and why I think you all are wrong. But let's not start with the ridiculous what-ifs and rationalizations for keeping Wieters in the minors.

What ridiculous about my rationalization. You're arguing a point, I'm arguing a what if scenario. That's how its done. It's a message board, I'm expressing an alternative opinion. Me bringing up a prospect struggling once he reaches the majors isn't ridiculous. I'd argue its just as fair as your point saying the odds of him repeating his success are exactly the same.

[Tony-OH]

In your opinion this year has been an ideal scenario for Wieters…. In my opinion, the O's have wasted the commodity of time already, and stand to compound that error in the coming days.

I never said that. I said i could have built a case for Wieters to start the year in Double-A. What I find ridiculous is that somehow, the time spent in Frederick vs Bowie this year somehow was wasted.

I fault Player Development for the following:

1) Apparently not understanding that a near 800 OPS in the HWL was impressive, after not playing all summer.

2) Starting Wieters in Frederick for his first full-season, in direct opposition to how numerous other organizations have recently handled their Top 10 College bats

3) Leaving Wieters in Frederick after 100 at-bats…

4) Thinking he could only do defensive drills at Frederick, that he could not do at Bowie

I give no credit to Player Development for Wieters Minor League success……..

Who said this? BTW, you have yet to explain how getting the opportunity to work with two sets of pitchers and two different pitching coaches is not of value to him as he develops his game calling ability. You also continue to forget there is more to work on than just the bat when you are catching prospect. If he was an outfielder or first baseman I'd be 100 percent in your corner.

It's fine that you want to give player development no credit at all, it's just an incredibly naive statement and something I thought you were well above personally.

How about we give no credit to the scouting department since it was so obvious he was going to play this way. Then, let's give no credit to any of his coaches throughout his baseball career since it's so obvious he's just such a pure God of baseball that he's never had a need to learn anythign from anyone. In fact, let's just give God credit, he created him to be this man-child in need of no instruction.

He was at a level where he obviously overmatched the competition, and he dominated there… they get credit for that?

He goes to a level he should have been at from the beginning… and he dominates there…. they get credit for that?

If they were working on his defensive skills at Frederick, and you want to credit them for that…… fine… myself, I would fault them for not having the foresight to bring that roving defensive instructor with Wieters to Bowie. It is 55 miles from Frederick to Bowie… it is a pretty drivable distance.

This is just getting absurd. So, by your assessment, player development should have started him in Triple-A because clearly he's too good for Double-A too? Heck, why not put blame on Trembley and MacPhail for not releasing Hernandez and putting him straight onto the major league team because clearly, he's in need of no instruction from the player development people.

Wieters is going to be a Major League success, regardless of spending an extra 100-200 at-bats at Frederick…. I'm not arguing against that…. Only that he would have been that much better prepared for his arrival in the bigs, with more time in Bowie…. And even further prepared to produce regularly in 2009, with extended time in the bigs to end 2008.

How? Why? He's dominating the pitching in Double-A as well. What is so crucial in getting him playing time in Bowie instead of Frederick for the first half of the season? What was he going to learn there that would better make him prepared for the big leagues?

Could it be catching more pitchers, and working with two different pitching coaches might actually be better for his development as a catcher? Could it be possibly that putting him in a league like the Carolina League where he was most likely going to have success, a good place to start? Is it possible that getting off to a good start helped his confidence as a pro?

No wonder you are good friends with Rob. Both of you actually believe that you know the one and only way players should be handled and anything outside of that is ridiculous or stupid.

The funniest thing is this spring I thought Wieters should have started the year in Bowie as well. And I actually agree that the Orioles promote players far too conservatively at times, but the one thing I know for a fact is that there are several ways to look at this thing and no answer is wrong.

Wieters has cemented himself as a one of the top prospects in all of baseball and it's only pure speculation that it still would have occurred had he been handled differently.

Most likely Wieters is just one of those special once in a decade players that come into professional baseball. In that case, there really was no way to screw him up and he's going to have success regardless of whether he got an extra 200+ at bats in Single-A vs Double-A or whether he gets some at bats in September.

[The Rick]

The chemistry of the last-place team with several players who won't be here next year one way or another?

::Nothing to do with Wieters (disclaimer)::

Yes, we are a last place team, but a team that many expected to be much much worse, up to maybe losing 100 games. Chemistry has been huge for the success of this team, and that's not even debatable.

I think what you're saying is, why does chemistry matter if we're still in last place. I get that, it's a fair point, but it still does matter. Chemistry is a manager's best friend. It's also probably the hardest thing for a coach/manager to sustain throughout his tenure. Just look at Billick (I know football's different).

Bottom line is that chemistry is huge. Tom Rath did a big study on chemistry's effect on employee performance (Vital Friends is a great book). It's basically been proven that working with guys you like to be around greatly improves concentration, focus & determination, and results in success.

So yes, while it may not be the worst thing in the world to "tinker" with the chemistry of a last place team, let's realize that sustaining chemistry (into next year) isn't guaranteed, and tinkering with it this year, though a lost cause, would have long-term implications.

::Back to Wieters::

I don't think it's safe to assume that bringing Wieters up would hurt the chemistry. Look at our revolving door at SS. It's not like he's the heir apparent to Mike Piazza.

If expectations and communication is clear and consistent there will be no chemistry problem. And from everything we've heard about Trembley, he doesn't have that issue.

[Sports Guy]

I never said that. I said i could have built a case for Wieters to start the year in Double-A. What I find ridiculous is that somehow, the time spent in Frederick vs Bowie this year somehow was wasted.

Who said this? BTW, you have yet to explain how getting the opportunity to work with two sets of pitchers and two different pitching coaches is not of value to him as he develops his game calling ability. You also continue to forget there is more to work on than just the bat when you are catching prospect. If he was an outfielder or first baseman I'd be 100 percent in your corner.

It's fine that you want to give player development no credit at all, it's just an incredibly naive statement and something I thought you were well above personally.

How about we give no credit to the scouting department since it was so obvious he was going to play this way. Then, let's give no credit to any of his coaches throughout his baseball career since it's so obvious he's just such a pure God of baseball that he's never had a need to learn anythign from anyone. In fact, let's just give God credit, he created him to be this man-child in need of no instruction.

This is just getting absurd. So, by your assessment, player development should have started him in Triple-A because clearly he's too good for Double-A too? Heck, why not put blame on Trembley and MacPhail for not releasing Hernandez and putting him straight onto the major league team because clearly, he's in need of no instruction from the player development people.

How? Why? He's dominating the pitching in Double-A as well. What is so crucial in getting him playing time in Bowie instead of Frederick for the first half of the season? What was he going to learn there that would better make him prepared for the big leagues?

Could it be catching more pitchers, and working with two different pitching coaches might actually be better for his development as a catcher? Could it be possibly that putting him in a league like the Carolina League where he was most likely going to have success, a good place to start? Is it possible that getting off to a good start helped his confidence as a pro?

No wonder you are good friends with Rob. Both of you actually believe that you know the one and only way players should be handled and anything outside of that is ridiculous or stupid.

The funniest thing is this spring I thought Wieters should have started the year in Bowie as well. And I actually agree that the Orioles promote players far too conservatively at times, but the one thing I know for a fact is that there are several ways to look at this thing and no answer is wrong.

Wieters has cemented himself as a one of the top prospects in all of baseball and it's only pure speculation that it still would have occurred had he been handled differently.

Most likely Wieters is just one of those special once in a decade players that come into professional baseball. In that case, there really was no way to screw him up and he's going to have success regardless of whether he got an extra 200+ at bats in Single-A vs Double-A or whether he gets some at bats in September.

First of all, this isn't true and second of all, how is this any different from the way you approach things?

You are clearly saying here that your way(ie what the Orioles have done) is better...So, whats the difference? Chris and myself aren't allowed to have a different opinion then you do?

[El Gordo]

First of all, this isn't true and second of all, how is this any different from the way you approach things?

You are clearly saying here that your way(ie what the Orioles have done) is better...So, whats the difference? Chris and myself aren't allowed to have a different opinion then you do?

I think he is clearly saying, "but the one thing I know for a fact is that there are several ways to look at this thing and no answer is wrong." I don't know how that adds up to not allowing you to have an opinion that differs, though I wish it would.

[Tony-OH]

First of all, this isn't true and second of all, how is this any different from the way you approach things?

You are clearly saying here that your way(ie what the Orioles have done) is better...So, whats the difference? Chris and myself aren't allowed to have a different opinion then you do?

The big difference is you two are sitting here making ridiculous statements like player development hasn't done anything for Wieters or they have somehow screwed him up.

I'm just showing that there was value in how he was handled. Do I think he would have been ruined by starting in Double-A? Absolutely not. But what I clearly reject in this idea that the Orioles have somehow screwed up while Wieters has become one of the top prospects in all of baseball and is ready to step into the major leagues at anytime.

The entire job of player development is to get players ready to be successful in the major leagues. How you can look at Wieters and say they didn't do that is beyond me.

[Sports Guy]

The big difference is you two are sitting here making ridiculous statements like player development hasn't done anything for Wieters or they have somehow screwed him up.

I'm just showing that there was value in how he was handled. Do I think he would have been ruined by starting in Double-A? Absolutely not. But what I clearly reject in this idea that the Orioles have somehow screwed up while Wieters has become one of the top prospects in all of baseball and is ready to step into the major leagues at anytime.

The entire job of player development is to get players ready to be successful in the major leagues. How you can look at Wieters and say they didn't do that is beyond me.

Tony, i think you misunderstood me and that is probably my fault.

When I say that they screwed things up with him, i meant(SOLELY) on either starting him in Frederick or leaving him in Frederick too long.

We heard that they wanted him to make the single A AS team...I am sorry but that is a bs answer IMO...Do you think he is going to look back on that and say that was a huge, career changing event?

Anyway, if you disagree with this, that's fine but this is what I was talking about and I didn't mean to imply that they are damaging him or something like that.(if that is even what you were thinking I meant to begin with)

[mweb]

This is simply not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. The difference between him being up now vs September vs opening day of 2009 is not likely to affect how Wieters does in the future with us.

[BaltimoreTerp]

::Nothing to do with Wieters (disclaimer)::

Yes, we are a last place team, but a team that many expected to be much much worse, up to maybe losing 100 games. Chemistry has been huge for the success of this team, and that's not even debatable.

I think what you're saying is, why does chemistry matter if we're still in last place. I get that, it's a fair point, but it still does matter. Chemistry is a manager's best friend. It's also probably the hardest thing for a coach/manager to sustain throughout his tenure. Just look at Billick (I know football's different).

Bottom line is that chemistry is huge. Tom Rath did a big study on chemistry's effect on employee performance (Vital Friends is a great book). It's basically been proven that working with guys you like to be around greatly improves concentration, focus & determination, and results in success.

So yes, while it may not be the worst thing in the world to "tinker" with the chemistry of a last place team, let's realize that sustaining chemistry (into next year) isn't guaranteed, and tinkering with it this year, though a lost cause, would have long-term implications.

::Back to Wieters::

I don't think it's safe to assume that bringing Wieters up would hurt the chemistry. Look at our revolving door at SS. It's not like he's the heir apparent to Mike Piazza.

If expectations and communication is clear and consistent there will be no chemistry problem. And from everything we've heard about Trembley, he doesn't have that issue.

And Mike Piazza really killed his teams in the six playoff appearances they made :laughlol:

As for the rest, if you can prove that Nick Markakis hits better because Kevin Millar is giving Terry Crowley a hotfoot in the dugout, I'll agree to chemistry mattering on a last-place team playing lame-duck old guys.

Until then, I'll go with my observations over my time watching baseball that you only hear about good chemistry on good teams and teams with "bad chemistry" win all the time.

[Elon Os Fan]

Jeeez. Doesn't anybody think that Wieters needs a little rest after his first year as a pro? He is a catcher which is the most physical demanding position and needs some rest after the season. Do you guys really want to risk damaging him only for the Orioles to win 2 games more in 2008.

Shut him down after the season in Bowie has ended and let him rest. In 2009 take him to spring training and let him be the starting catcher!

Maybe let him DH/1B in September.

That should let him rest and give him a taste of the big leagues.

[hammer310]

Man there are some long posts in this thread.

I really dont know which side I would take, as they both make good points.

I think I would go with bringing him up now to let him get a taste of the majors.

It wouldn't bother me if he wasn't though.

[Tony-OH]

Again, you state that you know there are several ways to look at this, and no opinion is wrong…. So I’m not sure why you want to discount my pov out-of-hand?

If you believe that's what I did then you missed the entire point of my previous thread. Had you worded your arguments, "I think the Orioles are handling Wieters too conservatively" and then made your points, we would had a nice give and take.

Instead, you and Rob were the ones that said the Orioles were "screwing it up" or that the player development people have "done nothing for him."

I have no problem with someone having an opinion that Wieters should be in the majors right now. I have a problem with people saying that the Orioles are stupid or "just like every other Orioles administration" because they are not doing what you advocate.

I've made my points, you've made yours, let's move on.