Pablo Lopez

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Mullins, Santander + 2 guys in our 10-25 range for both of those SP.

So Mullins, Santander, Vavra, Willems, for example. 

Oh ok..so yea, we did define significantly differently.

To me, that’s no big deal to add on.

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

Why? Why can’t you build a staff on “Young“ alone? The old guys have lots of money and lots of experience, is that worth overpaying for their past and blocking one of the young guys? What benefit does that experience offer? They aren’t going to be coaching, the real coaches might be a bit miffed at that, and I’m not sure they offer anything worth their cost.

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong, but the qualities you’re describing are very tenuous and ethereal, I’m not sure they are worth pursuing. 

At the moment, we have a whole lot of flotsam and jetsam, and no guarantee that any of it will turn into something worth keeping, but at the same time we have to give all of it a chance to audition. Bringing an aged veteran on board is not productive.

Part of the why is your answer...we have a whole lot of flotsam and jetsam. If you bring in two really good players, they're not blocking anyone. They're most likely letting those other guys settle into where they actually fit.

I'm also not sure I'd use the word ethereal, but maybe I need to look it up.  I think there's a lot to learn from experience and this org has very little of it in the coaching or the players. I like what SF did this year. Not our model, for sure, but there's something to be said for having baseball lifers who know how to have ABs against great pitching, and know how to pitch to today's awesome hitters, right next to you on the bench or in the dugout. 

Either way, it's an academic discussion at best. I don't own the team. The Angelos family does. They'll likely just wait another year before investing in FA talent.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Oh ok..so yea, we did define significantly differently.

To me, that’s no big deal to add on.

In fairness, I might be Willems' biggest fan. lol

There's also a lot of guys in that 10-25 range that are more significant than the two I picked. What if 1 was Basallo and the other Bradish, for example? 

Or Rom? I'm not necessarily talking about fit because I haven't looked at who the Marlins would want, but if they wanted our two highest upside international guys, I'd argue that's substantial.

[Hazmat]

9 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Mullins, Santander + 2 guys in our 10-25 range for both of those SP.

So Mullins, Santander, Vavra, Willems, for example. 

Would you trade GRod and Hall for that group of players?  

[Aristotelian]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Mullins and Santander for Lopez, Meyer and Brian Anderson.

I'd obviously love to get another young MLB ready pitcher. I would really love to do that without including Mullins, which would seem to set us back in our rebuild just as much as we gain. Santander alone wouldn't be nearly enough. I'd be curious if they have any interest in Hays and go from there. If they are interested in swapping prospect for prospect, Hays/Cowser for Lopez/Sixto? 

[Sports Guy]

33 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

In fairness, I might be Willems' biggest fan. lol

There's also a lot of guys in that 10-25 range that are more significant than the two I picked. What if 1 was Basallo and the other Bradish, for example? 

Or Rom? I'm not necessarily talking about fit because I haven't looked at who the Marlins would want, but if they wanted our two highest upside international guys, I'd argue that's substantial.

I would rather not include Basallo, Baumler or Hernandez….don’t really care about anyone else.

I’m sure something can easily be worked out if they want Mullins and those guys are assets they would deal.

 

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I'd obviously love to get another young MLB ready pitcher. I would really love to do that without including Mullins, which would seem to set us back in our rebuild just as much as we gain. Santander alone wouldn't be nearly enough. I'd be curious if they have any interest in Hays and go from there. If they are interested in swapping prospect for prospect, Hays/Cowser for Lopez/Sixto? 

I would much rather deal Mullins vs Cowser.

Even if you are believer in Mullins right now, how much of a believer are you in him being an above average CFer defensively and giving you a 4+ WAR in 2-3 years?  (Ie, when we figure to start to contend)

I personally don’t have that confidence but certainly agree he could be that good.  If we can get 2 arms like this for him, I don’t see why you don’t do it and I disagree that it puts us further behind rebuilding.  To me, it speeds it up.

[HowAboutThat]

44 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

r. Not our model, for sure, but there's something to be said for having baseball lifers who know how to have ABs against great pitching, and know how to pitch to today's awesome hitters, right next to you on the bench or in the dugout

That’s what coaches are for. The experienced guys may have tidbits, anecdotes, stories, but I question whether those are meaningful.

I’ve played in the same orchestra for 32 years, and just couple weeks ago I sat with a guy who is playing his first production with us, and I gave him some tidbits here and there about how to mark the part and turn pages and things like that. They were valuable, and he was grateful for them, but they weren’t that significant, And an experienced arm wouldn’t offer very much, especially an experienced arm such as we are likely to afford. Certainly none of the experienced arms we have brought in have been productive. Unless Mike has flipped the switch(and please Lord, let him have made that decision) It is best to just go with the guys we have unless we find someone good who is unexpectedly available.

[LookinUp]

41 minutes ago, Hazmat said:

Would you trade GRod and Hall for that group of players?  

No. I agree with your perspective on this one. This is really the way we would have to look at it. I think we're underselling what we'd be getting back and that means to actually make a trade like this our offer would have to go higher.

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I would rather not include Basallo, Baumler or Hernandez….don’t really care about anyone else.

I’m sure something can easily be worked out if they want Mullins and those guys are assets they would deal.

 

And that higher offer would likely have to include guys like above. 

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

And an experienced arm wouldn’t offer very much, especially an experienced arm such as we are likely to afford. Certainly none of the experienced arms we have brought in have been productive. Unless Mike has flipped the switch(and please Lord, let him have made that decision) It is best to just go with the guys we have unless we find someone good who is unexpectedly available.

Just to rehash, I've talked about Grienke and Scherzer, not exactly the next Matt Harvey.

I also said it's not happening. Just an approach I'd personally take if I were the O's. 

This is all academic. Not realistic at all. We aren't signing the type of veteran SP I'd want us to. 

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

No. I agree with your perspective on this one. This is really the way we would have to look at it. I think we're underselling what we'd be getting back and that means to actually make a trade like this our offer would have to go higher.

And that higher offer would likely have to include guys like above. 

Well I’m not sure Lopez or Meyer are held in the same regards as GRod and GRod and Hall have the edge in service time since Pablo already has 3 years.  There is also the idea of the money, even if it’s not a lot but it’s still a factor in comparing these things.

But, let’s take all of that away.  Would you deal GRod and Hall for Mullins?

Me?  No…but I’m also not the believer a lot of people are in Mullins(I think he’s good but not what he was in 2021).  Would others?  I think it’s possible.  Again, this goes back to whatever your evaluation is of Mullins.  If you believe hes a 15-20 WAR guy for the next 4 years and you believe you can win and you have a giant hole in CF and you have a lot of pitching depth, you may make that move.

There are a lot of variables in this and individual evaluations matter.  Maybe you do it because you think GRod is more of a 3.5ish ERA guy and that Hall will never be more than a poor mans Josh Hader.  

[LookinUp]

Sure there are. First, neither is as valuable as GRod, but Meyer is damn valuable and that's hard to give up. Absent throw ins, I could see a 1:1 type deal for him and Mullins and that's if the Marlins really love Mullins. Now you figure out what it takes to get another guy for 3 years. That's a lot, I think.

[HowAboutThat]

21 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Just to rehash, I've talked about Grienke and Scherzer, not exactly the next Matt Harvey.

I also said it's not happening. Just an approach I'd personally take if I were the O's. 

This is all academic. Not realistic at all. We aren't signing the type of veteran SP I'd want us to. 

Yes I understand who you were talking about, and I also understand that it’s not gonna happen, my point is that it shouldn’t happen. The old guys offer nothing except an illustrious past. They can’t offer any tidbits, teaching a skill is a different skill set then doing a skill, Which is why a good performer is frequently a terrible teacher. So if Greinke for instance Is a wonderful performer, that doesn’t at all mean that he will be an acceptable teacher. So I remain unconvinced that veteran leadership is a meaningful thing

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes I understand who you were talking about, and I also understand that it’s not gonna happen, my point is that it shouldn’t happen. The old guys offer nothing except an illustrious past. They can’t offer any tidbits, teaching a skill is a different skill set then doing a skill, Which is why a good performer is frequently a terrible teacher. So if Greinke for instance Is a wonderful performer, that doesn’t at all mean that he will be an acceptable teacher. So I remain unconvinced that veteran leadership is a meaningful thing

Well, if I just wanted them for veteranocity, I'd pay a lot less for some old guy. I was referring to guys who would slot in at 1-2 in our rotation with Means, Rodriguez and someone else as 3-5.

I'm talking about guys who would, along with a lineup of Mullins, Hays, Mountcastle, Mancini, Rutschman, Stowers and late this year or early next year infield reinforcements, make us exciting and somewhat competitive. 

I'm talking about on field talent, some leadership AND the O's version of Jayson Werth as it relates to signaling the fans that now is the time.

I'm just walking through my pipe dream. I do think it's a more reasonable scenario (though still unlikely) when you're sure that two of your infielders are ML ready to be real contributors in addition to everything else, so this offseason doesn't exactly add up. I get that.

[Aristotelian]

43 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I would much rather deal Mullins vs Cowser.

Even if you are believer in Mullins right now, how much of a believer are you in him being an above average CFer defensively and giving you a 4+ WAR in 2-3 years?  (Ie, when we figure to start to contend)

I personally don’t have that confidence but certainly agree he could be that good.  If we can get 2 arms like this for him, I don’t see why you don’t do it and I disagree that it puts us further behind rebuilding.  To me, it speeds it up.

Mullins put up 5.7 WAR last year. He may never repeat that but 4 WAR would seem to be a pretty fair projection going forward. With four years of control. Age 27. I don't see why he can't be productive for 3+ years. I know there is risk of regression but I just don't know how you build to anything if you trade your best player and they're not even anywhere near free agency. For someone who wants to win now I am little surprised you are proposing this.