Taking a two year perspective

[Moose Milligan]

45 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also enjoy judging others I don't really know by their posts on the internet.

Oh wait, I don't.

Sounds like a miserable way to spend a day.

Well I do judge you by your taste in music.  

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well I do judge you by your taste in music.  

That's pretty much my best case scenario.

I've still been bopping to the new Jockstrap that came out a couple weeks ago.

It's right on the cusp of not being my thing but there is enough going on that it works for me.

[Aristotelian]

6 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

You want names? Fine.

Ed-Rod and Matz.  Two very realistic guys we could have between the average yearly salary ranges of 11 and 15 million a year.  DeSclafani just signed for 3/36, 12 million a year.  Kluber just went to Tampa for a 1 year, 8 million deal, you mean to tell me we couldn't have given him a 2/16 million deal?   We couldn't have given DeSclafani an extra 1.5 per year?  

We could have had any of those guys for the deals they signed for and we weren't even rumored to be remotely close to any of them.  Those are all guys that could have made us better and those are all contracts that we could easily have afforded...even if you wanted to pay a little more because of the whole "well, we've gotta pay extra to get guys to Baltimore" trope, we could have done it.  

There, wildcard.  Those are all deals we could have easily done, all deals that practically any team could have signed those guys for.  

I actually support any of these names. I proposed Desclafini and was told that his contract was idiotic because his name is not Stroman. The problem is these guys aren't really good enough to make us competitive right now. They could stop the bleeding, make us a little less embarrassing, and potentially contribute to a winning club a couple years from now--or be flipped if the timing isn't right. All of which is consistent with the original "two year perspective" proposed in this thread.

[Orioles0615]

Apparently Tigers aren't supposed to tender Matt Boyd a contract. I would take a flyer on him

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Orioles0615 said:

Apparently Tigers aren't supposed to tender Matt Boyd a contract. I would take a flyer on him

His K rate dropped significantly this past season and his swingstr% dropped a lot.  
 

Wonder why?

[Orioles0615]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

His K rate dropped significantly this past season and his swingstr% dropped a lot.  
 

Wonder why?

Not sure, can't quite stick my finger on it

[Sports Guy]

9 hours ago, Orioles0615 said:

Not sure, can't quite stick my finger on it

He had multiple arm injuries and was held to under 80 IP.  Maybe the combo of the injuries and a small sample size led to this.

Interesting name to consider but you figure he signs a pillow contract with a better team and in a better park than OPACY.

[sportsfan8703]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

He had multiple arm injuries and was held to under 80 IP.  Maybe the combo of the injuries and a small sample size led to this.

Interesting name to consider but you figure he signs a pillow contract with a better team and in a better park than OPACY.

We’re never going to get that guy that needs to rebuild his value on a pillow deal. It’s always going to be the FA SP that are left over and need a payday. Ubaldo, Gallardo, Cobb, Cashner. 150mm+ wasted on FA SP. 

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We’re never going to get that guy that needs to rebuild his value on a pillow deal. It’s always going to be the FA SP that are left over and need a payday. Ubaldo, Gallardo, Cobb, Cashner. 150mm+ wasted on FA SP. 

I don’t know if this is true…a lot can change if we start to win.  The Adley factor could be huge too.

 

[Yossarian]

Our draft strategy the last 2 or 3 years seems to indicate we plan on looking elsewhere (free agency or trades) for pitching help.  I don't think the pitching is all going to be developed on the farm.  Also - the write-ups on our top 30 prospects don't give a lot of confidence in the defense of the future.  We have a lot of "major league average" or lower type guys that are more favored for their offense than their defense.  When the Rays and the Astros made their big jumps in wins, they both had speed and defense to go along with pitching.  I don't see that in our young stars.

[NCRaven]

18 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's pretty much my best case scenario.

I've still been bopping to the new Jockstrap that came out a couple weeks ago.

It's right on the cusp of not being my thing but there is enough going on that it works for me.

I forced myself to listen to the first 60 seconds and honestly don't know what you see (or hear) in it that would have made that minute of my life worthwhile.

[now]

5 hours ago, Yossarian said:

The write-ups on our top 30 prospects don't give a lot of confidence in the defense of the future.  We have a lot of "major league average" or lower type guys that are more favored for their offense than their defense.  When the Rays and the Astros made their big jumps in wins, they both had speed and defense to go along with pitching.  I don't see that in our young stars.

Yes, it's self-evident that defense helps pitching; but so does offense. Ideally, of course, you want both. But when it comes to choosing between them (avg. defense and plus offense, or vice versa), I believe it's no contest, that offense is far more impactful. When I used to play a lot of Strat-O-Matic and other sims, I experimented on that very question, when making roster and lineup decisions, and the results were conclusive that you go with the Westburgs over the Greniers. You can laugh at this Mickey Mouse science, and talk about the value of Belanger, but I'd wager a proper analysis shows the same conclusion, to give offense the higher weight in overall player value. Now, the best strategy might not favor a blanket rule but do what the great Oriole teams did: put great defense up the middle and "cannons at the corners."

 

[Can_of_corn]

5 hours ago, NCRaven said:

I forced myself to listen to the first 60 seconds and honestly don't know what you see (or hear) in it that would have made that minute of my life worthwhile.

You should have stuck with it the payoff starts at 1:12.  Georgia has a lovely voice and the song changes up quite a lot in interesting ways.

I will admit it is right at the cusp of what I can deal with..but that is what makes it fun.

 

 

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, now said:

Yes, it's self-evident that defense helps pitching; but so does offense. Ideally, of course, you want both. But when it comes to choosing between them (avg. defense and plus offense, or vice versa), I believe it's no contest, that offense is far more impactful. When I used to play a lot of Strat-O-Matic and other sims, I experimented on that very question, when making roster and lineup decisions, and the results were conclusive that you go with the Westburgs over the Greniers. You can laugh at this Mickey Mouse science, and talk about the value of Belanger, but I'd wager a proper analysis shows the same conclusion, to give offense the higher weight in overall player value. Now, the best strategy might not favor a blanket rule but do what the great Oriole teams did: put great defense up the middle and "cannons at the corners."

 

The main reason WAR exists is to balance offense and defense in a scientific way rather than just making broad statements that one is more important than the other.  But your point is correct.   Even a bad major league fielder makes almost all the routine plays, so the run impact of a good fielder vs. a bad one is not as big as the impact of a good hitter vs. a bad one.   There are only about 5-6 plays a game where the skill of the fielder really comes into play, but the skill of the batter matters in every at bat.   

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

The main reason WAR exists is to balance offense and defense in a scientific way rather than just making broad statements that one is more important than the other. 

I've always thought it was either scarcity of resources, or religion.