Orioles signing Rougned Odor

[Tony-OH]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No, I’m not.  
 

If we entered this year feeling we have a few more good young starting pitchers and they showed real progress, I would rather have that than the #1 pick.  

You are dug in. Enjoy your foxhole.

I can't have a conversation with you on this kind of stuff if you are going to keep sitting your arguments on hypotheticals like if these guys improved I'd rather have that vs the 1st pick. That's not even in the conversation. That's like saying you'd rather have every rookie go off last year and the Orioles end up winning 70 games. Of course, we all would have preferred the rookies and young players to take big step forwards vs finishing in dead last. No one would possible argue that with you.

The question is, would you rather have spent money on middling players like you keep talking about and finish with five or ten more wins and end up with the 4th or worse pick over the 1st. 

Last year, it made sense to give some young players chances (but they totally screwed up how they used Lowther) and basically fill the rest with never would bes and a few one year guys you hope do well and you can move for talent. Once they knew they weren't going to get much for Galvis and Franco, they went full tank mode to get the 1st overall pick. Under the current system, it made sense to do that.

 

 

[Sports Guy]

22 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

You are dug in. Enjoy your foxhole.

I can't have a conversation with you on this kind of stuff if you are going to keep sitting your arguments on hypotheticals like if these guys improved I'd rather have that vs the 1st pick. That's not even in the conversation. That's like saying you'd rather have every rookie go off last year and the Orioles end up winning 70 games. Of course, we all would have preferred the rookies and young players to take big step forwards vs finishing in dead last. No one would possible argue that with you.

The question is, would you rather have spent money on middling players like you keep talking about and finish with five or ten more wins and end up with the 4th or worse pick over the 1st. 

Last year, it made sense to give some young players chances (but they totally screwed up how they used Lowther) and basically fill the rest with never would bes and a few one year guys you hope do well and you can move for talent. Once they knew they weren't going to get much for Galvis and Franco, they went full tank mode to get the 1st overall pick. Under the current system, it made sense to do that.

 

 

Tony, what are you talking about?  

YOU are the one who brought up winning 10 more games.  My response to you was it depends on how they win those games..which you then said isnt smart.

I said to you, well it does depend because if the young pitching was a lot better and was a reason for that 10 win increase, that it makes a big difference.  It’s like Frobby said…I would want the 10 extra wins and lose the first pick of it’s because go nowhere vets made a difference.  But if it was because of the younger players, yes I would absolutely want that.
 

If you don’t want to talk hypotheticals than why did you introduce the hypothetical to the conversation to begin with?

[HowAboutThat]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He’s not although he may be a tad better defensively.

Urias is certainly an overall more desirable player, even at the same price. Odor probably has more power, but I don’t want a guy hitting .202 to be anywhere near the 40- man roster.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

You are dug in. Enjoy your foxhole.

I can't have a conversation with you on this kind of stuff if you are going to keep sitting your arguments on hypotheticals like if these guys improved I'd rather have that vs the 1st pick. That's not even in the conversation. That's like saying you'd rather have every rookie go off last year and the Orioles end up winning 70 games. Of course, we all would have preferred the rookies and young players to take big step forwards vs finishing in dead last. No one would possible argue that with you.

The question is, would you rather have spent money on middling players like you keep talking about and finish with five or ten more wins and end up with the 4th or worse pick over the 1st. 

Last year, it made sense to give some young players chances (but they totally screwed up how they used Lowther) and basically fill the rest with never would bes and a few one year guys you hope do well and you can move for talent. Once they knew they weren't going to get much for Galvis and Franco, they went full tank mode to get the 1st overall pick. Under the current system, it made sense to do that.

 

 

Toney you missed the point, my point was that we could have won additional games without spoiling our precious plan, and next year we can win More games without spoiling the precious plan, and I asked you if you would rather win 60 games and have a better draft pick, or 70+ games and have a worse draft pick.

I contend, and most human beings also contend, that winning is better. It is better to win more games this year because wins are not meaningless. Wins are the reason we follow sports. 65 is better than 55, even if it means we get a worse pick.

Frobby and Sports Guy correctly pointed out that HOW we get those wins is important, But that’s why I said we can get those additional wins without spoiling our plan, which covers their point.

Nobody wants to sign stupid free agents so we can get an extra three wins. That’s what Dan did with horrible frequency, and I’m confident that Mike won’t do that(Although it can certainly be argued that he did exactly that twice yesterday)

But yes wins are not meaningless, wins are good, And winning 20 extra games this season is not just possible, it is necessary.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Philip

[sportsfan8703]

We all wanted some analytical genius as GM. Then we get that, and literally if you look up Odor’s flyballs he hit then overlay that to OPACY, you can see why this makes sense. Power plays up at OPACY, and for the league min. 
 

We’re a 52 win team. Why not have Odor play 2B everyday, then try and stretch Urias into a SS, with Mateo in a “Melvin Mora” type role. 
 

Some people just have wine taste and beer money when it comes to stop gap players. They wouldn’t be “stop gap” players if they didn’t have “some” flaws. He’s 27, not 32 or 37. This is exactly the type of player we should be taking a chance on. Basically he’s Schoop 2.0 from what Minnesota did a few years back. Schoop’s game played up too at OPACY. 

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

He will because Urias really can’t play anywhere else everyday.

If Odor starts, it should be at third.  Gutierrez isn’t exactly good, so no harm done there.  Urias is a good player, so no reason to play a garbage player over him.

Urias played the majority of his games at SS last year. Not much to go on but per Fangraphas his UZR/150's were 2B -3.1, SS -3.9, 3B +14.0, with 3B being the smallest sample. I don't know that Urias can't play SS or 3B any more or less than 2B. I will be upset if he loses AB's but I don't think that has to be the case, even with Odor starting. Depending on how they move the pieces around those AB's could come from Gutierrez and Mateo. 

[LookinUp]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I also feel pretty good in saying that, for right now, we do not need to add expensive, long term options in the field.  Elias will concentrate on positional talent all the time imo.  This isn’t just how drafts have fallen.  That is his plan and I agree with him.  

I still think that if we add expensive, it should be through the field. We draft better there. Take advantage of that and trade our drafted players for pitching. The premium on pitching through FA is crazy.

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

In the past teams would be waiting to sign folks, betting that a spring training delay would lead to players desperate for a team when an agreement is finally reached.  That isn't happening and I'm curious why.

My guess is the range of outcomes for this CBA is relatively narrow and will not present drastic change. 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I still think that if we add expensive, it should be through the field. We draft better there. Take advantage of that and trade our drafted players for pitching. The premium on pitching through FA is crazy.

My guess is the range of outcomes for this CBA is relatively narrow and will not present drastic change. 

I don’t see how it makes sense that we should spend big on FAs in areas we draft well.  That seems to be counterproductive.   The position player salaries are crazy too.  
 

I would rather have ERod at 5/77 vs what a lot of the position players got.

You use your depth to trade for pitching.

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t see how it makes sense that we should spend big on FAs in areas we draft well.  That seems to be counterproductive.   The position player salaries are crazy too.  
 

I would rather have ERod at 5/77 vs what a lot of the position players got.

You use your depth to trade for pitching.

I think we all would, but the O's haven't shown the ability to sign marquee pitchers like that until they have shown they are at least in a competitive window (Ubaldo 2014, Cobb 2018). Otherwise I think it's next to impossible to just go sign a guy like E-Rod for 5/$77. 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

I think we all would, but the O's haven't shown the ability to sign marquee pitchers like that until they have shown they are at least in a competitive window (Ubaldo 2014, Cobb 2018). Otherwise I think it's next to impossible to just go sign a guy like E-Rod for 5/$77. 

Well, if we are going to rule out what the Orioles have not shown an ability to do, Tony should shut down this and we should all start rooting for a different team because they haven’t shown the ability to do anything at the Ml level.

[LookinUp]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t see how it makes sense that we should spend big on FAs in areas we draft well.  That seems to be counterproductive.   The position player salaries are crazy too.  
 

I would rather have ERod at 5/77 vs what a lot of the position players got.

You use your depth to trade for pitching.

This is all I'm saying. You can decide value between Hays, Santander, Mullins, Kjerstad, Stowers, Cowser, Henderson... and make the trades accordingly.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, if we are going to rule out what the Orioles have not shown an ability to do, Tony should shut down this and we should all start rooting for a different team because they haven’t shown the ability to do anything at the Ml level.

Huh?

I'm just saying, the last competitive window started when Dan traded for Hammel, signed a mid-tier Chen out of Taiwan, and plucked Gonzo from obscurity. Those moves worked out and the team had some good years, enabling them to attract pitchers on longer deals. That's really been the only time in modern day Orioles when the team has been able to sign starting pitchers to lengthy ML deals. They were, unfortunately, both terrible signings in terms of how they played out. But there's absolutely no way this team is successfully signing a guy of E-Rod's caliber until their mix of homegrown players and some key short-term signings or trade acquisitions shows it can be relatively competitive. 

[jabba72]

4 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We all wanted some analytical genius as GM. Then we get that, and literally if you look up Odor’s flyballs he hit then overlay that to OPACY, you can see why this makes sense. Power plays up at OPACY, and for the league min. 
 

We’re a 52 win team. Why not have Odor play 2B everyday, then try and stretch Urias into a SS, with Mateo in a “Melvin Mora” type role. 
 

Some people just have wine taste and beer money when it comes to stop gap players. They wouldn’t be “stop gap” players if they didn’t have “some” flaws. He’s 27, not 32 or 37. This is exactly the type of player we should be taking a chance on. Basically he’s Schoop 2.0 from what Minnesota did a few years back. Schoop’s game played up too at OPACY. 

Odor is no Schoop. Yankee stadium greatly favors LH's too. Odor didnt do much there. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

19 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Odor is no Schoop. Yankee stadium greatly favors LH's too. Odor didnt do much there. 

The last three seasons Schoop has put up a 108 OPS+ compared to 88 OPS+ for Odor. Schoop is the better hitter by a good distance. 

[Just Regular]

I was surprised to see his 2021 OAA percentile 95...at 50 Minimum Attempts he was 4th of 85 second basemen at Success Rate Added (Ramon Urias was 80th), and even in the top third of third basemen in his first 30 career games there if you lower the chances filter enough for him to show up.   2021 OAA guesses Odor was 9 runs better than Urias with the leather.

He reminds me a little of Kohl Stewart, except that making Fangraphs 2016 Trade Value Top 50 is the eternal flame lighter instead of being an elite draft pick.    Contact and baserunning were once upon a time strengths, though Savant shows his Sprint Speed last 3 years descending 73/56/42.   Fangraphs BsR thinks he was still positive in 2021.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2016-trade-value-41-to-50/

Odor is a polarizing player, with his glaring weaknesses — the lack of walks, the defensive issues, and his temper — stacking up against his elite combination of contact and power rates for a player his age, and his terrific baserunning making him a potential high-end offensive player. His edges need plenty of polishing, but he’s already a quality big leaguer, and given that he’s younger than a bunch of the guys who played in yesterday’s Futures Game, it’s easy to dream on the upside if he starts improving on his weak spots. Not many 22-year-olds can match Odor’s present value, and so even as he marches towards his arbitration years, Odor is one of the game’s most valuable combinations of short-term and long-term value.