Orioles signing Rougned Odor

[waroriole]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I disagree..he is a way better hitter than Mancini.   I think Bryant has the ability to be an 850+ OPs guy in OPACY for another 3-4 years.

Why would he be an .850 OPS hitter in his age 30-33 seasons, when he only had one season like that from 26-29? 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Nah, I'm just telling it like I see it. I don't think I'm looking at things with orange colored glasses. With all the unknowns of the CBA this offseason, it makes little sense for a 110 loss team to be aggressive in free agency. Besides, no starting pitcher is signing here unless grossly overpaid.

Are you concerned at all with how aggressive other teams have been signing players before the lockout?  It's a marked change from recent off seasons.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Why would he be an .850 OPS hitter in his age 30-33 seasons, when he only had one season like that from 26-29? 

Well, he likely would have been over 850 if he didn’t go to SF.  That park effected his power production.  2020 was like..whatever.  And 2018 it was 835..very little difference between 835 and 850.  It’s not like he was barely getting to 800.

2018 was also the only season he had injury issues, so that could have hurt his numbers.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are you concerned at all with how aggressive other teams have been signing players before the lockout?  It's a marked change from recent off seasons.

Yea I don’t see why the CBA should change what we do.  Either the young guys are up immediately or we wait a few weeks.  Doesn’t change much.

[waroriole]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, he likely would have been over 850 if he didn’t go to SF.  That park effected his power production.  2020 was like..whatever.  And 2018 it was 835..very little difference between 835 and 850.  It’s not like he was barely getting to 800.

2018 was also the only season he had injury issues, so that could have hurt his numbers.

I just don’t know why his numbers would improve in his 30s. It’s not like he carries the kind of skills that age well. 
 

I’d say there’s a much higher chance of Mountcastle hitting at an .850 clip the next 4 years than Bryant. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea I don’t see why the CBA should change what we do.  Either the young guys are up immediately or we wait a few weeks.  Doesn’t change much.

If stuff like arbitration being tied to WAR or lowered requirements for arbitration/free agency are part of the new deal the Franco deal looks even better.

 

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.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, waroriole said:

I just don’t know why his numbers would improve in his 30s. It’s not like he carries the kind of skills that age well. 
 

I’d say there’s a much higher chance of Mountcastle hitting at an .850 clip the next 4 years than Bryant. 

He generally hits for a decent average, walks a lot, doesn’t K a lot.  He has had at least a 123 wRC+ In every year of his career besides 2020.  
 

I think he’s a solid bet to continue to be good.  He’s not really showing any signs of decline.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Depending on why they won those games…absolutely.

Sorry, but that's not smart. If the team is going to suck, might as well suck enough to get the best pick. 

At the end of the day, let's hope they are never in this situation again.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are you concerned at all with how aggressive other teams have been signing players before the lockout?  It's a marked change from recent off seasons.

No, because I haven't seen a player that will be a difference maker at a position of need in 2024 and beyond.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Sorry, but that's not smart. If the team is going to suck, might as well suck enough to get the best pick. 

At the end of the day, let's hope they are never in this situation again.

First of all, if they won 10 more games because the young pitchers were way better, that’s a good right.

Secondly, who is to say the Orioles take the #1 guy, if there even is a consensus #1 guy?  It’s very possible that they could get the guy at 4 that they take 1.  Now, if there is a clear guy, I think they take him but just saying, it’s possible they don’t.  

If they win 68 games this year, that’s a huge jump but they still suck…at what point do we stop saying wins don’t matter because if a stupid draft pick?  
 

At some point, winning has to matter able it’s crazy to me, knowing how bad the franchise has been for most of the last 25 years, that anyone would be satisfied with continued losing.  Elias and the ownership have played the fan base better than a politician.  

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Let's say Elias did and the Orioles would have won 62 instead of 52. They still finish dead last, lose 100 games, and they get the #4 overall pick vs the #1. 

Are those ten wins worth getting the 4th over pick vs the #1 overall pick?

 

That’s beside the point. I don’t want to play for draft choice, so yes, but the real answer to your question is that the system needs to be changed, but that’s irrelevant to my point which is that this team was artificially held to 50 wins, and so improving as much as Sports Guys suggests is possible IS possible.

[jabba72]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

That’s beside the point. I don’t want to play for draft choice, so yes, but the real answer to your question is that the system needs to be changed, but that’s irrelevant to my point which is that this team was artificially held to 50 wins, and so improving as much as Sports Guys suggests is possible IS possible.

Other than running Harvey put there for 28 starts what obvious decisions were made to artificially tank? Im not sure I see a 60+ win team with that rotation and bullpen. 

[Philip]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Let's say Elias did and the Orioles would have won 62 instead of 52. They still finish dead last, lose 100 games, and they get the #4 overall pick vs the #1. 

Are those ten wins worth getting the 4th over pick vs the #1 overall pick?

 

Those ten wins represent some things that the team isn’t showing, which is a desire for progress. Continuing to ruin the on field product for the sake of a draft pick is so bad it should be obvious.. if we are improving, OH MY GOD WERE GETTING BETTER OH NO HORRIBLE TERRIBLE.
BFD. We’re SUPPPOSED to get better. We improved ten wins, let’s improve 18 more wins, and then another 10 wins, or whatever. We’re not in this sport to get the best draft pick, but the worst, so, no I have no issues with putting the best possible team on the field, and making improvements. And no, I’m not saying hand out stupid 500 million dollars worth of contracts or make stupid Davies-for-Parra moves. I’m saying improve every year and f—- the draft picks. You're saying  a lifetime of ruining the team for number one picks is fine? 
Do you want to win 60 games next year and pick third in ‘23, or 72 games and pick 9th in ‘23?  After all, those wins are meaningless, right? 
That’s a serious question.

Next season, would you rather win ~50-60 and pick ~1-3 in 2023, or ~75 and pick 9 or 10 in 2023?

I want to improve, and we can improve in a meaningful way now without jeopardizing our window. 

You are my brother, but no. I want to win, and if Mike is deliberately keeping the team from improving for the sake of a draft position, in addition to all the other things that are a mess with this team, I’m done.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Philip

[Philip]

17 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Other than running Harvey put there for 28 starts what obvious decisions were made to artificially tank? Im not sure I see a 60+ win team with that rotation and bullpen. 

The Season was full of bad personnel decisions. More logical choices would have helped. 

[RocBball11]

43 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

First of all, if they won 10 more games because the young pitchers were way better, that’s a good right.

Secondly, who is to say the Orioles take the #1 guy, if there even is a consensus #1 guy?  It’s very possible that they could get the guy at 4 that they take 1.  Now, if there is a clear guy, I think they take him but just saying, it’s possible they don’t.  

If they win 68 games this year, that’s a huge jump but they still suck…at what point do we stop saying wins don’t matter because if a stupid draft pick?  
 

At some point, winning has to matter able it’s crazy to me, knowing how bad the franchise has been for most of the last 25 years, that anyone would be satisfied with continued losing.  Elias and the ownership have played the fan base better than a politician.  

Elias has done the exact opposite. From day one he has stated that they need to invest in baseball analytics, Latin America, and the minors. 

At the major league level he has stressed development over wins, contract flexibility, and free agents in one year deals that could be moved easily.  He has stated on numerous occasions when the young core is ready to compete the money will be there and the approach will change.