Which of the remaining Free Agents are the best fit for the O's?

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So what?  Do you think every FA signed by a team plays in the playoffs every year?  It’s just a poor way of looking at it.

This team should and could contend in 2023.  Landing elite talent now is fine.  They aren’t going from 60 Wins to 95.  It’s just dumb to think that will happen.  There needs to be real improvement first.

Should they keep Adley and GRod in the minors until 2023?  Why waste a year of service time for a last place team?

Again, you can think "could" and "should" all you want.  Others have a different opinion.

And in my case, an opinion that has been far more accurate.

There's no need to make hyperbolic analogies.  There's a world of difference between bringing up young players to a last place team and paying 30+ million to an external free agent to a last place team.

As far as they aren't going from 60 to 95 wins, that's actually proven time and again largely how these rebuilds go.  If they work.

The Rays did it.  The Cubs did it.  The Astros did it over two years.

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Just FYI folks don't respond well to that argument.

Probably cause it's a bad one.

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Correa would be a move that would theoretically payoff in 2023 and beyond.

Me I don't want to block Druw Jones, the Shortstop of the future. 

Theoretically, yes.

And it's why I am even willing to entertain the thought.

But it comes with risk.  And you point out: opportunity cost.

I find it funny that the poster who has explicitly stated he wouldn't sign Correa, now wants to use Correa as yet another cudgel.

[jamalshw]

I think signing Correa would be a great move, but we all know it's not happening. It makes sense to start adding this year, but it's 110% not going to happen. 

Still...given we have little else to talk about outside of the new LF wall, it does make sense. He's likely to sign for a bit more than Seager did so he 10/$325M is the starting point. I'm not sure if--given his age--he gets an extra year or gets a few extra dollars, but the goal will clearly be to top the Seager deal. 

The Orioles can afford him. His age will line up well with the coming waive of talent and given some questions about Henderson and Westburg staying at SS, gives a plus defender (at least for the first half of the deal) at a premium position along with a good bat. Then, between Urias, Westburg, Henderson, Mayo, Norby, etc. you fill in 2B and 3B. So I agree, it makes all the sense in the world, but the Orioles aren't splurging that much money probably at all, but definitively not until their one piece away. 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Again, you can think "could" and "should" all you want.  Others have a different opinion.

And in my case, an opinion that has been far more accurate.

There's no need to make hyperbolic analogies.  There's a world of difference between bringing up young players to a last place team and paying 30+ million to an external free agent to a last place team.

As far as they aren't going from 60 to 95 wins, that's actually proven time and again largely how these rebuilds go.  If they work.

The Rays did it.  The Cubs did it.  The Astros did it over two years.

No team went from 60 to 95 wins in one year, which is what I was talking about.

Your meaningless record prediction means nothing in this discussion so other than to pay yourself on the back, I don’t know why you keep mentioning it.

Your argument is about wasting a year of a player when you aren’t contending.  Same principle.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No team went from 60 to 95 wins in one year, which is what I was talking about.

Your meaningless record prediction means nothing in this discussion so other than to pay yourself on the back, I don’t know why you keep mentioning it.

Your argument is about wasting a year of a player when you aren’t contending.  Same principle.

We have had a team go from 65 to 100.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No team went from 60 to 95 wins in one year, which is what I was talking about.

Your meaningless record prediction means nothing in this discussion so other than to pay yourself on the back, I don’t know why you keep mentioning it.

Your argument is about wasting a year of a player when you aren’t contending.  Same principle.

So what are you even arguing about?

You wouldn't sign Correa but you want the O's to?

Or something like that?

P.S. The Rays went from 66 wins to 97.

The Cubs went from 66 to 97 in two years.

The Stros went from 51 wins to 86 in two years.

None of these teams signed a major free agent in order to do it either.

I expect the Orioles to get in that 66 win area this year.  And I hope true competitveness comes in 2024.

I keep mentioning that I've been more accurate in my predictions the last few years than 90% of the board because it's a fact.  And because you keep using your predictions as basis for your projected moves.  Which time and again have proven to overrate the O's baseline talent and been premature in when expecting the MiL talent to influence the W-L record at the ML level.

[Moose Milligan]

@Picklesthis is where SG will claim that you're too dense to follow his argument or something to that affect.  If you keep picking apart his arguments and standing your ground, it'll just result in ad hominem attacks.  Or he'll go on the offense and accuse you of trolling.

Noble effort, though.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Well I don’t think this should be a tough year and I think you should contend in 2023 and if you signed Correa, that should be the thought process for everyone.

Also, there isn’t much in free agency next year.

I do agree next year’s FA class looks underwhelming.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I do agree next year’s FA class looks underwhelming.  

They could sign Mancini.

 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

They could sign Mancini.

 

And Jordan Lyles will be available.  

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I do agree next year’s FA class looks underwhelming.  

The Astros leveraged their farm system via trades more than FA.  At least initially.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

So what are you even arguing about?

You wouldn't sign Correa but you want the O's to?

Or something like that?

P.S. The Rays went from 66 wins to 97.

The Cubs went from 66 to 97 in two years.

The Stros went from 51 wins to 86 in two years.

None of these teams signed a major free agent in order to do it either.

I expect the Orioles to get in that 66 win area this year.  And I hope true competitveness comes in 2024.

I keep mentioning that I've been more accurate in my predictions the last few years than 90% of the board because it's a fact.  And because you keep using your predictions as basis for your projected moves.  Which time and again have proven to overrate the O's baseline talent and been premature in when expecting the MiL talent to influence the W-L record at the ML level.

So, you are kind of all over the place here.  I will address each point and remember, that the conversation is being done within the context of the idea of adding Correa.

1) I would sign Correa and would want the Os to sign him if it was for 7 or less years.  That's my max.  Since that contract won't happen, this is all a moot point but hey, its a discussion board, so wtf.

2) Yes, the Rays went from 66 wins.  They didn't go from 60 or less.  They are the closest and perhaps the only example to do it in ONE YEAR, which is what I was saying.  I agree that it can happen in 2 years although even those examples aren't plentiful.  That being said, my point is that if you end up going into 2023 after just winning 60 games, I don't feel its realistic to think they are contending in 2023 and my goal would be to contend in 2023.  I think its absurd to head into 2023 hoping to be a 80ish win team at best.

2a) If they increase the number of playoff teams, it may mean 88ish wins gets you in the playoffs and that could change things some.  Right now, the odds aren't with you that you can win 60 games or less and get in.  Even if you want to go to 65 wins, its still unlikely.

3) Again, your predictions mean nothing.  They literally bring nothing to the conversation.  Your rationale there doesn't mean anything so again, I don't get why you are bringing it up but congrats, you did well with your predictions.  Go upstairs and make sure you tell your mom and have her pat you on the back.

The overall point is this...If the team went out and signed Correa, it should speed up their own timeline.  It should also cause them to make a further move or 2 for the 2022 team.  If you signed him, my expectation would be that you could/should be a 75ish win team and that you are in great position to contend in 2023.  I do not feel that having another season similar to what we have seen, even if its accompanied by 5-10 more wins will do that and my goal is contention in 2023, again especially if you sign Correa.

By the end of 2022, a lot of this young talent should be up seeing time.  Combine that with an elite talent like Correa and a ton of payroll flexibility long term and 2023 sets up as a potentially great season for the organization.  The idea that it is "a year early" is meaningless.  You get talent when you can get it.  The rest will fall into place.  

 

And again, next offseason isn't good for free agency and the offseason after that isn't good either unless Manny opts out and would you really go pay him huge money at that point?  So, how are you adding real talent?  Trading a bunch of prospects for it?  Always an option but I am guessing many would cry about that one and you obviously need the players to keep developing to have the value to land the top guys.  So, thats a risk as well.

At this point, Correa is probably your best chance at landing an elite talent at a youngish age.  So, if he would sign here for a deal that makes sense (which he won't) and if you believe in your young talent, which I am guessing you do, signing him now is a smart move.

 

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I do agree next year’s FA class looks underwhelming.  

The year after isn't much better, as I just pointed out.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The year after isn't much better, as I just pointed out.

I haven’t studied it.   But the thing is, you’re always going to have some guys who look much better two years from now than they look today.   In any event, I think the O’s tack will be to use FA to complement the team, not to be centerpieces, for the most part.