O's Ink Izturis

[BaltimoreTerp]

What odds would you put on Izturis playing SS on the O's next contender?

If you answer that question honestly then you'd understand why BT's analogy about how to make money fits perfectly.

Exactly.

Izturis is what he is: a very good, if not great defender with almost no offensive value. He's not likely to decline much in these two years, but he's definitely not going to get any better.

I just think we CAN do better, whether it is finding a better option at shortstop now, or not paying a utility player three-plus million dollars in 2010.

You cannot tell me that there isn't another shortstop out there that would provide very good defense and minimal offense, at a far-lower cost then what we are paying for the name "Cesar Izturis".

[BaltimoreTerp]

The analogy may be too warped by now, but I'm pretty sure we can agree that the smart investor isn't playing the high risk equities game without first making sure he has an adequate store of cash on hand (most say 6 months of expenses).

That's why I said "tiny bit of cash". That's essentially what we would be giving up instead of hiding $6 million in the mattress for the next two years.

[Baltimoron]

What odds would you put on Izturis playing SS on the O's next contender?

If you answer that question honestly then you'd understand why BT's analogy about how to make money fits perfectly.

The only way his analogy makes sense is if we make the assumption its an either or proposition (which it isn't in investing terms, or in baseball terms).

-----

That the Os won't compete this year or probably the next doesn't change the fact they still have to field a SS over the next two years.

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly.

Izturis is what he is: a very good, if not great defender with almost no offensive value. He's not likely to decline much in these two years, but he's definitely not going to get any better.

I just think we CAN do better, whether it is finding a better option at shortstop now, or not paying a utility player three-plus million dollars in 2010.

You cannot tell me that there isn't another shortstop out there that would provide very good defense and minimal offense, at a far-lower cost then what we are paying for the name "Cesar Izturis".

Well, BMoron has pretty much shown that if Izturis fits your definition, we'll be getting him at a fraction of his actual value. That works for me.

What options do you suggest that would offer that same kind of value?

[Baltimoron]

You cannot tell me that there isn't another shortstop out there that would provide very good defense and minimal offense, at a far-lower cost then what we are paying for the name "Cesar Izturis".

If he is out there, tell us who that is?

[Lucky Jim]

The only way his analogy makes sense is if we make the assumption its an either or proposition (which it isn't in investing terms, or in abseball terms).

-----

That the Os won't compete this year or probably the next doesn't change the fact they still have to field a SS over the next two years.

This is the more lucid version of my "maximizing" post.

[clapdiddy]

The only way his analogy makes sense is if we make the assumption its an either or proposition (which it isn't in investing terms, or in abseball terms).

-----

That the Os won't compete this year or probably the next doesn't change the fact they still have to field a SS over the next two years.

Very good point. Plus, you don't know who the surrounding cast will be next season.

I believe a team could still be a contender with Itzuris as the regular shortstop.

[Hallas]

While this is a good signing at 2/$6, there is a flaw with Baltimorons analysis. I can't really post references right now (I'm posting from my mobile phone... I'm a dedicated OH'er like that) the marginal value of a win is not static. It is frankly ridiculous to believe that Izturis's production is worth $8.5 million a season. The value of going from 0 WAR to 1 WAR is not the same as the value of going from 4 WAR to 5 WAR, and the market for Tex in comparison with the numbers thrown around for Izturis demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Nonetheless, good signing considering how few SS options there are right now.

[Baltimoron]

That's why I said "tiny bit of cash". That's essentially what we would be giving up instead of hiding $6 million in the mattress for the next two years.

Your point only works if you frame it as a mutually exclusive choice. It clearly isn't.

I don't understand why you appear to insist that the Izturis deal precludes the Orioles from also adding a high upside youthful SS.

[Ruzious]

What's in it for me?

I don't care what your "tagline" (whatever that is) says.

Nothing - since you said name the stakes.

But I'd give you the most valuable thing on earth - rep points.

[makoman]

Can't we just corner the market on frozen concentrated orange juice futures?

Whatever this means in terms of shortstops

[clapdiddy]

Can't we just corner the market on frozen concentrated orange juice futures?

Whatever this means in terms of shortstops

*in choking voice* "IT WAS THE DUKES! IT WAS THE DUKES!

My favorite comedy of all time.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Your point only works if you frame it as a mutually exclusive choice. It clearly isn't.

I don't understand why you appear to insist that the Izturis deal precludes the Orioles from also adding a high upside youthful SS.

I don't understand how you could get that from anything I've said, so apparently we're in the same boat...

[Frobby]

Here's a little tidbit - Izturis is playing in the Venezuelan Winter League, where he is hitting .326/.383/.395 in 46 plate appearances.

http://mlb.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=t_ibp&sid=l135&cid=693

[davearm]

If he is out there, tell us who that is?

Well until the Tigers signed him for a million bucks, there was Adam Everett.

Now don't get me wrong, he'd get the O's no closer to a longterm solution than Izturis does, but at least he'd be cheaper and there wouldn't be any ambiguity about the placeholder status.