Jump to content

Hard to argue with it.


Moose Milligan

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, geschinger said:

Maybe a little bit of cockiness in believing they see something from his last month in Texas that they can get him to replicate.  If they're wrong, he still a who can likely eat 150-175 innings which has some value considering the state of the rotation.  If they are right, he's a steal.  

I don't mind Lyles per se, what I mind is $7M for Lyles. He put up negative WAR last year and -2.3 for his career. Maybe they get him to work out somehow but I don't see any justification for $7M. If you are going to spend $7M, is Lyles the one you are going to spend it on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I don't mind Lyles per se, what I mind is $7M for Lyles. He put up negative WAR last year and -2.3 for his career. Maybe they get him to work out somehow but I don't see any justification for $7M. If you are going to spend $7M, is Lyles the one you are going to spend it on? 

How would you have spent the 7M?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I was hoping for Boxberger and Harrison.

Considering one of the stated goals was to add a couple of starters to the pitching staff - what would you have done instead to address that need? 

I agree Lyles looks like an overpay, just not sure what the alternatives were that could realistically give the team 150 innings and that would only require a one year commitment.  He was a 2.0 WAR player as recently as 2019 so there is a non-zero chance he actually earns his salary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Considering one of the stated goals was to add a couple of starters to the pitching staff - what would you have done instead to address that need? 

I agree Lyles looks like an overpay, just not sure what the alternatives were that could realistically give the team 150 innings and that would only require a one year commitment.  He was a 2.0 WAR player as recently as 2019 so there is a non-zero chance he actually earns his salary.  

Eduardo Rodriguez 

Quintana

Make trades.

There were plenty of options available and still are, that would be better gambles than Lyles.  Lyles isn’t good.  The hope is that he gives us 160+ innings of 5 ERA baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Considering one of the stated goals was to add a couple of starters to the pitching staff - what would you have done instead to address that need? 

I agree Lyles looks like an overpay, just not sure what the alternatives were that could realistically give the team 150 innings and that would only require a one year commitment.  He was a 2.0 WAR player as recently as 2019 so there is a non-zero chance he actually earns his salary.  

I'd rather have Richards, Pineda, Smyly, Boyd, Bundy, Hill, Martin Perez, Duffy, and Kuhl, and they all signed for less. If Lyles costs $7M I would honestly rather go with Akin, Wells, Baumann etc and spend the money on other needs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I'd rather have Richards, Pineda, Smyly, Boyd, Bundy, Hill, Martin Perez, Duffy, and Kuhl, and they all signed for less. If Lyles costs $7M I would honestly rather go with Akin, Wells, Baumann etc and spend the money on other needs. 

I do like quite a few of those guys better but I think a good chunk were gone before they settled on Lyles.  I'd be curious if they were in the hunt for any of them. I especially liked Rodriguez as SG mentioned but he too was already off the table.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I do like quite a few of those guys better but I think a good chunk were gone before they settled on Lyles.  I'd be curious if they were in the hunt for any of them. I especially liked Rodriguez as SG mentioned but he too was already off the table.  

And there is the question of whether we have to pay a premium to get someone to pitch for a losing team in the AL East. Still, when the bidding gets to $7M for Lyles I would rather just roll with internal guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

And there is the question of whether we have to pay a premium to get someone to pitch for a losing team in the AL East. Still, when the bidding gets to $7M for Lyles I would rather just roll with internal guys. 

Yep, but with the payroll as low as it is, on short term deals I think it's fine to overpay.  I would have rather seen them overpay on others though. 

In response to another thread yesterday I was looking at Houston when they were in a similar stage of their rebuild that baltimore.  They signed 9 FA pitchers over two years that made up a huge chunk of their overall payroll.  All but 2 were one year deals the longest being 3 years.  With the state of the Orioles pitching staff it's something they probably should have considered.  It would not have hurt them going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise for the article and the F grade is that the Orioles are trying to put together a team that will win more games. A lot of the comments accept that premise.

I don't think that's what the Orioles are up to.

Here's how I look at it. The Orioles are trying to assemble a group of major leaguers who can be painlessly replaced -- that is, without regret and without much cost --during the season, after the season, or during next season. I think when it's time to flip the switch or shift gears or whatever you want to call it, we'll start seeing those guys released or traded or demoted as young guys who have had minor league success are promoted to replace them. So there's no room for long-term contracts, other than -- possibly -- Mancini or Rutschman, or possibly Mountcastle or Means. Pretty much everyone who has had some success at AA or AAA will get a shot because each represents a valuable package: a possible major leaguer who will  be paid the minimum. There are, or will be, a few veterans who have value, and I have no way to predict whether they'll be retained if there's a cheaper alternative who may be ready to promote.) hat's the way I can make the most sense of what's going on.

The Las Vegas numbers I've seen put the over-under on the Orioles' wins at 60.5 and 61.5, the lowest in MLB. (Pittsburgh, Colorado and Arizona are the only others under 70.) But the Orioles are at or near the bottom of MLB in 2022 payroll, even with Chris Davis, and have zero obligations to current players for 2023, other than a $1 million buyout if they don't pick up the Lyles option. If you look at the past off-season in terms of making the MLB roster light on future commitments and keeping the payroll low, while having a guy to put on the field at each required position, the Orioles deserve a higher grade than F. It's certainly unfair to compare them to teams whose off-season goal was to build a team that could win a lot of games.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yardball85 said:

They absolutely, 100% deserve an F.  They can still "rebuild" without completely ignoring improvements to the MLB team.  The two are far from mutually exclusive, despite what some people want to believe.

I'd be fine with them not signing viable major league free agents if they were aggressively promoting young players to the majors. 

All they are doing is throwing as cheap a team out there for as long as they can get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • He had a good ERA.  I think his FIP was 3.66 the one year and 4.66 the other.   
    • I don’t understand why Basallo is untouchable. Don’t we have Adley. Trade Basallo for a #2 if possible asap.
    • Difference in trading vets from a team still in rebuild mode versus trading vets from a team with World Series aspirations.  We've not seen him trade vets since the rebuild ended.
    • Understood. But here's the thing (given the current economic structure of the game) there are three ways to handle payroll for a winning team (as I see them). One is the Rays/Brewers/Guardians way. Where you have maybe one long term substantive contract (mostly done while player is young and before he has made real money or achieved real fame) and most of the time the contract is an exploitive type deal with a kid from another country who comes from a context of poverty (not judging it is what it is). These teams continuously are reloading/retooling/ and have constant roster reshaping and turnover. The goal is to make the postseason and hopeful every once in a blue moon the stars align while you are there and you may be able to go all the way! While these teams are often good, they are rarely great. And are even less willing to do what it takes to get them over the top IMO. The proof is in the fact that this model has never led to championship success (unless you want to use the Marlins of over 20 years ago from 03'). Another model is the "big spenders model", who spend seriously and have World Series aspirations. Some spend all on FA (like the Padres/Mets) and are super aggressive with trades hoping to augment their talent as they chase championships, but rarely does this work because the foundation of the team is usually built so poorly. They may be good for a season or shorter term but struggle to sustain. Then there are teams like the Phillies/Dodgers who do a combo of developing and spending (let's call that the best of both worlds). Obviously this is the most preferable because you get the short and long term rewards. But it may not be realistic to think that the O's could ever do/have what it takes to fully do both. Then there is the Braves and Astros model. Still a higher payroll but minimizing of risks through extending younger players (Braves) or avoiding most long term contracts (Astros) but paying higher salaries on shorter deals. Obviously both franchises have been successful (won WS). Having said all this the reality exists that if/when you do longer term contracts (extensions or FA deals) for franchise/cornerstone/superstar type players, you most likely won't get the best value on the back end (think Paul Goldschmidt this year). That's just the economics of the game. But the thing is, the owners (especially our new group) have the money and then some to write off those things and keep rolling as "the cost of doing business".  When examining all winners of the World Series in the last decade a pattern is pretty apparent (with exception of the Astros first championship in 17') you have to spend in order to win. 
    • An alternative... also from the Rangers:  Nathan Eovaldi.  FA after this season but has a $20m vesting option for 2025 if he throws 300 innings combined between '23 & '24.  It'll be close.  Between Scherzer (40 this month) and Eovaldi (34) who would you prefer? 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...