Jump to content

Where to spend a bunch of money on Free Agents this fall?


wildcard

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ScGO's said:

With potential trades and with some prospects needing this year to prove their worth, this is all I can really think of

 

C - Rutchman

1B - Mountcastle

2B - ?

SS - ?

3B - ?

OF - ?, ?, ?

DH - ?

SP - G Rodriguez, ?, ?, ?, ?

RP - Wells, Bautista, ?????

I wouldn’t even go that far with the relievers.  Hall would be on my list except the risk of injuries makes him less of a guarantee.

But yea, I think you hit the nail on the head and your reasonings are dead on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Just looking at what the O's will have next spring to pick from and looking at holes.

Infield:  1B Mountcastle, Nevin, Mundy

2B/SS /3B:  Henderson, Westburg, Ortiz, Urias, Mateo, Gutierrez, Vavra, Jones, Martin

Outfield: Mullins, Hays, Stowers, Santander, Diaz, Cowser

Catcher:  Adley

Starters:  Grayson, DL, Means, Bradish,  T Wells

Starters Depth: Zimmerman, Kremer, Lowther, Akin, Baumann, Rom

Relievers:  Bautista, Baker, Tate, Sulser, Scott, Perez, Fry, Krehbiel, Lopez

So where are the holes you want to spend a bunch  of money on?

We need to see who among the above develops and who bombs before deciding where it makes sense to allocate longer term commitments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

With potential trades and with some prospects needing this year to prove their worth, this is all I can really think of

 

C - Rutchman

1B - Mountcastle

2B - ?

SS - ?

3B - ?

OF - ?, ?, ?

DH - ?

SP - G Rodriguez, ?, ?, ?, ?

RP - Wells, Bautista, ?????

I think that's mostly fair, if a little conservative. If you're factoring in possible trades, then yeah that kind of blows up everything. Otherwise, guys like Mullins, Hays, and Means are still locks because they have so many years of control left. It would be surprising to me to see early trades of those guys, but anything is possible. 

Really, I just want one shortstop prospect to reveal himself as The Truth this year. Whether it's Westburg, Henderson, or Ortiz. Not saying any of them will crack the ML roster this year, but I'm looking for one of them to really start lighting up the minors. If none of them do, that's going to be a bit of a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've got C (AR), 1B (Mounty), 2B (any number of prospects, but think Norby will be the guy), and OF (Hays, Mullin, Cowser) covered.  The IF positions have some potential and depth, but still TBD.  

 

#1 - Starting pitching - Let's see how this season goes first (for us and for the free agents) but there are some interesting options: 

Bassitt (34), Bauer and his baggage (32 - if he opts out), Clevinger (32), Eovaldi (33), Kershaw (35), Manaea (31), Musgrove (30), Rodon (30 - if he ops out), Syndergaard (30), Taillon (31), Verlander (40 - if he opts out).

#2 - SS - Probably the most options but most question marks in the MiLB for the O's.  I would hate to block prospects because the more we can save here, the more we can use toward pitching.  But not having a solid/plus SS is a big gap in today's game.  And like others have said, adding here would also make the prospects to trade chips.  Plus, the 3B free agents are a joke.

Correa (28 - wouldn't be shocked if he opts out), Bogaerts (30 - if he opts out), Trea Turner (30).  

 

Joc Pederson is a free agent next year if we're interested!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, interloper said:

I agree next year is too soon for a big FA SP. But they could definitely do better than Lyles next year. 

Maybe not.  But they've got to start filling gaps at some point.  And SP is the biggest need by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot depends on how our minor league position prospects develop this year.   We have lots of good prospects in the infield, outfield and of course catcher.  We may be able to contend in 2023 or 2024 without making any major FA acquisitions on the position player side.  

But I am 100 percent certain that we will need to make major investments in FA starting pitching.  Even in the best-case scenario where both GrayRod and DL Hall pan out as front line starters, we still will need two more good starters.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, interloper said:

I think 3B/middle infield is still an option. Don't think Henderson will be quite ready in 2023. Westburg it remains to be seen, for me, how much he really hits.  Same with Ortiz. There's room to supplement here and trade from depth. 

It would be nice to find a tried and tested SP. Even though that group is nice, injuries are extremely likely. 

The bullpen could use a true backend piece as well. 

3B?

 

I believe I'll have me a little Mayo on that.... Mmmmhmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Maybe not.  But they've got to start filling gaps at some point.  And SP is the biggest need by far.

If GrayRod, Hall, and Means are here and 1 of the "other" prospects has stepped up and become dependable, then the O's should definitely try to sign a #2/#3 starter.  A team with a lot of good young players can suddenly get much better.  Look what happened in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Orioles would need one more "big bat" in this scenario. Could be in the IF or in the OF. Mayo or Henderson might be that guy eventually, but neither can legally drink yet..so they're probably a few years away from being that middle of the order bat. I'm not really sold on the OF. Santander is ok, and Hays needs to take a step forward. Otherwise think Cowser takes Hays' spot, and FA for RF (also not sold on Stowers/Diaz)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the question, I don’t think we can forecast where our biggest holes will be until the season is played and we see how some of our young major leaguers perform and which of our minor leaguers look ready to graduate.  A lot can change in a year.   

Saying that, it’s virtually guaranteed that even if things go well this year, we could use one or more good starting pitchers from outside the organization.   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

Saying that, it’s virtually guaranteed that even if things go well this year, we could use one or more good starting pitchers from outside the organization.   
 

I don't think that is guaranteed.   Virtually or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 9:59 AM, interloper said:

I agree next year is too soon for a big FA SP. But they could definitely do better than Lyles next year. 

I know the double negative is confusing, but I think he means next season we could see a FA pitcher signed. So, not too soon.

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

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...