Raise your hand if you think Watkins was a better choice than Bradish?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I couldn’t disagree more, from a pure business point of view.   You never know which pitchers will be the ones who are healthy and productive six years from now, so it makes sense to preserve service time for all of them, since the cost of doing so in terms of this team’s competitiveness in 2022 is basically zero.

Case in point: John Means.   He’s got 3.007 years of service and is under team control through 2024.   Do you not think he’d have a lot more value now if he was under control through 2025 instead?  Yet nobody thought he was “the type of pitcher you play service time games with” when he debuted.   But now I wish we had.  

There are always going to be guys that come out of nowhere that do things you didn’t think they would.  You can’t just assume it for everyone and worry about it.  

And btw, with his shoulder issues, you don’t know that he makes it the full 6 years with you wanting him for a seventh.  You are assuming it right now but it’s nothing more than an assumption.

[Going Underground]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I couldn’t disagree more, from a pure business point of view.   You never know which pitchers will be the ones who are healthy and productive six years from now, so it makes sense to preserve service time for all of them, since the cost of doing so in terms of this team’s competitiveness in 2022 is basically zero.

Case in point: John Means.   He’s got 3.007 years of service and is under team control through 2024.   Do you not think he’d have a lot more value now if he was under control through 2025 instead?  Yet nobody thought he was “the type of pitcher you play service time games with” when he debuted.   But now I wish we had.  

But according to some articles, Means was going to quit baseball and be a teacher if he didn't make the majors that year.You have to take that into consideration also.

[wildcard]

33 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

I would say that pretty much no pitcher is worth playing service time games.  Even Rodriguez, I'm as excited to see him as anyone but chances of him being healthy and productive in 6 years are low. 

What does healthy have to do this it.  Time on the IL is counted as service time.

[jamalshw]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

This is the team y’all wanted.

All offseason I argued about how they should have tried to field a much more capable team this year.  They elected not to and, in true OH fashion, many of you gave them excuse after excuse as to why 2022 isn’t the year to try to be better.

So, no complaining allowed from those of you that wanted this because Elias and his group of computers are giving you exactly what you asked for.

I don't agree with this. What most wanted (from what I saw) was for the team to give the young guys a chance and to start graduating actual prospects and didn't see the need to sign placeholders. Many seemed on board with the potential, though highly unlikely Correa signing as he was a young guy that would be in his prime along with the prospects and was a signing for the future as much as the present. I don't think too many right now are lamenting that Watkins started instead of some filler pitcher from outside the rotation, but that he started instead of Bradish or another guy who may have a future with the team. That's the issue. While I would have preferred someone else to Lyles, I'm fine with having three spots in the rotation for young guys, but Watkins turns 30 this year and is not a Major League pitcher. If the team didn't have anyone lined up that could make the start without being on short rest, fine. That's one thing and I'm okay with sacrificing Watkins in that scenario, but they did have some who started and went 4 innings in AAA after looking good in a couple spring appearances, someone who is 25 years old (young enough to still be a prospect, but old enough to where he needs to start getting his chance in the Majors). I get the service time argument (a little), but given his age and the fact he'll be 32 by the time he finishes six seasons with the Orioles, I'm not sure I have too much concern there. 

So, in short. I support Elias and his vision, but not blindly. I still like the overall direction of the franchise, but there are some decisions (like this one) that I don't agree with. So, yes, I didn't want to the Orioles to sign free agent placeholders just to be a few games better this year. And, at the same time, no, this isn't what I wanted. I wanted this year to be a year where we see the young guys (growing pains and all) instead of the likes of Watkins. To me, this isn't an issue with not signing people, this is an issue of not using the ones you have. 

[glenn__davis]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

What does healthy have to do this it.  Time on the IL is counted as service time.

I know that.  I'm saying that in 6 years there's a pretty good chance he's not a guy worth extending.  As our old pal weams said...they all break.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

I don't agree with this. What most wanted (from what I saw) was for the team to give the young guys a chance and to start graduating actual prospects and didn't see the need to sign placeholders. Many seemed on board with the potential, though highly unlikely Correa signing as he was a young guy that would be in his prime along with the prospects and was a signing for the future as much as the present. I don't think too many right now are lamenting that Watkins started instead of some filler pitcher from outside the rotation, but that he started instead of Bradish or another guy who may have a future with the team. That's the issue. While I would have preferred someone else to Lyles, I'm fine with having three spots in the rotation for young guys, but Watkins turns 30 this year and is not a Major League pitcher. If the team didn't have anyone lined up that could make the start without being on short rest, fine. That's one thing and I'm okay with sacrificing Watkins in that scenario, but they did have some who started and went 4 innings in AAA after looking good in a couple spring appearances, someone who is 25 years old (young enough to still be a prospect, but old enough to where he needs to start getting his chance in the Majors). I get the service time argument (a little), but given his age and the fact he'll be 32 by the time he finishes six seasons with the Orioles, I'm not sure I have too much concern there. 

So, in short. I support Elias and his vision, but not blindly. I still like the overall direction of the franchise, but there are some decisions (like this one) that I don't agree with. So, yes, I didn't want to the Orioles to sign free agent placeholders just to be a few games better this year. And, at the same time, no, this isn't what I wanted. I wanted this year to be a year where we see the young guys (growing pains and all) instead of the likes of Watkins. To me, this isn't an issue with not signing people, this is an issue of not using the ones you have. 

Everyone wants the young players to get a chance.  There isn’t one Orioles fan that differs in that opinion.

The difference was that most were saying to wait another year before adding to the team.  That we aren’t ready to spend yet.  Blah blah blah.

So this is what you get when you have that attitude. Instead of real options in critical situations, you get Chris Owings.  Instead of everyone getting pushed back a spot because you acquired a real pitcher, you get Watkins.  
 

You asked for it and now you are getting it.

[jabba72]

Its early. Bradish and Grayson will be here probably in May sometime. Clearly Elias wants to take his time building their pitch count.

We dont really have any other pitching prospects of this caliber in the system unless you want to include Hall who was shut down with a bad elbow after 31 innings last year, so Im not mad at Elias wanting to be cautious. 

[jamalshw]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Everyone wants the young players to get a chance.  There isn’t one Orioles fan that differs in that opinion.

The difference was that most were saying to wait another year before adding to the team.  That we aren’t ready to spend yet.  Blah blah blah.

So this is what you get when you have that attitude. Instead of real options in critical situations, you get Chris Owings.  Instead of everyone getting pushed back a spot because you acquired a real pitcher, you get Watkins.  
 

You asked for it and now you are getting it.

Not exactly. 

You are right we all want to see the young guys. And I agree with the point you've made in this thread (and others) that Bradish should have been on the roster from day 1. Where I disagree is your assertion that "you asked for it."

I don't really care if we see Chris Owings or Howie Kendrick or whomever. I don't care if we see Watkins instead of some fringe free agent starter (though I am in the camp that would've liked to see someone other than Lyles as our SP addition). What I do care about is seeing a 30-year old non-prospect instead of a 25-year old prospect. That's it. That's my entire issue. So, no by being okay with not adding additional "real options" I did not ask for Watkins over Bradish. I would have made some different roster moves if it were me, but my issue is with use of the roster we have. The reason I didn't advocate a bunch of random place holders to try and win 8 more games is because I want to see the young guys. So show me the young guys. It's as simple as that. 

[Aristotelian]

I tend to doubt that this was about service time. More likely wanting Bradish to be in peak form when making his MLB debut. Or simply an opportunity to get a look at Watkins. I agree if I am trying to win Game 5 of 162 Bradish is probably the best choice but there are several valid explanations for why it was Watkins. 

[interloper]

For the record, I am no longer excited about Spencer Watkins ... lol. The added velocity is nice, and the defense played like ass behind him, but yeah. Bradish soon, please. 

[jamalshw]

5 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Its early. Bradish and Grayson will be here probably in May sometime. Clearly Elias wants to take his time building their pitch count.

We dont really have any other pitching prospects of this caliber in the system unless you want to include Hall who was shut down with a bad elbow after 31 innings last year, so Im not mad at Elias wanting to be cautious. 

Grayson makes sense. He was great in the minors last year, but didn't pitch at all in AAA. That makes sense to leave him in AAA for a half dozen starts (depending on how he produces in those starts).

Bradish, on the other hand, is three years older than Rodriguez, pitched over 85% of his innings last year in AAA and while he struggled a bit early in that league, turned the corner down the stretch and looked impressive (albeit in a small sample) in spring. I was okay with starting him in AAA if the team was going to give one last chance to another young pitcher (Kremer, Baumann, Lowther, etc) before spots in the rotation became harder to come by with the likes of Rodriguez and Bradish (and eventually Hall), but not if the team is just going to throw Watkins. The slow playing, cautious approach makes sense in terms of building pitch count, but he went 4 innings in AAA. Given expanded rosters, four innings and/or 60 pitches from Bradish would have been sufficient and no more than he ultimately threw in Norfolk. 

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

Not exactly. 

You are right we all want to see the young guys. And I agree with the point you've made in this thread (and others) that Bradish should have been on the roster from day 1. Where I disagree is your assertion that "you asked for it."

I don't really care if we see Chris Owings or Howie Kendrick or whomever. I don't care if we see Watkins instead of some fringe free agent starter (though I am in the camp that would've liked to see someone other than Lyles as our SP addition). What I do care about is seeing a 30-year old non-prospect instead of a 25-year old prospect. That's it. That's my entire issue. So, no by being okay with not adding additional "real options" I did not ask for Watkins over Bradish. I would have made some different roster moves if it were me, but my issue is with use of the roster we have. The reason I didn't advocate a bunch of random place holders to try and win 8 more games is because I want to see the young guys. So show me the young guys. It's as simple as that. 

All of the young guys could have played AND you had better options at some positions.  It has never been an either/or.

[maybenxtyr]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

All of the young guys could have played AND you had better options at some positions.  It has never been an either/or.

You're not the only one that wanted to see some true ML talent brought in. Unfortunately most of us knew that they were not going to spend...I also don't believe there's a chunk of money just waiting to be unleashed for FA signings. As a result, this is what fans are stuck with. 

 

There is no reason for some players to be in the MiL at this point. If they're not going to spend, at least play guys that have some shot at producing. 

[jamalshw]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

All of the young guys could have played AND you had better options at some positions.  It has never been an either/or.

I agree...kinda. If you are saying we should have added a better option instead of Lyles or instead of Odor (and/or Owings), I agree 100%. Yes we could have and yes I would have preferred that. But in the end, given where we are what the season is supposed to be about, I really don't care all that much that we didn't. It would have been better. We may have one a couple more games, but what I wanted to see this year was the start of the rebuilds impact on the Major Leagues. To me, that doesn't really mean additions from outside the organization (though I was an advocate for Correa and/or another long-term piece). What this season is all about is seeing some of the legit prospects breaking into the majors and learning how to perform at the major league level. I still expect to see that, but the Watkins over Bradish decision was not a good way to start. Is it really that big of a deal? No. And will I even remember being upset by it come mid-May if Bradish and Rodriguez are up and starting in the Majors? Probably not. 

Honestly I think we probably agree more than we disagree. We both want to see the young guys and not the likes of Watkins. My only issue with what you said was that I/we asked for this by not being upset about the lack of place-filler signings when the thread was about Watkins over Bradish yesterday.  

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

I agree...kinda. If you are saying we should have added a better option instead of Lyles or instead of Odor (and/or Owings), I agree 100%. Yes we could have and yes I would have preferred that. But in the end, given where we are what the season is supposed to be about, I really don't care all that much that we didn't. It would have been better. We may have one a couple more games, but what I wanted to see this year was the start of the rebuilds impact on the Major Leagues. To me, that doesn't really mean additions from outside the organization (though I was an advocate for Correa and/or another long-term piece). What this season is all about is seeing some of the legit prospects breaking into the majors and learning how to perform at the major league level. I still expect to see that, but the Watkins over Bradish decision was not a good way to start. Is it really that big of a deal? No. And will I even remember being upset by it come mid-May if Bradish and Rodriguez are up and starting in the Majors? Probably not. 

Honestly I think we probably agree more than we disagree. We both want to see the young guys and not the likes of Watkins. My only issue with what you said was that I/we asked for this by not being upset about the lack of place-filler signings when the thread was about Watkins over Bradish yesterday.  

It’s the “I don’t care that we didn’t” attitude that we differ.  That’s my point.

I think it’s bs and a slap in the face of fans that they decided that 2022 is another year to chase a top pick.  That’s pathetic.