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

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

If you aren’t making the playoffs then what’s the point? The point of playing is to win the WS not reach 81 wins. 
 

Why is it such a big deal that I agree with the plan for rebuilding the entire organization rather than sign a few has beens to help the team get to 81 wins. 
 

Some are satisfied with that. I want years of contending for a championship. This team had so many holes last year that even filling the roster with vets would have been a stretch to reach 81 games. 

Do you think they are going to go from 60 wins to a contender in one year?  Just a yes or no will suffice.

[Bmorebirds24]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

A few more years?

So he's had 2019, 2020, 2021 and now 2022 and we've seen no real improvement on the field.

You want to give him 2023, 2024 and 2025 before you start to question them?

Seven years worth of blank checks and then, you might start to question them?

2022 - We start graduating guys to the show. 
2023 - You see what kinda team you have and where you need to improve. 
2024 - You were active in the off-season and are contending for the AL East. 

[Bmorebirds24]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Do you think they are going to go from 60 wins to a contender in one year?  Just a yes or no will suffice.

No which even makes my case even stronger. Why would this team sign guys to stop guys from coming up this season? It makes no sense. They’re manipulating the service time. We all know it. Disagree all you want it still benefits the organization in the future. 

[wildcard]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No rookies of note breaking camp with the big league team.

100 mph not good enough for you uh.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

What should they have done that makes them an 81 win team? What is it that you would have done differently? 

I don't know why you keep throwing out 81 wins like it's some magical number.  But fine.

This offseason I would have signed:

Eduardo Rodriguez 5/77 to Detroit

Corey Kluber 1/8 to Tampa

That would have given us a rotation of Means, Ed-Rod, and Kluber.  Does that get us to 81 wins?  Probably not, but it's a lot better than what we have.  Then G-Rod is promoted and that should be a better than average 4 for the rotation.  

And I would have signed Correa to what the Twins signed him to.   

Those are all moves we could have easily matched.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

2022 - We start graduating guys to the show. 
2023 - You see what kinda team you have and where you need to improve. 
2024 - You were active in the off-season and are contending for the AL East. 

2022 doesn't fall under more. 

But even allowing for your altered timeline that's a ton of rope before you start questioning.

So if the O's opening day payroll in 2024 is 40 million and they lost 100 games in 2023 you will give them the season before you decide if there might be a problem?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

100 mph not good enough for you uh.

Tanner Scott can throw 100.

So did Tommy Hunter.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

No which even makes my case even stronger. Why would this team sign guys to stop guys from coming up this season? It makes no sense. They’re manipulating the service time. We all know it. Disagree all you want it still benefits the organization in the future. 

No, it makes your case weak unless you are content with constant losing.  If you are, have at it.  If you want to win, your case is poor.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

100 mph not good enough for you uh.

Not if they don’t know where it’s going.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

2022 - We start graduating guys to the show. 
2023 - You see what kinda team you have and where you need to improve. 
2024 - You were active in the off-season and are contending for the AL East. 

I do not think it should take that long to start ramping up spending.   I expect some notable moves this offseason.  But that partly depends on how this season goes.   

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Frobby said:

I do not think it should take that long to start ramping up spending.   I expect some notable moves this offseason.  But that partly depends on how this season goes.   

Why does it depend on this season?  So, if things aren’t great this year, you are ok with punting 2023 too?  

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Not if they don’t know where it’s going.

Keeps the batter from digging in.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Bmorebirds24 said:

No which even makes my case even stronger. Why would this team sign guys to stop guys from coming up this season? It makes no sense. They’re manipulating the service time. We all know it. Disagree all you want it still benefits the organization in the future. 

Does it?

How did that extra year of Wieters work out?

How did not having an extra year of Schoop hurt us?

You know what helps teams?  Extra draft picks.

Manipulating service time may or may not help a team, it certainly isn't the industry standard. 

 

[seak05]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's by design but it's skewed if you are comparing them to teams like the O's who are not using the same strategy.

For the record I don't consider a "bullpen game" to be the same thing as using the "starter" strategy.  If all other teams are using "starters" you should be able to find plenty of examples.

Ok, let me try this again. The question was asked as a point of concern about the number of innings the Orioles bullpen is throwing *this* year. The answer appears to be that a low number of starter innings is not inherently good or bad. The good or bad part comes in when the number of starter innings are low because of poor pitching vs by design.

To get back to the question of how that relates to this years Orioles bullpen, at least to start the year, the number of innings thrown by Orioles starters is by design, and they have a number of multi-inning relievers in the bullpen for just this reason. Now if the summer progresses and the innings pitched by starters is low due to starters being chased from games early, that's a problem.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, seak05 said:

Ok, let me try this again. The question was asked as a point of concern about the number of innings the Orioles bullpen is throwing *this* year. The answer appears to be that a low number of starter innings is not inherently good or bad. The good or bad part comes in when the number of starter innings are low because of poor pitching vs by design.

To get back to the question of how that relates to this years Orioles bullpen, at least to start the year, the number of innings thrown by Orioles starters is by design, and they have a number of multi-inning relievers in the bullpen for just this reason. Now if the summer progresses and the innings pitched by starters is low due to starters being chased from games early, that's a problem.

OK, that's fair.