Do we actually need a TOR starter?

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I am as confident as it is possible to be that this will not be Grayson’s fate, barring serious injury.  I’ve seen the guy pitch.

Branch Frobby Rickey has spoken!   You better be right!

[tabletop]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

"Worth it" takes everything into consideration.

Well what happened with the team over the 2 years during the contract? You can't really if say if something was worth it without knowing what happened during the time period you are determining the worth of.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

If I believed the savings would be put into improving the rest of the roster rather than the Angelos family's bank account, I would probably say Manaea at 4.00 would be the way to go.

But I do not believe that.

You hit the nail on the head.  Whether it makes sense to go with the lesser but more cost-efficient pitcher depends on what the team will do with the savings.  

We also have to be a little forward-thinking.   Elias feels he’s built a team that organically should be getting better each year for the next several years as the prospects graduate and gain experience.  So is it worth it to spend $19 mm on Bassitt for 2023 when he’ll probably be very good, if he’s also going to be here soaking up $19 mm in 2026 when he’s no longer any good and the team has less payroll flexibility because Adley’s in Arb 2, Gunnar, Grayson and Hall are in Arb 1, etc.?   At that point you might have a much better use for that $19 mm to try to put the team over the top.  

Now, you can go too far with that kind of thinking.  There’s a million things that could happen between now and 2026.  But I do think that extending an older player for a year or two longer than you really want to can have downside at the time you’re least likely to want it.  

 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Branch Frobby Rickey has spoken!   You better be right!

The fate of the Western world depends on it!

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, tabletop said:

Well what happened with the team over the 2 years during the contract? You can't really if say if something was worth it without knowing what happened during the time period you are determining the worth of.

You are overthinking this. 

[tntoriole]

2 hours ago, tabletop said:

Yeah, there is no way they sign one in free agency. Hard to say if they’d trade for one or not as we haven’t seen them do any buy trades yet.

If Rodriguez is an ace the team would likely be a legitimate World Series contender while he’s in Baltimore.

Exactly.. maybe they should roll the dice and do a longer term deal with Grayson right now 

Edited December 9, 2022 by tntoriole

[DrinkinWithFermi]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You hit the nail on the head.  Whether it makes sense to go with the lesser but more cost-efficient pitcher depends on what the team will do with the savings.  

We also have to be a little forward-thinking.   Elias feels he’s built a team that organically should be getting better each year for the next several years as the prospects graduate and gain experience.  So is it worth it to spend $19 mm on Bassitt for 2023 when he’ll probably be very good, if he’s also going to be here soaking up $19 mm in 2026 when he’s no longer any good and the team has less payroll flexibility because Adley’s in Arb 2, Gunnar, Grayson and Hall are in Arb 1, etc.?   At that point you might have a much better use for that $19 mm to try to put the team over the top.  

Now, you can go too far with that kind of thinking.  There’s a million things that could happen between now and 2026.  But I do think that extending an older player for a year or two longer than you really want to can have downside at the time you’re least likely to want it.  

 

I would argue that, while certainly not ideal, one underwater mid-tier contract should not cripple the 2026 team, even with some of the young guys that should be the core by then like Gunnar and Adley reaching arbitration, especially since the current arb guys will be gone and replaced by MLB minimum guys like Mayo and Kjerstad at that point.

 

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I think the Os are using the 80/20 theory here.

Get 80% of the production at 20% of the cost.

That same basic principle.

Lets use this scenario:

Bassitt gets 4/75

Manaea gets 2/18

Bassitt is the better pitcher but if the next 2 years, Manaea gives us a 4 ERA and Bassitt gives us a 3.4 ERA, is the difference in contracts worth it?

If only the standings were ordered on WAR/$, the 80/20 theory would be great.

If the difference makes the difference between being an 86 win team that just misses the playoffs and a 93 win team that gets at least one series with home field advantage and is in postion to go deep in the playoffs, yes, it is worth it.   (I don't know if it is financially worth it, when I say "worth it".   When I say worth it I mean in terms of increasing your chances at the ultimate goal of winning the World Series, and the secondary goal of being in the pennant race most years into September and the enjoyment that brings to the fan base.   If you judge worth it just based on profit you might find the 2019 Orioles were an extremely successful team).

 

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

If only the standings were ordered on WAR/$, the 80/20 theory would be great.

If the difference makes the difference between being an 86 win team that just misses the playoffs and a 93 win team that gets at least one series with home field advantage and is in postion to go deep in the playoffs, yes, it is worth it.   (I don't know if it is financially worth it, when I say "worth it".   When I say worth it I mean in terms of increasing your chances at the ultimate goal of winning the World Series, and the secondary goal of being in the pennant race most years into September and the enjoyment that brings to the fan base.   If you judge worth it just based on profit you might find the 2019 Orioles were an extremely successful team).

 

Yes, 7 wins is worth it but there are no examples being talked about where one player is going to be worth 7 more wins over another in any given season.

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, 7 wins is worth it but there are no examples being talked about where one player is going to be worth 7 more wins over another in any given season.

I guess if you measure the difference in WAR as your end-all and be-all.

You don't think having a bona fide ace can't have a ripple effect down your entire pitching staff?

Not only do you have a better #1, you have a better #2 because the guy who would have been your #1 is now a #2.  

And so on.   And if the better guy goes just a half inning deeper into games on average than the other guy, that's 15 fewer innings your bullpen has to pitch which could improve their overall performance as well.   

Do you really believe the Orioles would have only won 5 more games last year if we had Justin Verlander (5.9 WAR) starting every 5th day instead of Jordan Lyles (1.0 WAR)?  I believe the overall affect would have been more.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I guess if you measure the difference in WAR as your end-all and be-all.

You don't think having a bona fide ace can't have a ripple effect down your entire pitching staff?

Not only do you have a better #1, you have a better #2 because the guy who would have been your #1 is now a #2.  

And so on.   And if the better guy goes just a half inning deeper into games on average than the other guy, that's 15 fewer innings your bullpen has to pitch which could improve their overall performance as well.   

Do you really believe the Orioles would have only won 5 more games last year if we had Justin Verlander (5.9 WAR) starting every 5th day instead of Jordan Lyles (1.0 WAR)?  I believe the overall affect would have been more.

We aren't talking about an ace. I am talking the difference between Bassitt and Manaea or players similar to them.  No true aces.  Maybe not even definite #2s.

[Just Regular]

On a PA level, Tyler Matzek trucking Mookie Betts for the NL pennant, and on a game level four Rays throwing 99mph+ all game long 25% each to defeat Gerrit Cole represent for me much of what baseball has become.    Jordan Lyles can't keep up, or find a job except with one of the few laggards expecting ~95 losses.

Raysian teams have atomized run prevention like hedge funds chopping up instruments.    JP Feyereisen pitches 30 innings of 0.50 ERA and messes up his rotator cuff.    They equip Brooks Raley with tools to throw a 2.50 ERA at age 34 and flip him to the Mets for a new young one.    Its fine, its math.     Their NL counterparts in Milwaukee maybe had some new insights resting Corbin Burnes more to improve his outcomes from ~Kyle Bradish to ~Pedro Martinez.

The Orioles have one Felix Bautista not six, so they have ongoing need for Better Jordan Lyleses.

The Elias-Sig team having "miscellaneous possession" Grayson Rodriguez is going to be a fascinating story to watch unfold just in terms of process management.    If he's one of the best pitchers who has ever lived, how long will it take for that to manifest fully?     If he is and clinches tourney appearances by mid-August routinely, will he ever qualify for an ERA title?

The dream he dreamed watching Bumgarner last decade is one his Club is going to have a lot of input whether or not he gets to pursue.    Oh and by the way we'd like you to stay forever, big guy.

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

You hit the nail on the head.  Whether it makes sense to go with the lesser but more cost-efficient pitcher depends on what the team will do with the savings.  

We also have to be a little forward-thinking.   Elias feels he’s built a team that organically should be getting better each year for the next several years as the prospects graduate and gain experience.  So is it worth it to spend $19 mm on Bassitt for 2023 when he’ll probably be very good, if he’s also going to be here soaking up $19 mm in 2026 when he’s no longer any good and the team has less payroll flexibility because Adley’s in Arb 2, Gunnar, Grayson and Hall are in Arb 1, etc.?   At that point you might have a much better use for that $19 mm to try to put the team over the top.  

Now, you can go too far with that kind of thinking.  There’s a million things that could happen between now and 2026.  But I do think that extending an older player for a year or two longer than you really want to can have downside at the time you’re least likely to want it.  

 

Regarding the window timing, I can't remember where I saw it, but in one of the winter meeting interviews Elias was saying something about the first year of a longer contract being the one most likely to have the biggest impact. I think the idea was that if we aren't truly contenders yet, the $20M in that first year might be wasted. If you are concerned about wasting years on the front end, and payroll flexibility on the back end, that leaves you with a very small window. If you really wanted to maximize use of capital, it would seem the best option would be short term trade deadline rental deals, when you know the player will have an impact on a contending team, and you also aren't tied into a big contract with wasted years on the back end. In exchange for that certainty, there is probably a high cost in prospects since other teams will be making that same calculation, but we may have the resources to win that type of bidding war. 

[SteveA]

9 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Regarding the window timing, I can't remember where I saw it, but in one of the winter meeting interviews Elias was saying something about the first year of a longer contract being the one most likely to have the biggest impact. I think the idea was that if we aren't truly contenders yet, the $20M in that first year might be wasted. If you are concerned about wasting years on the front end, and payroll flexibility on the back end, that leaves you with a very small window. If you really wanted to maximize use of capital, it would seem the best option would be short term trade deadline rental deals, when you know the player will have an impact on a contending team, and you also aren't tied into a big contract with wasted years on the back end. In exchange for that certainty, there is probably a high cost in prospects since other teams will be making that same calculation, but we may have the resources to win that type of bidding war. 

I don't buy that for a couple reasons:

1. I don't necessarily agree that the first year is always or even significantly likely to be the best year.    I know the age curve exists but it's not so rigid that the decline is a straight line.  
2. Elias has repeatedly said he is looking for something sustainable here where we have a constant influx of talent, and he shouldn't be thinking in terms of "windows".   When the Adley window is closing the window should be opening for someone who is now a junior in high school but who will be our next great player.   So we shouldn't be worried about windows.

[tabletop]

13 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Regarding the window timing, I can't remember where I saw it, but in one of the winter meeting interviews Elias was saying something about the first year of a longer contract being the one most likely to have the biggest impact. I think the idea was that if we aren't truly contenders yet, the $20M in that first year might be wasted. If you are concerned about wasting years on the front end, and payroll flexibility on the back end, that leaves you with a very small window. If you really wanted to maximize use of capital, it would seem the best option would be short term trade deadline rental deals, when you know the player will have an impact on a contending team, and you also aren't tied into a big contract with wasted years on the back end. In exchange for that certainty, there is probably a high cost in prospects since other teams will be making that same calculation, but we may have the resources to win that type of bidding war. 

Going back to 2016 that statement he made is wrong. Most pitchers signed to 3+ year deals have not had the 1st year of the contract as their best year during their contract.