Do we actually need a TOR starter?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I have a feeling that the only way the O’s will have a true TOR starter is to develop one themselves.   C’mon, Grayson!

By the way, how different do the next 6 years look if Grayson becomes a true stud, rather than say a solid no. 3 type starter?

Or if he ends up a #5/long reliever type!

[tabletop]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I have a feeling that the only way the O’s will have a true TOR starter is to develop one themselves.   C’mon, Grayson!

By the way, how different do the next 6 years look if Grayson becomes a true stud, rather than say a solid no. 3 type starter?

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.

[eddie83]

The #1 starter types in FA are historically where the big market teams take their money advantage and dominate. Many of the big position player FA’s over the years go all over the place. Then the big markets spend more on pen arms and overall lineup depth. 
 

In general to me though I think big market teams biggest advantage is in the SP market. At some point will Elias pull the trigger on a prospect deal to acquire one? He may be justified to wait on that 1-2 years to maximize that window. No excuse not to improve the rotation we have now though. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by eddie83

[tabletop]

5 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Key at all times and especially now is health/availability in October. Right now the Orioles are asking a bunch of 4/5 starter types maybe a 3 to be generous plus a GRod to win in October. Now clearly we see with other teams how important a role the pen plays. Thing is another team can throw an ace at the Orioles and shut down the offense and the Orioles lose a game say 4-2. 

They’re big ifs but if Rodriguez and Means were healthy and pitching to their capabilities I’d consider both of them “TOR” pitchers and would have no problem with them as the first two starters in a playoff series.

[Redskins Rick]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I have a feeling that the only way the O’s will have a true TOR starter is to develop one themselves.   C’mon, Grayson!

By the way, how different do the next 6 years look if Grayson becomes a true stud, rather than say a solid no. 3 type starter?

A bit depressing to think all the studs they drafted after Mussina didnt pan out as planned.

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, tabletop said:

They’re big ifs but if Rodriguez and Means were healthy and pitching to their capabilities I’d consider both of them “TOR” pitchers and would have no problem with them as the first two starters in a playoff series.

Sure. Which is why a lot has to go right this year. Thing is you could add some decent starters that help you get to the playoffs and in your scenario they may not make many starts in the postseason. 
 

Right or wrong it seems to me in this current pitching landscape the regular season is all about finding enough to get to a October and October is all about the right mix to win it all. Doesn’t feel like it has been that many years ago where the playoff teams 1-4 SP were pretty much known well in advance. Now you have guys throwing wondering how long they can go. Using openers on teams with 100 wins.  

[Aristotelian]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Bumping this thread and wondering if the Os feel similarly to this.

I get that it’s likely they are being cheap but if they sign a guy like Manaea someone who will sign for less, they may be thinking that there will be very little difference between him and say Bassitt who will command way more money. 
 

There is some logic there and I wonder if they are thinking that.

Good bump. I think it's just about avoiding long term commitments. OK, yes, and being cheap. This would be my interpretation of the process:

Step 1 in the rebuild is getting completely down to the bare minimum. Check. Step 2 is identify a potential core and start having some success. Check.

Step 3 is supplement the core with short term contracts to see how close we can get while continuing to provide opportunities to prospects. No overpays and nothing long term, but try to improve the team within those constraints. That seems to be where we are. It's a very conservative incremental approach that is absolutely committed to the long term (and yes, coincidentally saving dollars).

Step 4 will be to bring in the premium players to put us over the top. That could involve longer term contracts or from trades.

We were hoping we might be ready for this now but maybe it takes longer. It could be that ownership is also keeping us on Step 3 until the team is sold. Supposedly we had some multiyear offers out, we just don't know to whom and how long.  But maybe if we are able to get on a pace for 85 or so wins, we could add some premium pieces that could cost more but still without long term commitments. Kind of a middle ground between 3 & 4.

I could see Elias running the team in that hybrid mode for a long time without ever signing a premium free agent on the open market. (In that case, we could still get to a $150M payroll by extending the core on team friendly deals).

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Or if he ends up a #5/long reliever type!

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

I don't think it is likely either.

Biggest concern I have is if his stuff holds up over 80 pitches, since he has not been allowed a chance to show that it has.

That won't preclude him from being a solid #3 even if it turns out to be true.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Can_of_corn
Fixed.

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it is likely either.

Biggest concern I have is if his stuff holds up over 80 pitches, since he has been allowed a chance to show that it has.

That won't preclude him from being a solid #3 even if it turns out to be true.

I assume you mean “not allowed” in the 2nd paragraph above.  

It’s funny, they let Grayson go 100 pitches once and 90+ a couple more times as a 19-year old.  They got really conservative post-pandemic.  I assume in 2021 it was just wanting to protect his arm after a year of much lighter activity, whereas in 2022 I think they were hoping to save bullets for his major league outings, which backfired when he had the lat injury.  

In any event, I agree with you that endurance is an open question, because he hasn’t really been tested.  
 

 

[Sports Guy]

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?

[interloper]

49 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it is likely either.

Biggest concern I have is if his stuff holds up over 80 pitches, since he has been allowed a chance to show that it has.

That won't preclude him from being a solid #3 even if it turns out to be true.

All he has to do is throw 120 innings/yr at like a 3.80-4.10 ERA and he'll pull in a 9/$210 from somebody, apparently. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

4 minutes 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 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.

[tabletop]

7 minutes 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?

I guess it depends on how you define "worth it". Worth it as in a few wins over the course of a year that could be the difference in a playoff spot and not making it? Worth it as in saving money to keep the team payroll low and getting someone competent enough to take the ball every 5th game and give the team a chance to win?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, tabletop said:

I guess it depends on how you define "worth it". Worth it as in a few wins over the course of a year that could be the difference in a playoff spot and not making it? Worth it as in saving money to keep the team payroll low and getting someone competent enough to take the ball every 5th game and give the team a chance to win?

"Worth it" takes everything into consideration.