Are the FA DH players better than the O's prospects?

[wildcard]

With free agency fast approaching  and the O's looking to improve their offense DH seems to be the position for upgrade.   Or is it?  Are the O's prospects as good or better than the FA being considered?

FA - Pederson, Brantley, Abreu, etc

Santander -  Could be pushed out of RF by Stowers.   33 HR, 89 RBI

Stowers - Could find a home at DH if Santander stay in RF. 884 OPS at AAA

Westburg -  If Urias takes over 2B    27 HR and 106 RBI in the high minors. And when Ortiz is ready is he better at 2B than Westburg?

Norby -   Improving fast  in AA/AAA.  May be ready in May.

Cowser - When he is ready does he push Santander to DH?

The questions on some of the FA?

Pederson - had a nice 2022 but what it he hits like 2020 or 2021

Abreu - Will he even sign to be just a DH?  Do the O's want to give him 3 years?

Brantley - Injuries, 36, where is the power?

So what do you think?  Is FA the better way to upgrade the offense or should the prospects get the playing time?

Edited November 8, 2022 by wildcard

[Sports Guy]

Yes

[owknows]

The need is probably greater at 1B than at DH

[Sports Guy]

And btw, they can have both, so I’m not sure why this is a question.

[Aristotelian]

I am not a fan of a DH only free agent. If you have a full time DH that just limits what you can do with the other positions to take advantage of matchups etc. We already have Adley for 1/3 of the DH AB's. I'd rather have versatile guys that can be mixed and matched depending on pitching matchup and whether Adley is catching.

We have a bunch of prospects who we need to evaluate both offensively and defensively. They probably aren't as good as a Jose Abreu but could be close at zero cost while also providing more defensive flexibility.

We also need to sign a good backup C. If that C can hit, you have a natural DH-C platoon with Adley. 

 

 

[Frobby]

Is the bird in the hand more valuable than the two in the bush?

This is what you pay your front office to decide.   Joe Prospect had an .875 OPS in AAA last season.  Bob Veteran played for some other major league team last year and had a .750 OPS.   So do you fill your hole by signing Veteran, or do you give Prospect a shot?

Personally, I only want to go with Veteran if he is highly likely to outperform Prospect.   If it’s anything close to a 50/50 call, give me Prospect.  

[Jim'sKid26]

I agree with SG here. I don't think this is an either or situation. With the level of payroll flexibility this team has picking up a quality veteran hitter and selectively inserting young players into the lineup should happen in 2023. They need a bat or two to bolster the offense. Gambling that your young players are going to hit and make an immediate transition to the MLB is risky when you have clearly identified that the window to compete is open. Go get a bat or two.

[wildcard]

17 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

I agree with SG here. I don't think this is an either or situation. With the level of payroll flexibility this team has picking up a quality veteran hitter and selectively inserting young players into the lineup should happen in 2023. They need a bat or two to bolster the offense. Gambling that your young players are going to hit and make an immediate transition to the MLB is risky when you have clearly identified that the window to compete is open. Go get a bat or two.

Not arguing with your opinion except I think it is an either or situation.   If a FA  DH is signed for 5 to 20M he is going get the at bats.  And the prospects will not get those at bats.

Edited November 3, 2022 by wildcard

[Jim'sKid26]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Not arguing with your opinion except I think it is an either or situation.   If a FA  DH is signed for 5 to 20M he is going get the at bats.  And the prospects will not get those at bats.

If the team is appropriately managed the player who gives the team the best chance to win gets the at bats. Signing a FA hitters gives you more options, not less.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Not arguing with your opinion except I think it is an either or situation.   If a FA  DH is signed for 5 to 20M he is going get the at bats.  And the prospects will not get those at bats.

There’s a difference between an FA you sign for $5 mm and one you sign for $20 mm.

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

If the team is appropriately managed the player who gives the team the best chance to win gets the at bats. Signing a FA hitters gives you more options, not less.

I don't think so.   If the O's sign an offensive player for 10m he is pretty much going to play every day.

[Sports Guy]

None of our prospects are DH's, so that doesn't really matter.

[turtlebowl]

I see no real purpose in signing a middle 30 year old position player that is available in free agency to block any of our prospects that could be better than the player being brought in.  This past season was great but if we rush this process by bringing in older players and trading prospects for established players to try to rush this process it could shorten our window.  Right now with the way the minors are situated it just appears like the O's could have an extended run at being highly competitive.

I say focus our attention on the pitching staff.  The only way I start trading prospects is if I can get a younger controllable established pitcher.  

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

There’s a difference between an FA you sign for $5 mm and one you sign for $20 mm.

True for some teams but not the O's.    The O's have two offensive players projected to make at least 5m.   Santander and Mullins.   Both are probably going to get at least 500 at bats.    I think if the O's sign an offensive FA for 5m he will be projected to get 500 at bats just because the O's are the way they are.

[Jim'sKid26]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't think so.   If the O's sign an offensive player for 10m he is pretty much going to play every day.

If the O's sign an offensive player to a $10M contract, and he doesn't hit, and they play him every day it will be completely out of character for this O's administration. Could it happen? Sure. But we are not talking about Chris Davis level contracts here. I respectfully think your concern here is a bit exaggerated.