Eovaldi signed with Rangers per Moose

[Pickles]

31 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’m saying winning isn’t important. He wouldn’t have wasted 20.5 million on replacing 4 replacement level guys with 4 more replacement level guys. 

If winning wasn't important, why would he spend 20 million dollars at all?

[LookinUp]

2 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

We have not made enough improvements elsewhere to justify burning a top 75ish draft pick on a win now move.

Pass.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Internal promotions, more of Adley and Gunnar, Gibson over Lyles, Frazier/McCann over Odor/Chirinos and Givens say we're better than last year.

Add Eovaldi and we're improving still.

Say the deadline hits, we're close to contending and we still are rich in prospects if we want to add a big bat and/or arm.

Signing Eovaldi might just be what it takes to put us into that position at the deadline.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Pickles said:

If winning wasn't important, why would he spend 20 million dollars at all?

Well, you need to have a full roster for one.

Also, the O's would be leaving themselves open to both negative press and possible other complications if they kept payroll too low for too long.

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Well, you need to have a full roster for one.

Also, the O's would be leaving themselves open to both negative press and possible other complications if they kept payroll too low for too long.

 

You don't spend 20 million dollars to avoid "bad press".  Particularly when they were getting destroyed in the press already last season right up until the moment they started playing really good baseball.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pickles said:

You don't spend 20 million dollars to avoid "bad press".  Particularly when they were getting destroyed in the press already last season right up until the moment they started playing really good baseball.

You also have to deal with the MLBPA and other owners.

That would be what I meant by other complications.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You also have to deal with the MLBPA and other owners.

That would be what I meant by other complications.

I mean, it's a theory.

[Roll Tide]

16 minutes ago, Pickles said:

If winning wasn't important, why would he spend 20 million dollars at all?

To try to sell to the fan base that.they are trying. I’m not buying it anymore than when they tried to sell Odor’s merits through the broadcasters. We all know they should’ve given Vavra a good look. 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

To try to sell to the fan base that.they are trying. I’m not buying it anymore than when they tried to sell Odor’s merits through the broadcasters. We all know they should’ve given Vavra a good look. 

You're entitled to your opinions.

[Just Regular]

I'd welcome any better pitchers, and think only looking at free agents that the Rogers-Kimbrel pair are competitive with Eovaldi how much they could help a team with another $20-25mm AAV to spend on 2023.

Probably superior to the Kluber Wacha down, but also possibly more expensive.     I think the Eovaldi v. Rogers-Kimbrel guarantees may end up close.     In one instance, its less years and no draft pick penalty.

I don't know if Clubs are just prioritizing all non-reliever positions, or Jim Crane's generous Rafael Montero contract is gumming up the works for some of the other stronger relievers.

It is interesting 2022 Red Sox make up a lion's share of the stragglers.    Bloom has bought expensive relievers to set Tanner Houck and Garrett Whitlock expectations towards bigger roles, maybe he's trying to play them against each other for a value deal.    If several of them like it there, how much $$$ can you leave on the table?      Sale-Pivetta-Whitlock-Paxton-Bello like Roster Resource has it now...not that sturdy.

[maybenxtyr]

21 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

To try to sell to the fan base that.they are trying. I’m not buying it anymore than when they tried to sell Odor’s merits through the broadcasters. We all know they should’ve given Vavra a good look. 

I have no way of knowing, so this is just an opinion. I'd guess that Elias is in a situation just like a government job where you're given a certain amount for a budget and if you don't spend it, you loose it and don't gain it in the next year. He was probably told payroll can go up by x percent and he's tried spending the money in a manner that he thinks benefits the team.

I'm not taking up for him or the team but the main constant through all of this is ownership is still the same. I can't imagine any GM would have a $150 million payroll but only spend $60. 

 

Saying, "he's not trying to win" is just your theory. Saying he's trying to field a competitive team on a BS budget is probably a little closer to facts.

[jcaponio]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

You have said this many times.  You've been wrong every time. 

First, it isn't more money.  The $1 million buyout to Lyles was earned before the ink was dry on the contract.  It has zero to do with Gibson.  Exercising the option to keep Lyles would have cost $11 million - not 6 as you keep claiming.  The difference between keeping Lyles and letting him go was $10 million, which happens to be exactly what we signed Gibson for.

Second, Gibson's numbers do not say he's worse than Lyles.  In fact, they scream the opposite.  Career-wise, there is simply no comparison.  It's a runaway.  You and a few others keep pointing out ERA and rWAR to somehow claim that Lyles outperformed Gibson in 2022.  While 2022 certainly was way better than Lyles' normal seasons, it was actually not better than Gibson's 2022.  FIP, xFIP, and fWAR are better measures for this comparison than ERA and rWAR.  Although Lyles came closer to Gibson in 2022 than he had in their careers up until then, Gibson still had the better season.  I'm not going to explain FIP and fWAR to you.  I believe you probably know what they are and why they are more appropriate for the comparison.  If not, you can readily find an explanation on the internet that would be better than I can explain it to you.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/jordan-lyles/7593/stats?position=P

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kyle-gibson/10123/stats?position=P

Never let the truth get in the way of a good whine...

[Ohfan67]

3 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I think Elias is far more concerned with 2024 and will be pleasantly surprised if the Orioles make the playoffs in 2023.

This. They don’t want to sign a significant multi-year deal until the young players really start to turn over the roster. Same rationale for not signing an expensive pitcher to a one year deal. If Elias does not believe the 2023 team is the team to take to the playoffs, then why waste money, current and future prospects on 2023? Not the way I wanted the off-season to play out but people like Roch were constantly signaling that the orioles were not going big…not even really going medium. The patience approach makes for a frustrating and boring offseason. I sure hope it pays off in the future because it sucks right now.  

Edited December 22, 2022 by Ohfan67

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

This. They don’t want to sign a significant multi-year deal until the young players really start to turn over the roster. Same rationale for not signing an expensive pitcher to a one year deal. If Elias does not believe the 2023 team is the team to take to the playoffs, then why waste money, current and future prospects on 2023? Not the way I wanted the offspring to play out but people like Roch were constantly signaling that the orioles were not going big…not even really going medium. The patience approach makes for a frustrating and boring offseason. I sure hope it pays off in the future because it sucks right now.  

Yeah, it's clear they are staying as liquid as possible for 2024. For probably multiple reasons. But to me when Elias said "multi-year deal" at the Winter Meetings, it seems likely he was talking about things like the Givens deal - 1 year with a couple options. Or at most something like the Manaea deal, a straight 2-year deal. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by interloper

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

Yeah, it's clear they are staying as liquid as possible for 2024.

I don't think it's clear at all.

I think it's clear they are attempting to keep future payroll obligations down.

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it's clear at all.

I think it's clear they are attempting to keep future payroll obligations down.

Sure, I guess "2024" is an assumption on my part. It could be "forever" haha. Or "until the team is sold". I'll choose to lean optimistic for now.