With the MLB additions are we a much better team than 2022?

[Nightbird]

Hi from Europe. Through my orange glasses:

Chirinos – McCann (if healthy) 0+

Lyles – Gibson 0

Lopez - Givens 0

Odor - Frazier 0+

Grayson +

Means (if available) 0+

Henderson (full season) +

Hence i voted yes (not a big yes).

If we can sign Eovaldi (or at least Wacha) i think this team could really have a chance at the WC.

 

 

[ScGO's]

Gibson >Lyles

Frazier > Odor

Givens > Kriehbel

McCann > Chirinos

They may not be astronomically better, but all 4 are replacing less valuable players in my opinion 

[btdart20]

We are definitely better.  "Considerably" is the subjective sticking point.  

Frazier's OBP will be a nice upgrade over Odor (while keeping the LHH).  Even his range at 2B and defensive flexibility will allow for better usage as well.  Especially allowing Gunnar to slide to SS to get another absentee OBP bat out of the lineup on occasion.  

Gibson has more upside and stuff than Lyles.  And I think OPACY and pitch sequencing will allow his better skills to play up as well.  I think Gibson will post a better WAR than Lyles did in 2022.  

McCann, well...  He's a back-up C.  I don't get worked up over back-up catchers.  But yeah, he's probably better the Chirinos.  He can still hit the ball hard when he makes contact.  Toss in some injury related issues the past couple of years...  

Givens?  

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

I just think we could have spent 20 million on a player that would actually help. Then back fill with the garbage. If Chirinos has a job at all it will be for the minimum.

Is this the real question?  Opportunity cost (i.e. what would you have done instead that would have been "better")?  Personally, I would have targeted a TOR arm and let the prospects fight it out at 2B.  But who was available for $20m on a short-term contract?  

Elias/Sig think like mutual fund managers with risk mitigation.  $20m in one player (especially an SP) is riskier than $20m spread across 3 positions/targeted metric upgrades.

I voted 'yes' because they have improved the team.  Maybe not how I would have, but the players we've added are better than the players they are replacing.  That's considerable IMO.

[btdart20]

9 minutes ago, Nightbird said:

Hi from Europe. Through my orange glasses:

Chirinos – McCann (if healthy) 0+

Lyles – Gibson 0

Lopez - Givens 0

Odor - Frazier 0+

Grayson +

Means (if available) 0+

Henderson (full season) +

Hence i voted yes (not a big yes).

If we can sign Eovaldi (or at least Wacha) i think this team could really have a chance at the WC.

 

 

Welcome!

[HakunaSakata]

I voted "about the same". Every move the team has made has basically felt like it was done to fill a hole created by a player leaving. That said, I think a few of the players they've added do have a bit more upside than the players they've replaced. If they're able to trade for a "good" starting pitcher I'd change my vote to a hard yes. That's the key piece for me and the move they need to make to convince me that they're trying to build upon last season don't  just  view it as an early blip in the rebuilding process. 

[MarCakes21]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

On paper, they are about the same team.

But whether they regress or improve will largely depend on the growth of the young players and whether or not some of the guys in 2022 turn into a pumpkin or if they are for real.  They could have added better players and this would still be the case.

Agree. It’s more time with Gunnar and Adley as well as Grod over Voth/Wells innings that will be the improvements and if we can get incremental gains from bounce backs of Frazier/Gibson/McCann, which I think is possible. But injuries are always the question mark.

[banks703]

I voted worse not because I think that as a 1:1 comparison of 2022's roster to 2023's roster, that 2023's roster is not improved. On paper 2023's roster looks better than 2022. 

 

I voted worse because the other teams in the division improved at a margin that far outpaces the O's. 

[wildcard]

I recorded  10 games from last year that I play whenever I need an Orioles fix.   I just marvel at the play of Adley, Gunnar and (Bradish vs Houston).  Can't wait to see the battle between Westburg and Ortiz in ST.   And watch Grayson attack hitters.  

I think the O's are at least a 92 win team right now.   It could be more after we watch the team come together in ST.    I think the balanced schedule will mean more wins for the O's  but probably the whole AL East benefits from that.

I think we have to remember that with no changes the O's would have been a 89 win team if Adley had been with the team all season.

Edited December 22, 2022 by wildcard

[NCRaven]

As others have said, I believe Elias’s plan for big improvement this year is to be driven internally with Henderson, Rutschman, Rodriquez and Hall.  He will gradually introduce other prospects as the season progresses.  I’m still hoping for a trade for a starter, but that would be the only other significant outside addition that I can see happening.

[Ripken]

Worse.  Every PA Frazier gets over Urias, Stowers, Vavra, Westburg, Ortiz and eventually Cowser is terrible roster management.  Same with McCann playing in anywhere near 80 games.

[eddie83]

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I recorded  10 games from last year that I play whenever I need an Orioles fix.   I just marvel at the play of Adley, Gunnar and (Bradish vs Houston).  Can't wait to see the battle between Westburg and Ortiz in ST.   And watch Grayson attack hitters.  

I think the O's are at least a 92 win team right now.   It could be more after we watch the team come together in ST.    I think the balanced schedule will mean more wins for the O's  but probably the whole AL East benefits from that.

I think we have to remember that with no changes the O's would have been a 89 win team if Adley had been with the team all season.

I know last year the pitching held up well enough to get to 83 but you are expecting a heck of a lot considering the depth of the AL. 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

We are definitely better.  "Considerably" is the subjective sticking point.  

Frazier's OBP will be a nice upgrade over Odor (while keeping the LHH).  Even his range at 2B and defensive flexibility will allow for better usage as well.  Especially allowing Gunnar to slide to SS to get another absentee OBP bat out of the lineup on occasion.  

Gibson has more upside and stuff than Lyles.  And I think OPACY and pitch sequencing will allow his better skills to play up as well.  I think Gibson will post a better WAR than Lyles did in 2022.  

McCann, well...  He's a back-up C.  I don't get worked up over back-up catchers.  But yeah, he's probably better the Chirinos.  He can still hit the ball hard when he makes contact.  Toss in some injury related issues the past couple of years...  

Givens?  

Is this the real question?  Opportunity cost (i.e. what would you have done instead that would have been "better")?  Personally, I would have targeted a TOR arm and let the prospects fight it out at 2B.  But who was available for $20m on a short-term contract?  

Elias/Sig think like mutual fund managers with risk mitigation.  $20m in one player (especially an SP) is riskier than $20m spread across 3 positions/targeted metric upgrades.

I voted 'yes' because they have improved the team.  Maybe not how I would have, but the players we've added are better than the players they are replacing.  That's considerable IMO.

We are not “definitely better”

[btdart20]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

We are not “definitely better”

"Yes, we are." times one million!

 

 

 

[George Zuverink]

I see each four of signings as buying low to replace Player A with a player B who has a modestly higher expected value  and a track record  that shows considerably better good years.  Viewed as a portfolio strategy, that would suggest “about the same” to “modest improvement” as the most likely case with considerable improvement more likely than considerable deterioration.

[JR Oriole]

I don't think we have done anything this offseason to improve.  Some teams have gotten better on paper and others have gotten worse, which makes sense since by definition everyone can't get better.  I think we are about even.  I am not as high on the "full season of Adley and Gunnar" as some others just because they were both on the team that went 12-18 down the stretch with a playoff spot well within reach.  That isn't to blame them by any means, but rather just to note that they were both there during that stretch.  

I don't really have any confidence that Elias or ownership will be any different in future years in terms of dollars spent or years committed in contracts.  Maybe they will, but they haven't done anything to make me confident this will happen.  A see it to believe it approach is okay for me given the evidence so far.