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

[jrobb21613]

On paper they sure aren’t the most sexiest signings. I’m assuming Elias and his staff see something in these guys that leads them to believe they can get better production out of them. 

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, BRobinsonfan said:

I largely agree, and as a small market team I don't expect we're ever going to be able to compete for elite free agents, but the $23 million we spent on 3 marginal free agents would have been better spent on one decent pitcher in my opinion.   

I do agree with this in principle, but any $23M AAV pitcher other than Verlander/Kershaw is going to need a multiyear deal, which either Elias or ownership appear reluctant to hand out.

Even if we could do multiyear guys, $23M does not get us Rodon. Bassit is right on the edge and age 34. We're probably looking at Walker/Taillon and honestly those guys are not locks to outperform Gibson or Bradish/Voth, so I can reluctantly see why we didn't go that route. 

[Sports Guy]

I’m not willing to say we are better on paper. That would assume no key guys turn into pumpkins, health stays lucky (again, this continues to be overlooked about 2022 imo) and that the new guys are definitely better than the replacements.

None of those things are close to sure things. Even with GRod and full seasons of Adley and Gunnar, if those things go the other way, they won’t outweigh that.

The team has made zero significant improvements so far. About the same sounds right.

[jamalshw]

I'm not voting in this poll as it is lacking the answer I would choose. The questions is are we considerably better as a direct result of the additions, correct? I'll take the anticipated improvement as a result of a full season of Adley and Gunnar and the promotions of Grayson, Westburg, Cowser, etc at some point this season. 

Just solely on the Gibson, Frazier and McCann additions are we "considerably better"? No. If it was a yes/no question, I would choose "no." However, the options are: Yes, about the same, and worse. We aren't worse for adding these players as those additions make us better. We aren't about the same (unless that word "about" does some heavy lifting) so we are better, but considerably is WAY too strong for me. 

I also think it's a bit of a false comparison comparing the money spent this season on these players to the cost of the players we had last year. Lyles just got a 2/$17M deal so comparing him and Gibson we should probably compare Gibson's 1/$10M to that 2/$17M deal or to the $10M it would've cost to exercise the option we had. Financially, it's a wash between the two players. Lyles had the slightly better season last year. Gibson has had the better career. If I had to wager, I would guess Gibson has a better 2023 compared to Lyles, though I don't expect anything more than 1 WAR out of either of them. We are not chasing 2022 WAR, but 2023 value so using their 2022 WAR to compare doesn't really help. 

McCann is an interesting addition and I agree with your claims in other threads that we probably would've been better served with Casali as our backup catcher, but McCann does historically have solid numbers against LHP in his career (though they were abysmal in limited ABs last year). I'm willing to see how he looks. I don't expect much and do think we could get about the same for less, but also don't think the financial outlay is that much to be up in arms about it. I'm in a wait and see approach for him. 

As to Frazier, that's the most questionable deal for me though it also depends on his usage. If he truly is an Odor replacement and ends up getting nearly 500 plate appearances nearly all at 2B, I'll be a bit disappointed. But there's the chance he becomes more like the player he was in Pittsburgh. So again, we aren't acquiring 2022 WAR, we are looking for 2023 value. Of course, past performance helps predict future value and the most recent results are a significant part of that.

[owknows]

27 minutes ago, BRobinsonfan said:

I largely agree, and as a small market team I don't expect we're ever going to be able to compete for elite free agents, but the $23 million we spent on 3 marginal free agents would have been better spent on one decent pitcher in my opinion.   

I agree we probably needed a little more than Gibson.

But I don't think you're getting much for 23 million on a short deal.

I'd think you're better off trading for that arm.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

It's hard to argue in either direction against "about the same" if we are strictly talking about the acquisitions we have made thus far, so that is what I went with.

But I have mentioned previously that I expect some regression from the rotation, the bullpen, and the overall health of the team, so I could easily see the final record of the 2023 team falling a bit short of last year's 83 wins.

[crawjo]

The three players added don't make us significantly better, though I do think all three are upgrades over what we had last year. Frazier is better than Odor, McCann is better than Chirinos, and Gibson is better than Lyles, IMO. 

What will primarily make us a better team is the continued growth and development of our young players. This happens every offseason. People get so distracted by the huge contracts being signed that they lose the plot. If the Orioles are to take the next step forward over the next 1-2 years, it will be because of Rutschman, Henderson, Rodriguez, Cowser, Bradish, Hall, etc. That was always the case. Big free agent acquisitions are almost always overrated. While I wish the Orioles had a bigger payroll, I'm somewhat relieved that our front office is not dumb enough to spend $315 million turning a great defensive shortstop with an .850 OPS into a third baseman. But maybe that's just me. 

[Since1984]

5 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

I said this in the other thread 

So we’ve made 3 MLB additions and they are mostly lateral at best. But, 

Odor (minimum) vs Frazier $8 million

McCann $2.5 Million vs Chirinos $700,000

Gibson $10 Million vs Lyles ($6 million plus the $1 million buyout)

 

WAR 

Lyles 1.0 vs Gibson .7 

Odor -.4 vs Frazier .9

Chirinos .1 vs McCann -.1

So we’ve spent 23 million to get .8 WAR improvement (I’m including the whole commitment to McCann as we are stuck with him for 2 seasons). This is a total waste of revenue IMO. 

 

Honestly, I feel this is a piss poor effort or just that our GM isn’t trying to win more baseball games. 

Am hopeful that these net variances improve by a couple of WAR+ for the O’s in 2023.

How many waiver wire pickups has this team converted to 2022’s success. Based on bref it’s around 15 WAR (Mateo, Uriah, Lopez, Perez, Baker, Voth).

Maybe theses added veterans need health and a few more chances for a bounce back season, but I agree with you that this current offseason could result in the team going backwards.

[tntoriole]

Frazier is significantly better than Odor and 2023 results will be more dramatic in difference… Frazier is also a competent utility guy at outfield and 2b and gives much much more flexibility than Odor did. 
1 year deal, he will not block anybody who is ready

McCann is better than Chirinos .. backup catcher is a necessity obviously ..and he is 2.5 mil per year cost with fringe prospect given up 

Gibson is better than Lyles and we did not have to give him 2 years like Lyles got. 

Givens is a plus addition in my view

 

All small pieces but all make us better than what was there in 2022

[DrinkinWithFermi]

3 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Frazier is significantly better than Odor

He's marginally better than Odor.

He's better defensively but their offensive value (or, more accurately, lack thereof) was virtually identical last year, and there isn't much reason to expect a major improvement from Frazier.

[Aristotelian]

13 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

He's marginally better than Odor.

He's better defensively but their offensive value (or, more accurately, lack thereof) was virtually identical last year, and there isn't much reason to expect a major improvement from Frazier.

Odor had negative WAR in 2019 and 2020 with a slight uptick to barely positive in 2021. 

Frazier has had 2.5, 0.8 (pro rated to 2+), 4.1, and 0.9. If you give any weight at all to the overall body of work vs previous year, Frazier is significantly better. At the very least it must be admitted that Frazier has a higher ceiling than Odor. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

Odor had negative WAR in 2019 and 2020 with a slight uptick to barely positive in 2021. 

Frazier has had 2.5, 0.8 (pro rated to 2+), 4.1, and 0.9. If you give any weight at all to the overall body of work vs previous year, Frazier is significantly better. At the very least it must be admitted that Frazier has a higher ceiling than Odor. 

Frazier has cratered over the last 1.5 years and there isn't really anything in the underlying metrics suggests a big bounceback.

He is a marginal upgrade over Odor due to his defense, but that's about it.

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:

Looks like a 74-78 win team to me, we are definitely not keeping up with the Jones of the AL East

What did you predict last year?

[SilverRocket]

6 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

WAR 

Lyles 1.0 vs Gibson .7 

Odor -.4 vs Frazier .9

Chirinos .1 vs McCann -.1

I think these three plus the Givens signing are roughly a wash, given we also lost some Trey Mancini and Jorge Lopez time.

The biggest difference will be having Gunnar for the entire season instead of a month. That could be a 2-3 WAR improvement.

[webbrick2010]

Looks like a 74-78 win team to me, we are definitely not keeping up with the Jones of the AL East