In Hindsight What Would Have Been Your Perfect Orioles' Offseason?

[HakunaSakata]

22 minutes ago, oriole said:

Good question. Reynolds is a better hitter and I had thought a comparable defender to Mullins but I just compared their defensive numbers and that’s not the case. So, they might be more even head to head than I’d have guessed previously. If I had to guess which player has another 5+ WAR season I’d probably have to guess Reynolds but that’s mostly based on Mullins’ inability to hit left handed pitching. 

I think Reynolds' bat will probably age better, but honestly we've committed to growing the bats so the only thing we should be looking to trade for is pitching. 

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

It really wasn't my intent for hypothetical trades that haven't actually actually happened to be part of this exercise. The idea was to look at the contracts that have been signed and the trades that have been made (i.e., now that we know what it would have taken to sign or trade for a player) and revisit which of those moves you would have liked to see the Orioles have made. And even though I said to keep it realistic, I was thinking more along the lines of suggesting moves like signing Judge, Turner, etc. and/or a payroll of $200M. Regardless of whether or not we think ownership will spend money I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation (or exercise) to suggest moves that would have put our payroll in the $100M range and contracts in the three to four year range. It's ok to suspend reality just a bit (for the purpose of this exercise) and assume that we have reasonable ownership willing to spend something in line with our team/market size. 

Most of the contracts that have been signed are stupid and shouldn’t have been considered by any team, much less ours.

 

[RZNJ]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Most of the contracts that have been signed are stupid and shouldn’t have been considered by any team, much less ours.

 

You suggested 3/50 for Eovaldi.   Isn't that a stupid contract for a pitcher who's pitched over 125 innings once in the last 6 years and had shoulder issues last year?

[NCRaven]

Verlander was my dream signing.  Had that been done, I'd be fine with everything else that Elias has done this off season.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

You suggested 3/50 for Eovaldi.   Isn't that a stupid contract for a pitcher who's pitched over 125 innings once in the last 6 years and had shoulder issues last year?

Ehh, it could be.

But it’s a short term guarantee and he has good stuff. Misses bats, gets Ks…his stat cast numbers are pretty decent. His HR rate is high but likely comes down at OPACY.

Durability is a definite concern, as it is with most pitchers. 
 

I take the risk with him because of his upside but it definitely could blow up in their face, no doubt.

[HakunaSakata]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Most of the contracts that have been signed are stupid and shouldn’t have been considered by any team, much less ours.

 

Respectfully disagree. There were plenty of reasonable / bargains this offseason,. Bassitt for 3/$63M, Rizzo for 2/$40M, Haniger for 3/$43.5, Manaea for 2/$25M, Drury for 2/$17M are just a few that come to mind. 

[theobird]

2 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

Respectfully disagree. There were plenty of reasonable / bargains this offseason,. Bassitt for 3/$63M, Rizzo for 2/$40M, Haniger for 3/$43.5, Manaea for 2/$25M, Drury for 2/$17M are just a few that come to mind. 

 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

Respectfully disagree. There were plenty of reasonable / bargains this offseason,. Bassitt for 3/$63M, Rizzo for 2/$40M, Haniger for 3/$43.5, Manaea for 2/$25M, Drury for 2/$17M are just a few that come to mind. 

Ehhh, maybe. I don’t see why we would  consider any of those deals outside of Bassitt.  Now, I would rather sign Drury than Frazier but both signings would have been/are poor moves considering our depth in the IF.

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Sports Guy

[theobird]

Just now, theobird said:

 

Only time will tell, but I suspect the vast majority of those contracts will not be good deals for the teams. some will be disasters

[HakunaSakata]

Just now, theobird said:

Only time will tell, but I suspect the vast majority of those contracts will not be good deals for the teams. some will be disasters

They're all relatively short term deals so there's really very little risk involved. Baseball isn't a a game of certainties or guarantees. You have to take risks and pay what the marketing dictates (at the time) for players. You can't stick your head in the sand and just not spend because you don't agree with the cost of inflation. 

[theobird]

3 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

They're all relatively short term deals so there's really very little risk involved. Baseball isn't a a game of certainties or guarantees. You have to take risks and pay what the marketing dictates (at the time) for players. You can't stick your head in the sand and just not spend because you don't agree with the cost of inflation. 

I hear you, but when you have several young pitchers who stepped up and impressed last year, plus two absolute stud pitching prospects….Not to mention the possible return of John Means…i don’t think you need to commit big bucks to aging middle of the road pitchers. If you wanted to step up and spend big on a real TOR starter, i would get behind that idea. But I wouldn’t spend on these guys. Rodon? yeah, i could go along with that because i think he could really boost your chances. 

[oriole]

53 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

It really wasn't my intent for hypothetical trades that haven't actually actually happened to be part of this exercise. The idea was to look at the contracts that have been signed and the trades that have been made (i.e., now that we know what it would have taken to sign or trade for a player) and revisit which of those moves you would have liked to see the Orioles have made. And even though I said to keep it realistic, I was thinking more along the lines of suggesting moves like signing Judge, Turner, etc. and/or a payroll of $200M. Regardless of whether or not we think ownership will spend money I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation (or exercise) to suggest moves that would have put our payroll in the $100M range and contracts in the three to four year range. It's ok to suspend reality just a bit (for the purpose of this exercise) and assume that we have reasonable ownership willing to spend something in line with our team/market size. 

Sorry, didn’t mean to go off topic! I thought you meant overall offseason. I don’t like a lot of the contracts that have been signed and so it’s easier, in my mind, to think of ways to spread around the value in the organization by means of targeting trade scenarios. 
 

Without going into specifics, what I’d have liked to see is a couple difference makers signed. Gibson and Frazier aren’t going to push this team past 4th place so what even is the point?

[SilverRocket]

1 hour ago, HakunaSakata said:

It really wasn't my intent for hypothetical trades that haven't actually actually happened to be part of this exercise. The idea was to look at the contracts that have been signed and the trades that have been made (i.e., now that we know what it would have taken to sign or trade for a player) and revisit which of those moves you would have liked to see the Orioles have made.

It's tough because the free agent contracts have been more expensive than I had anticipated. If you asked me ahead of time whether we should sign Bassitt for 3/63, I would've said no. Maybe in hindsight, 3/63 is fine but it still feels like a major stretch to me for a SP about to turn 34, who didn't really start producing until age 30.

On the other hand, a buy-trade sounds good to me with the plethora of middle-infield prospects. Trading some of Urias/Mateo/Westburg/Norby as part of a package for a #3 starter is the kind of deal that I'd hope the team would make this offseason.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Except that’s wrong. The payroll is going higher because of the FA expenditures vs arb raises. (Ie, the FA cost more money than the difference in arb raises will..or at the very least, it’s extremely close)

MLBTR estimates our Arb cases at $20.3 mm, Cot’s says $19.7 mm.  Those same players cost us something more than $6.7 mm last year, so the “increase” from arbitration is something like $13 - 13.6 mm.

Meanwhile we have Gibson $10 mm, Frazier $8 mm, Givens $5 mm, McCann $4.25 mm.  That’s $27.25 mm.  If you deduct off the $10.6 mm we paid Mancini , Lopez, Odor and Chirinos, that’s a $16.65 mm increase.   (I’m deducting there the full $9 mm salaries of Mancini/Lopez, not the actual $6 mm we paid them, in order to look at this from an Opening Day payroll perspective.) 

So, like you said, more of the increase comes from free agents and trades than from arbitration, though it’s relatively close.

[forphase1]

2 hours ago, theobird said:

 

Yeah, I don't see those as reasonable or bargains really.  Most of those deals I wouldn't want us to have made, for various reasons.