Jordan Westburg 2023

[RarityFlaherty]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

The Astros draft pitching.

And now that we have a ton of talent and we aren’t drafting so high, it’ll make more sense to take on the risk of drafting pitchers. 

[geschinger]

7 minutes ago, RarityFlaherty said:

And now that we have a ton of talent and we aren’t drafting so high, it’ll make more sense to take on the risk of drafting pitchers. 

More pitchers, yes, but with higher picks, maybe not.  I haven't seen the Astros yet this year but if I recall from last year most of their pitchers are not draftees but Intl guys.  Other than McCullers I wonder if they have anyone drafted in the first few rounds of any draft.

The Orioles approach may just be the optimal one - acquiring a guys with a couple years of experience in other minor league systems.

Edited May 16, 2023 by geschinger

[RZNJ]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The Astros draft pitching.

They have but it’s hard to argue that it’s been a key to their success.   Since Lance McCullers in 2012, they haven’t really hit on any pitcher in the top three rounds.   Hunter Brown was a 5th rounder which is where the Orioles typically start looking.   

[Bemorewins]

9 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I want the Orioles to be Astros 2.0 where they are in contention every year rather than going all-in to maximize chances in any one year.  

I don't think it's either or, in fact I think it's easier to trade for a pitcher with an MLB regular with 4+ years of service time than it is with an unproven prospect.  I suspect if one of Westburg / Ortiz proves they can be a capable MLB player with upside has a lot more trade value than they do as a AAA player.  

I also don't think there are going to be any true TOR starters that would make sense to part with multiple top 100 prospects for.  Much more likely is a veteran TOR starter with a large contract on a team that has fallen out of contention - the cost to acquire those type of guys is more reasonable - i.e. look at what Houston gave up for Verlander.

One, I don't not agree at all with the bolded portion of your post. In the game today, cheap assets are the most valuable commodity due to the explosion of the salary scale. Major League ready prospects are worth their weight in gold nowadays.

I also agree with you that I want to see the O's model themselves after the Astros and Braves, who both made trades to get to where they are. 

Regarding the underlined portion, I guess we will see depending on who is available. But parting with multiple top 100 guys is going to be the cost. And IMO we can certainly afford to do so. We have NINE top 100 prospects with 1 or 2 more looking to crack the lists even as Grayson soon graduates. There is no place to put all of them so as to maximize the value that we are getting from them. You already have posters suggesting that we platoon top 100 guys, which IMO is a waste of the value that they can bring. You want young players getting everyday reps/experience, especially the ones who you believe will be able to help you long term.

It makes ZERO sense to me to go about things this way! What is the end goal of that... to simply hoard prospects to say yeah we have "an all homegrown team"? Who cares? We are trying to win a World Series (hopefully multiple like HOU). And the road to us doing that means acquiring much better starting pitching than we currently have.

[RarityFlaherty]

10 minutes ago, geschinger said:

More pitchers, yes, but with higher picks, maybe not.  I haven't seen the Astros yet this year but if I recall from last year most of their pitchers are not draftees but Intl guys.  Other than McCullers I wonder if they have anyone drafted in the first few rounds of any draft.

The Orioles approach may just be the optimal one - acquiring a guys with a couple years of experience in other minor league systems.

Yeah I definitely like the way we’ve drafted so far. But, in terms of value, I think later in the first is a better spot to take pitchers. It makes no sense to take on the risk of drafting a pitcher when you’re in the top 5 picks and have options with much less risk. Later in the first, most guys have question marks and risks associated with drafting them, so taking a shot at a pitcher isn’t as big of a risk. 

[geschinger]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

One, I don't not agree at all with the bolded portion of your post. In the game today, cheap assets are the most valuable commodity due to the explosion of the salary scale. Major League ready prospects are worth their weight in gold nowadays.

A proven regular with 4+ years of service time is a cheap asset without the risk of being a bust.  It gives a contending team an asset to plug in w/o the likely acclimation poor performance cost discussed earlier that makes it more difficult to bring those guys up.

10 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Regarding the underlined portion, I guess we will see depending on who is available. But parting with multiple top 100 guys is going to be the cost.

There are certainly some players I'd be willing to offer a lot (multiple top 100s) for but they rarely if ever are actually available.  Teams usually hold on to stud pitchers that have years of control left.  I wouldn't give up a ton for a pitcher a year from FA and as I mentioned, the type of pitchers I think will be available (big salary, disappointing team) can be had without giving up a ton.  

15 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

It makes ZERO sense to me to go about things this way! What is the end goal of that... to simply hoard prospects to say yeah we have "an all homegrown team"? Who cares? We are trying to win a World Series (hopefully multiple like HOU). And the road to us doing that means acquiring much better starting pitching than we currently have.

End goal - improve the major league product even if it means taking a short term hit as they acclimate. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I think Cowser once he gets his feet wet would be one of the top three most productive OFs the Orioles organization will have at the MLB level and the same is true for Ortiz and Westburg.  Then there is the bonus of more years of control over the guys they would replace.

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, geschinger said:

A proven regular with 4+ years of service time is a cheap asset without the risk of being a bust.  It gives a contending team an asset to plug in w/o the likely acclimation poor performance cost discussed earlier that makes it more difficult to bring those guys up.

There are certainly some players I'd be willing to offer a lot (multiple top 100s) for but they rarely if ever are actually available.  Teams usually hold on to stud pitchers that have years of control left.  I wouldn't give up a ton for a pitcher a year from FA and as I mentioned, the type of pitchers I think will be available (big salary, disappointing team) can be had without giving up a ton.  

End goal - improve the major league product even if it means taking a short term hit as they acclimate. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I think Cowser once he gets his feet wet would be one of the top three most productive OFs the Orioles organization will have at the MLB level and the same is true for Ortiz and Westburg.  Then there is the bonus of more years of control over the guys they would replace.

To your first point in the bold, those kind of players are usually already on their way to being expensive because they are already arb-eligible. What does 2 years of a semi-high costing player mean to a rebuilding team like OAK, CIN, COL, KC etc? They are not winning anything in that 2 year time frame that they have the player.

Every team/org/GM understands that there are risks that come with ALL prospects. That's why then tend to ask for multiple prospects in a player trade.

We don't need to be in the business of taking any "short term hits" with an ascending team like we have, who has Adley for 4 more years after this and an owner who is non-committal at best when it comes to spending real money and/or extending our players. At this point, we would be wasting precious opportunities adopting such an approach.

Finally, yes, I believe that you are being VERY over optimistic. Cowser, Ortiz, and Westburg are nowhere near rated as high as Gunnar and Adley. Like not even in the same category. Adley struggled to acclimate for about a month (20ish games) and it has taken Gunnar a little longer. I just don't see it being reasonable to expect much lesser talented guys to exceed your most talented ones.

Now having said that, I would love for ALL of them to do great here or get a shot elsewhere and do well. I hope we bring Cowser up soon because I can see a realistic place for him to occupy LF almost every now and in the future, as Hays shifts to RF and Santander goes to DH/1B/RF. In that scenario I could see, Kjerstad taking Santander's place NEXT YEAR, after Gunnar has fully acclimated giving us a legit middle of the order presence to replace Santander.

However, I don't think we need to rush that scenario I mentioned above in order to accelerate the process or worse yet, cost us being the best version of ourselves this year.

[RZNJ]

The Orioles have traded for Pinto, Bradish, Povich, McDermott among others under Elias.   The Astros record on drafting pitchers in the 1st two rounds since 2012 looks putrid to me.   Seems like Elias took a lesson from that.  We do need more and better starting pitching.  Hunting it at the top of the draft might not be the best solution.

[geschinger]

15 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

To your first point in the bold, those kind of players are usually already on their way to being expensive because they are already arb-eligible. What does 2 years of a semi-high costing player mean to a rebuilding team like OAK, CIN, COL, KC etc? They are not winning anything in that 2 year time frame that they have the player.

How many of those teams have the kind of TOR starters that they are looking to trade to trade?  I think it's exceedingly rare.  Do you have a couple of examples of who you think are available Elias should be offering a huge package for?

15 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

We don't need to be in the business of taking any "short term hits" with an ascending team like we have, who has Adley for 4 more years after this and an owner who is non-committal at best when it comes to spending real money and/or extending our players. At this point, we would be wasting precious opportunities adopting such an approach.

This is the core of where our preferred approaches differ the most, which likely informs the other differences.  I am completely against the Orioles having an approach that there is a 'window.'  As I mentioned, I want the Orioles to be the Astros 2.0.  The face of that franchise and fellow number-one overall pick couldn't be resigned; they plugged in a rookie and kept on being a contending team.  That is what I want for the Orioles.  Consistent contention.  

31 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Finally, yes, I believe that you are being VERY over optimistic. Cowser, Ortiz, and Westburg are nowhere near rated as high as Gunnar and Adley. Like not even in the same category. Adley struggled to acclimate for about a month (20ish games) and it has taken Gunnar a little longer. I just don't see it being reasonable to expect much lesser talented guys to exceed your most talented ones.

I'm not expecting either of them to have the upside of Gunnar or Adley.  I am relatively confident that Westburg and Ortiz given a full season of at-bats would be more productive than Mateo and Urias.  And then if all goes well and they are productive one of them would be an extremely valuable trade chip for pitching when Jackson is ready.

[Bemorewins]

11 minutes ago, geschinger said:

How many of those teams have the kind of TOR starters that they are looking to trade to trade?  I think it's exceedingly rare.  Do you have a couple of examples of who you think are available Elias should be offering a huge package for?

This is the core of where our preferred approaches differ the most, which likely informs the other differences.  I am completely against the Orioles having an approach that there is a 'window.'  As I mentioned, I want the Orioles to be the Astros 2.0.  The face of that franchise and fellow number-one overall pick couldn't be resigned; they plugged in a rookie and kept on being a contending team.  That is what I want for the Orioles.  Consistent contention.  

I'm not expecting either of them to have the upside of Gunnar or Adley.  I am relatively confident that Westburg and Ortiz given a full season of at-bats would be more productive than Mateo and Urias.  And then if all goes well and they are productive one of them would be an extremely valuable trade chip for pitching when Jackson is ready.

To your first point/question - None of those teams have a TOR starter that we would be interested in acquiring. They were just some examples of rebuilding/struggling teams. Of the teams who are not in contention this season that may make TOR pitchers available I would say the list probably reads DET with Eduardo Rodriguez (who has not historically been a TOR guy but he is definitely pitching that way this year). He has an opt-out so that will certainly lower his trade value. Also CHI SOX Dylan Cease (who has only one tremendous season of TOR quality on his resume) and he is struggling this year. So again his value may be lower. Of the top quality available guys with higher value, they would most likely come from MIA because of their pitching talent already on the roster and a top pitching prospect ready to come up to the Major Leagues. So Alcantara or more likely Luzardo could be available.

I don't want a window either, but if the Orioles chose not to spend anything or extend guys, that's kind of what we will be stuck with. HOU has let some guys walk and extended others. We are not getting to the top of the mountain, without doing ANY of the following - making trades for high level players, extending current players (buying out expensive FA years), or signing some meaningful FA contracts. We don't have to do all of those, but we can't do none and talk about an extended window, not in the AL East and not in the American League in general.

Lastly, SS is Holliday to have when he is ready. So it makes very little sense to me to have Ortiz replace Mateo for what a season? Maybe less? Holliday could enter next year as the number prospect in the game. It won't be too long after that until he is a member of the O's. Now to your point that Westburg or Ortiz is better than Urias, that is no sure thing or anywhere close to that. Either could but may not. Urias is a very solid offensive and defensive player. I am okay with replacing one of Urias or Mateo though, if they have more trade value than Westburg/Ortiz/Norby. I just don't think it's wise to do both, since that would immediately weaken this year's team. 

[geschinger]

9 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I don't want a window either, but if the Orioles chose not to spend anything or extend guys, that's kind of what we will be stuck with. HOU has let some guys walk and extended others. We are not getting to the top of the mountain, without doing ANY of the following - making trades for high level players, extending current players (buying out expensive FA years), or signing some meaningful FA contracts. We don't have to do all of those, but we can't do none and talk about an extended window, not in the AL East and not in the American League in general.. 

Considering we are talking about the Angelos family, this also may be overly optimistic, but until proven otherwise, I'll continue to hope that Elias was hired to implement a plan similar to what he helped construct with the Astros and will be allowed to do so.  Nothing the Orioles have or have not done at this point is inconsistent with that approach (Orioles are roughly at the point the Astros were in 2016), and the team did spend what would be enough in the mid-2010s, so it doesn't require anything out of line with what an Angelos family-owned team has done in the relatively recent past.  

22 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Lastly, SS is Holliday to have when he is ready. So it makes very little sense to me to have Ortiz replace Mateo for what a season? Maybe less? Holliday could enter next year as the number prospect in the game. It won't be too long after that until he is a member of the O's. Now to your point that Westburg or Ortiz is better than Urias, that is no sure thing or anywhere close to that. Either could but may not. Urias is a very solid offensive and defensive player. I am okay with replacing one of Urias or Mateo though, if they have more trade value than Westburg/Ortiz/Norby. I just don't think it's wise to do both, since that would immediately weaken this year's team. 

Why wouldn't you want the best possible team on the field for a season, especially if you think we may be operating within a window?  A productive MLB starting shortstop with 5 years of control would have immense value on the trade market if Holiday is ready on schedule.  

I understand where you are coming from and suspect the Orioles aren't going to give either of them sufficient ABs in the near future let alone both for the reason you mention.  The downside of that approach is while you aren't weakening this year's team you are doing it at the expense of weakening next year's team if you believe like I do that the odds of Westburg and Ortiz being more productive than Mateo and Urias are high.

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, RarityFlaherty said:

And now that we have a ton of talent and we aren’t drafting so high, it’ll make more sense to take on the risk of drafting pitchers. 

I have a feeling they will be doing the same exact thing they e done the last 4 years. 

[emmett16]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

The Orioles have traded for Pinto, Bradish, Povich, McDermott among others under Elias.   The Astros record on drafting pitchers in the 1st two rounds since 2012 looks putrid to me.   Seems like Elias took a lesson from that.  We do need more and better starting pitching.  Hunting it at the top of the draft might not be the best solution.

Bradish and Wells illustrate their path to finding serviceable starters with upside.  Povich & McDermott are the second wave.    

[Bemorewins]

9 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Considering we are talking about the Angelos family, this also may be overly optimistic, but until proven otherwise, I'll continue to hope that Elias was hired to implement a plan similar to what he helped construct with the Astros and will be allowed to do so.  Nothing the Orioles have or have not done at this point is inconsistent with that approach (Orioles are roughly at the point the Astros were in 2016), and the team did spend what would be enough in the mid-2010s, so it doesn't require anything out of line with what an Angelos family-owned team has done in the relatively recent past.  

Why wouldn't you want the best possible team on the field for a season, especially if you think we may be operating within a window?  A productive MLB starting shortstop with 5 years of control would have immense value on the trade market if Holiday is ready on schedule.  

I understand where you are coming from and suspect the Orioles aren't going to give either of them sufficient ABs in the near future let alone both for the reason you mention.  The downside of that approach is while you aren't weakening this year's team you are doing it at the expense of weakening next year's team if you believe like I do that the odds of Westburg and Ortiz being more productive than Mateo and Urias are high.

Let me ask you one question in response to the bolded statement: How did you hear John Angelos' comments from Opening Day this year? Does that sound anything like what has come out of HOU or from ANY owner serious about winning? When your owner is complaining and refusing to spend on the level commiserate to the Rays, you know you have a serious problem. So no I do not share ANY of the optimism that you have that John Angelos will run this franchise in anything close to a competent way. 

In response to the second paragraph, of course that would be great. But that is by no means a guarantee. Ortiz is nothing close to a can't miss prospect. I would argue the inverse could be true if you move off of Mateo. Ortiz takes over and doesn't do as well, and no we have a hole to overcome in a season that winning is supposed to matter. And on top of it, he has diminished value. Then what? 

That type of risk doesn't make sense, for a potential of what a little more than a year's worth of high yield return?

I do not like the odds that you suggest in your last post. Like, Westburg and Ortiz are not top 50 prospects. I'm not sure where or how you are determining these high odds for success. At best that is 50/50. I'm okay with risking more upside on 1 of the two but it makes VERY LITTLE sense to do both when you aren't forced into such risk. As I stated above, Holliday is the type of prospect that it stands more reason to get the type of certainty that you claim Westburg and Ortiz give. 

Finally, you have a VERY OPTIMISTIC orange and black tinted perspective. I commend you for that, especially given the Orioles history of the last 40 years! I however, am not optimistic given that history of time as it has been just about all of my lifetime. I am much more pragmatic maybe even a little pessimistic. It hasn't served me well as a fan to overrate our guys and believe that they will be more than their talent/potential suggests. If Westburg and/or Ortiz where in another org and rated roughly in the 50-90 range on consensus prospect lists, would you be this high on them? Like do you think Jack Leiter is a potential ace for TEX (80ish rated pitcher and son of Al Leiter) or what about Brayan Rocchio (60ish rated prospect in lists), do you think he's a future all-star middle infielder for the Guardians because he is killing it at AAA? I picked these random players to ascertain how you rate players and how you project future success because you seem very assured of the future success of Westburg and Ortiz. And I am curious as to what informs that other than you wanting it to happen as a fan?

[geschinger]

5 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Let me ask you one question in response to the bolded statement: How did you hear John Angelos' comments from Opening Day this year? Does that sound anything like what has come out of HOU or from ANY owner serious about winning? When your owner is complaining and refusing to spend on the level commiserate to the Rays, you know you have a serious problem. So no I do not share ANY of the optimism that you have that John Angelos will run this franchise in anything close to a competent way. 

None of this matters if Elias isn't going to be allowed to implement the plan and I have to think he'd leave.  He'll have plenty of opportunities elsewhere.

5 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

In response to the second paragraph, of course that would be great. But that is by no means a guarantee. Ortiz is nothing close to a can't miss prospect. I would argue the inverse could be true if you move off of Mateo. 

I think someone regarded as a plus defender who has performed at a high level offensively in AAA has a great chance to produce more than a guy with a sub .700 OPS over 4 years in MLB.  Is it guaranteed?  Of course not.  He could get hurt, he could be a bust but if I was a betting man, my money would be on Ortiz being more productive.  

You mention other guys like Leiter and ask if I think he's a potential ace.  No, I don't think the odds are good that he is.  But those aren't my expectations for JW or JO either. I'm not expecting either to be a superstar.  I'm expecting they will be more productive than Mateo and Urias.