Orioles calling up Westburg.

[foxfield]

11 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

Why in the world would we give up multiple top 100 players to acquire Aroldis Chapman? He couldn't fetch that at his absolute peak let alone in the twilight of his career. He won't cost 1 SINGLE top 100 prospect.

I didn't say he would cost that.  I was referring to your earlier post saying if he is the best available..."sign me up"

It isn't hard to see envision that in a tight sellers market he would in fact cost that much.  That was my point.  The Orioles are not going to overpay for renters.  IF the price for Chapman is anywhere near the value of a top 100 prospect...the Orioles will not be signing up.

I don't think we are really far off.  I was simply saying the Orioles would be cost conscience even though they clearly have the capital should they choose to spend it.  I think the difference is that you would spend more of that talent simply because its available.  I might too for guys with more time left.  But I dont think the Orioles will.

[Bemorewins]

8 hours ago, forphase1 said:

I'm very glad that Westburg is up now, and is hitting so well.  Watching him I can't help but wonder what our record would have been the past two months if many of the poor Mateo and Frazier at bats had been given to this kid instead.  Maybe we'd have picked up an extra game or two.  Who knows?  But he's here now, and certainly looking like he is going to get a fair chance to play on most days.  

I can join you in being thrilled to see him here and succeeding (thus far). However, I don’t think his arrival (or lack there of) or his success for that matter, are not the major issue with this team. We don’t have enough good pitchers, regardless of how well we hit. See last night’s game as a recent example. 

I’m confident that we can make the playoffs, but concerned about what will happen once we get there.

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, foxfield said:

I didn't say he would cost that.  I was referring to your earlier post saying if he is the best available..."sign me up"

It isn't hard to see envision that in a tight sellers market he would in fact cost that much.  That was my point.  The Orioles are not going to overpay for renters.  IF the price for Chapman is anywhere near the value of a top 100 prospect...the Orioles will not be signing up.

I don't think we are really far off.  I was simply saying the Orioles would be cost conscience even though they clearly have the capital should they choose to spend it.  I think the difference is that you would spend more of that talent simply because its available.  I might too for guys with more time left.  But I dont think the Orioles will.

I appreciate the posters who corrected me last night in terms of his previous valuation. I think it was @Can_of_corn who provided the factual information. 

However, as was discussed, that is when he was a back end reliever/closer and considered elite and one of the best in the game. Now he is a setup man/middle reliever toward the end of his career AND on a 1 year contract.

Nobody is paying a premium price for him. I would be absolutely SHOCKED if a team was willing to give up a top 100 prospect for him. He’s simply not valued like that anymore. If he was, he wouldn’t have winded on the KC Royals in the first place. A good team would have wanted him. Now this is not to negate how he appears to have turned this around this year and performed much better. But he is NOT the guy that he was once.

I may be different than you and most fans/posters, I don’t think the Orioles draw some magic line in the sand that they are unwilling to spend that other teams will just trip of to mistakenly/foolishly waste. Most of these teams are very smart and have capable people who are just as smart as Elias/Sig running their baseball opps. That is not to take away from our front office, but I think it’s hubris or ignorance to think that we are so much better than everyone else. That I do not believe. 

If we don’t value him like that with all the prospect capital that we possess, why would others?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I appreciate the posters who corrected me last night in terms of his previous valuation. I think it was @Can_of_corn who provided the factual information. 

However, as was discussed, that is when he was a back end reliever/closer and considered elite and one of the best in the game. Now he is a setup man/middle reliever toward the end of his career AND on a 1 year contract.

Nobody is paying a premium price for him. I would be absolutely SHOCKED if a team was willing to give up a top 100 prospect for him. He’s simply not valued like that anymore. If he was, he wouldn’t have winded on the KC Royals in the first place. A good team would have wanted him. Now this is not to negate how he appears to have turned this around this year and performed much better. But he is NOT the guy that he was once.

I may be different than you and most fans/posters, I don’t think the Orioles draw some magic line in the sand that they are unwilling to spend that other teams will just trip of to mistakenly/foolishly waste. Most of these teams are very smart and have capable people who are just as smart as Elias/Sig running their baseball opps. That is not to take away from our front office, but I think it’s hubris or ignorance to think that we are so much better than everyone else. That I do not believe. 

If we don’t value him like that with all the prospect capital that we possess, why would others?

When Chapman was dealt to the Cubs, he was a rental.

And nobody wanted him because of cost demands and declining velo. Cost means very little now and the velo is back up.

In this market, I would be surprised if they don’t get a top 100 guy. Maybe not someone way up in the top 100 but a Connor Norby type guy?  Someone in the 75-100 range?  Yea, they can get that I think.

Of course, they may prefer to get 1-2 guys not in the top 100 right now because they like their upside more long term.

Top 100 prospects aren’t always the best prospects.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Bemorewins]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

When Chapman was dealt to the Cubs, he was a rental.

And nobody wanted him because of cost demands and declining velo. Cost means very little now and the velo is back up.

In this market, I would be surprised if they don’t get a top 100 guy. Maybe not someone way up in the top 100 but a Connor Norby type guy?  Someone in the 75-100 range?  Yea, they can get that I think.

Of course, they may prefer to get 1-2 guys not in the top 100 right now because they like their upside more long term.

Top 100 prospects aren’t always the best prospects.

I guess we will see. 

I see him as being different now, he’s not a back end reliever now, more of a middle reliever. He’s older now and he was not very good for NY last year. He’s not the same guy that he was then. I guess that could be said of a lot of us…lol

[Frobby]

10 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I think so. I think we routinely underestimate what players will cost. 

I think you’re way off here.  Remember when we traded for K-Rod, who had a 1.09 ERA at the time?  It cost us Nicky Delmonico.  Now, I think Chapman would cost more than a Delmonico, but he won’t cost, say, an Eduardo Rodriguez level prospect like Andrew Miller did.  

[Sports Guy]

29 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I guess we will see. 

I see him as being different now, he’s not a back end reliever now, more of a middle reliever. He’s older now and he was not very good for NY last year. He’s not the same guy that he was then. I guess that could be said of a lot of us…lol

I agree he’s not the same guy and the BB rate is an issue. 

But the market is what it is. That’s the issue. With so few sellers and a lot of buyers, they could easily get more than they should for him.

[Bemorewins]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I agree he’s not the same guy and the BB rate is an issue. 

But the market is what it is. That’s the issue. With so few sellers and a lot of buyers, they could easily get more than they should for him.

That I don’t disagree with. I just don’t think it will be a top 100 prospect. But we have prospects in spades, if he is the best reliever available, I think we should take a long look at him within reason.

I understand that this is a seller’s market with the supply and demand being what it is. But I also can’t join those posters/fans who are strong advocates for hoarding prospects which IMO is rooted in a scarcity mentality. Our 8/9 top 100 prospects are not all that we will ever have. 2-3 more will probably be joint the list by season’s end even as Westburg and probably Cowser graduate. Plus we have the draft which we have done very well with since Elias/Sig have been here.

IMO opinion the fear that some have that we could “give away the store” is not rational. From everything that we have seen from Elias we can deduce that he is very conservative/patient. I don’t see any scenarios where he would pursue such a route. And to be honest, I don’t even see how that’s possible. There are no realistic trades out there that could bankrupt us. Unless that is the ones where somebody believes an aging middle reliever will/can command a 3 top 100 prospect haul.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

That I don’t disagree with. I just don’t think it will be a top 100 prospect. But we have prospects in spades, if he is the best reliever available, I think we should take a long look at him within reason.

I understand that this is a seller’s market with the supply and demand being what it is. But I also can’t join those posters/fans who are strong advocates for hoarding prospects which IMO is rooted in a scarcity mentality. Our 8/9 top 100 prospects are not all that we will ever have. 2-3 more will probably be joint the list by season’s end even as Westburg and probably Cowser graduate. Plus we have the draft which we have done very well with since Elias/Sig have been here.

IMO opinion the fear that some have that we could “give away the store” is not rational. From everything that we have seen from Elias we can deduce that he is very conservative/patient. I don’t see any scenarios where he would pursue such a route. And to be honest, I don’t even see how that’s possible. There are no realistic trades out there that could bankrupt us. Unless that is the ones where somebody believes an aging middle reliever will/can command a 3 top 100 prospect haul.

Who do you value more…Fabian or Norby? What about Willems or Norby?

[deward]

52 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you’re way off here.  Remember when we traded for K-Rod, who had a 1.09 ERA at the time?  It cost us Nicky Delmonico.  Now, I think Chapman would cost more than a Delmonico, but he won’t cost, say, an Eduardo Rodriguez level prospect like Andrew Miller did.  

I'm trying to think of who a Delmonico equivalent would be in the current org. Wagner, maybe? 

[Bemorewins]

25 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Who do you value more…Fabian or Norby? What about Willems or Norby?

Probably would order the 3 Fabian, Norby, Willems. But I don’t begrudge others who have a different order. I listed Willems last because we also have Basallo. With the both of them, one is redundant. It’s the same way I have felt about Ortiz/Westburg. I was fine with the Orioles choosing either one. Because with Henderson and Holliday, I felt that there was only room for one more. I know disagree and feel we could use the other as a utility or platoon. But I just don’t think that is the best we to get the most juice out of the squeeze from a top prospect. But it appears that I am more willing to trade prospects than many on this board, so there’s that to consider that may effect how I view things.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

Probably would order the 3 Fabian, Norby, Willems. But I don’t begrudge others who have a different order. I listed Willems last because we also have Basallo. With the both of them, one is redundant. It’s the same way I have felt about Ortiz/Westburg. I was fine with the Orioles choosing either one. Because with Henderson and Holliday, I felt that there was only room for one more. I know disagree and feel we could use the other as a utility or platoon. But I just don’t think that is the best we to get the most juice out of the squeeze from a top prospect. But it appears that I am more willing to trade prospects than many on this board, so there’s that to consider that may effect how I view things.

Ok, so you value a non top 100 guy over a top 100 guy.

Thus my point…top 100 players aren’t necessarily the best prospects.

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok, so you value a non top 100 guy over a top 100 guy.

Thus my point…top 100 players aren’t necessarily the best prospects.

I think Fabian will be a top 100 prospect by the time the next reordering of the lists.

I don’t think Norby is a bad prospect by any means, we are just loaded with INF. There is no place for him here.

But yes I get your overall point.