Trading for a rental vs a longer term asset

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

He may have been ahead of them in terms of having spent more time at AAA before them thus being positioned for a call up ahead of them. But I guess what I am saying is that, they were always going to be “ahead” when they arrive thus displacing him from the major league OF.

I agree that it will be best to move him and get whatever value that we can for him because he doesn’t seem to have a place here now or long term.

It’s possible that he could be a decent player elsewhere and hopefully he is given the opportunity to show that. 

I think that the same is true for Varva (maybe not as high a ceiling as Stowers) and also Ortiz. They all are probably decent Major League players, there are just better players than them either here or in the Minors. 

I hope that they all get a chance and shine wherever they go, I just can’t see that being here. Unfortunately I don’t think that any of the 3 are good enough to stick here based on what is being built.

I think Vavra has a role with the O's has a utility player that has options to move up and down between AAA and the majors.   He has little trade value.  I see no reason to trade him.

Ortiz is a keeper for me.   He can play 3B/SS/2B.    He is reportedly a plus defender wherever they put him.   I would not even consider trading him until Holliday is ready for the majors.  Whenever that is.  He too has options.

[wildcard]

12 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

JR, you just put Scherzer, MASN, and Angelos in the SAME sentence, with a semi-hopeful spin, lol! I'll have some of whatever you are drinking but pass on any JA hope!

At 43m per year including next year I think you should keep looking for a better match.

[Bemorewins]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I think Vavra has a role with the O's has a utility player that has options to move up and down between AAA and the majors.   He has little trade value.  I see no reason to trade him.

Ortiz is a keeper for me.   He can play 3B/SS/2B.    He is reportedly a plus defender wherever they put him.   I would not even consider trading him until Holliday is ready for the majors.  Whenever that is.  He too has options.

Unless there are injuries, the role that you describe for Varva is not needed on this team anymore. We have a bunch of Vera Aliyah guys who can play multiple positions in the IF. And once Cowser comes to the Majors, there will be no place for a Varva type in the OF either.

I guess I can see a very short lived role for Ortiz if they get rid of Mateo next year AND Holliday isn’t ready yet. That role will last no more than a year or so IMO. The problem with that is then you start to eat up service time on a guy who is already kind of “old” to have prospect status, given he will be 25 this year. 

There’s also the risk if you give him the opportunity and the bat doesn’t play. No, we are back in the same boat like we are with Mateo. A former top 100 prospect with a plus defensive tool who didn’t hit and is now 27 (like Mateo is).

I would prefer to let another team assume the risk with Ortiz. And trade him while the value is still where it is. 

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Unless there are injuries, the role that you describe for Varva is not needed on this team anymore. We have a bunch of Vera Aliyah guys who can play multiple positions in the IF. And once Cowser comes to the Majors, there will be no place for a Varva type in the OF either.

I guess I can see a very short lived role for Ortiz if they get rid of Mateo next year AND Holliday isn’t ready yet. That role will last no more than a year or so IMO. The problem with that is then you start to eat up service time on a guy who is already kind of “old” to have prospect status, given he will be 25 this year. 

There’s also the risk if you give him the opportunity and the bat doesn’t play. No, we are back in the same boat like we are with Mateo. A former top 100 prospect with a plus defensive tool who didn’t hit and is now 27 (like Mateo is).

I would prefer to let another team assume the risk with Ortiz. And trade him while the value is still where it is. 

The first 4 words of your post is why Vavra probably stays.  "Unless there are injuries".  And there normally are.  Urias, Mateo and Ortiz has all sent time on the IL.

You have a negative perspective on Ortiz if his post is an accurate reflection of your opinion.   He  is having a positive season at AAA and is a good guy to have around at at least until Holliday arrives.   He is 25 and his value is not likely to decrease in the next year IMO.

 

[tntoriole]

4 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

That’s an approach to take. 

I guess I’m curious why you wouldn’t want a starting pitcher? Even if we don’t acquire one this year, as the way things stand now, we are going to need one next year.

Do you not value starting pitchers that much? Are you concerned about the quality of availability? Are you concerned about acquisition cost? Something else?

I think TOR pitchers are not as valuable as expressed on this board .. and if we added another Kyle Gibson would it be that much different than GRod will be ? Marginal .. 

Pennants used to be won with 4 starters, not five .. I am ok with our 4 and fifth of whomever Irvin, GRod, Means in Sept etc 

But in this era.. where even TOR  pitchers pitch shorter, then I think the overwhelming bullpen model is more attainable and more flexible and thus more valuable. 
 

I was verry impressed in 2014 by how much just adding Andrew Miller transformed a good team into a really really good team .. 
 

Pat Dobson and Steve Stone were not TOR great pitchers but good enough to win 20 with a strong offense and defense.. 

[Bemorewins]

38 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The first 4 words of your post is why Vavra probably stays.  "Unless there are injuries".  And there normally are.  Urias, Mateo and Ortiz has all sent time on the IL.

You have a negative perspective on Ortiz if his post is an accurate reflection of your opinion.   He  is having a positive season at AAA and is a good guy to have around at at least until Holliday arrives.   He is 25 and his value is not likely to decrease in the next year IMO.

 

You assigned a value judgment based on my attempt to offer an objective assessment of the player's situation. That's fine by me. I think I would replace the word "negative" with the word "honest". He will be 26 next year, I don't see many if any 26 year olds with prospect status, do you? No matter what happens, I can't seem him making many/if any top 100 lists next year because of the age.

Are you equally as high on all of our prospects? Or do you leave yourself room to make judgements on players abilities, not just that they wear orange and black uniforms?

I want Ortiz like every single other one of our players and prospects to succeed. But I know that is not realistic. I see Jackson Holliday as a superior talent and I see us being ok with the situation that we have now at the Big League level. 

If Jorge Mateo had any decent trade value, I would be all for sending him out and calling Ortiz up. But unfortunately Ortiz has had a very bad season at the plate, thus pretty much eliminating any trade value that he could have. Maybe he can work as a platoon player against LHP like the role they seem to be trying with him?

With everything I just stated, I think it would be best for the O's to get maximum value without assuming any risk to trade him in a package at the deadline. I see it as a win/win because we get a more useful player in a trade (hopefully a pitcher) and he gets a real opportunity to play everyday.

If that's negative, then that's fine with me.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

 

If Jorge Mateo had any decent trade value, I would be all for sending him out and calling Ortiz up. But unfortunately Ortiz has had a very bad season at the plate, thus pretty much eliminating any trade value that he could have.

Did you mean to say that Ortiz has had a very bad season at the plate, or did you mean Mateo?

[Bemorewins]

49 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

I think TOR pitchers are not as valuable as expressed on this board .. and if we added another Kyle Gibson would it be that much different than GRod will be ? Marginal .. 

Pennants used to be won with 4 starters, not five .. I am ok with our 4 and fifth of whomever Irvin, GRod, Means in Sept etc 

But in this era.. where even TOR  pitchers pitch shorter, then I think the overwhelming bullpen model is more attainable and more flexible and thus more valuable. 
 

I was verry impressed in 2014 by how much just adding Andrew Miller transformed a good team into a really really good team .. 
 

Pat Dobson and Steve Stone were not TOR great pitchers but good enough to win 20 with a strong offense and defense.. 

First of all, let me say that I appreciate you sharing your perspective! It's obvious that we disagree regarding the value of starting pitching and that's ok.

I think for me, when considering the philosophy of building a team or constructing a roster, I believe that it serves you well to look at recent champions and try to do the best that you can to beat/build a team that is similar. When I look at just the sample of the last 10 World Series winners, ONE stands out as different than the rest - The 2015 Kansas City Royals. That seems to be the type of team that you are advocating for the Orioles to be. (At least from a pitching perspective.)

I see that as being lowered odds to reach success simply because it is a 1/10 ratio. You may disagree with this but that is how I feel.

Now, I don't understand some of your other comments about Kyle Gibson. I don't know of ANYONE who wants "another Kyle Gibson". Heck, I wish there was a way to get rid of the one that we already have. He's a mediocre pitcher, old pitcher who has rarely enjoyed very much success (except for the one year in TX). He is certainly NOT IN ANYWAY the type of pitcher that I would have ANY CONFIDENCE starting a postseason game. So, no I don't want the O's to acquire anything like him.

Next, I have a  VERY DIFFERENT opinion than you in that I don't want to put any confidence in Grayson Rodriguez, Means, or Irvin starting games for us down the stretch that matter. And CERTAINLY NOT in the postseason. That sounds unnecessarily risky when we can just go acquire a safer/more reliable player this season at the deadline. We are absolutely loaded with more positional prospects than we could ever need. I don't understand the downside of such an approach?

Also, I don't see ANY Andrew Miller's out there to be honest with you. He would be great to have, but I haven't seen/heard anybody like that who is available. But I wonder, why does it appeal to you to chase the 2014 Orioles model for success when they didn't sniff the World Series as opposed to say the more modern Houston Astros or a team in the last 10 years who has actually won it all?

As far as you last sentence goes, I don't understand how or why Pat Dobson and Steve Stone have any relevance to anything going in the modern game of baseball? That seems to be some random grasp of glory days gone by for the franchise. Yes I wish this was that era, but unfortunately it is not. 20 game winners are VERY RARE in the modern game of baseball as wins and loses no longer appear to be an a strong evaluative criteria for starting pitchers success.

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Did you mean to say that Ortiz has had a very bad season at the plate, or did you mean Mateo?

No I'm sorry. I meant Mateo.

[Rbiggs2525]

I’ve talked myself into keeping what they have. Maybe get a seventh inning reliever. Keep their core and sign a pitcher next offseason most notably the Yamamato. Elias always thinks long term and we have this glut of talent. No need to be greedy in a sellers market.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

No I'm sorry. I meant Mateo.

Thanks, that makes more sense.  

Personally, I’d give Mateo until the All Star break to get his offense headed in the right direction, and if he doesn’t, relegate him to pinch runner/defensive replacement.  
 

 

[Bemorewins]

13 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

I’ve talked myself into keeping what they have. Maybe get a seventh inning reliever. Keep their core and sign a pitcher next offseason most notably the Yamamato. Elias always thinks long term and we have this glut of talent. No need to be greedy in a sellers market.

I don't have any confidence that Angelos will spend any significant money on this team. Is there something that leads you to believe that he would do so?

[spiritof66]

It's true that if the Orioles reach the playoffs, the pitching matchup for the first game or two will probably be pretty lopsided. But that's the team Elias built, and so far as we know he hasn't tried to change that profile it by trading serious position talent for established starting pitching talent. It might be fun to search teams' rosters for a TOR-type starter who might be available in a trade, and to speculate about what kind of high-talent package might tempt his current team to part with him. But I feel pretty confident that, even if there is a target who makes some sense, it's not gonna hapen.

What the Orioles need is a decent fifth starter, a guy who will usualy make it to the sixth inning, to help get them through the rest of the season. I really doubt that Irvin is that guy. Means might be, and might even be a high-end version of that guy, but that's obviously uncertain and a ways down the road. G-Rod is a possibility, but not one that can be counted on this season.

It's my clear impression that Elias makes plans, acts according to those plans, and is very reluctant to deviate from those plans. Part of his plan for this season, it aooears, was to establish a rotation with six and eventually seven adequate starters (the current four, G-Road and Irvin, with Means added  in July), providing some cushion for injury or ineffectiveness and relying again on a strong and bolstered bullpen. No ace pitcher unless one developed from that group. Parts of that plan have worked, and parts haven't. But I think Elias will stick with it, other than possibly (and I think it's unlikely) adding a left-handed journeyman he can pick up cheap--another shot at getting the Irvin he hoped to get, in effect. 

I'd like to be wrong. I think this staff may be in tough shape in by the end of July. They've slipped in June to 19th in both ERA and WHIP. But to Elias, I think that would just confirm that this group is a year or two away. 

[Just Regular]

2 hours ago, AnythingO's said:

JR, you just put Scherzer, MASN, and Angelos in the SAME sentence, with a semi-hopeful spin, lol! I'll have some of whatever you are drinking but pass on any JA hope!

Well, the Orioles here as with McCann probably would not need to fund the paychecks in full.    And certainly not if a little more talent was invested in a winning offer, should he go to market.       The Mets are failing in part because Scherzer and Verlander are getting a little moldy.

It would just be the opposite of attaching Darren O'Day to Gausman and taking less talent.     Hopefully the 2023 Orioles value talent relative to money a little differently than the 2018 Orioles did!

Regardless of the player's salary, due diligence for Mike Elias is ascertaining as best he can the acquisition cost of any of the world's best pitchers that might move.    You could employ Max Scherzer for 2023-2024 for the league minimum if you invested the trade currency, and then there's the idea Elias perhaps misjudged the offseason marketplace.   

A byproduct of that misjudgment could be financial flexibility now, and we've all seen this ownership sustain $135mm payrolls over a 5-year period.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

First of all, let me say that I appreciate you sharing your perspective! It's obvious that we disagree regarding the value of starting pitching and that's ok.

I think for me, when considering the philosophy of building a team or constructing a roster, I believe that it serves you well to look at recent champions and try to do the best that you can to beat/build a team that is similar. When I look at just the sample of the last 10 World Series winners, ONE stands out as different than the rest - The 2015 Kansas City Royals. That seems to be the type of team that you are advocating for the Orioles to be. (At least from a pitching perspective.)

I see that as being lowered odds to reach success simply because it is a 1/10 ratio. You may disagree with this but that is how I feel.

Now, I don't understand some of your other comments about Kyle Gibson. I don't know of ANYONE who wants "another Kyle Gibson". Heck, I wish there was a way to get rid of the one that we already have. He's a mediocre pitcher, old pitcher who has rarely enjoyed very much success (except for the one year in TX). He is certainly NOT IN ANYWAY the type of pitcher that I would have ANY CONFIDENCE starting a postseason game. So, no I don't want the O's to acquire anything like him.

Next, I have a  VERY DIFFERENT opinion than you in that I don't want to put any confidence in Grayson Rodriguez, Means, or Irvin starting games for us down the stretch that matter. And CERTAINLY NOT in the postseason. That sounds unnecessarily risky when we can just go acquire a safer/more reliable player this season at the deadline. We are absolutely loaded with more positional prospects than we could ever need. I don't understand the downside of such an approach?

Also, I don't see ANY Andrew Miller's out there to be honest with you. He would be great to have, but I haven't seen/heard anybody like that who is available. But I wonder, why does it appeal to you to chase the 2014 Orioles model for success when they didn't sniff the World Series as opposed to say the more modern Houston Astros or a team in the last 10 years who has actually won it all?

As far as you last sentence goes, I don't understand how or why Pat Dobson and Steve Stone have any relevance to anything going in the modern game of baseball? That seems to be some random grasp of glory days gone by for the franchise. Yes I wish this was that era, but unfortunately it is not. 20 game winners are VERY RARE in the modern game of baseball as wins and loses no longer appear to be an a strong evaluative criteria for starting pitchers success.

I appreciate the discussion. It is clear to me who and what you don’t want, but it is very vague and unclear as to this  magical TOR pitcher who you say is one of many out there. 
 

I disagree that there are many TOR options and the few you might name will have at least a half dozen teams trying to top any offer we may put together. 
 

And putting all our prospect eggs in one huge expensive rental basket just requires any minor injury and the damage to our subsequent year success will be immense in prospect loss and we aren’t drafting high any longer. 
 

I will take Hader and Speier with our current in house in system starting options and you name who you will add.    I think these two could be available for the same or less as a TOR guy.