Jump to content

Would You Send Cowser Down for Ortiz?


baltfan

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bemorewins said:

No. Ortiz and Cowser are not interchangeable parts (different positions).

We cannot send Cowser down now because we don’t have enough OFs. Even if Hays were to temporality cover CF, who plays LF?

If you want Cowser got go back to AAA, l Kjerstad would be the guy.

If we are waiting until Hicks and/or Mullins return the. Cowser will probably go back then. With all of the INFs we have, I don’t see a 26 man roster with both Ortiz and Mateo on it. 

I would love it if they finally were willing to cut the cord on Mateo (he really is more of a - than a + IMO). But until that day comes, or until the date comes when rosters expand Ortiz will probably stay in AAA. I hope I’m wrong.

Just put Mateo in center field!

Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

I don't know how Elias navigates the next few weeks without Mateo being DFA, things are going to get crowded in a hurry and I think Ortiz deserves a chance at some MLB playing time.

I have a question: Where does Ortiz stand on having rookie status next year? Has that been blown or still a possibility.  Just wondering if that is part of the reason Westburg came up instead of him.

Nothing against Westburg, he deserved a promotion too and has been playing just fine. 

Curious about something - How do you see Ortiz’s status as a rookie influencing decisions made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Elias loves to mention team prospect rankings.

That would be a really crummy thing to do, to keep a guy in his age 25 season in the minors just to inflate his ego by being able to point to the org’s status with prospect rankings.

I don’t believe or see anything to reason that Elias is that type of person. I really hope that isn’t true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wildcard said:

O's need all 13 pitchers.   I can't see them going with 12 for very long. In fact they could probably use 15 or 16 if the rules allowed it.

They really don't.  They have 5 pitchers that are fairly reliable at giving 5+ innings and a long man (Irvin) who can give them length even if for some reason Hyde doesn't use him that way.  They also have Baumann that can give multiple innings from the bullpen.

There's really no reason this team needs 13 pitchers other than Hyde's reluctance to let long guys be long guys.  And he's shown he's pretty good at handling a deep bench.  I personally would stick with 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RVAOsFan said:

Chance to win rookie of the year next year and get a pick 

What would give him a greater chance than Westburg would have had?

And next year, what would make one believe that he would outperform Kjerstad, Mayo, or even Holliday from our own org? Let alone the dozens of more talented prospects than he that are ranked ahead of him?

I would put the chances of that happening and even being a factor in Elias’ calculus at a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

That would be a really crummy thing to do, to keep a guy in his age 25 season in the minors just to inflate his ego by being able to point to the org’s status with prospect rankings.

I don’t believe or see anything to reason that Elias is that type of person. I really hope that isn’t true.

I thought it was really crummy to hold off promoting Adley in an effort to get an extra year of team control.

That happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

How does that math work?  Mullins and Hicks adds two.  Cowser down subtracts one.  How are you bringing up Ortiz in this scenario, especially if Mateo is on the bench?

His math doesn't work. But demoting McKenna, cutting Mateo, optioning Cowser and promoting Ortiz does work. That's what I'd like to see.

I love Cowser, but get him 3 weeks of playing time at Norfolk and if he gets back to hitting well, bring him back up when rosters expand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • I’m not saying we can’t trade for Scott. Or that we shouldn’t trade for someone. More that we basically already have one reliever we don’t have to trade for. But a guy who will likely have a relatively high whip due to command issues but have a well above average k rate… I also just don’t love rentals in general. Hit or miss as to whether they perform well anyway (hey jack flaherty) and then it’s gone. If you don’t win that year it’s all for nothing. For the right cost I’m okay with it, but I don’t want to give up a major prospect for a rental unless it’s the piece that puts us over the top 
    • They are not in a rebuild. And I don't want to waste time imagining that the team is bad and trading our best young players. As a matter of fact, I hope we don't have to do that for years to come. I envision adding good players not how can we get rid of the good ones that we have. I have waited my whole life to finally have a team this good. I don't mind at all trading good prospects. And have no delusional expectations that we can get value without surrendering value. Nor am I in love with the notion that we have to have a cheap, homegrown team. As a matter of fact, I want and expect the org to spend much more money on payroll than it is doing currently. Lastly, what happened with Gausman is in the past and under a totally different administration (ownership + front office). We were selling then. We are buying now.
    • Is there a reason it should be? He’s still walking 5.5+ batters per 9. He’s still got things he can work on. No rush to get him up unless it’s as a reliever down the stretch or a spot start. 
    • I mean Tanner Scott at least has a Major League track record. How much do you think Scott will really cost? Also, we have more position players and prospects that we could ever use. I understand maybe not wanting Scott, but I don't understand the logic of not wanting surrender any prospects (even some good ones). We almost have to at some point. Otherwise, you have 25 year old top level prospects like Kjerstad, who is in his prime now and killing it at AAA but has no place on the Big League roster. Stowers is even older and has contributed relatively nothing to the Orioles and is now age 26.
    • Way to avoid the question.  If the O's were in rebuild mode and had Gray Rod in the exact position he is now, what kind of prospect package would you want?  Fans here are notorious for not wanting to give up any good prospects for other team's best players but then want the world for their own less than perfect players.  When Gausman was about to be traded here (way less an impressive pitcher than Gray Rod is now), posters here were convinced that the O's would get 3 top 100 prospects for him.  The O's got none 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...