Trade chips replaced in-house = Salary Relief

[Sports Guy]

Just now, wildcard said:

That fine.  Others wll read what you decide not to.

And I’m sure they will be enthralled by what is likely an over the top super rosy take.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I 100% agree with you there.

I do tend to want to move on from solid but not great guys for younger, higher upside talent. At one point, I wanted Hays over whoever was in front of him too. Hays if the type of guy you don’t pay any real amount of money too.

In his career, he has struggled to stay healthy, he has struggled to hit righties and he has struggled to show that over a full season that he can be a consistently solid contributor. That isn’t a player I want to keep bringing back even if that player does have value, at least as they start to make money.

And, on top of that, he’s not a player I want to rely on when I feel the teams goal should be winning as many games as possible.

Now, in a role where he’s getting 350-450 at bats next year, when we have 3 everyday OFers who bat left handed and we don’t rely on him as an everyday player, in a season where we are trying to win and we get to play our top level high end prospects? Hell yea, I want that player. More than happy to bring him back in that role.

I have never questioned whether he was good enough or not. Never questioned whether he had value or talent. But I did question his role as an everyday, 500+ at bat player because he lacked the consistency and reliability throughout his entire career to have be handed that role.

Well, I think you have a unique definition of "everyday" player, and that has been discussed elsewhere.

And no, Hays is not a guy you extend or pay big money to.  But right NOW is his absolute peak value to the organization.  The same is not true of Cowser or Kjerstad.

It's going to be an ongoing process of cycling through guys and replacing them with prospects/younger players, but you don't get rid of 26/27 year solid regulars for 22 years olds just because the younger player has more "upside."  That's a silly standard.  "Upside" is ephemeral and by its very nature, resides most in those who will never reach it.

[Aristotelian]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yea, mistake is a bad choice of words. It wasn’t a mistake to go to him this year but it would be a mistake for next year. He just keeps proving that you can’t rely on him. No problem that he is a back up option. Put him in the pen, swingman, etc…perfectly fine with that. And if he ends up getting starts because of injury, poor performance, etc…that’s fine. I get it and he would be a nice guy to fall back on.

But you can’t enter the year relying on someone that gets to 100 innings and his arm starts to fall off.

I would agree with that, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Even if he starts the year in the rotation I see plenty of options behind him without any free agent additions. 

Hays is a little different. Kjerstad and Cowser could be better right now, or soon. 

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, I think you have a unique definition of "everyday" player, and that has been discussed elsewhere.

And no, Hays is not a guy you extend or pay big money to.  But right NOW is his absolute peak value to the organization.  The same is not true of Cowser or Kjerstad.

It's going to be an ongoing process of cycling through guys and replacing them with prospects/younger players, but you don't get rid of 26/27 year solid regulars for 22 years olds just because the younger player has more "upside."  That's a silly standard.  "Upside" is ephemeral and by its very nature, resides most in those who will never reach it.

Well, just saying 22 year olds with upside isn’t really telling the whole story. There is way more to it than that.

[wildcard]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But you can’t enter the year relying on someone that gets to 100 innings and his arm starts to fall off.

Sure they can and they probably will.   Mainly because its hard to find a starter that can put a 3.20 ERA for 100 innings.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Sure they can and they probably will.   Mainly because its hard to find a starter that can put a 3.20 ERA for 100 innings.

His ERA is 3.8 and his FIP is over 5.

[wildcard]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

His ERA is 3.8 and his FIP is over 5.

After 17 starts, 104.2 IP he had a 3.18 ERA.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

After 17 starts, 104.2 IP he had a 3.18 ERA.

He had 20 starts this year and his one relief appearance was basically a start. Are you just cherry picking the best 17?

Edited August 28, 2023 by Sports Guy

[wildcard]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

He had 20 starts this year. Are you just cherry picking the best 17?

I said he did well in 100 innings.   I still say is did well in 100 innings.  And that is probably why Elias will have him come to ST as a starter next spring.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I said he did well in 100 innings.   I still say is did well in 100 innings.  And that is probably why Elias will have him come to ST as a starter next spring.

So yes, you cherry picked the best 100 innings. Got it.  Interesting that you stopped at 100 but didn’t go to 113.

And btw, his stats say he wouldn’t duplicate that ERA in 100 innings and that his ERA would be much worse and yea, Elias is smart enough to know that too.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Sports Guy

[OriolesMagic83]

5 hours ago, waroriole said:

Did John Angelos write this post? The only thing I could see happening is a Hays or Santander trade. We have the second lowest payroll in MLB. The discussion should be what FAs are added to the team this year to fill in the gaps. 

It would be if the acting owner was anyone but John Angelos.  What owner holds press conferences about the money he can't spend in the future when the team has the 29th highest payroll in MLB?  Also, he can't afford to extend players before actually trying to extend players.

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

Mateo's value is limited but definitely tangible.  I could see them parting ways with him this offseason, or I could see him back next year as a 26th man.  Neither will be particularly important decision, but I know full well if it's the latter many will scream negligence.

Hays isn't "special" but you consistently underappreciate solid ML starters, which is what he is, and are too quick to get rid of them for prospects.  I'd almost bet one of Cowser or Kjerstad doesn't achieve his career WAR.  Again, I'm willing to explore moving him or Santander this offseason, but if they're both back, and that means one of Cowser or Kjerstad have to spend more time in AAA, so be it.

I have a lot of confidence in their ability to bolster the pen without spending many resources.  They have consistently found contributors there for next to nothing, and I expect that is central to their plans going forward.  No, there's no way they'd ever spend the money on a Hader contract.

From what I've seen of Cowser's defense, I wouldn't want him to be the full-time left fielder at Camden Yards.

From what I've read about Kjersted's defense, I wouldn't want him to fill that spot, either.

The same goes for O'Hearn.

Can one of our fast middle infielders handle LF, and hit enough to take that spot if Hayes is dealt? Westburg, m,aybe?

[MCO'sFan]

On 8/27/2023 at 12:12 PM, emmett16 said:

Anthony Santander >>> Heston Kjerstad = $7,400,000+

Ramon Urias >>> Coby Mayo = $734,700+

Adam Frazier >>> Jackson Holiday = $8,000,000 *not a trade chip, just 2024 salary relief

Austin Hays >>> Colton Cowser = $3,200,000+

Jorge Mateo >>> Joey Ortiz = $2,000,000+ 

Kyle Gibson >>> John Means = $10,000,000 *not a trade chip, just 2024 salary relief

Salaries above are for 2023 and don't include arbitration raises, which will likely be steep for Santander and Hays.  Urias enters arbitration for the first time and will be due a significant raise.  Frazier will be gone clearing out his $8MM salary.  Mateo might be tradable.  Folks keep saying we need to trade from the IF depth and that there isn't enough room for all our IF prospects.  I don't see that happening - I believe they will trade Santander, Urias, and Hays.  The guys in AAA are direct replacements for the "expensive" guys on the MLB roster this year.  By trading Santander, Hays, & Urias and jettisoning Mateo(maybe trade), Gibson & Frazier the Orioles are going to save ~$30-35MM.  The new group, as a whole, is likely to outperform the incumbents.  

 

I was actually just thinking about this. I think they trade one of Hays or Santander but not both. I think Gibson, Mateo and Frazier are gone and should be. I honestly don't want them to sign any free agent unless its a true ACE. I know they won't so that's a non-issue. I don't even think they need to sign a BP arm (I'm sure they will) if you keep Wells and Hall in the pen. I'm very excited to see the next wave of prospects. Although I disagree with the notion that we have to trade some of them because they are blocked. 

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I was actually just thinking about this. I think they trade one of Hays or Santander but not both. I think Gibson, Mateo and Frazier are gone and should be. I honestly don't want them to sign any free agent unless its a true ACE. I know they won't so that's a non-issue. I don't even think they need to sign a BP arm (I'm sure they will) if you keep Wells and Hall in the pen. I'm very excited to see the next wave of prospects. Although I disagree with the notion that we have to trade some of them because they are blocked. 

There is a middle ground between ace and clear improvement over what they have. Why wouldn’t you sign that?

[IPlayGM]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is a middle ground between ace and clear improvement over what they have. Why wouldn’t you sign that?

I guess it feels different when you put names and numbers to it. Take Snell for instance, who you have been a big fan of (as have I).  By definition I would say he is not an ace, but that dude is getting well over 100 mil this off-season in the current market. Os aren’t going there. So then as you slide down the list, you have to ask yourself at what point does the player value/monetary value make it better just to take what you have?

I would like them to spend the money on guys like that in the right circumstances, but all the tea leaves just point to it not happening.