Why Kyle Gibson might be resigned

[NCRaven]

This needs to be the year we aim higher than the Lyles and Gibsons of the world.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, foxfield said:

If he is the sole addition I would agree, but I am not opposed to bringing him back for depth and security. 

We don’t need “depth and security”.  We have that.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

We don’t need “depth and security”.  We have that.

 

I'd like any depth and security guys to have an option so they can be stashed in Norfolk if not needed.

[AnythingO's]

How many innings can we really depend on from Means, and he is a FA to boot after 2024. Is he next years Wells where the endurance just isn't there? Do they think Povich, McDermott, Johnson will be ready after Means? Maybe they only want someone like Gibson to eat 175+ so we need less of Irvin and Wells? I would prefer ERod who said he would approve a trade to BOS, BAL and 1 other team, maybe Miami. I assume he has to wait until 5 days after the WS but maybe not with an opt out. He is an upgrade, a lefty, and will give 175 innings. Can we talk to DET or his agent before he opts out?

[Frobby]

Serious question for our posters: if the choice was signing Gibson to the same contract as last year vs. signing no starting pitcher at all, which would you prefer?

On the one hand, you could argue we don’t need a starter at Gibson’s level.  We didn’t have Means available for most of last year, but he should be available this year.   We acquired Irvin by trade after signing Gibson, and he could fill an innings eater role if we need one.   And, we couid give Hall a shot and McDermott may be ready at some point.  

And yet, 192 innings is a lot to fill.  Means has never thrown more than 155, and I certainly wouldn’t be counting him on him to throw even that many.  Cole wasn’t good enough to hold a starting spot last year.  Hall is more likely to be a reliever than a stsrter, and if he does start, won’t throw a ton of innings.  McDermott is not certain to be ready.  

My bottom line is that I’d rather have Gibson than not sign another starter.  Like most posters, I’d prefer to sign someone better, who’s slot in our top 3.   But if we can’t or won’t, I could see Gibson coming back.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

I'd rather have Gibson than not any anyone.

I fully expect at least a couple of arms to miss time next year and would rather not have Elias scouring the waiver wire.

[drjohnnyfever1]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Serious question for our posters: if the choice was signing Gibson to the same contract as last year vs. signing no starting pitcher at all, which would you prefer?

On the one hand, you could argue we don’t need a starter at Gibson’s level.  We didn’t have Means available for most of last year, but he should be available this year.   We acquired Irvin by trade after signing Gibson, and he could fill an innings eater role if we need one.   And, we couid give Hall a shot and McDermott may be ready at some point.  

And yet, 192 innings is a lot to fill.  Means has never thrown more than 155, and I certainly wouldn’t be counting him on him to throw even that many.  Cole wasn’t good enough to hold a starting spot last year.  Hall is more likely to be a reliever than a stsrter, and if he does start, won’t throw a ton of innings.  McDermott is not certain to be ready.  

My bottom line is that I’d rather have Gibson than not sign another starter.  Like most posters, I’d prefer to sign someone better, who’s slot in our top 3.   But if we can’t or won’t, I could see Gibson coming back.  

 

This.  For the same money for a year or two he could fit many roles.  It doesn't have to be starter.  We have some options with youth there.  But at that money for a vet, he's also a trade option, especially if we can replace him with a farm guy.

[drjohnnyfever1]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd rather have Gibson than not any anyone.

I fully expect at least a couple of arms to miss time next year and would rather not have Elias scouring the waiver wire.

So who would you target to replace him?  But if you miss you're fine with him...

Dude, you are a walking negative contradiction.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, drjohnnyfever1 said:

So who would you target to replace him?  But if you miss you're fine with him...

Dude, you are a walking negative contradiction.

What?

I'd rather not have Gibson back, I'd prefer an upgrade.

But given the choice between not adding anyone or adding Gibson I'd rather add Gibson.

I don't think the O's have the internal depth to handle multiple injuries to the starting rotation.

Did you not realize I was responding to the post directly above mine?

Sorry if you didn't, I didn't think a quote was needed.

[dystopia]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

192 innings.    He’s not great but he wasn’t bad and he provided what they wanted and needed.    On a staff where the top 3 is probably Bradish, GRod, and Means,  he still slots in along with Kremer for a stable 4-5.    This would allow Irvin to be a long man and keep Wells and Hall in the pen.   It also requires no prospects and a short term financial commitment.   I know everyone wants that #1 or #2 starter but I don’t see it happening.   We would still be going into next season with a stronger rotation than 2022 considering GRod being over his growing pains and Means being available from the start.   This still allows for an in season acquisition (not that I would get my hopes up).   
 

 

Look, Gibson is a nice guy and great teammate, but I don’t want him back. We have 1 open slot and plenty of resources to find someone better. 

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Serious question for our posters: if the choice was signing Gibson to the same contract as last year vs. signing no starting pitcher at all, which would you prefer?

On the one hand, you could argue we don’t need a starter at Gibson’s level.  We didn’t have Means available for most of last year, but he should be available this year.   We acquired Irvin by trade after signing Gibson, and he could fill an innings eater role if we need one.   And, we couid give Hall a shot and McDermott may be ready at some point.  

And yet, 192 innings is a lot to fill.  Means has never thrown more than 155, and I certainly wouldn’t be counting him on him to throw even that many.  Cole wasn’t good enough to hold a starting spot last year.  Hall is more likely to be a reliever than a stsrter, and if he does start, won’t throw a ton of innings.  McDermott is not certain to be ready.  

My bottom line is that I’d rather have Gibson than not sign another starter.  Like most posters, I’d prefer to sign someone better, who’s slot in our top 3.   But if we can’t or won’t, I could see Gibson coming back.  

 

There is no reality where it’s Gibson vs no one else.

[foxfield]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

We don’t need “depth and security”.  We have that.

 

Didn’t seem that way last week. 

[btdart20]

54 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because some of us don't think he can repeat that level of performance.

Other than age what’s your concern?  Seems pretty stable with a chance for better with a little HH% and GB%.  With his plus sinker, that limits his implosion IMO

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

Didn’t seem that way last week. 

Most series starting Bradish, Grod and Kremer get you at least one W.  I don't think Gibson would have fared better.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is no reality where it’s Gibson vs no one else.

It’s a hypothetical question.  I’m sure there are worse guys we could sign.