Why Kyle Gibson might be resigned

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, btdart20 said:

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

My concern is he doesn't have much of a margin for error.  He's been a 5 ERA guy in the past and something as simple as losing a tick off the fastball could put him right back there.  You starting giving up more runs you get pulled early more often and suddenly the innings you eat go down.

I don't have faith that the O's will eat his contract if he takes that dip.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Didn’t seem that way last week. 

No, we didn’t have quality…we had depth and security. Huge difference.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No, we didn’t have quality…we had depth and security. Huge difference.

Our two best starters got bombed.

It was the "quality's" fault.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Pickles

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

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

And it's a good question.

And you have to take Gibson over nothing.  The O's are still going to need innings next year, maybe not 192, but plenty.

I actually feel better about the top of this rotation than I have in living memory, and of course would like to add somebody who slots in to start a playoff game, but when I look at Means, Hall, Irvin, and Wells, I'm not sure how many innings I can get out of that group.

[drjohnnyfever1]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

He wasn't exactly good this year, he was alright and he did throw a nice amount of innings but if he slips even a little he's a 5+ ERA guy that pulls the team down.

 

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

 

25 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.

 

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

You took what seemed a hard no, initially, to - if there's nothing better, sure.  Your later posts clarify it a little more.  But that's still somewhat different than your initial answer.  Who would you target over him?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, drjohnnyfever1 said:

 

 

 

You took what seemed a hard no, initially, to - if there's nothing better, sure.  Your later posts clarify it a little more.  But that's still somewhat different than your initial answer.  Who would you target over him?

Me?

Yamamoto.

That would be my first target.

No way I think the O's do it.

I also don't think they'd go for someone like EdRod who will probably be back on the market.

 

[Aristotelian]

46 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

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

+1, resigning Gibson would be a disappointment. I like the idea to target an older guy to help limit the contract length but I'd like us to go for a higher quality guy. Sonny Gray seems like the perfect target IMO.

[drjohnnyfever1]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Me?

Yamamoto.

That would be my first target.

No way I think the O's do it.

I also don't think they'd go for someone like EdRod who will probably be back on the market.

 

Fair enough.  I don't think they would go either of those routes either, which, potentially, makes Gibson, a guy they seemed to coach up into a valuable piece of our success, an option.  And if it happens to be a one year - arbitration type raise for a year or two, even, I would not be opposed to seeing him stick.

[EddeeEddee]

Unless DL Hall shows he can start, this team needs two additional starters, not one.  Doesn't matter if it's in FA or as a trade -- or both -- but I think that is where things stand for this rotation.

Means has not shown he can't yet be relied on to start for a full season.  Like someone else said, he could be next year's Wells.  And even if he can, something is bound to go wrong with one of the other starters -- either they are not good or someone gets hurt.  

And if we sign two starters and we find out we have too many starters?  Even better, someone gets traded or or goes to deepen the bullpen for depth.  

If we just sign one starter, then it's too similar to where we were at the beginning of 2023.  Even if that starter is someone like ERod or Nola or Montgomery, it would look like this:

1. Bradish

2. FA/Trade Starter (not named Gibson/Lyles)

3. Means

4. Grayson

5. Kremer 

This is a very good staff if everything is perfect, but it's hard to believe Means goes all season, Grayson does not hit some more more bumps, or that Kremer is who we want as the #5 guy all season.  Hall could start but unlikely.  Wells could start but even more unlikely.  Irvin does not belong in the rotation even if someone is out for awhile.

This is what we need:

1. Bradish

2. FA/Trade Starter

3. Means

4. Grayson

5. FA/Trade Starter

Kremer fills in if someone gets hurt or struggles (or is trade bait for one of the above starters), otherwise he works out of the pen as the long man.  Hall and Wells -- along with Cano -- are late inning relievers at least until Bautista gets back.  

Of course if Hall proves to be an effective starter then everything changes and we'll be looking for more relief help.  

 

[Hallas]

I don't know why we should resign Kyle Gibson when guys like Montgomery, Snell, or Eovaldi are available and will only cost you a few million more per year.  Sure, there is the downside of having to commit to more years, but compared to going for retread 35 year olds?  What's the safer bet, 5 old guys on 15 million dollar 1 year deals, or Montgomery on a 5/90 deal?  I think the latter is a much safer bet.  It's not like we were particularly frugal on financial terms with Gibson.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Hallas

[btdart20]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

My concern is he doesn't have much of a margin for error.  He's been a 5 ERA guy in the past and something as simple as losing a tick off the fastball could put him right back there.  You starting giving up more runs you get pulled early more often and suddenly the innings you eat go down.

I don't have faith that the O's will eat his contract if he takes that dip.

Fair enough.

Anecdotally, Wainwright did pretty good with a lower MPH sinker than Gibson.  I think they are pretty comparable.

[RZNJ]

4 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

Unless DL Hall shows he can start, this team needs two additional starters, not one.  Doesn't matter if it's in FA or as a trade -- or both -- but I think that is where things stand for this rotation.

Means has not shown he can't yet be relied on to start for a full season.  Like someone else said, he could be next year's Wells.  And even if he can, something is bound to go wrong with one of the other starters -- either they are not good or someone gets hurt.  

And if we sign two starters and we find out we have too many starters?  Even better, someone gets traded or or goes to deepen the bullpen for depth.  

If we just sign one starter, then it's too similar to where we were at the beginning of 2023.  Even if that starter is someone like ERod or Nola or Montgomery, it would look like this:

1. Bradish

2. FA/Trade Starter (not named Gibson/Lyles)

3. Means

4. Grayson

5. Kremer 

This is a very good staff if everything is perfect, but it's hard to believe Means goes all season, Grayson does not hit some more more bumps, or that Kremer is who we want as the #5 guy all season.  Hall could start but unlikely.  Wells could start but even more unlikely.  Irvin does not belong in the rotation even if someone is out for awhile.

This is what we need:

1. Bradish

2. FA/Trade Starter

3. Means

4. Grayson

5. FA/Trade Starter

Kremer fills in if someone gets hurt or struggles (or is trade bait for one of the above starters), otherwise he works out of the pen as the long man.  Hall and Wells -- along with Cano -- are late inning relievers at least until Bautista gets back.  

Of course if Hall proves to be an effective starter then everything changes and we'll be looking for more relief help.  

 

How would Hall prove to be an effective starter when your plan calls for him to be a short man in the bullpen?

[EddeeEddee]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

How would Hall prove to be an effective starter when your plan calls for him to be a short man in the bullpen?

I pretty clearly said said he'd be either/or -- not both

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Fair enough.

Anecdotally, Wainwright did pretty good with a lower MPH sinker than Gibson.  I think they are pretty comparable.

I'm not declaring that he can't basically repeat the season.

I'm aware it's a possibility.

 

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

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

But there might be a reality where a Gibson level acquisition (1 year/$12mm) is all that Elias is allowed by ownership to do in free agency, and Elias' reluctance to part with prospects along with high demands by other teams prevents us trading multiple prospects for someone capable of giving us 180+ innings.

And in that reality, Gibson becomes a reasonable possibility.   He fulfilled that role last year, yet he didn't do well enough to merit a multi-year at his age.   I hope we don't live in that reality, but I can't say for sure.