Keep one. Trade one.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I would not say that Mateo offense is atrocious.   I would say his hitting is atrocious.   But he stole 32 bases in 318 at bats.    That is about a steal every 10 at bats.   And he scored 58 runs.  Both of those factors are part of his offense.

 

Fair point.  Of 40 shortstops with 300+ PA, Mateo ranked 35th in wOBA and 34th in wRC+, but 27th in offense.  So, his baserunning takes him up a few notches.  Is 27th of 40 still atrocious?   I’ll let the wordsmiths debate that one.  

I expect you are right that there will be a handful of games this year where inserting a guy with Mateo’s baserunning abilities would improve our chances of scoring a winning or tying run in the late innings.  The question is, will those opportunities outweigh the times where we might like to have a better hitter up at the plate?   And that’s not a rhetorical question. It depends on the skills of other players on the roster.   
 

[Sports Guy]

We need to stop arguing the merits of keeping poor players because they have an attribute you really like. 
 

We have too much talent to do that right now.

Mateo could have a spot on the roster next year. There are scenarios where that’s the case but no one should be pining for him to be here. He’s a talented baseball player but he’s not a very good one. 

[wildcard]

37 minutes ago, waroriole said:

You can’t steal 1B. And he can’t get on it. I don’t see his one trick being worth a roster spot and 3M. If you need that player at the end of the season, call up Bradford. 

Money is not the O's problem.  With or without Mateo the O's will have one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB.    Hyde loves what Mateo brings to the team.   Did you see Hyde post season inteview?   When asked about Mateo he said there are many players that can run like Mateo.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

Money is not the O's problem.  With or without Mateo the O's will have one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB.    Hyde loves what Mateo brings to the team.   Did you see Hyde post season inteview?   When asked about Mateo he said there are many players that can run like Mateo.

Until ownership ramps up spending I'm working under the theory that money is indeed a problem.

[RZNJ]

22 hours ago, RZNJ said:

Keep

1. Kjerstad (Cowser’s debut and minors contact rates make Kjerstad the better bet)

2. Westburg (I’m more confident in Westburg’s bat.  Makes me a hypocrite because Ortiz had much better contact rates in minors)

3. McDermott (Just like McDermott’s mechanics better)

4. Santander (Just like his bat a lot more than Hays)

5. Basallo (Can catch and is 19 and starts in AA.  Position and age)

6. Mateo (Blazing speed and a .746 OPS against LHP.  It ain’t a lot but it’s enough for the bench.

Now that this has run it’s course. I’ve got mine listed above.

[Three Run Homer]

1.  Cowser.  More defensive value, will figure things out and be an OBP machine.

2. Westburg.   Rookies who are not overmatched at the plate often take a great leap forward in year two.  I think we'll see a big jump in power from Westburg.   

3. McDermott I guess, not a strong opinion.  

4. Santander.   More durable, more consistent.  

5. Basallo.   His bat is almost as good as Mayo's and he likely will have much more defensive value.  Really want to keep both of them!  

6.  Urias.  Don't really want either of them but Urias has more professional at bats.  I have a feeling that he was playing through an injury that robbed him of his power this past season.  I think his power will rebound.  

Edited 23 hours ago by RZNJ

[waroriole]

31 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Money is not the O's problem.  With or without Mateo the O's will have one of the lowest payrolls in the MLB.    Hyde loves what Mateo brings to the team.   Did you see Hyde post season inteview?   When asked about Mateo he said there are many players that can run like Mateo.

I’ve seen nothing that makes me think they’re going to be spending on this team. With a limited budget, I don’t need a one trick pony backup SS making 3M. What do you expect Hyde to say? He’s not gonna say a bad word about any of his players. 

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, waroriole said:

I’ve seen nothing that makes me think they’re going to be spending on this team. With a limited budget, I don’t need a one trick pony backup SS making 3M. What do you expect Hyde to say? He’s not gonna say a bad word about any of his players. 

They were willing to spend 1.4M on a guy (O’Hearn) who didn’t even make the team last April.   They won’t spend big but paying Mateo 3M is right up their alley.

[Moose Milligan]

23 hours ago, Pickles said:

That's fair to say but it's also kind of a No sh, Sherlock thing.

If Cowser had performed while he was up, he never would have gone down.

This wasn't an Ortiz situation.  He was given fairly regular playing time for a while.

When they demoted him, were Elias and Co. being "reactionary?"  Or pointing to a small sample size?

When Elias and Co. demoted him, they were pointing to a small sample size. 

But that doesn't mean you win the debate.  Just because they were pointing to a small sample size at the time doesn't mean they're willing to give up on him as a prospect or trade him.  And, IIRC, Cowser hit some balls hard that were caught by defenders, I don't believe he was as bad as his SSS made him out to be.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

When Elias and Co. demoted him, they were pointing to a small sample size. 

But that doesn't mean you win the debate.  Just because they were pointing to a small sample size at the time doesn't mean they're willing to give up on him as a prospect or trade him.  And, IIRC, Cowser hit some balls hard that were caught by defenders, I don't believe he was as bad as his SSS made him out to be.

And yea, they were absolutely reactionary because they were in contending for a division title. Most moves being made during a season are reactionary, especially when you are winning.

[Moose Milligan]

26 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And yea, they were absolutely reactionary because they were in contending for a division title. Most moves being made during a season are reactionary, especially when you are winning.

That's right.  Had they been on pace to lose 100 games he'd have had a longer look.   

[waroriole]

13 hours ago, RZNJ said:

They were willing to spend 1.4M on a guy (O’Hearn) who didn’t even make the team last April.   They won’t spend big but paying Mateo 3M is right up their alley.

Unfortunately you may be right. There’s just no logical justification for it. 

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Unfortunately you may be right. There’s just no logical justification for it. 

Sure there is.  The logic was explained by wildcard.  You have him as the guy on your roster who can win you a game with his legs in the late innings.  He’s also a good enough defender where $3 mm is not too high a price. 

Now, I’m not necessarily in favor of keeping Mateo, but there is a logical justification for it.

I’m also in wait and see mode regarding the payroll.  The O’s can afford to spend much more next year than they did this year.  That doesn’t mean that they will.  It doesn’t even mean that they should.  But their low payrolls over the last several years are the natural product of a rebuilding plan and don’t necessarily mean that the team will stay constrained to that level.  

 

[waroriole]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Sure there is.  The logic was explained by wildcard.  You have him as the guy on your roster who can win you a game with his legs in the late innings.  He’s also a good enough defender where $3 mm is not too high a price. 

Now, I’m not necessarily in favor of keeping Mateo, but there is a logical justification for it.

I’m also in wait and see mode regarding the payroll.  The O’s can afford to spend much more next year than they did this year.  That doesn’t mean that they will.  It doesn’t even mean that they should.  But their low payrolls over the last several years are the natural product of a rebuilding plan and don’t necessarily mean that the team will stay constrained to that level.  

 

Teams with bottom of the barrel payrolls don’t spend 3M on pinch runners. Just because he typed it out doesn’t mean there was a logical justification. 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Teams with bottom of the barrel payrolls don’t spend 3M on pinch runners. Just because he typed it out doesn’t mean there was a logical justification. 

We have a low payroll because our best players are young and cheap.  That’s just where we are in the cycle.  We’ve got solid to good players at every position on the field, so having a good pinch runner may be a better use of $3 mm than other things we could do with that bit of money.