Cease vs everyone else

[Tony-OH]

6 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Again, Kyle Gibson was a firmly below average Major League pitcher in 2023 and Pitcher Wins are useless for evaluating talent.

 

 

While I don't think wins tell the entire story of a starting pitcher's worth, I don't believe he stat is worthless. The fact that Gibson pitched well enough to earn 15 wins, more than any other Orioles starter, tells us that he was able to pitch fairly consistently on a good team.

Now I agree with you that he was below average overall despite the win totals, but the Orioles did go 20-13 in his starts which is not bad for a guy who should have been a 5th starter on a good team.

 

[Safelykept]

9 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

So you hold into them. Holliday pushes to get called up and you get nothing for Urias/Mateo because they have no options remaining.

Your right that we need a major league arm though.

Not talking about just Urias Mateo or Mount castle,  but also Santa and Hays

[E-D-D-I-E]

20 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Ortiz and HK lost value compared to what?  Using what?

Compared their own value opening 2023?  Compared to the field?  Compared to their ceiling talent?  Something else?

Using rankings?  Using performance projections?  Using the 40-man of team depth?  Something else?

Was O’Hearns time in AAA a waste last year?  What about Nevin?  Daz Cameron?  Could the purpose be different then you or I think it is?

At 26 very few players are looked at as prospects. Go look at the top 100 list. How many are 26? At that point your considered a late bloomer. While you are correct  that there is no line in the sand, every year makes a difference. Holliday is #1 because not only what he has accomplished, but the AGE in which he has done it.

Age matters, of course it does.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

While I don't think wins tell the entire story of a starting pitcher's worth, I don't believe he stat is worthless. The fact that Gibson pitched well enough to earn 15 wins, more than any other Orioles starter, tells us that he was able to pitch fairly consistently on a good team.

Now I agree with you that he was below average overall despite the win totals, but the Orioles did go 20-13 in his starts which is not bad for a guy who should have been a 5th starter on a good team.

 

Daniel Cabrera once went 12-8 in a season for us.

He had a 5.00 ERA and 1.59 WHIP that year.

Pitcher Wins just isn't a very useful stat.

[owknows]

33 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Again, Kyle Gibson was a firmly below average Major League pitcher in 2023 and Pitcher Wins are useless for evaluating talent.

 

 

Yeah... I keep hearing you say that.

And pointing to quality starts (QS) as a measure.

Where it was pointed out that Gibson significantly outperformed even Cease (who is the subject of this thread) last year.

 

 

 

[owknows]

27 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

I would agree EXCEPT your betting on Means. That's too risky a bet for my grocery money. 

 

I wouldn't bet the farm on it... but I think he's gonna surprise some people this year with innings alone.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

Yeah... I keep hearing you say that.

And pointing to quality starts (QS) as a measure.

Where it was pointed out that Gibson significantly outperformed even Cease (who is the subject of this thread) last year.

 

 

 

I haven't said a word about quality starts ITT.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

According to this theory, a 28 yesr old with 50 games in AAA is not wasting away in the minors. Not a good Stat to prove your point.

Next off season, Ortiz and Kjerstad will be 26 and imo, will have lost value as a prospect. 

If a 28 year old only has 50 games in AAA then he must have been a late bloomer so, no, he hasn’t been was wasting away. He needed the development.  

I said, to this point, no one has wasted time in the minors.  Sure, if Ortiz, Kjerstad, Norby, Cowser, start the year in Norfolk you could start to make that argument then.   

Edited January 13 by RZNJ

[Roll Tide]

21 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I'd be very happy with the trade. As much as I like each one of those guys, they are not keys to future success and Westburg can be replaced by Ortiz/Urias and or Holliday at some point this year.

I hear you and there are clearly guys that need to be cleared from the roster. The thing that irks me most is the unwillingness to use free agency to get a starter. Trade the near ready prospects for younger prospects to keep the pipeline full. Spend some Dam money. He’s had the payroll on the cheap for 3 or 4 years. We’ve enjoyed revenue sharing money, national tv revenue, income from MASN with a large amount being lost in the abyss. We go to the games, buy concessions that are crappy, overpriced, and will not enough staff causing long lines. John Angelos extorted hundreds of millions from the Governor and Stadium authority which hits all of  that live in Maryland. Then had the cahoonies to discuss raising prices to cover extensions and tv signings. It’s all blatantly absurd. 
 

Sign a guy like Snell or trade and extend a guy like Burnes. Then trade off our surplus veterans (Santander, Mountcastle, Hays, Urias, and/or Mateo) while you can get a decent return before they reach free agency. Bring up and play Ortiz, Cowser, and Mayo & Holiday if they are ready.
 

its a far better solution than meeting Getz ridiculous price and then not extending Cease….which you know Angelos isn’t going to do.
 

 

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I haven't said a word about quality starts ITT.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

The post after the one you made (where you griped about wins) pointed out that Gibson outperformed Cease in Quality starts last year. By a lot.

I mistakenly associated this post with you.

But it was a post someone else made in support of you... where they indicted Gibson's 56% QS last year..

Which was quickly followed by a post pointing out that Cease (who is the pitcher being offered to replace Gibson) had a QS percentage in the 30's last year.

You can attempt to avoid the obvious relevance of that information in pursuit of some vain attempt to argue if you choose, but I really don't have any interest in that.

 

[RZNJ]

27 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

At 26 very few players are looked at as prospects. Go look at the top 100 list. How many are 26? At that point your considered a late bloomer. While you are correct  that there is no line in the sand, every year makes a difference. Holliday is #1 because not only what he has accomplished, but the AGE in which he has done it.

Age matters, of course it does.

Age matters.  In both Ortiz and Kjerstads case, the COVID missed year and injury have delayed their minor league ascent.  Evaluators are smart enough to know the difference between that and a guy who took 2 years to get through A ball and another two to get through AA.  

[sportsfan8703]

6 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

If a 28 year old only has 50 games in AAA then he must have been a late bloomer so, no, he hasn’t been was wasting away. He needed the development.  

I said, to this point, no one has wasted time in the minors.  Sure, if Ortiz, Kjerstad, Norby, Cowser, start the year in Norfolk you could start to make that argument then.   

If we don’t make a Cease trade before OD then I think we roll into OD with all of our guys, then gradually sprinkle them into the lineup depending on performance and injuries. Re-evaluate at the trade deadline. Some or all will get MLB ABs. Then next year they all are on the OD roster with Santa, O’Hearn, Urias, Mateo, Mullins, and Hays all leaving via FA or traded before becoming FA. 

It’s a good problem to have. Just at that point they’re trade value is not worth what their actual value to our org is. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

The post after the one you made (where you griped about wins) pointed out that Gibson outperformed Cease in Quality starts last year. By a lot.

I mistakenly associated this post with you.

But it was a post someone else made in support of you... where they indicted Gibson's 56% QS last year..

Which was quickly followed by a post pointing out that Cease (who is the pitcher being offered to replace Gibson) had a QS percentage in the 30's last year.

You can attempt to avoid the obvious relevance of that information in pursuit of some vain attempt to argue if you choose, but I really don't have any interest in that.

 

Like you have consistently done with the fact that Gibson was a firmly below average Major League pitcher last year?

 

[deward]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

It's certainly debatable, but I don't think that's true.

I think some combination of Irvin, Wells, and Hall are likely better than anything we'd trade for.

As far as starters go, we only lost Gibson. And we won 101 games. Our core of young players is now a year more experienced, and we likely will see a couple AAA players graduate that are arguably better than some of the current MLB position players.

I  wouldn't object to a trade for MLB pitching, but I wouldn't characterize it as necessary.. nor would I consider it the best use of the trade capital we have on hand.

I'd rather let the young arms develop, and refill the back of the conveyor belt with better value.

Sustainability

You do love the term "conveyer belt". I'd argue that there's no conveyer belt that's going to consistently produce talent like Adley, Gunnar, and Holliday. This strikes me as a generational wave of talent that needs to be maximized, not taken for granted as something that can just be duplicated again in four years. Not that a strong farm system can't be maintained, but impact players like that shouldn't be assumed as the norm. If you assume that isn't the norm, then taking advantage of the next four years should become more of an urgent priority. I worry that Angelos thinks that Elias is the golden goose that will keep spitting out #1 overall prospects, when he's really been the beneficiary of a somewhat unique confluence of draft position and good fortune. That's not a sustainable process. 

Elias is a smart GM and I'll assume that he'll continue to draft and develop well during his tenure, but drafting and developing well isn't going to normally result in the type of talent wave that's coming in now. Being unwilling to pony up to keep core players past their first contract or to supplement here and there with outside talent will eventually hamper things.

[owknows]

28 minutes ago, deward said:

You do love the term "conveyer belt". I'd argue that there's no conveyer belt that's going to consistently produce talent like Adley, Gunnar, and Holliday. This strikes me as a generational wave of talent that needs to be maximized, not taken for granted as something that can just be duplicated again in four years. Not that a strong farm system can't be maintained, but impact players like that shouldn't be assumed as the norm. If you assume that isn't the norm, then taking advantage of the next four years should become more of an urgent priority. I worry that Angelos thinks that Elias is the golden goose that will keep spitting out #1 overall prospects, when he's really been the beneficiary of a somewhat unique confluence of draft position and good fortune. That's not a sustainable process. 

Elias is a smart GM and I'll assume that he'll continue to draft and develop well during his tenure, but drafting and developing well isn't going to normally result in the type of talent wave that's coming in now. Being unwilling to pony up to keep core players past their first contract or to supplement here and there with outside talent will eventually hamper things.

I wouldn't disagree that it would be tough to expect the draft good fortune of Adley, Gunnar and Holliday year are year.

But a couple things...

Gunnar Henderson was taken in the 2nd round with the 42nd overall pick.

Additionally if this strategy plays out as I expect it to, few if any of these players will be kept through their arb years. So we will be trading in peak year Adley, Gunnar, and Holliday type players for their equivalent talent mass in the mid to high majors.

I think that is a sustainable process.

And I think in fact that it is the only sustainable process for small or mid market team to be a perpetual contender. I suspect it is the path that the Orioles will follow. And its success is completely contingent on having a front office that is better than average at identifying talent.