MLB Offseason Moves/Rumor Thread

[TopGunnar]

This GM really isn’t going to make an impactful trade is he?

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I doubt he’ll be in AAA.  Meaning, I think either he’s traded (50%),  Mateo or Urias is traded (25%), or he starts the year at Norfolk (25%).

I think these odds you have are pretty accurate. If he is in AAA, hopefully it's just because we're punting a trade to the deadline. 

[waroriole]

19 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I doubt he’ll be in AAA.  Meaning, I think either he’s traded (50%),  Mateo or Urias is traded (25%), or he starts the year at Norfolk (25%).

A 50% chance he’s traded seems very high given the reluctance of Elias to make those kind of moves. But I do t see why he wouldn’t be on the bench to begin the year, basically taking the Frazier spot. If Gunnar, Westburg, and Urias start that leaves the bench like this:

McCann

McKenna (or other backup CF)

Mateo

Ortiz

[Billy F-Face3]

29 minutes ago, TopGunnar said:

This GM really isn’t going to make an impactful trade is he?

Probably not. And the assistant GM (Sig) is far too emotionally attached & invested with his prospects to be able to be willing to trade.

[interloper]

36 minutes ago, TopGunnar said:

This GM really isn’t going to make an impactful trade is he?

Getz? No, probably not.

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, RZNJ said:

Michael Busch repeated AAA at age 25, improved his ranking on most outlets a d was traded for a high upside LHP in Jackson Ferris a few weeks ago.  Busch is now 26.   It's all an out other teams perceptions.  Is anyone dumb enough to think Joey Ortiz is less talented if he's 6 months older.  

I’ve compared Norby’s game to Busch’s.  Norby is a bit younger and smaller, but the player profile is really close.

And I can’t think of an outlet who ranks Norby over Ortiz.

[btdart20]

14 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

Probably not. And the assistant GM (Sig) is far too emotionally attached & invested with his prospects to be able to be willing to trade.

SigBot might be many things, but “emotionally attached” isn’t one of them.

[RZNJ]

17 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I’ve compared Norby’s game to Busch’s.  Norby is a bit younger and smaller, but the player profile is really close.

And I can’t think of an outlet who ranks Norby over Ortiz.

What point are you making?

[Sports Guy]

Good

[emmett16]

3 hours ago, deward said:

Injustice is a strong word, but it would be fair for some of the players (I'm thinking here particularly of Stowers and Ortiz) to feel a little frustrated with their current lot in life. If you or I feel like we're being underpaid or not given the opportunities we desire at our current job, we always have the option of trying our luck elsewhere. Those guys can't (yet). It's easy for us to sit in our armchairs and debate the wisdom of allowing them to lose trade value as they age out of the "prospect" phase of their careers, but what they're actually losing is time and earnings that they can't get back (assuming they spend 2024 in Norfolk). I know it isn't Elias' job to worry about that, but there's no reason not to acknowledge the human impact of these decisions. 

I get that and acknowledge it’s a tough situation.  With that said, for these guys to make any real money, they have to stick.  Look at the guys that are theoretically better than them who have struggled.  Bringing a guy up who may not be a finished product and having them fail and bounce out of the league isn’t doing them any favors either.  Stowers and Ortiz are going to play this year at 26.  Average age in the league is 29.   Let’s not pretend these guys are older players getting robbed of opportunities.  Both guys also missed time due to injury, Stowers as recently as last year.  If they are repeating AAA next year at age 27 after running circles around the competition, then I think these concerns at much more valid.  As it stand right now, they are quality depth and are continuing to improve in the development system.  With all that said, I believe both players will get their fair shake at MLB this year, either with the Os or another team.  Elias doesn’t strike me as a guy that negligently lets his assets depreciate.  

[interloper]

Aaron Hicks signs with the Angels. Pretty sensible deal if you're the Angels. ML minimum, adds a decent ML bat, no real downside. They will be bad regardless.

2023 40-man Orioles:

Gibson -> Cardinals
Frazier -> Royals
Hicks -> Angels
Flaherty -> Tigers
Bemboom -> Tigers
Lopez -> Mets
Voth -> Mariners
Krehbiel -> Mariners
Bazardo -> Mariners
Kolozsvary -> Red Sox
Gillaspie -> Padres
Garrett -> Mets
Fuji -> FA
Givens -> FA
Lester -> FA
Vallimont -> FA

[btdart20]

28 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

What point are you making?

If Ortiz > Norby and Norby = Busch then Ortiz > Busch.  

The logic gets fuzzy with context and valuation styles, but that’s the general direction.

I don’t have any problem with stockpiling depth (as one option).  Competition is good.  I don’t have any issue with the “unfairness” either.  It’s part and parcel of the gig.  Some guys (Hernaiz) catch a break and get an opportunity that others don’t/haven’t yet.  

[Moose Milligan]

Hicks had a good impact on the team last year, he was a nice surprise.  Hope that he does well in Anaheim.

[Just Regular]

The corollary to the adage "You can never have too much pitching" is I guess "You can sometimes have too much hitting" and now we're just waiting to see what kind of exchange rate Elias can get.

If no switches, we at least get the best shot at the parlor game of, "Can a Club take all 7000 of its PA and have Jordan Westburg be the worst Bat taking any of them".     In that scenario, we'd do well to register some blowouts of the pitching staffs we get to see in April.

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

The problem with your thinking is you only want to look at the positive side of things. You can’t do that.  Sure, they may play for us or they may increase their value but you have to look at things right now and say, what are the odds?

Right now, the Os have a clear and obvious need…a need Elias has said is a need and one that has said he is trying to fill through trades. 
 

Knowing that and knowing you have real options, you have to attack these things with the thought that the 24-26 year old prospects are going to lose luster.  If you assume they are better, you continue to be afraid to lose them. You have to have the mindset that if we lose them, so be it..we will replace them. Have the mindset of we can’t play everyone. Have the mindset of, we don’t draft pitching and we need it now, so use what you have to get what you need.

I am not looking at only the positive side of things.  I am actually open to a much wider range of possible solutions.  But you are looking at one side...the most negative impact of not making a move today.  To win now at whatever cost.

The most positive outlook solution for the O's this offseason would be that at least one regular is traded to make room for someone, and at least one trade for a good/controlled starter.  We do not disagree on that point.  Your urgency is misplaced however.  The 24-26 year old prospects may well be the most tradable asset today.  But maybe tomorrow it would correctly be someone else.  The value isn't erased if that 26 year old prospect plays here for 6 years.  It's only lost if you could have had X if you moved him in a deal.  You don't know what X is.  Nor do I.  The hypothetical of what you or I would move today is irrelevant.

You say that we all need to have the mindset that if we lose them, so be it...we will replace them.   I agree 100%.  But if you truly believe that, it also follows that if I spend that asset by stocking it on the shelf and it loses value....so be it...we will replace them.  It really is the same thing.  Trading player X could possibly get us nowhere....or it might win the World Series.  

They could trade everyone....the risk would be does what you get back get you where you need?  Maybe it does.....like getting Frank Robinson....and maybe it doesn't...like getting Glenn Davis.  My point isn't that you are wrong and I am right, it is that your solution is narrow and assumes one outcome.  There are many paths and many possible outcomes.  Not making a move today does not really change that...even if player X goes away today.

The Orioles could trade with Chicago or Miami or Seattle or Cleveland or Los Angeles....and get a pitching upgrade.  And it may still happen.  But it is a fallacy to think it has to and it is definitely a fallacy to think it has to occur now.  I am not saying we don't need a pitcher.  Or that we are so good we shouldn't try.

None of this changes the need for pitching.  It's sort of like needing a shovel when it snows.  When there is a foot of snow on the ground, the availability and price of shovels goes up.  Some folks will buy em anyway.  Some won't.  Neither one is the best way to operate, neither one is wrong.  We are going to have to pay for it, even if we don't like the price...or we will have to find another way...or we will have to make do with what we have.   The possibilities are still pretty expansive, regardless of your level of positivity or negativity.