Realistic Free Agent #3 Pitchers

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Ryu has pitched more than 67 innings 1 time in 4 years. So he’s just as unreliable. RYU hasn’t had a FIP under 4 since 2020. 

Paxton’s innings are worse …116 innings in 4 seasons. 

 

When you have TJ surgery that overlaps into two seasons, that’s what happens.  It doesn’t make you inherently injury prone or unreliable.   Anyway, we both agree that Gibson is far more reliable when it comes to eating innings.  Very few pitchers are as reliable as Gibson that way.   

Serious question, with the current makeup of our staff, would you rather have a starter who makes 32 starts and throws 190 innings to a 4.73 ERA, or a pitcher who makes 16 starts, throws 85 innings to a 3.75 ERA?   I could see arguments either way, considering we have three other plausible starters (Wells, Hall, Irvin) to fill in the other 16 starts.   I don’t think the answer is clear cut.  

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

When you have TJ surgery that overlaps into two seasons, that’s what happens.  It doesn’t make you inherently injury prone or unreliable.   Anyway, we both agree that Gibson is far more reliable when it comes to eating innings.  Very few pitchers are as reliable as Gibson that way.   

Serious question, with the current makeup of our staff, would you rather have a starter who makes 32 starts and throws 190 innings to a 4.73 ERA, or a pitcher who makes 16 starts, throws 85 innings to a 3.75 ERA?   I could see arguments either way, considering we have three other plausible starters (Wells, Hall, Irvin) to fill in the other 16 starts.   I don’t think the answer is clear cut.  

Neither …. If our owner was serious about winning the World Series we wouldn’t be debating the bottom of the free agent barrel or a SP that is absurdly priced that has some warts.

[Three Run Homer]

5 hours ago, emmett16 said:

 

Who would you sign to make the team better that would give us a chance to win a WS? 

Blake Snell or Jordan Montgomery would give this team a good chance to win a WS.  Sean Manaea or Marcus Stroman are a step down from those two, but they would have been a much better bet to help the O's than Ryu or Paxton.  Eduardo Rodriguez...Kenta Maeda...Sonny Gray...Michael Wacha...all of them would have been better options.     Kershaw is still out there--have we talked to him?   Some of these guys are expensive, some of them less expensive, but they all required a multiple year contract, which apparently is a red line that our cheap-ass owner will not cross.  

I can't believe that we are talking about getting guys who are a downgrade from Kyle Gibson.  

[emmett16]

9 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

Blake Snell or Jordan Montgomery would give this team a good chance to win a WS.  Sean Manaea or Marcus Stroman are a step down from those two, but they would have been a much better bet to help the O's than Ryu or Paxton.  Eduardo Rodriguez...Kenta Maeda...Sonny Gray...Michael Wacha...all of them would have been better options.     Kershaw is still out there--have we talked to him?   Some of these guys are expensive, some of them less expensive, but they all required a multiple year contract, which apparently is a red line that our cheap-ass owner will not cross.  

I can't believe that we are talking about getting guys who are a downgrade from Kyle Gibson.  

Last year Paxton was a 101 era+ vs. Gibson was an 87.  If healthy, Paxton is much better than Gibson. 
 

I would have been on board for E. Rod & Snell, but don’t think anyone else mentioned really moves the needle much.  Montgomery maybe, but I think we have guys in house that can beat his performance. 

[Aristotelian]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

When you have TJ surgery that overlaps into two seasons, that’s what happens.  It doesn’t make you inherently injury prone or unreliable.   Anyway, we both agree that Gibson is far more reliable when it comes to eating innings.  Very few pitchers are as reliable as Gibson that way.   

Serious question, with the current makeup of our staff, would you rather have a starter who makes 32 starts and throws 190 innings to a 4.73 ERA, or a pitcher who makes 16 starts, throws 85 innings to a 3.75 ERA?   I could see arguments either way, considering we have three other plausible starters (Wells, Hall, Irvin) to fill in the other 16 starts.   I don’t think the answer is clear cut.  

Assuming we have five other guys who are good enough to get us to the playoffs, I'd rather have the second guy. He has the upside of pitching at the 3.75 level when the games mean the most. 

[ScGO's]

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Neither …. If our owner was serious about winning the World Series we wouldn’t be debating the bottom of the free agent barrel or a SP that is absurdly priced that has some warts.

It is pretty wild how 2 time Cy Young winner LHP Blake Snell, a guy with almost 50 IP of Playoff experience, a guy who pitched in the AL East and the World Series, is sitting right there for the O's to get with one of the lowest payroles. Only issue is, does it still allow them to extend Gunner, Adley, etc?

Lets say the O's gave Snell 7 Years 210 Mill, the O's are still under 150 Million payroll. Still in the bottom Tier of Payrolls.

[emmett16]

5 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

It is pretty wild how 2 time Cy Young winner LHP Blake Snell, a guy with almost 50 IP of Playoff experience, a guy who pitched in the AL East and the World Series, is sitting right there for the O's to get with one of the lowest payroles. Only issue is, does it still allow them to extend Gunner, Adley, etc?

Let’s say the O's gave Snell 7 Years 210 Mill, the O's are still under 150 Million payroll. Still in the bottom Tier of Payrolls.

I’d be down with that, but it’s still a massive risk.  Giving that type of cash to an “outside” guy also has implications in the clubhouse.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I’d be down with that, but it’s still a massive risk.  Giving that type of cash to an “outside” guy also has implications in the clubhouse.  

Heaven forbid the clubhouse thinks the team is willing to spend money to improve the team.

[emmett16]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Heaven forbid the clubhouse thinks the team is willing to spend money to improve the team.

If your boss hired someone from another company in your industry for 20x what you are making, you’d be excited that your company is now in a better position to compete? 

Edited January 14 by emmett16

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, emmett16 said:

If your boss hired someone from another company in your industry for 20x what you are making, you’d be excited that your company is now in a better position to compete? 

Am I:

In a field in which I know I'll get a chance to make that type of money in five or fewer years?

In a field in which actual standings exist and matter to the employees?

In a field in which this individual is going to be employed at that rate for the opposition if they don't join my firm?

I don't know about you but I don't get upset at my co-workers good fortune.  I worry about me.

[Roll Tide]

23 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

It is pretty wild how 2 time Cy Young winner LHP Blake Snell, a guy with almost 50 IP of Playoff experience, a guy who pitched in the AL East and the World Series, is sitting right there for the O's to get with one of the lowest payroles. Only issue is, does it still allow them to extend Gunner, Adley, etc?

Lets say the O's gave Snell 7 Years 210 Mill, the O's are still under 150 Million payroll. Still in the bottom Tier of Payrolls.

They could pay Snell with the stockpiled money from the last few years. It would affect other moves. If we had good owners they want threaten to raise prices to sign/extend  guys. They would be honorable about the $200 million from revenue sharing, national tv contracts, plus luxury tax money we are receiving and stop acting like they’re broke. I think this guy might actually be worse than Peter

[emmett16]

49 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Am I:

In a field in which I know I'll get a chance to make that type of money in five or fewer years?

In a field in which actual standings exist and matter to the employees?

In a field in which this individual is going to be employed at that rate for the opposition if they don't join my firm?

I don't know about you but I don't get upset at my co-workers good fortune.  I worry about me.

So, yes? Cool.  You’re a good man. 

But to deny there would be potential implications when dealing with a group of 26-40 humans shouldn’t be overlooked and Is a factor in decision making.  

Edited January 14 by emmett16

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

So, yes? Cool.  You’re a good man. 

But to deny there would be potential implications when dealing with a group of 26-40 humans shouldn’t be overlooked and Is a factor in decision making.  

And it might be a positive impact.

[emmett16]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And it might be a positive impact.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t  be.  I’d be on board in a vacuum.  All Im saying is for a team that doesn’t spend a ton, has guys that could/should be extended, only has so many peanuts to pass out, and where the avg. salary is pretty low that there is a lot to consider.  What’s the personality/character make up and how does that mesh with the current group?  It’s a risk.  The reward could be massive, but it could also go sideways.  All those things have to be taken into account.  

[Number5]

2 hours ago, emmett16 said:

Last year Paxton was a 101 era+ vs. Gibson was an 87.  If healthy, Paxton is much better than Gibson. 
 

I would have been on board for E. Rod & Snell, but don’t think anyone else mentioned really moves the needle much.  Montgomery maybe, but I think we have guys in house that can beat his performance. 

Framber Valdez?