Starting Pitching avail in Free Agency in offseason vs Trade Deadline addition

[Allan Bryant]

5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Just give me a game 2/3 SP like Scherzer or Kikuchi. I won’t lose any sleep wondering about next year’s rotation.

We already have fine regular season options in Suarez, Povich, Kremer, Irvin, and McDermott for next year to pair with Grayson. Who knows what’ll happen with Burnes. 

I understand and agree .  Some posters are paranoid about rentals like Sherzer . They don’t care if his cost is lower than say , a Skubal or a Crochet.  But let Elias worry about all that 

[Sports Guy]

59 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Facts.

Quick question: Are the Phillies spending stupidly in your opinion?

They have some stupid contracts for sure.

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

They have some stupid contracts for sure.

Understood. But here's the thing (given the current economic structure of the game) there are three ways to handle payroll for a winning team (as I see them).

One is the Rays/Brewers/Guardians way. Where you have maybe one long term substantive contract (mostly done while player is young and before he has made real money or achieved real fame) and most of the time the contract is an exploitive type deal with a kid from another country who comes from a context of poverty (not judging it is what it is). These teams continuously are reloading/retooling/ and have constant roster reshaping and turnover. The goal is to make the postseason and hopeful every once in a blue moon the stars align while you are there and you may be able to go all the way! While these teams are often good, they are rarely great. And are even less willing to do what it takes to get them over the top IMO. The proof is in the fact that this model has never led to championship success (unless you want to use the Marlins of over 20 years ago from 03').

Another model is the "big spenders model", who spend seriously and have World Series aspirations. Some spend all on FA (like the Padres/Mets) and are super aggressive with trades hoping to augment their talent as they chase championships, but rarely does this work because the foundation of the team is usually built so poorly. They may be good for a season or shorter term but struggle to sustain. Then there are teams like the Phillies/Dodgers who do a combo of developing and spending (let's call that the best of both worlds). Obviously this is the most preferable because you get the short and long term rewards. But it may not be realistic to think that the O's could ever do/have what it takes to fully do both.

Then there is the Braves and Astros model. Still a higher payroll but minimizing of risks through extending younger players (Braves) or avoiding most long term contracts (Astros) but paying higher salaries on shorter deals. Obviously both franchises have been successful (won WS).

Having said all this the reality exists that if/when you do longer term contracts (extensions or FA deals) for franchise/cornerstone/superstar type players, you most likely won't get the best value on the back end (think Paul Goldschmidt this year). That's just the economics of the game. But the thing is, the owners (especially our new group) have the money and then some to write off those things and keep rolling as "the cost of doing business". 

When examining all winners of the World Series in the last decade a pattern is pretty apparent (with exception of the Astros first championship in 17') you have to spend in order to win. 

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Understood. But here's the thing (given the current economic structure of the game) there are three ways to handle payroll for a winning team (as I see them).

One is the Rays/Brewers/Guardians way. Where you have maybe one long term substantive contract (mostly done while player is young and before he has made real money or achieved real fame) and most of the time the contract is an exploitive type deal with a kid from another country who comes from a context of poverty (not judging it is what it is). These teams continuously are reloading/retooling/ and have constant roster reshaping and turnover. The goal is to make the postseason and hopeful every once in a blue moon the stars align while you are there and you may be able to go all the way! While these teams are often good, they are rarely great. And are even less willing to do what it takes to get them over the top IMO. The proof is in the fact that this model has never led to championship success (unless you want to use the Marlins of over 20 years ago from 03').

Another model is the "big spenders model", who spend seriously and have World Series aspirations. Some spend all on FA (like the Padres/Mets) and are super aggressive with trades hoping to augment their talent as they chase championships, but rarely does this work because the foundation of the team is usually built so poorly. They may be good for a season or shorter term but struggle to sustain. Then there are teams like the Phillies/Dodgers who do a combo of developing and spending (let's call that the best of both worlds). Obviously this is the most preferable because you get the short and long term rewards. But it may not be realistic to think that the O's could ever do/have what it takes to fully do both.

Then there is the Braves and Astros model. Still a higher payroll but minimizing of risks through extending younger players (Braves) or avoiding most long term contracts (Astros) but paying higher salaries on shorter deals. Obviously both franchises have been successful (won WS).

Having said all this the reality exists that if/when you do longer term contracts (extensions or FA deals) for franchise/cornerstone/superstar type players, you most likely won't get the best value on the back end (think Paul Goldschmidt this year). That's just the economics of the game. But the thing is, the owners (especially our new group) have the money and then some to write off those things and keep rolling as "the cost of doing business". 

When examining all winners of the World Series in the last decade a pattern is pretty apparent (with exception of the Astros first championship in 17') you have to spend in order to win. 

 But you don’t have to spend poorly and most of the time, that’s what you advocate.

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

 But you don’t have to spend poorly and most of the time, that’s what you advocate.

Extending Gunnar (your franchise player and one of the face's of the sport) is spending poorly? 

I can see the risk and potential reward of extending Burnes. But because we have very little top end pitching talent in the entire org, my thoughts are either pay him or pay someone else (another FA who will not be as good). But it is unlikely that we can go "as is" next year and seriously put ourselves in a position to potentially win a World Series.

I have also advocated for ideas like extending Adley and possibly Westburg (but the later may not be that great of an idea admittedly).

My other ideas were potentially trading for Skubal or a pitcher like Webb.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall other instances "most of the time" as you state when I suggested other things to "spend poorly".

Oh I did suggest the idea of possibly extending Santander (at season's end) to potential make a prospect with a redundant skill set expendable. But I get why that would not be in favor my some/many on this board. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Extending Gunnar (your franchise player and one of the face's of the sport) is spending poorly? 

I can see the risk and potential reward of extending Burnes. But because we have very little top end pitching talent in the entire org, my thoughts are either pay him or pay someone else (another FA who will not be as good). But it is unlikely that we can go "as is" next year and seriously put ourselves in a position to potentially win a World Series.

I have also advocated for ideas like extending Adley and possibly Westburg (but the later may not be that great of an idea admittedly).

My other ideas were potentially trading for Skubal or a pitcher like Webb.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall other instances "most of the time" as you state when I suggested other things to "spend poorly".

Oh I did suggest the idea of possibly extending Santander (at season's end) to potential make a prospect with a redundant skill set expendable. But I get why that would not be in favor my some/many on this board. 

I mean, over the last year or 2, you have consistently lobbied for big FA deals, spending crazy money, etc…and I’m not talking about extensions. 
 

You clearly value spending money over smart decision making.

[casadeozo]

2 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

Obviously Burnes is the best (of that group and just about any/all groups), but will cost.

The team had a profit margin of 99 million last seaso (which was more than the Major League payroll). That is not to mention the  is the 35% increase in attendance this season. And that does not include the billions backed up in the Rubenstein group treasury. And lastly, about 550 million to the franchise for free from us state taxers.

It would be ab absolute shame for the team not to be serious spenders now (deadline & offseason).

The greater point was the dreams of a dynasty don’t end if we don’t hand out a very dumb long term overpay contract to Corbin burnes. 

This is true no matter who the owner is.

[btdart20]

5 hours ago, casadeozo said:

With Bradish’s injury, and the assumption Burnes will leave,  I keep seeing posters saying our rotation next year being Rodriguez, Kremer, Povich, Irvin, Suarez. Maybe McDermott comes up this year and can be a force in the rotation but it goes without saying Elias would not proceed with a rotation that thin.

Theres been a lot of chatter about acquiring a pitcher at the deadline with control next year and maybe beyond. To me that is far from a certainty considering Elias’ history of being conservative in trades, and priding himself in the minor league depth.

My preference would be to acquire someone like Scherzer if he’s available for the stretch run, and reassess the starting rotation in the offseason, either by trade or by free agency 

With that said looking at Spotrac these are the starters I’d be most intrigued by, with those in bold top of the list:

Corbin Burnes

Walker Buehler

Max Fried

Max Scherzer

Robbie Ray

Luis Severino

Jack Flaherty 

Shane Bieber

Nathan Eovaldi

Frankie Montas 

Yusel Kikuchi

Buehler is probably the strongest no and that's not 0%.  After him, it depends.  Burnes is the best.  Most have a #3 floor which is good.  

I can see Ray on a short-term deal with options.

[Bemorewins]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I mean, over the last year or 2, you have consistently lobbied for big FA deals, spending crazy money, etc…and I’m not talking about extensions. 
 

You clearly value spending money over smart decision making.

Is it possible to spend smart money in your opinion?

[casadeozo]

18 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Buehler is probably the strongest no and that's not 0%.  After him, it depends.  Burnes is the best.  Most have a #3 floor which is good.  

I can see Ray on a short-term deal with options.

I could see him being a strong buy low candidate. He was really good before TJ. Let’s see how he finishes 

Edited Wednesday at 23:00 by casadeozo

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

Pretty rough go of it lately for him.

Last 7 starts, he’s got a 7.12 ERA with an FIP well over 5. Also an average EV of 92.1 MPH over that span (bottom 1-2 percentile), so it’s not just an issue of luck. In 5 of those 7 starts, he’s given up 4+ ERs, and he’s averaging just over 4 innings per start in that span.

Perhaps he turns it around, but…that’s a pretty big gamble for a half-season rental unless you’re giving up very little to get him.

Good points.  Maybe I am being swayed by how good he has looked against us.  

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

It would also be a shame to see them spend stupidly.

Spending on Burnes wouldn’t be stupid.

[oriole]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Spending on Burnes wouldn’t be stupid.

Maybe stupid is the wrong word. It’d certainly be reckless though. If Burnes is signed then that means he’s likely to be around a third of the entire payroll.

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Is it possible to spend smart money in your opinion?

Yes of course but that rarely ever involves free agents.

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

Understood. But here's the thing (given the current economic structure of the game) there are three ways to handle payroll for a winning team (as I see them).

One is the Rays/Brewers/Guardians way. Where you have maybe one long term substantive contract (mostly done while player is young and before he has made real money or achieved real fame) and most of the time the contract is an exploitive type deal with a kid from another country who comes from a context of poverty (not judging it is what it is). These teams continuously are reloading/retooling/ and have constant roster reshaping and turnover. The goal is to make the postseason and hopeful every once in a blue moon the stars align while you are there and you may be able to go all the way! While these teams are often good, they are rarely great. And are even less willing to do what it takes to get them over the top IMO. The proof is in the fact that this model has never led to championship success (unless you want to use the Marlins of over 20 years ago from 03').

Another model is the "big spenders model", who spend seriously and have World Series aspirations. Some spend all on FA (like the Padres/Mets) and are super aggressive with trades hoping to augment their talent as they chase championships, but rarely does this work because the foundation of the team is usually built so poorly. They may be good for a season or shorter term but struggle to sustain. Then there are teams like the Phillies/Dodgers who do a combo of developing and spending (let's call that the best of both worlds). Obviously this is the most preferable because you get the short and long term rewards. But it may not be realistic to think that the O's could ever do/have what it takes to fully do both.

Then there is the Braves and Astros model. Still a higher payroll but minimizing of risks through extending younger players (Braves) or avoiding most long term contracts (Astros) but paying higher salaries on shorter deals. Obviously both franchises have been successful (won WS).

Having said all this the reality exists that if/when you do longer term contracts (extensions or FA deals) for franchise/cornerstone/superstar type players, you most likely won't get the best value on the back end (think Paul Goldschmidt this year). That's just the economics of the game. But the thing is, the owners (especially our new group) have the money and then some to write off those things and keep rolling as "the cost of doing business". 

When examining all winners of the World Series in the last decade a pattern is pretty apparent (with exception of the Astros first championship in 17') you have to spend in order to win. 

You lay out facts showing multiple ways, but only include two World Series winning teams.  And yet your constant advocacy is to follow models that would NOT follow the two winners you describe.  We all get that you want to win.  I know it must be hard to grasp, but we do too.

 

44 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Extending Gunnar (your franchise player and one of the face's of the sport) is spending poorly? 

I can see the risk and potential reward of extending Burnes. But because we have very little top end pitching talent in the entire org, my thoughts are either pay him or pay someone else (another FA who will not be as good). But it is unlikely that we can go "as is" next year and seriously put ourselves in a position to potentially win a World Series.

I have also advocated for ideas like extending Adley and possibly Westburg (but the later may not be that great of an idea admittedly).

My other ideas were potentially trading for Skubal or a pitcher like Webb.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall other instances "most of the time" as you state when I suggested other things to "spend poorly".

Oh I did suggest the idea of possibly extending Santander (at season's end) to potential make a prospect with a redundant skill set expendable. But I get why that would not be in favor my some/many on this board. 

Here is the problem.  Extending Gunnar is not spending poorly.  Extending Gunnar for 10 years and 750 MILLION Dollars would be.  You do not seem to care as long as it is done.  You can do the right thing the wrong way.  You use words like can't go "as is" and seriously be in a position to win a WS when....they have been in exactly that position for 2 years...seriously contending for a World Series.

Your ideas if taken in proper context is simply to do all you can to win.  But in practical terms as you describe what you would do to accomplish it....via trades or contracts would most certainly qualify as spending poorly.  

I don't care what the O's do as long as they win.  We certainly agree on that.  Ownership and management are going to make every effort to accomplish that.  They may or may not succeed.  But there is no reason to believe that they will go to the lengths that you prescribe.  Nor has the methods you describe been followed by any successful team.  

The one thing that is true is that the Orioles will eventually spend money.  That is inevitable unless they continue to field teams pre arb indefinitely.

All of that said, if and when, the Orioles trade Mayo+ and Kjerstad+ for Skubal and Miller I will apologize for being wrong.  Perhaps you could enjoy the current situation more if you did not think this organization would simply buy every bobble that would look good in our lineup like the Yankees in the 80's.  I firmly believe that new ownership is going to be willing to spend in ways the Angelos family was not.  

They are not spending 2 Billion dollars this off season to resign Burnes and extend Gunnar, Adley and Santander and another TOR starting pitcher.  You can advocate for it...you can say that failing to do so is unserious.  

But it seriously isn't going to happen.