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

[Allan Bryant]

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. 

Nice post . Have you thought which category our Orioles would likely fit into ?   Or do we have wait after this deadline and offseason to get better insight how Rubenstein will run this organization ?

[btdart20]

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes of course but that rarely ever involves free agents.

At least not with long term contracts. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

At least not with long term contracts. 

Right..3 years or less..maybe 4 depending on the player…of course 3 years also depends on the player.

[Bemorewins]

3 minutes ago, foxfield said:

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.

 

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.

Two things.

1) I don't think that it is wise or necessary to spend to add anything to our lineup "like the Yankees in the 80's" I have never stated that or advocated for that. We already have the #1 offense in MLB. I think we are quite ok on that front. My concern is (nd was last season) the pitching.

2) I have not advocated, nor do I think that it is realistic to resign Burnes, Gunnar (to a 750 million dollar 1o year extension - not sure where you got that number from?), Adley, and Santander in the same offseason; spending a total of 2 billion dollars. But maybe 1 or 2 of those things (given how long payroll has been and how profits have been) would be a good start?

I'm not sure if you did it on purpose or if it was accidental, but you certainly put a lot of words in my mouth...lol

[Bemorewins]

5 minutes ago, Allan Bryant said:

Nice post . Have you thought which category our Orioles would likely fit into ?   Or do we have wait after this deadline and offseason to get better insight how Rubenstein will run this organization ?

Thank you!

I don't know which one it will be at this point. I'm not sure anyone can know accept those controlling the purse strings.

I think the wisest course is to wait and see until after those two time markers that you mentioned. We will have much more data and a better understanding after that time IMO.

[Roy Firestone]

3 hours ago, G54377 said:

I'd love Fried but at the same time if we are spending the money for him you might as well just spend the money for Burnes. There's a pretty clear drop off after those two.

Max Fried is a childhood friend of our family..He pitched for our Little League team, my son was his teammate.....he has ALWAYS dreamed of being a Dodger..I think the chances of him being an Oriole are extremely remote...but crazier things have happened..

[foxfield]

22 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Two things.

1) I don't think that it is wise or necessary to spend to add anything to our lineup "like the Yankees in the 80's" I have never stated that or advocated for that. We already have the #1 offense in MLB. I think we are quite ok on that front. My concern is (nd was last season) the pitching.

2) I have not advocated, nor do I think that it is realistic to resign Burnes, Gunnar (to a 750 million dollar 1o year extension - not sure where you got that number from?), Adley, and Santander in the same offseason; spending a total of 2 billion dollars. But maybe 1 or 2 of those things (given how long payroll has been and how profits have been) would be a good start?

I'm not sure if you did it on purpose or if it was accidental, but you certainly put a lot of words in my mouth...lol

Admittedly I am taking a wide swing.  But you post consistently on two things.  Adding pitching.  And the fact that without adding pitching they are not seriously competing for a World Series.

Besides the fact that the seriously competing part is just flat out wrong.  You speak frequently of the deep pockets of the new ownership group and the deep reserve of talent the GM has to acquire  elite or difference making pitching.

On its face I don't think anyone has an issue with that.  But while you say I am falsely accusing you of wild spending.  Just in this thread alone, you have advocated for signing Burnes, Gunnar trading for Skubual and that's just in the last couple pages and just in this one thread.  You have advocated for other moves and these are not one off.  I am trying to not be offensive, but it comes across as fantasy league stuff.  

Yes the Orioles would be more competitive if they had more pitching.  Yes new ownership should spend more freely than previous ownership.  But if Burnes wants the biggest paycheck, he isn't coming back here.  If Skubal can be had for Mayo, he isn't coming here.  If Gunnar wants years and dollars in the Witt range or slightly higher, maybe the O's do it.  If he wants much more he will likely be traded by a dispassionate GM for a boat load sometime down the road.

I don't want that, most fans don't want that...regardless of how far the O's will go....you are still wrong about the basic assumption you consistently quote.  The Orioles are already contending for a WS.  They can do more, but seriously...they are indisputably one of the favorites today. 

[Bemorewins]

6 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Admittedly I am taking a wide swing.  But you post consistently on two things.  Adding pitching.  And the fact that without adding pitching they are not seriously competing for a World Series.

Besides the fact that the seriously competing part is just flat out wrong.  You speak frequently of the deep pockets of the new ownership group and the deep reserve of talent the GM has to acquire  elite or difference making pitching.

On its face I don't think anyone has an issue with that.  But while you say I am falsely accusing you of wild spending.  Just in this thread alone, you have advocated for signing Burnes, Gunnar trading for Skubual and that's just in the last couple pages and just in this one thread.  You have advocated for other moves and these are not one off.  I am trying to not be offensive, but it comes across as fantasy league stuff.  

Yes the Orioles would be more competitive if they had more pitching.  Yes new ownership should spend more freely than previous ownership.  But if Burnes wants the biggest paycheck, he isn't coming back here.  If Skubal can be had for Mayo, he isn't coming here.  If Gunnar wants years and dollars in the Witt range or slightly higher, maybe the O's do it.  If he wants much more he will likely be traded by a dispassionate GM for a boat load sometime down the road.

I don't want that, most fans don't want that...regardless of how far the O's will go....you are still wrong about the basic assumption you consistently quote.  The Orioles are already contending for a WS.  They can do more, but seriously...they are indisputably one of the favorites today. 

I hope that we can agree that there is a difference between what is required for regular season success and what is required for playoff success. It is unarguable that we have already achieved the first (in spades). The second is still up in the air (especially given the end to last season).

Yes I have advocated for those things. Not as an all in one scenario or an all or nothing proposition. But as in we could/should do this one or how about that one or those two? Given we haven't done any up to this point.

Lastly, I get that you don't agree or like what I have to say. But you don't have to make stuff up, grossly exaggerate what I post, or go so far as to put words in my mouth.

But to each their own. We don't have to agree and that is fine.

[Aristotelian]

Scherzer seems like the logical fit since he would not require a long commitment. Even if he breaks down, we may have Bradish coming back in September. 

I believe Eovaldi should decline his option, so I could see targeting him on a 2-3 year deal. Honestly we should have given him that deal two years ago. 

If we're going to dream on a big contract, I would want the Japanese kid everyone is talking about. 

[e16bball]

2 hours ago, baltfan said:

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

100%. He’s been really good against us, even during this rough patch. I was shocked to see how much his numbers have fallen off, given how well he’s pitched against us this year.

[baltimoriole]

5 hours ago, oriolediehard said:

I read somewhere that Rubinstein said that he will do whatever it takes to keep the O's good.  So he may sign Burnes and our core players.  Great hope!!!!

Until something like that actually happens, I can’t believe that’s how they really feel. 

[Winter]

3 hours ago, Roy Firestone said:

Max Fried is a childhood friend of our family..He pitched for our Little League team, my son was his teammate.....he has ALWAYS dreamed of being a Dodger..I think the chances of him being an Oriole are extremely remote...but crazier things have happened..

but if the Dodgers are likely in on Burnes, Ohtani possibly back to pitching? where would the Dodgers find the room for Fried. 

That'd be Burnes/Glasnow/Stone/Ohtani/Yamamoto/Bobby Miller... Kershaw?

[Malike]

9 hours ago, oriolediehard said:

I read somewhere that Rubinstein said that he will do whatever it takes to keep the O's good.  So he may sign Burnes and our core players.  Great hope!!!!