Jump to content

Wagner in '10?


ejf1025

Recommended Posts

If AM can give Hendrickson 1.5 million, he can give Wagner 4 million, let him improve our pen to start the year, see where we are, and then deal him at the deadline. If Wagner pitches like Billy Wagner pitches, he will be highly valued at the deadline.

It's called adding talent and being flexible. He's not blocking anyone, it's an area of need, and he can be flipped for prospects which will further help to add talent to this organization.

Exactly. What's the downside? Losing 4 mil if we have to DL him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Yea, for a cheap 1 year deal, there is no real downside...We all know the Orioles are going to have to add at least one lefty in the pen as it is, so why not Wagner?
Because he will insist upon being the closer. I think he could do an ok job, its certainly possible, but I think we can probably fill that internally too and then sign two guys to lesser deals to fill in other roles in the bullpen for the same money. Or use that money to sign a better stop gap at 1B or 3B.

If then money will either be spent on Wagner or not spent at all, then sure, go ahead and get him. But I never like to look at investments that way, because its kind of pointless. I think there are much better ways to invest whatever amount it would take to get Wagner here to be our closer next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he will insist upon being the closer. I think he could do an ok job, its certainly possible, but I think we can probably fill that internally too and then sign two guys to lesser deals to fill in other roles in the bullpen for the same money. Or use that money to sign a better stop gap at 1B or 3B.

If then money will either be spent on Wagner or not spent at all, then sure, go ahead and get him. But I never like to look at investments that way, because its kind of pointless. I think there are much better ways to invest whatever amount it would take to get Wagner here to be our closer next season.

We have a ton of money coming off the books...this shouldnt preclude signing stopgaps and bullpen filler.

I would also question how much you are gaining with stopgaps/filler over Wagner. The upside of Wagner, IMO, far outweighs signing a couple serviceable vets that are just keeping seats warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its not. Old players don't react to injuries the same way as young ones, and this isn't an injury where players are generally at their best during their first year back.

I think he's more likely to be a disappointment next year than he would be to be worth a $6M deal to be our closer.

Agree, just look at Smoltz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a ton of money coming off the books...this shouldnt preclude signing stopgaps and bullpen filler.

I would also question how much you are gaining with stopgaps/filler over Wagner. The upside of Wagner, IMO, far outweighs signing a couple serviceable vets that are just keeping seats warm.

Again, if you're saying this is money we're either spending on Wagner or not spending at all, then sure sign him. But I think that's a pointless assumption to make. I think that there are far better ways to spend $4-6M than on Wagner given his injury and likelihood of decreased performance, and I'd rather spend the money those ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If AM can give Hendrickson 1.5 million, he can give Wagner 4 million, let him improve our pen to start the year, see where we are, and then deal him at the deadline. If Wagner pitches like Billy Wagner pitches, he will be highly valued at the deadline.

It's called adding talent and being flexible. He's not blocking anyone, it's an area of need, and he can be flipped for prospects which will further help to add talent to this organization.

I have to disagree here. Hendrickson is more valuable to our team than Wagner. Hendrickson can pitch as a long man and make spot starts as needed. I cannot think of any reason to spend 4 mill on a player to get three outs a night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you're saying this is money we're either spending on Wagner or not spending at all, then sure sign him. But I think that's a pointless assumption to make. I think that there are far better ways to spend $4-6M than on Wagner given his injury and likelihood of decreased performance, and I'd rather spend the money those ways.

Why would this be a pointless assumption?

It's a realistic one...if you look at what is coming off the books, what positions are currently filled on the roster and the cost of those players (almost nothing)...there's ample room to sign Wagner and do whatever other stopgap solutions you want.

And I disagree, I'd much rather make a riskier but higher ceiling move on a guy like Wagner then I would want to go out and sign a bunch of Ty Wiggintons/Mark Hendricksons...which is just about all you would be getting for 4-6 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would this be a pointless assumption?

It's a realistic one...if you look at what is coming off the books, what positions are currently filled on the roster and the cost of those players (almost nothing)...there's ample room to sign Wagner and do whatever other stopgap solutions you want.

And I disagree, I'd much rather make a riskier but higher ceiling move on a guy like Wagner then I would want to go out and sign a bunch of Ty Wiggintons/Mark Hendricksons...which is just about all you would be getting for 4-6 million.

Because it is a pointless assumption.

Why would they possibly have a special "Billy Wagner budget"? It makes no sense. So logically, anything that they are willing to spend to bring Wagner in, they'd also be willing to spend on other additions to the MLB squad. But you can't definitely say that they'd spend whatever it takes to get Wagner and then also be willing to spend to get better upgrades at the needed positions elsewhere.

I'm not saying I'd sign a different guy for $4-6M, I'm saying I'd use that money differently. There is gonna be some money allotted to bringing in a 3B next year to play until Bell is ready to come up. Instead of signing a cheap option for $2M, take that Wagner money and then sign Troy Glaus for $7M. That's just one way I think the money could be used more wisely.

Wagner is an inefficient use of money, IMO. He might be really good, but the odds are strongly against it. I'd rather use that money to spend on something that is more likely to net us extra runs and wins.

If Angelos has a $5M check that he's either giving to Wagner or burning, then sure, go ahead and sign him. But again, that's a silly assumption to be making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is a pointless assumption.

Why would they possibly have a special "Billy Wagner budget"? It makes no sense. So logically, anything that they are willing to spend to bring Wagner in, they'd also be willing to spend on other additions to the MLB squad. But you can't definitely say that they'd spend whatever it takes to get Wagner and then also be willing to spend to get better upgrades at the needed positions elsewhere.

I'm not saying I'd sign a different guy for $4-6M, I'm saying I'd use that money differently. There is gonna be some money allotted to bringing in a 3B next year to play until Bell is ready to come up. Instead of signing a cheap option for $2M, take that Wagner money and then sign Troy Glaus for $7M. That's just one way I think the money could be used more wisely.

Wagner is an inefficient use of money, IMO. He might be really good, but the odds are strongly against it. I'd rather use that money to spend on something that is more likely to net us extra runs and wins.

If Angelos has a $5M check that he's either giving to Wagner or burning, then sure, go ahead and sign him. But again, that's a silly assumption to be making.

Hold on...first, I never said do whatever it takes. Nobody is advocating having a Billy Wagner budget to bring him in at all costs or working in a vacuum. The only one making assumptions is you...as you keep throwing out this stupid burn money or just use it on Wagner line.

I think spending any money on "stopgaps" is a complete waste of time and a waste of the same resources you are clamoring about. I'd much rather throw Wigginton/Turner at 3B, switch Reimold to 1B or "rush" Snyder/Bell then sign 1 or 2 seatwarmers for a few million. Talk about a waste.

Now, if Wagner precludes you from getting Glaus, fine, don't sign Wagner. I'm onboard with that--but THAT is a "silly assumption." There's no reason, when one looks at our budget/savings/needs, spending $4 million should preclude any other move.

We have many of our rosters spots already filled or with in-house solutions on the way. If we fail to sign a Glaus/Lackey-type, it won't be because we hamstrung ourselves by signing Wagner and going with Snyder/Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if Wagner precludes you from getting Glaus, fine, don't sign Wagner. I'm onboard with that--but THAT is a "silly assumption." There's no reason, when one looks at our budget/savings/needs, spending $4 million should preclude any other move.
Its astonishing to me that you are not getting the logic here.

If you're willing to spend money on Wagner, then that's part of the team's budget. So, we should be able to spend that money on something else if we decide that its a better use of the money.

If we can't use that money on something else, then its clearly money that is going to Wagner or nobody else.

You can say we're gonna be at a low budget so signing Wagner wouldn't prevent us from doing anything else, and I think that's a fair thing to say. But to that, I say that show me the team you build with Wagner on it for whatever dollar amount, and then let me cancel his contract and spend that money elsewhere, and I'll build a better team than you had put together for the same money.

There are better ways to spend money than on Wagner, who is a prime candidate for a poor year being a) only months recovered from TJ surgery and b) a 38 year old relief pitcher. Either of those would be a major red flag as a prime reason not to spend money on a guy, combine both and you're looking at a very risky investment. The only way I'd think he was a good signing is if he's signed with money that wouldn't be used elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its astonishing to me that you are not getting the logic here.

If you're willing to spend money on Wagner, then that's part of the team's budget. So, we should be able to spend that money on something else if we decide that its a better use of the money.

If we can't use that money on something else, then its clearly money that is going to Wagner or nobody else.

You can say we're gonna be at a low budget so signing Wagner wouldn't prevent us from doing anything else, and I think that's a fair thing to say. But to that, I say that show me the team you build with Wagner on it for whatever dollar amount, and then let me cancel his contract and spend that money elsewhere, and I'll build a better team than you had put together for the same money.

There are better ways to spend money than on Wagner, who is a prime candidate for a poor year being a) only months recovered from TJ surgery and b) a 38 year old relief pitcher. Either of those would be a major red flag as a prime reason not to spend money on a guy, combine both and you're looking at a very risky investment. The only way I'd think he was a good signing is if he's signed with money that wouldn't be used elsewhere.

I'm not missing any logic.

You are working in a vacuum and trying to make me work in it as well. If you don't think Wagner is worth $4 million because of the risk...fine. We disagree.

You keep acting like there is a salary cap, a set budget number that we cannot exceed and thus signing Wagner would limit us in other areas.

If you actually LOOK at what we need, what we are losing off the payroll, what we have on the roster and what we have coming up. There are relatively few holes (at least now since we have to see if some players pan out, get better etc) that need to be urgently filled. Therefore, I expect (and want) our off-season spending to be limited--especially given the market--with a continued focus on using the players from our system (or trading for other younger and cheaper long term solves).

In that context (which MUST be taken into account), I think signing Wagner would be a risky but worthwhile effort. Your point would be far more valid if I was advocating a large, multi-year deal. But I am not.

$4 million would easily fit onto our books, I think it would turnout to be a worthwhile investment and we still keep economic flexiblity in line for years.

I'd take your 4 million challenge but there are a lot of variables (i.e. trade Scott/Guthrie? If you get a SS what happens to Izturis? Do they go with Pie? etc)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not missing any logic.

You are working in a vacuum and trying to make me work in it as well. If you don't think Wagner is worth $4 million because of the risk...fine. We disagree.

You keep acting like there is a salary cap, a set budget number that we cannot exceed and thus signing Wagner would limit us in other areas.

If you actually LOOK at what we need, what we are losing off the payroll, what we have on the roster and what we have coming up. There are relatively few holes (at least now since we have to see if some players pan out, get better etc) that need to be urgently filled. Therefore, I expect (and want) our off-season spending to be limited--especially given the market--with a continued focus on using the players from our system (or trading for other younger and cheaper long term solves).

In that context (which MUST be taken into account), I think signing Wagner would be a risky but worthwhile effort. Your point would be far more valid if I was advocating a large, multi-year deal. But I am not.

$4 million would easily fit onto our books, I think it would turnout to be a worthwhile investment and we still keep economic flexiblity in line for years.

I'd take your 4 million challenge but there are a lot of variables (i.e. trade Scott/Guthrie? If you get a SS what happens to Izturis? Do they go with Pie? etc)...

All I'm saying is that regardless of the remainder of the team, there are better ways to spend $4-6M than on a deal for Wagner given the inherent risks of a very old relief pitcher who is just coming back from Tommy John surgery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...