229 replies to this topic

[dude]

I would hate to miss the opportunity to draft the next DJ Stewart

 

You realize that Gallardo doesn't move the needle in terms of winning and locks up roster space in both years and dollars before you lose the opportunity of the draft pick....right?

[SportsGuy]

I think Gallardo is for sure going to be an Oriole.

It will be a 3/36 or less deal IMO.

[RShack]

You realize that Gallardo doesn't move the needle in terms of winning and locks up roster space in both years and dollars before you lose the opportunity of the draft pick....right?

 

I'm not saying he is or isn't worth it... but saying he doesn't move the needle is not right...  if you want a guy who you can pretty much count on to be a #3, he's the most reliable choice out there... 

 

Now, maybe you want some iffy guy who you think *might* be better than him... but the only reason we could get that guy is because it's clear that he also *might not* do nearly as well... otherwise he'd cost way more than Gallardo will...  with Gallardo maybe you expect less from him, but he's the guy who's most likely to deliver what you can reasonably expect...

 

Now, if you have any obvious needle-movers in mind, I'd love to know how you think we're gonna get them...

[Pedro Cerrano]

You realize that Gallardo doesn't move the needle in terms of winning and locks up roster space in both years and dollars before you lose the opportunity of the draft pick....right?

Oh. Well then.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Gallardo appears to be the site's piss boy du jour but he's clearly better than whoever we have tagged as our #5 and could end up being our best SP this year, scary as that sounds.

[SportsGuy]

Gallardo appears to be the site's piss boy du jour but he's clearly better than whoever we have tagged as our #5 and could end up being our best SP this year, scary as that sounds.

He just doesn't project out well.

If he regains some velocity, like he did in 2014, gets the K rate up more, etc...I would feel better about him. But a guy who doesn't miss bats, throws strikes at the same level Ubaldo does, has declining velocity and is turning 30 isn't a recipe for a guy who is going to be able to be as good as he has been. His trends are pointing down. There is no argument against that.

It doesn't mean that he can't perform well it just means that it's tough to count on him doing it.

No matter the contract they give him, I won't be happy and will think they made a big mistake.

But if he can be signed for 3 or less guaranteed years and he ends up being a 3.75-4 ERA pitcher that gives you 190ish IP, he will have been worth his deal.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Word for word agreement Rob.

[SportsGuy]

Btw...there are guys out there to trade for but the complaint is we don't have the players to deal and we have no depth.

So what's the way to help that? You sign a middling at best pitcher who doesn't move the needle much and lose your top pick?

I mean, what does this really do for us? It almost definitely hurts us long term and doesn't do a lot to help us now. So what's the point?

[Pedro Cerrano]

It definitely helps us now. As of now we have no legitimate 5th starter. We lost our best SP to FA and we are clearly trying to compete now.

If the price is right, and with each passing day the price presumably gets better, I have no issue signing him.

I won't go over the pick issue again. Everyone knows where I stand

[Pedro Cerrano]

Buster Olney tweeted an article with the top people in SD saying they're not rebuilding and expect to compete this year. Not sure if that's lip service or not but if it isn't I don't expect them to move any arms.

[Mackus]

Gallardo appears to be the site's piss boy du jour but he's clearly better than whoever we have tagged as our #5 and could end up being our best SP this year, scary as that sounds.

I'm not certain he's clearly better any more than Worley. He managed to remain his usual self last year despite the K rate plummeting, but I'm not confident that he'll be able to continue that or that the K rate will bounce back up.

I'm absolutely more confident in both Latos and Cashner to be more effective in 2016 that Gallardo. Doesn't mean thats how it'll go, but that's how I'd rank them. Cost is an after thought. Its nit a situation where I'm willing to take Latos or Cashner instead of Gallardo because they are cheaper. I think they are genuinely better options for the team in terms of 2016 performance without considering any other factors.

[SportsGuy]

I'm not certain he's clearly better any more than Worley. He managed to remain his usual self last year despite the K rate plummeting, but I'm not confident that he'll be able to continue that or that the K rate will bounce back up.

I'm absolutely more confident in both Latos and Cashner to be more effective in 2016 that Gallardo. Doesn't mean thats how it'll go, but that's how I'd rank them. Cost is an after thought. Its nit a situation where I'm willing to take Latos or Cashner instead of Gallardo because they are cheaper. I think they are genuinely better options for the team in terms of 2016 performance without considering any other factors.

No question.

 

The question with Cashner is do you have to give up more than the 14th pick is worth?

 

Latos is clearly the best option.

[SportsGuy]

It definitely helps us now. As of now we have no legitimate 5th starter. We lost our best SP to FA and we are clearly trying to compete now.

If the price is right, and with each passing day the price presumably gets better, I have no issue signing him.

I won't go over the pick issue again. Everyone knows where I stand

No it doesn't and even if he is better than Worley, what is the difference, a win or 2?  That doesn't move the needle.  You care that much to win 81-83 games to have 10-15M tied up in payroll over the next 2-4 years and lose a potential highly regarded prospect
?

 

At least with a guy like Latos, you have legit TOR upside and he is still at a prime age and he wants a pillow contract to get a bigger deal next year.

[BSLChrisStoner]

No it doesn't and even if he is better than Worley, what is the difference, a win or 2?  That doesn't move the needle.  You care that much to win 81-83 games to have 10-15M tied up in payroll over the next 2-4 years and lose a potential highly regarded prospect
?

 

At least with a guy like Latos, you have legit TOR upside and he is still at a prime age and he wants a pillow contract to get a bigger deal next year.

 

Well... I do disagree with this. 

There are options I prefer to Gallardo... but based on what exists currently, I do think the '16 O's are better with Gallardo.

 

Also, a 1 or 2 win difference does move the needle. You might think they are less than a .500 team currently. I see them as .500... the closer you get to being an 85 or so win entering the season, the more likely it is you play 'up' and get to the 90-92 wins necessary to be in playoff contention.

 

I think all the concerns about Gallardo are legitimate. I think the contract he figures to get is an expense I'm not interested in. I think Worley has a chance to be better....   but if Gallardo can provide the innings he has historically averaged in '16, and do so as a league average 5th, it does make the O's better this year.

​That said, I continue to not understand why they don't take a shot at Latos, and in this case I think the clubhouse concerns are bogus. Not that they might not be legitimate, but Latos is looking at a 1 year deal... he's going to be on his best behavior as he tries to rebuild his value. If he's not performing, or is an issue in the clubhouse... wouldn't be hard to cut ties.

​And beyond that...  despite the limitations that exist with the system... there certainly is enough to pull a deal for a SP option better than what currently exists.

​And if you won't go with Latos as the FA, there are other options you could go with there as well.

Signing Gallardo will bother me because the O's should have absolutely been held to finding a better option.

[RShack]

​That said, I continue to not understand why they don't take a shot at Latos, and in this case I think the clubhouse concerns are bogus. Not that they might not be legitimate, but Latos is looking at a 1 year deal... he's going to be on his best behavior as he tries to rebuild his value. If he's not performing, or is an issue in the clubhouse... wouldn't be hard to cut ties.

​And beyond that...  despite the limitations that exist with the system... there certainly is enough to pull a deal for a SP option better than what currently exists.

​And if you won't go with Latos as the FA, there are other options you could go with there as well.

Signing Gallardo will bother me because the O's should have absolutely been held to finding a better option.

 

I don't know if the clubhouse concerns are bogus or not... but I'm pretty sure that the 1-year-deal aspect doesn't mean anything about that either way...

 

It's not like you cannot assume he'll be on good behavior because he's chasing a contract...  whereas if that was a couple years away he'd instead be a jerk... it doesn't work that way most of the time... people who have problems getting along don't know how to help it... they don't know how to not have outbursts and/or attitude leaks... and many feel their own outbursts are somebody else's fault... 

 

Now, you'd be right if these things were rational... but they're not...

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't know if the clubhouse concerns are bogus or not... but I'm pretty sure that the 1-year-deal aspect doesn't mean anything about that either way...

 

It's not like you cannot assume he'll be on good behavior because he's chasing a contract...  whereas if that was a couple years away he'd instead be a jerk... it doesn't work that way most of the time... people who have problems getting along don't know how to help it... they don't know how to not have outbursts and/or attitude leaks... and many feel their own outbursts are somebody else's fault... 

 

Now, you'd be right if these things were rational... but their not...

 

He's signing a 1 year deal because overall he has to rebuild his value. His clubhouse issues being part of that.

​Since you would be signing him to a 1 year deal, it just seems like a complete non-concern.  If he's a jerk, and not performing.. you can easily cut him.

[SportsGuy]

Well... I do disagree with this. 

There are options I prefer to Gallardo... but based on what exists currently, I do think the '16 O's are better with Gallardo.

 

Also, a 1 or 2 win difference does move the needle. You might think they are less than a .500 team currently. I seem that as .500... the closer you get to being an 85 or so win entering the season, the more likely it is you play 'up' and get to the 90-92 wins necessary to be in playoff contention.

 

I think all the concerns about Gallardo are legitimate. I think the contract he figures to get is an expense I'm not interested in. I think Worley has a chance to be better....   but if Gallardo can provide the innings he has historically averaged in '16, and do so as a league average 5th, it does make the O's better this year.

​That said, I continue to not understand why they don't take a shot at Latos, and in this case I think the clubhouse concerns are bogus. Not that they might not be legitimate, but Latos is looking at a 1 year deal... he's going to be on his best behavior as he tries to rebuild his value. If he's not performing, or is an issue in the clubhouse... wouldn't be hard to cut ties.

​And beyond that...  despite the limitations that exist with the system... there certainly is enough to pull a deal for a SP option better than what currently exists.

​And if you won't go with Latos as the FA, there are other options you could go with there as well.

Signing Gallardo will bother me because the O's should have absolutely been held to finding a better option.

Yea, I think the clubhouse stuff is bs personally and even if he has had legit issues (which I wouldn't call the issues that have been documented legit), Buck should be able to get more out of him.

 

Whatever you do is a risk...There is no way around that, especially at this point in the offseason.  That being said. you have to be smart about your risk and Latos is clearly smarter.

[RShack]

He's signing a 1 year deal because overall he has to rebuild his value. His clubhouse issues being part of that.

​Since you would be signing him to a 1 year deal, it just seems like a complete non-concern.  If he's a jerk, and not performing.. you can easily cut him.

 

Well, that sounds easy enough.

 

But I don't think it's that easy... I wouldn't wanna have somebody join a team on that basis... maybe we'll find out if Buck does... or maybe we won't... in the meantime, I don't think it's as simple as that....

 

Disclaimer:  I'm not saying he'd be a problem... not saying he wouldn't... no way for me to know...

[BSLChrisStoner]

Well, that sounds easy enough.

 

But I don't think it's that easy... I wouldn't wanna have somebody join a team on that basis... maybe we'll find out if Buck does... or maybe we won't... in the meantime, I don't think it's as simple as that....

 

Disclaimer:  I'm not saying he'd be a problem... not saying he wouldn't... no way for me to know...

 

Buck and Dan obviously don't... or he'd be signed already. The risk is minimal, the reward is obvious...

​It will be disappointing to me if Buck and Dan decided the better risk was giving up the 1st, and giving Gallardo a likely 3 year deal... vs. signing Latos for a year...

​It is that easy enough in this case. You aren't signing him long-term. You wouldn't  even be signing on him with the idea that you can rely on him. You'd be signing him because the upside exists... if he's causing issues, that upside ceases.. and you move on.

[SportsGuy]

Again, you have to weigh your risks.

 

The risk of a 1 year deal for a likely superior pitcher who MAYBE has questionable clubhouse issues vs spending 28-40M more, have a guy for longer, worse pitcher and lose the pick?

 

Which risk is better to take?

 

I mean, Gallardo is a risk without the money and pick being involved.  Take that away if you want.  Latos doesn't have the red flags Gallardo does and he is 2 years younger.