174 replies to this topic

[CA-ORIOLE]

Guess it depends on how you define reasonable performance.

I don't think he'll fall far off what he's done the past few years (performance and durability) over a 2-3 year period. While guys Hill, Masterson and Latos are more like crapshoots.

[SportsGuy]

I don't really see Latos as a crap shoot, provided he is over the knee issue.

 

If Gallardo does what he has done over the life of the contract, he will have been worth it if you look at his signing in a vacuum.(ie, not looking at what we could have had with other options)

 

I doubt he does that though.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'll see if I can respond to this more fully later... because there are a few statments in here that are not justifiable in context... right now, I'm about to get distracted by other things...

 

But for right now, can we at least agree that your initial stmt that you don't want to get into this again was completely bogus? Because I was 100% ready to simply accept out disagreement... but you keep on picking at the scab...  

 

No, we can't agree on that either.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't really see Latos as a crap shoot, provided he is over the knee issue.

 

If Gallardo does what he has done over the life of the contract, he will have been worth it if you look at his signing in a vacuum.(ie, not looking at what we could have had with other options)

 

I doubt he does that though.

It does seem he could have gotten more than 3 mil then. He must be quite the asshole. 

[RShack]

I don't think he'll fall far off what he's done the past few years (performance and durability) over a 2-3 year period. While guys Hill, Masterson and Latos are more like crapshoots...

 

We don't know what's gonna happen... but this is an entirely reasonable expectation... it's certainly got more to support it than does the doom outlook about him...

 

I don't know of any guys with his track record of being a reliable #3 who was available for the same cost... but maybe I'm forgetting somebody....

[SportsGuy]

It does seem he could have gotten more than 3 mil then. He must be quite the asshole. 

Maybe.  We don't know what he may have been offered earlier in the offseason either.

 

Or maybe another team offered him more but he wanted to go to Chicago.

 

Who the hell knows.

 

He did become a FA at the worst possible time in his career though.

[RShack]

It does seem he could have gotten more than 3 mil then. He must be quite the asshole. 

 

That certainly seems to be what MLB FO's have concluded... but since there are no peripherals stats about that, well...  

[SportsGuy]

BTW, if Gallardo is a guy destined to perform the way he always has, why didn't get way more money?  Why were so many teams unwilling to sign him?  His old team didn't even really make an attempt to keep him.

 

It has been argued here, many times, that if your current team doesn't attempt to keep you(and they know you best), doesn't that speak to where you are in your career? 

 

BTW, I think that's a poor argument but its one that some have made here.

 

Are we just ignoring that because the Orioles apparently want him?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Maybe.  We don't know what he may have been offered earlier in the offseason either.

 

Or maybe another team offered him more but he wanted to go to Chicago.

 

Who the hell knows.

 

He did become a FA at the worst possible time in his career though.

Yeah, I don't know either. Gallardo has pitched in tough parks and our IF defense should help him. He's been durable. One thing that does seem apparent is that the Petey is up to paying this year. So as long as the contracts aren't crippling stupid, i'm fine with Gallardo and hopefully Fowler on 2-3 year deals and foregoing the draft picks this year. 

[dude]

I think with Gallardo (far more than the some of the examples cited) is that you have a much higher expectation of reasonable performance. On that part, I agree with Shack (despite some of the peripheral concerns).  Cost-benefit and resource allocation can certainly be debated. 

 

....but isn't the only thing that matters is whether he's the turning point for the playoffs?

 

This is where the whole 'earn your contract' thing is bogus....he can't earn his contract.  He's part of a group and if the Orioles don't make the playoffs he has (significant) downside costs.  You pay for impact because it has a chance to improve the quality of your opportunity.

 

...and I accept the fact that we don't know the results yet, so I could be completely wrong....ie maybe he DOES lead this team to the playoffs....but it's risk management....what's the chances of that and what are the other weighted results.

 

It's about risk assessment....and if you sign him now the only thing you know for sure is you have a guaranteed contract to an average pitcher and you lose a draft pick.

 

Again....so many places I think the Orioles could go and have more upside and less consequence.  They are talking about ADDING money to the budget....I'm talking about getting more opportunity with the same budget.

[SportsGuy]

I do like that they are spending.  Per usual, I hate how they spend it and I feel that continues to be a major flaw but at least they are spending it.

 

He had a very good IF defense last year too.

[SportsGuy]

The one thing I will agree with Pete on is that the other options, as superior as they were, are off the board now.

 

So, what other options, besides Gallardo, exist for this team to improve their rotation?  Its a fair question to ask.  My answer is Wood but we don't know that he is available or what they would ask in return for him.

[CA-ORIOLE]

BTW, if Gallardo is a guy destined to perform the way he always has, why didn't get way more money?  Why were so many teams unwilling to sign him?  His old team didn't even really make an attempt to keep him.

 

It has been argued here, many times, that if your current team doesn't attempt to keep you(and they know you best), doesn't that speak to where you are in your career? 

 

BTW, I think that's a poor argument but its one that some have made here.

 

Are we just ignoring that because the Orioles apparently want him?

Well we don't know where Gallardo will land yet. Hopefully it's closer to 3/36 than the 3/40-45 that was referenced but that's quite a but different than 1/3. Not to mention the draft pick compensation attached. 

[SportsGuy]

Well we don't know where Gallardo will land yet. Hopefully it's closer to 3/36 than the 3/40-45 that was referenced but that's quite a but different than 1/3. Not to mention the draft pick compensation attached. 

But we have seen guys, like Chen, get much more and he is as established or more established than they are.

 

So, why isn't Yovanni getting that 5/80+ deal if he is so likely to be a 3.8-4 ERA, 190ish IP guy for several years?

[CA-ORIOLE]

....but isn't the only thing that matters is whether he's the turning point for the playoffs?

 

This is where the whole 'earn your contract' thing is bogus....he can't earn his contract.  He's part of a group and if the Orioles don't make the playoffs he has (significant) downside costs.  You pay for impact because it has a chance to improve the quality of your opportunity.

 

...and I accept the fact that we don't know the results yet, so I could be completely wrong....ie maybe he DOES lead this team to the playoffs....but it's risk management....what's the chances of that and what are the other weighted results.

 

It's about risk assessment....and if you sign him now the only thing you know for sure is you have a guaranteed contract to an average pitcher and you lose a draft pick.

 

Again....so many places I think the Orioles could go and have more upside and less consequence.  They are talking about ADDING money to the budget....I'm talking about getting more opportunity with the same budget.

Yeah, I really don't want to get into this FA/WAR/$ argument with you again. It's a fairly simple construct imo. Of course many teams view free agency acquisition, farm system/development and surplus value differently than others. Largely due to financial resources and some with respect to timing.  

 

As I already stated, i think there is a reasonable argument for resource allocation here. With respect to this OP, most of the guys on the list don't do it for me over Gallardo, but I'm well aware there is large contingent of people on the board that think they could have maneuvered the team into a better position than our GM could. I don't know that I agree, but it's a message board and I do think there are some good ideas out there.    

[CA-ORIOLE]

But we have seen guys, like Chen, get much more and he is as established or more established than they are.

 

So, why isn't Yovanni getting that 5/80+ deal if he is so likely to be a 3.8-4 ERA, 190ish IP guy for several years?

Well, I'm no scout, but I like Chen much more than Gallardo. I'm a big stat guy but I'm not fixated on stats.  I realize that's a subjective assessment. Also, markets are dynamic and can fill quickly, but even some of the predictors of the market (who nailed Chen's value as I recall) had Gallardo getting much lower (4/52-56) as I recall. 

[SportsGuy]

Well, I'm no scout, but I like Chen much more than Gallardo. I'm a big stat guy but I'm not fixated on stats.  I realize that's a subjective assessment. Also, markets are dynamic and can fill quickly, but even some of the predictors of the market (who nailed Chen's value as I recall) had Gallardo getting much lower (4/52-56) as I recall. 

The point is, why would they predict lower and why is Yovanni getting a lesser deal?

[CA-ORIOLE]

The point is, why would they predict lower and why is Yovanni getting a lesser deal?

Probably a combination of scouting assessment and some of the peripheral trends.  

[SportsGuy]

Probably a combination of scouting assessment and some of the peripheral trends.  

Exactly.

[BSLChrisStoner]

MASN: As Yovani Gallardo's strikeout rate decreased, so did his ERA
http://www.masnsport...pect-notes.html