25 replies to this topic

[dude]

With a handful of guys getting some ARB1 raises next year, like last year (Bleier, Castro, Givens), these ARB RPs could find themselves in different uniforms later this year.  You have a number of upper level pitching arms that may need to move into the bullpen over the next year.

 

Scott, Fry and Plutko fall into this category and you could probably include Lopez in it too, given his effectiveness early in the game and his potential to be a swing-guy in a more competitive situation.

 

I would generally prefer to leverage these types for another year and trade them with 2 years left if the back of my pen was established, but (again) this isn't really about what I'd do.

 

I don't feel like RPs typically drive deals for specific players so often you just wind up accumulating some value and that's reasonable.

 

I always start with 'need' so here's the MLB relief pitching this year.

 

Teams that jump out are....

[dude]

Angels: ranked 28th and their pitching remains a mess.  Not sure what goes on out there, but they have something to fix.  Investments in the roster (Trout, Rendon, Ohtani) says there's no reason to quit on a season and they could easily use 2 guys.  Orioles have their number since they've pulled together 3 deals (Bundy, Iglesias, Cobb) so maybe there's a match there.

 

They could be one team that would rather move early for help to try and build back some wins and more season is more season to leverage in an acquisition.  All of them have 3 years remaining so your buying more than just 2021 with any of them.

 

We've already taken 7 players out of their system so who knows what they have left that is interesting, but it's not a top prospect deal so you're probably getting kids under 20 or you try to get a 3rd team in on something.   

[dude]

Braves.  If you question pitching volatility, welcome to Atlanta.  Deepest and most interesting pool of pitching several years ago, they had to move guys for roster reasons....staples like Soroka (achilles, still issues) and Fried (era over 6.00 this year) have issues, they've dumped some starters into the bullpen that aren't working out this year, but they are a win now team and certainly don't want to let the Division get away to the Phillies or Mets.

 

Braves sit at 4.84 in bullpen era, but not all of the guys have been bad.  For all of these teams you could make an argument for Plutko and /or Fry.  

 

Again, you probably target depth outside of the top of the system.

[dude]

Phillies are the other competitive team that sort of sit at the break point across MLB in bullpen era at 4.51 (22nd).

 

The Dombrowki hire means everyone younger is in play to win now and it would probably be interesting for the Orioles if they started talking to the Phillies about anything.

 

Phillies are riding a couple hotter arms from the pen right now and everyone is going to have a depth issue this year so even a guy like Lopez could have some appeal here.

 

Again, not top guys so I'm sure there's some down-the-list players that Elias and Co would be good with.

[dude]

Everyone else.  Things...performance, injuries...certainly change things over the course of the season.  Giants are competitive and sitting just over 4.00 with their bullpen.  Top 3 teams listed above are teams that could have some compelling reason to get moving on something....  

 

I'd guess it's most likely the Orioles ride out the 2021 innings as long as they can so you are probably waiting for the deadline which can impact the market and serves several other purposes of varying importance.

 

Theses guys are all basically min salary so when you move them this year doesn't really impact costs 

[Mackus]

Scott is the only one who gets you someone anywhere near a top-10 guy. Outside top-20 at best for everyone else and most not even that.

I'd hold onto Scott unless I get a guy I like a bit, but the rest I'd deal. They are all completely generic and easily replaceable.

[BobPhelan]

Scott is the only one who gets you someone anywhere near a top-10 guy. Outside top-20 at best for everyone else and most not even that.

I'd hold onto Scott unless I get a guy I like a bit, but the rest I'd deal. They are all completely generic and easily replaceable.

 

Agree with this. I think Valdez gets dealt too if he's still doing his thing.

 

I think they only deal one of Fry or Scott to try and maximize value for next year's trade deadline unless they're surprised by the return for both of them.

[JeremyStrain]

Not to mention, outside of closers the arb numbers don’t go too crazy for RP. You can hang on to them longer than other positions before the really start to affect the payroll.

But yeah generally not a position you are bringing much back for. BP are areas cheaply replaced and every team has failed SP or guys that never developed a 3rd pitch that are just fine for cheap 1 inning roles.

[Old Man]

Lets not draft and build the team, lets just keep blowing it up and trading away current players for guys that "might" be able to do something in a few years. Look at Diaz and the Manny trade.

 

Nobody on this team should be untouchable, but lets not keep trading people and keeping fingers crossed, it will work out.

[BobPhelan]

Lets not draft and build the team, lets just keep blowing it up and trading away current players for guys that "might" be able to do something in a few years. Look at Diaz and the Manny trade.

Nobody on this team should be untouchable, but lets not keep trading people and keeping fingers crossed, it will work out.

Relievers are the most volatile and replaceable players on a team. Not saying you should never hold on to them but if you can get something for a reliever who may be pitching over his head, I think you do it more times than not.

[Mike B]

Lets not draft and build the team, lets just keep blowing it up and trading away current players for guys that "might" be able to do something in a few years. Look at Diaz and the Manny trade.

 

Nobody on this team should be untouchable, but lets not keep trading people and keeping fingers crossed, it will work out.

100 % AGREE.  We need to stop kicking the damn can down the road.  My question, is how long is going to continue to be acceptable, for the Orioles to get rid of current guys who are performing, for guys, MAYBE, a few years later?

The prevalent feeling that we should trade anyone who approaches arbitration is BS, IMO.

[Old Man]

Relievers are the most volatile and replaceable players on a team. Not saying you should never hold on to them but if you can get something for a reliever who may be pitching over his head, I think you do it more times than not.

I dont disagree with you.

 

Just more grumpy over all the trade talks. Means tosses a no-hitter, so lets hit the water while its hot and trade him away, etc.

[ivanbalt]

I dont disagree with you.

 

Just more grumpy over all the trade talks. Means tosses a no-hitter, so lets hit the water while its hot and trade him away, etc.

It might take 20 years, but we're going to build an entire team that can be called up from AAA all at once and win a WS for a $20 million payroll.

[Mike B]

It might take 20 years, but we're going to build an entire team that can be called up from AAA all at once and win a WS for a $20 million payroll.

I can hear it now. Circa 2020, at an Elias presser. We are not there yet but we are building an elite talent pipeline.  We just traded our best two players, for 5 guys ranked from 26-30 in the Angels farm system. 

[Mackus]

100 % AGREE. We need to stop kicking the damn can down the road. My question, is how long is going to continue to be acceptable, for the Orioles to get rid of current guys who are performing, for guys, MAYBE, a few years later?
The prevalent feeling that we should trade anyone who approaches arbitration is BS, IMO.

Seems like misplaced anger in this thread. Agree completely in the Means thread, but journeymen relievers are inherently nearly worthless because they almost never remain good for any amount of time. I'd hold Scott because I think he's got a chance at remaining useful. All the others are overripe fruit already, use them to make a smoothie now or you'll just end up throwing them away soon once they rot.

[Mike B]

Seems like misplaced anger in this thread. Agree completely in the Means thread, but journeymen relievers are inherently nearly worthless because they almost never remain good for any amount of time. I'd hold Scott because I think he's got a chance at remaining useful. All the others are overripe fruit already, use them to make a smoothie now or you'll just end up throwing them away soon once they rot.

I really don't care about guys like Valdez, Sulser etc. to a team returning new shoes for the Angelos wives for all I care, I am concerned that it is becoming the norm to move guys strictly because they are approaching their arb. years.

That said, the product we have now is at times totally unwatchable, and I think this year is going to continue to head south, so giving away guys who are performingly decently, aggravates the problem.

My question remains, to those who are totally on board, which seems to be the majority here, how much longer are you willing to lose 100 games?  

[BobPhelan]

Hopefully the new CBA can do something to get players up when they’re ready and incentivize teams to keep their productive players.

[Mackus]

 incentivize teams to keep their productive players.

 

Winning games certainly isn't enough of one

[Old Man]

Hopefully the new CBA can do something to get players up when they’re ready and incentivize teams to keep their productive players.

The guys with clout in the CBA, are concerned with their demographics and keeping their hold on things, and not necessary whats good for the game or the youngsters.

 

At least, going by past CBAs previously done.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Winning games certainly isn't enough of one

Nor should it be.

 

Ok kidding but only to a point. There is zero reason for teams, under the current CBA, to bring up some player and lose a year of control just to win a few extra games. Regardless of how a fan may feel about winning 70 instead of 65 games its bad business. Now if you think its the difference between winning 80 and 85 games then that is a different situation. That may well be good business.