Photo

Balt Sun: A trade might be the Orioles’ only path to landing a top starter. They have the flexibility to pull it off. | ANALYSIS


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 20 December 2022 - 11:36 AM

But doing both externally would be completely fine. That's my point. They aren't baffling additions to the team, they're just laughably shy of what we should be doing.

Adding these guys isn't the core problem. The core problem is not making multiple other big additions.


I disagree. I don't think Frazier even represents a reasonable depth signing unless they're going to deal someone. People keep mentioning Odor, but Westburg should he his replacement and Vavra, Norby, and Ortiz provide further organizational depth. He represents a depth signing if they trade someone though.

Gibson and Givens are not baffling in that they do fill spots that were a clear need in Gibson's case and a preference in Givens' case.

The entire approach is baffling though. See my long post for why it's baffling. In short though, it's baffling because the depth was already very good other than starting pitching, what they should have targeted was a few high level players, which would eliminate the need for most, if not all depth signings of significance.

To conclude, unless there's trades of significance, these moves should not have been made if their offseason approach made any sense.

#62 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,360 posts

Posted 20 December 2022 - 11:51 AM

I disagree. I don't think Frazier even represents a reasonable depth signing unless they're going to deal someone

 

I think Frazier's quality defense at 2B and corner OF makes him a better fit for a utility role than Vavra.  Especially since if Frazier flops you then still can then turn to Vavra and his lesser defensive abilities but better OBP skills.  

 

Frazier in a starting role over Urias and him getting this much money both seem stupid to me.  But I think in the right role, that he makes a lot of sense.  So just like with Gibson and Givens, the problem isn't really Frazier, its the nothing else that was done around him.



#63 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,360 posts

Posted 20 December 2022 - 11:53 AM

The entire approach is baffling though. See my long post for why it's baffling. In short though, it's baffling because the depth was already very good other than starting pitching, what they should have targeted was a few high level players, which would eliminate the need for most, if not all depth signings of significance.

 

They have made very small, very expensive upgrades to roles on the team that didn't really need them.

 

Its inefficient and its insufficient.  But I'm only upset about the insufficient part of it.  Inefficient upgrades to the back of the roster isn't a problem, its just kind of confusing.  Insufficient (or completely absent) upgrades to the front of the roster is the disaster.

 

I don't think that the inefficient back-of-roster upgrades prevented (is preventing) them from making the necessary front-of-roster upgrades.  They are not doing that of their own, unrelated accord.  If you wanna argue that spending the money on the guys they have is why they didn't do better, than I would agree that is a major problem.  Or if these guys themselves are supposed to be the upgrades to the front of the roster, that also would be a catastrophe.



#64 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 20 December 2022 - 11:58 AM

I think Frazier's quality defense at 2B and corner OF makes him a better fit for a utility role than Vavra. Especially since if Frazier flops you then still can then turn to Vavra and his lesser defensive abilities but better OBP skills.

Frazier in a starting role over Urias and him getting this much money both seem stupid to me. But I think in the right role, that he makes a lot of sense. So just like with Gibson and Givens, the problem isn't really Frazier, its the nothing else that was done around him.

Vavra probably wouldn't even make the team though without the Frazier addition unless they want to wait on Westburg.

Again, if they actually brought in a high level infielder, there'd be even less of a possible role for Frazier.

#65 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 20 December 2022 - 12:01 PM

They have made very small, very expensive upgrades to roles on the team that didn't really need them.

Its inefficient and its insufficient. But I'm only upset about the insufficient part of it. Inefficient upgrades to the back of the roster isn't a problem, its just kind of confusing. Insufficient (or completely absent) upgrades to the front of the roster is the disaster.

I don't think that the inefficient back-of-roster upgrades prevented (is preventing) them from making the necessary front-of-roster upgrades. They are not doing that of their own, unrelated accord. If you wanna argue that spending the money on the guys they have is why they didn't do better, than I would agree that is a major problem. Or if these guys themselves are supposed to be the upgrades to the front of the roster, that also would be a catastrophe.


I also don't care about the value aspect on short-term contracts. I've been out in front of that for a while now. That was meant to apply to players that are meaningful upgrades. These guys are not. I'll take Gibson and Givens over nothing without question, especially Gibson, but I don't want Frazier at all unless they're slow playing Westburg and/or trading someone.

#66 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 20 December 2022 - 12:09 PM

I also don't care about the value aspect on short-term contracts. I've been out in front of that for a while now. That was meant to apply to players that are meaningful upgrades. These guys are not. I'll take Gibson and Givens over nothing without question, especially Gibson, but I don't want Frazier at all unless they're slow playing Westburg and/or trading someone.

There isn't any reason to slow play Westburg. I get adding Gibson as a maybe potentially slight upgrade over Lyles but I have no idea why they think they were making the club better with Frazier unless a trade is in the works and one that includes 2 middle infielders. Frazier is hardly an upgrade that helps the team make the playoffs over what we already have.

 

Ok sorry to beat a dead horse.


  • mweb08 and SonicAttack like this

#67 BaltBird 24

BaltBird 24

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,115 posts

Posted 20 December 2022 - 01:12 PM

I'm OK with Gibson as a 4th/5th starter. Nothing special, but he'll take the ball every fifth day and give you a chance. Has the potential to be much better than he was in 2022, but also 35 years old so there's that.

Givens is fine. He's a solid middle relief arm.

Frazier, as anything more than a high priced utility player, is idiotic. Westburg, Norby, and Ortiz are beating down the door and we've already got Urias, Mateo, and Henderson on the roster.
  • SonicAttack likes this

#68 Old Man

Old Man

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,582 posts

Posted 20 December 2022 - 01:16 PM

I'm OK with Gibson as a 4th/5th starter. Nothing special, but he'll take the ball every fifth day and give you a chance. Has the potential to be much better than he was in 2022, but also 35 years old so there's that.

Givens is fine. He's a solid middle relief arm.

Frazier, as anything more than a high priced utility player, is idiotic. Westburg, Norby, and Ortiz are beating down the door and we've already got Urias, Mateo, and Henderson on the roster.

The only thing that halfway makes any sense. Elias has a trade up his sleeve and needs a MI here to plug in.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=