196 replies to this topic

[dude]

This was interesting from Roch's entry on Irvin...on some changes to his offseason workouts and increased velocity

“Let’s just say my bullpens I typically sit in the 83, 84 (mph) range. I’ve gotten my bullpens up to 90. Without trying or purposely trying to throw hard. To me, that’s a noticeable uptick in velocity. That is with less effort and just focusing on some weight training and long-toss routines. Just changing up a couple of things in the offseason and focusing on the 162-game season. Velo is going to be there, I wouldn't be surprised that in spring training I don’t see a five or six (95, 96 mph). I’m a little happy the velo is up a bit. That’s something I’ve never worried about but I am conscious of.”

Noted he walked 2 or fewer in 29 of 30 starts last year.  Limited free passes, big left-field, solid defense and more velocity is a good recipe for what he could produce.

[Slidemaster]

I felt very blah about this move until I learned that Cole's nickname is "Swirvin Irvin", now I love it.

That's pretty good.

I like the Irvin trade as a complimentary, icing-on-top type move. I just wish there were moves with more substance.

[BobPhelan]

@JimBowdenGM

Mike Elias #Orioles GM just told us @MLBNetworkRadio that he expects Grayson Rodriguez to make their starting rotation out of spring training. #FantasyAlarm . Also believes that OF Colton Cowser will also make his #MLB debut at some point this year.

https://twitter.com/...FcEvpNT02LS6vDw

[TwentyThirtyFive]

@JimBowdenGM

Mike Elias #Orioles GM just told us @MLBNetworkRadio that he expects Grayson Rodriguez to make their starting rotation out of spring training. #FantasyAlarm . Also believes that OF Colton Cowser will also make his #MLB debut at some point this year.

https://twitter.com/...FcEvpNT02LS6vDw

Just a horrible decision if they follow through

[BSLRoseKatz]

Just a horrible decision if they follow through

 

A horrible decision to put their best pitching prospect who has nothing left to prove in AAA in the MLB rotation? 

[Mackus]

A horrible decision to put their best pitching prospect who has nothing left to prove in AAA in the MLB rotation? 

 

Its the tradeoff of a chance at some draft picks and 3-4 starts at the beginning of his career versus a chance at control during all of 2029.  I'm absolutely fine with rostering him all year, largely because of the chances of him earning the time anyways even if you manipulate, but sending him down for 3 weeks shouldn't be considered as quite the same type of extreme preference for potential future value at the expense of the present that they exhibit in so many other areas.  Its not as bad as holding Gunnar back last August in order to keep him rookie eligible this year, for example.  And its an infinitesimal fraction of that impact of their disastrous offseason.

 

 

I'm warming to the idea of a midseason option to manage his workload.  It gets him on the Opening Day roster and eligible for the picks if he's top-2, it buys back the potential for control of 2029, and it doesn't cost you much if you're going to be shutting him down or occasionally skipping starts anyways.  The concern is if he's pitching great, its gonna be really tough to lose him in the middle of the year.

[Mike in STL]

Its the tradeoff of a chance at some draft picks and 3-4 starts at the beginning of his career versus a chance at control during all of 2029. I'm absolutely fine with rostering him all year, largely because of the chances of him earning the time anyways even if you manipulate, but sending him down for 3 weeks shouldn't be considered as quite the same type of extreme preference for potential future value at the expense of the present that they exhibit in so many other areas. Its not as bad as holding Gunnar back last August in order to keep him rookie eligible this year, for example. And its an infinitesimal fraction of that impact of their disastrous offseason.


I'm warming to the idea of a midseason option to manage his workload. It gets him on the Opening Day roster and eligible for the picks if he's top-2, it buys back the potential for control of 2029, and it doesn't cost you much if you're going to be shutting him down or occasionally skipping starts anyways. The concern is if he's pitching great, its gonna be really tough to lose him in the middle of the year.

If he’s an ace I hope to hell he’s extended well before 2029.

[Mackus]

If he’s an ace I hope to hell he’s extended well before 2029.

 

He gets a choice in that.  He doesn't get a choice if he's under team control.

 

Its definitely a tradeoff of 3-4 starts (or about 15-20 innings) this year versus the potential of all of 2029.  The new rules make it a bit less clear cut, as there is a chance he earns the time anyways where in the past there was not and a chance for a tangible but small benefit if he is on the roster to begin the year.

 

I think given the odds of him earning the year anyways and that we might be good enough where the added value of those 3-4 starts could be the difference between reaching a meaningful goal or falling short, that its absolutely worth having him on the roster.  But both those odds are relatively small, and the value of controlling 2029 is quite large, so I also understand the idea of manipulating his service to buy the next year.  Not gonna crucify them for doing that like I've criticized many other recent decisions.  But I'd start him on the roster.

[Mike B]

That's pretty good.

I like the Irvin trade as a complimentary, icing-on-top type move. I just wish there were moves with more substance.

Agreed, but I think we know now that was never in the plans for this off season.

[Slidemaster]

Agreed, but I think we know now that was never in the plans for this off season.

Yep. The team's "liftoff" still has them scraping the ground.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Its the tradeoff of a chance at some draft picks and 3-4 starts at the beginning of his career versus a chance at control during all of 2029. I'm absolutely fine with rostering him all year, largely because of the chances of him earning the time anyways even if you manipulate, but sending him down for 3 weeks shouldn't be considered as quite the same type of extreme preference for potential future value at the expense of the present that they exhibit in so many other areas. Its not as bad as holding Gunnar back last August in order to keep him rookie eligible this year, for example. And its an infinitesimal fraction of that impact of their disastrous offseason.


I'm warming to the idea of a midseason option to manage his workload. It gets him on the Opening Day roster and eligible for the picks if he's top-2, it buys back the potential for control of 2029, and it doesn't cost you much if you're going to be shutting him down or occasionally skipping starts anyways. The concern is if he's pitching great, its gonna be really tough to lose him in the middle of the year.

Yeah I dont care if he breaks camp in the Show if the plan is to option him later. Just giving away 2029 for what did we say 20 innings at the beginning of '23 is irresponsible.


I disagree with the assesment that there is a good chance he earns his year if service time regardless. I mean a lot of factors undetermined. We dont know ultimately how big the rookie class will be this year or who will be in it but I dont buy he has a good chance to finish top 2 in ROY. Maybe 25%

[Mike in STL]

Quick. Name the Oriole who was held back for 3 weeks in the minors in 2017 just so he could be under cost controlled team control this upcoming season.

I’ll wait.

[Mike in STL]

Ok. Try this one. Who was the 2016 Oriole who was held back for service time reasons that year, and because they were, ended up being an integral part of the O’s 2022 surprise success?

[BSLMikeLowe]

Ok. Try this one. Who was the 2016 Oriole who was held back for service time reasons that year, and because they were, ended up being an integral part of the O’s 2022 surprise success?

Obviously Mancini. Was It Santander in 2017?

[Mike in STL]

Obviously Mancini. Was It Santander in 2017?

Mancini was a late September 2016 call up. 5 games played. He wasn't a top-100 prospect, and wasn't even maybe in the O's top-5. Harvey, Sisco, Mountcastle, maybe some other guys ahead of him? He was never someone who had a case for spending a few weeks in AAA to get more team control out of him.

 

Santander was called up late 2017 after being a rule 5 pick and having had shoulder surgery keep him out.

 

Hays was on the 2017 team as well as he got cup of coffee in September. Wasn't up at all in 2018.

 

I think those are literally the only three guys from those teams still even in the organization last year, now two left in 2023. If someone can help you win games now, screw 6 years from now. Win those games now. All of those prospects and all of the manipulation and all of the numbers games. Don't call em up yet, we want an extra year of service. Well we're past that but we don't want them to hit rookie status so wait more. Well we're losing why waste the service time on a losing team? All that BS and 99% of the guys won't even be here 6 years from now. Even top prospects. Bundy, Gausman, Harvey, Sisco, Stewart, Sedlock etc. Some guys just won't pan out here. 

 

If G-Rod has a great spring, LFG. 

[Mackus]

Quick. Name the Oriole who was held back for 3 weeks in the minors in 2017 just so he could be under cost controlled team control this upcoming season.

I’ll wait.

 

Why do you think this question is relevant?  Why would we only need a specific example fitting the above criteria in order to understand the basic plusses and minuses of the decision?

[Mike in STL]

Why do you think this question is relevant?  Why would we only need a specific example fitting the above criteria in order to understand the basic plusses and minuses of the decision?

Because I'm sure there was some conversation/debate, sometime, about manipulating someone's service time in 2017, to better serve the team in 2023. Or in 2016 to better serve the team in 2022. Or in 2015, to better serve the eventual 110 loss Orioles of 2021. The most famous case of this is Kris Bryant, and in that 6th year, the Cubs sucked even with him, and they traded him anyway. If 2020 wasn't Covid shortened, who knows how that season goes and maybe he's out the door in year five regardless. 

 

It hasn't mattered. It doesn't matter. Right now matters. Games matter. Wins matter. Playoff spots are often decided by a game or two. If G-Rod really is the man, I don't want to throw away 5 or so starts just to have him in 2029. He might not even be around in 2029. The team might be in Nashville or Montreal in 2029. If he's good and the team sucks our genius GM might trade him while he still has arb years remaining for the next batch of prospects. If he's really good the Orioles should be extending him long before 2029 but ownership needs to change hands to forward thinkers before that happens.

 

This manipulation game doesn't need to happen. It's only in April, sure. The 2011 Red Sox started 0-6. I really bet they wish they started 1-5 instead. Last years O's had a three month stretch where they had the best, or second best record in the AL. That was just to get them back to around .500 and in contention. I bet they wish they won a few more games in April. Maybe the trade deadline and the play in September would have looked different.

 

Besides. 2029 is when Seth Johnson will probably be set to make his Orioles debut. He steps into G-Rod's role if come 2029 we're without him because of the sole fact that they didn't give him 3 weeks off in 2023. That Mancini trade will finally payoff.

[Mackus]

It can matter, that's the point.  Its a very simple thing to consider and absolutely does not require real-world examples (good or bad) to support either side of the argument, though many exist.

 

Its really easy to understand why it might be nice to have a guy for a full season in the prime of their career over the first three weeks of their rookie season.  Do you have to have an obvious example of say Bryce Harper's entire 2018 season being more valuable than the first 20 games of his 2012 season to see the potential?  Its also really easy to see how sometimes meeting or falling short of your goals can come down to a single game and maybe a guy makes enough contribution in those first 3 weeks to mean the difference between the two. 

 

Its akin to investing.  Sometimes $10 today is more valuable to you than a potential for $100 several years down the road.  Other times its not.  There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule to always do it or to never do it, you gotta look at case by case scenarios.  I think with Rodriguez the immediate benefit is worth sacrificing the potential long-term benefit (and its gotten a lot easier to sacrifice that potential benefit when there is a chance it disappears anyway based on ROY voting).  But I don't think the potential benefit to say the 2019 Orioles would've been worth the same sacrifice.  

[makoman]

Because I'm sure there was some conversation/debate, sometime, about manipulating someone's service time in 2017, to better serve the team in 2023. 

I doubt it, we didn't really have any prospects good enough to care about the extra year. Hays got his cup of coffee after rising to a top 50 guy, and then was awful in 2018 so it never applied. Mountcastle maybe was manipulated. No one cared about Chance Sisco or DJ Stewart or the like.

 

Manny came up early so it never came up. Bundy was always injured and Gausman was up pretty early in his career. Before that, Wieters possibly was manipulated. Markakis probably should have been manipulated, no one expected him to win a job that spring, making his extension cost less or else giving us an extra year. 

 

I agree with Mackus, it's reasonable to talk about the pros and cons. It's not clear cut.

[Mike in STL]

I understand the benefit if we ever get there. I just don't think we ever get there. I think odds are slim we get there. As history has shown, only two guys who played an MLB game here six years ago are still in the organization.

 

Teams are probably realizing this as they started putting prospects on OD rosters. Taking the shot at winning games, and the little added benefit of them being a top two rookie may be tipping the scales away from wanting the guy on team control six years later, when he may not even be on the team then.