123 replies to this topic

[bmore_ken]

Lol.

This is even more simple:

Frazier is doing a nice job as a veteran placeholder, He's essentially replaced ODor and given the in house optiobs sone more time to develop. Further, the Orioles already have one infielder, Henderson, who is struggling at the MLB level. It would be a bitch to have two young infielders struggling..

It's early, but the starting pitching has stabilized, and while I can see where another another veteran starter could've been an asset, maybe that fuy wo yuh ld have blocked Rodriguez?

Oh yeah, the early returns are that the Orioles are playing like a playoff contender despite Frazier's presence and " massive salary."

with the weak part of the schedule. 

[bmore_ken]

Russ

 

This whole discussion has zero to do with Frazier or Gibson. Nothing wrong with those guys at all. The issue is whether we had in house options for the infield and could have parlayed that $8M savings plus what we spent on Gibson for a potentially better SP.

You're assuming that would have happened. That $8M didn't keep them from signing pitching.

[russsnyder]

Frazier has been better than I anticipated to date. So props there. I still don't think it made any sense at the time though, and as I said in a different thread, I'm more of a process guy than a results guy.

To clarify a bit, I can see where intially Frazier's signing may have caused some to scratch their heads. I just don't agree that it's really a thing at this point.As for Frazier, he's kind of been what I expected. I think his baserunning and situational hitting have impressed me the most. Definitely an upgrade over Odor and worth the $ thus far IMO.

[BSLRoseKatz]

with the weak part of the schedule. 

They just went 3-3 against the Rays and Braves with every game being reasonably close, if you remain about .500 against the toughest parts of your schedule then you're in good shape if you keep winning series against the Royals and A's of the world

[russsnyder]

You're assuming that would have happened. That $8M didn't keep them from signing pitching.

I'm using the positon that has been presented by another poster. I agree with you that they had the extra money to sign another starter. They chose to go in another direction.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

How many rookies or young players do you need to see struggle to understand why you just dont hand Westburg, Ortiz, Norby a roster spot,let alone a starting spot out of ST. This was exactly the thing I mentioned when he was signed. I didnt want 3 rookies or young bats breaking camp in the same lineup. And here we are and we've had Gunnar and Vavra/Stowers struggling when they play. The plan was and is to stagger the call ups and break these guys in slowly over time. That seems ideal to me. In the meantime Frazier is giving you the veteran presence all the way around we all couldve asked for. I hope Frazier is more of a uti guy by Sept. That would mean an Ortiz or Westburg assuming they arent traded has broken in and is playing well enough. To start the year this was handled very well.

[weird-O]

It's a one year contract.

Frazier essentially replaced Odor.

Yes, these facts are both true. But they have nothing to do with my point, which is that his $8M would have been better allocated to another area of need. 

[bmore_ken]

They just went 3-3 against the Rays and Braves with every game being reasonably close, if you remain about .500 against the toughest parts of your schedule then you're in good shape if you keep winning series against the Royals and A's of the world

It's May

[bmore_ken]

Yes, these facts are both true. But they have nothing to do with my point, which is that his $8M would have been better allocated to another area of need. 

Where? They chose not to sign starting pitching other than Gibson. What else would you have spent it on?

[dude]

I don't understand the need to compare Gibson and Frazier to Lyles and Odor.

 

The goal is to make a better team, lesser past options aren't justification for modest options this year.

 

Frazier is the kind of player that was available under any better plan for winning 2019-2022....but somehow over paying him now makes sense but couldn't have made sense to be more competitive in any previous year.  Only now.  <<laughs>>

[weird-O]

Where? They chose not to sign starting pitching other than Gibson. What else would you have spent it on?

I'm not sure who decided that starting pitching wasn't a necessity, but it was. But at the very least, add to the BP. 

[dude]

Agree with all the at-the-time puzzlement about Frazier....

 

I'm just pulling your quote here out, not all of them.  This is a sentiment that has been shared over and over.

 

It's clearly out of line with any approach anyone would assign to Elias.

 

Geoff Arnold tried to share the story of his signing last night in the middle innings and butchered the timeline.

 

I can line up 4 facts and win a court case.

[dude]

Where? They chose not to sign starting pitching other than Gibson. What else would you have spent it on?

 

My answer is Brandon Woodruff or already had Luis Castillo in house.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Young players struggle in the big leagues, until they don't struggle. It's part of the process. What, is Elias just never going to let non-uber prospects take their lumps at the big league level? That just doesn't come close to approaching a rational excuse for this.

 

The reason there's so much angst around this type of thing is due to the fact that when we sold at the deadline last year, we were told it's liftoff from here. Then the first face of "liftoff" was Adam Frazier. Adam Frazier is not the type of headline you wanted to see when your GM told you "it's liftoff from here" after intentionally losing 100's of games.

 

But beyond that, it's pretty easy to make a case that rather than attempt to appease fans with a window dressing type of signing (hey look, we just spent $8 whole million dollars!), maybe it would've had a better effect on the bottom line (results, this year) if we just simply didn't have him here at all.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

All this was laid out. They will break the guys in slowly when they are ready. Youd think youd understand with essentially every rookie, except a RP in Cano,struggling that youd understand why you just dont hand 5 or 6 roster spots to them out of ST. Not on a team trying to compete. Thats what doesnt add up. Yall want to compete and win but you also want to just hand PT to the unproven guys that are mostikely to struggle. While still bitching about the guy thats 3rd on the team on WAR through 25% of the year. The exact timeframe Ive said its important so there isnt all this pressure on all the young guys at one time.

[You Play to Win the Game]

No it’s super important to break them in when they’re ready and instead give their growing pains opportunities to a guy who’s still having massive “growing pains” late in his career.

Just not logical. It never was.

If the guy you’re giving the reps to instead is, you know, actually good, that’s different.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Hes 3rd on the team in WAR. .1 behind the AS C. So yeah what are you on about. All of this is proof of the agenda and the bias against Elias and this move specifically. You see the young guys in the show struggling, Frazier is 3rd on the team in WAR and doing pretty much what he was signed to do, team is winning, and we still got all this damn angst.


Im waiting for the stupid post that tells me about the AAA numbers and that somehow proves Westburg, Ortiz, etc are ready and def wont struggle breaking into the show. You know because you arent seeing it with Gunnar and Stowers and GRod.

[Mackus]

Frazier in the Vavra role would be fine.  I'd rather spend elsewhere and just let Vavra do it, but I do think Frazier is an upgrade over Vavra, especially defensively.

 

My problem is deciding on Frazier in an everyday role over either a more significant veteran upgrade or rolling with Urias or one of the highly touted minor leaguers.   

 

As far as the rookies struggling, better now than August or September, IMO, especially if you're of the mindset that they're gonna struggle at some point.  I don't necessarily agree with that, and I also don't really consider Gunnar and Stowers rookies, though both are certainly struggling.

 

I'd much rather see Westburg or Ortiz everyday at 2B right now instead of Frazier, even without any alternative uses for his salary.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

And it just doesnt add up man. The same people bitching about not going for wins and trying to compete are the ones bitching about not adding 5 or 6 rookies to a roster thats winning ball games where the rookies are struggling. How many damn more do you want to add at one time and see take their lumps before you think its going to affect the standings

[Mackus]

Because people think those rookies will perform better than Frazier.  Its a 6 month season.  Frazier possibly being better today isn't the end of conversation.