123 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Over the course of the full season I think that's true. Won't say that I'm convinced that Ortiz or Westburg would have 650 OPS with good defense to date, but I think its possible. And I think any growing pains in April and May would likely push through and they'd be enough better than Frazier over the remainder of the season to justify the move.

I still think that is the case starting today, too. But I'll hear an argument that the learning curve period for Ortiz and Westburg would be reduced by having spent 2-3 months at Norfolk before their promotions. I think that has merit, though I don't necessarily agree.

I won't be able to agree that the games Frazier was starting over Urias were a good decision, though. I think Urias is better overall right now, or was until he got hurt.

Wont say Ortiz or Westburg over the course of a whole year wouldnt be better than Frazier though Id lean the vet. I def dont think they would have been better to this point. I also think the number of times Urias has played 3b or given Henderson the days off has been a benefit we wouldnt have if Urias and Henderson were playing together every day.


This all to say that my wish is at least one of the guys has broken in and playing every day come Sept having pushed Frazier to a Uti role. That would be ideal. But having Frazier start and be a postive vet presence for the first 2 or 3 months of the year and insurance should the young guys struggle was a fine decision.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

It’s just weird to hear about how great the farm is all the time and track all these names and now that a few of them have little if anything to prove it’s all, Adam Frazier is better. Like what the freak our we excited about if that’s the precedent we’re setting here?

I mean you wonder why I get the way I get. Argue in good faith. You know damn well rookies usually struggle to start a career. We are trying to win and we have 1 rookie in the lineup struggling every day. Another who just missed still having rookie status in Stowers has also been playing a lot and struggling. Grayson is taking his lumps. Hell, Bradish is still taking his. How many more rookies/inexperienced guys do you want taking lumps at the same time while realistically trying to win as many games as possible.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I mean you wonder why I get the way I get. Argue in good faith. You know damn well rookies usually struggle to start a career. We are trying to win and we have 1 rookie in the lineup struggling every day. Another who just missed still having rookie status in Stowers has also been playing a lot and struggling. Grayson is taking his lumps. Hell, Bradish is still taking his. How many more rookies/inexperienced guys do you want taking lumps at the same time while realistically trying to win as many games as possible.

You just don’t and never will get it. You don’t get to decide what is logical or right or wrong about this. Nothing about that wasn’t in good faith. In my opinion, Frazier is pretty useless. So no, struggling rookies don’t scare me by comparison. But since they do you so much, maybe follow a team without a bunch of prospects to call up over the next few years since you’d prefer to watch the Adam Frazier’s of the world.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Lol. Ok bud.


No one except maybe Phelan and Stoner have been as high on the long term prospects of these young players. I was blowing Ortiz when we heard he was being called up. But its pretty obvious why you'd be hesitant to have 5, 6, 7 of them all on a 26 man roster right now taking their lumps at the same time. If this were '21 or we werent in "lift off mode" it would be much easier to play them all at the same time. Lumps be damned.

[dude]

I was blowing Ortiz when we heard he was being called up. 

 

Admittedly, I'm not part of this community so I certainly don't know all the rules, but I'm guessing you aren't supposed to say this publicly.  Although sounds like you were in a position for an inside scoop.

[bmore_ken]

It seems easier to just trade some of these rookies for an established pitcher and let him go through their rookie lumps on a team that won't try to be contending this year but that's probably a different article and thread entirely lol 

But on the money, because that's where the real need is, I guess this hot start has some people fooled. But two of the starters have +5 ERAs. Two of the others are close to 5. And it's May. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Admittedly, I'm not part of this community so I certainly don't know all the rules, but I'm guessing you aren't supposed to say this publicly. Although sounds like you were in a position for an inside scoop.

Youre a hilarious guy. Who knew.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

But on the money, because that's where the real need is, I guess this hot start has some people fooled. But two of the starters have +5 ERAs. Two of the others are close to 5. And it's May.

So entertain me for a sec and tell me how far the Os fall. 80 wins? 75 wins?

[Mackus]

Wont say Ortiz or Westburg over the course of a whole year wouldnt be better than Frazier though Id lean the vet. I def dont think they would have been better to this point. I also think the number of times Urias has played 3b or given Henderson the days off has been a benefit we wouldnt have if Urias and Henderson were playing together every day.


This all to say that my wish is at least one of the guys has broken in and playing every day come Sept having pushed Frazier to a Uti role. That would be ideal. But having Frazier start and be a postive vet presence for the first 2 or 3 months of the year and insurance should the young guys struggle was a fine decision.

 

I'm ok with all of this except Frazier starting over, or in an equal timeshare with, Urias.  That was not a fine decision.  Frazier in the Vavra role would be fine.  His veteranosity can still rub off in that role.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I agree with the premise that calling up prospects mean they'll have a slow start or have a hot start and then struggle once their MLB weaknesses get scouted better but...doesn't that seem like a philosophical issue with tanking and then billing the people you get from tanking as the people that'll make the team good?

 

Like we lost all these games for these prospects, yet these prospects also shouldn't get regular playing time once they've comfortably figured out AAA because we're trying to contend? So why did we get them if a roster containing zero players acquired from an Elias draft from his tanking has the second-best record in the AL?

[weird-O]

I agree with the premise that calling up prospects mean they'll have a slow start or have a hot start and then struggle once their MLB weaknesses get scouted better but...doesn't that seem like a philosophical issue with tanking and then billing the people you get from tanking as the people that'll make the team good?

 

Like we lost all these games for these prospects, yet these prospects also shouldn't get regular playing time once they've comfortably figured out AAA because we're trying to contend? So why did we get them if a roster containing zero players acquired from an Elias draft from his tanking has the second-best record in the AL?

I've had a version of this question in my head, since the pros and cons of gradually introducing rookies debate evolved within this thread. I remember when the Twins had all those good prospects that graduated to the majors. I don't know if they were all called up in the same year, but they all definitely came through their system together. Without bothering to research it, my memory was that they all got the call within a year or so of each other. So that execution worked for them. In my opinion, if a player looks ready, call him up. Let them take their lumps together, grow together, and (presumably) start winning together. With that approach, all those rookies will be at their fighting weight at the same time. Elias thinks differently. I don't have any criticism for his scaled approach. He's an unproven GM, so this will be his coronation. I wanted to see some impact additions made over the winter. He didn't, and here we are, rooting for a team that has the 3rd best record in the sport.    

[BSLRoseKatz]

I also feel like winning 83 games was probably one of the worst things that could've happened to any prospect who wasn't already on the 2022 roster because it meant there was now real expectations to win this year and scuffling for a month goes from "it's okay, young growing pains" to "we can't waste time on these kids while we're trying to chase down the Rays" 

[makoman]

We shouldn't act like rookies are the only ones that might have a bad month or two. Around two weeks ago Santander had an OPS in the .500s and some were calling him the "worst player on the team." Hays and Mountcastle both had months in the .500s last year and both are regularly in the .600s. You put up with it because the upside is worth it and the entire body of work comes out above average. Adley didn't permanently get above .700 until his 45th game and still ended up with a 130 OPS+. If these guys are ready for the majors and you actually think they are good I don't see a problem with giving them a shot. If they end up above average with ups and downs that's better than a consistent 90 OPS+ IMO (and no one is that consistent, the 90 will also have ups and downs, Frazier had a .381 OPS month last year).

 

And it's not like you know they are going to come up and struggle, or when. Gunnar had a 125 OPS+ last year but is struggling now (and again, even his "struggle" is comparable to the supposedly consistent vet). Manny was league average at 19. Mancini was not very heralded and was solid every month his rookie year. Nothing is guaranteed to be linear.

 

So it boils down to how good you think these guys are. It's the classic ceiling vs floor. You know Frazier has like a 80-85 OPS+ floor (based on his last 200 or so games) and not a ton of ceiling. If you think Jordan Westburg is ultimately barely a league average player, then maybe you take the solid floor instead. If you think he's a 110 OPS+ guy then maybe you accept a 70 for a month if you think you'll get 120 down the line to average it out there. And yeah, you don't want to be relying on 6 unknowns at a time, but if the main calling point of your organization is its player development and top farm system then you have to trust that player development a little bit.

[JeremyStrain]

I also feel like winning 83 games was probably one of the worst things that could've happened to any prospect who wasn't already on the 2022 roster because it meant there was now real expectations to win this year and scuffling for a month goes from "it's okay, young growing pains" to "we can't waste time on these kids while we're trying to chase down the Rays" 

Agreed. The perception shift is going to be a dog. Lot of pressure to come up and not be the weak link while they are trying to learn the majors.

[CantonJester]

But on the money, because that's where the real need is, I guess this hot start has some people fooled. But two of the starters have +5 ERAs. Two of the others are close to 5. And it's May. 

 

 

Nonsense.

 

The past 162 games for all AL East teams

 

Blue Jays 93-69

Orioles 93-69

Rays 93-69

Red Sox 84-78

Yankees 81-81

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Yeah vets struggle too. But they have track records. If you have mutiple guys no matter vet or young all having prolonged struggles at the same time youre likely not going to end the year where you want to end the year. Its just that its expected from the inexperienced guys. The struggles. To me its completely understandable that you hope you can stagger their break in times and by the time 1 gets their legs under them the next is ready to go. Obviously, injuries can change that. Or if a vet is performing quite badly. But planning to slowly break them in feels fine to me. Phelan also touched on something in a podcast that I dont know how much stock I put in but its possible. Lets say Westburg is a guy they strongly prefer to dangle as a trade chip. Would they keep him down and let him keep raking in AAA vs potentially calling him up and having him struggle in the show. Imo, a player like that really doesnt lose much if any value. Who knows though.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

How is the club not significantly improved vs this time last year.

Certainly the O's are better than this time last year. But that wasn't the point and you know it.

 

What "liftoff" move did the FO do to get this team to be a playoff contender? Gibson? Frazier? Gimme a break.

 

Nobody projected the O's to be a .650 club in May. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I truly took liftoff to mean they were now planning to contend and expected to be in the mix in the division. Now, certainly if you are planning to contend youd hope to have a stronger offseason but people are acting like thats specifically what he was saying by that comment. I also realize at some point later he said something to the effect of we hope or intend to raise payroll significantly over the next few years. Thats not the direct quote but its something along those lines.

[You Play to Win the Game]

He said it to appease fans and the upset locker room after giving up on last season after dealing instead of adding. Well, other than adding Brett Phillips. It was quite clear what he was saying when you consider the context.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I truly took liftoff to mean they were now planning to contend and expected to be in the mix in the division. Now, certainly if you are planning to contend youd hope to have a stronger offseason but people are acting like thats specifically what he was saying by that comment. I also realize at some point later he said something to the effect of we hope or intend to raise payroll significantly over the next few years. Thats not the direct quote but its something along those lines.

Fair enough.