Photo

MASN: Challenges remain to find a starter


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,953 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 05:18 PM

The O's need Cease or my preference, Lazardo, way more than they need both Cowser and Kjerstad. Realistically I don't see both of them in the O's starting OF this year and maybe not next year. And Beavers and Haskin are not far behind timewise.


Beavers, yes. Haskin, doubtful. The hope is that Bradfield and Horvath make their mark and become strong options for sometime in 2025 or OD 2026. Remember the name Matthew Etzel as well. Yes, I think we can afford to send one of Cowser/Kjerstad in a deal.
I think Elias will if he has to. He’s just not going to send 4 top 10-15 prospects for Cease. Getz will take lesser 3rd and 4th pieces and Elias will agree to Kjerstad or Cowser + Ortiz or Norby along with a couple of 20-30 type prospects.

#22 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,953 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 05:22 PM

What else would it take besides one of Kjerstad or Cowser?


Ortiz or Norby plus two other prospects or one if the one is close to or just outside the top 10. If it’s 3 it could be Povich or McDermott. If it’s 4 it could be something like Fabian/Stowers + Bencosme/Wagner

#23 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,221 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 16 January 2024 - 05:31 PM

The point is we have plenty, plenty, of depth in the OF and IF. What we dont have is any quality depth in SP. So use the plenty to find the not so plenty.



#24 NewMarketSean

NewMarketSean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,879 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 06:44 PM

Spending money is a challenge apparently.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?

#25 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,043 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 07:09 PM

Their "challenges" all stem from one simple fact... the owner doesn't want to spend big money on players, and definitely doesn't want long term big money commitments. It's crystal clear. THAT is challenge 1 thru 10 on the challenge list. Otherwise they have the revenues to spend more, and they have the prospects to make deals. Anything else is a diversion.

I say none of that to suggest they should spend more than everyone else, or they should trade all their prospect depth. But all of their challenges finding starting pitching REALLY start and end with choices that ownership has made.
  • CantonJester likes this

#26 mikezpen

mikezpen
  • Members
  • 332 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 07:10 PM

I'd rather see Mountcastle go-too streaky.  His bat disappears for weeks on end. I'd take my chances w/the kids.



#27 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,866 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 January 2024 - 07:46 PM

Again Ill note that its been noted that Sig loves the idea of hoarding young cost controlled prospects/players. Seems Elias is def of the same mind. Also tells me that none of these guys that are 1 or 2 years from FA are gonna be extended. We knew that but it can be said again. Not Santander. Not Mullins. Not Hays. Not Means. No one. The only smallest of positive things so far about this is we appear as though we wont be the A's an sell off assets that are 1 or 2 years from FA. At least not when we are true contenders. If so Santander, Hays, Mullins wouldve been moved by now.


It's one thing to keep guys like that before they become free agents, but it will be a lot more difficult and questionable to go that route when Adley, Gunnar, and Jackson are in that position assuming things go well.

#28 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,875 posts

Posted 16 January 2024 - 08:07 PM


It's one thing to keep guys like that before they become free agents, but it will be a lot more difficult and questionable to go that route when Adley, Gunnar, and Jackson are in that position assuming things go well.

Those guys are another level no doubt considering their age, likely prodution, and position but Mullins as a guy who still has 2 years of cost control and proven to be a legit CFer with some offense has considerable value himself. Just not a lot of legit defensive CFers who also give you offense. This was the offseason to move him if we were gonna max out his return. Of course if the Os happen to flounder around the breakthis year its still possible if Elias would move these guys at that point. Obviously he would Santander as hes a pending FA

#29 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,866 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 January 2024 - 09:29 PM

Those guys are another level no doubt considering their age, likely prodution, and position but Mullins as a guy who still has 2 years of cost control and proven to be a legit CFer with some offense has considerable value himself. Just not a lot of legit defensive CFers who also give you offense. This was the offseason to move him if we were gonna max out his return. Of course if the Os happen to flounder around the breakthis year its still possible if Elias would move these guys at that point. Obviously he would Santander as hes a pending FA


Perhaps if there was a suitable replacement for Mullins, a trade would happen. His value is also likely a bit suppressed at that moment given how last year went and it seems like Elias might be hesitant to deal unless he feels like he's getting great value in return.

#30 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,451 posts

Posted 17 January 2024 - 12:43 AM

I'm surprised so many people are surprised by this. Elias has never made an impact trade as a buyer. Doesn't mean he can't, but he hasn't as of yet.

#31 CantonJester

CantonJester

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,308 posts

Posted 17 January 2024 - 01:16 AM

Their "challenges" all stem from one simple fact... the owner doesn't want to spend big money on players, and definitely doesn't want long term big money commitments. It's crystal clear. THAT is challenge 1 thru 10 on the challenge list. Otherwise they have the revenues to spend more, and they have the prospects to make deals. Anything else is a diversion.

I say none of that to suggest they should spend more than everyone else, or they should trade all their prospect depth. But all of their challenges finding starting pitching REALLY start and end with choices that ownership has made.

 

 

This. All this nonsense about the O's having to be thrifty to compete, or it's back to the same-old, same-old is a false premise. Angelos doesn't want to spend the money, period. 



#32 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,007 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 January 2024 - 09:35 AM

Angelos doesn't want to spend the money, period. 

 

You can add the best pitcher on the market, have no impact on your short-term or long-term depth and make the payroll go down.

 

Angelos is a tool and the center of a number of issues.  If you want to lay "not signing Blake Snell" at his feet, ok, but I don't want Blake Snell so I don't care.  Maybe JA won't let him do anything to cause some rift (or something else bizarre).

 

Elias has to manage the roster to get it done.  If he can't figure this out, whatever his challenges are, that's a problem.  You don't need money to manage this roster this offseason.

 

I go back to someone like Stowers.  He really has to be traded. There's Teams (one specific team) with obvious need.  If you can't figure out how to make a good Stowers trade, I'm not sure what to say. Time to be the GM and not just the Director of Player Development.



#33 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2024 - 10:07 AM

You can add the best pitcher on the market, have no impact on your short-term or long-term depth and make the payroll go down.
 
Angelos is a tool and the center of a number of issues.  If you want to lay "not signing Blake Snell" at his feet, ok, but I don't want Blake Snell so I don't care.  Maybe JA won't let him do anything to cause some rift (or something else bizarre).
 
Elias has to manage the roster to get it done.  If he can't figure this out, whatever his challenges are, that's a problem.  You don't need money to manage this roster this offseason.
 
I go back to someone like Stowers.  He really has to be traded. There's Teams (one specific team) with obvious need.  If you can't figure out how to make a good Stowers trade, I'm not sure what to say. Time to be the GM and not just the Director of Player Development.

. But what if the Brewers aren’t even trading Corbin Burnes? What if they demand Basallo or Mayo +?

Brewers will keep Burnes and only move him if they are out of it at the deadline or keep him for a playoff run and take the pick.

I understand your payroll machinations but we can’t get someone who’s not available.

#34 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,007 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 January 2024 - 09:30 PM

. But what if the Brewers aren’t even trading Corbin Burnes? What if they demand Basallo or Mayo +?

Brewers will keep Burnes and only move him if they are out of it at the deadline or keep him for a playoff run and take the pick.

I understand your payroll machinations but we can’t get someone who’s not available.

 

Are you just assembling random words or have you done any analysis of the Brewers?

 

Do the Brewers have to trade Burnes? Of course not.  Nobody has to do anything.  The Tigers didn't have to trade ERod, they didn't, and they look ridiculous, as if they have no idea what they are doing.

 

First year GM Matt Arnold has a chance to shape the Organization.  We'll see what he does.  They need a LOT of help to reasonably entertain the Playoffs.  They've done nothing to fix the challenges of the roster.  That will sink them.  They have to spend money or go with 2nd or 3rd tier options that increase roster risk.

 

I'd be more concerned that the Orioles are going to use the "aren't trading for a guy that's a one-year rental" mantra versus his availability in trade.

 

fwiw, I sort of assume even today we'll get Burnes.  It makes too much sense, but it still has to happen.



#35 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,953 posts

Posted 17 January 2024 - 10:35 PM

Are you just assembling random words or have you done any analysis of the Brewers?
 
Do the Brewers have to trade Burnes? Of course not.  Nobody has to do anything.  The Tigers didn't have to trade ERod, they didn't, and they look ridiculous, as if they have no idea what they are doing.
 
First year GM Matt Arnold has a chance to shape the Organization.  We'll see what he does.  They need a LOT of help to reasonably entertain the Playoffs.  They've done nothing to fix the challenges of the roster.  That will sink them.  They have to spend money or go with 2nd or 3rd tier options that increase roster risk.
 
I'd be more concerned that the Orioles are going to use the "aren't trading for a guy that's a one-year rental" mantra versus his availability in trade.
 
fwiw, I sort of assume even today we'll get Burnes.  It makes too much sense, but it still has to happen.

I believe the Tigers actually did attempt to trade ERod and had a deal with the Dodgers but ERod had no trade rights and used them. I’m trying to put thoughts together and not just random words but it seems pretty clear that Burnes isn’t currently on the trade block. Sorry if that frustrates you and the chain of moves you have in place.

#36 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,007 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 January 2024 - 11:45 PM

I believe the Tigers actually did attempt to trade ERod and had a deal with the Dodgers but ERod had no trade rights and used them. 

 

It's a horrible failure to not know what was going to happen and wind up pissing away opportunity.  You (as an Organization) have to be smarter than that.  Figure out a deal that works, not one that fails.



#37 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,007 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 January 2024 - 11:46 PM

....s but it seems pretty clear that Burnes isn’t currently on the trade block. 

 

Wait, do you need some kind of a public announcement to understand the situation? Ha.



#38 makoman

makoman

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 18 January 2024 - 08:00 AM

I know I read an article this offseason saying that the Brewers owner wouldn’t want to trade Burnes because he didn’t like the backlash to trading Hader.

Maybe BS speculation, maybe posturing, maybe it’s simply wrong, who knows. But we know sports owners make weird decisions and what’s best for the team isn’t always at the top. He makes a lot of sense from the outside, but so do several guys, just get something done.

#39 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,875 posts

Posted 18 January 2024 - 08:06 AM

I wont pretend to know whats going on with Mil but from the outside it seems they are going to go for the playoffs again. They will obv move him in season if things go sideways. I doubt hes available unless you made them an offer they couldnt refuse

#40 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,875 posts

Posted 18 January 2024 - 08:09 AM

Btw with 1 yr left Im not one who believes you lose a ton of value waiting til June or July vs Jan or Feb. Assuming Burnes is healthy and pitching well. Its more the risk that he gets hurt or is struggling vs value of the extra 3 months of starts




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors