25 replies to this topic

[BSLLukeRollfinke]

BSL: Spring Training Takeaways

https://baltimorespo...ning-takeaways/

[BSLLukeRollfinke]

Now that the roster has taken shape, do any of you have any other takeaways from the last few months of spring training? I have two more thoughts that I thought were worth sharing.

 

1. Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards, and the Orioles definitely took that approach when it came to the bullpen. Despite bringing in a bunch of interesting arms in the offseason, it looks like every reliever on the Opening Day roster except Kimbrel will have spent time in Baltimore in past years. That feels like the safe route but one that offers fairly limited upside. Hopefully they add some more exciting pieces as the season goes on.

 

2. The front office still cares more about service time manipulation than they do about winning now. You can offer me a million reasons why Jackson Holliday is not ready for MLB action but there is no world in which he gives the team a lower chance to win than any of the other contenders for the final roster spot. Furthermore, he is going to have to adjust to the highest level at some point and pushing that further down the road could hurt the team down the stretch. The decision to send him down does not exactly give me confidence in the front office's ability to keep this team at a high level for years to come. 

[Mackus]

2. The front office still cares more about service time manipulation than they do about winning now.

 

I think this is a very reasonable balance of present versus future.  You are trading two weeks of Holliday right now for a full season down the road. The difference between Urias and Holliday for less than a month is negligible.  The difference between Holliday at Age 26 for a full season versus whoever might replace him on the roster at that point is not even close to negligible.

 

This is a low cost to pay for something very valuable in the future.  It'd be irresponsible not to do it, IMO.  The benefit of a possible draft pick is not worth the squeeze.  The risk of losing the time anyways is relatively low cost also because you're only holding him back a couple weeks. 

 

If he continues to succeed and they keep him down until June I'll join the chorus of those that are upset.  But for now that chorus is misguided.

 

Being all-in to win now doesn't mean you spend all future assets in pursuit of winning now.  If it did, we'd have traded Holliday for Soto or something crazy like that.  You still have to constantly balance present versus long-term.  Two weeks of Holliday at AAA is absolutely worth the return of a strong chance of controlling his Age 26 season when otherwise he'd be a free agent.

[SonicAttack]

Mayo, Norby, Kjerstad, Stowers, Holliday, Cowser, are ready to start.  Hays, Mullins, Mountcastle, Urias, Mateo, Nevin, I would trade them for whatever pitching they can get.  The future is now. 

[BSLLukeRollfinke]

I think this is a very reasonable balance of present versus future.  You are trading two weeks of Holliday right now for a full season down the road. The difference between Urias and Holliday for less than a month is negligible.  The difference between Holliday at Age 26 for a full season versus whoever might replace him on the roster at that point is not even close to negligible.

 

This is a low cost to pay for something very valuable in the future.  It'd be irresponsible not to do it, IMO.  The benefit of a possible draft pick is not worth the squeeze.  The risk of losing the time anyways is relatively low cost also because you're only holding him back a couple weeks. 

 

If he continues to succeed and they keep him down until June I'll join the chorus of those that are upset.  But for now that chorus is misguided.

 

Being all-in to win now doesn't mean you spend all future assets in pursuit of winning now.  If it did, we'd have traded Holliday for Soto or something crazy like that.  You still have to constantly balance present versus long-term.  Two weeks of Holliday at AAA is absolutely worth the return of a strong chance of controlling his Age 26 season when otherwise he'd be a free agent.

 

If it was truly two weeks, I would probably agree with what you are saying. However, something tells me Elias is going to wait until early to mid-May before pulling the trigger. That would put Holliday at a significant disadvantage in the ROY race and elevate the chances that he does not, in fact, gain a year of service time in 2024. I hope I'm wrong but that is my expectation given how the FO has handled prospects in recent years. 

 

Furthermore, keeping Holliday down clearly isn't going to help the organization's relationship with him when it comes to future contract negotiations. Boras can easily point to this moment as a time when the Orioles put their financial situation over the well-being of the player as a reason to convince Holiday to hit free agency. Not saying it will be impossible to extend him (especially given the reasons I cited in the article) but it certainly won't make it easier. 

 

Call me crazy, but I was hopeful that given the success of last year's team and the influx of cash that should arrive with new ownership we wouldn't be worried about whether or not a player's rookie contract runs through 2030. Look around the league and tell me which other teams are doing what the Orioles are doing with Holiday. The only obvious case I see is Caminero with the Rays, and if our goal is to be similar to them when it comes to handling contracts we are going to have some real problems in the future. Wyatt Langford, Jackson Merrill, and Jackson Chourio are all starting the season in the big leagues. Holliday should be too. 

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I am fine with the 2-3 week but have the same concern Luke does. I too worry they are going to keep him down long enough to really lower any shot at ROY and that may well be long enough to hurt the teams chances.

 

I think they make the playoffs no matter how they handle Holliday. But I'd still rather win the Division than go the WC route.

[makoman]

I don't agree with the notion that just because other teams don't care about an extra year of control of a potentially in his prime superstar we don't have to care. That's like saying the Ravens shouldn't care about comp picks because some other teams don't care. You take the advantages you can get. And Chourio clearly doesn't count as a comp anyway because he signed an extension.

Also Boras said, I think, something like that Elias was calling him every day to talk extension for Gunnar and Holliday. If that's really true then everyone knows he could have approximately 9 figures guaranteed and be on the roster, if that's something he wanted. I find it hard to have concerns for "the well being of the player" or feel like he's being mistreated in this situation when he's presumably turned such things down. If he didn’t want it to be a business decision, then he's the one who has already made it a business decision when he hired Boras.

Like Mackus said, I hope it's a < one monthish business decision, not a half year one. If he's killing AAA from now to June I'll join the other side.

[RichardZ]

I think they are a better team with Holliday on it. However, you say that gives you no confidence that this FO can keep this team at a high level in the years to come and this is exactly what this move is geared towards.

[Mackus]

If it was truly two weeks, I would probably agree with what you are saying. However, something tells me Elias is going to wait until early to mid-May before pulling the trigger. That would put Holliday at a significant disadvantage in the ROY race and elevate the chances that he does not, in fact, gain a year of service time in 2024. I hope I'm wrong but that is my expectation given how the FO has handled prospects in recent years. 

 

Furthermore, keeping Holliday down clearly isn't going to help the organization's relationship with him when it comes to future contract negotiations. Boras can easily point to this moment as a time when the Orioles put their financial situation over the well-being of the player as a reason to convince Holiday to hit free agency. Not saying it will be impossible to extend him (especially given the reasons I cited in the article) but it certainly won't make it easier. 

 

If they wait 6-8 weeks to call him up I'll be disappointed.  That's getting to be enough time for the difference between him and Urias to be meaningful.  Of course if Holliday struggles a bit in AAA anyways, or if Urias is raking close to 800 like he's capable of doing at times, then that difference disappears and perhaps even flips in favor of Urias.

 

I agree holding him back doesn't help future negotiations to sign Holliday to an extension, but I think those odds were already close enough to zero to make this a non-factor for me.  He is not and never was going to extend after debuting and I don't see the purpose in role playing a scenario in which it is likely.  Same goes for Gunnar.  Actually the promise of rostering Holliday to begin the year would've been the only thing that I think might have convinced him to sign a deal before even making his debut, like Jackson Chourio did.  Not sure if the O's really tried that or not, but it was the only chance they ever had, IMO, albeit still on the order of 100-1 long shot.   

[85Knight]

There is a delicate balance between making moves for now vs. the future and this organization errors on the side of worrying about the future. I don't necessarily agree with it but they seem to be dug in with this approach and we're gonna have to get used to it. I'd prefer a "strike while the iron is hot" approach but I don't see that ever happening. That's why I knew us signing another starting pitcher this spring was never gonna happen. They just don't do things like that.

[Mackus]

There is a delicate balance between making moves for now vs. the future and this organization errors on the side of worrying about the future. I don't necessarily agree with it but they seem to be dug in with this approach and we're gonna have to get used to it. I'd prefer a "strike while the iron is hot" approach but I don't see that ever happening. That's why I knew us signing another starting pitcher this spring was never gonna happen. They just don't do things like that.

 

I don't disagree with the general idea, though they did trade for Burnes which is more "win-now" of a move than signing a FA SP would've been.  But this post is so out of place when related to Holliday.  The "now" sacrifice is miniscule compared to the "later" gain.  How much "now" do you think it really costs to send him down for a month?  It's not like we have Luis Hernandez playing 2B instead of him.  Urias is a perfectly solid player.  Basically league average bat and has been very good defensively at 3B in the past.

 

We know what sending him down possibly buys us in terms of control, and that is a massive future value.  A few weeks demotion is well worth the squeeze.

 

This is going to be as devastating to the O's 2024 chances as it will be when Holliday or some other player twists an ankle and goes to the IL for 3 weeks.  A very minor, completely absorbable blip that, depending on the exact position and how well the replacement plays, may not even be noticeable at all.  Like when Mullins first went down last year and Hicks filled in with even better production.

[dude]

Apologies I meant to comment on the article before we started doing these other things, but I'll come back to the specifics in the article.

 

2. The front office still cares more about service time manipulation than they do about winning now. You can offer me a million reasons why Jackson Holliday is not ready for MLB action but there is no world in which he gives the team a lower chance to win than any of the other contenders for the final roster spot. Furthermore, he is going to have to adjust to the highest level at some point and pushing that further down the road could hurt the team down the stretch. The decision to send him down does not exactly give me confidence in the front office's ability to keep this team at a high level for years to come. 

 

I'm going to need some clarification on the bolded.  You think Jackson Holliday should the UT player on this team?  You said "final roster spot" not "starting second baseman".

[dude]

Furthermore, keeping Holliday down clearly isn't going to help the organization's relationship with him when it comes to future contract negotiations. Boras can easily point to this moment as a time when the Orioles put their financial situation over the well-being of the player as a reason to convince Holiday to hit free agency. Not saying it will be impossible to extend him (especially given the reasons I cited in the article) but it certainly won't make it easier. 

 

This is related to my comment on your third point in the article.  We've maybe seen some others suggest this too.

 

Just because the Orioles approach has changed doesn't mean Boras approach changes.  Don't get me wrong, there's probably a number....it's 705M.

 

You're excited about Jackson and the Orioles and Rubenstein and guess what, Boras doesn't care.

 

The Player wasn't assigned Scott Boras, they picked him to be the voice that they listen to.  Period.  You have to have any element of leverage.  I suggested one back last September, that has now passed.  If Jackson or Gunnar or GRod or Burnes want to prove me wrong, I'll be wrong and they'll extend as Orioles.  I wouldn't bet a quarter on it.  Once you give away your leverage, you can't force them to agree because 100% of the leverage is on their side.

 

That's ok.  Use him while he's here.  He doesn't want to stay here so you find the next Player when it's time.

 

We won 101 games without Jackson Holliday, they can with with or without him.  Not sure why everyone is acting like he's Juan Soto with defense, but whatever..

[Mackus]

Wyatt Langford, Jackson Merrill, and Jackson Chourio are all starting the season in the big leagues. Holliday should be too. 

 

I think San Diego and Texas are making a mistake or are extremely confident in earning the pick and think the pick is worth the extra year of control (I would disagree with that).  Milwaukee extended Chourio so no mistake there.  And are any of these guys represented by Scott Boras?  I know Chourio isn't, but can't find who represents Merrill and Langford.

 

The fact those guys are up right away means Holliday is less likely to win ROY, so the benefit of rostering him right away (potential draft pick) is diminished.  

[BSLLukeRollfinke]

This is related to my comment on your third point in the article.  We've maybe seen some others suggest this too.

 

Just because the Orioles approach has changed doesn't mean Boras approach changes.  Don't get me wrong, there's probably a number....it's 705M.

 

You're excited about Jackson and the Orioles and Rubenstein and guess what, Boras doesn't care.

 

The Player wasn't assigned Scott Boras, they picked him to be the voice that they listen to.  Period.  You have to have any element of leverage.  I suggested one back last September, that has now passed.  If Jackson or Gunnar or GRod or Burnes want to prove me wrong, I'll be wrong and they'll extend as Orioles.  I wouldn't bet a quarter on it.  Once you give away your leverage, you can't force them to agree because 100% of the leverage is on their side.

 

That's ok.  Use him while he's here.  He doesn't want to stay here so you find the next Player when it's time.

 

We won 101 games without Jackson Holliday, they can with with or without him.  Not sure why everyone is acting like he's Juan Soto with defense, but whatever..

First things first, I agree that Boras doesn't care about what goes on in Baltimore. He is interested in landing his guys the biggest deal possible and that is all. My point was more that given how this offseason has played, the biggest deal might end up being the one some of these guys get offered before they hit free agency. We've seen a hand full of players test the market only to take short-term offers in an attempt to hit the market again next year. Clearly the grass isn't always greener, and whether or not he wants to admit it, Boras is going to have to take into account how horribly his clients did this year when he's entering future negotiations. 

 

I also disagree with the sentiment that leverage is the only thing that can get a contract extension done. It is certainly a factor, but there's something to be said for stability and the enjoyment you get from playing the game. If these guys love playing in Baltimore, I refuse to believe they won't at least consider sticking around. Furthermore, under the new ownership group there is no reason the Orioles shouldn't be able to compete with just about any other team financially. Rubenstein is now one of the wealthiest owners in baseball and I'm optimistic that payroll will start to reflect it. 

 

To respond to your other point, no, I don't think Holliday would've been the utility man. He would've been the starting second baseman and would've relegated to Urias to the utility role (which he is well suited for). It's not a one for one swap with Nevin in terms of playing time but the overall effect is the same. Holliday's playing time goes to Urias and Urias' playing time goes to Nevin/Mateo. Just not the kind of trade off I want to see from a team in "win now" mode.

[85Knight]

I don't disagree with the general idea, though they did trade for Burnes which is more "win-now" of a move than signing a FA SP would've been. But this post is so out of place when related to Holliday. The "now" sacrifice is miniscule compared to the "later" gain. How much "now" do you think it really costs to send him down for a month? It's not like we have Luis Hernandez playing 2B instead of him. Urias is a perfectly solid player. Basically league average bat and has been very good defensively at 3B in the past.

We know what sending him down possibly buys us in terms of control, and that is a massive future value. A few weeks demotion is well worth the squeeze.

This is going to be as devastating to the O's 2024 chances as it will be when Holliday or some other player twists an ankle and goes to the IL for 3 weeks. A very minor, completely absorbable blip that, depending on the exact position and how well the replacement plays, may not even be noticeable at all. Like when Mullins first went down last year and Hicks filled in with even better production.

I don't just look at the Holiday move in a vacuum. Everything they've done when it comes to making or not making moves is with more of a focus on the future than making an immediate impact. I think sending Holiday down is just another example of their organizational philosophy.

I just heard that if a player finishes in the top 2 of ROY voting and a team gets a draft pick that the team loses that 6th year of arbitration. If that's true that makes this move even more perplexing. The team then benefits only if he doesn't have that "great" of a season.

[Mackus]

Everything they've done when it comes to making or not making moves is with more of a focus on the future than making an immediate impact.

 

Trading for Burnes completely invalidates this argument.  That's 100% a win-now move.  He's a rental and they paid through the nose for him.  That's clear intent to win in 2024 at the expense of potential future value.

[Mackus]

I just heard that if a player finishes in the top 2 of ROY voting and a team gets a draft pick that the team loses that 6th year of arbitration. If that's true that makes this move even more perplexing. The team then benefits only if he doesn't have that "great" of a season.

 

Player has to be a top-100 prospect on the roster all year and has to win Rookie of the Year.  If the player finishes top-2 in ROY, they get credit for a full year of service even if they didn't accrue enough days.

 

They got a comp pick for Gunnar, who was on the roster all of 2023.  (this is the pick they traded to Milwaukee in the Burnes deal)

They did not get a comp pick for Rutschman, but he got credit for a full year in 2022 even though he didn't come up until May because he finished 2nd in ROY voting.

 

If Holliday finishes top-2, then he gets the year even if he's shy of 172 days.  The downside then would be missing out on the pick plus whatever time you didn't get him up here.  Controlling him for all of 2030 is way more valuable than a comp pick (we just traded a comp pick plus two other top-100 prospects for 1 year of control of Burnes, for example).  Think of how great it'd be to have 5 years of Rutschman left instead of 4 if he happened to finish 3rd in 2022.  So if it's a 50/50 gamble, you're getting the better end of the deal by being on the side of the time.  And I think the odds of Holliday being top-2 in ROY are probably under 50% and less for actually winning it.  There are a couple really impressive rookies competing with him, including others on his own team (Cowser, Mayo).

[85Knight]

Trading for Burnes completely invalidates this argument. That's 100% a win-now move. He's a rental and they paid through the nose for him. That's clear intent to win in 2024 at the expense of potential future value.

Making one move doesn't invalidate that argument. We've been calling for them to acquire starting pitching for a few years now and even Elias mentioned that that move was in the works for months. That move really doesn't fall into the argument anyway because it doesn't really impact the future other than losing a couple of prospects that were really expendable.

I'm not saying that they don't want to win today but when there's a move to be made or not made they clearly lean toward focusing on the future. Right or wrong I don't see how this isn't obvious at this point.

[Mackus]

Making one move doesn't invalidate that argument. 

 

Yes, it does when your argument is "they never do this", which is what you typed (actually "everything they've done").  

 

Before that trade, I'd agree, every move of consequence was future based.  Even the trades for Fuji and Flaherty, while paying for rentals, were not even really the bear minimum type of move that could be considered focusing on the present. 

 

Burnes clearly is something different.  They paid a massive future price for today.  The argument that every move they make is future based is invalid.  Whether they continue to push on prioritizing the present over the future remains to be seen, it's a tough thing to balance.  Demoting Holliday for a month isn't all that big of a clapback towards the future.  You're not sacrificing much present at all to run Urias out there for 3 weeks and the potential future value is immense.

 

Its downright ludicrous to say trading Ortiz, Hall and a 1st round pick isn't sacrificing anything for the future.   We're not having a good faith conversation if that's something you're seriously going to support.