You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen
Nationals Projections
Blue Jays Projections
Rangers Projections
Rays Projections
Cardinals Projections
Mariners Projections
Giants Projections
Padres Projections
Pirates Projections
Phillies Projections
A's Projections
Yankees Projections
Mets Projections
Twins Projections
Brewers Projections
Dodgers Projections
Angels Projections
Royals Projections
Astros Projections
Marlins Projections
Tigers Projections
Rockies Projections
Indians Projections
Reds Projections
White Sox Projections
Cubs Projections
Red Sox Projections
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen
Sunday, January 20, 2008
2008 ZiPS Projections - Baltimore Orioles
Before doing the Baltimore projections, I fearlessly claimed that the Red Sox had the best projections of any AL team. After doing the Orioles projections, I'm not revising that opinion.There are some reasons to like the franchise. That is, if you close your eyes and pretend that this is the time that Angelos won't short-circuit a long-term rebuilding job. Angelos seems to want a painless rebuild, but the time to get a relatively painless rebuild was 10 years ago. While they could have rebuilt after the 1997 season, it's hard to expect any team to rebuild after a 98-win season. But during the 1998 season, when it was clear that they weren't a contender, Angelos stood in the way of any change of direction. Palmeiro and Alomar and Eric Davis simply walked at the end of the season, there wasn't even a whisper of Brady Anderson or B.J. Surhoff being moved, and so on. The major league talent moved on, no minor league talent replaced them for years, and the team took one of the highest concentrations of high draft picks in history (7 of the first 50 picks in the draft) and turned it into Brian Roberts.
Now, a rebuilding job is even more necessary and because the team put it off so long, it's going to be even more painful. The Orioles have accumulated a solid number of minor leaguers, but if there's never truly an organizational will to use the players that develop and the desire to pretend to compete in 2008 in the back of Angelos's mind, it won't help anything.
I think this is the year that the Rays get 4th without needing another team to have horrid luck.
Name P Age AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Nick Markakis* rf 24 .294 .357 .486 160 592 90 174 36 3 24 98 56 98 10 4
AVERAGE 1B ------------- 1b ---- .284 .361 .479 ------------------------------------------
Luke Scott* rf 30 .264 .360 .477 142 436 58 115 25 4 20 80 62 94 3 0
Brian Roberts# 2b 30 .287 .363 .437 145 579 93 166 39 3 14 80 70 87 36 7
AVERAGE LF ------------- lf ---- .282 .353 .455 ------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RF ------------- rf ---- .282 .350 .456 ------------------------------------------
AVERAGE 3B ------------- 3b ---- .279 .346 .447 ------------------------------------------
Aubrey Huff* dh 31 .275 .341 .447 140 510 65 140 28 3 18 78 47 92 3 1
Luis Jimenez* 1b 26 .265 .331 .443 126 438 44 116 22 1 18 69 43 100 4 1
AVERAGE CF ------------- cf ---- .276 .339 .424 ------------------------------------------
Jay Gibbons* rf 31 .265 .318 .448 80 279 34 74 18 0 11 43 21 48 0 0
Kevin Millar 1b 36 .258 .354 .384 109 365 47 94 19 0 9 46 46 66 1 0
AVERAGE 2B ------------- 2b ---- .281 .340 .413 ------------------------------------------
AVERAGE SS ------------- ss ---- .279 .333 .406 ------------------------------------------
Nolan Reimold rf 24 .251 .329 .445 110 382 42 96 23 0 17 62 43 96 7 7
Ramon Hernandez c 32 .260 .326 .418 110 385 44 100 20 1 13 55 32 60 1 1
Melvin Mora 3b 36 .265 .333 .397 126 491 70 130 23 0 14 65 43 90 8 2
Brandon Tripp* rf 23 .246 .315 .430 108 391 43 96 23 2 15 58 30 116 4 1
AVERAGE C --------------- c ---- .263 .323 .400 ------------------------------------------
Jay Payton lf 35 .268 .311 .401 114 399 55 107 19 2 10 52 22 44 3 2
Luis Terrero cf 28 .254 .312 .416 119 303 35 77 15 2 10 43 19 71 10 6
Scott Moore* 3b 24 .232 .309 .409 142 499 39 116 23 1 21 75 49 140 7 6
Corey Patterson* cf 28 .257 .295 .402 140 495 70 127 24 3 14 65 25 92 32 7
Oscar Salazar 3b 30 .254 .285 .417 93 362 31 92 24 1 11 50 14 56 3 1
Tike Redman* cf 31 .273 .318 .351 109 362 48 99 16 3 2 36 23 35 13 5
Guillermo Quiroz c 26 .248 .286 .393 70 234 16 58 13 0 7 35 12 49 0 0
Freddie Bynum* lf 28 .254 .304 .379 103 248 39 63 12 5 3 27 16 61 13 6
Michael Costanzo* 3b 24 .225 .300 .366 134 475 39 107 23 1 14 53 45 154 0 1
Brandon Fahey* 2b 27 .254 .314 .330 126 397 49 101 13 4 3 36 32 54 11 6
Omir Santos c 27 .243 .283 .336 93 301 23 73 16 0 4 31 15 59 1 1
Billy Rowell* 3b 19 .230 .272 .352 105 421 35 97 20 2 9 47 22 129 3 4
Paco Figueroa 2b 25 .249 .306 .317 108 401 54 100 19 1 2 35 28 55 15 13
Eider Torres# 2b 25 .243 .281 .314 132 497 44 121 18 1 5 45 26 71 28 12
Brandon Snyder 1b 21 .220 .263 .332 117 446 37 98 21 1 9 48 23 129 0 2
Luis Hernandez# ss 24 .240 .265 .292 140 504 46 121 17 3 1 39 17 67 5 6
Ben Davis# c 31 .216 .247 .291 46 148 10 32 5 0 2 14 7 31 0 1
Paul Bako* c 36 .193 .261 .218 44 119 7 23 3 0 0 7 11 37 0 0
* - Bats Left
# = Switch-Hitter
Name CThr 1b 2b 3b ss lf cf rf
Markakis* Av Pr Av
Scott* Av Av
Roberts# Av
Huff* Fr Pr Pr Pr
Jimenez* Pr
Gibbons* Av Pr
Millar Fr
Reimold Pr Pr
Hernandez Av
Mora Av
Tripp* Av Pr Av
Payton Av Av Av
Terrero Fr Fr Fr
Moore* Av Fr Av
Patterson* Ex
Salazar Av Av Pr
Redman* Vg Fr Vg
Quiroz Vg
Bynum* Av Av Fr Av Av Av
Costanzo* Av
Fahey* Av Av Av Vg
Santos Av
Rowell* Fr
Figueroa Av
Torres# Fr Fr
Snyder Av
Hernandez# Av Av
Davis# Av
Bako* Av
Player Spotlight - Nick Markakis
Name AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS OPS+ DR
Optimistic (15%) .318 .389 .538 162 600 105 191 41 5 27 111 68 85 14 3 141 0
Mean .294 .357 .486 160 592 90 174 36 3 24 98 56 98 10 4 120 -3
Pessimistic (15%) .268 .327 .416 150 555 60 149 29 1 17 78 41 106 6 4 94 -7
Top Near-Age Offensive Comps: Vic Wertz, Rafael Palmeiro
Player Spotlight - Brian Roberts
Name AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS OPS+ DR
Optimistic (15%) .310 .391 .498 152 606 112 188 47 5 19 97 82 77 44 6 133 8
Mean .287 .363 .437 145 579 93 166 39 3 14 80 70 87 36 7 110 4
Pessimistic (15%) .263 .335 .378 139 555 63 146 33 2 9 64 60 89 28 7 88 0
Top Near-Age Offensive Comps: Bill Doran, Jose Offerman
Name Age ERA W L G GS INN H ER HR BB K
Erik Bedard* 29 3.34 13 6 28 28 175.0 153 65 15 59 184
Chad Bradford 33 3.38 5 2 65 0 56.0 60 21 1 12 28
Jamie Walker* 36 3.81 2 2 68 0 52.0 53 22 5 14 35
Chris Ray 26 4.12 5 4 58 0 59.0 54 27 9 25 54
LEAGUE AVERAGE RELIEVER ------ 4.34 -----------------------------------------------
Adam Loewen* 24 4.55 5 5 18 16 97.0 96 49 6 57 74
Greg Aquino 30 4.58 2 3 50 0 53.0 52 27 7 25 51
LEAGUE AVERAGE STARTER ------- 4.71 -----------------------------------------------
Jeremy Guthrie 29 4.84 6 8 28 23 145.0 159 78 21 50 89
Daniel Cabrera 27 4.85 11 13 31 31 180.0 176 97 20 108 164
Danys Baez 30 4.94 4 5 62 0 62.0 67 34 7 27 36
Fernando Cabrera 26 4.98 3 3 46 0 65.0 65 36 12 31 66
Rocky Cherry 28 5.00 2 3 54 1 72.0 80 40 10 31 46
Roberto Novoa 28 5.08 3 5 71 0 78.0 89 44 12 35 48
Randor Bierd 24 5.09 3 3 34 2 53.0 57 30 8 24 40
Kris Benson 33 5.20 6 9 21 21 128.0 149 74 21 40 61
Ryan Keefer 26 5.26 2 4 33 0 53.0 57 31 7 29 38
James Hoey 25 5.36 2 4 41 0 42.0 44 25 5 23 31
Dennis Sarfate 27 5.37 6 9 44 14 119.0 129 71 15 64 75
Troy Patton* 22 5.41 7 14 28 27 163.0 182 98 27 62 99
Matt Albers 25 5.81 6 12 31 25 155.0 182 100 23 74 83
Bob McCrory 26 5.86 1 3 36 0 43.0 46 28 5 34 30
Garrett Olson* 23 5.91 7 13 29 29 160.0 185 105 29 73 107
Hayden Penn 23 5.95 3 5 11 11 62.0 71 41 12 22 41
James Johnson 25 6.00 6 11 25 24 144.0 171 96 23 65 83
Jon Leicester 29 6.00 3 5 19 13 72.0 84 48 13 33 41
Brian Burres* 27 6.12 4 10 31 19 122.0 143 83 23 57 82
Radhames Liz 25 6.29 5 10 27 25 126.0 135 88 23 91 105
Chorye Spoone 22 6.33 5 13 27 26 138.0 158 97 20 103 72
Ryan Bukvich 30 6.40 1 4 44 0 45.0 51 32 9 26 28
Craig Anderson* 27 6.49 4 10 26 25 140.0 184 101 30 39 56
Brandon Erbe 20 6.69 4 11 28 28 117.0 138 87 22 83 73
Fredy Deza 25 8.15 2 10 41 10 106.0 144 96 33 53 52
* - Throws Left
Player Spotlight - Erik Bedard
ERA W L G GS INN H ER HR BB K ERA+
Optimistic (15%) 2.23 18 3 31 31 202 151 50 10 54 231 205
Mean 3.34 13 6 28 28 175 153 65 15 59 184 137
Pessimistic (15%) 4.63 8 8 23 23 136 138 70 18 55 135 99
Top Near-Age Comps: Hal Newhouser, Whitey Ford
Player Spotlight - Daniel Cabrera
ERA W L G GS INN H ER HR BB K ERA+
Optimistic (15%) 3.66 16 10 34 34 209 180 85 17 99 206 125
Mean 4.85 11 13 31 31 180 176 97 20 108 164 94
Pessimistic (15%) 6.11 6 13 25 25 140 153 95 22 100 122 75
Top Near-Age Comps: Matt Clement, Bobby Witt
Disclaimer: ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance.
Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors -
many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2008.
ZiPS is projecting equivalent production - a .240 ZiPS projection may end up
being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example. Whether or not a player will play
is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting
the future.
Players are listed with their most recent teams unless Dan has made a mistake.
This is very possible as a lot of minor-league signings are generally unreported in
the offseason.
ZiPS is projecting based on the AL having a 4.49 ERA and the NL having a 4.40 ERA.
ZiPS Frequently Asked Questions
Nationals Projections
Blue Jays Projections
Rangers Projections
Rays Projections
Cardinals Projections
Mariners Projections
Giants Projections
Padres Projections
Pirates Projections
Phillies Projections
A's Projections
Yankees Projections
Mets Projections
Twins Projections
Brewers Projections
Dodgers Projections
Angels Projections
Royals Projections
Astros Projections
Marlins Projections
Tigers Projections
Rockies Projections
Indians Projections
Reds Projections
White Sox Projections
Cubs Projections
Red Sox Projections
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
John Maine?
I was referring to players that the O's let go but yes I'll certainly take Maine back.
the system being bad does not mean all the individual prospects have been bad.
Never said that, as I said before Riley and Bedard were well regarded prospects. Markakis was a highly regarded prospect. The rest of the lot-Bigbie, Roberts, Ray, Olson, Matos, Hairston, Cabrera, and others-were solid B/B- prospects as I said above. Unfortunately all ofthese players-except for Roberts and Ray-have sucked. Such is the nature of prospects.
Moreover, dismissing the prospects as bad ignores the fact that they were replaced with people who were just as bad, but older.
I certainly did mean to dismiss the fact that Bigbie et al were replaced by sorry vets. You're 100% David. But, in fact, I believe I mentioned that influx of vets pulled from the minor league above as a problem.
Are you defending Danys Baez? Because the alternative to the Parrishes and Rileys and Bauers and Parrishes and such hasn't been Mariano Rivera. It's been Zambranos and Drabeks and Daals and DeJeans and such.
Nope, I'm saying that O's front office appropriately cut loose dead weight... at the appropriate time. The front office could have kept Matos, Bigbie, and other players under the logic that they haven't been given proper playing time and are ready to break out any second now (sort of like what's happening with Daniel Cabrera). But that's the wrong move, these player just aren't any good. Let them go.
Because not all of them "suck," and when you don't play them, you have no way to tell.
Yup, not all of them suck. Fortunately, we've kept Roberts (and not Hairston), Bedard, and Markakis. The rest of the extant Orioles farmhands will have careers as role players or AAA backup guys. Except for Maine, damn you Russlan for reminding me.
Thanks David for the kind words. In defense of the O's, alot of orgs have passed over Cust since the O's let him ago. It's doubtful the he would have performed any better for the O's than any of the other orgs he played for before his terrific 07 year.
Regardless of contract length, every one of these signings represents yet another situation in which the Orioles chose the depressing middle path of mediocrity, rather than the risky, but potentially enlightening path of handing a job to a young player and seeing what they could do. You have to recognize as an organization that the first path leads nowhere. The second may also lead nowhere--I recognize that most of these players never panned out, though it is open to question whether that is because of the Orioles equally lousy ability to develop players or the lack of talent they had. Sure, making bad short-term committments is better than making bad long-term committments. But, making repeated bad short-term committments is virtually indistinguishable from making bad long-term commitments.
That second path is the ONLY one that offers any hope for future success. Couple that, with a real plan to deal what little talent you have for better quality prospects, AND a plan that improves your instruction to develop players, and you may have something.
Obviously either way is crap or as you correctly say, "making repeated bad short-term committments is virtually indistinguishable from making bad long-term commitments." But alot of the aforementioned Orioles farmhands weren't even usable players. Are Riley, Kohlmeier, Matos, Bigbie, Hairston, John Stephen, Josh Towers, Jayson Werth, etc (hereafter the roll call of crap), even on a 40 man roster today for a ML club (I'm sure David will dilligently fact check for me)? I completely agree the O's should try to hand a job "to a young player and seeing what they could do." But in looking at many, but not all, the names in the roll call of crap, they tried and it just didn't work out. In rare cases, players have panned out like Roberts and Ray because, in fact, the O's gave them a chance. But largely the players haven't worked because they suck. This is what happens when you have the worst ranked farm system for the most of the 10 years (the last two years removed). As far as the exceptions go, I guess would have liked to see Walter Young get more ABs but Majewski and Parrish have largely been injured the last few years. Cust wasn't handled well (on a unrelated note, he's case in point why Terry Crowley should be fired. Crowley tried to get him to swing rather than utilize his plate discipline) and losing Maine hurts, but the lack of talent in the farm system is the main problem, not the front office's willingness to give playing time to farm hands. If the later was the problem, mediocre prospects like Roberts would not have made it. I understand you would rather lose with John Parrish on the mound than say Steve Kline, but don't say Parrish didn't get a chance.
After starting 8 games as a 22 year old, and not doing well, he was given the opportunity to start a grand total of TWO, YES, TWO games over the next 4 and a half years. His IP in those years were 22, 23.67, 78, 17.33, and 41.67. You really think less than 220 IP spread over 5.5 years constitutes giving a young player a chance?? That's simply laughable. Hentgen, Erickson, Daal, Helling, and Trachsel were all given far more of a chance than Parrish.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Daal got 93 IP. Parrish gets 23 IP.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Daal got 93 IP. Parrish gets 23 IP.
IIRC, Parrish was out all of 2002 and all of 2006, and missed significant time in other years, because he was injured. When he was healthy in 2004 he had 80 IP, certainly a full season for a reliever. So it's simply not correct to say that he never got a chance. (I'm not sure why you're harping on the fact that he wasn't given a chance to start, since it was clear a long time ago that he was better suited to the bullpen.)
Look, the truth is somewhere on the middle on this issue. THe Orioles have given some younger players like Bigbie, Roberts, Matos, Ray, Markakis, et al a chance. And they've buried other guys like Cust and House for no apparent reason. The Orioles have not produced much young talent over the last 10 years (esp. in the late 90s and early 00s), and it's clear, as birdlives notes, that most of the players not currently with the team haven't amounted to anything. But it's also true that they've wasted too many innings and ABs on washed up vets.
Thanks Yeaarrgghh, not to mention the fact that Parrish's walk/SO ratio has always been terrible. He's pitched 229.3 innings at the big league level (all but 10.3 of them for the O's) but yet this doesn't constitute getting a fair shot? How many innings does constitute a fair shot then? His ZiPS projection next year is pretty awful (see below). And yes, he only started two games but I don't how that's relevant because if he's stunk as a reliever. I'm guessing he would probably do worse as a starter. I actually had some hope for John before this season. His 2004 season was respectable and while I had zero hope for him as a starter (this beef from GTWMA is especially puzzling), I thought there was a chance he could be a good 2nd lefty behind Jamie Walker. But his control is atrocious. Like Daniel Cabrera, he'll probably have stretches of time where his command will be good and consequently, he'll be decent, maybe even good. But most of the time his control will suck because it's always sucked, thus you have ZiPS projections like the one below.
ZiPS for John Parrish in 2008
John Parrish* 30 5.30 56.0 62 33 4 39 45
And they've buried other guys like Cust and House for no apparent reason.
House should have received more playing this year. He probably sucks too but it would have been nice to see it confirmed. I thought Knott would receive more ABs too but he sucked at AAA this year so in a certain sense he earned his purgatory. And they sat Cust because they were frustrated by his plate patience. Again, FIRE TERRY CROWLEY.
Here's an interesting (or, rather, depressing) thing to do: go back to Os spring training from each of the last 10 years, and see how often a young player was actually given a chance to win a job in spring training. See how often (that is, unoften) there was an actual battle for a job where the decision wasn't made in advance. (Take last year as an example: some fans were excited about some of the NRIs in camp: JR House, Jon Knott, Terry Tiffee etc. How many of them made the opening day roster? None. The opening day roster had Bako, Payton, Millar -- who hit a robust 089/180/156 in the spring -- and Huff. Payton was on the DL, but that still didn't open up a job for Knott; it opened up a job for Freddie Bynum.)
Look at this year. Are the Orioles talking about using (Bedard), Cabrera, Guthrie, Loewen, Olson, and Liz, with Patton or Albers getting the last slot if Bedard is gone? No, they signed Lance freaking Cormier, and yesterday's Sun had them mentioning the names of Trachsel, Chacon, and Lohse.
Yup. They've been doing it for, what, 8 years now?
I'm really too lazy but somebody should post the ABs/IPs of Bigbie, Hairston Jr., Matos, Kohlmeier, Rick Bauer, John Stephens, Matt Riley, Josh Towers, and John Parrish (and if you really want to go old school throw in Calvin Pickering or Ryan Minor). I'm pretty sure all of them racked up a fair bit of playing time... some more than others but enough given their minor league history or talent. For example, if I remember correctly Kohlmeier and Stephens received some, but not alot of innings. The O's though should be applauded for letting these guys go rather than wasting innings in order to confirm their lack of talent. Jayson Werth is an O's farmhand who wasn't given proper playing time. Same with Walter Young (although techically he wasn't a home grown guy). I'll concede that, but (a) I certainly don't miss these guys and (b) in the case of Young, the fact that they didn't waste playing time on him shows shocking insight. Bechler was starting to receive some big league time before he passed away. John Maine and Cust were mistakes. And then you have the "success" stories: Daniel Cabrera, Ray, Markakis, Roberts, Loewen, and Bedard. That's a good number of farm hands who were given a fair amount of playing time with the big club especially when considering the shape of the O's farm system during the last 10 years. The rest of the guys everybody keeps mentioning as examples of the O's unwillingness to look at young talent are minor league vet guys like House, Knott, or Tiffee. Every club in baseball refuses to give these guys an extended look and these guys aren't young. If these guys want to stay in the lineup, they need to hit immediately and in a small sample (see David Newhan or Tike Redman this year). It's tough position to be in but no team in baseball is willing to give these type of guys the benefit of the doubt.
Look at this year. Are the Orioles talking about using (Bedard), Cabrera, Guthrie, Loewen, Olson, and Liz, with Patton or Albers getting the last slot if Bedard is gone? No, they signed Lance freaking Cormier,
Lance signed a minor league deal. He certainly won't be used over Olson, Patton or Albers assuming good health. Liz should be in the minors. I wouldn't be surprised if the O's sign a vet for the rotation but it'll be someone like Traschel not Lance. And I actually wouldn't mind that assuming it's a one year deal because he can be traded at the deadline for prospects.
Yup. They've been doing it for, what, 8 years now?
10 and more to come!
Ryan Kohlmeier got 67 innings, spread over two years. After struggling at age 24, they never gave him another chance. They waived him after the season. And it wasn't because they couldn't fit him on their 67-95 roster full of all-stars.No, they should be condemned for letting them go rather than giving them innings in order to see whether they had talent. "Wasting"? The team was winning less than 70 games a year. What exactly do you think the innings are for, other than playing as many young guys as possible to see whether they can play? That's not "wasting" the innings; that's using them for something valuable.
Every club in baseball isn't in the middle of a decade-long losing streak.
And they're not 22-year old prospects, but they're not Kevin Millar, either. House was 27. Knott and Tiffee were 28. They could give you a few good years. Worth a shot. Better than proven mediocrities (or worse) like Payton, Huff, Millar. Maybe one of them is the next Randy Milligan or Joe Orsulak. (Unlikely they'll be the next David Ortiz, but the Red Sox got Ortiz the same way the Orioles got these guys: released by his team, picked up as an unwanted player in the offseason.)
Maybe they've turned over a new leaf, but based on the past ten years, there's no reason to believe your "certainly" at all. The Orioles always use the veterans. Things can change, but right now, the Orioles seem more interested in debating whether to use him in the rotation or out of the pen.No, he should be in the majors. A 25 year old who has dominated AA should not be blocked on a bad team by a lousy veteran just because he had a handful of bad innings in his debut.No, they can't. First, people like that get converted into "prospects" about once every ten years; if they were actually worth "prospects," then teams better than the Orioles would want them. Second, the Orioles don't do that. The Orioles have signed dozens of crappy veterans over the last ten years to block actual prospects, with some fans defending these deals based on the notion that the team "can trade them at the deadline for prospects." They don't. They play badly and the Orioles let them go. Or they get hurt and sit on the DL. Or they play mediocrely and stay on the team all year because the Orioles are scared to "waste" innings on young players.
What on earth would signing Steve Trachsel, Shawn Chacon, or Kyle Lohse (all names from yesterday's Sun) add to the team? They have a lot of prospects they need to look at. They only have 1,500 innings all season. They can't afford to waste some on a veteran.
This is a silly debate. The Orioles have sucked over the last 10 years, and have made a ton of mistakes. Finely parsing the exact reasons and parameters of those mistakes is a waste of time IMO.
Now, I have some faith that MacPhail is taking a different approach than his predecessors -- he's said the right things, has made a couple of good trades, and signed Wieters. He's also actively shopping Bedard and Roberts and hasn't signed any lame stopgap FAs (yet). You can complain about Cormier, but it's a minor league deal and there's no indication that he's going to place any role on the team. All that being said, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of action on the trade front, and I'll be as pissed as anyone if they sign Trachsel or Chacon. But complaining preemptively before any trades have (or haven't) happened or before any FAs have been signed is pointless.
No, he should be in the majors. A 25 year old who has dominated AA should not be blocked on a bad team by a lousy veteran just because he had a handful of bad innings in his debut.
I don't get this at all. Liz has a ton of talent, but it's pretty clear that he needs some time in the minors to work on his secondary pitches and control. Throwing him into the majors won't necessarily help him or the Orioles. I know you want young players, but this just smacks of impatience.
He hasn't been a terrible pitcher (and, in fact, he's been very good at times) because he was used as a reliever.
Completely agree.
No, they should be condemned for letting them go rather than giving them innings in order to see whether they had talent. "Wasting"? The team was winning less than 70 games a year. What exactly do you think the innings are for, other than playing as many young guys as possible to see whether they can play? That's not "wasting" the innings; that's using them for something valuable.
And they're not 22-year old prospects, but they're not Kevin Millar, either. House was 27. Knott and Tiffee were 28.
While I agree with the principle of giving the young guys a chance, let's just say we differ on how this principle should be applied. I don't consider House, Knott and Tiffee young, and I think Kohlmeier and Stephens were given a fair chance, not necessarily a long and extended look, but a fair chance. I imagine their W/SOs ratio for either pitcher didn't suggest any prolonged success for either one of them. I imagine any other important peripherals didn't look inviting either. Unfortunately for Kohlmeier and Stephens, soft tossing guys who can't strike out a ton of guys aren't given a long leash. I suspect this is the case with a lot of teams. And their lack of success since leaving the O's at least supports this position with these two cases. And let's just say we diagree with Lance as well. He has minor league filler written all over him. Like I said before, I can easily see the O's signing some vet for the rotation but it won't be Lance. In fact, this morning's Sun already mentions that the O's are having preliminary talks with Traschel and Shawn Chacon. Again, Lance will not be anywhere near the rotation unless 7 or 8 pitches become injuried.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.orioles24jan24,0,2172145.story
see bottom of the story for the Traschel and Chacon bit.
First, people like that get converted into "prospects" about once every ten years; if they were actually worth "prospects," then teams better than the Orioles would want them. Second, the Orioles don't do that.
The Orioles did it last season and received two actual prospects, mind you that not very good prospects, but still it's an influx of "talent". Look, again as yearh pointed this is a silly debate, if the O's want don't want to sign Traschel or whoever, that's fine by me as well.
No, he should be in the majors. A 25 year old who has dominated AA should not be blocked on a bad team by a lousy veteran just because he had a handful of bad innings in his debut.
You're right David, Liz is little further along than I thought. I still prefer that he get some AAA time to work on his control.
He hasn't been a terrible pitcher (and, in fact, he's been very good at times) because he was used as a reliever.
Why would he do better as a starter? His W/SO ratio isn't good at all.
Since one of my complaints is that the trades haven't happened, it's not "preemptive." I think they should have happened by
nowthree weeks ago. Complaining in October would have been preemptive.Yes, complaining about signing certain free agents is 'preemptive' in that they haven't done it yet, but my complaint is that they're talking about doing it. They should be saying, "Absolutely not. We view this as a rebuilding year and we plan to play a lot of younger players."
They also said Huff would be the starting LF last year.
What exactly did they say about him?
"We talked to [Cormier] about being in the bullpen, but you know how those roles can revolve over the course of spring training," Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail said.
but it certainly has legs. I've lost track of how many O's threads it has consumed. Which is fine with me - what the hell else are you going to say about this #### team?
That sounds like a canned response to a reporter to me, but I guess we'll see...
It's not silly as much as meandering.
I think that we can all agree that the O's have been mismanaged in the past but seem to be in much better hands these days.
The last ten years in a nutshell: we have to play overpriced, veteran free agents because we don't have anyone ML-ready in the minors and we don't have anyone ML-ready in the minors because we keep signing overpriced, veteran free agents. And because we drafted and traded poorly.
The last ten years in a nutshell: we have to play overpriced, veteran free agents because we don't have anyone ML-ready in the minors and we don't have anyone ML-ready in the minors because we keep signing overpriced, veteran free agents. And because we drafted and traded poorly.
that sums up my view very nicely.
I can confirm this in an odd sort of way. Had a seat front row, directly behind home plate for one of his starts in Ottawa. We could actually read the scouts radar gun from where we were sitting. They didn't bother with it while Stephens was in the game, but as soon as Darwin Cubillan came into the game, they had the gun on him. (first 7 pitches all 91, several of them actually came near the strike zone)
Remember that game for a couple of other reasons. Stephens very clearly had nothing that day and yet had a no-hitter through 5 innings. Pinned the CF against the deepest part of the park a few times and had a few line shots hit right at some other guys.
First hit he gave up was a soft hit into left. No left fielder on earth could have got close to it. Crowd starts chanting "E7".
Not sure if this bothered Jack Cust (who was playing left), but for some reason he was an utter loon on the basepath. Thrown out by several yards twice trying to go first to third. Or maybe he was just responding to the vaunted coaching. (Hey, I'm old enough to remember the Orioles as the smartest, best coached organization in the game)
Yes, I agree but there are some who believe that the O's should have just played the crappy minor league guys anyways. They were going to lose anways, might as well lose with Matt Riley, Larry Bigbie, Kohlmeier et al. I certainly respect this stance as well but I really don't mind signing vets to 1 or 2 year deals. It's the long term deals to guys in their downward phase that bother me like Segui or Javy Lopez.
Now that's just tragicomic, especially in light of his falling down incident(s).
91? Stephens might have tried it max it out for the guns! Everybody said he wouldn't hack it at the big leagues despite his excellent minor league record. But Josh Towers was another soft tosser who had initial success right before Stephens came up so I guess the O's wanted to give Stephens at least a try. He blew like everybody said he would and I really don't fault the O's for letting him go w/o giving him a ton of innings.
So, you either pay too much for over-the-hill FAs and continue on as they have the past 10 years or you trade the few guys you have that are worth a tinkers dam and take the vaunted prospects you hopefully receive in return and play them most every day.
The only upside I see is that even Angelos might come to the realization that all his half-hearted start-overs have failed to date and that he needs a major restructuring.
I believe he thinks the latter thus his investment in McPhail.
Why not? If the Orioles had someone good to play instead of him, I can understand the reluctance to fault them. But they didn't. How can one not fault them for not letting a great prospect have a chance?
Oh, and Josh Towers has not exactly been a Cy Young candidate, but he's as good as many of the veterans they've run out there over the years.
Because these type of guys can be flipped for prospects (thus helping team long term). And sometimes, a vet will outperform a farm hand who has no business playing in the major leagues. The financial cost is not great, frankly, from a fan standpoint, I would rather watch a game with some vet playing close to league average rather than a farm hand who will play way below league average.
How can one not fault them for not letting a great prospect have a chance?
Because he wasn't a great prospect. Check the minor league expert rankings at the time. I doubt any of them said John Stephens was a great prospect.
But the point is the same whether he was just a good prospect, an average prospect, or even a bad prospect. Stephens at least had *some* chance of being good eventually - a lot of crappy veterans the Orioles have played haven't had even that.
Me, I'd rather watch a 70-win team to have a better chance at watching a 90-win team down the road. I have no wish to watch a 78-win team with zero upside.
And he was given a 11 starts to prove himself. Is that a huge number of starts? No, but fringy prospects aren't typically given a long leash. I suspect a lot teams are that way.
Me, I'd rather watch a 70-win team to have a better chance at watching a 90-win team down the road. I have no wish to watch a 78-win team with zero upside.
And if the O's had prospects with any some upside, then I would rather watch that 70 win too. But when the team has the worst farm system for much of the last 10 years, then I would rather watch that 78 team with no upside than watch a team that would have a hard time accumulating a winning record in the Independent League.
No, they can't. Other teams aren't as dismissive of minor leaguers as the Orioles are; they don't give prospects for crappy veterans. After Stephens' 2002 debut, he was never used again. Which veteran starters did the Orioles instead use in 2003? Well, Omar Daal. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects? No. And Rick Helling. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects? No. And Pat Hentgen. He actually pitched reasonably well, unlike the others. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects, though? No.
Maybe that's just a fluke; it's only 3 data points. What about other veterans, not just starting pitchers? There's Hector Carrasco. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects? No. Travis Driskill. (Not him, either.) Deivi Cruz? Brook Fordyce? Marty Cordova? No, no, and no. Nor BJ Surhoff. Nor David Segui. Not Kerry Ligtenberg (who pitched well). Not Buddy Groom.
What you're simply ignoring is that the Orioles don't acquire these guys to trade them; they acquire them to use them. Of the crappy veterans the Orioles used in 2003 -- that whole list is just the ones who appeared in 2003, a year the Orioles went 71-91 -- they managed to convert one of them into one prospect: Jeff Conine was traded to the Marlins for Denny Bautista.
(Bautista, by the way, got a grand total of 2 innings with the Orioles... before they sent him on to the Royals for 36-year old Jason Grimsley.)
I guess that's just a philosophical difference. I'd rather have farm hands playing well below league average. At least there's hope for them. A 70-win team full of veterans -- in other words, the Orioles of the last decade -- is about as much fun to watch as curling is. I'd rather win 60 games with rookies than 70 games with veterans. I'd rather win 50 games with rookies than 70 games with veterans.
Yes, it is fair to call him a prospect at a one point in time.
No, they can't. Other teams aren't as dismissive of minor leaguers as the Orioles are; they don't give prospects for crappy veterans. After Stephens' 2002 debut, he was never used again. Which veteran starters did the Orioles instead use in 2003? Well, Omar Daal. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects? No. And Rick Helling. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects? No. And Pat Hentgen. He actually pitched reasonably well, unlike the others. Did the Orioles trade him for prospects, though? No.
The O's traded Traschel last season for two prospects. Obviously it's not a sure thing but it happens.
(Bautista, by the way, got a grand total of 2 innings with the Orioles... before they sent him on to the Royals for 36-year old Jason Grimsley.)
Yes, that was a travesty. I thought this trade, not the Benson/Maine trade, would be the one that would bit us in the ass.
The Orioles aren't putting 78-win teams on the field with their veterans. Over the last ten years, they've averaged 72 wins a season, not 78.
Just using Dan's number.
Not very often, and not for very much of a prospect when they ARE flipped.
In hindsight, looking back, there is a lesson we can learn here.
Stephens had good strikeout totals and K/BB ratios throughout his minor league career. But with the exception of his 2/3 season at Bowie, he was very hittable when the ball was put into play against him. His age-19 season at Delmarva was typical: he fanned 217 and walked 36 in 170 1/3 innings, but his ERA was a somewhat pedestrian 3.22 and his hits-allowed rate was still nearly 8 per nine innings. A year later at Frederick, he actually allowed more hits than IP, so while he had 121 Ks and just 22 BB in 118 innings, his ERA was 3.05.
Statistically-oriented analysts have always had a tendency to rate pitchers with good K/9 and good K/BB highly. But what I'm finding as I look at this more is that you have to look at what is happening when the ball is put into play - hBIP DOES matter for minor league pitchers (and hitters, too). And Stephens's hBIP was bad enough throughout his minor league career so that we SHOULD have proceeded with caution.
-- MWE
Trachsel, for his career, has an OPS+ of exactly 100; last year it was 103. He's not an ace, obviously, but average ERA starters have value. And the prospects the Orioles got are a tweener infielder (Moore, who doesn't have enough bat for a corner and not enough glove for an up-the-middle position) and a middle reliever (Cherry). Neither's going to help the Orioles get into the upper half of the league.
-- MWE
Neither's going to help the Orioles get into the upper half of the league.
Oh, I agree Mike, the probability of flipping a fringy vet for prospects isn't a great. And the prospects you do get back aren't great (like Moore or Cherry). But it happens and fringy prospects sometimes turn out to be very good players even if this an unlikely scenario. So I don't mind taking this calculated risk when the alternative is playing a minor league vet or a prospect who can only be called a prospect semantically.
He also had an unusually high workload by recent standards, and looks to have peaked at age 19-21, his deteriorating numbers across the board as he repeated AAA look fro all the world like a guy losing his stuff
a better test case for your idea would be a guy who could maintain his good K/BB, and never get his BABIP down low enough to be a useful pitcher.
Maine pitchng in the same system also had poor BABIPs except for one year- the difference is that Maine did not show cross the board declines in his peripherals when he repeated AAA
I suspect the hammering that Stephens got (as well as his progressive loss of effectiveness after he was demoted) unduly influenced the Orioles thinking as to Maine's prospects after Maine got hammered in his initial call up-
Maine simply needed to make adjustments- Stephens was just losing it.
To be fair, $H research was still in its infancy. I didn't even feel I had done enough research to incorporate $H into my translation model until after the 2003 season and I'm more interested in translating minor leaguers than most. Whereas I translated him at 4.01 in 2002, I'd translate his season as 4.63 now.
I still maintain, however, he deserved a real chance, given what the Orioles willingly threw out there.
Does anyone remember the circumstances of his broken foot? Whoever wrote his article on Wiki seems to imply that he was pitching with a broken foot while with the Orioles in 2002, but I have no recollection of it now.
And David's points on the vets is dead on. The Orioles have no intention of flipping most of them. It's an organizational philiosophy that says name recognition and experience is more important from both a baseball and business pov. Those few that they do flip bring in "prospects' who are no better than the ones already in house because they don't have any real value, so what's the advantage? You simply have more fringy type prospects and, going by past experience, you are simply going to block them next year with next year's 1 year contract vets. Is there a point to all that? Other than perpetuating the mediocrity, I don't see it. I'm with David. I'd rather see Stephens than Trachsel, even if it means we lose 110 games.
Jeez...can't agree with you here. I'm much rather watch a team of young guys lose 100 games than watch a team of mediocre vets lose 90. At least the young team might have some potential for the future, and 10 extra losses at that point isn't going to make a difference.
Trachsel, for his career, has an OPS+ of exactly 100; last year it was 103. He's not an ace, obviously, but average ERA starters have value. And the prospects the Orioles got are a tweener infielder (Moore, who doesn't have enough bat for a corner and not enough glove for an up-the-middle position) and a middle reliever (Cherry). Neither's going to help the Orioles get into the upper half of the league.
While I agree that the Orioles shouldn't be signing vets at this point with the intention of flipping them, I think this assessment of the Traschel trade is offbase. First, the Orioles got a third guy later on (can't remember his name). Second, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by arguing that these guys aren't going to help the Orioles get to the upper half of the league. They're not elite prospects obviously, and there's almost no chance they'll turn into above average players, but the Orioles were never going to get those types of guys for Trachsel. What the Orioles did get were three young players who might be decent role players and who give the orioles added depth. (e.g., Moore looks like he could be a decent bat off the bench.) THat's not a bad return for a guy who was viewed as a pitcher who was basically finished (regardless of his ERA+).
Let me say that I agree. When the O's resigned Kevin Millar for this year (or his option kicked in or whatever), for example, it was to play him, not trade him. But my point is that the potential exists for him to be traded at the deadline for a mediocre prospect, just like the potential existed for Traschel last year or when Conine was traded to FL for two decent prospects. When they signed Traschel last year, YES, the O's strategy was NOT to trade him for prospects but it was option that I imagine they were aware of. Going back to Kevbo, if he has respectable year, he might be traded this summer for a decent prospect even though you're correct in saying that they didn't sign him with this intention. I don't have a problem with playing Millar because the alternative is to play a minor league vet or rush a prospect like Rowell. But as said before, this debate is silly because BOTH options aren't very good in terms of the organization's future health.
they didn't give the fringy prospects a chance.
Scott Moore and Rocky Cherry did receive some playing time much to Melvin Mora's chagrin. I suspect both will continue to receive playing time in the future.
At least the young team might have some potential for the future, and 10 extra losses at that point isn't going to make a difference.
But my point, and maybe we're talking past each other or working under assumptions because I keep repeating this, is that when a team has the worst farm system for much of the past ten years, there is NO "potential for the future" in fielding such a team with the Orioles. Thus I rather watch the 72 win vet team than the 50 win young team that only semantically has potential for growth.
He looks to be a relatively middling prospect, but I probably would've still been happy with the Trax trade if he was the only player that came back.
trading anything of value for trax was dumb
sure he was getting decent results, but had a 45/69 k/bb in 141 IP
and Al Leiter was effective in 2004 too- and look at 2005, but Trachs whole game was his refusal to throw anything decent to hit-
his stuff was so poor that he was nearing a tipping point- anything within a foot of the strike zone was/is soon going to be a good pitch to hit - he was a detonation waiting to happen
Mora offered to waive his no-trade clause so that the Orioles could deal him. Have we taken him up on that?
My prediction? Scott Moore gets fewer than 100 ABs for the Orioles in 2008. Rocky Cherry gets fewer than 30 IP.
As I argued (in response to DN actually) in the other recent Orioles thread, the Orioles' farm system is not one of the worst in baseball at this point -- it's about average. And if ROberts and Bedard are traded for prospects, the Orioles will have a decent number of young players to build around. I'd much rather watch a 2008-09 lineup of say, E. Patterson 2B, A. Jones CF, N. Markakis RF, L. Scott/N. Reimold LF, A. Huff/J. Clement 1B, M. Murton DH, R. Hernandez/M. Weiters C, Moore 3B, L. Hernandez/whoever SS, and rotation of Guthrie, Loewen, Gallagher, Patton, and Cabrera, than a team with a few ok vets taking playing time from some of those prospects.
I don't think there is a team willing to take Mora. If he had any trade value, he would be gone.
Scott Moore gets fewer than 100 ABs for the Orioles in 2008. Rocky Cherry gets fewer than 30 IP.
RE: Moore. Well yeah, utility infielders, Moore's role next year, typically don't get a lot of ABs. Moore is a fringy prospect. He's been projected as a utility player by a lot of minor league people. I have a feeling that the O's agree with this assessment. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. Fringy prospect typically don't get a lot of playing time unless there is a rash of injuries. RE: Cherry. He'll get more 30 IPs if he pitches well. Again, he's a fringy prospect, he won't have a long leash. If he sucks in the playing time he doee get, he won't get more than 30 IPs.
First, I don't see any value in watching a 72-win vet team.
I find it interesting that you care so much about voicing agreement or disagreement with what someone wants to watch.
Second, there is always more potential for the future, even if the farm is bad, with young players.
Yes, there is always potential, just like there's alway potential for me to win a IPOD whenever I see a lottery posted somewhere. And damn it, I always enter and I never win!
Yes, I've been trying to quality my statement on that a bit by saying stuff like "except for the last two years" or "most of the last 10 years." I certainly agre that the O's farm system is not one of the worst in baseball at this point.
I'd much rather watch a 2008-09 lineup of say, E. Patterson 2B, A. Jones CF, N. Markakis RF, L. Scott/N. Reimold LF, A. Huff/J. Clement 1B, M. Murton DH, R. Hernandez/M. Weiters C, Moore 3B, L. Hernandez/whoever SS, and rotation of Guthrie, Loewen, Gallagher, Patton, and Cabrera, than a team with a few ok vets taking playing time from some of those prospects.
Me too damn it, me too! Get ir done, Andy. And notice that your young line up contains at least two blue prospects (Adam Jones and Matt Weiters). Murton and Loewen have nice upside. Reimold and Gallagher aren't bad either.
If he sucks in the playing time he does get, he won't get more than 30 IPs. Sorry about that, we need that edit function back. But to futher expand on Cherry, team typically bench players who don't perform well. The same rule will apply to Cherry. I hope he does well for no other reason that I want a guy named Rocky Cherry on my team.
And let me just say that I wouldn't mind seeing the O's cut Mora. He's a sunk cost. He has no trade value. He serve no purpose other than to ##### and whine. Hand the job over to Moore. But they won't cut him and play Moore regularly because of financial reasons not because the O's love to block young players.
I think that's a bit of a false dichotomy.
The O's, as contstructed at the beginning of the offseason, were a ~71 win team for 2008.
Trading away Tejada cost them ~2 wins, and trading away Roberts and Bedard would cost them ~3-4 more wins.
However, with all of the talent they could get from those trades, they could still trade away virtually every other player over 30 on the team and they still wouldn't project to lose 100 games.
What's even worse for me is that my other favorite team is the Pirates; a sucking mass if ever there was.
Maybe I'll start rooting for Milwaukee; now there's a team that committed to one path, stuck to it and now they have a fun team to watch play ball
Special kudos to David N for writing a graduate thesis on this topic. Your zeal is, as always, quite impressive.
Anyway, while Mora shouldn't be starting at 3B, he's a valuable utility player. (Well, he was; I don't know whether he can handle other positions anymore, since he's been starting at 3B full time in recent years and he's getting old. But if he could, he's a good guy to have around.)
Because I HATE Melvin Mora.
No; as you say, it's a sunk cost. There are no financial reasons.
Yes, but we know that the O's won't recognize Mora as a sunk cost. They see $7.5 million and they're not going to throw it away even if they don't realize that they have already thrown it away.
I'm just gonna say that it's darned impressive that the Oriole's have generated this much interest from anyone, period.
I must say that I was enormously happy to see a debate emerge on John Stephens last night. John Stephens! In regards to former O's players in the last 10 years, it doesn't get any more obscure than John Stephens.
1. in terms of the veteran pitchers the Orioles have signed in recent years, he was easily the BEST of the bunch - essentially an average #4 starter (yes, even with the ugly walk/K ratio).
2. in spite of that, the Orioles couldn't get even one player who is likely to play a significant role on a winning team in exchange (Renshaw's organizational filler, at best).
Realistically, no team signs lower-tier free agents with the intent of flipping them for something at the trade deadline, no matter what they say. They sign lower-tier free agents because they're hoping to catch lightning in a bottle, and get something approaching what they did when they were good, for a cheap price. That happens even less often than a team flips a Trachsel for a useful prospect.
-- MWE
Our utility infielder the last 3 years, 36 year old Chris Gomez, has never gotten fewer than 132 ABs. But, the simple fact that 36 year old Chris Gomez has been our UI for 3 years makes it clear that your assumption that Moore will even have that role is delusional. Moore will be stuck in AAA. Mora, Huff, Millar, and Gibbons will again share the DH/1B/3B spots. They will stink. But, unless they get hurt, Moore will stay in AAA.
I really don't see why you disagree with the point that teams headed nowhere that have crappy vets ought to give fringy prospects much longer leashes. They have nothing to lose. They ought to take chances on youth. They ought to give Cherry 75 IP. They ought to give Moore 500 ABs. And they ought to do that regardless of how well they play. There is simply no real value in playing those vets.
The Orioles will give Chris Gomez more than 500 ABs. And they won't give 100 to Jack Cust. That's got nothing to do with trade value or flipping vets. We all agree that Gomez has no trade value. It has to do with an organizational and business philosophy that values experience and name over youth. That's the Oriole strategy that you need to defend.
While our GM, either with or without the interference of Angelos, has wasted his time macFailing to trade either Bedard or Roberts, he hasn't even tried to trade these other people. Of course they're not big prizes like Bedard/Roberts; they're not going to bring us multiple high-level prospects in return. But they need to go, and either MacPhail doesn't know this, doesn't care, or doesn't have the authority to deal them. None of those options are encouraging.
I've been called worse. My hunch is that Moore will be with the big club as a utility infielder rather than at Norfolk. If I'm wrong and Moore goes to AAA, the world will go on. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Will Moore go to AAA or be the utilty fielder with the big club? Has anybody heard any relevant info? If Moore was considered a good prospect, I suspect that they would place him at AAA to get him regular ABs but I'm just guessing. Like Melvin Mora in 2003, if Moore starts raking with the big club in the limited chances he gets then I'm sure the O's will start giving some serious thought about giving him a full-time, regular position at either 3rd or 1st.
I really don't see why you disagree with the point that teams headed nowhere that have crappy vets ought to give fringy prospects much longer leashes. They have nothing to lose.
Like other people said before, this is a silly debate because either road isn't a good bet. It's not