Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Monday, January 21, 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

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 02:25 AM | 251 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. RoelTorres Posted: January 21, 2008 at 02:46 AM (#2672604)
Hi Dan,

Thanks for the Orioles projections.

Just FYI -- I believe that the links to the previous projections for the Rockies, Indians, Reds, and the White Sox are not functioning properly. Click on them to see what I mean.

Trying to be helpful,
Roel
   2. DKDC Posted: January 21, 2008 at 02:49 AM (#2672609)
This team is going to finish 5th no matter what, but it's looking more and more like they will hang on to Bedard and Roberts and continue to suck for the foreseeable future.
   3. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 02:52 AM (#2672611)
OK, they should all work now. Apparently, I skipped the = sign in the URL for the Rockies and copied the code for some of the other teams.
   4. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 02:53 AM (#2672612)
And yes, that optimistic for Bedard is, I believe, the highest ERA+ I've projected in an optimistic line this winter.
   5. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 21, 2008 at 03:06 AM (#2672615)
Daniel Cabrera:

Top Near-Age Comps: Matt Clement, Bobby Witt


That has got to be about the broadest range of comps that you could possibly get.

-- MWE
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 03:07 AM (#2672616)
Ah, Ben Davis, how far your star has fallen.

I didn't see a projection for B.J. Surhoff. Are they really not going to bring him back for one more season?
   7. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 03:10 AM (#2672618)
Damn. And I had such high hopes for Guillermo Quiroz.
   8. The District Attorney Posted: January 21, 2008 at 03:15 AM (#2672621)
Mike, I don't understand your point about the "broadest range of comps"...? Clement and Witt are both around .500 career pitchers; Clement has a career 96 ERA+, Witt 91; as you'd expect from the fact that they're comparable to Cabrera, they both have high walks and strikeouts. Clement isn't as "extreme" a pitcher as Witt, and probably won't pitch as long because of his health problems (and will probably make up the current ERA+ difference between himself and Witt if he does), but they're not all that different, are they?
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 03:51 AM (#2672640)
I think that line for Loewen might be a little low, though I can understand why ZiPS would come up with it.
   10. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:18 AM (#2672651)
Request (even though he's out for a good chunk of the year) for RHP Cory Doyne.
   11.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:32 AM (#2672656)
I did not realize that Luke Scott was 30 already. That is disappointing.
   12. pancakehead Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:49 AM (#2672666)
Dan Szymbodqxi

Do you really have enough free time to randomly throw random numbers out to project every player? How do you make up these numbers? One day do you just wake up and say Vlad is gonna hit .285 with 22 homers this year? Just wondering how you get your random totally wrong numbers.

The Troll
   13. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 21, 2008 at 06:16 AM (#2672687)
Wow, that is a pretty amazing optimistic projection for Bedard.
   14. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:36 AM (#2672702)
Wow, that is a pretty amazing optimistic projection for Bedard.
Yeah; now if only the rest of the <strike>pitchers</strike>team didn't look so bad... (like our current shortstop being Luis Hernandez).
   15. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:48 AM (#2672705)
I don't understand. This team really doesn't look anything close to execrable on paper. Okay, they don't have a shortstop and they aren't world beaters, but these projections really look like a slightly below-average team to me, i.e. substantially better than these comments (including Dan's) are suggesting.

Am I horribly missing something in here?
   16. xeifrank Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:51 AM (#2672707)
Nice projections for Markakis at 24 years old.

Of all the outfielders with a 2008 ZIPS Projection and of the age 25 or less, Markakis' closest statistical similarity scores belong to (keep in mind this does not take age or outfield position into consideration, only pure stats).

1) Billy Butler (KC)
2) C.Rasum (Stl)
3) H.Pence (Hou)
---------------------
For Reimold (same criteria)
1) A.Jones (Sea)
2) Kroeger (ChC)
3) Dorn (CIN)
---------------------
For Tripp (same criteria)
1) Bruce (Cin)
2) Maxwell (Was)
3) Kroeger (ChC)

vr, Xei
   17.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:03 AM (#2672709)

Am I horribly missing something in here?


Yes. Team age. A 75 win team with a lot of young, exciting players is one thing. A 75 win team with an average age of 33 is depressing.
   18. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:14 AM (#2672710)
So is Daniel Cabrera ever going to put it together? He's still pretty young but he isn't any better now than when he came up in 2004.
   19. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 09:02 AM (#2672717)
I don't understand. This team really doesn't look anything close to execrable on paper. Okay, they don't have a shortstop and they aren't world beaters, but these projections really look like a slightly below-average team to me, i.e. substantially better than these comments (including Dan's) are suggesting.

Am I horribly missing something in here?
I think so. Since they were substantially below average last year, and the year before, and the year before, and, at the moment, haven't yet added anybody of any significance... it's hard to see how they'll only be slightly below average. You're talking about a team which has no players who project to be substantially above average except Roberts and Bedard... and both of those players may, if MacFail does his job, be gone in a week or two. Markakis could well break out and be a very good player. But one very good player, a few average players, and a lot of substantially below average players = execrable.


Yes. Team age. A 75 win team with a lot of young, exciting players is one thing. A 75 win team with an average age of 33 is depressing.
Indeed. Not all of the individual projections are awful, but of the players who do project to be decent, you've got one guy (Ray) who isn't playing in 2008, two guys (Bedard and Roberts) who should be playing somewhere else, a couple of middle-aged middle relievers, Loewen (coming off a serious injury), and Markakis. Then you've got some mediocrities at best in Millar, Gibbons, Huff, Hernandez.. all of whom are over 30. Maybe in 2009 or 2010, there'll be a bunch of hope. But for 2008, there are likely no bright spots except RF.
   20. lincarnate Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM (#2672722)
I'll take the over on Bako's line.

Seriously, does he have the worst projected line for a hitter?
   21. Harvey Berkman Posted: January 21, 2008 at 12:11 PM (#2672728)
I'll take the over on Bako's line.

Seriously, does he have the worst projected line for a hitter?


Well, it's a small sample size...
   22. Slumpy Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:30 PM (#2672787)
Is Mike Cervenak still with the organization? I'd be interested in seeing a projection on him; always thought he deserved a break in the majors since his Yankees days, after being one of the steadiest RBI producers in the minors, but his stats have been declining a little lately.
   23. Mirabelli fan No.1 Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:34 PM (#2672788)
Hey I'm new here and I wanted to say I enjoyed these projections. Just asking, but how did you manage to get these projections? Do you have some sort of computer program? Thanks.
   24. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 04:47 PM (#2672802)
So is Daniel Cabrera ever going to put it together? He's still pretty young but he isn't any better now than when he came up in 2004.
He might, but he's going to have to learn to throw strikes. In the same number of innings, Cabrera has more walks than anyone in history and is one of only two players (Dave Sisler is the other) to throw that many innings with a BB/9 over five. (There's only two other guys even over 4.)
   25. Mike Green Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2672813)
Randy Johnson's career started out pretty much like Cabrera's, although Unit got a later start. Koufax had already found control by age 25.

If everything breaks right for the O's, Loewen, Bedard and Cabrera all reach their 15% optimistic projection, and they still finish 3rd. The odds of Bedard going 18-3 or better with an ERA under 2.25 are probably 200-1. Even if he meets his end of the deal, the bullpen and offence will probably saddle him with a 15-7 record.
   26. CoastalFan Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2672815)
Ouch - Houston may have done themselves a favor by losing Patton and Albers. That's some ugly numbers for guys who were once the future arms in Houston...
   27. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:33 PM (#2672828)
Remember, these are just projections for 2008 - Patton wasn't all that great in AAA, so he's probably just not quite ready.
   28. DKDC Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:43 PM (#2672841)
The ERA projections are ugly for all the 5th starter candidates:

5.41 22 Troy Patton*
5.81 25 Matt Albers
5.91 23 Garrett Olson*
5.95 23 Hayden Penn
6.00 25 James Johnson
6.12 27 Brian Burres*
6.29 25 Radhames Liz

Odds are that one of these guys hits an optimistic projection around league average. Of course, knowing the Orioles, they'll pick the wrong guy and someone will put up a 2.50 ERA in Norfolk.
   29. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2672850)
Hey I'm new here and I wanted to say I enjoyed these projections. Just asking, but how did you manage to get these projections? Do you have some sort of computer program? Thanks.

The disclaimer and the FAQ should hopefully say it all!
   30. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 21, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2672851)
5.41 isn't that ugly for 5th starter - an ERA+ of 85 where around 96 tends to be average for a starter.
   31. Walt Davis Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:35 PM (#2672965)
They do realize that it's pretty common practice to have a shortstop, right? Is this the new moneyball, exploiting the market inefficiency of having 9 players on the field?

The starting pitching is awful, inconsistent and injury-riddled (well, Loewen anyway).
   32. Boriole Forester Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:44 PM (#2672970)
AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Player A .276 .349 .405 125 417 56 115 23 2 9 55 43 83 1 2
Player B .287 .363 .437 145 579 93 166 39 3 14 80 70 87 36 7
   33. 47YOUNEVERKNOW47 Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:46 PM (#2672974)
Great stuff as always Dan.

Since you did the Astros before they acquired Miguel Tejada, would it be possible to get a 2008 Houston projection for Miggi?

Thanks, & keep up the good work!
   34. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 21, 2008 at 07:50 PM (#2672982)
The starting pitching is awful, inconsistent and injury-riddled (well, Loewen anyway).

WIth or without Bedard? With Bedard it looks about average. Without him it looks bad, but there are enough options there that I think it might not be horrible. I think the offense will be worse than the pitching, but if they trade Bedard and Roberts and fully commit to rebuilding, 2008 doesn't matter anyway.
   35. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:06 PM (#2672995)
   36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2673013)
I think the offense will be worse than the pitching. Without him it looks bad, but there are enough options there that I think it might not be horrible.
There's far more upside with the pitching -- which is why I think it a mistake for the Orioles to obsess over acquiring pitching (*) -- but also more downside, at least in the short term. If they pick the right pitchers from their many options, they could hit their upside. If they pick ones who aren't ready, ugh.

On the other hand, there's just nothing there right now with the offense. Although that Reimold projection is better than I would have thought. If that's reasonable, he should probably be in Baltimore now.



(*) Obviously if they trade Bedard they're going need a grade A prospect to replace him; I'm not disputing that. But for the other four slots in the rotation, there are already lots of options. I don't think it makes sense to waste Bedard/Roberts on acquiring numerous pitching prospects, when they currently have more than they can even take a look at.
   37. Red Robot Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2673014)
[32] Player B is definitely Brian Roberts, and Player A looks like Mark DeRosa?

Yeah, they're closer than you'd think. Roberts' 10-point AVG advantage accounts for the gap in their rate stats, and the only other real difference is Roberts' speed.

Seems like the Cubs would be crazy to give up Marshall, Gallagher, and Cedeno (Cubs' best SS) for Roberts. Of course, if Roberts is the impetus to slide Soriano down in the batting order, it might be okay.
   38. 47YOUNEVERKNOW47 Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2673020)
As they say in Jamaica, 'Russian - big up yourself!'
   39. Boriole Forester Posted: January 21, 2008 at 08:43 PM (#2673023)
#37. That's right, a mere 0.45 difference in OPS is the difference between an above- and a below average 2B, a surprisingly low variance.

From what I read/hear from the Baltimore media, that package is a little light for MacPhail's liking and would have to include one of Pie or Colvin, hence the sitzkrieg.
   40. Sweet Posted: January 21, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#2673070)
#37. That's right, a mere 0.45 difference in OPS is the difference between an above- and a below average 2B, a surprisingly low variance.

Well, the 45-point difference in OPS understates the difference in their respective offensive contributions inasmuch as it ignores baserunning ability, where Roberts probably has something like a one-win edge.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Cubs should get Roberts, even if it takes Colvin (but not if it takes Pie). Beyond the fact that Robert is, all things considered, probably a 2-3 win upgrade over DeRosa, plugging him in at 2B gives the Cubs a solid backup plan for when (not if) Ramirez gets nicked up and if (not necessarily when) Lee, Soriano, or Roberts himself gets hurt. Otherwise, when Ramirez pulls a quad, you're looking at an infield of DeRosa-Theriot-Fontenot-Lee, and that's not going to cut it.

I think I'd trade any three (and possibly any four) of Marshall, Gallagher, Colvin, Theriot, Fontenot, Patterson, and Cedeno to get Roberts, and I actually like some of those guys.
   41. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 09:58 PM (#2673082)
Yeah, they're closer than you'd think. Roberts' 10-point AVG advantage accounts for the gap in their rate stats, and the only other real difference
...for 2008...
is Roberts' speed.
Roberts is also 3 years younger.
   42. DKDC Posted: January 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM (#2673104)
Roberts would also probably benefit from translating his stats to Wrigley and the NL.

DeRosa's not a bad player, but Roberts is a ~2 win upgrade. Also, having DeRosa around as a super-sub/insurance makes the Cubs a much better team.
   43. Tricky Dick Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#2673166)
Too bad that Leo Mazzone is no longer with the Orioles. Having seen Matt Albers pitch a lot, he always struck me as a pitcher who needed someone like Mazzone as a coach. Albers has decent talent, and if he becomes more consistent with his control, I could see him as a surprise in the Orioles' rotation. Unfortunately, the 5.81 ZIPS projection probably is more likely.
   44. JPWF13 Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM (#2673170)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Cubs should get Roberts, even if it takes Colvin


Colvin's a college guy who people are irrationally excited about because he hit .299-16-81 between the FSL and the Southern league.
Well he had a K/BB of 101/15-
he's the second coming of Craig Brazell

If you can trade him for more than a year of Brian Roberts you should do it, hell if you can trade for one year of Brian Roberts and he's the difference maker between making the playoffs or not you should do it.
   45. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM (#2673206)
I agree with JPWF13; I don't see any reason to be so high on Colvin. I want Pie.
   46. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:41 PM (#2673214)
but im not sure if roberts is whats needed for the cubs the make the playoffs. without him i think they make it anyway, and the biggest need is at SS.
   47. Jeff K. Posted: January 21, 2008 at 11:55 PM (#2673233)
Dan, do we have a date set for the full projection Excel?
   48. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 22, 2008 at 12:04 AM (#2673254)
First build probably in a week or so.
   49. Red Robot Posted: January 22, 2008 at 12:35 AM (#2673283)
First build probably in a week or so.


Awesome, Dan. Truly, you are a giant among men.
   50. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 22, 2008 at 01:16 AM (#2673294)
As they say in Jamaica, 'Russian - big up yourself!'

It's kind of hard to get a big head when people don't even know your name right.

Man, that's a weird sentence.
   51. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 22, 2008 at 01:50 AM (#2673311)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Cubs should get Roberts, even if it takes Colvin (but not if it takes Pie). Beyond the fact that Robert is, all things considered, probably a 2-3 win upgrade over DeRosa, plugging him in at 2B gives the Cubs a solid backup plan for when (not if) Ramirez gets nicked up and if (not necessarily when) Lee, Soriano, or Roberts himself gets hurt. Otherwise, when Ramirez pulls a quad, you're looking at an infield of DeRosa-Theriot-Fontenot-Lee, and that's not going to cut it.

Right -- Derose could easily get ~500 ABs as a supersub, so Roberts ABs really replace weaker options off the bench. It's hard to understand why this deal hasn't been done, since Gallagher, Murton, and Patterson/Cedeno seems like a very fair deal for both sides. The orioles get some young talent, and the Cubs aren't going to miss any of those guys too much. I'd love to get Pie, but at the end of the day I'd do the deal without him.
   52. Jeff K. Posted: January 22, 2008 at 02:14 AM (#2673322)
You're not going to orphan it in February and make me bug you every week in IRC again, are you? Because I only kind of like doing that.
   53. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 22, 2008 at 02:40 AM (#2673337)
You're not going to orphan it in February and make me bug you every week in IRC again, are you? Because I only kind of like doing that.

That was only a very last build for the last couple weeks of spring training!
   54. 47YOUNEVERKNOW47 Posted: January 22, 2008 at 06:44 PM (#2673859)
It's kind of hard to get a big head when people don't even know your name right.


Oops, sorry.

And all this time I thought you were somehow connected to Eddie Ainsmith & Rube Schauer.

People in Baltimore always spell Miggi M-I-G-G-Y, too. Look at the man's custom wristbands people!
   55. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:04 PM (#2673950)
I don't understand. This team really doesn't look anything close to execrable on paper. Okay, they don't have a shortstop and they aren't world beaters, but these projections really look like a slightly below-average team to me, i.e. substantially better than these comments (including Dan's) are suggesting.

Am I horribly missing something in here?


I guess you're saying that the team underperformed given the talent level but don't forget 1) the incompetence of Perlozzo, and to a lesser extent, Trembley, and 2) the team won something like 10 games after the 30-3 debacle on 8/22. Up to that point, the team was at least competitive. But injuries decimated the starting lineup. Guthrie, Bedard and Trachsel (traded) were gone which gave starts to Liz, Victor Zambrano and a whole bunch of other crap players that I can't remember. Burres turned back into Burres and Walker and Bradford had a bad August. Until late August, the team could get away with a spotty offense behind a strong rotation. Once 3/5 of the rotation was gone and Daniel Cabrera becomes your ace, things got ugly fast.
   56. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:34 PM (#2673983)
Is it just me or do the Orioles of recent vintage have a habit of packing it in come September? I could probably run some numbers on this. Let's find out:

September Record:
2002: 4-24
2003: 10-16
2004: 18-10
2005: 10-18
2006: 10-18
2007: 10-19

So basically, except for 2004, the O's are a team that mails it in once Labor Day rolls around. Although luckily they've never quite humiliated themselves again like they did in '02.
   57. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2673987)
If anyone is curious by the way, that comes to 62-105 (.371) for September since 2002.
   58. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:39 PM (#2673994)
September callups while playing in a division with two perennial playoff contenders probably has a lot to do with that.
   59. AROM Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:42 PM (#2673998)
For Reimold (same criteria)
..
3) Dorn (CIN)


Any relation to Roger?
   60. Spahn Insane Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:47 PM (#2674006)
That projection for Gabor looks optimistic to me.
   61. Spahn Insane Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:48 PM (#2674009)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Cubs should get Roberts, even if it takes Colvin (but not if it takes Pie).

Seconded, especially since I don't think Colvin's ever going to turn into anything interesting.
   62. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:52 PM (#2674015)
September callups while playing in a division with two perennial playoff contenders probably has a lot to do with that.


You'd think so, wouldn't you? But that assumes that 1. there were folks worthy of being called up in September 2. Front office types would call them up 3. On-the-field management types would play them

Some or all of those assumptions were violated as often as...traffic laws on Eutaw Street.
   63. DKDC Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:53 PM (#2674016)
Is it just me or do the Orioles of recent vintage have a habit of packing it in come September?

Part of that is the unbalanced schedule.

Over the last 4 years, they've played 120 games after Labor Day.

-53 of those games were against the Red Sox or Yankees, and 66 of those games were against a team that went to the playoffs that year.

-Just 14 games against the Devil Rays, and 1 against the Royals.

The Orioles won 51 of those 120 games. Given the difficult schedule, that's actually not bad (42.5%) compared to their overall winning percentage over the last 4 years (45%).
   64. Spahn Insane Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:54 PM (#2674018)
<i>I agree with JPWF13; I don't see any reason to be so high on Colvin. I want Pie.<?i>

Yes, well, there are a lot of teams that'd like a piece of Pie.

If the Cubs give him up in a Roberts deal, I think they're nuts, unless Roberts can play center.
   65. Spahn Insane Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:55 PM (#2674020)
Stupid no-editing feature in the TO...
   66. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#2674021)
Is it just me or do the Orioles of recent vintage have a habit of packing it in come September? I could probably run some numbers on this. Let's find out:

The O's roster typically looks like AAA roster by September. Why? The O's are traditionally way out of September so the team is trying out a whole bunch of crap players by then to see if they're any good. Any good tradeable players are also gone by September. And, of course, injuries. 2005 was bad as well. Roberts was injuried and Palmiero gate pretty much poisoned the team. Some of the options the O's have used for depth have worked out (see Guthrie and Tike Redman filled in admireably for a couple of months, Gomez has been fine coming off the bench the last few years), but often times, AAA back up players have played like well, AAA back up players.
   67. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM (#2674086)
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But that assumes that 1. there were folks worthy of being called up in September 2. Front office types would call them up 3. On-the-field management types would play them

Some or all of those assumptions were violated as often as...traffic laws on Eutaw Street.
Indeed. Orioles managers have a habit of saying things like, "These guys have earned the right to play" -- and shockingly, they're not talking about callups, but about the veterans who have stunk up the joint all year. The other day, Trembley announced that it wouldn't be fair for Melvin Mora to lose his third base job just because he hasn't played well in several years. (Okay, he didn't _phrase_ it that way, but the point stands.)
   68. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM (#2674095)
? The O's are traditionally way out of September so the team is trying out a whole bunch of crap players by then to see if they're any good.
They are? On what planet? That's what well-managed teams do, not what the Orioles do. (They do often have crap players, but that's due to injuries, not due to them trying out players in September callups.)
Any good tradeable players are also gone by September.
Again, since when? That's what well-run teams do, not what the Orioles do. They've made no more than a handful of sporadic trading deadline deals over the years.
   69. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM (#2674106)
They are? On what planet?

They are what? You don't think the O's are giving playing time to crappy players to see what they're worth in September?

Again, since when?

Believe or not, the O's have traded players with perceived value at the trading deadline. Not very often mind you but it has happened. See Traschel, Ponson, or Conine (the 2004 trade with FL that is) for example.
   70. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM (#2674107)
Trembley announced that it wouldn't be fair for Melvin Mora to lose his third base job just because he hasn't played well in several years. (Okay, he didn't _phrase_ it that way, but the point stands.)

Trembley like to say rah rah lame stuff in order to give his players a psychological boost.
   71. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:40 PM (#2674138)
A recent example of not playing the utes, circa Sept. '07

ABs:

Moore, 52

Mora, 86
Huff, 88
Millar, 97
   72. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM (#2674144)
Oh, and Moore got more ABs than John Knott and J.R. House combined.
   73. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:47 PM (#2674152)
A recent example of not playing the utes, circa Sept. '07

What's utes?
   74. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM (#2674157)
Youths. Little shavers. Guys not yet eligible for Social Security.
   75. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:01 PM (#2674173)
Youths. Little shavers. Guys not yet eligible for Social Security.

Oh, Leicester, Liz, and Olson are part of the utes movement. They all received plenty of playing time. Not to mention Luis Hernandez received some playing time at SS to test him out for a starting role next year. And before these sorry players, we had Fio, Walter Young, and Val Majewski getting their late season cup of coffee. I'm not saying the O's go on full blown youth movement in September. But I do think minor league guys get a bit more play in September for various reasons which is partially responsible for their September record.
   76. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM (#2674176)
Leicester is 28 and...not very good, not exactly part of the ute movement. Liz and Olson each got a couple of starts and were quickly replaced with the likes of Zambrano (not the good one) and Santos. You got me with Hernandez, although if he is a young starter needing developmental time in the bigs than I'm a monkey's uncle's right testicle. And I only have time at the moment to look up stats and confine my argument to '07, thanks.
   77. Boriole Forester Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM (#2674186)
bigs than I'm


should read "big then I'm"...

oh and I apologize for sounding pissy, just trying to type quickly while doing other things.
   78. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#2674189)
Leicester is 28

Good grief, I didn't know that. I hated him before now I definitely don't want to ever see him again.

Liz and Olson each got a couple of starts and were quickly replaced with the likes of Zambrano (not the good one) and Santos. You got me with Hernandez, although if he is a young starter needing developmental time in the bigs than I'm a monkey's uncle's right testicle. And I only haveto '07, thanks. time at the moment to look up stats and confine my argument

Were Liz and Olson replaced? I can't remember and I certainly don't care enough to look it up. I thought our September rotation was Cabrera, Olson, Liz, Zambrano, Santos, and Leicester (my god, I just wrote and it still makes me shudder). I believe Guthrie made 1 (or 2?) September starts but that line up was the rotation for September. In any case, the Traschel trade and injuries pushed these sorry ass minor league guys into playing time and contributed to the O's September collapse. Replace some names and the same sort of thing happens to the O's at end of every season.
   79. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:46 PM (#2674209)
They are what? You don't think the O's are giving playing time to crappy players to see what they're worth in September?
No.

Believe or not, the O's have traded players with perceived value at the trading deadline. Not very often mind you but it has happened. See Traschel, Ponson, or Conine (the 2004 trade with FL that is) for example.
The Ponson trade is an example of that; it's also from 2003. Before that, you had a whole series of deals in 2000. But the Trachsel, Conine, and Javy Lopez deals were simply dumping players, not making deadline deals to rebuild.
   80. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2008 at 11:50 PM (#2674218)
You got me with Hernandez, although if he is a young starter needing developmental time in the bigs than I'm a monkey's uncle's right testicle
No, he doesn't have you with Hernandez. Hernandez got a small amount of playing time last year, but most of it was when Tejada was hurt. Was he called up in September? Yes. And used primarily as a defensive replacement. He only got 7 starts, 4 of them the last week of the season. That's not exactly what one calls a tryout. (Not that I'm complaining; as you say, he has as much business being in the majors as my grandmother does.)
   81. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:00 AM (#2674223)
Were Liz and Olson replaced? I can't remember and I certainly don't care enough to look it up. I thought our September rotation was Cabrera, Olson, Liz, Zambrano, Santos, and Leicester
For the record, our September starts were:

6 Cabrera
5 Leicester
4 Burres
3 Santos
3 Guthrie
2 Zambrano
2 Liz
2 Olson
2 Birkins

(For the record, our September ERA was 6.89, although that includes relievers.)

Yes, that was actually painful. That's 29 games, and of those 29, 14 of those were not started by any players we were looking at (Leicester, Burres, Santos, Zambrano), and 9 others were by people already in the rotation (Guthrie, Cabrera).

That leaves 6 of 29 starts for 'prospects,' and I guess that depends how one views Birkins.
   82. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:01 AM (#2674226)
No.

I certainly understand that the O's have given retrends playing time in September but trying out crappy prospects is also part of the September ritual starting with John Parrish and Rick Bauer then to Walter Young, Fio, Majewski, and now Luis Hernandez, Olson, and Liz.

But the Trachsel, Conine, and Javy Lopez deals were simply dumping players, not making deadline deals to rebuild.

Ok, not sure what we're arguing about anymore though. I just said Traschel and Niner (and Javy fits that bill which created more ABs for Gil) were players with perceived values who were traded which created openings for even more sorry players. Not sure how your point relates to that issue.
   83. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:08 AM (#2674230)
6 Cabrera
5 Leicester
4 Burres
3 Santos
3 Guthrie
2 Zambrano
2 Liz
2 Olson
2 Birkins


With the exception of Cabrera, Guthrie, and Burres, these are all guys pulled from the minor leagues (11 starts, or 38% of starts) strictly for September in order to cover for injuries or the Traschel trade (my original point).
   84. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:32 AM (#2674241)
With the exception of Cabrera, Guthrie, and Burres, these are all guys pulled from the minor leagues (11 starts, or 38% of starts) strictly for September in order to cover for injuries or the Traschel trade (my original point).
Well, the original point to which I responded said that the Orioles are "trying out a whole bunch of crap players by then to see if they're any good." There's a difference between calling up a player because someone got hurt and calling up a player to try him out to see if he's any good.

None of Santos, Zambrano, Leicester, or Burres were being tried out to see if they were any good. (Neither were Guthrie or Cabrera, obviously.) That possibly leaves Birkins, and definitively leaves Liz and Olson. IOW, 4-6 of 29 starts actually match that description I challenged.


I certainly understand that the O's have given retrends playing time in September but trying out crappy prospects is also part of the September ritual starting with John Parrish and Rick Bauer then to Walter Young, Fio, Majewski, and now Luis Hernandez, Olson, and Liz.
Young got 9 starts, actually hit pretty well, and disappeared. Majewski got three starts, then disappeared. Hernandez, as I pointed out above, got 7 starts. Fiorentino may be at the border of starting to get looked at. That's not what trying out prospects actually looks like. (What's sad is that it's been so long since the Orioles let a young player have a chance that that people think of this as giving players a tryout.)
   85. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:50 AM (#2674252)
There's a difference between calling up a player because someone got hurt and calling up a player to try him out to see if he's any good.

Well, I think they're connected. An injury is followed by the Orioles calling up either a vet or one of their sorry prospects.

Young got 9 starts, actually hit pretty well, and disappeared. Majewski got three starts, then disappeared. Hernandez, as I pointed out above, got 7 starts. Fiorentino may be at the border of starting to get looked at. That's not what trying out prospects actually looks like.

Fair enough. Parrish and Bauer though certainly received their of playing time late in the season. Matos, Hairston, and Bechler are other O's (failed) prospects that most likely received playing time in September (too lazy to check up the split stats). Roberts was another failed prospect until 2005 who most likey received some playing time in September. And Matt Riley and Larry Bigbie were also young O's players given a chance (who obviously did a little better than the aforementioned players before sucking as well). I'm sure if I actually did a little research, I could come up with more names of sorry Orioles prospects. Oh, off the top of my head, John Stephens, Kohlmeier, and Josh Towers were all players the O's gave a chance. Except for a short period of time for Kohlmeier and Towers, they all sucked. The O's are willing to give their farm hands a chance, they just suck.
   86. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 12:54 AM (#2674255)
Jayson Werth, now that's an O's prospect who didn't get a chance who should have, not that he's some great loss either.
   87. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 01:01 AM (#2674258)
Young got 9 starts, actually hit pretty well, and disappeared. Majewski got three starts,

And I think the O's didn't give these guys many starts because they realized Young wasn't any good and Majewski has been injury prone.
   88. Boriole Forester Posted: January 23, 2008 at 01:26 AM (#2674276)
I think our point was that some (most?) teams out of contention bring up a handful of near-ML ready players to get some developmental time. For a multitude of reasons, the Orioles stopped doing that.
None of their "prospects" "earned" a call-up, according to them. They seemed to view the roster expansion as merely a way to get bench depth, a pinch runner, a situational reliever, a spot starter. In my mind, they wasted great opportunities to bring folks up for developmental time or an extended tryout.

Like Knott. House. Moore. And that was just this year. Three guys you could kick the tires on for free, rather than watch the octogenarians get a little longer in the tooth.
   89. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 01:52 AM (#2674293)
None of their "prospects" "earned" a call-up, according to them. They seemed to view the roster expansion as merely a way to get bench depth, a pinch runner, a situational reliever, a spot starter. In my mind, they wasted great opportunities to bring folks up for developmental time or an extended tryout.

Bigbie, Hairston/Roberts, Riley, Towers, Bauer, Parrish, Kohlmeier, and Matos were certainly give a fair chance (as a late season call up or otherwise) in ways beyond "bench depth, a pinch runner, a situational reliever, a spot starter." Unfortunately, these guys weren't any good thus they didn't stick. And lately, Hoey, Ray, Olson, Fahey and golden boy Nick were certainly given a fair chace in the big leagues. Nick and Ray will certainly stick, the others are undecided. I guess Young, Majewski (though that's probably attributable to injuries), John Stephens, Fio, and Werth weren't given extended looks, but these later guys weren't exactly great prospects. Every org favors some prospects over other, thus leading to differences in playing time.
   90. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 23, 2008 at 02:19 AM (#2674309)
The point is the Orioles do not "favor some prospects over others." They favor tire vets who have nothing to contribute to a future Oriole team over marginal prospects who may just be able to make that contribution. That's true whether we are talking about Benson/Maine, or Jack Cust, or good old Pickering. All of these guys or none of them may have panned out, but one thing is for sure. We'll never find out about prospects like that on an Oriole team, because they have NO intention of giving any prospect who is not a guaranteed sure thing an even shot at getting a chance.
   91. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 02:33 AM (#2674320)
We'll never find out about prospects like that on an Oriole team, because they have NO intention of giving any prospect who is not a guaranteed sure thing an even shot at getting a chance.

Bigbie, Hairston/Roberts, Riley, Towers, Bauer, Parrish, Kohlmeier, Daniel Cabrera, and Matos: None of these guys were considered "sure thing" prospects back in the day. Actually, Riley probably generated the most attention from the minor league peeps. He was considered a very good prospect for awhile but certainly not a top notch, "sure thing" prospect. Same with Erik Bedard who too was given a fair chance to stick in the rotation and finally matured after a couple of seasons. And even now, Olson and Ray weren't considered great prospects but the O's gave them a chance. Golden Boy Nick obviously fits your description of a guaranteed sure thing prospect who was given a chance. But these other guys were considered solid prospects who were given a fair amount of playing time and sucked except for Roberts (wasn't jack cust given quite a number of bats too, in any case, his base running blunder sealed his fate). Pickering ate his way out of a chance.
   92. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:25 AM (#2674358)
No, Cust was given 73 ABs in 2003, during which he hit .260/.357/.521. Next year he got 1 AB, as Newhan, Segui, Surhoff and others were used at DH. Bigbie was first blocked by Cordova, then was injured for a year, before he finally basically forced the Orioles to give him a chance with a strong half year. He was not quite as good the next year, but still had an OPS of 101. The next year when he started slow, he was replaced by Surhoff before the end of May.

Blocked for a year and half by a crappy older player. Given less than 900 ABs spread over 3 years where you do better than the old guy. And you get benched. That's the Oriole definition of a chance for a younger player.

Quit defending the insanity.
   93. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:31 AM (#2674361)
Quit defending the insanity.

The O's have been quite incompetent over the years but not giving their farmhands a fair chance isn't one of their flaws. They need good prospects first. That's the bigger problem. Afterall, this is a farm system that was ranked the near bottom by most minor league pundits until the last couple of years. Bigbie, like the other players I've mentioned, were given plenty of chances. It sucks it didn't work out but I don't miss any of them. Out all of those players I mentioned, I'll take Rick Bauer back, but I really don't miss him either.
   94. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:32 AM (#2674364)
Kohlmeier got 66 IP over 2 seasons. That was it. Parrish had ONE season where he pitched more than 42 IP for the Orioles. That was it. Bauer was a SP in the minors. He was given the chance to start 9 games over 6 years with the Orioles, despite doing a decent job in the pen. That was it. Towers had a decent year for the Orioles. When he struggled the next year as a 25 year old they dumped him.

I'm sorry, but you have a very odd definition of giving a young player a chance.
   95. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:34 AM (#2674366)
And yes, given the year that Cust just had, I wish I could have him back too.
   96. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:36 AM (#2674370)
I'm sorry, but you have a very odd definition of giving a young player a chance.

They sucked! And they've sucked since they've left the O's!!! Do you expect the O's to keep giving sorry ass players ABs or IPs! Are you really defending John Parrish!
   97. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:37 AM (#2674372)
I'm pretty sure Matos, Riley, Kohlmeier and et all are still available if you believe they should be picked up and given their proper chance! :)
   98. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: January 23, 2008 at 03:42 AM (#2674378)
Parrish had ONE season where he pitched more than 42 IP for the Orioles. That was it.

And besides, Parrish has been injured alot. And he was given plenty of chances this year. I never want to see him AGAIN. I literally hid underneath my coffee table everytime he came out of the bullpen. He sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, and sucks some more. Good riddance.
   99. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 23, 2008 at 07:37 AM (#2674486)
Out all of those players I mentioned, I'll take Rick Bauer back, but I really don't miss him either.

John Maine?
   100. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 23, 2008 at 08:15 AM (#2674495)
The O's have been quite incompetent over the years but not giving their farmhands a fair chance isn't one of their flaws. They need good prospects first. That's the bigger problem. Afterall, this is a farm system that was ranked the near bottom by most minor league pundits until the last couple of years. Bigbie, like the other players I've mentioned, were given plenty of chances. It sucks it didn't work out but I don't miss any of them. Out all of those players I mentioned, I'll take Rick Bauer back, but I really don't miss him either.
It's absolutely true that the Orioles' farm has ranged from crappy to crappier over the last decade+, but the system being bad does not mean all the individual prospects have been bad. Moreover, dismissing the prospects as bad ignores the fact that they were replaced with people who were just as bad, but older. Sometimes prospects get better, but 34 year olds who weren't that good to begin with, don't.

They sucked! And they've sucked since they've left the O's!!! Do you expect the O's to keep giving sorry ass players ABs or IPs! Are you really defending John Parrish!
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.

Yes, I expect the Os, if they're trying to build a winning team, to give "sorry ass" young players ABs or IPs. Because not all of them "suck," and when you don't play them, you have no way to tell.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8953 seconds
47 querie(s) executed