Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bleedingorangeandblack

Dumpster Dan

73 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

$10m/yr for a #3-4 was pretty much the going rate. It was actually a pretty good deal for Houston. If he had any interest in coming back to the O's, I'm sure they would have given him that kind of money. But probably would have been hesitant to go for a 3rd year. That's something that I think gets lost in the Ubaldo conversation. $12m/yr for a #3 (which is what he was, coming into that deal) was the going rate. The problem I had with that deal, was that DD seemed to think he was getting a #1 starter for $12M. All he really did was add a #3 starter to a rotation that was comprised of all #3,4,5 guys.

I think these articles go with your line of thinking

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/season-preview-2017/bs-sp-orioles-special-section-ubaldo-jimenez-20170322-story.html

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/67873704/orioles-agree-to-four-year-deal-with-ubaldo-jimenez/

Edited by bleedingorangeandblack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$10m/yr for a #3-4 was pretty much the going rate. It was actually a pretty good deal for Houston. If he had any interest in coming back to the O's, I'm sure they would have given him that kind of money. But probably would have been hesitant to go for a 3rd year. That's something that I think gets lost in the Ubaldo conversation. $12m/yr for a #3 (which is what he was, coming into that deal) was the going rate. The problem I had with that deal, was that DD seemed to think he was getting a #1 starter for $12M. All he really did was add a #3 starter to a rotation that was comprised of all #3,4,5 guys. 

 

Feldman actually pitched pretty well for Houston even if his record wasn't great at 18-20.  He had 3.64 ERA and 1.29WHIP in his 3 years there.  Easy hindsight, but he would of been a much better deal then UJ.  Plus no number 1 pick forfeited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feldman actually pitched pretty well for Houston even if his record wasn't great at 18-20.  He had 3.64 ERA and 1.29WHIP in his 3 years there.  Easy hindsight, but he would of been a much better deal then UJ.  Plus no number 1 pick forfeited. 

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing what we know now, it was a bad signing for the Orioles; but it was not a terrible signing at the time. If Jimenez would have even come close to fulfilling what the Orioles expected of him, it would have been a bargain by today's standards. This is why signing free agent pitchers to long-term contracts is very risky. The Orioles signed Jimenez not only for his innings-eating capabilities but also because he was durable. He was never considered a #1 pitcher. The best-case scenario was that he would be the a consistent #4 pitcher and be a constant relief to the bullpen. He was neither. He was an enigma. There were innings where he pitched like he belonged ion Cooperstown (albeit - few innings) and then come back the next inning like he was a different player in that uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be afraid to sign quality pitchers, just because they may develop arm problems. It's very difficult to be the last team standing, when you live by that philosophy. You would have to go a long way into the past, to find a WS champion that didn't have a true top of the rotation, ace pitcher. The 2015 Royals had Cueto. That's the only team example of what might be a questionable #1 starter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be afraid to sign quality pitchers, just because they may develop arm problems. It's very difficult to be the last team standing, when you live by that philosophy. You would have to go a long way into the past, to find a WS champion that didn't have a true top of the rotation, ace pitcher. The 2015 Royals had Cueto. That's the only team example of what might be a questionable #1 starter. 

I understand your point, but the Tigers had three Cy-Young pitchers and the Orioles swept them. It's not impossible.

 

And IMO Tillman is an ace when healthy. It also bodes well that Bundy and Gausman seemed to have matured this year as well. And then there is this guy they got from the Phillies....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but the Tigers had three Cy-Young pitchers and the Orioles swept them. It's not impossible.

 

And IMO Tillman is an ace when healthy. It also bodes well that Bundy and Gausman seemed to have matured this year as well. And then there is this guy they got from the Phillies....

Yes, "anything is possible", as the saying goes. But there's "possible" and then there's what is. And what is, is that you have to look long and hard to find a WS champion that didn't have a true #1, top of the rotation pitcher. Unless I missed someone, the lat 30 WS champions have had that guy. So, for the last 30 years, that "anything is possible" percentage is still sitting at zero. If Tillman, Bundy and Gausman all fill that top of the rotation role, then the O's are set. They don't need to sign a Davis Price type (I think everyone understands why I used him as an example).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, "anything is possible", as the saying goes. But there's "possible" and then there's what is. And what is, is that you have to look long and hard to find a WS champion that didn't have a true #1, top of the rotation pitcher. Unless I missed someone, the lat 30 WS champions have had that guy. So, for the last 30 years, that "anything is possible" percentage is still sitting at zero. If Tillman, Bundy and Gausman all fill that top of the rotation role, then the O's are set. They don't need to sign a Davis Price type (I think everyone understands why I used him as an example).

For future reference can you use the KG Anything's POSSSSSSIBLE

Thanks

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For future reference can you use the KG Anything's POSSSSSSIBLE

Thanks

Lol

Good one  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but the Tigers had three Cy-Young pitchers and the Orioles swept them. It's not impossible.

 

And IMO Tillman is an ace when healthy. It also bodes well that Bundy and Gausman seemed to have matured this year as well. And then there is this guy they got from the Phillies....

Tillman ain't no ace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillman ain't no ace.

While he may be a #2 or maybe even a #3 on some teams, he would be an ace on quite a few. Who knows? When all is said and done, he may be a #2 or #3 or #4 on the Orioles staff in the future. The Orioles have done a pretty good job at growing and acquiring the arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice move by DD to hold on to one of his greatest dumpster finds ever - Brad Brach.  He could of traded him to Mets in a deal for Granderson or Bruce.  Now he is our short term closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice move by DD to hold on to one of his greatest dumpster finds ever - Brad Brach.  He could of traded him to Mets in a deal for Granderson or Bruce.  Now he is our short term closer. 

And he may have gotten a steal from the Phillies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he may be a #2 or maybe even a #3 on some teams, he would be an ace on quite a few. Who knows? When all is said and done, he may be a #2 or #3 or #4 on the Orioles staff in the future. The Orioles have done a pretty good job at growing and acquiring the arms.

I'm not sure you know what an ace is. One is not awarded the label of "ace", based on his position in the rotation. An ace is always an ace, no matter who the other pitchers are in the same rotation. I agree that Tillman is no ace. He's the O's #1 starter, but so was Jeremy Guthrie and Rodrigo Lopez, at one time. Using your definition, Guts and Lopez were ace pitchers. And that simply isn't true. It works the other way as well. Glavin and Maddox weren't the #1 starter in the Braves rotation. But they were both undeniably ace pitchers. Randy Johnson was in the #2 slot, behind Schilling. But Johnson was an ace.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you know what an ace is. One is not awarded the label of "ace", based on his position in the rotation. An ace is always an ace, no matter who the other pitchers are in the same rotation. I agree that Tillman is no ace. He's the O's #1 starter, but so was Jeremy Guthrie and Rodrigo Lopez, at one time. Using your definition, Guts and Lopez were ace pitchers. And that simply isn't true. It works the other way as well. Glavin and Maddox weren't the #1 starter in the Braves rotation. But they were both undeniably ace pitchers. Randy Johnson was in the #2 slot, behind Schilling. But Johnson was an ace.    

 

I think just about everybody would admit that Tillman is no "ace".  I haven't gone through the rosters, but there are probably only 10 or so aces in baseball if that.  And that "ace"  definition can be somewhat subjective.  I mean Kershaw is an ace.  And is an ace a higher level than a number 1 starter or the same thing??   I always thought of Tillman as a top end number 2.  He stacks up very well against most number 2 starters in baseball.

Bundy is the "Ace" in waiting.  Forget about Gausman.   Bundy should have the Ace mantle by mid year.  With the cutter back in the arsenal, he is now on a different level.  Gausman will be a very nice number 2 compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think just about everybody would admit that Tillman is no "ace".  I haven't gone through the rosters, but there are probably only 10 or so aces in baseball if that.  And that "ace"  definition can be somewhat subjective.  I mean Kershaw is an ace.  And is an ace a higher level than a number 1 starter or the same thing??   I always thought of Tillman as a top end number 2.  He stacks up very well against most number 2 starters in baseball.

Bundy is the "Ace" in waiting.  Forget about Gausman.   Bundy should have the Ace mantle by mid year.  With the cutter back in the arsenal, he is now on a different level.  Gausman will be a very nice number 2 compliment.

Again, being in the #1 slot of a rotation, doesn't make someone an ace pitcher. Otherwise, there would be 30 aces in the sport. And Glavin, Johnson and Maddox wouldn't be ace pitchers. If it helps, there is the term "true #1 pitcher", which is another way to say "ace". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, being in the #1 slot of a rotation, doesn't make someone an ace pitcher. Otherwise, there would be 30 aces in the sport. And Glavin, Johnson and Maddox wouldn't be ace pitchers. If it helps, there is the term "true #1 pitcher", which is another way to say "ace". 

 

Yep got it.  Ace and true number one same.  So what is your definition of an "ace" or true number one?  I mean I can think of Kershaw, Arrietta, Sale and Scherzer.   What about guys like Price and Straburg??   I don't think they are aces,  so are they number 2's now??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep got it. Ace and true number one same. So what is your definition of an "ace" or true number one? I mean I can think of Kershaw, Arrietta, Sale and Scherzer. What about guys like Price and Straburg?? I don't think they are aces, so are they number 2's now??

Kershaw

Scherzer

Bumgarner

Cueto

Arrieta

Syndergaard

DeGrom

Kluber

Sale

Maybe Verlander

Maybe Keuchel

 

That's who I'd label an Ace right now. I'm probably missing a couple but that's close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kershaw

Scherzer

Bumgarner

Cueto

Arrieta

Syndergaard

DeGrom

Kluber

Sale

Maybe Verlander

Maybe Keuchel

 

That's who I'd label an Ace right now. I'm probably missing a couple but that's close.

 

Thanks Slide.  I see 6 no doubt aces on your list - Kershaw, Scherzer, Arrietta, Sale, Kluber and Bumgardner.  Anybody who has a maybe isn't an ace like Verlnder and Keuchel.   I would have questions on Cueto and I haven't followed the 2 Met guys enough to know if they have a long enough track record of dominance to be an ace.  Anyway you slice it, aces are rare and there are a boatload of teams without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep got it.  Ace and true number one same.  So what is your definition of an "ace" or true number one?  I mean I can think of Kershaw, Arrietta, Sale and Scherzer.   What about guys like Price and Straburg??   I don't think they are aces,  so are they number 2's now??

 

I was just clarifying that a pitcher's position in the rotation doesn't qualify them for entry into that club. 

 

The more fun discussion of who is an ace, that's got a sliding scale element to it. I think Price qualifies. He's routinely in the running for the CYA. Verlander was an ace at one time. But his last few years have been up and down. He was certainly up, last season. But he's 34 now, so it's understandable if he's no longer considered to be among the elite pitchers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Slide.  I see 6 no doubt aces on your list - Kershaw, Scherzer, Arrietta, Sale, Kluber and Bumgardner.  Anybody who has a maybe isn't an ace like Verlnder and Keuchel.   I would have questions on Cueto and I haven't followed the 2 Met guys enough to know if they have a long enough track record of dominance to be an ace.  Anyway you slice it, aces are rare and there are a boatload of teams without them.

 

Yeah I'd put Cueto on the ace list.  He has gone 21-5 in his year plus with the Giants with a sub 3 ERA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0