Starting pitching

[UVA_Guy81]

Tanner Scott? Yeah, the Dodgers sign everyone in an effort to try winning a WS. They don't care what payroll is. This is what makes baseball an un even playing field. As you said, the rich (dodgers, yankees, redsox just to name a few) get richer. That's why its so great to see them fail.

Sorry, yes, that's who I meant.
And the thing about the Dodgers is not only are they willing to spend until their hearts content but they also are also really good at scouting talent to boot and usually have a good farm system to trade from when they need someone to trade for.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

[T]he thing about the Dodgers is not only are they willing to spend until their hearts content but they also are also really good at scouting talent to boot and usually have a good farm system to trade from when they need someone to trade for.

Cross-posted from Fangraphs in a reworded form (since my comment there somehow got stuck in the moderation queue):

---

Here's a crazy proposal: What if we introduce "handicapping" to the MLB, where teams deemed to have a sufficiently large financial advantage are required to start certain games at a score deficit? The idea is that this would address the issue of competitive balance somewhat if a hard salary cap and floor is a non-starter:

• Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees might be able to afford paying the luxury tax for overspending, but imagine having to start games at a "half-run" disadvantage (i.e. a tie after 9+ innings counts as a loss) as well because of your team's location and payroll. Surely there is eventually a point where a handicap adjustment becomes large enough to level the playing field?
  
  
• This new rule would practically force large market teams to overspend in order to overcome the handicap adjustment associated with their location, which should benefit players (while the owners would prefer this over a hard salary floor).
  
  
• Since there are separate handicap adjustments for large market status and payrolls that exceed certain thresholds, owners would have an incentive to "spend enough but also not too much," as the marginal value of additional payroll would produce diminishing returns (or even become negative) at some point. When everyone has to "play Moneyball," the game would be about who can assemble the most efficient roster (adjusted for market size and payroll, that is) as opposed to the most expensive one.
  
  
• But how would this prevent "cheap" owners from doing nothing? While it's not as effective a deterrent as a hard salary floor (or tinkering with the revenue sharing rules, which may also be a non-starter for owners), one possibility is to implement a handicap adjustment for extreme under-spending as well (imagine the A's being penalized 2 runs per game because John Fisher decides to wait out the Sacramento years by assembling teams of only league-minimum players, for example).

---

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Here's a crazy proposal: What if we introduce "handicapping" to the MLB, where teams deemed to have a sufficiently large financial advantage are required to start certain games at a score deficit? [...]

Addendum:

• For an idea of how much difference a handicap adjustment would make, consider the 2024 Dodgers for example: If they had to start each game with a one-run deficit for simply being located in Los Angeles (which is arguably a built-in advantage), and half of their one-run wins in reality become extra-inning wins, their regular season record would be reduced from 98-64 to approximately 88-74, which would barely miss the postseason. That means a large market team like the Dodgers would practically need to assemble a team of superstars just to make the playoffs, which is good for everyone: The players would benefit because they get paid, the owners would benefit because a team of superstars would increase fan interest and thus ultimately help their bottom line, and the fans would also benefit because the quality of the product is improved alongside competitive balance.
  
  
• Also notable is that the current practice of large market teams trying to "buy a championship" could easily backfire once their aging former superstars become bad contracts. This is because the proposed handicap adjustment associated with large contracts would still remain even if the teams involved can afford to simply reload with new free agent signings-- which would actually increase the adjustment further. In a sense, it's not unlike the concept of a "dead cap" in the NFL (but without the need of a hard salary cap).

 

[skinz2winz]

• Bryan Woo stats (2024): 9-3 record, 2.89 ERA, 0.898 WHIP, 101 strikeouts, 121.1 innings pitched

The only way I would want to make this trade with Seattle is Mayo for Woo straight up. Woo is 24 years old with terrific upside.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

• Bryan Woo stats (2024): 9-3 record, 2.89 ERA, 0.898 WHIP, 101 strikeouts, 121.1 innings pitched

The only way I would want to make this trade with Seattle is Mayo for Woo straight up. Woo is 24 years old with terrific upside.

Heard about that rumor on Ryan Ripken's podcast clip yesterday. I definitely don't have a problem with the glut of players we have, my question would be is who gets pushed out of the rotation? I know that they talked about a six man rotation last year but me personally, I always like having that extra bullpen guy.

Cross-posted from Fangraphs in a reworded form (since my comment there somehow got stuck in the moderation queue):

---

Here's a crazy proposal: What if we introduce "handicapping" to the MLB, where teams deemed to have a sufficiently large financial advantage are required to start certain games at a score deficit? The idea is that this would address the issue of competitive balance somewhat if a hard salary cap and floor is a non-starter:

• Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees might be able to afford paying the luxury tax for overspending, but imagine having to start games at a "half-run" disadvantage (i.e. a tie after 9+ innings counts as a loss) as well because of your team's location and payroll. Surely there is eventually a point where a handicap adjustment becomes large enough to level the playing field?
  
  
• This new rule would practically force large market teams to overspend in order to overcome the handicap adjustment associated with their location, which should benefit players (while the owners would prefer this over a hard salary floor).
  
  
• Since there are separate handicap adjustments for large market status and payrolls that exceed certain thresholds, owners would have an incentive to "spend enough but also not too much," as the marginal value of additional payroll would produce diminishing returns (or even become negative) at some point. When everyone has to "play Moneyball," the game would be about who can assemble the most efficient roster (adjusted for market size and payroll, that is) as opposed to the most expensive one.
  
  
• But how would this prevent "cheap" owners from doing nothing? While it's not as effective a deterrent as a hard salary floor (or tinkering with the revenue sharing rules, which may also be a non-starter for owners), one possibility is to implement a handicap adjustment for extreme under-spending as well (imagine the A's being penalized 2 runs per game because John Fisher decides to wait out the Sacramento years by assembling teams of only league-minimum players, for example).

---

Not sure I'm a fan. I guess I've always liked the best team on the field wins the game where it starts at 0-0. If they're interested in a salary cap, I'm just curious in how they'd do it with guys coming and going to and from the minors and what do they do when teams like the Dodgers defer a good portion of their contracts.

 

[skinz2winz]

Heard about that rumor on Ryan Ripken's podcast clip yesterday. I definitely don't have a problem with the glut of players we have, my question would be is who gets pushed out of the rotation? I know that they talked about a six man rotation last year but me personally, I always like having that extra bullpen guy.

Not sure I'm a fan. I guess I've always liked the best team on the field wins the game where it starts at 0-0. If they're interested in a salary cap, I'm just curious in how they'd do it with guys coming and going to and from the minors and what do they do when teams like the Dodgers defer a good portion of their contracts.

Tbh, we are not sure what we will get with Bradish when he returns or his health moving forward. Rogers? Meh. I have confidence in Rodriguez, Eflin and that's about it. Not sure what we are getting in 35 yr old Sugano. Kremer is Kremer then the rest.

MLB salary cap is needed for sure.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

Tbh, we are not sure what we will get with Bradish when he returns or his health moving forward. Rogers? Meh. I have confidence in Rodriguez, Eflin and that's about it. Not sure what we are getting in 35 yr old Sugano. Kremer is Kremer then the rest.

MLB salary cap is needed for sure.

Yeah, hoping that Grayson can be the ace everyone envisions he can be. Also hope that Eflin continues how he played last year. Kremer is one of those guys that he's a Jekyll and Hyde type guy where he can be either really good or really awful. Sugano is definitely a wild card as it's hard to tell what we'll get from him. Morton will hopefully just stay healthy and eat some innings. If those are your five, Povich I see going back to Norfolk and Suarez will become the long reliever (which is the role I prefer him in) that can spot start if necessary. Can't see Rogers making the rotation (thankfully he has another minor league option) unless there's more injuries and we don't have a choice.
Agree with both Bradish and Wells. Just hope that they don't over do it or come back too early like Means did and get reinjured.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Not sure I'm a fan. I guess I've always liked the best team on the field wins the game where it starts at 0-0. If they're interested in a salary cap, I'm just curious in how they'd do it with guys coming and going to and from the minors and what do they do when teams like the Dodgers defer a good portion of their contracts.

MLB salary cap is needed for sure.

I am only introducing the radical idea of a score handicap adjustment as an alternative approach for achieving competitive balance because of a known issue: The players are highly unlikely to agree to a hard salary cap without a hard salary floor, while the owners won't accept the latter without the former (the concern is that potential negotiations on the exact thresholds could cost the 2027 season).

Anyway, another alternative in the same vein is to apply an adjustment to the overall record in a similar manner as that of European soccer leagues, where teams could be docked points in the standings table for reasons including financial fair play violations. In the MLB context, that could mean having large market teams start a season with a 0-10 record (with this deficit subject to further increases if payroll is too high), so that they would need to win more games to make the playoffs. This would offset the financial advantage without changing the nature of individual games.

 

[skinz2winz]

I am only introducing the radical idea of a score handicap adjustment as an alternative approach for achieving competitive balance because of a known issue: The players are highly unlikely to agree to a hard salary cap without a hard salary floor, while the owners won't accept the latter without the former (the concern is that potential negotiations on the exact thresholds could cost the 2027 season).

Anyway, another alternative in the same vein is to apply an adjustment to the overall record in a similar manner as that of European soccer leagues, where teams could be docked points in the standings table for reasons including financial fair play violations. In the MLB context, that could mean having large market teams start a season with a 0-10 record (with this deficit subject to further increases if payroll is too high), so that they would need to win more games to make the playoffs. This would offset the financial advantage without changing the nature of individual games.

While creative hg, that's a stretch for sure.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Tbh, we are not sure what we will get with Bradish when he returns or his health moving forward. Rogers? Meh. I have confidence in Rodriguez, Eflin and that's about it. Not sure what we are getting in 35 yr old Sugano. Kremer is Kremer then the rest.

Yeah, hoping that Grayson can be the ace everyone envisions he can be. Also hope that Eflin continues how he played last year. Kremer is one of those guys that he's a Jekyll and Hyde type guy where he can be either really good or really awful. Sugano is definitely a wild card as it's hard to tell what we'll get from him. Morton will hopefully just stay healthy and eat some innings. If those are your five, Povich I see going back to Norfolk and Suarez will become the long reliever (which is the role I prefer him in) that can spot start if necessary. Can't see Rogers making the rotation (thankfully he has another minor league option) unless there's more injuries and we don't have a choice.

Agree with both Bradish and Wells. Just hope that they don't over do it or come back too early like Means did and get reinjured.

Regarding the question of what happens to the major league pitching staff if the Orioles trade for Bryan Woo: Based on the projected depth chart on Fangraphs, it does look like there is currently no room at all.

• The projected rotation is already Eflin / Rodriguez / Morton / Kremer / Sugano (the exact order is debatable, but it's hard to see anyone else replacing any of these five at the moment), while Povich / Rogers / McDermott / Young are all projected to start the season in AAA;
  
  
• For the bullpen, Suárez is already the projected long reliever as a result of adding Sugano and Morton, while the addition of Kittredge is projected to push Bryan Baker back to AAA. The other projected members of the bullpen are Bautista, Akin, Dominguez, Cano, G. Soto, and Pérez.

So the question may come down to "who's the weakest link in practice" once the 2025 season starts, as there are no obvious candidates among the 13 projected pitchers right now (and we haven't even accounted for the potential return of Bradish / Wells yet).

• One could certainly move the "worst" starter of the five to the bullpen, but who would you demote from the bullpen to AAA? If one is forced to choose based on Fangraphs projections for 2025, a possbile candidate is Cionel Pérez (0.0-0.2 projected fWAR)-- but even that is debatable. Would you really DFA Pérez when he's a lefty and has performed better than Gregory Soto between 2022-24 (3.12 ERA / 3.30 FIP / 2.0 fWAR in 164.2 IP for Pérez, vs. 4.09 ERA / 3.62 FIP / 1.9 fWAR in 173.2 IP for Soto)?
  
  
• If the question ultimately boils down to who has options remaining (in order to avoid having to DFA anyone), the choices are between Rodriguez, Kremer, Bautista, Akin, and Cano. I don't see any of these five being at risk of being sent down to create a roster spot except maybe for matchup / load management purposes, which means that the only scenario remaining is an injury replacement (which the Orioles actually needed plenty of in 2024).
  

Conclusion: If the Orioles are considering trading for Woo, they should probably consider including a pitcher in return as well (especially if this can reduce the cost in terms of prospects)...

 

[skinz2winz]

Regarding the question of what happens to the major league pitching staff if the Orioles trade for Bryan Woo: Based on the projected depth chart on Fangraphs, it does look like there is currently no room at all.

• The projected rotation is already Eflin / Rodriguez / Morton / Kremer / Sugano (the exact order is debatable, but it's hard to see anyone else replacing any of these five at the moment), while Povich / Rogers / McDermott / Young are all projected to start the season in AAA;
  
  
• For the bullpen, Suárez is already the projected long reliever as a result of adding Sugano and Morton, while the addition of Kittredge is projected to push Bryan Baker back to AAA. The other projected members of the bullpen are Bautista, Akin, Dominguez, Cano, G. Soto, and Pérez.

So the question may come down to "who's the weakest link in practice" once the 2025 season starts, as there are no obvious candidates among the 13 projected pitchers right now (and we haven't even accounted for the potential return of Bradish / Wells yet).

• One could certainly move the "worst" starter of the five to the bullpen, but who would you demote from the bullpen to AAA? If one is forced to choose based on Fangraphs projections for 2025, a possbile candidate is Cionel Pérez (0.0-0.2 projected fWAR)-- but even that is debatable. Would you really DFA Pérez when he's a lefty and has performed better than Gregory Soto between 2022-24 (3.12 ERA / 3.30 FIP / 2.0 fWAR in 164.2 IP for Pérez, vs. 4.09 ERA / 3.62 FIP / 1.9 fWAR in 173.2 IP for Soto)?
  
  
• If the question ultimately boils down to who has options remaining (in order to avoid having to DFA anyone), the choices are between Rodriguez, Kremer, Bautista, Akin, and Cano. I don't see any of these five being at risk of being sent down to create a roster spot except maybe for matchup / load management purposes, which means that the only scenario remaining is an injury replacement (which the Orioles actually needed plenty of in 2024).

Conclusion: If the Orioles are considering trading for Woo, they should probably consider including a pitcher in return as well (especially if this can reduce the cost in terms of prospects)...

Not giving up McDermott so include Kremer in return or even Povich.

 

[skinz2winz]

Mets Reportedly Discussing Trade for $7M Slugger As Pete Alonso Pivot

If first baseman Pete Alonso doesn't return to the New York Mets, could Baltimore Orioles slugger Ryan Mountcastle take over for him in Queens?

www.newsweek.com

 

[skinz2winz]

Mets Reportedly Discussing Trade for $7M Slugger As Pete Alonso Pivot

If first baseman Pete Alonso doesn't return to the New York Mets, could Baltimore Orioles slugger Ryan Mountcastle take over for him in Queens?

www.newsweek.com

So, if there is any truth to this, would Mayo step in or do we look at Alonso and his power? Mountcastle's power has eroded since 2021.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Mets Reportedly Discussing Trade for $7M Slugger As Pete Alonso Pivot

So, if there is any truth to this, would Mayo step in or do we look at Alonso and his power? Mountcastle's power has eroded since 2021.

The 2025 Fangraphs projections suggest that Mountcastle would still be a less-bad option at 1B from the standpoint of offensive production if the alternative is Mayo or Kjerstad (when the latter is not playing OF or DH); the drop-off is estimated at about 20-30 OPS points, which may be tolerable if it's possible to trade Mountcastle for a pitcher.

That being said, it looks like the Mets are thinking about moving Mark Vientos to 1B while possibly giving Brett Baty more playing time at 3B, which would eliminate the need for Mountcastle at all... And even if the Mets are still interested in trading for Mountcastle, would they even agree to send a pitcher in return? (For example, someone suggested "Mountcastle + Pérez for Megill" on baseballtradevalues.com, presumably based on the assumption that the Mets 26-man roster might not have a spot for Tylor Megill as things now stand. I doubt that the Mets would consider this trade-- but if this could be done, making the trade and then signing Pete Alonso to upgrade 1B might work on paper.)

 

[skinz2winz]

Scherzer to Blue Jays on 15.5m 1yr deal. Elias better step up his game. I still say Mountcastle and Kjerstad to Mariners for Woo. Then sign Alonso.

 

[skinz2winz]

Would it be possible to pry Miller away from the Mariners? I know my below proposal seems one sided but, we are not resigning Mounty, Kjerstad is in a crowded OF and Kremer is our 5th currently and would likely fall out of the rotation in Baltimore by adding Miller. Miller becomes our #1. To entice the Mariners, I threw in a top 20 prospect not named Basallo, McDermott, Mayo or Honeycutt. They can have one of the following listed below, however.

Mariners Receive:
Mountcastle
Kjerstad (top prospect)
Kremer
Top 20 prospect

Orioles Receive:
Miller (4 yrs of team control)

The remainder of the Top 10 included outfielder Enrique Bradfield, outfielder Dylan Beavers, pitcher Michael Forret, outfielder Jud Fabian and shortstop Griff O’Ferrall.

Prospects No. 11-20 were pitcher Nestor German, pitcher Trey Gibson, pitcher Cameron Weston, pitcher Keeler Morfe, pitcher Luis De Leon, pitcher Patrick Reilly, pitcher Trace Bright, shortstop Leandro Arias, outfielder Stiven Martinez and pitcher Brandon Young.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

Would it be possible to pry Miller away from the Mariners? I know my below proposal seems one sided but, we are not resigning Mounty, Kjerstad is in a crowded OF and Kremer is our 5th currently and would likely fall out of the rotation in Baltimore by adding Miller. Miller becomes our #1. To entice the Mariners, I threw in a top 20 prospect not named Basallo, McDermott, Mayo or Honeycutt. They can have one of the following listed below, however.

Mariners Receive:
Mountcastle
Kjerstad (top prospect)
Kremer
Top 20 prospect

Orioles Receive:
Miller (4 yrs of team control)

The remainder of the Top 10 included outfielder Enrique Bradfield, outfielder Dylan Beavers, pitcher Michael Forret, outfielder Jud Fabian and shortstop Griff O’Ferrall.

Prospects No. 11-20 were pitcher Nestor German, pitcher Trey Gibson, pitcher Cameron Weston, pitcher Keeler Morfe, pitcher Luis De Leon, pitcher Patrick Reilly, pitcher Trace Bright, shortstop Leandro Arias, outfielder Stiven Martinez and pitcher Brandon Young.

As you should have heard by now, the Mets have managed to re-sign Alonso... Regarding your latest idea, the trade values given by baseballtradevalues.com as of the beginning of 2025 are as follows:

• Bryce Miller 48.4 (presumably in millions)
• Ryan Mountcastle 8.2; Heston Kjerstad 20.2; Dean Kremer 13.7

The estimated values for the three Orioles players add up to 42.1, so you still need 6.3. For comparison, here are their estimated trade values for the remaining top 10 prospects in the Orioles system that you have listed:

• Enrique Bradfield 11.3; Dylan Beavers 8.2; Michael Forret 5.4; Jud Fabian 3.8; Griff O'Ferrall: 2.5

---

So it looks possible to come up with a "fair" trade on paper. But would the Mariners even consider it? If we look at the Fangraphs projections:

• Downgrading from Miller to Kremer is worth 1.2 - 2.1 = -0.9 fWAR (and 42 fewer innings pitched).
  
  
• For 1B, Luke Raley is currently expected to be the starter at vs. RHP. However, Raley is weaker vs. LHP, which means that a platoon where Mountcastle starts vs. LHP might work. If their next option is Tyler Locklear at 0.2 fWAR, Mountcastle could be an upgrade; assuming that his playing time is halved, the net gain in value would be about 1.1 / 2 - 0.2 = 0.35 fWAR.
  
  
• The Mariners are probably okay in LF / RF right now, which leaves DH as the only place where having Kjerstad start regularly could be an upgrade. However, Mitch Haniger's salary for 2025 probably prevents him from losing too much playing time, and thus the net gain from adding Kjerstad is likely to be small, maybe about 0.2 fWAR (based on the difference between Kjerstad's ~0.4 fWAR at DH vs. ~0.1-0.3 for individual players of the Mariners DH committee).
  
  
• That means some value is still lost on the aggregate, and thus the extra prospect would matter on the margin.

---

Meanwhile, the potential negative side effects for the Orioles have to be considered as well:

• Losing Mountcastle AND Kjerstad means that it's sink or swim for Mayo at 1B versus LHP (O'Hearn would still start vs. RHP)... unless you're willing to start Jackson Holliday at 2B against LHP as well (which would allow Westburg to stay at 3B, and thus allow Urías to play 1B instead of Mayo).
  
  
• Losing Kjerstad may be tolerable for the outfield, as Laureano was brought in to be the right-hitting half of the platoon vs. LHP anyway. However, the absence of Kjerstad would practically commit Tyler O'Neill to be a full-time starter (which may be happening due to his salary anyway, but his splits vs. RHP in 2024 may be a concern).
  
  
• While technically anyone can play DH, Kjerstad is one of the better options, and O'Hearn cannot play both 1B and DH in the absence of Mountcastle. While you could use Rutschman as the DH vs. LHP (since Sánchez would be catching), you're now out of lefties to start at DH vs. RHP-- which means that the choices are between starting Mayo vs. RHP as well, or having the outfielder called up from AAA to replace Kjerstad (presumably Dylan Carlson or Daz Cameron) start vs. RHP on a regular basis in order to play O'Neill at DH.
  
  
• Considering all of the above, I am not convinced that the marginal value gain from upgrading Kremer to Miller would actually be worth it... at least for the regular reason (although the strengthened rotation for the postseason could be worth it, provided that the Orioles actually make it there).

 

[skinz2winz]

As you should have heard by now, the Mets have managed to re-sign Alonso... Regarding your latest idea, the trade values given by baseballtradevalues.com as of the beginning of 2025 are as follows:

• Bryce Miller 48.4 (presumably in millions)
• Ryan Mountcastle 8.2; Heston Kjerstad 20.2; Dean Kremer 13.7

The estimated values for the three Orioles players add up to 42.1, so you still need 6.3. For comparison, here are their estimated trade values for the remaining top 10 prospects in the Orioles system that you have listed:

• Enrique Bradfield 11.3; Dylan Beavers 8.2; Michael Forret 5.4; Jud Fabian 3.8; Griff O'Ferrall: 2.5

---

So it looks possible to come up with a "fair" trade on paper. But would the Mariners even consider it? If we look at the Fangraphs projections:

• Downgrading from Miller to Kremer is worth 1.2 - 2.1 = -0.9 fWAR (and 42 fewer innings pitched).
  
  
• For 1B, Luke Raley is currently expected to be the starter at vs. RHP. However, Raley is weaker vs. LHP, which means that a platoon where Mountcastle starts vs. LHP might work. If their next option is Tyler Locklear at 0.2 fWAR, Mountcastle could be an upgrade; assuming that his playing time is halved, the net gain in value would be about 1.1 / 2 - 0.2 = 0.35 fWAR.
  
  
• The Mariners are probably okay in LF / RF right now, which leaves DH as the only place where having Kjerstad start regularly could be an upgrade. However, Mitch Haniger's salary for 2025 probably prevents him from losing too much playing time, and thus the net gain from adding Kjerstad is likely to be small, maybe about 0.2 fWAR (based on the difference between Kjerstad's ~0.4 fWAR at DH vs. ~0.1-0.3 for individual players of the Mariners DH committee).
  
  
• That means some value is still lost on the aggregate, and thus the extra prospect would matter on the margin.

---

Meanwhile, the potential negative side effects for the Orioles have to be considered as well:

• Losing Mountcastle AND Kjerstad means that it's sink or swim for Mayo at 1B versus LHP (O'Hearn would still start vs. RHP)... unless you're willing to start Jackson Holliday at 2B against LHP as well (which would allow Westburg to stay at 3B, and thus allow Urías to play 1B instead of Mayo).
  
  
• Losing Kjerstad may be tolerable for the outfield, as Laureano was brought in to be the right-hitting half of the platoon vs. LHP anyway. However, the absence of Kjerstad would practically commit Tyler O'Neill to be a full-time starter (which may be happening due to his salary anyway, but his splits vs. RHP in 2024 may be a concern).
  
  
• While technically anyone can play DH, Kjerstad is one of the better options, and O'Hearn cannot play both 1B and DH in the absence of Mountcastle. While you could use Rutschman as the DH vs. LHP (since Sánchez would be catching), you're now out of lefties to start at DH vs. RHP-- which means that the choices are between starting Mayo vs. RHP as well, or having the outfielder called up from AAA to replace Kjerstad (presumably Dylan Carlson or Daz Cameron) start vs. RHP on a regular basis in order to play O'Neill at DH.
  
  
• Considering all of the above, I am not convinced that the marginal value gain from upgrading Kremer to Miller would actually be worth it... at least for the regular reason (although the strengthened rotation for the postseason could be worth it, provided that the Orioles actually make it there).

I think its disgusting we could not improve our lineup with a heavy hitter. 2 yrs 54M for Alonso to blast close to 80 HR's in those 2 years. We could have used that kind of fire power instead of thinking O'Neill will fill the void. He will not.

Your talking Luke Raley vs Ryan Mountcastle. No real comparison and who cares anyway. Mounty would get most starts with Raley playing sparingly which is why the Mariners would love Mountcastle. And yes, it's time for Mayo to get his opportunity, he is ready for steady AB's. O'Hearn will do his thing whether its at 1B or DH and as a vet, you find him some AB's to keep him sharp but Mayo needs majority of AB's moving forward as he is the future and most likely better suited at 1B, not 3B. Mountcastle is no longer the future here in BMore anyways.

As you mention, O'Neil's salary all but guarantee's he get majority of playing time in RF. I'm sure Laureano will get his opportunities as well but likely won't see anywhere near 300AB's this year on his 4m salary. He is more less insurance. Dylan Carlson is a savy vet as well and it seems to me, Elias is positioning himself to make a trade either now, or at mid-season using Kjerstad as the center piece. The problem is that if Elias waits until mid-season, Kjerstad doesn't produce, his value could decrease. Kjerstad is running out of time to continue calling him a prospect. He is either part of the future or he is not so decisions must be made.

Having Miller over the next 4 seasons far outweigh giving Kremer the ball for the foreseeable future. He is 26 years old, has a 2.82 era over the past 30 games and is considered a top 30 pitcher in MLB. He has tossed over 300+ innings in 2 seasons with no health or durability issues and looks to be getting stronger. It seems to be a win win for BMore not having to figure out your #2 moving forward as I see GRod as our #1 moving forward.

As for Bradish and Wells, I would never count on oft injured players making a long-term impact on the rotation. Not good business.

 

[hattersgonnahate]

You're talking Luke Raley vs Ryan Mountcastle. No real comparison and who cares anyway. Mounty would get most starts with Raley playing sparingly which is why the Mariners would love Mountcastle. And yes, it's time for Mayo to get his opportunity, he is ready for steady AB's. O'Hearn will do his thing whether its at 1B or DH and as a vet, you find him some AB's to keep him sharp but Mayo needs majority of AB's moving forward as he is the future and most likely better suited at 1B, not 3B. Mountcastle is no longer the future here in BMore anyways.

As you mention, O'Neil's salary all but guarantee's he get majority of playing time in RF. I'm sure Laureano will get his opportunities as well but likely won't see anywhere near 300AB's this year on his 4m salary. He is more less insurance. Dylan Carlson is a savy vet as well and it seems to me, Elias is positioning himself to make a trade either now, or at mid-season using Kjerstad as the center piece. The problem is that if Elias waits until mid-season, Kjerstad doesn't produce, his value could decrease. Kjerstad is running out of time to continue calling him a prospect. He is either part of the future or he is not so decisions must be made.

Having Miller over the next 4 seasons far outweigh giving Kremer the ball for the foreseeable future. He is 26 years old, has a 2.82 era over the past 30 games and is considered a top 30 pitcher in MLB. He has tossed over 300+ innings in 2 seasons with no health or durability issues and looks to be getting stronger. It seems to be a win win for BMore not having to figure out your #2 moving forward as I see GRod as our #1 moving forward.

• Regarding the issue of Raley vs. Mountcastle for the Mariners: I am just trying to avoid "home-team bias" here, as the average of 8 models in the 2025 Fangraphs projections actually predicts a slightly higher value for Raley vs. Mountcastle (1.5 vs. 1.4 fWAR). Furthermore, historical splits also show higher career and 2024 OPS figures vs. RHP for Raley. Hence the interpretation that the Mariners would probably view Mountcastle as the "versus LHP" half of the 1B platoon as opposed to replacing Raley as the full-time starter.
  
  
• As for the question of Mountcastle vs. Mayo for the Orioles: I do agree with the idea of setting up Mayo to be the future starter at 1B, especially considering his 3-year projections (for comparison, Mountcastle is expected to start declining). The concern is more about avoiding a repeat of what happened to Jackson Holliday earlier in the 2024 season: If Mayo continues to struggle in 2025, there would be no real alternative for 1B/DH if both Mountcastle and Kjerstad are traded (but if Kjerstad is retained for now, it would still be possible to set up a platoon as a stop-gap solution).

That being said... Since the rotation is such a glaring weakness right now, maybe sacrificing some hitting in the short term could still be a reasonable tradeoff, especially if trading for Bryce Miller (or better starters in general) is meant as a multi-year upgrade. Perhaps the Orioles could look for other trade options that involve giving up only Mountcastle and Kremer plus a prospect, but not Kjerstad? Let's look at a few of the ideas on baseballtradevalues.com that are supposedly fair on paper:

• Kremer + Mountcastle + Jud Fabian (25.7M) for Michael King (27.7M): On paper, the Padres have a slight weakness at 1B and DH, but I doubt that the Padres would be willing to part with King, at least not without a better prospect in return. (Another version of this hypothetical trade includes Enrique Bradfield instead, but that would be an overpay on paper since the value given up would add up to 33.2M.)
  
  
• Kremer + Mountcastle (21.9M) for Kevin Gausman, Adam Macko, and Davis Schneider (20.5M): A slight overpay for the Orioles, and I don't see the Blue Jays considering this either (trading Gausman would be a rebuilding move, for which they would probably want prospects in return as opposed to Kremer + Mountcastle).
  
  
• Scrolling further down Page 1 results in a few ideas where the pitcher in return is Luis Castillo, but they all appear unbalanced or unacceptable in some way.
  
  
• Page 2 contains a few ideas that involve trading Mountcastle for a pitching prospect, which could make sense for the future but doesn't improve the major league rotation right now.

So maybe there's no easy way to construct a trade that can actually improve the rotation without giving up Kjerstad or multiple highly ranked prospects?

 

[skinz2winz]

MSN

Not sure how true this is and the O's were never parting with Westburg, Basallo or Mayo.