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.