Have the Orioles’ deadline deals helped or hurt? / MAILBAG

Most weekdays, I’ll be answering at least one Orioles question. If you’d like to submit a question, send it to: Rich@BaltimoreBaseball.com. Questions may be edited for clarity, length and style.

Question: I think the Orioles ‘management team should be commended for their shrewd drafting of young players that make up this team. That being said, I think their recent trade-deadline acquisitions are some of the poorest trading I have seen in my years as an O’s fan. None of these players have lived up to expectations. In fact, they have been responsible for frequent losses. I believe the Orioles think they can get less than average players in deals and make them a reclamation project. That hasn’t worked and, in fact, has hurt the team. Any thoughts? From: Gerald Graham

Answer: Gerald, the Orioles made trades to try to replace players that were hurt or underperforming. They’ve been badly hurt by losing starting pitcher Kyle Bradish and reliever Danny Coulombe, and none of the players available on the trade market were as good as Bradish and Coulombe.

As for Seranthony Domínguez, who I think you’re referring to, I thought it was a good move at the time because I’ve been impressed with him over the years, but the two losses to the Mets were difficult.

The move for Zach Eflin was a good one, but unfortunately he’s hurt now. The Trevor Rogers deal hasn’t worked out yet, and we haven’t seen enough of Gregory Soto to get a good read. The acquisitions of Eloy Jiménez and Austin Slater have been fine, but the Orioles lost Jordan Westburg the day after the trade deadline, and that’s really hurt them, too.

Sometimes, it takes a few years to evaluate trades, and maybe next year at this time, the trades could look better.

Question: I have a question about relievers in general. Why is it such importance placed on their being rested? When a reliever pitches one or two innings, maybe even two games in a row or more, like Burch Smith in your article today, and has thrown maybe 30 pitches total, often much less, why is there such a concern for their health? Is it because they are expected to throw much harder? Is it because they are not considered to be as strong as starters? Is it because they are generally not as consistent as starters? Is it because the stress is greater in late innings? From: Tom Capuano, Proctor, Vermont

Answer: Tom, I think the answer to most of the questions you pose is yes. There’s something else. Relievers have much less margin for errors than starters.

Relievers are expected to throw scoreless innings. If a starter gives up a run or two, that’s to be expected, but a late-inning reliever is supposed to be nearly perfect.

Relievers who are consistently excellent over several years are relatively rare, and as for rest, it’s generally accepted that relievers shouldn’t throw more than two days in succession, and managers are aware that warming up a pitcher without using him in a game also puts stress on the arm.

I think it’s much more stressful pitching in the ninth inning as a closer than for a starter who may take an inning or two to get into a rhythm.