Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[Sports Guy]

I asked this in another thread but it seems to have been overlooked.

Many people are saying that blowing it up doesn't mean we will win long term. I am not disagreeing with that. No guarantees.

However, let's say that is exactly what happens...Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost?

What is the penalty?

[NewMarketSean]

There is no worst case scenario for blowing it up.

[weemnj]

What is the penalty?------------WHAT WE HAVE NOW!

[Sports Guy]

What is the penalty?------------WHAT WE HAVE NOW!

That is the point....We blow it up and end up back where we are right now...Pathetic.

So, what do we actually have to lose then?

[clapdiddy]

I honestly can't see any penalty for blowing things up. Right now, we're not going to turn this organization around via free agency, because no player in their right mind would come here and the current crop of players is a very bad mix.

There is no "quick fix" for this team. It will be a slow process that would hopefully be less painful by an infusion of young talent.

[nadecir]

That is the point....We blow it up and end up back where we are right now...Pathetic.

So, what do we actually have to lose then?We will lose a lot of dollars off the payroll even in a worse case scenario. And that is a good thing. Use that saved money for scouting, international player development, and for paying above slot bonus money to draftees, and the savings in payroll dollars becomes a very good thing.

[PoorMike]

I asked this in another thread but it seems to have been overlooked.

Many people are saying that blowing it up doesn't mean we will win long term. I am not disagreeing with that. No guarantees.

However, let's say that is exactly what happens...Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost?

What is the penalty?

Worst case is that we draw 15k a game for several years, no one watches on tv, the Nats are dissatisfied with their share of MASN revenues and sue their way out of the partnership, MASN ceases to exist, the team hemorrages money and moves to vegas in 2015.

It's unlikely to happen, but that would be the worst case.

[NewMarketSean]

Worst case is that we draw 15k a game for several years, no one watches on tv, the Nats are dissatisfied with their share of MASN revenues and sue their way out of the partnership, MASN ceases to exist, the team hemorrages money and moves to vegas in 2015.

It's unlikely to happen, but that would be the worst case.

If the O's still stink in 2015 they can move to Vegas for all I care.

[RShack]

Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost? What is the penalty?
What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

[NewMarketSean]

What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

Huh?

So what do you want to do? Keep doing more of the same?

[Sports Guy]

What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

You honestly make no sense.

What is MORE LIKELY to happen:

Aging, declining players get better or younger, talented players grow together and perform well?

What is the MORE LIKELY scenario there.

[Fan4Life]

You honestly make no sense.

What is MORE LIKELY to happen:

Aging, declining players get better or younger, talented players grow together and perform well?

What is the MORE LIKELY scenario there.

Isn't the question whether we should be trading ALL of our talented players to get younger and one day in the the future better (IE: Blow it up), versus trading a few/some of are talented players and keeping some?

[RShack]

Huh? So what do you want to do? Keep doing more of the same?
If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

[NewMarketSean]

Isn't the question whether we should be trading ALL of our talented players to get younger and one day in the the future better (IE: Blow it up), versus trading a few/some of are talented players and keeping some?

Who are you going to trade and who are you going to keep?

IMO, Roberts, Tejada SHOULD be traded and Bedard should be traded if he won't sign an extension.

[Sports Guy]

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.
None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

Of course you need smart people making decisions. Thank you Capt Obvious.

[NewMarketSean]

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

Good FO's make trades. Especially when you cant sign any FA that is worth anything. No one will come here unless its in a trade.

[RShack]

None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

Of course you need smart people making decisions. Thank you Capt Obvious.
And if we have highly talented people running things, then we don't need silly sound-bite solutions like yours. What you propose has never worked ever. Yet you keep on harping on it. Your sound-bite strategy is not a solution to anything, and it completely fails to address the problem. It's nothing but your personal obsession. Too bad so many people here fall for it.

[Fan4Life]

Who are you going to trade and who are you going to keep?

IMO, Roberts, Tejada SHOULD be traded and Bedard should be traded if he won't sign an extension.

Ok, to me, If you sign Bedard, you can trade Roberts and Tejada. If Bedard won't sign and extension, you trade Bedard and Tejada and Keep Roberts. I am for trading DCab for the right return, however, we need 3-4 guys and a bullpen. Some of those guys may come from within, the rest should be easily acquired between trading Tejada and either Bedard or Roberts.

[weemnj]

And if we have highly talented people running things, then we don't need silly sound-bite solutions like yours. What you propose has never worked ever. Yet you keep on harping on it. Your sound-bite strategy is not a solution to anything, and it completely fails to address the problem. It's nothing but your personal obsession. Too bad so many people here fall for it.

Didn't the Marlins have it work?

[NewMarketSean]

And if we have highly talented people running things, then we don't need silly sound-bite solutions like yours.

Wow, we hired one guy. Before we hired that one guy everyone else was calling for F&D's head. Probably not you, because you think everything is hunky dorey, but everyone else had their eyes open.


What you propose has never worked ever.

That is 100% wrong. Are you just mad you can't come up with a detailed plan?


Yet you keep on harping on it. Your sound-bite strategy is not a solution to anything, and it completely fails to address the problem. It's nothing but your personal obsession. Too bad so many people here fall for it.

This is a message board, is it not? What else do you want us to talk about the weather?

[NewMarketSean]

Didn't the Marlins have it work?

Marlins (2x) and Indians. Tigers made a lot of trades too.

But yeah, they never work.

[Sports Guy]

And if we have highly talented people running things, then we don't need silly sound-bite solutions like yours. What you propose has never worked ever. Yet you keep on harping on it. Your sound-bite strategy is not a solution to anything, and it completely fails to address the problem. It's nothing but your personal obsession. Too bad so many people here fall for it.
You obviously just don't understand the concepts.

And btw, a fire sale has worked..Ask the Marlins.

Now, they haven't had sustained success but that is because they don't have our resources. They don't have the ability to "keep their own".

The Orioles do have this ability and they also have the ability to sprinkle in the FAs and sign the high dollar draft picks that the Marlins can't do.

You just don't seem to get this.

[srock]

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

Nobody is proclaiming this singular strategy to be the solution. Clearly, it must be implemented with a competent GM else the return in the trades will be Sid Thriftian in their disaster.

You are correct, this organization needs to be led by a competent front office in order to succeed. This fact in no way negates the stance that players should be traded for younger talent. Your argument about leadership is well founded, but it is not a plan to improve the roster. We sit here today debating what types of roster moves would improve the level of talent in the organization. If your argument is "We shouldn't make any trades because the current people in charge of making trades are incompetent," then fine, that is a valid argument. But for the sake of debate, lets take the management out of the equation and debate the merits of this strategy assuming all other things are equal.

[Wingman]

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

Isn't "having highly talented guys at GM" a sound bite strategy?

Even if it isn't, please elaborate on what a "talented GM" should do, specifically with the O's roster/farmsystem of 2007?

[Sports Guy]

Nobody is proclaiming this singular strategy to be the solution. Clearly, it must be implemented with a competent GM else the return in the trades will be Sid Thriftian in their disaster.

You are correct, this organization needs to be led by a competent front office in order to succeed. This fact in no way negates the stance that players should be traded for younger talent. Your argument about leadership is well founded, but it is not a plan to improve the roster. We sit here today debating what types of roster moves would improve the level of talent in the organization. If your argument is "We shouldn't make any trades because the current people in charge of making trades are incompetent," then fine, that is a valid argument. But for the sake of debate, lets take the management out of the equation and debate the merits of this strategy assuming all other things are equal.
Well said....Good way of stating the obvious.

[Fan4Life]

Nobody is proclaiming this singular strategy to be the solution. Clearly, it must be implemented with a competent GM else the return in the trades will be Sid Thriftian in their disaster.

You are correct, this organization needs to be led by a competent front office in order to succeed. This fact in no way negates the stance that players should be traded for younger talent. Your argument about leadership is well founded, but it is not a plan to improve the roster. We sit here today debating what types of roster moves would improve the level of talent in the organization. If your argument is "We shouldn't make any trades because the current people in charge of making trades are incompetent," then fine, that is a valid argument. But for the sake of debate, lets take the management out of the equation and debate the merits of this strategy assuming all other things are equal.

Be sure we are debating the correct strategy,

Blow it Up - Everyone under 26 years of age goes...

Targeted trades - Keep some guys, IE: Roberts, while trading others: Tejada.

[blueberryale77]

I think the worst case is that they trade some, all, or most of the guys you want to trade, but instead of truly getting young, cheap guys with huge upsides they try to plug holes with mediocre, arbitration-eligible Adam LaRoche types. Of course that would be a horribly stupid thing to do, but the guys who tried to do that last winter still haven't been officially fired, so I still have some fear of it happening.

[Sports Guy]

I think the worst case is that they trade some, all, or most of the guys you want to trade, but instead of truly getting young, cheap guys with huge upsides they try to plug holes with mediocre, arbitration-eligible Adam LaRoche types. Of course that would be a horribly stupid thing to do, but the guys who tried to do that last winter still haven't been officially fired, so I still have some fear of it happening.

Ok...This is legit...But this isn't what i am personally talking about.

But i can understand this concern.

[olehippi]

OK....so we blow it up. We trade our $94 million team....Bedard, Tejada, Roberts, et al....for $24 million worth of young, promising, ML and almost ML ready kids. Then, let's say after 2-3 years, it becomes obvious that most of these guys aren't making anyone believe they are ML players. The only person who wins in this scenerio is Peter Angelos. He keeps $70 million in his pocket, and still makes out like a bandit collecting TV revenues, and the money wasted by O's fans who continue to support his team.

So, what happens when blowing it up fails?

(1) Do we blow it up again and start over?

(2) Or do we select that small core of guys who are solid players, and start building a team around them. But wait!.....We can do this now, and definitely have a better chance of fielding a winning team in 2008, and beyond.

[srock]

So, what happens when blowing it up fails?

(1) Do we blow it up again and start over?

(2) Or do we select that small core of guys who are solid players, and start building a team around them. But wait!.....We can do this now, and definitely have a better chance of fielding a winning team in 2008, and beyond.

(1) Yes

(2) If you only have a small core of guys who are solid players, then revert to (1). If the core group is large enough and talented enough, then go for the build around. I don't think the core is large enough right now, especially considering the lack of depth behind the current position players in the majors.

[Fan4Life]

I think the worst case is that they trade some, all, or most of the guys you want to trade, but instead of truly getting young, cheap guys with huge upsides they try to plug holes with mediocre, arbitration-eligible Adam LaRoche types. Of course that would be a horribly stupid thing to do, but the guys who tried to do that last winter still haven't been officially fired, so I still have some fear of it happening.

I'm not sure LaRoche (http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/players/playerpage/390776) is a good example, but I get your point.

[geschinger]

OK....so we blow it up. We trade our $94 million team....Bedard, Tejada, Roberts, et al....for $24 million worth of young, promising, ML and almost ML ready kids. Then, let's say after 2-3 years, it becomes obvious that most of these guys aren't making anyone believe they are ML players. The only person who wins in this scenerio is Peter Angelos. He keeps $70 million in his pocket, and still makes out like a bandit collecting TV revenues, and the money wasted by O's fans who continue to support his team.

So, what happens when blowing it up fails?

(1) Do we blow it up again and start over?

(2) Or do we select that small core of guys who are solid players, and start building a team around them. But wait!.....We can do this now, and definitely have a better chance of fielding a winning team in 2008, and beyond.

What is your goal - a winning team or contention?

If a finishing w/more wins than losses is the goal, then keep the core we have and make some changes to try to get them over the 81 win hump.

If contention is the goal and if you honestly believe that we can build around the current core and legitimately contend then it doesn't make sense to make trades to get younger.

For me contention is the only goal that matters and I just don't see how we get there w/the current core players before they start their decline. And trying to contend w/a core of declining players is difficult at best. Therefore I believe we should try to trade from the core to get some youth in here that can hopefully develop together and be peaking when a second wave of talented young players is ready to contribute (hopefully w/guys like Rowell, Wieters, etc..). That is a better solution than having that wave of young talent trying to prop of declining veteran core.

[Sports Guy]

Be sure we are debating the correct strategy,

Blow it Up - Everyone under 26 years of age goes...

Targeted trades - Keep some guys, IE: Roberts, while trading others: Tejada.

First of all, half of this roster could easily be replaced. I am talking about guys like Bell and Bako as well.

I am not sure many would debate this.

Then you have the main guys left.

I gotta think most here would love to trade Mora just to get rid of the contract.

I believe most people would want to trade Tejada.

I also think a majority are open to trading DCab in the right deal.

Really, to me it boils down to 2 players where the difference really lies..BRob and Bedard.

To me, BRob has to be traded....I go back and forth on Bedard.

[Fan4Life]

First of all, half of this roster could easily be replaced. I am talking about guys like Bell and Bako as well.

I am not sure many would debate this.

Then you have the main guys left.

I gotta think most here would love to trade Mora just to get rid of the contract.

I believe most people would want to trade Tejada.

I also think a majority are open to trading DCab in the right deal.

Really, to me it boils down to 2 players where the difference really lies..BRob and Bedard.

To me, BRob has to be traded....I go back and forth on Bedard.

I agree with all of this and as you pointed out, only the last part is where many are splitting hairs... and I am one of them. If Bedard signs, BRob can go. If Bedard won't sign, BRob stays, Bedard goes.

[Sports Guy]

I agree with all of this and as you pointed out, only the last part is where many are splitting hairs... and I am one of them. If Bedard signs, BRob can go. If Bedard won't sign, BRob stays, Bedard goes.

Why would you keep BRob in that scenario?

[Fan4Life]

Why would you keep BRob in that scenario?

Obviously he is an asset to this team, and in that regard I believe we can fill our holes with a trade of Tejada, Bedard and perhaps DCab. How man holes are we looking to fill? DH, LF, backup C, CF? and the bullpen?

Well we have Hoey Liz, Cherry, Cabrera, Penn/Olson as possible bullpen options to go with Bradford and Walker
Reimold as a possble LF
Moving Mora to LF and playing Moore at 3B and occassionally Huff
House at backup C option
Knott as possible DH/OF option


So with all of these options, unless they all fail, I think Tejada and either Bedard or Roberts can fill most of, if not all of, the holes in trades.

[Sports Guy]

Obviously he is an asset to this team, and in that regard I believe we can fill our holes with a trade of Tejada, Bedard and perhaps DCab. How man holes are we looking to fill? DH, LF, backup C, CF? and the bullpen?

Well we have Hoey Liz, Cherry, Cabrera, Penn/Olson as possible bullpen options
Reimold as a possble LF
Moving Mora to LF and playing Moore at 3B and occassionally Huff
House at backup C option
Knott as possible DH/OF option


So with all of these options, unless they are fail, I think Tejada and either Bedard or Roberts can fill most of, if not all of, the holes in trades.

Are you prepared to give BRob a 4-5 year extension after 2009 if he evens wants to stay?

[Fan4Life]

Are you prepared to give BRob a 4-5 year extension after 2009 if he evens wants to stay?

Not likley, I think I would go along with the poster who proposed trading him at the deadline in 2009.

[Sports Guy]

Not likley, I think I would go along with the poster who proposed trading him at the deadline in 2009.

Do you think we would contend in 2008 and 2009?

[thomden]

None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

Of course you need smart people making decisions. Thank you Capt Obvious.

We haven't had smart baseball people making decisions. The collective of PA ,Sid Thrift, Fanagan, Duquette et al are organizational morons. Now that Andy MacPhail has taken the helm I believe we are on the right course i.e. "Smart Management".
The firing of Doc Watson and Larry Lawless is demonstrating heads will role as MacPhail lays the foundation for bonafide, all inclusive baseball operation. Most likely (hope) after the Minnesota model. It's obvious their is a clear lack of coordination between our various minor league team philosophies which has led to chaos. Each team being an entity in itself.
What I believe some are exposing that a "blowup" in itself would accomplish nothing unless there is a total overhaul of the Oriole Baseball operations. That to me is a blowup which makes sense. The blowup you and others desire makes no sense unless their is a functional minor league organization to handle the influx of prospects, and draft picks. Unfortunately by the time the Orioles are ready for the "blowup" 2008 will be upon us.

Where does that leave us? Certainly our goals for the upcoming season should be to actually fix the BP, and try our best to obtain a true #4 hitter. Will that get us into post season probably not, but it should get us in 3rd place if our SP's stay healthy.
We also should be able to extend Bedard and Roberts if we can show on paper a plan for winning. If not we trade them.
Miggy most likely should go if we can get a few good ML ready players. He seems to create problems in the clubhouse(my conclusion based upon the many posts here). The same for Payton.
Thus the Orioles create a new organizational plan for wining for the next decade, and beyond, and at the same time make some key decisions on the above mentioned players. A player blowup I don't think so, but it does make sense to me.

[Fan4Life]

Do you think we would contend in 2008 and 2009?

Not if we Blow it up. We need a bullpen, a LF, a DH, a backup C, and perhaps a CF.

If we fill those holes trading Bedard, Tejada and perhaps DCab, then I think we have a shot at competing for a playoff spot...

[Sports Guy]

Not if we Blow it up. We need a bullpen, a LF, a DH, a backup C, and perhaps a CF.

If we fill those holes trading Bedard, Tejada and perhaps DCab, then I think we have a shot at competing for a playoff spot...

I am confused now.,..What are you looking to get in trades for those guys? Young players or established players who can fill those holeS?

[wildcard]

SG, just to answer your question.

If you trade all the high value players on the team like Bedard, Roberts Miggy, etc for youngster and it does not work (your words) then you are left with nothing to trade and nowhere to go to improve. Everything of value is gone.

That is if it doesn't work.

[Sports Guy]

SG, just to answer your question.

If you trade all the high value players on the team like Bedard, Roberts Miggy, etc for youngster and it does not work (your words) then you are left with nothing to trade and nowhere to go to improve. Everything of value is gone.

That is if it doesn't work.

If you keep them, don't contend and then they leave via FA, what do you have?

[Three Run Homer]

Given how bad the current team is, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the wildcards and rshacklefords to tell us a plausible strategy by which this team can build around its current core, a strategy that takes into account two realities:

(1) We don't have much major league ready talent on the farm
(2) There aren't many good free agents on the market in most off-seasons, and the best ones want to play for a winner.

[PoorMike]

Given how bad the current team is, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the wildcards and rshacklefords to tell us a plausible strategy by which this team can build around its current core, a strategy that takes into account two realities:

(1) We don't have much major league ready talent on the farm
(2) There aren't many good free agents on the market in most off-seasons, and the best ones want to play for a winner.

I think if we draft well ,develop talent, don't give away picks and keep Markakis, I don't think it really matters what we do with the 2007 roster or Nov 07 free agents. We will compete.

[Mad Mark]

Well, the big question is: what are we getting back for our (possible) trade chips? If MacPhail can create additional value for the team in trading anybody on this roster (except perhaps Markakis) then I say you have to do it.
However, if he finds he cannot create the necessary value, then you hold on to these chips for another day.

[Baltimoron]

I asked this in another thread but it seems to have been overlooked.

Many people are saying that blowing it up doesn't mean we will win long term. I am not disagreeing with that. No guarantees.

However, let's say that is exactly what happens...Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost?

What is the penalty?

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worst_MLB_season_records)

This team needs to get younger and better. Given how bad this team is in some areas, its not that hard for me to conceive of a way to do both.

For example, the team's OPS in LF is like sub .630. Its not that hard for me to envision the team getting somebody younger _and_ better in left next year without losing too much. It may not be the path of least resistance, but its doable.

[Sports Guy]

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worst_MLB_season_records)

This team needs to get younger and better. Given how bad this team is in some areas, its not that hard for me to conceive of a way to do both.

For example, the team's OPS in LF is like sub .630. Its not that hard for me to envision the team getting somebody younger _and_ better in left next year without losing too much. It may not be the path of least resistance, but its doable.

Was that link supposed to mean something?

[markdublya]

Remember July 2000? That is rebuilding's worst case scenario. Didn't read the whole thread - hope it wasn't mentioned already.

[Baltimoron]

Was that link supposed to mean something?

No, its just somehow showed up in my post. I mean, its not like its obviously responsive to your question or anything.

[Sports Guy]

Remember July 2000? That is rebuilding's worst case scenario. Didn't read the whole thread - hope it wasn't mentioned already.
That wasn't really a rebuild though and besides, we did come away with some decent players out of that.

[Sports Guy]

No, its just somehow showed up in my post. I mean, its not like its obviously responsive to your question or anything.
Oh ok..So it is just meaningless..That's what i thought. :rolleyes:

Who cares if our record is worse? That means nothing.

[Baltimoron]

Oh ok..So it is just meaningless..That's what i thought. :rolleyes:

Who cares if our record is worse? That means nothing.

The team's record doesn't matter?

[Sports Guy]

The team's record doesn't matter?

If you are one of the 5-8 worse teams every year, one or two more awful years ain't going to change things.

Ask the Tigers how much that record mattered.

[Baltimoron]

If you are one of the 5-8 worse teams every year, one or two more awful years ain't going to change things.

Ask the Tigers how much that record mattered.

What are you talking about? Where did I saw they'd super blow for just one or two years.

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

Its not just strategy, but execution as well.

---------------------------

Your Tigers comment is inane.

[wildcard]

If you keep them, don't contend and then they leave via FA, what do you have?

You have another whole year to try to turn it around before you make that decision.

[frankpembleton]

Given how bad the current team is, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the wildcards and rshacklefords to tell us a plausible strategy by which this team can build around its current core, a strategy that takes into account two realities:

(1) We don't have much major league ready talent on the farm
(2) There aren't many good free agents on the market in most off-seasons, and the best ones want to play for a winner.


This is the question that really needs an answer.

Trading Bedard, Roberts, and Tejada might have miserable results - very true, but will they be anymore miserable than the results of the past 10 years? We aren't winning with them and won't be able to add anyone of value without trading them.

In my opinion some radical change must occur and it starts by trading away our talent for younger talent that will be Orioles for a much longer period of time for a much cheaper price. By getting rid of Bedard, Roberts and Tejada, it gives us a lot more room finacially to bring in a new set of players to complement any young prospects that actually pan out for us.

[Sports Guy]

What are you talking about? Where did I saw they'd super blow for just one or two years.

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

Its not just strategy, but execution as well.

---------------------------

Your Tigers comment is inane.

Your link showed the worse records in baseball history...I assume you think this is worse case scenario,...If its not, than the link is meaningless, which was my poitn to begin with.

And if that is your point, that that is worse case scenario, who the hell cares? What is the difference between winning 60 games or 70 games? It means NOTHING!

Now, do you actually have a point???

[Sports Guy]

You have another whole year to try to turn it around before you make that decision.

Oh, good strategy WC!!!

Let's put off the inevitable for ANOTHER YEAR!

Let's risk these guys getting hurt, losing value or something like that...There is a smart way to turn this around.

:rolleyes: :mad:

[Baltimoron]

Your link showed the worse records in baseball history...I assume you think this is worse case scenario,...If its not, than the link is meaningless, which was my poitn to begin with.

And if that is your point, that that is worse case scenario, who the hell cares? What is the difference between winning 60 games or 70 games? It means NOTHING!

Now, do you actually have a point???

Yes.

Its obvious you can't grasp it, like many other things.

Please move on and stop embarrassing yourself.

[frankpembleton]

And if that is your point, that that is worse case scenario, who the hell cares? What is the difference between winning 60 games or 70 games? It means NOTHING!??

Yeah, really. I really could care less if the team wins 40 games or 70 games next year. I just want to see a new process put into place.

[Sports Guy]

Yes.

Its obvious you can't grasp it, like many other things.

Please move on and stop embarrassing yourself.
I am sorry..I guess i should go read BP so that they can help me formulate every opinion i have, like you do. :rolleyes:

[frankpembleton]

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.



You see, this works both ways though. I don't think we can take into account front office stupidity when debating the merits of "blowing it up." If we do or do not blow it up we still have the same front office making the decisions.

If we are going to assume they are going to make bad decisions, it really doesn't matter what they do, we'll never win. That's why we are saying they have to take a different approach completely.

[geschinger]

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

Its not just strategy, but execution as well.


Of course it is, but if the FO continues to execute as poorly as they have it doesn't matter what strategy is employed to try and improve. When discussing what is the best option going forward I think it's implied that we'd expect the MacPhail regime to execute better than the previous regimes. If we don't think the FO will execute better then what is the point of discussing any strategy for fixing the team's ills? Without better execution any strategy the team employs will be doomed to fail.

[markdublya]

That wasn't really a rebuild though and besides, we did come away with some decent players out of that.

They thought it was.

[jjnono]

First of all, half of this roster could easily be replaced. I am talking about guys like Bell and Bako as well.

I am not sure many would debate this.

Then you have the main guys left.

I gotta think most here would love to trade Mora just to get rid of the contract.

I believe most people would want to trade Tejada.

I also think a majority are open to trading DCab in the right deal.

Really, to me it boils down to 2 players where the difference really lies..BRob and Bedard.

To me, BRob has to be traded....I go back and forth on Bedard.

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but trading both your middle infielders in the same offseason is foolhardy at best, and a recipe for disaster at worst. And it's also not a move that is going to endear Bedard to his infield (not that it's been playing great lately, but generally speaking this is a good infield) Unless the trades provide for replacements as SS and 2B, then I'd trade one at a time... Tejada or Roberts, fine with me, but not both until the spots can be reliably filled. I don't think the O's are there yet.

[DrungoHazewood]

What are you talking about? Where did I saw they'd super blow for just one or two years.

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

Its not just strategy, but execution as well.

---------------------------

Your Tigers comment is inane.

If you're going to assume they'd screw up any strategy up to and including a blow-up, what are we debating? Seems to me there's no way out given those ground rules, besides blowing up the ownership and management.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but trading both your middle infielders in the same offseason is foolhardy at best, and a recipe for disaster at worst. And it's also not a move that is going to endear Bedard to his infield (not that it's been playing great lately, but generally speaking this is a good infield) Unless the trades provide for replacements as SS and 2B, then I'd trade one at a time... Tejada or Roberts, fine with me, but not both until the spots can be reliably filled. I don't think the O's are there yet.

More disastrous than, say, signing a bunch of crappy mid-tier free agents and declaring the team on the path to contention?

[ColumbiaOriole]

You have another whole year to try to turn it around before you make that decision.

Seriously? We are a BAD team. We have been a bad team for a decade now. It is shocking to me that people think we can play better and "turn it around" with whom we've got along with adding a player or two. This is the same idiotic view our front office has had the last decade. In my opinion, there is no downside to executing a proper rebuild. I don't care about winning 82 games next year (an unlikely scenario anyhow); I want to legitimately compete most seasons and the way our roster is currently constructed, that is a virtual impossibility. I admire your unflailing optimism but I'm afraid it isn't grounded in reality given our pathetically assembled roster which consists of many aging players who are declining and in some cases weren't even that good to begin with.

[markdublya]

More disastrous than, say, signing a bunch of crappy mid-tier free agents and declaring the team on the path to contention?

If you can slap 23 singles and 5 doubles, with 3 walks every 103 plate appearances, the Orioles would say - look at us our LF is hitting .280!

I fear this is how we'll end up with Tike in CF and Jay in LF in 2008. (uh-oh, I'm gonna vomit now).:(

[Fan4Life]

If you're going to assume they'd screw up any strategy up to and including a blow-up, what are we debating? Seems to me there's no way out given those ground rules, besides blowing up the ownership and management.

And if we assume they can formulate and execute a well thought out and prudent strategy, why does it only have to be Blow-It-Up?

[Baltimoron]

You see, this works both ways though. I don't think we can take into account front office stupidity when debating the merits of "blowing it up." If we do or do not blow it up we still have the same front office making the decisions.

If we are going to assume they are going to make bad decisions, it really doesn't matter what they do, we'll never win. That's why we are saying they have to take a different approach completely.

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.

[Sports Guy]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but trading both your middle infielders in the same offseason is foolhardy at best, and a recipe for disaster at worst. And it's also not a move that is going to endear Bedard to his infield (not that it's been playing great lately, but generally speaking this is a good infield) Unless the trades provide for replacements as SS and 2B, then I'd trade one at a time... Tejada or Roberts, fine with me, but not both until the spots can be reliably filled. I don't think the O's are there yet.

Recipe for disaster is a good way to describe what the organization has been for 10 years.

What good is it to keep one and not the other? So you can buy a jersey with someone's name on that you have heard? So you can see a star on the field?

If you don't think we can realistically contend the next 2 years and if you don't want to give BRob a 4-5 year deal after 2009, then there is simply no reason to keep him now.

Hell, you may want to give him the deal but who is to say he even wants to sign it?

If we continue to suck the next 2 years, BRob isn't signing here, i can guarantee you that.

[Sports Guy]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.
It is the only way to get younger quicker...Sure, you can get younger over the next 2-4 years without blowing it up but then you are delaying the process...You know, like we have for 10 years.

[Sports Guy]

And if we assume they can formulate and execute a well thought out and prudent strategy, why does it only have to be Blow-It-Up?

BEcause it won't work via FA and even if it did, it would likely be short term.

Plus, it would be totally irresponsible to spend another 20-30 million a year on bad contracts.

[TinCup]

This may be an oversimplification but here is the panacea for the Orioles perpetual woes:

1. A new owner
2. A new FO (though to be fair we have not yet seen enough of Andy)
3. A MASSIVE influx/infusuion of young TALENT at the major league level as well as the minors.

Elementary Watson.;)

Absent all of the above, you will continue to see what you see now, i.e., a very pathetic team when all is said and done.

[DrungoHazewood]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.

I think this is mostly a pointless debate about what "blow it up" means. I don't think anyone wants to trade off everything up to and including the dugout water cooler for whatever they can get as long as it's under 25 years old.

I use "blow it up" as shorthand for both the willingness to trade anyone in the organization in the right deal, and a determined goal of not taking a patchwork approach to 2008.

[frankpembleton]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.


Who said I wanted to dump everyone over the age of 25? Obviously we want good prospects back. When I refer to blowing it up, I mean that any player on our roster with the exception of Markakis should be actively shopped, including Bedard and Roberts. Obviously you don't make trades purely to get younger though, the players must have the potential to be good major leaguers. Obvously not all prospects we receive would pan out, but if they have the potential to be good, than we should be making these deals.

[Baltimoron]

If you're going to assume they'd screw up any strategy up to and including a blow-up, what are we debating? Seems to me there's no way out given those ground rules, besides blowing up the ownership and management.

I have no idea why you think this is my belief.

Blowing it up is very hard to do and very risky. There are less risky, less difficult paths to getting younger and better.

With a FO with questionable/unproven decision making skills, why is it not sensible to be risk averse, or to be wary of them taking the most extreme and difficult approach possible?

Building this franchise back up will take years - lots of people seem to be a rush to make it happen overnight.

I am very wary of the FO trying to do too much too quick, of biting off more than they can chew. I'm scared of the idea of the FO running around like a bunch of wildman at the winter meeting trying to make multiple trades at once to rebuild in one offseason.

Look to add a productive young player or two this offseason and continue to add to the minor league depth, have another good draft, look to make a trade or two leading into the deadline next season, and repeat. Do more as good opportunities present themselves.

[Boston Dave]

Bottom line for me, if you trade Bedard, Cabrera, Roberts and Tejada, what is the possibility you DON'T get back a promising 2B, SS, 1B, LF, and pitcher (or two)?

The pain of "blow it up" would be quickly forgotten when we come roaring back with a great young team in 2009.

[frankpembleton]

I have no idea why you think this is my belief.

Blowing it up is very hard to do and very risky. There are less risky, less difficult paths to getting younger and better.

With a FO with questionable/unproven decision making skills, why is it not sensible to be risk averse, or to be wary of them taking the most extreme and difficult approach possible?

Building this franchise back up will take years - lots of people seem to be a rush to make it happen overnight.

I am very wary of the FO trying to do too much too quick, of biting off more than they can chew. I'm scared of the idea of the FO running around like a bunch of wildman at the winter meeting trying to make multiple trades at once to rebuild in one offseason.

Look to add a productive young player or two this offseason and continue to add to the minor league depth, have another good draft, look to make a trade or two leading into the deadline next season, and repeat. Do more as good opportunities present themselves.

The problem is that we don't have that much time with Bedard and Tejada to make a trade. We need to trade them before we can get back anything of value. By the time we are ready to compete Tejada will be well past his prime and probably not still an Oriole. Even Bedard and Roberts will be on the downside by the time we are ready to compete so we might as well get something before we have to get rid of them for nothing.

Is everyone pretty much in agreement that the main tenant of "blowing it up" is actively pursuing trades involving Tejada, Roberts, Bedard and Cabrera. Agreeing on that might be the first step in getting on the same page.

[Baltimoron]

It is the only way to get younger quicker...Sure, you can get younger over the next 2-4 years without blowing it up but then you are delaying the process...You know, like we have for 10 years.

I'd argue they never began the process.

I agree the quickest way to get younger is to blow it up. But unfortunately the goal is not to just get younger. It is to get younger *and* better.

Rebuilding a team takes years, why the headfirst rush to take the most difficult and risky option available?

[vatech1994]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.

This is the best post I've seen on this site in a long, long time. Kudos!!!!

[NewMarketSean]

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

I thought MacPhail was the savior though???

I think we all have a different opinion on what blow it up means. I think it means changing the organizations philosophy from the ground up and trading the most valuable veteran players we have.

I don't necessarily want everyone gone, but once you trade Roberts, Tejada and Bedard, there aren't many players left that are worthy of keeping.

[Baltimoron]

The problem is that we don't have that much time with Bedard and Tejada to make a trade. We need to trade them before we can get back anything of value. By the time we are ready to compete Tejada will be old and probably not still an Oriole. Even Bedard will be on the downside by the time we are ready to compete.

Is everyone pretty much in agreement that the main tenant of "blowing it up" is actively pursuing trades involving Tejada, Roberts, Bedard and Cabrera. Agreeing on that might be the first step in getting on the same page.

Does trading Bedard and Tejada = blowing it up? Certainly not.

Do we trade them just to trade them?

I think its nuts to preclude the possibility of them team trading Tejada and/or Bedard and/or Roberts and/or DCab and also being better next season. Given the enourmous holes this team has, its not inconceivable that the sum of what is coming back is greater than the worth of what is going out.

How young/close to MLB readiness do the players we trade for have to be to be considered blowing it up?

[vatech1994]

I don't think anyone wants to trade off everything up to and including the dugout water cooler for whatever they can get as long as it's under 25 years old.

I use "blow it up" as shorthand for both the willingness to trade anyone in the organization in the right deal, and a determined goal of not taking a patchwork approach to 2008.

I disagree. I think there are people on this board who are advocating just that. I can name three without even trying hard.

It makes virtually no sense to say you "have" to trade anyone yet there are those on this board who do that every single day, multiple times a day.

If you trade Roberts, you have to replace one of the top 3 2B in the AL.
If you trade Tejada, you have to replace one of the top 3 SS in the AL.
If you trade Bedard, you have to replace one of the few true #1 starters in the league.

If the guys we receive in trade don't yield at least that return, than we have "lost" something. It is really that simple. That doesn't mean you don't trade people, it just means you don't create holes just to say you've done something.

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.

If you trade Miggy, Bedard, and Roberts this offseason and all our young pitchers suddenly put it together (like Detroit last year and Chicago the year before), we are going to be mighty upset that we've got virtually no offense at all to support them because all our "prospects" are still in the minors.

[vatech1994]

Bottom line for me, if you trade Bedard, Cabrera, Roberts and Tejada, what is the possibility you DON'T get back a promising 2B, SS, 1B, LF, and pitcher (or two)?

The pain of "blow it up" would be quickly forgotten when we come roaring back with a great young team in 2009.

The possibility you won't fill all those positions with above average talent by 2009 if you trade all these guys? I'd say the possibility is about 60% you won't get all these positions filled through trade in about a year. The chances you'd get 4 of the 6 filled is probably about 85%.

[Baltimoron]

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.


The Orioles have enourmous holes. They don't need all-stars talent coming back to be better.

[Baltimoron]

Who said I wanted to dump everyone over the age of 25?

No one as far as I can tell.

[frankpembleton]

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.



You see, we shouldn't even be looking to try and compete before 2010 and by that time Bedard and Roberts will most likely be on the downside of their careers. That is why we should trade them now for multiple good prospects that are 2 to 3 years out. At that point Weiters and Rowell should be ready as well and we really will have some good young players with potential ready to make the jump. Markakis will be entering his prime years and hopefully Reimold works out to be something.

We are just not going to be able to compete in the next 2 years no matter what happens, so why keep Roberts, Bedard and Tejada?

[vatech1994]

The Orioles have enourmous holes. They don't need all-stars talent coming back to be better.

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

[frankpembleton]

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

I just don't think you are taking into account how long we have control of Tejada, Bedard, Roberts, etc vs how long we would have control of prospects at extremely cheap salaries and room to grow. That is a huge part of this. A lot of this is freeing up money (and future money).

[frankpembleton]

If you trade Miggy, Bedard, and Roberts this offseason and all our young pitchers suddenly put it together (like Detroit last year and Chicago the year before), we are going to be mighty upset that we've got virtually no offense at all to support them because all our "prospects" are still in the minors.

Oh God, this sounds exactly like something the front office would say over the past 3 years. You can't honestly be using this for an argument. We need to give up hope on the next two years. Build for 3 years out. Patience is key, but so is instituting the right plan - starting now.

[Sports Guy]

I'd argue they never began the process.
Of course they haven't.

I agree the quickest way to get younger is to blow it up. But unfortunately the goal is not to just get younger. It is to get younger *and* better. Well, we aren't hoping they trade for garbage.


Rebuilding a team takes years, why the headfirst rush to take the most difficult and risky option available?

I disagree it is the riskiest option.

[NewMarketSean]

Oh God, this sounds exactly like something the front office would say over the past 3 years. You can't honestly be using this for an argument. We need to give up hope on the next two years. Build for 3 years out. Patience is key, but so is instituting the right plan - starting now.

I agree. It amazes me that people say "the guys we get back for Tejada, Roberts and Bedard will all be in the minors, how will they help the team next year, yadda, yadda, yadda..."

They fail to understand what rebuilding is -- giving those guys a job in the MLB and letting them grow over the course of a few years, even if they lose 120 games.

I can't believe that some people here don't have a grasp on this idea.

[Sports Guy]

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

Ok and if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

[RShack]

If your argument is "We shouldn't make any trades because the current people in charge of making trades are incompetent," then fine, that is a valid argument. But for the sake of debate, lets take the management out of the equation and debate the merits of this strategy assuming all other things are equal.
That's not my argument at all. I have no objection to making trades that provide actual benefit. There is nothing about making trades that is unique to this board or to this discussion. Making trades is just part of baseball.

The thing that is unique to this discussion is that some of the most vocal people focus on things that do not address the core problem, and instead focus on making proposals which are completely implausible. The idea of turning over 80% of the starting line-up is a prime example of silly propositions. The belief that doing crazy things like this will work is a prime example of delusional thinking. The idea that what has been wrong with the franchise is the absence of some crazy imperative to blow things up is just silly.

If you have a talented people running the show, you don't need silly slogans. If you have talented people running the show, they will make good judgments. Good judgment is not about being radical for the sake of being radical, nor is about making trades for the sake of making trades. Good judgment means that you mix a few remarkable players with a bunch of less-remarkable players IN A WAY THAT WORKS. That's what good GM's do: they get the right guys so that the team WORKS. We have not had talented people with authority who demonstrated the ability to do that. We have not had people who know how put together the right mix of guys. THAT is the problem.

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is whether he makes the team better-and-younger.

[Fan4Life]

Ok and
Originally Posted by vatech1994
Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.
if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

Your premis is comparing us doing nothing, going into next season, against blow-it-up rebuilding which is absurd. The choice is to keep some core guys and try to improve what is lacking, versus trading most/all of our core guys in hopes that the vast amount of talent coming back will produce some results in a few years.

[frankpembleton]

That's not my argument at all. I have no objection to making trades that provide actual benefit. There is nothing about making trades that is unique to this board or to this discussion. Making trades is just part of baseball.

The thing that is unique to this discussion is that some of the most vocal people focus on things that do not address the core problem, and instead focus on making proposals which are completely implausible. The idea of turning over 80% of the starting line-up is a prime example of silly propositions. The belief that doing crazy things like this will work is a prime example of delusional thinking. The idea that what has been wrong with the franchise is the absence of some crazy imperative to blow things up is just silly.

If you have a talented people running the show, you don't need silly slogans. If you have talented people running the show, they will make good judgments. Good judgment is not about being radical for the sake of being radical, nor is about making trades for the sake of making trades. Good judgment means that you mix a few remarkable players with a bunch of less-remarkable players IN A WAY THAT WORKS. That's what good GM's do: they get the right guys so that the team WORKS. We have not had talented people with authority who demonstrated the ability to do that. We have not had people who know how to pick the right guys. THAT is the problem.

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless of whatever sound-bite slogans you favor. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades is not what's important. It's whether he makes the team better-and-younger that matters.

This argument has nothing to do with the discussion. Of course we want a talented front office to make the right decisions. If we are talking about that then obviously goal A#1 is for Angelos to sell the team. We've talked about that at length.

We are debating what those right decisions should be. People are merely laying out what they think McPhail should be doing to improve the organization.

[frankpembleton]

Your premis is comparing us doing nothing, going into next season, against blow-it-up rebuilding which is absurd. The choice is to keep some core guys and try to improve what is lacking, versus trading most/all of our core guys in hopes that the vast amount of talent coming back will produce some results in a few years.

Those core guys will be past their prime before we have a chance at competing and they will all be free agents within 3 years. That's why you trade them now for younger guys who will be ready to compete in 3 years and we will then have control of for the next 6 or 7.

[DrungoHazewood]

What's important is that the O's fix THAT problem, the real problem. If the do, then we don't need silly slogans. If they don't, then we're hosed regardless. We don't know if MacPhail is the fix for that problem. Whether he is or not is what will tell the tale. How many people he trades DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is whether he makes the team better-and-younger.

You seem to be one of the few caught up in silly slogans. The rest of us just use "blow it up" as shorthand for trade whoever is necessary to turn the thing around, and quit doing the dumb things they did in the past.

Who really cares what you call it?

[mweb]

I disagree. I think there are people on this board who are advocating just that. I can name three without even trying hard.

It makes virtually no sense to say you "have" to trade anyone yet there are those on this board who do that every single day, multiple times a day.

If you trade Roberts, you have to replace one of the top 3 2B in the AL.
If you trade Tejada, you have to replace one of the top 3 SS in the AL.
If you trade Bedard, you have to replace one of the few true #1 starters in the league.

If the guys we receive in trade don't yield at least that return, than we have "lost" something. It is really that simple. That doesn't mean you don't trade people, it just means you don't create holes just to say you've done something.

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.

If you trade Miggy, Bedard, and Roberts this offseason and all our young pitchers suddenly put it together (like Detroit last year and Chicago the year before), we are going to be mighty upset that we've got virtually no offense at all to support them because all our "prospects" are still in the minors.

Unless this team really turns things around, I think all 3 of those guys will need to be replaced after 2009 anyway. Draft picks aren't enough in return imo. So again, it comes down to if we can compete in the next two years or not. I think it's possible, but highy unlikey, unless we go all out.

As I've said before, I'm an advocate for going all out in either direction, no more of this in between stuff that has gotten us nowhere. If we can get some good to elite players without giving up much or any young talent, and if that gives us a legit chance at contending, great. Then if that fails, rebuild at the trade deadline or the next offseason. However, if we can't put together a legit contender, I'd rather just trade most if not all of our vets besides maybe Bedard if we can extend him.

[geschinger]

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.


Hopefully Bedard would be producing at a high level in 2010. Being a pitcher at the age that he is - especially one who hasn't been the most durable guy in the world - and that is far from a sure thing.

With regard to Roberts... I believe he's signed through 2009. He'll be 32 at the end of that deal and will likely be looking for a long term contract at big money. Are you confident enough he'll produce at a high enough level well into his mid 30s to sign him to a deal that will have him here in 2010?

[NewMarketSean]

Miggy makes sense to trade because he isn't likely to be good enough by 2010 to be a top 6 SS in the AL. Roberts and Bedard are both still likely to be producing at high levels in 2010. If either of them walk away, they are both likely to yield multiple high draft picks in compensation. I have no issue with trying to trade either of them, but I don't think you "have" to trade either of them either.

Then how are you going to get talent to surround them on the field? No FA will come here. Our MiL system is too bare to supply us with MLB level talent.

You have to trade these guys to get better.

[vatech1994]

You see, we shouldn't even be looking to try and compete before 2010 and by that time Bedard and Roberts will most likely be on the downside of their careers.

We are just not going to be able to compete in the next 2 years no matter what happens, so why keep Roberts, Bedard and Tejada?

In 2010,
Bedard will be 31
Roberts with be 32

They may both be playing worse at that point than they are today, but I would hardly say it is "likely". I think you've been drinking too much of the SG kool-aid. Everyone doesn't magically become terrible just because they are on the wrong side of 30. It might happen, it might not. Both guys are fit and thin. Bedard is more of a risk than Roberts since all pitchers are risks.

Look at the ages of the Yankees' roster. Look at the ages of the All Star Rosters this year. Ortiz is 31. Varitek is 35. Lowell is 33. Manny is 35. Imagine if the Sox had traded all of them a couple years ago, because they would "most likely be on the downside of their careers" at this age. If we trade people JUST because they are 30 or over and their performance might crash, we will never compete.

Again, I have no problem at all with trading any of these guys, but the attitude that we should trade all of them for whatever we can get because they won't be worth a darn by the time we're good is extremely faulty logic IMHO. Trade them if the offers make good sense. Keep them if they don't.

[mweb]

In 2010,
Bedard will be 31
Roberts with be 32

They may both be playing worse at that point than they are today, but I would hardly say it is "likely". I think you've been drinking too much of the SG kool-aid. Everyone doesn't magically become terrible just because they are on the wrong side of 30. It might happen, it might not. Both guys are fit and thin. Bedard is more of a risk than Roberts since all pitchers are risks.

Look at the ages of the Yankees' roster. Look at the ages of the All Star Rosters this year. Ortiz is 31. Varitek is 35. Lowell is 33. Manny is 35. Imagine if the Sox had traded all of them a couple years ago, because they would "most likely be on the downside of their careers" at this age. If we trade people JUST because they are 30 or over and their performance might crash, we will never compete.

Again, I have no problem at all with trading any of these guys, but the attitude that we should trade all of them for whatever we can get because they won't be worth a darn by the time we're good is extremely faulty logic IMHO. Trade them if the offers make good sense. Keep them if they don't.

Not sure if anyone disagree's with that.

I don't think anyone is saying to trade all those guys for whatever they can get regardless of what that is. But at the same time, we should be confident that we can get a great package for Bedard, at least a very good package for Brob, and a good to very good package for Tejada.

[vatech1994]

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

Ok and if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

Ok and if this was the outcome of these trades, how are we really any worse off than we are now?

Do I really need to answer this question?

If you are willing to accept that Tejada is between an 825 to 875 OPS SS, he is much, much more valuable than a 750 OPS SS. Meanwhile, it shouldn't be tough at all to locate a 775 OPS left fielder (though I admit we sure have made it tough). So, why trade a good SS for a lesser SS and a fairly easy to locate LF?

Bedard's production by itself is much more valuable than the combo production I proposed above. Same with Roberts.

We have to get more than this back to make trading them worthwhile. I'd rather let them walk, enjoy their production for two more years, and get the draft picks than get a large group of mediocre to slightly better than mediocre players for them.

[vatech1994]

Then how are you going to get talent to surround them on the field? No FA will come here. Our MiL system is too bare to supply us with MLB level talent.

You have to trade these guys to get better.

The fact that you keep typing that no FA will come here doesn't make it true. It isn't. Huff, Ramon, Tejada, and Javy all came here. Some good players will come here if we pursue them

The fact that you keep typing that our MiL system is bare doesn't make it true either. Despite the popular sentiment on this board, the main problem with this team continues to be the pitching. If our bullpen was a good bullpen this year, we'd have been very competitive. We have lots of young arms that should be ready. Olson, Penn, Loewen, Hoey, Liz, Burres, Birkins, Doyne.....If more than half of them pan out and join Guthrie, Bedard, Cabrera, Bradford, Walker, Baez, our pitching could be very, very good. If they all continue to defy their minor league numbers and suck, we're screwed regardless of what happens.

I almost hope we do trade all of these guys so you all get your wish. If it happens, go on record immediately as to whether you like the trades and stick with it. Don't change your mind if the prospects don't pan out or get injured. If none of them turn out to nearly as good as Bedard or Roberts, don't be surprised.

And again, I'm fine with trading any/all of the players on this team. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be making up our minds to trade them for the best offer this offseason. If the offer isn't good enough, we pass. Simple as that.

[vatech1994]

Not sure if anyone disagree's with that.

I don't think anyone is saying to trade all those guys for whatever they can get regardless of what that is. But at the same time, we should be confident that we can get a great package for Bedard, at least a very good package for Brob, and a good to very good package for Tejada.

I disagree. I think there are plenty of people saying trade them for the best offer we get regardless of whether that offer is good enough. Now, are these people ASSUMING that we're going to get good enough offers. Sure they are. But assuming it will happen, doesn't make it so.

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6522

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6280

[NewMarketSean]

The fact that you keep typing that no FA will come here doesn't make it true. It isn't. Huff, Ramon, Tejada, and Javy all came here. Some good players will come here if we pursue them

And saying that FA's will come here does not make it true either. At least the kinds of FA's this team needs to start signing, if that is the direction they are going to take. Tejada came here because there wasn't much competition for him. Think he would have come here if Boston or NY had been after him? Huff and Javy are hardly the kinds of FA's we need to become contenders. Javy was signed after a deceptive career year and had 1.5 good seasons before becoming dead weight. Despite Huff's recent surge, he's been dead weight as well, not worth his contract. Signing those kinds of FA's will only extend our current problem.


The fact that you keep typing that our MiL system is bare doesn't make it true either. Despite the popular sentiment on this board, the main problem with this team continues to be the pitching. If our bullpen was a good bullpen this year, we'd have been very competitive. We have lots of young arms that should be ready. Olson, Penn, Loewen, Hoey, Liz, Burres, Birkins, Doyne.....If more than half of them pan out and join Guthrie, Bedard, Cabrera, Bradford, Walker, Baez, our pitching could be very, very good. If they all continue to defy their minor league numbers and suck, we're screwed regardless of what happens.

Spare me the "if's". Our MiL system may have good arms in the minors but when they make the jump to the majors they lack whatever it is that makes them effective. I'm not saying that some or most of these guys will eventually learn to pitch in the MLB, but their starts leave me worried, and makes me wonder what is being taught down on the farm and in our clubhouse.

Bottom line, right now the MiL system can't be relied on to supply us with talent to contend. We need to supplement the talent in the MiL with trades, most of which will net us MLB talent.


I almost hope we do trade all of these guys so you all get your wish. If it happens, go on record immediately as to whether you like the trades and stick with it. Don't change your mind if the prospects don't pan out or get injured. If none of them turn out to nearly as good as Bedard or Roberts, don't be surprised.

Don't worry I will. But what will you have to do if we have to do that? I'm sick of people saying that our plans aren't good enough but then never offer up their own plans to improve the team. And don't say stay the course. What a laugh riot.


And again, I'm fine with trading any/all of the players on this team. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be making up our minds to trade them for the best offer this offseason. If the offer isn't good enough, we pass. Simple as that.

I agree. But if it comes down to losing Tejada or Bedard to free agency, or trading them for the best available package, I will trade them 10 out of 10 times.

[Sports Guy]

Do I really need to answer this question?

If you are willing to accept that Tejada is between an 825 to 875 OPS SS, he is much, much more valuable than a 750 OPS SS. Meanwhile, it shouldn't be tough at all to locate a 775 OPS left fielder (though I admit we sure have made it tough). So, why trade a good SS for a lesser SS and a fairly easy to locate LF?

Bedard's production by itself is much more valuable than the combo production I proposed above. Same with Roberts.

We have to get more than this back to make trading them worthwhile. I'd rather let them walk, enjoy their production for two more years, and get the draft picks than get a large group of mediocre to slightly better than mediocre players for them.
But you don't know that the results you mentioned will happen for a few years.

So, let's say we make trades that you are OK with and we get the results you mentioned....Are we, as an organization, really going to be that much worse off?

[Sports Guy]

I disagree. I think there are plenty of people saying trade them for the best offer we get regardless of whether that offer is good enough. Now, are these people ASSUMING that we're going to get good enough offers. Sure they are. But assuming it will happen, doesn't make it so.

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6522

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6280
You shouldn't think. :D

No one is advocating a trade just to trade these guys type thing, at least not with the top players.

[Sports Guy]

In 2010,
Bedard will be 31
Roberts with be 32

They may both be playing worse at that point than they are today, but I would hardly say it is "likely". I think you've been drinking too much of the SG kool-aid. Everyone doesn't magically become terrible just because they are on the wrong side of 30. It might happen, it might not. Both guys are fit and thin. Bedard is more of a risk than Roberts since all pitchers are risks.

Look at the ages of the Yankees' roster. Look at the ages of the All Star Rosters this year. Ortiz is 31. Varitek is 35. Lowell is 33. Manny is 35. Imagine if the Sox had traded all of them a couple years ago, because they would "most likely be on the downside of their careers" at this age. If we trade people JUST because they are 30 or over and their performance might crash, we will never compete.Just playing the percentages VaTech...Signing these guys after 2009 for 4-7 years, putting them well into their mid to upper 30s, is just not a smart move IMO.

[geschinger]

Just playing the percentages VaTech...Signing these guys after 2009 for 4-7 years, putting them well into their mid to upper 30s, is just not a smart move IMO.

Beat me to it, this is the key point when it comes to Roberts. I'd be comfortable w/him here in 2010 if we couldn't get a good return for him but I wouldn't be at all comfortable being committed to him in 2012 and beyond. That is likely a requirement to have him here in 2010. I don't see him signing another 2-3 year type extension.

[vatech1994]

But you don't know that the results you mentioned will happen for a few years.

So, let's say we make trades that you are OK with and we get the results you mentioned....Are we, as an organization, really going to be that much worse off?

No, we won't be that much worse off. If we traded Bedard, Roberts, and Miggy the day after the season ends for what looks to me to be reasonable returns, I won't have any problem with it at all REGARDLESS of how those prospects turn out. However, I'll be pissed if we trade them for less than a reasonable return just to trade them.

Unlike many of the guys on your side of the fence, I won't realign my position on things based on how they eventually turn out. I won't call the Huff signing a great move when it happens and then use it to justify why the FO has done a bad job after Huff struggles for 3 months. I wish I could say the same for some of the guys posting in this thread and calling everyone else names. Of course, now Huff is playing pretty well so this guy is probably back on the Huff bandwagon at this point.

I just get REALLLLLLLLLLLLLY tired of seeing people beg for Hoey to get here, get nasty about the FO when he isn't promoted on "time", and then look for someone to blame when he doesn't do well. Same with Olson. Same with Penn. Just be consistent and I'll be fine.

I also get really, really tired of being accused of defending the FO regardless of what happens and being overly optimistic about the club. I call a spade, a spade. I'm just not a jerk about it like some of us. I can't believe the Knott move today. I think it is ridiculous. I couldn't believe that Jimenez and Reimold weren't on the promotion list. I'm shocked that House is being given so few chances and that Bako has started at all since he came up. My previously growing confidence in the FO decision making has definitely been shaken by recent events.

You're consistent. You deserve a lot of credit for that. I happen to agree with Baltimoron that we can accomplish what we're trying to do AND take less risk if we don't trade virtually every good player, but I respect your position and I don't know who is wrong and who is right. Your plan could be the right way to go. I'll support it if it happens and we get good value.

[vatech1994]

Just playing the percentages VaTech...Signing these guys after 2009 for 4-7 years, putting them well into their mid to upper 30s, is just not a smart move IMO.

It is hard to argue with this position right now. We don't know how they will produce for the next two years and what they will look like in 2009.

However, if Bedard throws two more dominant seasons in 2008 and 2009, I'd probably be willing to sign him for whatever it takes. Heck, I'm ready to throw quite a bit of money at him right now to buy out two years and get him to give us 2 years to 2011.

Same scenario with Roberts. If he looks like he isn't slowing down a bit at 32 in 2009 and he has put up an 850 OPS for 3 straight years, I might be willing to sign him for what it took.

I understand why you trade these guys. I'm not against it at all. I was one of the first guys advocating a Bedard trade in early July. Bedard should be the easier one to trade because he should bring a King's ransom. We'll see what happens.

[Sports Guy]

However, if Bedard throws two more dominant seasons in 2008 and 2009, I'd probably be willing to sign him for whatever it takes. See, i disagree with this but agree with your next sentence:

Heck, I'm ready to throw quite a bit of money at him right now to buy out two years and get him to give us 2 years to 2011.I am fine with giving him a 4 year extension right now...Some days it is my preference and other days i prefer to trade him. I can't decide on him. I tend to think if we dealt Tejada, BRob and DCab(along with some of the others) that we would be ok and could give Bedard the money...However, if we did all of that, would he even want the money?


Same scenario with Roberts. If he looks like he isn't slowing down a bit at 32 in 2009 and he has put up an 850 OPS for 3 straight years, I might be willing to sign him for what it took.
I just can't agree with you on BRob...I really like BRob...He is one of my favorite guys on this team and i love watching him play...He plays the game the right way IMO. But he does have his issues...He wears down some over the course of a long season. He hasn't put together 2 very good back to back years. He still doesn't hit lefties too well.

Now, if you ask me, he is the best second baseman in the game and if not #1, he is #2(talking all around game here). But i don't think he will be by 2009 and i certainly don't think so beyond that.

The other point is, do they even want to sign here? I bet if you ask Brob right now he would say no but that things could change if we win the next 2 years. However, how likely is it that win? What are the realistic chances?

[davearm]

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.
There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

[mweb]

I disagree. I think there are plenty of people saying trade them for the best offer we get regardless of whether that offer is good enough. Now, are these people ASSUMING that we're going to get good enough offers. Sure they are. But assuming it will happen, doesn't make it so.

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6522

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6280

I was not for that trade, but those guys did have decent value at the time. They still may pan out as well, although that is not my prediction. Plus, no one is saying this is without risk, obviously we can be unlucky with the guys we get back, or simply do a poor job choosing who we get back. The point is we can get quite a few top prospects for those guys, likely good enough value to pull the trigger on the trades, whether the guys pan out, only the stat guys know.;) :D

BTW, we probably could have gotten Hanley Ramirez plus another very good prospect from the Red Sox before they traded him for Beckett. Would that have satisfied you? I liked the possibility then, and obviously it looks good now.

[mweb]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

At least 100 losses almost assure's us of the top pick, which also helps the rebuilding.

[CEB]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up", I think a strong case can be made the there is a world of difference between 70 wins and 40 wins. You don't want to believe it but, things can get worse. A 40-122 team is much, much worse than a 70-92 team -- just like a 100-62 team is much different than a 70-92 team.

The difference between 90 and 120 losses is like the difference between the Orioles’ months of July and August. In July, they may have lost more than they won, but at least they were in almost every game and you could tell yourself that they could win any contest and would turn it around. I and many O’s fans can live with that -- hell, that’s the story of the last 10 years right? But it’s quite another thing to approach every game for 1 or 2 years and know that you’re going to lose and that there is no guarantee of better days on the other side. Listen to the OH Board of late, no one has any fun watching the team lose day in and day out with no hope. Do you think that it will get better if the team trades off every player that is identifiable in the community or that the casual fan recognizes as talented and worthy of the price of a ticket to see play?

Blowing the team up is a high leverage strategy that will almost by definition result in the team losing 100 games (or more given the unbalanced schedule and the strength of the AL East).

The oft-cited teams that has followed that path have not only lost 100 game or more, but have suffered a dramatic decline in attendance. Camden Yards is a glorious place to see a ballgame, to be sure. And Orioles fans are loyal and surprisingly resilient, yet a 100-loss season will likely result in a 30-50% drop in attendance. This is even more true in light of the last 10 years and the level of frustration.

A 30-50% decline in attendance will not only affect ticket revenues, but concession revenue and television royalties. So the club’s revenues will drop by $15 to $45 million per year or more.

In contrast, there will be comparably little reduction in the $90 million in player personnel expenses following the fireworks, since many of the most tradeable players (such as Bedard and Roberts) aren’t among the highest paid and the strategy also called for the club to “eat” the salaries of “underperformers” (such as Gibbons, Huff, Payton and Mora).

So, blowing-it-up may actually reduce the club’s ability to sign free agents for a couple of years, at least until the payroll falls in line with revenues. Some will be happy to hear this, but it reinforces the high-risk nature of the strategy. And for an example of the worst case scenario, you need look no further than the Pittsburgh Pirates free agent signings and consequences. They traded a series of players they could not afford to keep and are saddled with several dreadful mid-tier free agents they never should have signed.

Again, I am simply pointing out that the blow-it-up strategy virtually insures at least one or two 100 loss seasons, and massive fan alienation on the scale of the 1988 Orioles or 2003 Tigers.

Finally, as others have noted, much of the clamor for the team to be “blown up” is out of profound frustration and the lack of an tangible, identifiable alternative. People what to do something. And as the proverb goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks little a nail.

In context, “blow it up” is a strategy, but let’s be clear, it is not the only alternative to another ten years of misery and futility. It is the most drastic, and highest risk strategy. I am not convinced that the marginal return, is worth the risk.

If you can successfully rebuild by ‘blowing-it-up,” you can rebuild through more conventional means without purging the team of every familiar face to the casual fan. Yes, it may take a couple of years longer, but not every pennant winner has had to endure a baptism of fire akin to the 1962 Mets season.

[RShack]

You seem to be one of the few caught up in silly slogans. The rest of us just use "blow it up" as shorthand for trade whoever is necessary to turn the thing around, and quit doing the dumb things they did in the past.

Who really cares what you call it?
Oh, gimme a break. Are you really claiming that "blow it up" is typically used around here to refer to FO practices that have demonstrated traction at establishing a consistent contender? That's bull and you know it. The very words "blow it up" signify destructive action. That's what the words mean in the English language. Around here, that phrase is used as shorthand for getting rid of the O's demonstrated talent and destroying any opportunity for near-term success, in order to acquire potential talent (prospects) who may or may not enable success in the distant future. You know that as well as I do. To say that "blow it up" signifies nothing besides "turn things around" is disingenuous. There is a history of franchises who have turned things around to become consistent contenders, and destructive action is not how they get there. You of all people know that.

[DrungoHazewood]

Oh, gimme a break. Are you really claiming that "blow it up" is typically used around here to refer to FO practices that have demonstrated traction at establishing a consistent contender? That's bull and you know it. The very words "blow it up" signify destructive action. That's what the words mean in the English language. Around here, that phrase is used as shorthand for getting rid of the O's demonstrated talent and destroying any opportunity for near-term success, in order to acquire potential talent (prospects) who may or may not enable success in the distant future. You know that as well as I do. To say that "blow it up" signifies nothing besides "turn things around" is disingenuous. There is a history of franchises who have turned things around to become consistent contenders, and destructive action is not how they get there. You of all people know that.

Believe what you want. You like controversy, splitting hairs, and getting worked into a fit (and more importantly, working the rest of the board into a fit) about meaningless things. You did it in the threads about projecting future outcomes from past performance, and you're doing it now.

[vatech1994]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

I'm not even really considering record when I say "worse off than we are now". When we did the last "fire sale" we were worse than we are now regardless of record, because we didn't have any real talent before or after the process. Mora was the only thing that came out of it.

For better or worse, we do have significant talent in several positions right now. Our SS, 2B, RF, #1 starter are all well above average. Our C (normally, I hope this year isn't a sign of things to come), #2 starter, and normal closer (Ray) are above average. We have 4-6 other average to slightly above average players on the 25 man roster. If we trade all but one of our well above average players and we don't get any back, we're worse off.

Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Just saying that once they're gone, we can't get a do over.

[vatech1994]

IBTW, we probably could have gotten Hanley Ramirez plus another very good prospect from the Red Sox before they traded him for Beckett. Would that have satisfied you? I liked the possibility then, and obviously it looks good now.

I didn't know Hanley Ramirez plus anyone was ever an option for Tejada. Obviously, just getting Ramirez back for Tejada would have justified the trade. Anything else would have been gravy.

[Sports Guy]

Believe what you want. You like controversy, splitting hairs, and getting worked into a fit (and more importantly, working the rest of the board into a fit) about meaningless things. You did it in the threads about projecting future outcomes from past performance, and you're doing it now.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[CEB]

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up" . . . ..

Killed another thread haven't I?

Much too balanced and reasonable to debate, I suppose. Next time, I'll include an argument that the team shouldn't be blown-up because minor league record is irrelevant to a player's Major League future. ;)

[Sports Guy]

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up", I think a strong case can be made the there is a world of difference between 70 wins and 40 wins. You don't want to believe it but, things can get worse. A 40-122 team is much, much worse than a 70-92 team -- just like a 100-62 team is much different than a 70-92 team. 60 wins? 70 wins? Who cares...You are still pathetic....It really doesn't make that much of a difference.


The oft-cited teams that has followed that path have not only lost 100 game or more, but have suffered a dramatic decline in attendance. Camden Yards is a glorious place to see a ballgame, to be sure. And Orioles fans are loyal and surprisingly resilient, yet a 100-loss season will likely result in a 30-50% drop in attendance. This is even more true in light of the last 10 years and the level of frustration.
If we keep winning 70 wins a game every year, the attendance will continue to drop anyway. I think the fans want some young excitement.

A 30-50% decline in attendance will not only affect ticket revenues, but concession revenue and television royalties. So the club’s revenues will drop by $15 to $45 million per year or more. Youa re probably overstating the attendance drop. They aren't going to only bring in 1-1.7 million a year. The Yankees and Red Sox series alone will insure that won't happen.



So, blowing-it-up may actually reduce the club’s ability to sign free agents for a couple of years,This is good news...Who cares about FAs? That isn't how you build a team, at least not proeprly.
They traded a series of players they could not afford to keep and are saddled with several dreadful mid-tier free agents they never should have signed. We have a lot more resources than the Pirates do and they had the worse GM in the sport(arguably)

Again, I am simply pointing out that the blow-it-up strategy virtually insures at least one or two 100 loss seasons, and massive fan alienation on the scale of the 1988 Orioles or 2003 Tigers.
And this is basically incorrect. To say it, with a guarantee(which you are doing) is completely inaccurate.

Finally, as others have noted, much of the clamor for the team to be “blown up” is out of profound frustration and the lack of an tangible, identifiable alternative. People what to do something. And as the proverb goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks little a nail.
LOL...You haven't been around here that long, have you? Many of us have been asking for this for years.

In context, “blow it up” is a strategy, but let’s be clear, it is not the only alternative to another ten years of misery and futility. It is the most drastic, and highest risk strategy. I am not convinced that the marginal return, is worth the risk.No its not...Keeping things as is and pissing a lot of money away on overrated FAs is the riskiest strategy.

[CEB]

60 wins? 70 wins? Who cares...You are still pathetic....It really doesn't make that much of a difference.

. . .

Keeping things as is and pissing a lot of money away on overrated FAs is the riskiest strategy.


But of course it does make a difference whether the team loses 90 or 120 games. The effect is reduce your wins by a factor of 50%. How many game do you attend SG? What if you lay down your money, and the O’s won only half of the games they won before. You’d be even more dissatisfied and less likely to attend. But don’t debate me. Look at the attendance following the blow-ups in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida.

If you want to assert that purging the team of all recognizable faces for prospects is worth the pain, don’t deny that there won’t be 100 to 120 losses, dude.

If you really want to blow-it-up and leverage every player for prospects, it means assembling a team of Freddie Bynam’s, Luis Hernandez’s and Paul Bakos for a year or two while all you blue-chip prospects develop and mature in the MiL system. You'll hate that.

Further, you actually need 100 to 120 losses to guarantee the club will pick first in the first year player draft – which is an important piece of the strategy, right? Since the track record or first picks is much better than even mid-first rounders. And of course, from your perspective if you're going to lose 90 games, why not 120?

You say you “think the fans want some young excitement.” Of course the fans want excitement! And winning! It’s just that blow-in the team up isn’t the only way to get there. And there won’t be any excitement if you trade away every quality player and leave a roster of overmatched AAAA and AAA players.

Look at the numbers the Tigers attendance during 2000-2003. They moved into a new stadium and had several poor years before they blew-up the Tigers and still attendance declined by 30%.

Detroit Tigers
Year Record Attendance
1999 69-92 2,026,441
2000 79-83 2,438,617
2001 66-96 1,921,305 Base
2002 55-106 1,503,623 -22%
2003 43-119 1,368,245 -29%

I don’t disagree about a 2-3 year moratorium on free agents if you blow-it-up. If you go down that road, you need 100-120 loses to secure the first or second pick in the draft. But, I don’t think Andy MacPhail disagrees with your point about the futility of signing overpriced second-tier free agents either. So I am not sure that’s a live debate in the Warehouse.

The point about the Pirates is that the blow-it-up strategy is a high risk and high return approach. The Pirates employed it and they couldn’t pull it off. I agree MacPhail is probably more skillful and intelligent. But the Pirate’s example proves that this approach can go bad and stay bad.

Yes, the Orioles have more resources and better management. But as you yourself have noted, there is a limit to what the good people of Baltimore can take isn’t there? After 10 seasons of losing, a couple of 100-loss seasons will do deeper and more lasting damage than if the team had simply had 3-5 losing seasons.

The choice isn’t binary. It’s not purge every established player or condemn the franchise to the status quo and another 10 years of losing. That’s a straw man, man.

If you can successfully rebuild by ‘blowing-it-up,” you can rebuild through more conventional means through careful draft picks, smart trades, reclamation projects and selective free agent signings. You don’t have to purging the team of every familiar face and become the laughingstock of the ML.

[Sports Guy]

But of course it does make a difference whether the team loses 90 or 120 games. The effect is reduce your wins by a factor of 50%. How many game do you attend SG? What if you lay down your money, and the O’s won only half of the games they won before. You’d be even more dissatisfied and less likely to attend. But don’t debate me. Look at the attendance following the blow-ups in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida.
First of all, they aren't going to lose 120 games...That is just absurd to think that.

I would rather watch a 40 win team with a ton of young talent that is building towards something than the garbage that is out there now. But again, saying we would only win 40 games is foolish.

If you want to assert that purging the team of all recognizable faces for prospects is worth the pain, don’t deny that there won’t be 100 to 120 losses, dude.To guarantee it is a joke....Look at the Marlins just last year...Hell, look at the Nats this year. They may lose 100 but to think it is a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. The team would probably be as good if not better than what we are seeing right now.


If you really want to blow-it-up and leverage every player for prospects, it means assembling a team of Freddie Bynam’s, Luis Hernandez’s and Paul Bakos for a year or two while all you blue-chip prospects develop and mature in the MiL system. You'll hate that.again, you obviously haven't paid attention to what anyone is saying. We have all said to get ML ready guys to put into the lineup immediately.

Further, you actually need 100 to 120 losses to guarantee the club will pick first in the first year player draft – which is an important piece of the strategy, right? Since the track record or first picks is much better than even mid-first rounders. And of course, from your perspective if you're going to lose 90 games, why not 120?this has never been anyone's strategy. Are you actually reading what people are saying?


Look at the numbers the Tigers attendance during 2000-2003. They moved into a new stadium and had several poor years before they blew-up the Tigers and still attendance declined by 30%.

Detroit Tigers
Year Record Attendance
1999 69-92 2,026,441
2000 79-83 2,438,617
2001 66-96 1,921,305 Base
2002 55-106 1,503,623 -22%
2003 43-119 1,368,245 -29%The Tigers don't have Boston and NY 9-10 times each a year and we this city, even through 10 years of losing, has supported the Orioles much more than Detroit did.


The point about the Pirates is that the blow-it-up strategy is a high risk and high return approach. The Pirates employed it and they couldn’t pull it off. I agree MacPhail is probably more skillful and intelligent. But the Pirate’s example proves that this approach can go bad and stay bad.The Pirates haven't rebuilt....They have pissed away millions on crappy players. They are now just getting younger. If you think they have rebuilt and blown it up, you don't understand the meaning of the terms.

laughingstock of the MLYou mean like we already are?

[utvolzac]

OK....so we blow it up. We trade our $94 million team....Bedard, Tejada, Roberts, et al....for $24 million worth of young, promising, ML and almost ML ready kids. Then, let's say after 2-3 years, it becomes obvious that most of these guys aren't making anyone believe they are ML players. The only person who wins in this scenerio is Peter Angelos. He keeps $70 million in his pocket, and still makes out like a bandit collecting TV revenues, and the money wasted by O's fans who continue to support his team.

So, what happens when blowing it up fails?

(1) Do we blow it up again and start over?

(2) Or do we select that small core of guys who are solid players, and start building a team around them. But wait!.....We can do this now, and definitely have a better chance of fielding a winning team in 2008, and beyond.

Most of our "core" group are on the wrong side of 30 and they are only signed for two more years. I agree w/ building around a core group of talented players, but the current group of O's is not the right ones imo.

[utvolzac]

If you keep them, don't contend and then they leave via FA, what do you have?

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

[vatech1994]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

This is a very, very good post. It is hard to argue with any of your logic.

[DrungoHazewood]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

That's a great point. A large part of the team's contracts expire after 2009. If they build around today's core and don't sign anyone to extensions there won't be any more core in 2010. There will be a natural explosion and only Markakis and a few others will be left in its wake.

[utvolzac]

That's a great point. A large part of the team's contracts expire after 2009. If they build around today's core and don't sign anyone to extensions there won't be any more core in 2010. There will be a natural explosion and only Markakis and a few others will be left in its wake.

To be honest, I really consider our real "core" group of players to be Markakis, our young pitchers, Rowell, Wieters, etc. Basically the type of players that the "blow it up" (ie trade BRob Miggy, Bedard) side want to target anyway.

I have very little faith that our current core group is even capable of being the centerpiece of a contending franchise. Most of these guys have been around here long enough to know that the chances of them being part of a contending Orioles team, is very slim.

I really don't see any of our valuable vets being in any hurry to re-sign with this franchise when their contracts run out and most of them, I wouldn't want to resign anyway.

IMO, the time to build around Tejada, BRob, Mora, etc has come and gone. Had we been able to add an impact free agent like a Vladdy or Delgado, I'm pretty sure this core group would have already been a winner by now. Given what's available on the free agency market, I don't like our chances to even build around these guys. Unless we want to start trading our young prospects, which I DO NOT WANT to do. Plus, I think it'll take us at least 1 off-season just to get out of the bad contracts we saddled ourselves with this last off-season.

I just don't see Angelos increasing the payroll to not only get us out of the whole were already in, but adding enough to bring in elite talent and facilitate the farm system. I can't really say I blame him for that either, because although we are a big enough market to spend money, we aren't NY.

- Pay off Payton/Gibbons/Baez/etc just to get rid of them
- Pay ridiculous contracts, well over market value, to get elite FA's to come here or take on other bad contracts to get better players.
- Invest significantly in Latin America/Asia, and overpay slot money in the draft for elite talent that slides, so the farm system still thrives and gives us a back up plan.

That is alot of money.

[Baltimoron]

I use "blow it up" as shorthand for both the willingness to trade anyone in the organization in the right deal, and a determined goal of not taking a patchwork approach to 2008.

The first idea is an idea that is unquestionably true for every MLB team.

If by "not taking a patchwork approach to 2008" you mean not trying to fill holes with short-term solutions, that is true for nearly every team (the exception being older but still highly competitive teams, and even in there case, its still arguably sub-optimal, as guys like Brian Cashman have made obvious).

[Baltimoron]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Its certainly less wrong for a team with the recent history of the Orioles, but more importantly, it misses the point.

Getting younger for the "long term" good of the franchise does not necessitate risking a 100+ plus loss season.

The focus should be on the long term health of the club. But that does not mean one should abandon the current health of the club.

[Baltimoron]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

I couldn't disagree more.

The world is not black or white, and neither are the options facing the Orioles.

[Baltimoron]

First of all, they aren't going to lose 120 games...That is just absurd to think that.

I would rather watch a 40 win team with a ton of young talent that is building towards something than the garbage that is out there now. But again, saying we would only win 40 games is foolish.
To guarantee it is a joke....Look at the Marlins just last year...Hell, look at the Nats this year. They may lose 100 but to think it is a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. The team would probably be as good if not better than what we are seeing right now.

again, you obviously haven't paid attention to what anyone is saying. We have all said to get ML ready guys to put into the lineup immediately.
this has never been anyone's strategy. Are you actually reading what people are saying?

The Tigers don't have Boston and NY 9-10 times each a year and we this city, even through 10 years of losing, has supported the Orioles much more than Detroit did.

The Pirates haven't rebuilt....They have pissed away millions on crappy players. They are now just getting younger. If you think they have rebuilt and blown it up, you don't understand the meaning of the terms.
You mean like we already are?

If the bolded is actually what you think, than perhaps you should consider stopping using misleading, inflammatory and incorrect language like "blowing it up."

The idea that teams win, get old, blow it up and repeat is childish and wrong. Cookie cutter philosophies do not work in a dynamic world.

The goal is to be better, not just immediately but over the next few years. That the Orioles should weigh future success more heavily than more immediate success does not mean immediate success is without value.

To emulate the Marlins is to be stupid. To emulate parts of what they have stressed (adding young talent) is a good idea. But they have also done a lot of dumb things.

Thankfully, the Orioles' options are not a 40 win team or the crap they have now. If they were, the choice is obvious.

[RShack]

Oh, gimme a break. Are you really claiming that "blow it up" is typically used around here to refer to FO practices that have demonstrated traction at establishing a consistent contender? That's bull and you know it. The very words "blow it up" signify destructive action. That's what the words mean in the English language. Around here, that phrase is used as shorthand for getting rid of the O's demonstrated talent and destroying any opportunity for near-term success, in order to acquire potential talent (prospects) who may or may not enable success in the distant future. You know that as well as I do. To say that "blow it up" signifies nothing besides "turn things around" is disingenuous. There is a history of franchises who have turned things around to become consistent contenders, and destructive action is not how they get there. You of all people know that.
Believe what you want. You like controversy, splitting hairs, and getting worked into a fit (and more importantly, working the rest of the board into a fit) about meaningless things. You did it in the threads about projecting future outcomes from past performance, and you're doing it now.
Great job of ignoring the point and shifting to personal attacks. And, yes, I'm quite famous for "working the rest of the board into a fit" by suggesting that people stop and think instead of climbing on knee-jerk bandwagons. The fact of the matter is that some people conveniently change what they mean by "blow it up" week by week to fit which way the wind is blowing around here. Lately, it's changed from a radical destruction of the current core to an oh-so-reasonable wish that the O's get better and younger.

[CEB]

First of all, they aren't going to lose 120 games...That is just absurd to think that.

I would rather watch a 40 win team with a ton of young talent that is building towards something than the garbage that is out there now. But again, saying we would only win 40 games is foolish.

....Look at the Marlins just last year...Hell, look at the Nats this year. They may lose 100 but to think it is a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. The team would probably be as good if not better than what we are seeing right now.


I and others assume that when you advocate “blowing-up” the current team you are seriously advocating this position, rather than simply lobbing out a hand-grenade for your amusement and that you actually believe that such a strategy can work and produce superior results to an incremental rebuilding initiative.

So let’s try this one more time. Blowing-up the team, means to trade established, quality players for prospects, who may or may not be major league ready, with the hopes that by acquiring a greater number of high-quality prospects than the team could through the draft alone, you can shorten or accelerate the rebuilding process.

Examples of teams which took this approach, to one degree or another, include the:

1998 Florida Marlins which finished 54-108,
2003 Detroit Tigers which finished 43-119, the
2003 Cleveland Indians, which finished 68-94, and
2006 Marlins which finished 78-84.

Now, if you think that simply trading Miguel Tejada alone is blowing-it-up, say so. Trading only one established ML Player sounds like a conventional trade and rebuilding plan to me and to others.

Unless I misunderstood you, it sounded as though you advocated a strategy of trading Tejada, Bedard and Roberts with the effort of obtaining blue-chip prospects, hopefully ML-ready. The working assumption is that you would also trade if possible, and DFA if not, the following players: Gibbons, Payton, Huff, Mora, Millar, Danial Cabrera and perhaps Romon Hernandez. You would keep Markakis, and perhaps you would keep Ray, Gurthrie and remainder of the young staff. Presumably, you wouldn’t resign Corry Patterson.

While intriguing and certain worthy of a fine conversation over pizza and beer, the problem is that trading Tejada, Bedard and Roberts will dramatically lower the level of talent and runs scored.

Baseball Prospectus’ value over replacement player is a useful tool in evaluating the impact of such an action. Here are the most recent BP VORP calculations.

Player PA AVG OBP SLG SB CS VORP
Brian Roberts 633 .298 .385 .442 41 7 47.3
Miguel Tejada 483 .310 .365 .467 2 1 34.7
Nick Markakis 619 .295 .362 .469 16 6 29.7
Kevin Millar 479 .258 .372 .429 0 1 16.5
Aubrey Huff 531 .272 .324 .438 0 0 11.8
Melvin Mora 455 .263 .331 .414 9 2 9.6
Corey Patterson 503 .269 .304 .386 37 9 7.6


Thus, blowing-it-up dramatically reduces the teams talent level. It will have a real and tangible impact. Who will be play short and second base? The O’s don’t have an ML-ready prospect at either position in AAA, so it will likely be Brandon Fahey, Freddie Bynam or Luis Hernandez.

You want to believe that the players received in return will all be ML ready. And maybe some will. But not all and not all will pan out. The O’s are likely to get some prospects who are A or AA or still need seasoning in AAA. As a practical matter, you can insist on blue-chip prospects or you can insist on ML-ready, I doubt you can do both. Look at the deals the Tigers, Indians and Marlins did. Not everyone will be ready to step in and hit 0.300 with 30 home runs. And of course, not even blue-chip prospects are overnight successes. Look at Andy Marte, Jeremy Gurthrie, JR House or even Drungo Hazewood.

Moreover, the players you get for Gibbons, Payton, Huff, Mora, Millar, Danial Cabrera aren’t likely to be blue-chip ML-ready prospects. Based on your own valuation, they will be a combination of second-tier prospects. Look back to the Sidney Ponson or Jeff Conine trades.

If this were easy, everyone would do it. The fact is its very hard. A G.M. has to accurately evaluate his own needs, evaluate the other team’s player and then swing the deal. And the player evaluation has to be dead-on or you’ve just traded Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas.

But don’t take my word for it. Read Peter Gammon’s most recent column in Baseball America.

A squad of replacement players and prospects trying to learn on the job at the ML level will be overmatched, especially with the unbalanced schedule in the AL East. Such a team will most likely lose 100 games and maybe over 110.

The attendance declines in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida show that indeed a 30% drop in attendance is highly likely under such a scenario. My point was that there is indeed a difference between losing 90 and 110 games, and the attendance figures prove it. People in Baltimore will care if the O’s lose 100 games. And no, it probably isn’t permanent. But it’s not irrelevant to the front office or the fans.

Again, “blow it up” is not the only viable strategy for rebuilding and it’s not worth the risk or the potential injury to the franchise. If you can successfully rebuild by ‘blowing-it-up,” you can rebuild through more conventional means without purging the team of every familiar face to the casual fan. And that is the track the organization is on. The only thing that matters is results and only time will tell.

[utvolzac]

I couldn't disagree more.

The world is not black or white, and neither are the options facing the Orioles.

So what other options are there?

If you don't trade your valuable vets for young talent or go all out for elite talent in Free Agency, how else do you fix this team? Espcially in the two-year window we have left.

We've wasted the last two years going with "stop gaps" to fill holes, so we could get back to above .500 and that was a collossal failure.

[davearm]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.
This post seems to have garnered both cheers and boos.

I think it's right on the mark.

Barring any contract extensions, one way or another, the O's are going to look dramatically different after 2009, when a slew of contracts end.

So the question is, what to do in that 2-year window: "go for it," or "blow it up."

[Wingman]

Great job of ignoring the point and shifting to personal attacks. And, yes, I'm quite famous for "working the rest of the board into a fit" by suggesting that people stop and think instead of climbing on knee-jerk bandwagons. The fact of the matter is that some people conveniently change what they mean by "blow it up" week by week to fit which way the wind is blowing around here. Lately, it's changed from a radical destruction of the current core to an oh-so-reasonable wish that the O's get better and younger.

Whether "blowing it up" is a good strategy or not, at least the people espousing it have put their ideas forward for the O's to be successful. You, however, only criticize and only offer the ubiquitous "a smart FO" as the solution for the O's woes, never stating what "a smart FO" should do...

I don't like knee-jerk bandwagons either and I always appreciate dissent but I'm always skeptical of someone (like you) who will criticize the popular opinion, without putting forth an alternative solution.

[Three Run Homer]

Barring any contract extensions, one way or another, the O's are going to look dramatically different after 2009, when a slew of contracts end.

So the question is, what to do in that 2-year window: "go for it," or "blow it up."

I think that just asking the question makes the answer obvious.

There is no feasible way that this team can "go for it" in the next two years. There isn't enough available talent in the free agent market or in the upper levels of the farm system to upgrade this team from a doormat to a playoff-caliber team in the next two years.

So all that is left is blow it up.

[RShack]

Whether "blowing it up" is a good strategy or not, at least the people espousing it have put their ideas forward for the O's to be successful. You, however, only criticize and only offer the ubiquitous "a smart FO" as the solution for the O's woes, never stating what "a smart FO" should do...

I don't like knee-jerk bandwagons either and I always appreciate dissent but I'm always skeptical of someone (like you) who will criticize the popular opinion, without putting forth an alternative solution.
I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

[Sports Guy]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.
First of all, for you to keep saying the idea of blowing it up is a bandwagon idea shows you to be more foolish than many of us ever thought you were...This has been a thought on here for years.

Secondly, who do you think should be hired in the FO??

[davearm]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.
Most people are taking that as a given, and have moved on to discussing what moves would/should be made, assuming there were talented guys running the FO.

[RShack]

First of all, for you to keep saying the idea of blowing it up is a bandwagon idea shows you to be more foolish than many of us ever thought you were...This has been a thought on here for years.
IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.


Secondly, who do you think should be hired in the FO??
When Flanagan was elevated to top dog, I said that whether he would prove successful would be determined by 2 things: whether he had the baseball brains to successfully pursue a good direction, and whether he could persuade PA to let him do what he wanted. I think he did manage to make the FO somewhat better but that he failed overall to make the team significantly better. I don't know how much of his failure to do that was due to less-than-excellent baseball brains vs. failure to get PA to give him free reign. By now, that's a moot point.

I think it is significant that this summer's shakeup involved PA replacing Flanagan with MacPhail. That's way more far-reaching than changing the manager. To me, there are 2 key things about this. AM has a much better track record of baseball brains, and (perhaps most importantly) PA and AM had worked as *peers* on baseball matters. The latter gives me hope that PA will give the car keys to AM in a way that he never did with his adopted son Flanagan.

As best I can tell, the FO now has multiple very good people on board, and I want to believe that PA will give AM more control than anyone before him has had. What makes sense to me is to see if AM and his crew can do a good job. Until they have some time to show us something, I don't see why changes in the FO are warranted beyond (1) whatever post-Flanny/Duq clean-up remains to be done, and (2) whoever else AM might want to get on board to help him do his thing. I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.

[davearm]

IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.


When Flanagan was elevated to top dog, I said that whether he would prove successful would be determined by 2 things: whether he had the baseball brains to successfully pursue a good direction, and whether he could persuade PA to let him do what he wanted. I think he did manage to make the FO somewhat better but that he failed overall to make the team significantly better. I don't know how much of his failure to do that was due to less-than-excellent baseball brains vs. failure to get PA to give him free reign. By now, that's a moot point.

I think it is significant that this summer's shakeup involved PA replacing Flanagan with MacPhail. That's way more far-reaching than changing the manager. To me, there are 2 key things about this. AM has a much better track record of baseball brains, and (perhaps most importantly) PA and AM had worked as *peers* on baseball matters. The latter gives me hope that PA will give the car keys to AM in a way that he never did with his adopted son Flanagan.

As best I can tell, the FO now has multiple very good people on board, and I want to believe that PA will give AM more control than anyone before him has had. What makes sense to me is to see if AM and his crew can do a good job. Until they have some time to show us something, I don't see why changes in the FO are warranted beyond (1) whatever post-Flanny/Duq clean-up remains to be done, and (2) whoever else AM might want to get on board to help him do his thing. I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.
Fair enough.

What folks are discussing here is what "his thing" should be.

[NewMarketSean]

Fair enough.

What folks are discussing here is what "his thing" should be.

But it's not as black and white as people think!!! Wah!!!!!!

[Sports Guy]

IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.Yea...It is real silly to want to get younger, cheaper and better in all aspects of the game...It is real silly to want to stop adding mediocre talent for millions.

Unreal how clueless you really are.

I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.And what if AM wants to blow it up?

[RShack]

Most people are taking that as a given, and have moved on to discussing what moves would/should be made, assuming there were talented guys running the FO.
That might be true of you, and it might be true of some others. But that is not what the general tenor of this board has shown. Less than a month ago, many people were saying that AM's failure to make trades at the first deadline was "strike one", and that his failure to sign Wieters 48-hours before the deadline was "strike two". Various people said outright that they were unwilling to see AM as being any different from the last 10 years of FO until the team got better. You can look it up.

However, I do see a subtle change in position since the Wieters signing and after the Trax trade. This change does not involve giving up on the tired "blow it up" sloganeering, but it does involve a significant modification to what people now claim "blow it up" means. As we all should know, "blow it up" originally meant trading everydamnbody for prospects, completely writing off the next 2 or 3 seasons, and betting the store on what those prospects would do in the years to come. Lately, more-than-a-few folks appear to be redefining what "blow it up" means into something that is less ridiculous, e.g., trading some, but not all, of our good players, and trading them not just for prospects, but instead for a combination of ML-ready replacement talent and prospects. The number of "lost seasons" that the "blow it up" seems to now call for has also been reduced by a year or more. My conclusion is that AM's behavior so far has indeed caused many to change their opinion in significant ways, but that people don't want to admit that. Instead, they're backpeddling like mad, trying to rewrite history about what "blow it up" has meant around here.

[DrungoHazewood]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

[Wingman]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

Of course having talented guys running the FO is the answer... But that's like saying, In order to win a beauty contest you need to be pretty...

When the "keystone" of your solution to the O's is so incredibly obvious, why would you expect to have your opinions given serious consideration and not be seen as nothing but a provacateur and an annoyance (like DH called you)?


Just because someone isn't willing to provide specifics around exactly what they mean by "blowing it up" doesn't make it a bad idea on it's face... I for one don't know the abilities of the the rest of MLB franchises and the players in their farm systems so I won't make specific suggestions. However, it's not intrinsically illogical to state in general teams the philosophy you want to see the front office adopt.

Finally, until you provide more information on what you think the FO should do besides be "smart" you should have no credibility around here...

[Sports Guy]

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

Right...For rshack to not be able to figure that out is ridiculous.

Whatever, just ignore what he wants since everyone else can figure it out on their own.

[RShack]

Yea...It is real silly to want to get younger, cheaper and better in all aspects of the game...It is real silly to want to stop adding mediocre talent for millions... Unreal how clueless you really are.
Will you please stop putting absurd all-or-nothing comments into my mouth. I never thought what you are attributing to me. Nobody is against getting younger and better. Nobody thinks we should spend truckloads of money on lousy guys. Where do you get this stuff? Don't you know how to have a decent argument?

What I and some others are against is your implausible overall scheme that ignores the need to strike some reasonable balance between near-term and long-term priorities. Every single franchise in history that has been a consistent contender balances near-term and long-term needs. Only in the scary world of SG's brain does this not hold true.



And what if AM wants to blow it up?
It depends on which definition of "blow it up" we're using this week.

I am confident that there is zero chance that he will opt to conform to the radical definition that has been used by many until quite recently.

He may or may not act in a way that is consistent with the newer and much-more-moderate definition that has recently become fashionable, a newer definition that hardly fits the destructive label "blow it up". I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does the latter, but I don't really know.

If he does, I would kinda expect it to feature the old classical model of "D up the middle and O at the corners" but, again, I don't know what he will do. If he does do that, I expect it will make a lot of people mad, simply because I think some folks are more imprinted on Earl's comment about 3-run HR's than they are on the the P-and-D philosophy that was the cornerstone of what Andy watched his daddy do around here. That philosophy was the organizational mantra that helped in rapidly turning the forever-lousy Browns into the best organization in baseball.

[RShack]

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.
The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?

[Sports Guy]

Will you please stop putting absurd all-or-nothing comments into my mouth. I never thought what you are attributing to me. Nobody is against getting younger and better. Nobody thinks we should spend truckloads of money on lousy guys. Where do you get this stuff? Don't you know how to have a decent argument?Well, you are crying that people want to trade a lot of older players, players who won't be here when we contend and players who just suck. So, obviously you like this plan that we are currently doing.

Of course, people keep calling you out and asking what you want to do and you cowardly don't answer them or give them some answer of we need someone smart to be in there.

Why don't you just ignore these threads?

[Sports Guy]

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?
Why on earth should Drungo, or anyone else, change what they want to say because you can't figure out what they are saying?

Perhaps you should stop your crying, read what people are saying and attempt to talk about baseball(i know it may be hard for you to do but try it).

[DrungoHazewood]

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?

I think I'll just stick with blow it up.

[NewMarketSean]

Blow it up!

[Dr. FLK]

I think I'll just stick with blow it up.

Have you thought about replacing
"objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth." with one of those trendy acronyms? Maybe something like:

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY.

I think it has a nice ring to it.

[Fan4Life]

Most people are taking that as a given, and have moved on to discussing what moves would/should be made, assuming there were talented guys running the FO.

I think you had as good a defintion of "blow-it-up" as has been offered. And I can tell you, not all of the blow-it-up crowd comply with your definition. So it's easy to see why the aguement still exists if we can't first agree on what we're arguing about... We all want a changes made that will lead to success, and the sooner the better. What degree of change that is made seems to be the contention between what some call blow-it-up and others may consider something else.

[Sports Guy]

I think you had as good a defintion of "blow-it-up" as has been offered. And I can tell you, not all of the blow-it-up crowd comply with your definition. So it's easy to see why the aguement still exists if we can't first agree on what we're arguing about... We all want a changes made that will lead to success, and the sooner the better. What degree of change that is made seems to be the contention between what some call blow-it-up and others may consider something else.

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard
BRob

That is it....But if you are truly blowing it up, you actually have to trade guys who have value and get you back a lot of talent, which is why one and maybe both of those guys must be dealt.

The idea is to get younger, cheaper and more talented.

This can not be accomplished with our farm system or via FA.

It MUST happen through trades.

[TGO]

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPaCLTITWOFBATY!!!

[RShack]

I for one don't know the abilities of the the rest of MLB franchises and the players in their farm systems so I won't make specific suggestions... Finally, until you provide more information on what you think the FO should do besides be "smart" you should have no credibility around here...
I see... you don't need to play GM, simply because you don't have detailed info about every organization... I take the same position about that very thing... but you insist that I do exactly what you aren't willing to do. That's nice.

As for what the FO should do, I think it's a 2-part thing. Part 1 is having a sound overall picture of what they are trying to do. Let's call that "strategy". Part 2 is having the ability to make a series of sound case-by-case judgments about what transactions to make (and not make) to implement their strategy. Let's call that "tactics".

I think the previous FO never had a coherent strategy for the ML club. I think they were doing too much reacting to circumstance and not enough being proactive to a coherent vision. I think they had a decent strategy for the MiL level. I expect that AM will formulate (or perhaps he already has) a much clearer and more coherent strategy for the org, including both the ML and MiL aspects of the org. Events may prove me wrong, but I am very confident about this.

I think the previous FO was lousy at the tactics part. I think they didn't know how to pick the right guys to get. This is one of a couple places where we can see what a genius Schuerholz has been: every year he gets a few guys, and they're usually the right guys. Our previous FO would also get a few guys each year, but they were usually the wrong guys. A big part of the current mess is that the previous FO was faced with the same exact tactical problems for multiple years (LH, 1B, DH) and failed to effectively solve them. I am confident that AM will be much better at the tactics part than the previous guys, but I don't know how good he will be.

For the O's to become consistent contenders, it's not enough that AM be decent at both strategy and tactics. The job requires that he be better-than-good at both parts. AFAIK, there is only one way to find out.

I'm sorry if my answer is not enough paint-by-numbers for you, but it's what I really think. I can't comment on specific trades unless you can bug AM's phones and show me the transcripts. Even then, I don't know why I should trust me more than him. Unlike some, I don't have delusions that I'd be a better GM than people who have proven things in their professional career.

[Dr. FLK]

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPaCLTITWOFBATY!!!

Oooh. Did I start a new slogan? :D

It's so much more descriptive than "blow it up!"

[RShack]

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard
BRob

That is it....
Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.

It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

[Dr. FLK]

Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.

It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

There aren't many people who deserve to be in the starting lineup other than Nick. Are there? I mean, I'm sure they are swell guys, but they stink at baseball.

[Sports Guy]

Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.
It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

Actually, i have never said that so reading comprehension has failed you again.

[El Gordo]

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard
BRob

That is it....But if you are truly blowing it up, you actually have to trade guys who have value and get you back a lot of talent, which is why one and maybe both of those guys must be dealt.

The idea is to get younger, cheaper and more talented.

This can not be accomplished with our farm system or via FA.

It MUST happen through trades.
Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.:rolleyes:

[Sports Guy]

Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.:rolleyes:

Many people agree on trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others.

The difference lies with Bedard and BRob(for the most part).

This shouldn't have to be explained every time.

[DrungoHazewood]

Have you thought about replacing Maybe something like:

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY.

I think it has a nice ring to it.

Very nice. I think that'll satisfy the antiblowitupamentarians. I'll keep OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY in my Windows clipboard all the time, so I just have to hit CTRL-V when necessary.

[DrungoHazewood]

Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.:rolleyes:

Well, when you only have two or three real players...

[CEB]

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

Dude, that's the most intelligent paragraph in this whole thread. For God's sake, don't stop!

The problem is that "blow-it-up" really does mean different things to different people and whether or not the O's lost by 30-3 the previous evening.

As residents of Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia now know, the buzzword for carefully-planned urban growth which minimized "sprawl" is "smart growth." Perhaps a similar label could be helpful here, such as "smart rebuilding," or "smart blowing-it-up." ;-)

Even then, there will be no shortage of controversy or topics to debate, since few will agree on which trades, reclamation projects or signings are in fact "smart" and which are "misguided."

Regardless, based on Andy MacPhail's comments at at the forum with season ticket holders and his interview yesterday, it sounds as if there has already been a serious change in "the plan" for the organization, much more akin to your approach Drungo.

Given his comments and recent experience, it's hard to imagine MacPhail trading young pitching for a "big bat" during the offseason. And given his experience in Minnesota and Chicago, its hard to imagine McPhail chasing overpriced free agents in a thin class.

I think you're about to get you wish Drungo....

[RShack]

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?
I think I'll just stick with blow it up.
Sticking with a noisy phrase that means different things to different people will simply guarantee that there will be more tired, circular arguments in which people don't even agree about what they're agreeing or disagreeing about. Maybe you like that sort of thing, I don't know.

It seems odd to me that a more-meaningful label for your recommendations is a long string of jibberish initials. I guess the acceptable choices are limited to either "blow it up" or gibberish. Silly me for suggesting that your ideas deserve more than either one of those lame choices. Never mind.

[CEB]

Many people agree on trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others.

The difference lies with Bedard and BRob(for the most part).

This shouldn't have to be explained every time.

How about explaining it just one time?

Please confirm, in the offseason, General Manager Sports Guy announces that he has blown-up the team by trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others for prospects.

Any other moves in your blow-up? And what did you do with Roberts and Bedard? Because, by my count, that two starters and three roll players.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sticking with a noisy phrase that means different things to different people will simply guarantee that there will be more tired, circular arguments in which people don't even agree about what they're agreeing or disagreeing about. Maybe you like that sort of thing, I don't know.

It seems odd to me that a more-meaningful label for your recommendations is a long string of jibberish initials. I guess the acceptable choices are limited to either "blow it up" or gibberish. Silly me for suggesting that your ideas deserve more than either one of those lame choices. Never mind.

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY!

[Sports Guy]

How about explaining it just one time?

Please confirm, in the offseason, General Manager Sports Guy announces that he has blown-up the team by trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others for prospects.

Any other moves in your blow-up? And what did you do with Roberts and Bedard? Because, by my count, that two starters and three roll players.BRob has to be traded IMO.

I would also deal DCab in the right package.

Bedard depends on an extension or not.

Now is the time to extend or trade Bedard...Waiting on either is foolish IMO.

[Fan4Life]

For me, this is BLOWING IT UP:


Is the definition of "blowing up" a team really evading people here?

When you "blow up" a team, you scrap the old, unsuccessful plan and launch an entirely new plan that charts a radically different direction for the team's future.

You enact this new plan with sweeping personnel changes that remove the core players, coaches, and management types that once fit with the old plan, but no longer fit with the new plan, and you replace them with guys that do fit with the new plan.
Now if the radical new plan the O's want to enact is to get significantly younger, then IMO it's basically imperative that they trade away the valuable assets they have that can actually contribute significantly toward accomplishing that goal -- Bedard, Roberts and Tejada.

The former two guys could conceivably be building blocks in a new plan (what plan *couldn't* use guys like this), but the catch of course is that the plan itself can't get off the ground unless they are traded for the pieces that can get the ball rolling.

Based on the above, is trading Bedard, Roberts and Tejada while keeping the the coaches and FO personnel considered blowing it up?

[davearm]

For me, this is BLOWING IT UP:



Based on the above, is trading Bedard, Roberts and Tejada while keeping the the coaches and FO personnel considered blowing it up?
The O's already have changed the manager and the GM.

[CEB]

BRob has to be traded IMO.

I would also deal DCab in the right package.

Bedard depends on an extension or not.

Now is the time to extend or trade Bedard...Waiting on either is foolish IMO.

Fair enough. Ambiguity resolved.

Nevertheless, its going to a dreadful team and rival the 2003 Tigers, but that will get you a #1 pick.

[Sports Guy]

Fair enough. Ambiguity resolved.

Nevertheless, its going to a dreadful team and rival the 2003 Tigers, but that will get you a #1 pick.

You are most likely wrong but whatever.

[TGO]

Fair enough. Ambiguity resolved.

Nevertheless, its going to a dreadful team and rival the 2003 Tigers, but that will get you a #1 pick.

We're going to wind up with the #1 pick this year.

[Sports Guy]

We're going to wind up with the #1 pick this year.....

......with an expensive, veteran laden team.

[Fan4Life]

The O's already have changed the manager and the GM.

I had thought about that, but the coaches haven't changed.... yet.....

[CEB]

You are most likely wrong but whatever.

It's a shame I don't have a spare $500 million to lend you so we could both find out.... But of course after that, you'd owe us a bit for pain and suffering....

[Sports Guy]

It's a shame I don't have a spare $500 million to lend you so we could both find out.... But of course after that, you'd owe us a bit for pain and suffering....

You just don't get what people are trying to accomplish.

And besides, even if we had a 50 win team, as long as it is young, talented and heading towards bigger and better things, it wouldn't matter.

[NoVaO]

Thinking about it a little more, a blow-up of this team is going to happen one way or another. They don't have one contract that goes past 2010 and almost all of them end after 2009.

We may see extensions from Bedard and/or Roberts, but that is it. What matters is the direction this team makes. Will they keep signing guys in their 30's to multi-year contracts and keep running around in circles?

I think the blow-up has to start this offseason. I would prefer that they do this all together, as long as the offers are right, so the talent acquired can grow and develop together. But I don't have a problem with a waiting a bit to deal some players, specifically Bedard and Roberts.

The dead weight should be dumped this offseason for whatever we can get:
Payton
Gibbons - I would cut him if I can't trade him
I'm tempted to include Baez in this group, but maybe he can build his value back up

FAs that are gone:
Wright
Bako
Bell
Benson
-question: can Benson become a Type-B FA? Ryan Klesko put up .775 OPS in 05 and did not play in 06, but was still a type-B FA. We can make a deal with Benson to not accept arbitration when offered. Same can be applied to Wright if he decides he still wants to play.

Patterson - if we fail to find a replacement for him and he isn't a Type-B FA, I wouldn't have a problem with him coming back to a 1-year deal.

The First to Go:
Tejada - get the best package of young talent you can get
-if a SS doesn't come back in a trade for him, I guess you could trade for Jack Wilson, or possibly take a chance on Felipe Lopez if he becomes available...just sign a stop-gap for a year or 2. Maybe we could get into the Japanese market and sign this guy: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/search.asp?Q=Tomohiro%20Nioka. Its believed he has the glove to play any INF or OF position

Next to Go:
Cabrera - he is still fairly young and still has potential, but while he still has some value, we should look to deal him. If the offer is for a guy like Milledge or Quentin, its something we should pull the trigger on.
-A 3-team deal could be a possibility with Tejada and Cabrera

The Rest:
We'll have a better idea this offseason on Bedard's contract demands and how interested he is in staying here. I don't think there is any way we can go past the trade deadline next year without trading him or at least being pretty certain he will sign here. His value might be at peak status now, but thats debateable. One thing I am sure of is his value will steadily fall after next year's trade deadline.

Roberts I feel is in the same boat as Bedard. A decision about these guys should be made by next year's trade deadline.

We should probably look to deal the bullpen guys next trade deadline as well.

Maybe move Hernandez next offseason. Unless Millar really collapses next year, we should hold on to him unless we get an offer that exceeds the draft pick(s) we would be picking up for him. I'm ok with Huff for now. I would like to move Mora but the no-trade clause really hurts things.

We can all debate about whether to blow it up or not, but this team is going to blow-up naturally by 2009. The only true question marks are Roberts and Bedard. Once we get an idea of where they stand, and the direction of the team is set, we need to deal with them as soon as possible. I don't want the Orioles to simply let them play out their contracts and then leave for draft picks.

[CEB]

You just don't get what people are trying to accomplish.

And besides, even if we had a 50 win team, as long as it is young, talented and heading towards bigger and better things, it wouldn't matter.

Dude, it was a joke.... :)

Of course I get it. I just don't agree that it's the best approach. They are two very different things.

Not everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't get it. :)

[RShack]

You just don't get what people are trying to accomplish.
When people disagree with you, it does not mean that we don't understand. I understand what you want to accomplish. I disagree with some of your assumptions.

We all want the team to get better-and-younger. We all want the org to be a consistent contender. Some of us just don't buy your scheme for how to get there. How many times must someone say this before you accept that reasonable people can disagree without being ignorant fools?

BTW, if through some bizarre series of supernatural events, you were to wind up as an actual-GM rather than a make-believe-GM, this trait of yours is what would guarantee your failure. You think nobody wanted to deal with former O's GM's? In short order, nobody would want to talk to you on the phone simply because you can't accept that other points of view are valid. If you could fix this one super-flaw, I have no doubt that you could work with various folks around here to develop schemes that are much more plausible. It's not that you're stupid, and it's not that you don't have good insights. You are very smart and you do have good insights. You're much better at the whole "let's play GM" game that I will ever be. It's just that your freakin' attitude interferes with the good things you do offer. You are your own worst enemy.

[smart-ass dismissive response arrives in: 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...]

[tywright]

I'm leaning towards trading BRob. He's hit .250 since the AS Break and has not looked like the same player we saw in April-June

[RShack]

Thinking about it a little more, a blow-up of this team is going to happen one way or another. They don't have one contract that goes past 2010 and almost all of them end after 2009.... What matters is the direction this team makes. Will they keep signing guys in their 30's to multi-year contracts and keep running around in circles?
I don't think there's a chance in hell that AM does that. Whatever mistakes AM might make, I think they will be different kinds of mistakes ;-)

I think he will make a series of moves that are consistent with non-radical, proven strategies and tactics for building a winner. I just hope he's good enough to do it. Given the competitive nature of the business, it's not good enough that he be "decent" at his job. We need him to be way-better than just "good". We need him to be excellent.


I think the blow-up has to start this offseason. I would prefer that they do this all together, as long as the offers are right, so the talent acquired can grow and develop together. But I don't have a problem with a waiting a bit to deal some players, specifically Bedard and Roberts.
We'll see what he does. My expectation is that it will not be all-at-once. This is based on the following:

(1) It's hard enough to make a few very good moves per year; it's nearly impossible to make a whole bunch of them;

(2) He needs to balance near-term and long-term concerns, regardless of whether people on this board agree, and

(3) He has no reason to believe that a sudden, radical approach is the best way to proceed.

It sound to me like he's gonna focus on P-and-D, and maybe rearrange where we have bats. I don't expect a huge net-increase in big-name O this winter. But we'll see.



We can all debate about whether to blow it up or not, but this team is going to blow-up naturally by 2009.
Right. You could equally well call it a natural progression of things with a new guy in charge. I just hope he's very good at it. I assume he wants to be the 3rd-generation HOF baseball executive in his family. What he does while he's here will be a big event in making that happen or not. I hope he succeeds.

[utvolzac]

Many people agree on trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others.

The difference lies with Bedard and BRob(for the most part).

This shouldn't have to be explained every time.

For me, when talking about "blowing it up", I'm talking about trading anyone most likely will not be part of a contending Orioles team. Like I said in my previous posts, I don't see the O's turning things around by 2009, when we run into contract issues.

We have way too many holes, way too many bad contracts that inflate the team payroll and not alot of help on the way through the farm system. Give those parameters + not much help in free agency and you have to determine how many of our current starters are going to be part of a LONG TERM future with the O's.

Tejada - Should have been traded last year. We had plenty of chances to build around Tejada, but we screwed it up. Now we're hitting weak free agent classes.

Mora - Has been a huge disappointment since signing his new contract. If we can somehow get him to waive his no trade clause, then I'd trade him mainly to get out of a bad contract.

Ramon - Looked seriously worn down after being played to death last season. He'll be 31 next season and at this point is really just holding down the fort till Wieters is ready. If someone wants to offer us something significant for him, we should take it. If not, keep him as a stop gap till Wieters.

Payton/Gibbons - Just need to be gone. Overpaid and underproducing. They can easily be replaced by young, cheaper players.

Huff/Millar - decent role players. Nothing special.

Baez/Bradford/Walker - Baez is a disaster, signing him was a huge mistake. If he doesn't turn things around early next season, they should just cut their loses. Bradford/Walker have been good to decent. Neither was worth losing a draft pick for, IMO, but they've been somewhat reliable. If someone really wants to overpay for them in a trade, so be it.

Bedard & BRob are really the only two veterans who I could see being long term contributors to the O's building towards contending. Everyone listed above is fairly expendable, in the right trade.

My definition of "blowing it up" is BRob & Bedard. Since I think they long term contributors to this franchise. Cabrera is the wildcard, I definitely float him out there to see what teams would offer, but only move him in a very good deal.

Keepers: Markakis, Loewen, Olson, Liz, Hoey, House, Moore, Penn, Ray.

Everyone else is fair game in the right deal. The goal for this off-season should be to determine who is part of the future of this franchise and who isn't. We cannot continue to have losing seasons, where the majority of our roster aren't long term solutions.

[utvolzac]

Fair enough. Ambiguity resolved.

Nevertheless, its going to a dreadful team and rival the 2003 Tigers, but that will get you a #1 pick.

Losing with young players with potential, who are at least getting on the job training is a much better option than what we've seen from this franchise over the last few seasons.

[CEB]

Losing with young players with potential, who are at least getting on the job training is a much better option than what we've seen from this franchise over the last few seasons.

The devil is in the details. If you trade Tejada and/or Roberts and get back four of five Ryan Minors, you have weakened the team in both the short and long run and not accomplished your goal.

Tejada, Roberts and Bedard are now largely established quantities. There is, for the most part, no question of their proper valuation. If they are traded, they leave significant and identifiable holes in the O's lineup that must be filled or suffer the consequences.

If the acquired prospects don't pan out or take longer than expected to develop, the club will experience several very bad years. If they are complete busts, you are worse off than when you began. That's the quandry.

[Sports Guy]

Tejada, Roberts and Bedard are now largely established quantities. There is, for the most part, no question of their proper valuation. This is flat out inaccurate.
If they are traded, they leave significant and identifiable holes in the O's lineup that must be filled or suffer the consequences. Thank you Capt Obvious....We know this. The idea is not that you replace them and get the same production but that you become more balanced, so that you can rely on 9 players instead of 4.


If the acquired prospects don't pan out or take longer than expected to develop, the club will experience several very bad years. If they are complete busts, you are worse off than when you began. That's the quandryNo you aren't...We are already pathetic....We would be younger, get high draft picks and build that way if worse comes to worse.

[now]

objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth

key phrases:

trade for the future
look for market advantage
avoid stopgaps
prefer draft picks to free agents

...which could be further boiled down to...

go young, cheap, under the radar

...in other words...

BIU

[CEB]

This is flat out inaccurate.Thank you Capt Obvious....We know this. The idea is not that you replace them and get the same production but that you become more balanced, so that you can rely on 9 players instead of 4.
No you aren't...We are already pathetic....We would be younger, get high draft picks and build that way if worse comes to worse.

I think we have had this conversation two pages back.

But.... Perhaps you disagree, but I think that there are relative few who would disagree that Tejada, Roberts and now Bedard are established first-rate quality players. While there may be a question about the extent and permanency of Tejada's power drought, there are no real questions about whether they will bounce back from bad seasons or injuries, which generate widely different opinions about future performance. In contrast, that couldn't be said about Frank Thomas when he signed with the A's or even Jeremy Gurthrie this year. They were gambles. Do you really disagree? If so, why trade them?

Not every veteran will yield a blue-chip prospect and not every prospect will be major league ready, thus the team will experience growing pains. I think they will be severe. You do not.

If the prospects received in trade are all Ryan Minors and do not pan out, you've given away a lot of runs scored and have replacement-level players in their stead. You will be worse off. Swapping Tejada for Fahey at short is a lot different than trading Markakis for Delmon Young or Conor Jackson.

[Sports Guy]

But.... Perhaps you disagree, but I think that there are relative few who would disagree that Tejada, Roberts and now Bedard are established first-rate quality playersYes they are but in the cases of BRob a and Tejada, for how much longer? And, on top of that, will they even be here after 2009 and if not, can we compete between now and then? The answers to all of those questions is likely no.

Not every veteran will yield a blue-chip prospect and not every prospect will be major league ready, thus the team will experience growing pains. I think they will be severe. You do not.If you trade Bedard, BRob and Tejada, you will, in all likelihood, get back 5-6 players you can put on the major league roster on OD of next year and have another few players in the minors.

If the prospects received in trade are all Ryan Minors and do not pan out, you've given away a lot of runs scored and have replacement-level players in their stead. You will be worse off. Swapping Tejada for Fahey at short is a lot different than trading Markakis for Delmon Young or Conor Jackson.You need a better example...He wasn't a good prospect.

[CEB]

Alas, this parrott is dead.

[NoVaO]

I don't think there's a chance in hell that AM does that. Whatever mistakes AM might make, I think they will be different kinds of mistakes ;-)

Yeah, I'm hopeful they are done making these kind of moves and it does sound like they won't be going down that route anymore.


I think he will make a series of moves that are consistent with non-radical, proven strategies and tactics for building a winner. I just hope he's good enough to do it. Given the competitive nature of the business, it's not good enough that he be "decent" at his job. We need him to be way-better than just "good". We need him to be excellent.

Hopefully he will be.


(1) It's hard enough to make a few very good moves per year; it's nearly impossible to make a whole bunch of them;

I don't think thats necessarily true. Bedard, Roberts, Cabrera, and Tejada will all have plenty of teams interested in them. Hint at the availability of guys like Bedard, generate interest, start a bidding war. Have a set price that teams must meet and once somebody hits that price, don't be afraid to pull the trigger.

It doesn't usually happen all in one offseason, but you can find many instances of a team beginning to trade their pieces in one offseason, and finishing the job at the trade deadline. That would be fine with me.


(2) He needs to balance near-term and long-term concerns, regardless of whether people on this board agree

I think most agree. The talent you can get for the big 4 will likely be players that haven't established themselves as very good MLB players yet but are big-league ready with the potential to develop into more than just solid everyday players. Guys like Milledge, Quentin, Laroche, etc. fall into this category.


(3) He has no reason to believe that a sudden, radical approach is the best way to proceed.

The approach is not sudden, nor radical. One constant from most on this board is that we have to get proper value back for whoever we give up. Nobody is trying to give anybody away.

Secondly, I'm sure if the FO had this strategy, it would be planned out. If they were a competent FO, everything would be laid out beforehand, with back-up plans in place if things didn't go exactly as they wanted them to.

I don't want to get into semantics of what the meaning of sudden or radical is, but when an FO executes a plan like this, they aren't doing it on a whim...everything is planned out ahead of time and then executed.

I would like things to happen pretty quickly (meaning one offseason or into next year's trade deadline) IF we get the proper talent in return. I would want the talent we acquire to grow and develop together. Thats just me though.


It sound to me like he's gonna focus on P-and-D, and maybe rearrange where we have bats. I don't expect a huge net-increase in big-name O this winter. But we'll see.

I think the rebuilding process starts this offseason. I'm not sure how far they will take it. Tejada I'm confident will be traded. I don't know about Cabrera. I doubt they will shop Roberts or Bedard around, but at some point they will have to do something with them. Each player's value will start to steadily drop after next year's trade deadline.


Right. You could equally well call it a natural progression of things with a new guy in charge. I just hope he's very good at it. I assume he wants to be the 3rd-generation HOF baseball executive in his family. What he does while he's here will be a big event in making that happen or not. I hope he succeeds.

He has his chance to put his stamp on this franchise. Thats why I am cautiously optimistic that he will trade anybody he can get proper value for and not worry about fan-backlash or admitting he was wrong for granting somebody a contract extension.

[Sports Guy]

I am bumping this thread from several months back.

I was going to start a thread like this but remembered that we already had this discussion.

I felt this was a good discussion(except for the rshack stuff) and that it was worth rehashing(hopefully you all feel the same way).

As I read through this thread, it seemed like a lot of people weren't in favor of trading our big 3 now practically everyone wants to.

I see VaTech saying he would give Bedard anything and now he doesn't want to extend him at all(not calling you out VaTech, just using that as an example that stuck out to me). Heck, i even mentioned extending Bedard if possible.

So, to get this discussion going again, what are your feelings on this now, 4 months later?

Have your feelings on this changed?

What do you see as worst case???

[clapdiddy]

I am bumping this thread from several months back.

I was going to start a thread like this but remembered that we already had this discussion.

I felt this was a good discussion(except for the rshack stuff) and that it was worth rehashing(hopefully you all feel the same way).

As I read through this thread, it seemed like a lot of people weren't in favor of trading our big 3 now practically everyone wants to.

I see VaTech saying he would give Bedard anything and now he doesn't want to extend him at all(not calling you out VaTech, just using that as an example that stuck out to me). Heck, i even mentioned extending Bedard if possible.

So, to get this discussion going again, what are your feelings on this now, 4 months later?

Have your feelings on this changed?

What do you see as worst case???

My theory? BLOW IT UP!

We've got nothing to lose. We will lose with Bedard and Roberts, and we will likely lose without them. We need to put young bodies on the field and in our farm system.

[utvolzac]

Not at all. Bottom line, we have to stop wasting seasons. This franchise has not had a long term plan in what seems like an eternity.

I'm personally in favor of blowing it up and starting fresh. It's a gamble, but even if all of the prospects that come back are busts, so what. We're terrible even with Bedard and Roberts.

If they want to extend Bedard & Roberts, fine. Then finish the job and actually do something to build around them. Break open Angelo's piggy bank and put a contending team on the field, I don't want to hear any excuses about not over paying for premium talent. If they want a quick fix, then be prepared to pay the big bucks.

I just want to see some long term direction for this franchise, rather than the constant mediocrity we've been suffering through these last few seasons.

[Hank Scorpio]

Phew, I'm glad I stayed out of this one.

I laughed my ass off reading it, though. :D

[tvdoc]

FIRE MacPhail,Hire Frank Robinson!!!

[allstar1579]

Worst case: We acquire 7 AAAA players for Bedard and Roberts, and at the end of 2008 still have Huff, Mora, Millar, Gibbons, and Hernandez in our starting lineup.

[JGuthrie46]

FIRE MacPhail,Hire Frank Robinson!!!

you're funny

[tvdoc]

you're funny

Wasn't trying to be funny. Explain what is funny about my statement.:confused:

[allstar1579]

Frank Robinson = Coach

Andy McPhail = Kind of a GM

[tvdoc]

Frank Robinson = Coach

Andy McPhail = Kind of a GM

Frank Robinson would make a better GM then Andy MacPhail,FR knows more about baseball and is respected by other people in MLB. This is only my opinion,sorry if you think it is funny.

[Sports Guy]

Worst case: We acquire 7 AAAA players for Bedard and Roberts, and at the end of 2008 still have Huff, Mora, Millar, Gibbons, and Hernandez in our starting lineup.

HIGHLY UNLIKELY you will be able to label all 7 guys AAAA players by the end of this season and most of the guys you mentioned will be gone after 2009, if not sooner.