DrungoHazewood

Werth had 20 homers in four years in the O's system, then 20 homers his first year in the Jays' system. The Orioles were 180 degrees out from today, they were today's Royals and Werth was the Ryan O'Hearn.

Markakis was good because he got through the farm system so quickly they didn't have time to screw him up.

We probably shouldn't have a contest to name the primary team of the most obscure HOFers. I just pulled out Bobby Wallace and guessed Dodgers. Nope, Cleveland and the St. Louises. Who are the most obscure Hall of Famers? (Non-Negro League category - if you can name the primary team for most 1920s Negro Leaguers you're a better man than me. Heck, if you ask me Gibson and Paige I'd be guessing Homestead Greys or Indy Clowns or something. Those leagues/teams were about as chaotic as 1870s leagues). I'm going to say Wallace, Dave Bancroft, Harry Hooper, Eppa Rixey, Jake Beckley. Placing all of them on the right teams would be a lot of luck. Looking up Satchel... he played for something like nine teams, but there are significant gaps in his record and you'd have to read a biography to figure out what he was doing from, say, 1937-39. In the official records (or at least bb-ref) he has just 76 innings pitched from 1935 (age 28) through 1939 (age 31), in what was likely his peak years. I don't think he was hurt, but probably playing on some kind of barnstorming or outlaw leagues.

I never forget Denny Bautista. He didn't end up with much of a career, but that Angelos-forced trade (that has to be the story) for Jason Grimsley was one of the worst trades in franchise history. Doesn't look like much on the surface, but it was the team's #1 prospect who had two bad outings as a 23-year-old rookie and was immediately traded for a 36-year-old middle reliever with a 4.81 career ERA. Just a completely nonsensical trade on playing terms, and then Grimsley went on to rat out half the team for PEDs. It would be like if, a year ago, they'd traded DL Hall for, like... Aaron Loup and then Loup somehow got the team tied up a massive scandal. I guess that episode was a perfect symbol of the chaos, disorganization, and lack of direction of the 1998-2011 Orioles.

I liked following and rooting for him because he is exactly 10 years younger than me. Which means he's old now...

Eh, I don't know, maybe. I think I'm incredibly deep on some things, not so much on others. I'm probably decent on stuff like the 1930s A's, but anybody who can pull three names from some of those endless 47-107 Phillies teams managed by Doc Prothro has to be born and raised in Philly in unfortunate family circumstances that resulted in a deeply twisted personality. It's like knowing the June 11th, 1988 starting lineup of the O's, in 2055.

I hadn't either. He was kind of a Doug Mientkiewicz of the 1950s. Starting first baseman for the Cubs for five years despite a 96 OPS+. Maybe they loved his glove, but TZ doesn't see it. In '54 he was third in the NL in steals, with 20, and in '56 his nine were 9th in the league. So, quick, kind of athletic but threw lefty. I'm guessing if he was right-handed he would have been a SS/2B/3B. In '51 he started the year with the Los Angeles Angels in the PCL and in 70 games hit .376/.422/.599 before the Cubs called him up to replace The Rifleman, Chuck Connors, who OPS'd .585.

Kevin Young was really close, with 1007 hits and the only winning team he played on was 10 games for the '92 Pirates. I've looked longer than I should have and couldn't come up with anyone better than Dee Fondy.

This isn't quite what Frobby was talking about, but Jay Gibbons' only year on a winning team was the 2011 Dodgers, for whom he played just 24 games. But in those 24 games the Dodgers were 8-16. He had 759 hits, 724 with the Orioles.

That's going to be a challenge, I don't think Stathead or Fangraphs searches work that way. Going on @Can_of_corn's suggestion I'm thinking of old Browns or Senators. Harlond Clift played for both in the 30s and 40s, but the '42 Browns had a winning record. Chuck Klein played for some terrible Phils teams and the Cubs, but got to the World Series in Chicago. Actually the Senators would throw in a winning record every six or eight years or so even in the 30s-60s. A guy named Charlie Abbey had 493 hits for the old NL Senators in the 1890s. Merrill May had 610 for the 1939-43 Phillies. Dee Fondy of the Cubs, Pirates and Reds never played on a winning team and had exactly 1000 hits from '51-58. Of course Banks, Santo, and Billy Williams were teammates on losing teams for many years until the '67 Cubs finally broke .500.

Thank you, Mr. Angelos. Yes, I think we all agree the length and amount of contract Mussina is looking for is crazy and we should pass.

It's borderline impossible to have a team that has a 101-win true talent baseline. Almost all 100-win teams are really 95-win teams having really good luck. This exact same team could win 90 next year. Or 83 with some things not going their way. Look at the late 90s and 2000s Yanks, that pretty much maxed out payroll and still had homegrown talent. Even they'd throw out a 87-win season once in a while. The Ruth-Gehrig Yanks were from 1925-34, and they has seasons of 69, 88 and 86 wins in that run, with two of the 10 best players who ever lived and multiple other HOFers. So I'm going to try not to lose my mind if the '24-27 Orioles have a year or two of "just" 85-90 wins.

Every year there's a poll, and every year (even 2019) someone says they were going to win 88 games. I'm sure two years ago some dude predicted 101 after 11 Schlitz Ices.

I refuse to believe that in a world where "successful" is largely determined by random chance. It's like saying you were successful at the slot machine. It had nothing to do with you, or your preperation, or you skill or your efforts, beyond showing up. The North American setup where 29 of the 30 teams are failures is stupid.

I think I've fully accepted what has long been more of an intellectual exercise when the O's aren't any good: the playoffs really are random. The O's, Dodgers, Braves, Rays... the very best teams are all gone before the League Championship Series. I get being disappointed. But I've seen Dodgers fans musing about firing Dave Roberts after what's been a dynastic run as manager because he doesn't have the playoffs secret sauce. There is no secret sauce. There is nothing you can do to win more titles besides get to the playoffs most years and eventually they'll pull your number. Remember that outside of 1970 Earl was 19-19 in the postseason, and overall was 1-3 in the World Series.

The next couple offseasons will go a long way towards telling us just how cheap John is. Early returns are that he was paying attention to his dad in the "No pitcher has ever been worth 5/75" era more than in the let's buy Raffy, Myers, Bonilla, Alomar and Miggy phases.

At first base? I guess. I'd just be careful about wishcasting 3+ win performances out of every prospect. Mountcastle is already a solid first baseman. The Orioles have a deep system and a lot of options for trades to shore up the rotation. Wouldn't surprise me if Mountcastle stays a while.

Or do you get rid of players like Hicks, McKenna, Frazier, or even O'Hearn before you send away more talented guys? Why can't they open '24 with Kjerstad, Hays, Mullins, Sandander and Cowser all on the roster, with Mayo ready the minute someone is injured? This year a lot went right and Mullins missed 46 games, Hays 18, Cowser played just 113 at all levels, Kjerstad 135. There will be opportunities.

With whom? Mountcastle is an average-plus MLB first baseman. He's a decent enough hitter for a first baseman, and he's not a bad fielder or baserunner. You can probably expect 2-3 wins a year out of him for the next 3-4 years. He's not a free agent until '27. And there's an outside chance he could give you a whole year like his 2nd half this year, and nearly OPS .900. So who are you putting there that's better? If you sign a free agent who's likely to give you 3+ wins a year you can expect to pay upwards of $20M a year, probably well into that guy's decline phase. If you trade for someone in that category, expect to pay a hefty price in prospects. And actually, Hays is in a pretty similar spot. He's not a big star, he's not likely to give you a 4-5 win season. But he's solid, he's average-plus. Even 100-win teams have more solid guys than huge stars. To me you need a strategy to get a better player that's executable in the Orioles' budget and in the reality of what other teams will accept before you start shopping around guys like this.

No, not at all. Zero. Teams all have smart people and robust analytics departments, they have zero need to place value on popularity contests and manager selections and that-guy-from-the-A's-because-every-team-has-one. If anything a marginal All Star selection might make a player slightly less valuable if they have an All Star bonus clause in their contract that gets them paid more for the same production.

Can't we decompress, forget about everything for a while, let the awards come in a month, then maybe get back into it? We don't have to be Rogers Hornsby, so myopically, fanatically obsessed with the game that nothing else exists and he stares out the window like a psycho from October through February. If we jump right into planning next year we'll have to deal with all those people who actually think a playoff series loss means something. That's just too much to bear. I don't really have the energy to go full on them.

The layoff is a rounding error either way. You could argue that it moves the needle a few percent either way. If the O's burnt out pen from a few weeks ago was that way going into the playoffs I'm sure they'd have been overjoyed for the break.

Means what it's always meant: baseball is a game where lopsided odds in any game are 60/40. Any playoff game or series is little better than a slightly weighted coin flip. I said this before the series started: playoffs generate revenue and excitement, but tell us very little about which team is best. I mean, the '69 Orioles were the best team in franchise history. They lost in the tournament, because that's what baseball tournaments do.

Great season. The tournament sucked.

Isn't it clear? Fangraphs and the stat nerds' funny numbers caused the Orioles' intangibles to take a huge hit, they lost confidence, and... here we are.