Another Fielder thread...my apologies

[allstar1579]

I wonder if we could get a total of the # of Tex threads that were started back in the day versus the # of Fielder threads and see who's going to come out with the record when it's all said and done.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I can't think of a single team post like 1996 that won it all that didn't have the mindset of at least trying to sign big time FAs. The late 90s Yankees are the best example but even they went out and traded for/signed big names (Clemens, Tino Martinez etc).

[Dipper9]

Yesterday, I felt we had ZERO percent chance of signing Fielder. Today on the radio, I heard that apparantly the Cubs have said they will sign Fielder or Albert "at any cost." Since I truly feel that Albert isn't going anywhere, I now firmly believe Fielder goes to the Cubbies. In any event, the O's will not be getting him, and based on the general suckiness of the rest of the organization, we have no reason to spend that much on one player anyway. The organizational philosophy must change and we must become a winner BEFORE we can think about these kinds of contracts!

[TiredofLosing20]

Yes, at this point I'd rather them go all in and try to win stupidly, in a way that will probably play scorched earth with the team in the future, than just goof along doing what they've been doing.

A good plan is ruined by poor execution. I think that is what we have seen (so far). Changing from what I believe is a good strategy to a bad one (ie scorched earth) may not bring any better results. Then again, whats the definition of crazy again?

The Orioles are frustrating.

[allstar1579]

I would have preferred the Orioles to go absolutely nuts in the draft and the international market instead, but it seems there's no chance of that happening.

I would suggest a full scale rebuild, but MacPhail is not aggressive enough in any market to acquire the necessary talent to make it work. Combine that with a curiously inept development system, and I'm almost thinking, "what's the point?"

Fielder will get a stupid, risky contract, as will several other players in free agency. But nothing else the Orioles have tried has worked, and they seem to be stuck. I'm not advocating it, but I wouldn't be any more upset about throwing money at Fielder than I would be about holding on to Guthrie and the other trade chips and going about another ho hum offseason.

I know SG agrees on that aspect, we've talked about that before. But if we spent HALF of what Fielder is going to get per season on int'l signings we would have a top 10 farm system and would be bringing in 1-2 new MLB starting caliber players each year (after a 3 year starting period). It's just stupid to me that SOMEONE in the org thinks it's ok to risk spending $10m per year on expensive aging BP arms and not on to spend that on young unknown talent that is controllable for 6 years and a minimal cost if amortized.

[mweb]

I can't think of a single team post like 1996 that won it all that didn't have the mindset of at least trying to sign big time FAs. The late 90s Yankees are the best example but even they went out and traded for/signed big names (Clemens, Tino Martinez etc).

Not trying to start anything here, just going to post the info and I know some of these teams did sign some guys or try to:

Giants last year won without much of any help from big time FA's.

Phillies won without big time free agents.

I think the Cards did as well.

No one is jumping out to me from the White Sox.

03' Marlins?

Angels.

[Sports Guy]

I know SG agrees on that aspect, we've talked about that before. But if we spent HALF of what Fielder is going to get per season on int'l signings we would have a top 10 farm system and would be bringing in 1-2 new MLB starting caliber players each year (after a 3 year starting period). It's just stupid to me that SOMEONE in the org thinks it's ok to risk spending $10m per year on expensive aging BP arms and not on to spend that on young unknown talent that is controllable for 6 years and a minimal cost if amortized.

Its incredibly mind boggling.

Stoner's interview touched on the Int'l stuff and like some of them said, invest in the cheaper talent. You don't HAVE to go out and spend 3-5 million per player...Go sign 30 guys for 100K or less and get a few guys that are in that 200k-5 million range.

I just don't see how they can justify not doing this but they can piss away well over 50 million on Baez, Gonzo, Bradford, Walker, gregg, etc....

[Pedro Cerrano]

Not trying to start anything here, just going to post the info and I know some of these teams did sign some guys or try to:

Giants last year won without much of any help from big time FA's.

Phillies won without big time free agents.

I think the Cards did as well.

No one is jumping out to me from the White Sox.

03' Marlins?

Angels.

The only one I can completely agree with are the Marlins. All those other teams have opened the checkbook. Maybe not during that specific year, but their philosophies are to spend when they have to.

[Spy Fox]

I disagree with the "It's not my money so I don't care" approach, so I don't want them to spend without intelligence.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad move to pay above market value for some big players (such as Fielder) in our situation. Right now our roster is only going to contend under a best-case scenario anyway, why not spend a little extra to make that best-case scenario a little more likely. If we give Fielder big $$$ and the contract comes back to bite us, we were probably going to be bad for those years regardless.

We have a lot more to gain than to lose.

[allstar1579]

Its incredibly mind boggling.

Stoner's interview touched on the Int'l stuff and like some of them said, invest in the cheaper talent. You don't HAVE to go out and spend 3-5 million per player...Go sign 30 guys for 100K or less and get a few guys that are in that 200k-5 million range.

I just don't see how they can justify not doing this but they can piss away well over 50 million on Baez, Gonzo, Bradford, Walker, gregg, etc....

Yeah that's the part of the team I really just can't get past, and why I gave up my season tickets a couple years ago. I mean even if they are signing those guys for $3-5m, that is a bonus, it's a one time payment, so if you spread that out over the 6 years + you have control over them for, it's like 500k per year versus the $3m per year they are spending on arms to put up the same or worse numbers than our in house options would put up. I mean, I really want to call them and say WHY is their no accountant in the room when you guys are talking about signing A versus B?

[Sports Guy]

Yeah that's the part of the team I really just can't get past, and why I gave up my season tickets a couple years ago. I mean even if they are signing those guys for $3-5m, that is a bonus, it's a one time payment, so if you spread that out over the 6 years + you have control over them for, it's like 500k per year versus the $3m per year they are spending on arms to put up the same or worse numbers than our in house options would put up. I mean, I really want to call them and say WHY is their no accountant in the room when you guys are talking about signing A versus B?

Peter Angelos, CPA.

[Frobby]

Its incredibly mind boggling.

Stoner's interview touched on the Int'l stuff and like some of them said, invest in the cheaper talent. You don't HAVE to go out and spend 3-5 million per player...Go sign 30 guys for 100K or less and get a few guys that are in that 200k-5 million range.

I just don't see how they can justify not doing this but they can piss away well over 50 million on Baez, Gonzo, Bradford, Walker, gregg, etc....

You make it sound as if we don't spend a dime down there, but of course, we do. We had one $300k signing last year and spent an estimated $1.18 mm in 2010 (signing bonuses, not operational expenditures). MacPhail said he expected to spend more there this year. What he has specifically said he is avoiding are the big-money signings. He has never said he isn't going to sign players from the DR.

Now, do we spend enough? I would say probably not. But we should not distort the factual picture of what we are and are not doing internationally.

[RVAbird]

I know SG agrees on that aspect, we've talked about that before. But if we spent HALF of what Fielder is going to get per season on int'l signings we would have a top 10 farm system and would be bringing in 1-2 new MLB starting caliber players each year (after a 3 year starting period). It's just stupid to me that SOMEONE in the org thinks it's ok to risk spending $10m per year on expensive aging BP arms and not on to spend that on young unknown talent that is controllable for 6 years and a minimal cost if amortized.

Preaching to the choir here.

Jon Shephard (crawdaddy) did a nice back of the napkin breakdown of IFA (International Free Agent) and DFA (Domestic) markets and basically concluded that you need to spend about 3.75 MM in the IFA market to return 1 WAR on the investment, which is at least slightly more efficient than that of the DFA market (~4.4 MM).

Here's the link

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah that's the part of the team I really just can't get past, and why I gave up my season tickets a couple years ago. I mean even if they are signing those guys for $3-5m, that is a bonus, it's a one time payment, so if you spread that out over the 6 years + you have control over them for, it's like 500k per year versus the $3m per year they are spending on arms to put up the same or worse numbers than our in house options would put up. I mean, I really want to call them and say WHY is their no accountant in the room when you guys are talking about signing A versus B?

Who needs an accountant? I'd settle for a sabermetrician. It takes about 3 minutes of Googling to figure out that the consensus is that free agent relievers are the worst return on investment of any free agent type. Yet that's the only type of player (hold on, one of two types if you include position players looking for their last MLB deal) that the Orioles are willing to invest in.

They said they've done a study on ROI or risk/reward for international signings and it turned out they weren't worth it. But it is worth it to annually shell out $millions for Gregg, Baez, Bradford, Walker, Gonzalez, DeJean, Kline, Groom, Reed, Hawkins, Ortiz. Chad Bradford might be the only free agent reliever the Orioles have signed since 2000 who hasn't had at least one terrible season, and he was so awesome that MacPhail traded him for the cost of his remaining salary. As shaky as Gregg has been this year, he's probably the 2nd-best pitcher on that list.

I think they need to trade someone before the end of the season to free up enough cash to do a trade study on signing other types of players.

[Phantom]

I am not for the signing because I don't think it makes us a contender (and I think it will cripple our shot at boosting further). Build the farm system to the point where a big time signing will make us a contender, then sign one.