Another Fielder thread...my apologies

[RHall31]

Hell yeah, I'm for signing Fielder at any cost. Nothing else is working so give it a shot.

Now if signing a huge contract would possibly hinder Angelos' ability to sell the team, the I'm against it.

I can't see it happening anyway, the Orioles would have to offer so much money and thats just not PA's way.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm confused as to how that's what you meant since none of those teams spent that much or got big-time free agents that actually helped them win. Most of them increased their spending afterwards and are now known as more of spenders due to that. But big spending is not why they won and not relevant to the point. They were obviously above average spenders and of course spending more should help a team contend.

The point is that they won and started spending. They obviously wanted to keep winning and decided to do that. It's not a coincidence, IMO, that all those teams decided not to say "hey, let's just keep with the status quo" even though that's how they won.

Also, like I said before, none of those teams had to qualify in the AL East. I wonder how many of them would have won if they had been in the AL East.

My initial post about this topic was worded poorly.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't think anyone disagrees that's the correct way to do this, but how do you square that with the fact that the Orioles have been steadfast in their unwillingness (or inability) to build a top farm system for about 30, 35 years?

That doesn't make building through FA any less bad. We just need an organizational philosophy/front office who understands how vital amateur talent is and is willing to make it our #1 priority.

[mweb]

The point is that they won and started spending. They obviously wanted to keep winning and decided to do that. It's not a coincidence, IMO, that all those teams decided not to say "hey, let's just keep with the status quo" even though that's how they won.

Also, like I said before, none of those teams had to qualify in the AL East. I wonder how many of them would have won if they had been in the AL East.

My initial post about this topic was worded poorly.

Alright, well then the O's need to get that winning thing done first to follow suit.

And I agree that a lot of those teams would not have won if they were in the AL East. The Phils, Cards, and White Sox would not have made the playoffs in the East if you just go by records those years.

[allstar1579]

If I'm not mistaken, we passed on some players (and actually drafted one in Delmonico) who would be "high dollar" signings. I'd much rather see the money spent on those players than on Gregg/Vlad/Lee.

Not disagreeing, but just adding to this...I'd much rather have Sano @ $3.15m than Delmonico @ $2m, however, when you spread out that bonus over the 6 years you control them, that's around 500k a year for Sano and around 335k for Delmonico versus $12m over 2 years for Gonzalez (and the loss of a high rule 4 pick). Less money per year, less money total, and I'd be willing to bet more WAR in the long run than MG gets you. How is it a bad decision? I don't get it.

[El Gordo]

Even if the SP remains as bad as it is now, at least the team will be more entertaining with Fielder in the lineup.

[Frobby]

That's why I used it

I think Jon would be the first to tell you that. The rule 4 draft is a more efficient investment than the international market. That should be pretty obvious.

But the international market appears to be more efficient than domestic free agency. I think that's really the key here. If you want to only utilize the most efficient market, you'd build entirely through the draft. But that's not a succesful strategy. Why? Because it too severely limits the talent pool. There are thousands of other good players to choose from in the international and domestic free agent markets, and due to the slotting process of the draft, it's impossible to corner the market there regardless of how much you're willing to spend.

What I want to know is why AM avoids substantial IFA deals due to their perceived inefficiency, but is perfectly willing to invest millions in the least efficient asset (relievers) in the least efficient market (domestic free agency).

I think the reason the FA market is the most expensive is you get a higher degree of certainty. Established players' performance will fluctuate, and they can get injured, decline, etc., but their performance is still a lot easier to estimate than a group of prospects. So, you are paying a premium to have a lower risk, even though there is still a fair amount of risk involved and probably less of an upside.

[RVAbird]

I think the reason the FA market is the most expensive is you get a higher degree of certainty. Established players' performance will fluctuate, and they can get injured, decline, etc., but their performance is still a lot easier to estimate than a group of prospects. So, you are paying a premium to have a lower risk, even though there is still a fair amount of risk involved and probably less of an upside.

Yes, but because it's an open market with lots of competition, the value of that production gets inflated. The other unfortunate part of free agency is that the vast majority of players who've reached it are past their prime. On average, players give their best production at ages 26-28, and hit free agency at 28 or later, so most DFA's are being retroactively compensated for production they shouldn't be expected to match.

Regardless of why it's inflated, if it's inefficient it's inefficient. Of course there's more room for bust with IFAs, but you also get them at significantly depressed rates, and there's more room for "boom," particularly when you compare 5-10 MM IFA commitments to 5-10 MM DFA commitments.

[foxfield]

I am ready for a change, yes. But Fielder is not going to make this team a winner. We need an owner that is committed to building a championship team from top to bottom. Until that happens, we can ***** and moan about luck, bad signings, drafting strategy, developmental operations, the competition in the AL East, the manager, the GM, the weather and anything else, and it really won't mean a thing.

We do not have enough talent to win, and we do not have enough talent in the system to win tomorrow. That is the cold hard truth. Spending tons of someone elses money for one player or three is not going to change that. I think the O's will be in this position until one of two things happen, they are owned by someone committed to being a champion, or until they are moved to AAA, and frankly, they might not be that strong there either.

[GoldGlove21]

If the IFA market is even the slightest bit more efficient that the FA market, then every dollar spent on international talent is (theoretically) a better investment than every dollar spent on domestic talent.

Even if it's close or the DFA market proves to be slightly more efficient, nothing can justify a 30-1 ratio of spending on domestic vs. international FAs.

Nothing can explain why we get a Guerrero type every season and they cost us $5M-$8M or a Atkins type that we pay $4M-$8M. This team could easily field a $65M on the field product and provide another $10M to the draft and international markets. I never understood how signing a 36 year old was a better investment than signing plus talent from any market. This is especially true for a team like the Orioles who are clearly outside of the playoffs and most likely under .500 year-in and year-out. Our philiosophy of grow the arms and buy the bats should have been "Drafting and signing the best young talent available and supplement the team with free agent talent when the time is right".

[GoldGlove21]

I think the reason the FA market is the most expensive is you get a higher degree of certainty. Established players' performance will fluctuate, and they can get injured, decline, etc., but their performance is still a lot easier to estimate than a group of prospects. So, you are paying a premium to have a lower risk, even though there is still a fair amount of risk involved and probably less of an upside.

Right and they are also instant upgrades. You have to wait for prospects to develop in the minors and then subsequently learn at the ML level. Winning now is not condusive to leading with prospects. The Orioles decided to supplement most of their team with young prospects and have done a very poor job surrounding them quality veterans who could at least provide the team with true competition at multiple positions. This main issue is that the Orioles are pulling every quality prospect in waves where other teams might grab one really good prospect a year and another bench type prospect or relief pitcher to supplement quality major leaguers. The Orioles should have stock piled the minors for 2-3 years before started pulling that many guys. That is what the Rays were able to do and they put a lot of stock in finding quality guys and developing them.

[Hank Scorpio]

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.

That's true if you have the proper talent evaluators in place.

Cheeseburgers.

[mcneck]

So would anyone do 4/120 and would he do it?