Is it hypocritical to turn on MacPhail now?

[TiredofLosing20]

[/b]

I never wanted to believe it, but I'm not sure truer words were written on this board. Stotle's comments make perfect sense, if this was an organization that was able to plan out years in advance. It's hard to have a true five-year plan when you are not given a five-year budget. The Orioles don't operate in that capacity and its one of the reasons they are working on their 14th straight losing season.

And this is a perfect example of why all arguments about what is wrong with the Orioles point back to Angelos. The same problems that have plagued this organization since Gillick left will continue whether AM is here or not. Not saying that any chance of winning is gone but the deck is heavily stacked against it.

[Stotle]

I think that not treating the DH role as a regular position is one of the reasons that the DH is now not the highest-performing offensive role in the AL, despite the lack of any defensive requirements. Teams that plan out a regular DH (Vlad notwithstanding) tend to have better DH production than teams that give the role to a committee of players, or to whomever isn't quite up to playing the field this year.

This is an obvious inefficiency in baseball. A position where you have no defensive requirements should be the best-hitting position in baseball, but it's not, and every year there are teams that get sub-.700 OPSes out of their DHs. Think about it... in a logical world Vlad would be playing in the Atlantic League, Reynolds would be DHing, and the O's would have a cheap, defense-first third baseman with a .680 OPS and they'd be better off! They'd win more games!

I understand your point, but think there are limitations to implementing that approach -- unless of course you run an organization that is capable of producing consistent ML-caliber positional talent. Often times the "best bat" available is an older bat that no longer has defensive value. I mean, I guess if you happen to have a defensive wizard that can also hit about as well as the "typical DH", then it makes sense to utilize HIS defense and slide your "big bat/poor defender" into the DH slot. But I'd think that you are ultimately talking about maybe one or two games of improvement, max. And that's assuming you have a defensive liability such as Reynolds that you can get significant positive value from simply by preventing him from taking the field on defense.

That sounds nice, but I don't believe it for a minute. The Orioles, and I'd doubt most teams, have an Al Gore Social Security Lockbox where they put all the cash they managed to not spend on bad free agents. They don't pull out the key 2-3 years down the road and get to spend all of that (plus interest!) on something really valuable. That money has gone back into operations and facilities and disbursements to shareholders and that pack of Juicy Fruit that Stockstill really had to have while he was waiting in the checkout line at Farm Fresh. Everything I've seen from observing this franchise over the years indicates that if they don't spend it this year, it's gone. Potential future transactions are judged on whether they're likely to pay for themselves, that's it.

I don't care what THIS franchise does. Businesses all over the planet operate with liquidity reserves, and at minimum "permitted investments" the organization is allowed to throw money into and then pull money out of when it needs to be spent. Really? A "social security lockbox"? Is the idea of having available cash, or accessible investment reserves THAT foreign to you? I'm not sure what your profession is, but the idea of keeping liquidity on hand is not an original one. Further, even if you don't want to believe that it makes sense to operate in that fashion, it doesn't change the fact that spending on Vlad is not as beneficial for the organization as spending that same money on nearly anything else on the scouting/developmental side.

A little surprised by your response here. Not what I'd expect from you.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't care what THIS franchise does. Businesses all over the planet operate with liquidity reserves, and at minimum "permitted investments" the organization is allowed to throw money into and then pull money out of when it needs to be spent. Really? A "social security lockbox"? Is the idea of having available cash, or accessible investment reserves THAT foreign to you? I'm not sure what your profession is, but the idea of keeping liquidity on hand is not an original one. Further, even if you don't want to believe that it makes sense to operate in that fashion, it doesn't change the fact that spending on Vlad is not as beneficial for the organization as spending that same money on nearly anything else on the scouting/developmental side.

A little surprised by your response here. Not what I'd expect from you.

Is there anything the O's have done over the past 20 years that lead you to believe that they've ever banked money they saved from one year and applied it to improvements made in another? Obviously smart businesses do this all the time. But virtually everything I've read about how MLB teams (and especially the Orioles) operate is each transaction is assessed almost on its own. They don't invest the Chad Bradford cash to strategically sign a piece in 2014. They use the Chad Bradford cash to sign this year's draftees, right now. Maybe other teams are better about this, I don't know.

And there's no question that investing on the scouting/development side would have been far, far better for the organization than signing any of the very long list of stopgap free agents they've acquired in the last couple decades. But I'm not Peter Angelos. He doesn't think that way, nor does he hire people who think that way strongly enough to implement that kind of thing in the organization.

[Stotle]

Is there anything the O's have done over the past 20 years that lead you to believe that they've ever banked money they saved from one year and applied it to improvements made in another? Obviously smart businesses do this all the time. But virtually everything I've read about how MLB teams (and especially the Orioles) operate is each transaction is assessed almost on its own. They don't invest the Chad Bradford cash to strategically sign a piece in 2014. They use the Chad Bradford cash to sign this year's draftees, right now. Maybe other teams are better about this, I don't know.

And there's no question that investing on the scouting/development side would have been far, far better for the organization than signing any of the very long list of stopgap free agents they've acquired in the last couple decades. But I'm not Peter Angelos. He doesn't think that way, nor does he hire people who think that way strongly enough to implement that kind of thing in the organization.

So your point is "Why talk about it -- it will never happen"?

The bolded just isn't true. I mean, maybe it's true with Baltimore. But not respectible organization operates with a "look at this move in a vacuum" frame of mind. In fact, the 180-degree opposite is true. Almost every move is looked at in the broader context, when it comes to good organizations.

[quidam]

Wit the exception of Ortiz and Butler (maybe Michael Young, though he can still play in the infield), "DH" isn't really a position that anyone worth while plays. It's an afterthought generally filled by someone too old or defensively worhtless to be any player of consequence. It doesn't require specific targeting in the off-season, and in the Orioles case they already had someone to handle this in Luke Scott.

Re: The $3 million, the fact that BAL paid that premium is bad and is in addition to the decision itself (signing Vlad) being a poor one, not the cause of the decision itself being a poor one.

I just don't understand how you can act like dh is not a position to fill when it gets 600 plus ab's like any other position. The team moved Scott to left field, whether you agree with that or not, means that there was a void at dh. Just because it is generally an "afterthought" does not mean on a team where offensive production is lackluster due to "black holes" in lf, 2b, 1b, and dh that it does not need to be addressed in the offseason.

[Stotle]

I just don't understand how you can act like dh is not a position to fill when it gets 600 plus ab's like any other position. The team moved Scott to left field, whether you agree with that or not, means that there was a void at dh. Just because it is generally an "afterthought" does not mean on a team where offensive production is lackluster due to "black holes" in lf, 2b, 1b, and dh that it does not need to be addressed in the offseason.

I think the point is more that Vlad doesn't address that need. If you want to address offensive shortcomings sign or trade for players that can make an impact. Good bats that can also play a position are valuable, and tend to find starting spots on ML clubs. Good bats that play fringy defense also tend to find a starting gig, simply because the list of "good bats" capable of playing Major League Baseball is a small one. The list of "good bats" that are either so bad at defense that they are limited to DH or are declining but not yet over the hill and fit best at DH is like a handful of people. This year it might be two or three guys that fall into that category.

If you want to improve your team you acquire talented players. The idea of "acquiring talented players" will almost never include targeting and spending significant money on someone limited to DH.

[DrungoHazewood]

So your point is "Why talk about it -- it will never happen"?

The bolded just isn't true. I mean, maybe it's true with Baltimore. But not respectible organization operates with a "look at this move in a vacuum" frame of mind. In fact, the 180-degree opposite is true. Almost every move is looked at in the broader context, when it comes to good organizations.

With Angelos at the helm, yes, you need to be realistic and assume that this kind of transaction isn't going to happen. You can argue for 15 years in a row that that's crazy, but it doesn't change anything.

[Stotle]

With Angelos at the helm, yes, you need to be realistic and assume that this kind of transaction isn't going to happen. You can argue for 15 years in a row that that's crazy, but it doesn't change anything.

Will you be policing the "sign Fielder", "improve international spend", "improve draft spend" and "don't sign mediocre reliever" threads as well, to make sure no unrealistic suggestions for improvement are made?

[eddie83]

I think the point is more that Vlad doesn't address that need. If you want to address offensive shortcomings sign or trade for players that can make an impact. Good bats that can also play a position are valuable, and tend to find starting spots on ML clubs. Good bats that play fringy defense also tend to find a starting gig, simply because the list of "good bats" capable of playing Major League Baseball is a small one. The list of "good bats" that are either so bad at defense that they are limited to DH or are declining but not yet over the hill and fit best at DH is like a handful of people. This year it might be two or three guys that fall into that category.

If you want to improve your team you acquire talented players. The idea of "acquiring talented players" will almost never include targeting and spending significant money on someone limited to DH.

Tampa singed Manny who was suspended 2 weeks into the season. I know he only cost 2 million but I doubt a defense oriented team like Tampa wanted him in the OF much.

[Stotle]

Tampa singed Manny who was suspended 2 weeks into the season. I know he only cost 2 million but I doubt a defense oriented team like Tampa wanted him in the OF much.

This is kind of the whole point, right? Not investing serious money in DH? Tampa was rolling the dice that Manny was in the "declinging but not over the hill" category. Baltimore did the same with Vlad, but did so at around four times the cost.

[eddie83]

This is kind of the whole point, right? Not investing serious money in DH? Tampa was rolling the dice that Manny was in the "declinging but not over the hill" category. Baltimore did the same with Vlad, but did so at around four times the cost.

I know that but there is zero evidence to suggest the money impeds the Orioles ability to go foward. That money wasn't going to to International Spending, the owner isn't going to go for that.

The Orioles revenue stream is much higher than Tampa's. Tampa can't get fans to go to the games when they are winning. In Baltimore if the Orioles were hovering around .500 and Vlad was a part of that the move would of made sense. In many other situations it would not have.

[Stotle]

I know that but there is zero evidence to suggest the money impeds the Orioles ability to go foward. That money wasn't going to to International Spending, the owner isn't going to go for that.

The Orioles revenue stream is much higher than Tampa's. Tampa can't get fans to go to the games when they are winning. In Baltimore if the Orioles were hovering around .500 and Vlad was a part of that the move would of made sense. In many other situations it would not have.

I know that many people find this argument convincing. I don't. If I get to the point where I just go along with Baltimore's moves because "they aren't going to do anything better anyway" I'll probably just stop following the goings on in the organization.

[DrungoHazewood]

Will you be policing the "sign Fielder", "improve international spend", "improve draft spend" and "don't sign mediocre reliever" threads as well, to make sure no unrealistic suggestions for improvement are made?

Yes, absolutely. (insert appropriate emoticon here).

Look, if you want to continue to suggest the O's make a 180 degree change in basic operating philosophy in these areas, go right ahead. I guess someone needs to do it. But after 10 or 15 years, oddly, it starts to feel like nobody is listening. It often feels more productive to try to find ways around these handicaps rather than argue for changes that seem impossible.

[DrungoHazewood]

I know that many people find this argument convincing. I don't. If I get to the point where I just go along with Baltimore's moves because "they aren't going to do anything better anyway" I'll probably just stop following the goings on in the organization.

I don't think I just go along with whatever they do. I just have taken more of an approach that accepts their limitations and tries to figure solutions within them. But as time goes on it becomes apparent that the limitations are too much to overcome.

[Stotle]

Yes, absolutely. (insert appropriate emoticon here).

Look, if you want to continue to suggest the O's make a 180 degree change in basic operating philosophy in these areas, go right ahead. I guess someone needs to do it. But after 10 or 15 years, oddly, it starts to feel like nobody is listening. It often feels more productive to try to find ways around these handicaps rather than argue for changes that seem impossible.

I didn't mean that as a knock on you. I was just surprised that someone who is generally a forward thinking poster (as relates to analyzing the game on and off the field) would respond to a post by essentialyl saying, "It won't happen anyway so who cares."

I mean, there is no reason then to ever bring up international spending again, right? No need to discuss advanced metrics. No need to discuss high priced free agents.

If discussion is to be limited to how to build a team on $90 million, utilizing free agency for vets and relief arms and signing solid but not particularly team friendly extensions, I think we are all going to run out of "suggestions" for the org pretty quickly.