What evidence do we have that Angelos...

[Sports Guy]

Winning as many games as you can and having a shot at going to the playoffs is not a waste of resources.

It's time to stop thinking the farm has to be fixed for the Orioles to compete. We aren't the Rays.

If the right talent is acquired through trades and FA, and the team goes all-in, there's no reason we couldn't have a good shot at the playoffs next season and in 2013 and 2014 as well.

After 2014, the farm system will then have to be ready to at least supplement the ML roster.

That three years should be plenty of time to make the changes neccessary and to acquire a good stockplile of talent.

But we don't have to lose at the ML level for that to happen, and if we win, that's more revenue that can be put toward fixing the minors as well as everywhere else.

And if the farm system isn't ready, at least you would have experienced competitive winning baseball for a period instead of just continued losing, and you'd have talent to trade to augment the talent on the farm instead of nobody of value and nobody on the farm.

The players and the money aren't available this offseason to make this team a winner.

I am not sure why that obvious concept continues to fly over your head but it does.

[Frobby]

The players and the money aren't available this offseason to make this team a winner.

I am not sure why that obvious concept continues to fly over your head but it does.

Because Trea can never be proven wrong, that's why. It's the same thing every winter:

1. Trea argues that if we spend a lot of money on players X, Y and Z we can be a contender.

2. We don't spend a lot of money on X, Y and Z.

3. The next year, we aren't contenders.

That leaves no room to disprove Trea's thesis.

Honestly, I'd love to see the Orioles go sign Fielder and Wilson and whoever else. Either Trea will be correct and we will all be happy because the Orioles are contenders, or Trea will be proven wrong and we can all say "I told you so." Of course, it is not realistic to expect that this will happen, so it's all a lot of arguing about nothing.

[Dipper9]

Because Trea can never be proven wrong, that's why. It's the same thing every winter:

1. Trea argues that if we spend a lot of money on players X, Y and Z we can be a contender.

2. We don't spend a lot of money on X, Y and Z.

3. The next year, we aren't contenders.

That leaves no room to disprove Trea's thesis.

Honestly, I'd love to see the Orioles go sign Fielder and Wilson and whoever else. Either Trea will be correct and we will all be happy because the Orioles are contenders, or Trea will be proven wrong and we can all say "I told you so." Of course, it is not realistic to expect that this will happen, so it's all a lot of arguing about nothing.

Unfortunately, the Orioles' offseasons of the last decade have ALL been a lot of arguing about nothing, because this team NEVER does what is needed to get better.

[Fan4Life]

Unfortunately, the Orioles' offseasons of the last decade have ALL been a lot of arguing about nothing, because this team NEVER does what is needed to get better.

Really? I recall the Hangout being relatively upbeat exiting from the 2010 and 2011 offseasons. The players didn't deliver, but we were largely feeling good about those upcoming seasons. And as usual... who should we have acquired that we let go...

[Dipper9]

Really? I recall the Hangout being relatively upbeat exiting from the 2010 and 2011 offseasons. The players didn't deliver, but we were are largely feeling good about those upcoming seasons. And as usual... who should we have acquired that we let go...

Oh no, I agree that I, at least, was upbeat going into 2011.

I am talking more about the threads talking about signing (insert names of the top free agents on the market) or the threads stating (trade Jones or Guts or Kakes for 3 pieces). Those things are just never gonna happen.

[Fan4Life]

Oh no, I agree that I, at least, was upbeat going into 2011.

I am talking more about the threads talking about signing (insert names of the top free agents on the market) or the threads stating (trade Jones or Guts or Kakes for 3 pieces). Those things are just never gonna happen.

Gotchya... Stotle suggested some organizations with pitching that may be available (he didn't want to confirm names). I'm surprised nobody has browsed through those organizations and developed a list of targets. I started through Arizona and Atlanta based on Sickels pre 2011 prospect list and then checking on their 2011 season. I got busy and wasn't able to really get very far... but that's 2 of the 4-5 organizations Stotle essentially said has some pitching/players available that he considers good targets.

[sangar]

And while it is correct that he has "only" been overpaid by $2.4 mm per season over the first three years, it figures to get worse over time, as Tex ages and his performance slips. That is why I called it an "albatross."

This is the point that seems to be consistently overlooked in many recent discussions. To this date, Tex's contract would have been worth it for the O's to have spent the extra. The extra 2.4M is per year, so far, is not an issue. The value of his production in the remaining years of his contract is. As he ages and his production declines, and our young core ages and comes into it's own, he would have choked off our ability to add production by taking on free agent contracts. THAT is an albatross.

[El Gordo]

Because Trea can never be proven wrong, that's why. It's the same thing every winter:

1. Trea argues that if we spend a lot of money on players X, Y and Z we can be a contender.

2. We don't spend a lot of money on X, Y and Z.

3. The next year, we aren't contenders.

That leaves no room to disprove Trea's thesis.

Honestly, I'd love to see the Orioles go sign Fielder and Wilson and whoever else. Either Trea will be correct and we will all be happy because the Orioles are contenders, or Trea will be proven wrong and we can all say "I told you so." Of course, it is not realistic to expect that this will happen, so it's all a lot of arguing about nothing.

Were the O's to sign Fielder, Darvish, Wilson ,and Crisp, trading Jones for pitching and a 3B upgrade like Headley it is quite possible they could contend. It's not possible that they could afford that.

[mcgraw238]

To the folks arguing that Angelos isn't the problem and/or citing the lack of hard evidence of such, can they point to anything the O's do that is first class. I can't think of anything the O's do as an organization that other organizations would want to emulate. Angelos is the CEO of the organization and I don't see anything this franchise does that would reasonably lead to a conclusion that he isn't the main problem. If we desired to be the best club in scouting and development, Angelos is the guy that should be driving that organizational mandate/mission. Every hire/fire should be made on how it impacts this mission. If this mission had been communicated loud and clear, I have little doubt that Joe Jordan would not be making largely slot selections in rounds 2-10. I don't see the leadership needed and we have nearly 2 decades of mostly failure and countless examples demonstrating Angelos as the problem. Many are arguing that AM screwed the pooch in this regard, yet Angelos wanted him back. Think about that, Angelos wanted to bring back a GM whose grand plan currently looks to be a grand failure. I find it staggering that so many think that Angelos isn't the problem or the hire of Buck is the grand solution to everything O's related.

[crawjo]

Because Trea can never be proven wrong, that's why. It's the same thing every winter:

1. Trea argues that if we spend a lot of money on players X, Y and Z we can be a contender.

2. We don't spend a lot of money on X, Y and Z.

3. The next year, we aren't contenders.

That leaves no room to disprove Trea's thesis.

Honestly, I'd love to see the Orioles go sign Fielder and Wilson and whoever else. Either Trea will be correct and we will all be happy because the Orioles are contenders, or Trea will be proven wrong and we can all say "I told you so." Of course, it is not realistic to expect that this will happen, so it's all a lot of arguing about nothing.

But you can judge his opinions based on how the players he wants us to sign fare with other teams. Last year he wanted us to go after Beltre, and Beltre did have a very good year for Texas. But two years ago didn't he think we should have been in on Lackey?

[mcgraw238]

But you can judge his opinions based on how the players he wants us to sign fare with other teams. Last year he wanted us to go after Beltre, and Beltre did have a very good year for Texas. But two years ago didn't he think we should have been in on Lackey?

I recall (1) he was pushing a $250 million package for the combo of Tex & Varitek, (2) he was all over Chone Figgins, (3) then Holliday, (4) big bucks for Jason Marquis. That's off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others.

[Florida_Osfan]

Our first basemen the last three years were Huff, Atkins, and Lee. I think I would have taken my chances with Tex. But you're right, either way it was a waste of money. Until we fix the farm system, spending on the major league team is a waste of resources.

Touche

And I don't mean to be snarky with it. We've had a ghost at 1B since Millar. I think the problem with this conversation is that Trea is pretending that Tex would have made things better.

[Florida_Osfan]

We don't need to know how they performed on another team. NOTHING would have saved us this year or last because the pitching tanked. Aside from Britton and Guthrie, our staff has continually failed to keep us in games. And Tex, Figgins, Lackey, Beltre, and Holiday would not have saved us together. In fact, we would have been doomed because we took on those contracts. We would have won, what 10 more games? Perhaps we win 81 and break the losing streak, but no way do those moves push us to a 90+ winning team.

Our pitching stinks... and to quote Tony, "it's not even close."

[24fps]

To the folks arguing that Angelos isn't the problem and/or citing the lack of hard evidence of such, can they point to anything the O's do that is first class. I can't think of anything the O's do as an organization that other organizations would want to emulate. Angelos is the CEO of the organization and I don't see anything this franchise does that would reasonably lead to a conclusion that he isn't the main problem. If we desired to be the best club in scouting and development, Angelos is the guy that should be driving that organizational mandate/mission. Every hire/fire should be made on how it impacts this mission. If this mission had been communicated loud and clear, I have little doubt that Joe Jordan would not be making largely slot selections in rounds 2-10. I don't see the leadership needed and we have nearly 2 decades of mostly failure and countless examples demonstrating Angelos as the problem. Many are arguing that AM screwed the pooch in this regard, yet Angelos wanted him back. Think about that, Angelos wanted to bring back a GM whose grand plan currently looks to be a grand failure. I find it staggering that so many think that Angelos isn't the problem or the hire of Buck is the grand solution to everything O's related.

This is an oversimplification. Nobody is currently arguing that PA isn't a problem; he is just as he historically has been. But has it been to the same degree recently? The primary question some of us are addressing is how much of the mediocrity of the last four years can be directly attributed to PA and how much to AM. Central to the question is how much genuine autonomy did AM actually have. Indications are that is was significantly more than was the case prior to his arrival. To me the true answer is unclear, but to simply fall back to the default of bashing PA for everything doesn't provide much insight or much basis for understanding the larger picture.

Your allegation that there isn't anything this organization does that other organizations would want to emulate is IMO both very true and very damning.

[mcgraw238]

This is an oversimplification. Nobody is currently arguing that PA isn't a problem; he is just as he historically has been. But has it been to the same degree recently? The primary question some of us are addressing is how much of the mediocrity of the last four years can be directly attributed to PA and how much to AM. Central to the question is how much genuine autonomy did AM actually have. Indications are that is was significantly more than was the case prior to his arrival. To me the true answer is unclear, but to simply fall back to the default of bashing PA for everything doesn't provide much insight or much basis or understanding the larger picture.

Your allegation that there isn't anything this organization does that other organizations would want to emulate is IMO both very true and very damning.

I'd absolutely agree that PA gave a level of autonomy to AM (and thus a lesser degree of meddling) that no executive prior to AM enjoyed; but I'd also argue and/or speculate that this was not by accident. In other words, I believe PA knew that AM by his nature wouldn't stray to far. Thus, I have a hard time believing there was any real genuine autonomy. I fall back on PA being the central problem because (1) some of the historical stories of PA's meddling are so daming that I don't believe such a figure could back off entirely, and (2) he is the person that can mandate that the O's will do things better than other clubs and order the resources be driven to this point. Instead we continue to see resources driven to mediocre big league assets rather than significant infrastructure resources.