Duquette's most important task: fix the farm system

[allstar1579]

Do you think Angelos has the patience to develop things DD-style? He's pressured GMs to waste money on big-name, washed-up FAs, e.g., Sosa, Vlad.

Angelos hasn't been in EVERY decision for the past couple years, most of them though. The Sosa deal was a low cost trade, we didn't lose much, except a backup/fill-in 2B. Vlad I don't think was him either. I think it was AM tryng to flesh out the roster to not make us completely inept, but I could believe that Angelos (as rumored) said you can have the money for it, but you have to take it out of another budget.

I don't think he meddles on individual players until the potential contract gets to a certain size, or it raises the overall budget. He probably meddles in trade talks though, wanting to control what goes out. (I see him as the big obstacle to trading Markakis, and the timing on that might be absolute best right now.)

[TiredofLosing20]

What a magnificent post this is.

Thanks Hank...

To me, this just illustrates the flaw in Trea's overall philosophy. I wonder what Trea's battle cry would be had we followed this prescription and ended up with 75 wins.

To me, the only way anyone can credibly advocate signing Fielder, is if they fully believe that the 2011 team was actually 15-20 wins better than their record said. If you believe that then sure Fielder makes sense. Otherwise you are painting over rust.

[hoosiers]

There is a lot of truth here, but no one will admit it.

If it is okay to "win initially" without a strong farm system (mostly on the back of free agents), then why can't one assume that long term, sustained success can be developed using the same methods? IMO, this hints at the flaw of the original suggestion - so there's not a lot of truth to it.

Is it possible to create a winner out of a lot of free agents? Sure - the Marlins and DBacks did it that way - but they could not sustain it, they faced years of misery and severe financial distress that outed the DBacks ownership group.

I am not saying that it is impossible for the Os to get to the playoffs if we ramp up payroll another $50M-$70M and make all the right decisions. What I will say is that management has to set a tone for the organization and the entire organization's focus would be best served by finding and hiring talent that scouts better and develops players better and then the organization should invest more $ and better. That should be our new GM's number one priority this offseason.

That tone should not be for the front office to spend the lion's share of its time working up free agent player combinations that "might" win 20 more games in 2012 on the back of our biggest payroll by $30M ever while committing $200M in future salaries. If the idea is not a recipe for long term success, it probably is not the best method for short term success either.

[erb8472]

If it is okay to "win initially" without a strong farm system (mostly on the back of free agents), then why can't one assume that long term, sustained success can be developed using the same methods? IMO, this hints at the flaw of the original suggestion - so there's not a lot of truth to it.

Is it possible to create a winner out of a lot of free agents? Sure - the Marlins and DBacks did it that way - but they could not sustain it, they faced years of misery and severe financial distress that outed the DBacks ownership group.

I am not saying that it is impossible for the Os to get to the playoffs if we ramp up payroll another $50M-$70M and make all the right decisions. What I will say is that management has to set a tone for the organization and the entire organization's focus would be best served by finding and hiring talent that scouts better and develops players better and then the organization should invest more $ and better. That should be our new GM's number one priority this offseason.

That tone should not be for the front office to spend the lion's share of its time working up free agent player combinations that "might" win 20 more games in 2012 on the back of our biggest payroll by $30M ever while committing $200M in future salaries. If the idea is not a recipe for long term success, it probably is not the best method for short term success either.

Agreed. We need to build a strong foundation before we start building a roof.

[UMDTerrapins]

All best intentions aside, if DD doesn't have the budget he needs he has no chance to change this organization. It would have been meaningful if DD had gotten a commitment to significantly increase his franchise operating budget during his contract negotiations.

But this organization is run like a '65 Mustang convertible with a Kia engine. Pick up name recognition players past their prime on 1-2 year deals that bring our payroll up and commitments limited, but penny pinch on the player development side.

Our best hope is that DD uses his limited budget to turn the farm system into a very well financed mechanism at the expense of the name brand fillers like Guerrero, Lee, Gregg, etc. This also means that we won't be players on the FA market for virtually anyone people would get too excited about. Think the '89 Orioles with low cost fillers like Tettleton, Milligan, Devereaux. First off, I'd rather have hungry but more limited guys like these filling holes than more talented name brand players on the downslope of their careers.

But more importantly, the difference between an organization that is building for something meaningful and one that is merely going through the motions is in those one year/$4-6 million space fillers that we pick up each offseason. It won't make for exciting winters, and moves the target back a few years, but it's our only path with our current ownership. What's the point of being delusional.......Angelos is here and he's not going to break open the vault for this franchise. So, in 2011 you would have given Jake Fox a roster spot instead of Derrek Lee. Scott, Reimold and Pie would have handled LF/DH instead of signing Guerrero. Would we have won more? No. But we'd have easily saved enough on payroll to fund aggressively in our scouting, drafting and player development. When we assemble enough talent in the organization to be relevant, then you can push for that meaningful big name free agent, or 1-2 year role filler.

But we have to start behaving more like the A's when it comes to filling out a roster. Which isn't to say "Moneyball" clones. It's to say....cheap! These $4-6 million per year free agents are death to an organization like ours with a fixed operating budget. We need to finally embrace who we really are and stop pretending it's 1995.

[Frobby]

All best intentions aside, if DD doesn't have the budget he needs he has no chance to change this organization.

I disagree. There are many other teams with a budget either about the same as, or less than, the Orioles', that are far more successful. I'm not saying the team couldn't use a larger budget, but there is plenty of room within the existing budget to run a smarter, better organization.

[TiredofLosing20]

All best intentions aside, if DD doesn't have the budget he needs he has no chance to change this organization. It would have been meaningful if DD had gotten a commitment to significantly increase his franchise operating budget during his contract negotiations.

But this organization is run like a '65 Mustang convertible with a Kia engine. Pick up name recognition players past their prime on 1-2 year deals that bring our payroll up and commitments limited, but penny pinch on the player development side.

Our best hope is that DD uses his limited budget to turn the farm system into a very well financed mechanism at the expense of the name brand fillers like Guerrero, Lee, Gregg, etc. This also means that we won't be players on the FA market for virtually anyone people would get too excited about. Think the '89 Orioles with low cost fillers like Tettleton, Milligan, Devereaux. First off, I'd rather have hungry but more limited guys like these filling holes than more talented name brand players on the downslope of their careers.

But more importantly, the difference between an organization that is building for something meaningful and one that is merely going through the motions is in those one year/$4-6 million space fillers that we pick up each offseason. It won't make for exciting winters, and moves the target back a few years, but it's our only path with our current ownership. What's the point of being delusional.......Angelos is here and he's not going to break open the vault for this franchise. So, in 2011 you would have given Jake Fox a roster spot instead of Derrek Lee. Scott, Reimold and Pie would have handled LF/DH instead of signing Guerrero. Would we have won more? No. But we'd have easily saved enough on payroll to fund aggressively in our scouting, drafting and player development. When we assemble enough talent in the organization to be relevant, then you can push for that meaningful big name free agent, or 1-2 year role filler.

But we have to start behaving more like the A's when it comes to filling out a roster. Which isn't to say "Moneyball" clones. It's to say....cheap! These $4-6 million per year free agents are death to an organization like ours with a fixed operating budget. We need to finally embrace who we really are and stop pretending it's 1995.

I don't think the size of the budget will be or has been the issue. Pretty sure our budget is substantially higher that Tampas. The issue has been will continue to be how the budget is spent and who actually is controlling that.

[Fan4Life]

Thanks Hank...

To me, this just illustrates the flaw in Trea's overall philosophy. I wonder what Trea's battle cry would be had we followed this prescription and ended up with 75 wins.

To me, the only way anyone can credibly advocate signing Fielder, is if they fully believe that the 2011 team was actually 15-20 wins better than their record said. If you believe that then sure Fielder makes sense. Otherwise you are painting over rust.

It's difficult to know where the truth lies but I don't think it is as simple as adding and subtracting seasonal stats. There is no way to know how each of these guys contributions may have expanded beyond how much better their stats were than the guy they replaced.

Tex could have hit a walk off HR to beat the Yankees in NY that propelled the team to play just a little bit better the next night and change what the actual outcome of that game was. Obviously it's also possible that none of this happened, or that it could have been worse than the stats reflect. I'm just saying, it isn't as black and white as many around here want it to be. Positive momentum can breed positive results as negative momentum can breed negative results. It's not a certainty, but it is a possibility.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Otherwise you are painting over rust.

The Navy does it all the time.

[TiredofLosing20]

It's difficult to know where the truth lies but I don't think it is as simple as adding and subtracting seasonal stats. There is no way to know how each of these guys contributions may have expanded beyond how much better their stats were than the guy they replaced.

Tex could have hit a walk off HR to beat the Yankees in NY that propelled the team to play just a little bit better the next night and change what the actual outcome of that game was. Obviously it's also possible that none of this happened, or that it could have been worse than the stats reflect. I'm just saying, it isn't as black and white as many around here want it to be. Positive momentum can breed positive results as negative momentum can breed negative results. It's not a certainty, but it is a possibility.

I don't entirely disagree with you. You are taking into account the psychological factors and they are impossible to measure. Tho that would be an interesting stat to create. I still don't think that the things you are talking about equal 25 games or so which is pretty much what we would have needed last year to make the playoffs. From a pure statistical value, (which certain FA advocates like to tout) it is pretty clear cut.

[UMDTerrapins]

I disagree. There are many other teams with a budget either about the same as, or less than, the Orioles', that are far more successful. I'm not saying the team couldn't use a larger budget, but there is plenty of room within the existing budget to run a smarter, better organization.

I don't think the size of the budget will be or has been the issue. Pretty sure our budget is substantially higher that Tampas. The issue has been will continue to be how the budget is spent and who actually is controlling that.

The danger of posting while at work....part of the message is miscommunicated by rushing (still rushing through this post of course).

What I meant to say is that with the way we are currently allocating our budget towards higher cost/marginal return players rather than investing heavily in player development, our current operating budget will never be enough for DD to build a winner. I absolutely agree that we can build a winner on a budget, but not if we continue to waste that budget because it makes for better appearances. While it would have been better over the last three years to use the strategy I talking about (and I think most Oriole fans here would agree with), it would have made Angelos look like a cheapskate. I believe he will always advocate these types of players that I'm hoping we stay away from......and that in turn would hamper DD's ability to remake our farm system. Thus, our current budget limitations will make DD's task very difficult! It's more important in Angelos's eyes to look like they're putting a quality product on the field than actually being committed to building a winner.

[Fan4Life]

I don't entirely disagree with you. You are taking into account the psychological factors and they are impossible to measure. Tho that would be an interesting stat to create. I still don't think that the things you are talking about equal 25 games or so which is pretty much what we would have needed last year to make the playoffs. From a pure statistical value, (which certain FA advocates like to tout) it is pretty clear cut.

Agreed.

[Frobby]

The danger of posting while at work....part of the message is miscommunicated by rushing (still rushing through this post of course).

What I meant to say is that with the way we are currently allocating our budget towards higher cost/marginal return players rather than investing heavily in player development, our current operating budget will never be enough for DD to build a winner. I absolutely agree that we can build a winner on a budget, but not if we continue to waste that budget because it makes for better appearances. While it would have been better over the last three years to use the strategy I talking about (and I think most Oriole fans here would agree with), it would have made Angelos look like a cheapskate. I believe he will always advocate these types of players that I'm hoping we stay away from......and that in turn would hamper DD's ability to remake our farm system. Thus, our current budget limitations will make DD's task very difficult! It's more important in Angelos's eyes to look like they're putting a quality product on the field than actually being committed to building a winner.

Well, it is the job of DD (and Buck) to convince Angelos to spend the money better. I also believe that, apart from reallocating spending, it is also possible to hire better people to replace people already here without significantly increasing spending, and to institute policies and practices that result in a better operation that don't cost anything other than effort. DD said as much at his press conference. Having said that, I don't know enough about the Orioles' operation to be more specific.

[TiredofLosing20]

The danger of posting while at work....part of the message is miscommunicated by rushing (still rushing through this post of course).

What I meant to say is that with the way we are currently allocating our budget towards higher cost/marginal return players rather than investing heavily in player development, our current operating budget will never be enough for DD to build a winner. I absolutely agree that we can build a winner on a budget, but not if we continue to waste that budget because it makes for better appearances. While it would have been better over the last three years to use the strategy I talking about (and I think most Oriole fans here would agree with), it would have made Angelos look like a cheapskate. I believe he will always advocate these types of players that I'm hoping we stay away from......and that in turn would hamper DD's ability to remake our farm system. Thus, our current budget limitations will make DD's task very difficult! It's more important in Angelos's eyes to look like they're putting a quality product on the field than actually being committed to building a winner.

I think ultimately, you are saying the same thing as everyone else. Will DD be allowed to allocate resources in the manner he chooses. One thing I thought he was very clear about is that he thinks resources are not being allocated wisely. Couple that with his clear intention of revamping scouting/development and international scouting and you have to think he was given some assurances that he could do it his way. I have my doubts, we will see. A Cuddyer signing would be pretty telling to me.

[Fan4Life]

I think ultimately, you are saying the same thing as everyone else. Will DD be allowed to allocate resources in the manner he chooses. One thing I thought he was very clear about is that he thinks resources are not being allocated wisely. Couple that with his clear intention of revamping scouting/development and international scouting and you have to think he was given some assurances that he could do it his way. I have my doubts, we will see. A Cuddyer signing would be pretty telling to me.

I think Angelos has given enough resources to be much better than we are / have been recently. DD and BS should be able to improve this organization without spending a dime more although I hope they can/do.