Kyle Blanks

[MikeAD]

I was thinking Tampa but Toronto is possible too.

Both have the resources and the ability to make a smart move. Blanks is the model player for the Jays though, and they were my first though. The Rays might view a deal as having to give up "too much."

[andrewrickli]

Blanks is greater than or equal to Chris Davis, and Davis is actually a better defender. Davis had a higher Minor League career SLG, OPS, and BA. He also had more Major League success than Blanks--although that could be due to Blank's injuries.

Still, Davis is the better option IMO. We nee to stop putting question marks on the field and on our depth charts, and start putting proven players out there, that we KNOW will produce. Not 25 guys like Blanks and Davis who are questionable as to what they will give us.

[Scrat1]

Still, Davis is the better option IMO. We nee to stop putting question marks on the field and on our depth charts, and start putting proven players out there, that we KNOW will produce. Not 25 guys like Blanks and Davis who are questionable as to what they will give us.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why people keep saying things like this when we get steamrolled every year by teams in our own division that regularly stock their teams with "question marks." See Pena, Carlos; Ortiz, David; Bautista, Jose; Kotchman, Casey; Joyce, Matt; etc. In fact, many of the best Orioles players in recent memory, Scott, Guthrie, and Mora, were all "question marks," while many of the worst, Guerrero, Lee, Gonzalez, Millwood, Wigginton, were all "proven players." This line of thinking doesn't pass even the most basic smell tests, yet every offseason people clamor for more of the same. For your own sake, don't play the stock market.

[JTrea81]

For the life of me I cannot figure out why people keep saying things like this when we get steamrolled every year by teams in our own division that regularly stock their teams with "question marks." See Pena, Carlos; Ortiz, David; Bautista, Jose; Kotchman, Casey; Joyce, Matt; etc. In fact, many of the best Orioles players in recent memory, Scott, Guthrie, and Mora, were all "question marks," while many of the worst, Guerrero, Lee, Gonzalez, Millwood, Wigginton, were all "proven players." This line of thinking doesn't pass even the most basic smell tests, yet every offseason people clamor for more of the same. For your own sake, don't play the stock market.

Question marks are fine when you have the proven talent to support them. But the Orioles don't.

The Orioles want to be .500 or better, so they need to acquire the talent to do that, and that's going to be proven talent.

[crawjo]

Question marks are fine when you have the proven talent to support them. But the Orioles don't.

The Orioles want to be .500 or better, so they need to acquire the talent to do that, and that's going to be proven talent.

At the most basic level, this is an illogical statement. To be a .500 team, the Orioles need to win 81 games next year. They can win 81 games with young untested players who improve together as a team, or they could win 81 games with a lineup filled with veteran free agent acquisitions. Or, option #3, which is the real world option, the Orioles will fail to win 81 games next year regardless of who they sign this offseason, because there is simply not enough ML-ready talent for the front office to build around.

[crawjo]

You do realize that even if they sign Fielder they're odds-on favorites to have that 15th straight losing season anyway, right? And by channeling nearly $200M to one player on the backside of his peak you've made it much harder to fill the 6-8 holes currently on the team, and much harder to patch up the gaping headwound of a farm system, too, thus making years 16+ at least as likely as before signing him.

No, he doesn't realize that. Thus the endless threads and arguments about the same thing. Over and over again.

[DrungoHazewood]

Question marks are fine when you have the proven talent to support them. But the Orioles don't.

The Orioles want to be .500 or better, so they need to acquire the talent to do that, and that's going to be proven talent.

This is completely backwards. The Orioles don't have the payroll space to acquire the 12 wins to get to .500 via "proven talent", much less the 20-25 needed to contend. At $5M per win you're asking them to take on $60-120M in payroll. Even at a discount, using trades and younger players, you're asking Angelos to authorize a payroll far above what he's ever done before.

So the only solution (if you really think going over .500 is realistic for 2012) is to take on riskier, cheaper players and roll the dice that they'll come together and push the team ahead. Money mitigates risk, but money is one resource Angelos can't or won't use.

[Roll Tide]

Blanks is greater than or equal to Chris Davis, and Davis is actually a better defender. Davis had a higher Minor League career SLG, OPS, and BA. He also had more Major League success than Blanks--although that could be due to Blank's injuries.

Still, Davis is the better option IMO. We need to stop putting question marks on the field and on our depth charts, and start putting proven players out there, that we KNOW will produce. Not 25 guys like Blanks and Davis who are questionable as to what they will give us.

There not spending on the "A" talent an long as Angelos owns the Orioles. He quit on his own team 10+ years ago now. Blanks has had some injuries and I certainly agree with you. He hasnt gotten a full season as a starter yet and just has one full season of ABs in three years. Plus your not factoring in the fact that they tried to move him all 6'6" and 270 lbs to the outfield. So that has likely been a distraction as well.

[Roll Tide]

This is completely backwards. The Orioles don't have the payroll space to acquire the 12 wins to get to .500 via "proven talent", much less the 20-25 needed to contend. At $5M per win you're asking them to take on $60-120M in payroll. Even at a discount, using trades and younger players, you're asking Angelos to authorize a payroll far above what he's ever done before.

So the only solution (if you really think going over .500 is realistic for 2012) is to take on riskier, cheaper players and roll the dice that they'll come together and push the team ahead. Money mitigates risk, but money is one resource Angeloswon't use.

Had to fix that for you Drungo....The owner is cheap & stingy these days after giving money for nothing to Albert Belle.

[weams]

Money mitigates risk, but money is one resource Angelos can't or won't use.

I really think Peter is all about passing the asset to his heirs intact.

Plus there is that 7 percent loan to the club. MLB has us on the financial watch list.

The younger Angelos said his role is confined to business matters. Any suggestions that he and his brother exert influence over on-field personnel matters are inacurate.

"That's not my sphere, nor do I want it to be," said John Angelos.

Angelos denies any notion of one day assuming the general manager's chair, a theory advanced by critics during the palace intrigue.

"I don't think [critics] were unfair to me personally or those with the same last name. I thought they were unfair on principle," John Angelos said. "I think it's unfair to represent anything about people until you've met those people. It's unfair to characterize people as `kids,' `children' or `Rotisserie players' when they know nothing about them."

Ancient but telling. John is the number two in the organization and Louis is number 3. They are the future much like the Steinbrenners.

[MatthewW]

I would be all over a trade for Headley and Blanks...

Could it be done for any 4-5 players not named Wieters, Jones, Hardy, Britton, Markakis, J. Johnson, Matusz, Reynolds, Machado, Schoop, Bridwell or any of the 2011 draftees that can't be traded yet???

[MarylandAaron]

Wouldn't Blanks be redundant with Davis, Reimold, and Reynolds? I might be missing something here but I just don't see the need for this guy.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Wouldn't Blanks be redundant with Davis, Reimold, and Reynolds? I might be missing something here but I just don't see the need for this guy.

You'd have to figure Reynolds (at minimum) would go.

[Scrat1]

Wouldn't Blanks be redundant with Davis, Reimold, and Reynolds? I might be missing something here but I just don't see the need for this guy.

You'd have to figure Reynolds (at minimum) would go.

Not necessarily. Reimold in LF, Davis at DH/1B, Blanks at 1B/DH, Reynolds at third.

[GoldGlove21]

Not necessarily. Reimold in LF, Davis at DH/1B, Blanks at 1B/DH, Reynolds at third.

What about, Reimold in LF, Davis at 3B, Blanks at 1B and Reynolds at DH? I would let Reynolds get nowhere near third base. It would be 1B/DH for him and since his 2013 option is around $11M he would likely be traded at the deadline for a quality prospect or two. I do not see Reynolds as anything more than a 2012 solution.