BP's Jonathan Bernhart: O's and Astros will vie for the overall #1 pick for next year

[Oriology]

Anyway, with regard to the thread topic, I wouldn't be shocked if the O's ended up with the worst record in MLB this year. The Astros seem worse, but their competition isn't as fierce. In the big picture, though, I could see bad seasons from Seattle, Oakland, Cleveland, Minnesota, New York- NL, Pittsburgh, Chicago- NL, or San Diego, and maybe even a Twins-esque meltdown from Chicago- AL or Kansas City if they get hit with the injury bug. If a team other than those has the worst record, then something weird would have to happen IMO, but hey--that's why they play the games.

[Floater]

We're always terrible, but not terrible enough to get a game changer. At least not yet. Bundy/Machado is the closest thing but they aren't Strasburg/Harper/Price/Upton in terms of hype. Lets hope they turn out like super stars.

[The Maestro]

" So we got that going for us, which is nice." :wedge:

[Ooooooohhhh!!!!]

Yep talking in a vacuum, of course those reasons you finish at that level means you could be terrible the next year as well, but overall I would rather that we tanked every season and got every cheap good player until we were actually ready to compete and go from worst to first.

If we finish with 67 wins instead of 65 and miss out on the first pick I might be disappointed. But if we finish with 85 wins instead of 65 there have to be several players who really stepped up. What if that means that Wieters or Jones went for an .875 OPS? What if that means Matusz or Britton had a 3.50 ERA with peripherals to match? I would rather have that improvement and the 19th pick than no improvement and the 1st pick.

With all that said I think we'll end up with 74 wins and won't be in the running for the #1 pick.

[Hang10]

It is in vogue, and has been for some years, to bash the Orioles. It is not without justification as the franchise has watched one rebuilding effort after another fail to produce over the past 12 years or so.

Just because it is the penchant of national writers to bash the Orioles does not mean that the team will be one of the worst two in baseball.

Personally, I believe Duquette delivers his promise of a winning season which would take a 13 game improvement. No Kevin Gregg to blow late leads, an improved bullpen overall, improved pitching depth, and no starts for the likes of Jo Jo Reyes, Mitch Atkins, Chris Jakabaskus, and Rick Vandenhurk.

[Can_of_corn]

It is in vogue, and has been for some years, to bash the Orioles. It is not without justification as the franchise has watched one rebuilding effort after another fail to produce over the past 12 years or so.

Just because it is the penchant of national writers to bash the Orioles does not mean that the team will be one of the worst two in baseball.

Personally, I believe Duquette delivers his promise of a winning season which would take a 13 game improvement. No Kevin Gregg to blow late leads, an improved bullpen overall, improved pitching depth, and no starts for the likes of Jo Jo Reyes, Mitch Atkins, Chris Jakabaskus, and Rick Vandenhurk.

Kevin Gregg is still on the team.

[MrOrange82]

Anyway, with regard to the thread topic, I wouldn't be shocked if the O's ended up with the worst record in MLB this year. The Astros seem worse, but their competition isn't as fierce. In the big picture, though, I could see bad seasons from Seattle, Oakland, Cleveland, Minnesota, New York- NL, Pittsburgh, Chicago- NL, or San Diego, and maybe even a Twins-esque meltdown from Chicago- AL or Kansas City if they get hit with the injury bug. If a team other than those has the worst record, then something weird would have to happen IMO, but hey--that's why they play the games.

The O's have a chance at the worst record not because they have the worst talent in MLB (they don't), but because they're going to play 71 games against the AL East.

[Yardball85]

So you wouldn't want to see, say, 85 wins?

B-Terp's right, you would prefer 85 wins to tanking and earning the first pick. Here's why:

Winning 85 games likely means that the players we are counting on to for our future success - Wieters, Britton, Matusz, Arietta - had strong seasons. It means the pen DD put together actually pitched well. It means the team learned how to win together.

To me, all of that, 5 or 6 players who will be part of our next winning team playing well, means more to me than adding 1 who will hopefully be part of something special.

[DrungoHazewood]

Nope. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. No difference between the Red Sox and Orioles last season except the O's pick much higher in the draft this year.

I don't believe that for a minute. It's all about expectations. If the O's went into the year expecting 65 wins and got 85 it would be a heck of a lot of fun. 1989 is still my favorite season of all time, and by your rule it was just the same as 1988 and 2011.

[DrungoHazewood]

B-Terp's right, you would prefer 85 wins to tanking and earning the first pick. Here's why:

Winning 85 games likely means that the players we are counting on to for our future success - Wieters, Britton, Matusz, Arietta - had strong seasons. It means the pen DD put together actually pitched well. It means the team learned how to win together.

To me, all of that, 5 or 6 players who will be part of our next winning team playing well, means more to me than adding 1 who will hopefully be part of something special.

Yes. If the O's win 60 games this year it'll mean the entire core has imploded and the #1 pick in '13 is just a tiny piece in fixing the hundreds of things broken in the organization.

[Barnaby Graves]

Yes. If the O's win 60 games this year it'll mean the entire core has imploded and the #1 pick in '13 is just a tiny piece in fixing the hundreds of things broken in the organization.

Exactly.

And even if, somehow, we could win 60 games AND have our important young players perform well (which I guess implies a Kevin Gregg ERA north of 20), you still prefer the wins. Why?

Prestige, fan support, extra revenue, renewed interest, heck I'd even go so far as to say the extra fans at the yard might bolster our home splits. I used to be on board with the whole "1st pick or playoffs" thing but now I'd be happy to see 82 wins and the 16th pick of the draft. Just stop sucking and start winning! Earn some respect!

[allstar1579]

I don't believe that for a minute. It's all about expectations. If the O's went into the year expecting 65 wins and got 85 it would be a heck of a lot of fun. 1989 is still my favorite season of all time, and by your rule it was just the same as 1988 and 2011.

Yep, pretty much. If you go into any season hoping that you win a couple games and have a good time watching them, you've already given up. Everyone's goal as a fan is to have their team win the championship. Yes, I know realistically there is no chance we are going to do that anytime soon. But once a team gets to the playoffs at least, anything can happen. If you aren't going to make the playoffs (and keep in mind, I never mentioned any reasons why we would be dead last, remember in a vacuum) then I would rather have the #1 pick than the #22 pick, of which both are out of the playoffs and have no chance at winning. Whats the difference here really? With the #1 pick you are mathematically eliminated in what, August? With the #22 pick, you are eliminated in late September.

My whole thing is I would rather get a better player that down the road will make the team a contender for years to come, than to be happy we overachieved and gave us some entertaining baseball to watch in September for a couple weeks, while watching some other team come along and grab the next franchise cornerstone. Finishing just out of the playoffs is a moral victory, and I get it, around here it's more victory than we've had for a long time, but I'd rather be dead last for 5 years and be fielding a team with David Price, Eric Hosmer, Strasburg, Harper and Garrett Cole next season. Would dead last the last 5 years be any different than it is today? Aside from a little moral victory and worse players?

I dunno, maybe it's just my draft bias, and the ability to build a team for 5 years down the road instead of trying to win tomorrow winning out, but it's just how I feel.

[allstar1579]

Yes. If the O's win 60 games this year it'll mean the entire core has imploded and the #1 pick in '13 is just a tiny piece in fixing the hundreds of things broken in the organization.

I guess basically what I'm saying is, you already know you aren't good enough, is it worth 5 years of absolute misery, to know in 5 years you'll be set up to contend for another 4-5 years at least afterwards? This fix a spot here, put a band aid there is what we've been doing for 15 years now, and if they would have done this in 1999 like they should have, we would have been competing for a world title for the past half decade.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yep, pretty much. If you go into any season hoping that you win a couple games and have a good time watching them, you've already given up. Everyone's goal as a fan is to have their team win the championship. Yes, I know realistically there is no chance we are going to do that anytime soon. But once a team gets to the playoffs at least, anything can happen. If you aren't going to make the playoffs (and keep in mind, I never mentioned any reasons why we would be dead last, remember in a vacuum) then I would rather have the #1 pick than the #22 pick, of which both are out of the playoffs and have no chance at winning. Whats the difference here really? With the #1 pick you are mathematically eliminated in what, August? With the #22 pick, you are eliminated in late September.

My whole thing is I would rather get a better player that down the road will make the team a contender for years to come, than to be happy we overachieved and gave us some entertaining baseball to watch in September for a couple weeks, while watching some other team come along and grab the next franchise cornerstone. Finishing just out of the playoffs is a moral victory, and I get it, around here it's more victory than we've had for a long time, but I'd rather be dead last for 5 years and be fielding a team with David Price, Eric Hosmer, Strasburg, Harper and Garrett Cole next season. Would dead last the last 5 years be any different than it is today? Aside from a little moral victory and worse players?

I dunno, maybe it's just my draft bias, and the ability to build a team for 5 years down the road instead of trying to win tomorrow winning out, but it's just how I feel.

I guess that's fine. But I'll always take an 85-win season over a 60-win season, not only because it's 100 times more enjoyable, but it means you actually have some real ballplayers to build around. You win 60 and all you're telling me is that you have a hopeless organization with a #1 pick.

[Fan4Life]

Do we even know who the grand prize is we'll win?