Orioles' Duquette: "Our future is now."

[CA-ORIOLE]

Oh, he interests me. But not nearly enough to buy a ticket to a baseball game that I otherwise wouldn't have gone to. That DP he grounded into in the 7th inning today with the bases loaded was very interesting, by the way.

I think a guy like that sparks a lot of interest. Similar to a guy like Vladdy. As bd said, a lot of this is subconscious with a lot of residual effects. That said, I do agree with you the he has to perform and the team has to win or the initial lustre wears off pretty quickly.

[Ohfan67]

We can't do both right now. I'm all for changing the way the O's build their system so we can do both in the future. But when contemplating our short term plan for this season, we have to choose. Use our limited MiLB assets to make the MLB team better or stand pat.

That is the discussion that you are seeing.

Baloney. Competent front offices take care of both all the time. You can make moves for the future and to be competitive at the same time.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Baloney. Competent front offices take care of both all the time. You can make moves for the future and to be competitive at the same time.

Exactly, but this is a paradigm shift that a lot of people are having issues with.

[Frobby]

I think a guy like that sparks a lot of interest. Simiolar to a guy like Vladdy. As bd said, a lot of this is subconscious with a lot of residual effects. That said, I do agree with you the he has to peform and the team has to win or the initial lustre wears off pretty quickly.

Of course this is very subjective, but to me Vlad was a much more interesting player at the time he joined the Orioles than Thome was when he joined the Orioles. Vlad was coming off a pretty decent season, and just the spectacle of seeing somebody who can swing at any pitch and hit it was interesting. Of course, the novelty wore off pretty quickly and it got very frustrating to watch him hacking at pitches he couldn't do anything with.

Thome, on the other hand, has to be one of the most low-key Hall of Fame quality players ever to play. He was underrated for most of his career. At this point, he's not a whole lot more exciting than Nick Johnson, in my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly, but this is a paradigm shift that a lot of people are having issues with.

I have no issues with this paradigm. None.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The answer is: $9,628,176.95 (rounded up to the nearest cent). So, nine million more dollars than last year...in terms of revenue.

In other words, next-to-nothing in the grand scheme of things. I think CA's post was well-articulated, but people who think attendance is a primary driver of team finances are sorely mistaken.

If CA was trying to imply that increased attendance figures would be accompanied by increased ad/sponsorship/merchandizing revenue, etc., that's a different argument. But gate alone makes almost no difference.

EDIT: I meant to retain the "how much is increased attendance, etc., worth" quote, and failed miserably.

Well, that number alone is a lot bigger than I would have thought. Yes, my point was that there were other possible residual effects; sales of merchandise, TV/advertising revenue (which probably wouldn't be used to help the team anyways), building of goodwill etc.

[Flash- bd]

At this point, he's not a whole lot more exciting than Nick Johnson, in my opinion.

Yeah, but you're a male. From a female perspective Nick Johnson is about as exciting as cornmeal.

[RevOlution]

Yeah, but you're a male. From a female perspective Nick Johnson is about as exciting as cornmeal.

I'll vouch for that statement.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have no issues with this paradigm. None.

Well, in your case, I guess your issue is that you do not have confidence in DD's ability to judge and replace this type of marginal inventory and therefore your opinion is that we should probably be holding onto this type of inventory rather than using it to marginally to try and upgrade the ML team. I also gather that you are worried that DD will escalate this to gamble away higher tier talent for short term gain that will prove to be a net loss. Is that correct?

Also, when you state that "we should not trade away prospects that we can get for free" (I may be paraphrasing here, let me know if I'm improperly stating your opinion) is that also a reflection of your opinion of DD's ability to assess talent or are you expressing a general philosophical position?

Again, if your position is that you don't trust DD to make these decsions and think he's not competent or skilled enough to take these risks, and/or you value the particular prospects that we dealt, then I am fine with your position. I just respectfully disagree with it.

[MrOrange82]

Yeah, but you're a male. From a female perspective Nick Johnson is about as exciting as cornmeal.

I'll vouch for that statement.

This thread now has cooties.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'll vouch for that statement.

Hey, guys dig the long ball too.

[Flash- bd]

This thread now has cooties.

(It's not that I'm lacking a Y chromosome, by the way. I just know ugly when I see it. Sorry, Nick, I really hope you're not reading.)

[MrOrange82]

(It's not that I'm lacking a Y chromosome, by the way. I just know ugly when I see it. Sorry, Nick, I really hope you're not reading.)

[Lucky Jim]

Well, in your case, I guess your issue is that you do not have confidence in DD's ability to judge and replace this type of marginal inventory and therefore your opinion is that we should probably be holding onto this type of inventory rather than using it to marginally to try and upgrade the ML team. I also gather that you are worried that DD will escalate this to gamble away higher tier talent for short term gain that will prove to be a net loss. Is that correct?

Also, when you state that "we should not trade away prospects that we can get for free" (I may be paraphrasing here, let me know if I'm improperly stating your opinion) is that also a reflection of your opinion of DD's ability to assess talent or are you expressing a general philosophical position?

Again, if your position is that you don't trust DD to make these decsions and think he's not competent or skilled enough to take these risks and/or you value the particular prospects that we dealt, then I am fine with your position. I just respectfully disagree with it.

You're basically right. I don't see a reason why this approach/philosophy wouldn't apply to higher-tier talent, though I'm not inordinately panicked that he's going to sell Machado for half a season of Greinke. And it's probably more accurate to say that I don't think we should trade away prospects for (i) marginal MLB value; that (ii) we can get w/o trading prospects OR for redundant component parts w/ probability issues, given the limited window of value they have for us. Short-term assets fit w/in the framework, though not perfectly.

But sure, I have less confidence in Duquette than he likely has in himself.

That said, you're reducing the disagreement to levels of petty personal gripes, and it's not that. It's not a question of "not trusting" him to make these decisions, or thinking he's "not competent or skilled enough" to take these risks. It's a disagreement about philosophy and approach and the means by which you deal with uncertainty, risk, probability. In a context of radical uncertainty, you can fundamentally disagree with people and not have it be about competence. That's why the whole "we should defer" or "daDDy knows best" argument is so baseless.

Do I think that DD is operating w/ more information than me? Absolutely. But a default of deference based on nothing more than "information asymmetries" makes no sense if you're a fan on a message board. I'm working on the information I'm privy to, and it may be that DD has some trump card that makes all of these trades make sense.* That said, absent the information asymmetry, as far as everything else, I don't feel the need for any deference to him. I agree with (I think it was) BD earlier - experience matters, but on a purely intellectual level baseball GMs don't deserve any deference from me, nor will they get it.

*This is the implicit caveat in every bit of analysis that folks go into on this board, and why nothing should be stated in terms of certainty. But the assumption of some dispositive fact/data/info is just a baseless and wrong-headed as artificial certainty.

[Mondo Trasho]

Considering the only alternative (assuming Buck was never considering taking the position) to DD was having Angelos do things himself, I think we should all be pleased in how things have turned out with Duquette.