Orioles' Duquette: "Our future is now."

[Lucky Jim]

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.

This is sort of sad-but-true.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Well, not to be petty, but when you're questioning his "...philosophy and approach and the means by which (DD) deals with uncertainty, risk, probability" you are questioning his competence imo. Do we really need to go much further to nuance that? Like I already said, I respect your right to that opinion, I just disagree with it.

Also, did I quote you correctly with respect to your statement that we "should not trade prospects for players we can get for free" correctly? Is that a philosophical opinion then? That you think DD has done this, is that not a question of of his competency?

but on a purely intellectual level baseball GMs don't deserve any deference from me, nor will they get it

Sure and neither from me. I have tried to break down every decision that has been made and look at the entirety of his work (like you, from what I know). We have a difference of opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, not to be petty, but when you're questioning his "...philosophy and approach and the means by which (DD) deals with uncertainty, risk, probability" you are questioning his competence imo. Do we really need to go much further to nuance that? Like I already said, I respect your right to that opinion, I just disagree with it.

Also, did I quote you correctly with respect to your statement that we "should not trade prospects for players we can get for free" correctly? Is that a philosophical opinion then? That you think DD has done this, is that not a question of of his competency?

Sure and neither from me. I have tried to break down every decision that has been made and look at the entirety of his work (like you, from what I know). We have a difference of opinion.

I don't think questioning (i) individual judgment or (ii) general philosophy is the same as questioning competence - competence is a macro-determination, judgment is a micro-determination, philosophy is...from a pragmatic standpoint...simply one of a number of imperfect approaches to dealing w/ complex issues. I don't think the policy stances of politicians are a measure of competence, for instance, even when I disagree w/ them fundamentally. To conflate differences of opinion on judgment/philosophy with competence is to assume an absolute, in the end.

Duquette's made enough other moves that, if they pan out, he would still be a competent GM. In this one aspect I don't agree with his philosophy, and I question the judgment that led to the deals. To me, there's a difference.

And, no, I said we shouldn't trade prospects for players we can get w/o trading prospects. Not for free. As I quoted earlier in the thread, I've long suspected that Duquette is making a market-call, and in inclined to move B-level prospects for present MLB value. That's fine, but - again - to me, it's philosophical, not a competence thing.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't think questioning judgment is the same as questioning competence - competence is a macro-determination, judgment is a micro-determination. Duquette's made enough other moves that, if they pan out, he would still be a competent GM. In this one aspect I don't agree with his philosophy, and I question the judgment that led to the deals. To me, there's a difference.

And, no, I said we shouldn't trade prospects for players we can get w/o trading prospects. Not for free. As I quoted earlier in the thread, I've long suspected that Duquette is making a market-call, and in inclined to move B-level prospects for present MLB value. That's fine, but - again - to me, it's philosophical, not a competence thing.

Well, I guess we've gone about as far as we can go on this. As much as you might not want to admit it, competence plays in here imo. I'm not going to get into a debate about the semantics between competence and judgement. If you think that he paid for a guy that you think we could have got for free, then you have to be questioning his competence/judgement... whatever. People have made pretty huge issues about these trades/potential tades. No offense, but I don't think they really come off as small disagreements on a micro scale.

While, I will admit to having strong philosophical views on a lot of things, I do try and remain flexible to adjusting them based on the specifics of the situation. I guess this is where the digging in statement comes from.

You may have the last word.

[weams]

This is sort of sad-but-true.

Have you met Duquette yet? On a personal level, I think you might enjoy him.

[Ampontan]

Of course it's fair. We traded for an injured catcher, who has struggled with injuries in general.

He was injured in spring training lifting weights.

[Ampontan]

None of them have to be "very valuable" to outweigh marginal MLB-value under short-term control.

Teagarden is under control for quite a while, is young, was chosen specifically to be the backup catcher, BS specifically asked for him, and DD acquiesced based on the principle that the catcher is the manager's voice on the field.

[El Gordo]

Here's the way I see it. Attendance is up 23%, As long as we stay within shouting distance of the WC that will increase. If we can pick up a SP who can give us consistent QS the rest of the way, we can do that. Then if we sign one of a number of TOR SP in FA next fall we have great SP depth. Add to that a good OBP bat at a critical defensive position, and we are in business for next year. That would cost us $$$ and a couple of C+ prospects. If the owner is on board that it seems doable to me.

[El Gordo]

Teagarden is under control for quite a while, is young, was chosen specifically to be the backup catcher, BS specifically asked for him, and DD acquiesced based on the principle that the catcher is the manager's voice on the field.

One nice thing about Teagarden is he lets us use Wieters as a RH DH bat and gives him more rest.

[Lucky Jim]

Have you met Duquette yet? On a personal level, I think you might enjoy him.

This, I do not disagree with. I think I'd find him interesting.

[Lucky Jim]

Teagarden is under control for quite a while, is young, was chosen specifically to be the backup catcher, BS specifically asked for him, and DD acquiesced based on the principle that the catcher is the manager's voice on the field.

You're right. We acquired multiple years of an 81 OPS+ at catcher. Kudos, all around.*

* Is he "young" at 28?

[EagleOriole]

You're right. We acquired multiple years of an 81 OPS+ at catcher. Kudos, all around.*

* Is he "young" at 28?

If he can throw in a game winning home run and help Tommy Hunter pitch like he did every week I would take him.

[weams]

You're right. We acquired multiple years of an 81 OPS+ at catcher. Kudos, all around.*

* Is he "young" at 28?

I think in retrospect, considering his injury, we would all agree that keeping Hester would have worked out better.

[EagleOriole]

I think in retrospect, considering his injury, we would all agree that keeping Hester would have worked out better.

This I agree with completely. Still wondering why we didn't give Hester more of a chance.

[primetime]

You're right. We acquired multiple years of an 81 OPS+ at catcher. Kudos, all around.*

* Is he "young" at 28?

For a backup catcher? Absoultely. I was watching one of the Orioles Classics, game 4 of the 96 ALDS and Mark friggin Parent was our backup catcher. If you look back through our recent history, backup C has been a black hole of aging or already over the hill "catch and throw" guys.

I've gotten the impression that Teagarden has always been a guy with potential but has had trouble with injuries and that's limited his opportunities.

If he can be quasi healthy, a solid defender and provide a decent stick, he's well worth the investment, IMO. And I belive that's why DD made the move to get him.

Not so much for the value he's already provided (and that 81 OPS+ is something that you could've gotten for free with generic backup catcher "X") but you get Teagarden to maybe tap into that yet unrealized potential, which would provide value over said generic backup catcher and also allow to more often spell your AS, GG catcher that you already have.