Orioles' Duquette: "Our future is now."

[LookinUp]

I don't pretend to know exactly what DD is thinking, but here's what I'd do if I were GM...

1. I'd try to add small pieces to improve our chances of winning this year (Thome, Eveland, Teagarden) without giving up meaningful prospects.

2. I'd try to identify prospects who I thought were dime-a-dozen players or otherwise over rated to make those moves while those prospects still have value.

3. I'd save my best prospects for us, or for very meaningful deals.

I don't think people really have a problem with #1, they just have a problem with how DD used #2 to accomplish #1. What people on this site should acknowledge - even if they disagree - is that DD has more insight on guys like Lino, Henry, etc. than Tony, Stotle, Law or anyone else on this site. If anything, I'd have preferred he wait to use guys like Lino in a more important deal, but I think there are more guys in the system like Lino who are available to trade in that type of deal (Glynn Davis comes to mind).

In the end, I see this org as finally having some real talent in the pipeline, and I don't see DD giving any of it away just yet. I think Schoop is a top 50 prospect by the end of this year, along with Gausman, Bundy and Machado. I think Hoes and Avery are top 100 guys, regardless of what BA thinks, and I think Delmonico could be that in a year.

Bottom line...if the O's use something like Avery + Matusz to obtain Headley, that might not equate in value but it would both help our position this year and in the future in some ways. If he makes that deal for the wrong guy (Garza, w/o extension for example), then my confidence will wane. Until then, he's churning marginal talent in a previously shallow organization for marginal ML upgrades, and I'm fine with that.

[Mondo Trasho]

We better not trade any of our minor leaguers. I'm looking forward to watching them disappoint us in the next few years.

Exactly. What are we scared of? What evidence is there that this team can develop talent?

[EagleOriole]

Interestingly, the Rangers are trying to make a starter out of Henry.

Hmm, nice looking stats this year. Have to wait and see on him.

[EagleOriole]

I don't pretend to know exactly what DD is thinking, but here's what I'd do if I were GM...

1. I'd try to add small pieces to improve our chances of winning this year (Thome, Eveland, Teagarden) without giving up meaningful prospects.

2. I'd try to identify prospects who I thought were dime-a-dozen players or otherwise over rated to make those moves while those prospects still have value.

3. I'd save my best prospects for us, or for very meaningful deals.

I don't think people really have a problem with #1, they just have a problem with how DD used #2 to accomplish #1. What people on this site should acknowledge - even if they disagree - is that DD has more insight on guys like Lino, Henry, etc. than Tony, Stotle, Law or anyone else on this site. If anything, I'd have preferred he wait to use guys like Lino in a more important deal, but I think there are more guys in the system like Lino who are available to trade in that type of deal (Glynn Davis comes to mind).

In the end, I see this org as finally having some real talent in the pipeline, and I don't see DD giving any of it away just yet. I think Schoop is a top 50 prospect by the end of this year, along with Gausman, Bundy and Machado. I think Hoes and Avery are top 100 guys, regardless of what BA thinks, and I think Delmonico could be that in a year.

Bottom line...if the O's use something like Avery + Matusz to obtain Headley, that might not equate in value but it would both help our position this year and in the future in some ways. If he makes that deal for the wrong guy (Garza, w/o extension for example), then my confidence will wane. Until then, he's churning marginal talent in a previously shallow organization for marginal ML upgrades, and I'm fine with that.

I would like to delete all of my posts in this thread and just let this comment represent the way I feel.

[Flash- bd]

I don't pretend to know exactly what DD is thinking, but here's what I'd do if I were GM...

1. I'd try to add small pieces to improve our chances of winning this year (Thome, Eveland, Teagarden) without giving up meaningful prospects.

2. I'd try to identify prospects who I thought were dime-a-dozen players or otherwise over rated to make those moves while those prospects still have value.

3. I'd save my best prospects for us, or for very meaningful deals.

I don't think people really have a problem with #1, they just have a problem with how DD used #2 to accomplish #1. What people on this site should acknowledge - even if they disagree - is that DD has more insight on guys like Lino, Henry, etc. than Tony, Stotle, Law or anyone else on this site. If anything, I'd have preferred he wait to use guys like Lino in a more important deal, but I think there are more guys in the system like Lino who are available to trade in that type of deal (Glynn Davis comes to mind).

In the end, I see this org as finally having some real talent in the pipeline, and I don't see DD giving any of it away just yet. I think Schoop is a top 50 prospect by the end of this year, along with Gausman, Bundy and Machado. I think Hoes and Avery are top 100 guys, regardless of what BA thinks, and I think Delmonico could be that in a year.

Bottom line...if the O's use something like Avery + Matusz to obtain Headley, that might not equate in value but it would both help our position this year and in the future in some ways. If he makes that deal for the wrong guy (Garza, w/o extension for example), then my confidence will wane. Until then, he's churning marginal talent in a previously shallow organization for marginal ML upgrades, and I'm fine with that.

Echoing the post above, this is a nice post, especially the 1,2,3 point above (which does a good job of explaining why I am okay with DD's moves so far) and the point that follows it.

Unless that's the name of the ferryman on the River Styx, I don't think the analogy is a good one. Why would it make sense to trade for a waaay-past-his-prime player whose "April" might stretch into August when the O's were already free-falling at the time the player was acquired?

Thome may be 42 but I don't see "waaay-past-his-prime-player" as being a fair characterization for him. He's way past his prime, sure, but his post-prime is something unique and not comparable to that of the average player (nor is his career arch in general, of course, considering he's by all metrics been an exceptional player). Jim had an .838 OPS (130 OPS+) just last year and based on his numbers in Philly--especially his inter-league numbers--he seems about the same player. The year before--at age 39--he had a 1.039 OPS in an even larger sample.

[Lucky Jim]

Ignoring any trades, I have read or understood DD to have done the following things for this organization in less than one year.

1. Streamlined and modernized scouting techniques by integrating video and statistical analysis.

2. Utilized data to position fielders.

3. Hired a sports psychologist.

4. Focused on conditioning players in the offseason.

5. Hired Peterson to evaluate pitchcers mechanics/biomechanics.

6. Hired a sports economist to evaluate player risk/reward.

7. Improved organizational depth at the upper Mil level.

Save for what he did w/ the scouts and how he handled that, which seemed a bit botched (and I'm not sure why you wouldn't utilize both), I'm largely in favor of all of this. I think they're good changes.

But let's be clear, I don't have a trench. I have a position, and, to the extent that I'm saying that I have concerns about one aspect of DD's work, it's reasonable. I've said all along that I understand that others don't agree. I've also explained my problems with the arguments against my arguments - essentially, you don't trade actual "prospects" as opposed to organizational filler for the kinds of guys you can get w/o spending prospects (i.e., Eveland and Teagarden [edit: typo]). This is the inventory point. It's not that you don't trade prospects, it's that you don't waste prospects. Pretty simple. I've said before, as well, that I get the other side, but as long my take isn't baseless, why the #$%* would you all care that I have it?

2. The trade may tell us something about Duquette: first, he trusts his scouts to identify skill-sets/hidden value. Clearly, DD thinks he can re-fashion Hammel into something like the 4-ish WAR player he was before 2011.

3. Second, this trade may also tell us that Duquette doesn't value second-tier prospects. We likely could have packaged Guthrie for a handful of second-tier guys, I think. Settling on solid-but-unspectacular MLB value instead tells us something about how DD views risk, and risk-swapping. Trading MLB value for second-tier prospects (because they represent future-value) doesn't seem to be something that DD is inclined to do - though my guess is this changes with very-high-value/elite prospects. This doesn't mean that he won't build up an inventory of them, but he's not inclined to trade actual MLB value for speculative value, and does appear inclined to trade speculative value for nearly any amount of actual MLB value.

4. In other words, DD is less inclined to trade MLB now-value for anything less than very high probability future-value. On the other hand, DD will trade probabilistic future value (MiLB relievers) for marginal MLB value. This is, in some ways, the opposite of MacPhail.

5. Trades like this mean we're going to stock our minors through "primary" channels of acquisition. Draft/int'l FA/whathaveyou.

6. I tend to agree with most that the trade doesn't make any long-term sense for the O's, unless, basically, Hammel ends up being a Scott Erickson-like reclamation. This isn't impossible. But that possibility is wrapped up in figuring out the troubling bottoming out of his peripherals in 2011.

I said this in early February. I've understood exactly what DD was doing from jump street - since, we've learned that not only does he favor "now" talent (MLB-level) over MiLB talent, but he has little interest in MiLB inventory. That I disagree with - in the sense described above - where it's unnecessary to trade away that inventory. That's it. Whatever DD is doing, it's based on the self-confidence that he can (i) identify true talent and (ii) replace what's lost. I'm glad he's self-confident. I'm probably a little less confident than he is in his talent to do either. I'm sure his feelings are hurt by this, but it's fair. Which doesn't mean that I won't be proven wrong. Of course, it's also fine if Team Duquette shares his confidence.

I've been gang'd-up on before, but this is something truly special. Thanks guys.

As for this:

Sure, but people don't want to hear or grasp this point. How much is increased attendance, increased interest in the team, and increased revenue worth (even if we don't make the playoffs)? How many dollars is a 23 % increase in attendance worth if maintained for most of the rest of the season? How many C prospects would that additional revenue buy? Whether you think Jim Thome will hit or not (and I think he will and has looked good), how many people are interested in going out to the game or tuning in to see him play.

I think the answer is "not many," if the Orioles are losing. And if they're winning, the answer is still "not many."

[Pedro Cerrano]

If DD is in favor of getting rid of unproven talent that would likely end up crappy anyway for proven pieces then he has my full support.

[osfan83]

It's hard to remember a time when I had less confidence in our front office to do the right thing.Our FO is talking about being buyers when we should be sellers.

Our FO has already dealt away a top 10 prospect for an over-the-hill DH on a team that already has Betemit and Flaherty.

We just came away from the draft with much less talent than we should have.

I love the Guts trade, the bullpen moves, etc, but it is time to cash in those chips via trade, bring up guys like Hoes to see if they can provide a spark or be ready for next season. Our FO speaks and acts like a huge, unpredictable wild card, and while I believe net/net that DD will make beneficial movies, I am not sure I can be along for a ride that will contain so many stupid moves of the Eveland, Lino, let's draft Poche and cave in to Gausman variety. There are already too many moves of the Bautista/Grimsley ilk that show a front office completely unable to appropriately assess its competitive position as well as one that plays fast and loose with prospects and draft picks.

I on the otherhand feel better about our FO now. I realize hindsight is 20/20, but clearly MacPhail, and Flanny/Duq before him did not have a plan that worked out. But I never felt a sense of urgency from the past management. With DD I feel that he has a great desire to win, and win soon...not talk about a grand 5 year plan that falls apart 3 years into it. I actually take my hat off the DD for putting the preasure on himself now, instead of saying "you can't judge me until 2016".

[LookinUp]

Whatever DD is doing, it's based on the self-confidence that he can (i) identify true talent and (ii) replace what's lost. I'm glad he's self-confident. I'm probably a little less confident than he is in his talent to do either.

For identifying true talent, you obviously understand that DD isn't alone in developing evaluations of in-house talent. He's also certainly playing great odds, insofar as talent that is 20+ years old usually shows itself to the observer by now. It's obvious that any of the guys we traded could in theory turn out to be very valuable, but it's also obvious that any of them actually becoming very valuable to the point that they're difficult to replace are very very very small.

At any point in the future we are very likely to be able to use the same means to acquire the next Teagarden or Steve Pearce, and acquiring that type of talent will almost always be more valuable than holding onto the guys we let go. The question for me is how high that prospect churn goes. If it falls into Avery/Hoes/Delmonico/Schoop territory, I will then have a problem.

[Lucky Jim]

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

[MrOrange82]

I think the answer is "not many," if the Orioles are losing. And if they're winning, the answer is still "not many."

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.

[Lucky Jim]

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.

I mean, I think winning matters, obviously I was specifically referring to Thome, and the largely trumped-up idea that he has some catalytic relationship to attendance. To be clear, I don't think Thome matters to attendance. (Though thanks for quantifying the overall difference.)

[MrOrange82]

I mean, I think winning matters, obviously I was specifically referring to Thome, and the largely trumped-up idea that he has some catalytic relationship to attendance. To be clear, I don't think Thome matters to attendance. (Though thanks for quantifying the overall difference.)

Yeah...I just took the 23% and ran with it, regardless of the strength (or lack thereof) of the idea that its sustainability might be tied to Thome's presence (i.e., even if what CA said was true, the impact is probably negligible).

[LookinUp]

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

Not true. The question isn't whether Prospect1 + Prospect2 are more valuable than Thome over the long term. The question is whether Prospect1 + Prospect2 are more valuable than Thome + other player acquired to fill that position over the long term.

If the prospects we traded away exceed expectations and end up worth a few WAR (say, Mike Fontenot), it's fair to assume that the trade is a wash because any fair GM can likely find the next Marco Scutaro to provide a little bit of value. If they blow up and turn into something like Joe Nathan/AJ Pierzienski (sp?), we've blown it. If they never make it (which is most likely), we gain.

As a matter of risk, DD is churning our low-rated prospects, so he's marginalizing the risk that we've missed out on the next guy to blow up. To be clear, that does entail some risk, just not much. This isn't Avery - a guy with very high upside tools who is unrefined. It's Henry, a guy who at his physical peak would be a middle/back end of the rotation guy. In other words, his upside is closer to Fontenot than Nathan, I think. I prefer not to get started on Lino, who I think has been misrated on this site.

I hope I'm right, but I defer to the O's and those evaluators who better know about these players upside. I just don't see meaningful ML value anywhere in what we gave up.

[Ohfan67]

You can be competitive and build an excellent farm system at the same time. Why do we continue to believe that these two can't coexist? Hell, the Yankees and Red Sox systems are basically perennially ranked ahead of us. The Cardinals and the Rangers have two of the best systems in baseball. Then there are teams like the Blue Jays that have spent money, been way more competitive than the O's, and have a very highly ranked system. Oakland has been way more competitive than the O's and has an excellent system. Teams like the Rangers, MFY, Red Sox, and Oakland use their farm system to improve via trades all the time, including MANY trades for short term players. If DD or the Angelos family and cronies can't build a good farm team and be competitive at the same time, then all this dissection of little moves is totally meaningless. Honestly, it's not that hard to do: You copy what the good organizations are doing. You poach front office talent. You copy strategies and techniques. The Angelos regime hasn't been willing to do that since the Pat Gillick hiring. Angelos fired the only really young and dynamic front office type he hired after one year. Anyway, I don't want to rant too much, but somehow most of us have this idea that we can't be competitive and build a good system at the same time. And it's just not true.