Orioles' Duquette: "Our future is now."

[JDubs]

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.

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.

[Lucky Jim]

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.

By, so far, .2 WAR.

[Greg]

Losing 3 out of 4 to the twins = SELLERS

[Frobby]

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.

Zero, unless Jim Thome's relatives are in town. Now, if Jim Thome helps the team to win some games, that may help attendance. But nobody's coming to the ballpark because Jim Thome is now on the team.

[Lucky Jim]

Zero, unless Jim Thome's relatives are in town. Now, if Jim Thome helps the team to win some games, that may help attendance. But nobody's coming to the ballpark because Jim Thome is now on the team.

There should be a :frobby voice of reason emoticon.

[Flash- bd]

Zero, unless Jim Thome's relatives are in town. Now, if Jim Thome helps the team to win some games, that may help attendance. But nobody's coming to the ballpark because Jim Thome is now on the team.

This is a pretty black-and-white way of looking at it, IMO. Of course, if you break it down like that, you're not gonna find more than 2-3 fans out of every 25,000 for whom Jim Thome was the difference in coming to the game or not. But businesses make moves ALOT smaller than adding a player like Jim Thome all the time that make significant changes in sales/business. A lot of this stuff operates on a sub-conscious level (if you believe in that kind of thing ) and when that effect is generalized to a very large sample it makes a difference. If it weren't this way no advertising agency would bother even existing and the FDA wouldn't deliberate for months on whether to make a .5c decrease in the price of broccoli or a .10c increase in tobacco.

[Frobby]

This is a pretty black-and-white way of looking at it, IMO. Of course, if you break it down like that, you're not gonna find more than 2-3 fans out of every 25,000 for whom Jim Thome was the difference in coming to the game or not. But businesses make moves ALOT smaller than adding a player like Jim Thome all the time that make significant changes in sales/business. A lot of this stuff operates on a sub-conscious level (if you believe in that kind of thing ) and when that effect is generalized to a very large sample it makes a difference. If it weren't this way no advertising agency would bother even existing and the FDA wouldn't deliberate for months on whether to make a .5c decrease in the price of broccoli or a .10c increase in tobacco.

Just giving you my opinion. I'm not saying that there aren't individual players who move the needle. But in 2012, Jim Thome is not one of them.

[EagleOriole]

By, so far, .2 WAR.

You can keep throwing that out there, but Teagarden was injured all year and Thome just came over, so it isn't exactly fair to judge them yet.

[Lucky Jim]

You can keep throwing that out there, but Teagarden was injured all year and Thome just came over, so it isn't exactly fair to judge them yet.

Of course it's fair. We traded for an injured catcher, who has struggled with injuries in general. A back-up catcher with a bad back. And the fact that we've just gotten Thome is part of the calculation. It means we only get a half-year of value. Fair? It's eminently fair.

[Triple Crown]

Of course it's fair. We traded for an injured catcher, who has struggled with injuries in general. A back-up catcher with a bad back. And the fact that we've just gotten Thome is part of the calculation. It means we only get a half-year of value. Fair? It's eminently fair.

Make sure you let me know when any of the pieces we traded start having WAR value in the big leagues

[EagleOriole]

Of course it's fair. We traded for an injured catcher, who has struggled with injuries in general. A back-up catcher with a bad back. And the fact that we've just gotten Thome is part of the calculation. It means we only get a half-year of value. Fair? It's eminently fair.

Once again, I disagree. Teagarden has had a history of injuries true, but he should have had a physical, which should have shown a back issue as big as what he had.

Give Thome time, that fWar won't be the same.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Zero, unless Jim Thome's relatives are in town. Now, if Jim Thome helps the team to win some games, that may help attendance. But nobody's coming to the ballpark because Jim Thome is now on the team.

Well, he interests me. I enjoy watching him hit. That said, I agree he has to perform and the team has to win.

[Frobby]

Well, he interests me. I enjoy watching him hit. That said, I agree he has to perform and the team has to win.

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.

[Lucky Jim]

Once again, I disagree. Teagarden has had a history of injuries true, but he should have had a physical, which should have shown a back issue as big as what he had.

Give Thome time, that fWar won't be the same.

That's why I said "so far." Maybe Thome will have some value going forward, but we've already sunk the prospects and 90 games, so it's relevant to the calculation. As for Teagarden, the physical doesn't matter a whit: it's not like the injury came out of nowhere.

[Lucky Jim]

Make sure you let me know when any of the pieces we traded start having WAR value in the big leagues

As long as you update me when you actually understand the point I'm making (and have made several times in this thread). It's like pea soup in here, sometimes.