Will you be disappointed if the 2013 roster is virtually the same as the 2012 roster?

[Can_of_corn]

This is a somewhat fair point, though I think the two situations are somewhat different for a couple of reasons. First, the turnaround in 2010 was so dramatic as to be ridicuous. The turn around this year was a team with a winning record becoming a .670 team down the stretch -- still very noticeable, but not the same as a .305 team suddenly becoming a .596 team. Second, there weren't any player personnel changes that drove the sudden improvement in 2010, whereas in 2012 the personnel changes were a strong driver of the team's improvement.

I think the truth probably somewhere in between the team's pythagorean record for the entire season and it's pythagorean record for the second half of 2012. This team is better than a team that will just scrape over .500, but may not be a contender again in 2013 unless further upgrades are made. It is just a question of how dramatic those upgrades need to be.

Fair enough. I just think it is shortsighted to emphasize the period of time the team played well and totally ignore the extended period in the middle of the season where the team wasn't very good at all.

[Araqnid]

"This roster" wins 82-85 games with a "normal" record in 1 run games, unless you think we are going to break 100 year records 2 years in a row.

So if this roster is brought back with almost no changes, I won't only be disappointed I will be furious.

You can't break a 100 year old record two years in a row. It's now a 1 year old record.

[hoosiers]

I would be disappointed if the 2012 team is what is put on the field for 2013.

It will be nice to have Nick back and I do expect improvement from AJ, Wieters and 3B and LF. And we have a deep stable of both SP and relievers.

End of day, it became apparent in our last seven or eight games against TB, Texas and NYY that we need more elite players - especially a couple of bats.

Frankly, we have spent so many years here advocating NOT spending big bucks on FA because we did not know what positions would be of need until the kids grew up. Well, here we are. The kids are growing up and we are competing. It's time to supplement what we have collected internally with some prime FAs and/or trades. Just because we should have payroll capacity doesn't mean we should spend it. Now, however, we do have needs at the top of the rotation and at 2B and 1B and could replace several folks if we picked up an elite bat in LF.

This offseason is the time to go shopping and this year we have little need for Walmart bargains. We need to get out the gold card and head to Rodeo Drive.

[Ohfan67]

I would be disappointed if it's the same. The O's got real lucky. But I'm not expecting the roster to be the same. I think DD is telling the truth when he says no big free agents, but there is nothing about his actions so far that suggests he will stand pat. I think he will make a significant trade or two or three this offseason and is likely to sign multiple free agents as he shuffles the deck to try to hit it with high reward/low risk players. DD doesn't seem afraid to take measured chances and he definitely doesn't seem satisfied with status quo. He and Buck are too smart to just stand pat. Plus I think they both like the idea of competition for the young players. They bring in baseball players and I think DD might score a significant player via trade.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

If you don't think the team needs improvement, then to some extent you ARE counting on that. As another person posted, Good teams win 93 games and immed try to figure out what gets them to 100. It's NOT bringing back the exact same team, it's improving. It's assuming that the Red Sox and Yankees will improve, it's assuming the Jays will be healthier and therefore better, it's knowing Tampa's pitching can shut down any lineup on any given night. Never stand pat. This is an INCREDIBLY likable group of players and I don't want to see the chemistry disrupted, but a lot of little things went right this season. A TOR SP and a 2B are obvious moves that can make the team better.

Agreed. I'm just not sure I like what it would take to get them. TOR's don't grow on trees, and I think we all know we're not about to sign Zack Grienke. I'd support acquiring an upgrade to Joe Saunders, but I doubt it's going to be a TOR type. A 2b seems like a much more obtainable piece, but again, what is the cost for something that is a clear upgrade to Flaherty. How long before we're calling up Schoop?

I don't think we're necessarily standing pat, I just think the pieces we bring in will be much more supplemental depth types, not TOR SP's or All star 2b's.

[wildcard]

I don't know how it can be called standing pat when 2/9 for the lineup has barely had the training wheels taken off them as Orioles. Machado and McLouth are brand spanking new in the lineup. Also DD has Flaherty warming up in the bullpen before Roberts even takes the field. There is a change in the offing there.

If that is what standing pat is all about it fits right in with the 150 moves and the 52 players that the O's used last year.

Gonzo and Tillman project out to 19 and 20 wins if they stay on their 2012 2nd half pace. If they actually do that do the qualify as a #1 and a #2?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think the truth probably somewhere in between the team's pythagorean record for the entire season and it's pythagorean record for the second half of 2012. This team is better than a team that will just scrape over .500, but may not be a contender again in 2013 unless further upgrades are made. It is just a question of how dramatic those upgrades need to be.

I disagree with Frobby a lot, but this is pretty much spot on analysis. Gonna be a very interesting offseason seeing what level DD takes this and who comes and goes.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this was an 82-85 win team based on talent that had some breaks fall it's way and they ended up with 93 wins.

I think there will be more regression then progression with this group going forward.

The team needs more talent to become perennial contenders.

Yes, this. If they go into 2013 with essentially the same roster they'll be about a .500 team. And as we know very well there's a small chance a .500 team ends up winning either 93 or 70 games.

[DrungoHazewood]

I really don't understand what all the pessimism is about. This is young team that DD and Buck have consistently improved over the last year. There is not reason to believe that they will not get better. Repeat the close games and extra innings? Heck no. Win by 2 or 3 runs instead.

Markakis - should be healthier

McLouth - I hope he re-signs

Jones - Is only 26 and still should be progressing

Davis - Is only 26 and still should be progressing

Wieters - Is only 26 and still should be progressing

Hardy - had a down year and should improve his OPS 75 point

Reynolds - had a down year and should hit at least 30 homer and increase his RBI due to better health

Machado - A lot of talent and should increase at least 10% across the board

Flaherty - Young, should continue the production he showed in the 2nd half'

I would not be a bit surprised if this team scores 5 runs a game on average next year.

Tillman - 24, should progress

Gonzo - I am looking forward to a full year

Hammel - Being healthly would be a big plus

Chen - Should be in his prime

There is no reason the pen should not be better next year with the addition of Matusz and Hunter and with Gregg no longer with the O's

This group of pitchers should be among the top 5 in the league.

So what is all the talk of regression? Why would you even think that way?

Common sense? The ability to see that most of the roster is at an age where they're very close to their peak performances? The realization that it's unlikely that most of the roster gets better or healthier or both? The fact that they finished with 93 wins mostly on the basis of unrepeatable things, and that with a little different sequencing of events they'd have won 78?

[Roll Tide]

I don't know how it can be called standing pat when 2/9 for the lineup has barely had the training wheels taken off them as Orioles. Machado and McLouth are brand spanking new in the lineup. Also DD has Flaherty warming up in the bullpen before Roberts even takes the field. There is a change in the offing there.

If that is what standing pat is all about it fits right in with the 150 moves and the 52 players that the O's used last year.

Gonzo and Tillman project out to 19 and 20 wins if they stay on their 2012 2nd half pace. If they actually do that do the qualify as a #1 and a #2?

This teams needs 2 hitters that arent on the roster. One of them needs to be able to have star power and bat #4 in our lineup. The Orioles struggled too much offensively.

[Flash- bd]

I think you can pencil in LF (McClouth/Reimold/Hoes), CF (AJ), RF (Markakis), 3B (Machado), SS (Hardy), and 2B (Flaherty). That leaves 1B and DH, where I think we need at least one big bat. For me, Reynolds and Davis don't qualify as such. One is okay (preferably Reynolds because of his stellar D at 1B), but if we enter the season without adding another bat we're setting ourselves up in a situation where our pitching is going to have to be highly above average to succeed.

In the rotation, Hammel-Chen-Tillman-Britton-Gonzalez is what we have to hope for. I remain a firm believer in Britton, and wouldn't be surprised to see him as our 3rd best pitcher on the staff next year. With Arrieta, Matusz, and Bundy (perhaps Gausman, but I'd like him to get a bunch of starts under his belt before we consider him) waiting in the wings I'm not sure you need Saunders, though that changes if we deal from our strength for a bat that we really need.

The team doesn't need a lot of changes but it needs the changes it does make to be legitimate, impactful ones.

[brianod]

The team was good enough over the last two months of 2010 that, if you were to just judge them solely by those two months, they should have been contenders in 2011.

How did that work out?

Two months is an insufficiently long sample size.

The unexpected great starting pitching over the last two months is a direct result of the infusion of three very good defensive players. 2010 may have been a portent of things to come or it may have been a fluke. I feel very confident that the performance of this team after Machado and McLouth were moved into the starting lineup and Reynolds was moved to first would continue into next year, especially after adding Markakis to the mix.

That being said, I think we need an offensive force to get us over the hump. If we were to spend 2013 winning 90 games with what we have and stocking the farm system with talent, I could live with it.

[wildcard]

This teams needs 2 hitters that arent on the roster. One of them needs to be able to have star power and bat #4 in our lineup. The Orioles struggled too much offensively.

The O's led the league is hitting and run scoring in September after the team came together. I agree they need a righthanded hitting 2B to replace Andino.

[wildcard]

Common sense? The ability to see that most of the roster is at an age where they're very close to their peak performances? The realization that it's unlikely that most of the roster gets better or healthier or both? The fact that they finished with 93 wins mostly on the basis of unrepeatable things, and that with a little different sequencing of events they'd have won 78?

You are ignoring where they are ready are. Look at the Sept offensive stats, add Markakis and Reimold. Replace Andino with a righthanded hitting 2b. That is a deep team the can hit very well. Maybe lead the league in hitting.

[Ohfan67]

You are ignoring where they are ready are. Look at the Sept offensive stats, add Markakis and Reimold. Replace Andino with a righthanded hitting 2b. That is a deep team the can hit very well. Maybe lead the league in hitting.

September stats? Are you going to base off season decisions on one month of data?