Article that explains the off season (problems)

[OsLuvrInKy]

Really?

So where are all these grand examples of me being obstinate?

MSK

Quick example.....

You usually avoid answering specific questions. How about you start the debate by answering the question that was posed to you not once but twice in this thread.

You say you want to debate.

[weams]

I really don't go in much for calling people trolls unless the paterns develop. Being abusive to other posters and calling people names is not the definition of trolling. Trolling: The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Troll: A person who posts to an internet discussion group or chat room with the sole purpose of disrupting it.

[OsLuvrInKy]

He has answered in a few threads, but many of the moves were laughable.

And very generic.

Such as..."I would sign a "Smoak like" player

[waroriole]

He has answered in a few threads, but many of the moves were laughable.

I do remember him wanting to trade a top prospect for Smoak.

[Bradysburns]

Interesting OP. The "luck" statistic is something I had never heard. It adds new perspective to this discussion, which is the central discussion of the offseason. Because, well, there's not much else to discuss (unless you count signing Nate to a 1-year contract as terribly fascinating).

To me, we could still make a smart addition or two that would offset some of the "luck" factor. I would love to see us sign Marcum, for example, or Lohse. Trading for Morse would make sense if the price was right. I am not a big fan of signing LaRoche, because I would be concerned about his age, etc. More likely than any of this is DD pulling some rabbit out of the hat in the next month or so... and hopefully working more of that magic.

[Bradysburns]

If we go into the season with the same roster we have right now, I think we may be in trouble. That said, Duquette made a lot of moves last January that worked out for us. Hopefully, he can work some magic again.

This is exactly what I am hoping for - agree with your assessment entirely. The problem with citing "the last third of the year" is the whole limited-sample-size thing. To look at one third of a season and project based on that very limited amount of information strikes me as a very shaky approach indeed.

[Crazysilver03]

This is exactly what I am hoping for - agree with your assessment entirely. The problem with citing "the last third of the year" is the whole limited-sample-size thing. To look at one third of a season and project based on that very limited amount of information strikes me as a very shaky approach indeed.

Except 54 games isn't really a SSS.

[tilgaham]

I read the article and I have some thoughts

First off, I don't think the majority of posters here advocate NOT signing free agent balplayers for the sake of "standing pat". The prevailing attitude seems to be that we should sign an impact player if he is likely to provide good value. Most people realize that you have to pay a premium on free agents, and few are likely to live up to the "mega-contracts" that late 20's, early 30s players of all star caliber tend to sign, especially in the post-PED era.

If we look at the three players that would most likely have been/could be "impact signings" at positions of need:

Josh Hamilton

Zack Greinke

BJ Upton

Nick Swisher

1.) Josh Hamilton was paid 24,600,000 / year for his age 31 - 36 seasons, and would have cost a first round draft pick. I would have given him this contract and gone all in on the potential for a huge decline, as he fits perfectly into our ballpark and Left Field spot. However, you have to aknowledge the huge risk such a contract would have represented if he didn't age gracefully.

2.) Zack Greinke is also being paid about 24.5MM/year for 29-35. Given our potential #1's sitting in the minors, spending limited resources on a borderline ace doesn't seem prudent, and I would have liked to see the money go to a bat.

3.) BJ Upton is a career <.800 OPS guy (that does play very good defense), and had a sub .300 OBP in his age 28 season. Currently being paid 15MM/year for 5 years, which is a good contract, but not one I think we needed.

4.) Nick Swisher is interesting, and certainly fits the need, but at 32, we're likely overpaying (plus the draft pick) for steeply declining production, and below average defense.

Say what you will about Jackson and A. Sanchez, but there just weren't any cost effective guys, outside of the top 3 I've listed that fit our needs.

[cmurter]

I have mixed feelings about this thread.

On one hand, I agree with MSK in principal: If ever there was a time to sign a big-time FA, the off-season following a miraculous turn around from a 93 loss team to a 93 win team is THE time. Accordingly, I applaud the effort to make his point of view known, although flooding thread after thread with the same rhetoric is not a great strategy.

Additionally, I don't really think any of the FA's that have signed so far would fit well into our system given financial and age considerations.

Personally, I think that the Orioles team as currently assembled will peak in about 1.5-2 years, at which point the likes of Hamilton, Swisher, LaRoche will likely be declining to useful, but not greatly impactful pieces, especially given the $$ involved.

That said, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they have all the answers or that they're trolling. Agree to disagree, fellas.

[Pruke]

Albert Puhols did not go to the playoffs.

[Orange_Crush]

WHAT offseason problems?

Figure out first base- check

Figure out left field - check

Get a second baseman in case Roberts isn't healthy- check

Lock up Showalter for the rest of his life- pending.

It's not so bad, really. Saved a ton of money instead of wasting it on overrated stiffs. I believe next year has a better corp of FA's coming anyways.

I want to come live in your fantasy world where you consider the top 3 parts are considered good enough not to be concerned.

[Orange_Crush]

I really don't go in much for calling people trolls unless the paterns develop. Being abusive to other posters and calling people names is not the definition of trolling. Trolling: The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Troll: A person who posts to an internet discussion group or chat room with the sole purpose of disrupting it.

Devil's Advocate isn't ecactly disrupting a conversation. It's just bringing in the other perspective that may exist to the matter.

[Orange_Crush]

Very negative. Doesn't really talk about the starters improving in the 2nd half. Who says that McLouth is a 4th outfielder? Mentions the addition for Myers for Tampa but not the hole that Shields being traded leaves.

I can write one equally positive using just facts.

It kind of does, you have to look harder. Subpar pitching. Its no secret that for much of the year it was. They wouldn't be questioning it if they didn't have the 5 or so decent weeks. They would just say it's not good. Improvements or not that projected rotation leaves A LOT of room for skepticism.

[luismatos4prez]

It kind of does, you have to look harder. Subpar pitching. Its no secret that for much of the year it was. They wouldn't be questioning it if they didn't have the 5 or so decent weeks. They would just say it's not good. Improvements or not that projected rotation leaves A LOT of room for skepticism.

We had subpar pitching in June because we had subpar pitchers. We had better pitching at the end of the year because we had better pitchers.

Arrieta, Britton, Matusz, and Hunter sucked. They were replaced with Gonzalez, Saunders, Tillman, and SJ.

You can't really use Jake Arrieta's struggles to question a rotation that doesn't include him.

[Orange_Crush]

Saunders might not even be back.

Tillman had some issues with health.

SJ made 4 starts.

Gonzalez was good but 5 innings above AA before last year. Was it real or a fluke?

Time will tell on it all.