SI.com grades the O's offseason.

[Dipper9]

So... since the consensus seems to be that this grade is completely insane, where's the yearly "grade the offseason" poll? At the very least we can have a "grade the offseason through 1 Feb" poll.

For the record, I don't necessarily grade the offseason very high. My point is I just don't care how the National media grades us.

[Roll Tide]

The mere suggestion of signing Vlad invalidate the whole article. I'd give us a stealth C+ because I think one of Valencia, Robinson, or Jurrjens could be a big surprise, just like Nate and Gonzo were last year.

I just have to think its a negative offseason.

A= Multiple Tier 1 free agents or trades

B= One major addition

C= notable role player / #4-5 starter type

D= Standing pat + organizational filler signings

E= loss of a significant players with no replacement

F= Fire Sale (ala Marlins)

My grading system is something like what's above. The Orioles let Reynolds leave because they thought they could get a guy like Butler at their price via trade. Reynolds was snatched up by the Indians pretty quick. The Orioles were left with a empty chair. The Orioles did nothing to improve LF based on what most said in the resign McLouth thread. Nate is a nice 4th OF that could be more IF he continues his rebound. If he comes in and relapses to the player that he was the previous season or two before the Os picked him up were in trouble. The basically swapped Valencia for Andino .... I don't believe that's a upgrade....Andino was a utility infield type that could perform as a starter in spurts. Unlike many here I'm not counting on Roberts and Reimold for anything as they haven't proven they an stay healthy. Reimold would have to be my DH based on the fact that I'd try to protect protect him from injury.

The Orioles went into the offseason with high hopes of adding a MOO and bringing back Saunders. They've accomplished neither of those things despite the GM saying those things to Roch (the Organizational mouthpiece at MASN). Despite a uptick in attendance of 20% , sellout playoff game revenue, and increased interest in Orioles gear the team didn't add anything to a team when interest is at a ten plus year high. When the GM didn't accomplish anything he changed his tune and started saying stuff like our best improvement would come from the system. I see it as double talk...Surely more organizational fans will cheer the GM for the moves he didn't make and not criticize him and the owner for the double talk after failing to make a a key addition that will help the team do better. The off season of dumpster diving/ organizational filler type moves are great ...especially if you catch lightning in a bottle again....but to count on them happening every season is like hitting the lottery and rushing out to buy another big pile of tickets.

Just my opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just have to think its a negative offseason.

A= Multiple Tier 1 free agents or trades

I'm not going to argue that this has been a good or great offseason. I don't think it has. But I can think of many cases where a team signed one of the more sought-after free agents and ended up with an epic fail of an offseason. For example, the Ryan Howard or Jayson Werth signings were significant negatives for their teams. If all the O's did this year was sign Josh Hamilton to a 6/180 deal, I'd give them a D or an F.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Grading the offseason now seems kind of silly to me- at this time last year, just about anyone would have given the Orioles a C or worse, and the Marlins and Angels a B+ or better. In hindsight however, the additions of Hammel, Chen, O'Day, Ayala, and Betemit were huge difference makers that helped to put us in the playoffs and all of the huge moves made by LA and FLA led to exactly ZERO postseason games. Looking back, I would grade the Orioles a B+ or better, and give the Angels and Marlins a C+ or worse. All of this "grade the offseason before a single game is played" stuff is just a silly, meaningless way to kill time during the offseason.

[DrungoHazewood]

Grading the offseason now seems kind of silly to me- at this time last year, just about anyone would have given the Orioles a C or worse, and the Marlins and Angels a B+ or better. In hindsight however, the additions of Hammel, Chen, O'Day, Ayala, and Betemit were huge difference makers that helped to put us in the playoffs and all of the huge moves made by LA and FLA led to exactly ZERO postseason games. Looking back, I would grade the Orioles a B+ or better, and give the Angels and Marlins a C+ or worse. All of this "grade the offseason before a single game is played" stuff is just a silly, meaningless way to kill time during the offseason.

I'd disagree that debating and ranking various teams' acquisitions is "silly". It's no more silly than any other aspect of being a fan of a sports team. And it's valid to rank acquisitions at the time of the acquisition, at least as valid as waiting years to see how each of the pieces played out. And I'm not going to sit here in 2013 and tell the Angels their offseason was adequate at best because the team fell a couple wins shy of the postseason - there are many reasons for that. Just as the the Orioles' historic records in key situations didn't necessarily mean they get extra credit for their moves of last winter.

You're saying, more-or-less, that you should wait to do your silly time-killing offseason rankings until you see the final standings in 9 months. Good teams had good offseasons, and vice versa. In your desire to see the O's moves (or lack thereof) work out I think you're kind of missing the point.

[Il BuonO]

Grading the offseason now seems kind of silly to me- at this time last year, just about anyone would have given the Orioles a C or worse, and the Marlins and Angels a B+ or better. In hindsight however, the additions of Hammel, Chen, O'Day, Ayala, and Betemit were huge difference makers that helped to put us in the playoffs and all of the huge moves made by LA and FLA led to exactly ZERO postseason games. Looking back, I would grade the Orioles a B+ or better, and give the Angels and Marlins a C+ or worse. All of this "grade the offseason before a single game is played" stuff is just a silly, meaningless way to kill time during the offseason.

Maybe, but if you compare the players you've named as additions to last year's team to that which was done this year I think you'd agree there is quite a difference.

[Number5]

The basically swapped Valencia for Andino .... I don't believe that's a upgrade....Andino was a utility infield type that could perform as a starter in spurts.

Not sure how you come up with this. Seems to me that Casilla is Andino's replacement, not Valencia. Casilla represents an upgrade over Andino, IMO, and seems to fit your definition of Andino's role to a tee. Valencia will either be the last position player on the 25-man roster or will be at Norfolk. Perhaps the RH part of a DH platoon. If he is "swapped" for anyone on the 2012 Orioles, it might be Pearce, or Ford, or maybe Nick Johnson, but certainly not Andino.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

I'd disagree that debating and ranking various teams' acquisitions is "silly". It's no more silly than any other aspect of being a fan of a sports team. And it's valid to rank acquisitions at the time of the acquisition, at least as valid as waiting years to see how each of the pieces played out. And I'm not going to sit here in 2013 and tell the Angels their offseason was adequate at best because the team fell a couple wins shy of the postseason - there are many reasons for that. Just as the the Orioles' historic records in key situations didn't necessarily mean they get extra credit for their moves of last winter.

You're saying, more-or-less, that you should wait to do your silly time-killing offseason rankings until you see the final standings in 9 months. Good teams had good offseasons, and vice versa. In your desire to see the O's moves (or lack thereof) work out I think you're kind of missing the point.

It may have been a bit of an over-statement, but I stand by the core principle: grading the offseason before seeing the results is entirely theoretical, like grading a bright but unmotivated student's term paper before reading it based purely on past results. Sure, there might be telltale signs that the student may not be putting effort into the project(like not handing in an outline), but until the finished product is in your hands it's impossible to assess its quality or lack thereof.

I didn't get much sleep last night or the night before. Hopefully that made sense.

[Stotle]

I'd disagree that debating and ranking various teams' acquisitions is "silly". It's no more silly than any other aspect of being a fan of a sports team. And it's valid to rank acquisitions at the time of the acquisition, at least as valid as waiting years to see how each of the pieces played out. And I'm not going to sit here in 2013 and tell the Angels their offseason was adequate at best because the team fell a couple wins shy of the postseason - there are many reasons for that. Just as the the Orioles' historic records in key situations didn't necessarily mean they get extra credit for their moves of last winter.

You're saying, more-or-less, that you should wait to do your silly time-killing offseason rankings until you see the final standings in 9 months. Good teams had good offseasons, and vice versa. In your desire to see the O's moves (or lack thereof) work out I think you're kind of missing the point.

Yes. Process > results. From a fan's perspective, a seemingly poor process shouldn't ruin an upcoming season. But a good result at the end of the year doesn't necessarily validate the process leading up to that result.

[avdeuph]

I'm just going to go ahead and throw this in there, even though it is obliquely off-topic:

United States grading systems (which we are clearly attempting to go by) generally agree on the value of A-D, however, in some states the letter that follows D is E, and in others it is F. In addition, F is generally more widely accepted because it could not be confused for "E=excellent", which is also a possible grading designation is certain non-traditionally graded classes. However, in no states are there both E and F following D.

For some reason I have a feeling I was the only person bothered by this, but oh well.

[Il BuonO]

So you really thnk it should be better than a D. Without the gaggle of retreads/ AAAA/ and independent league players the Orioles did nothing. I mean gosh .... I take a beating here when discussing the off season for being negative.

Realisitically the off season grade is accurate. I guess a fire sale would've got a E or F. Last season the Orioles had a lot go right and this season we will all be hoping that some guy who hasnt done much in MLB finds his A game. Just sayin

Excuse me, an E?

I'm just going to go ahead and throw this in there, even though it is obliquely off-topic:

United States grading systems (which we are clearly attempting to go by) generally agree on the value of A-D, however, in some states the letter that follows D is E, and in others it is F. In addition, F is generally more widely accepted because it could not be confused for "E=excellent", which is also a possible grading designation is certain non-traditionally graded classes. However, in no states are there both E and F following D.

For some reason I have a feeling I was the only person bothered by this, but oh well.

Nope, I was bothered by it, too. "E" has always meant a grade of excellent in my book, so it seemed confusing to have it included between D and F.

[Roll Tide]

Not sure how you come up with this. Seems to me that Casilla is Andino's replacement, not Valencia. Casilla represents an upgrade over Andino, IMO, and seems to fit your definition of Andino's role to a tee. Valencia will either be the last position player on the 25-man roster or will be at Norfolk. Perhaps the RH part of a DH platoon. If he is "swapped" for anyone on the 2012 Orioles, it might be Pearce, or Ford, or maybe Nick Johnson, but certainly not Andino.

My mistake....Trading Casilla for Andino adds you .19 in career OPS...not much of a grade anyway you slice it.

[Roll Tide]

Nope, I was bothered by it, too. "E" has always meant a grade of excellent in my book, so it seemed confusing to have it included between D and F.

Sorry if it bothered anybody ...but really kind of petty and definitely off topic.

[Il BuonO]

Sorry if it bothered anybody ...but really kind of petty and definitely off topic.

Bothered was the wrong word. Confusing. No big deal.

[luismatos4prez]

I just have to think its a negative offseason.

A= Multiple Tier 1 free agents or trades

B= One major addition

C= notable role player / #4-5 starter type

D= Standing pat + organizational filler signings

E= loss of a significant players with no replacement

F= Fire Sale (ala Marlins)

A = The organization is significantly better than it was the year before

B = The organization is slightly better than it was the year before

C = The organization is the same as it was the year before

D = The organization is slightly worse than it was the year before

E = The organization is significantly worse than it was the year before.

I'd give it a B or B-.