SI.com grades the O's offseason.

[Il BuonO]

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-.

Apparently you missed the discussion on E and F.

Setting that aside on your own scale I don't see how we are anything better than a C. The signings we made are ok but I don't see Casilla as a significant upgrade. It remains to be seen. We already had McLouth and we lost Reynolds and Saunders. Jurrjens? Project at best.

[luismatos4prez]

Apparently you missed the discussion on E and F.

Setting that aside on your own scale I don't see how we are anything better than a C. The signings we made are ok but I don't see Casilla as a significant upgrade. It remains to be seen. We already had McLouth and we lost Reynolds and Saunders. Jurrjens? Project at best.

The real issue that people have is that Reynolds has been martyred. He was a decent 1B that made plays look harder than they were because he was new to the position. You think Pujols needs to go sprawling all over the place to make that play in Toronto? No chance. He stretches forward towards the home plate side because he has the right foot on the right part of the bag and he's prepared for the throw. You don't see first basemen around the league doing things like Mark did. And it isn't because Reynolds was making plays that no one else could, it's because he was forced to overcome the fact that he had no idea what he was doing there. He didn't magically learn how to field a ground ball, he still had very little range and I'm sure his poor ground ball fielding ability will come to light in Cleveland this year.

Also, I was unaware that we lost Saunders. Who did he sign with?

[Il BuonO]

The real issue that people have is that Reynolds has been martyred. He was a decent 1B that made plays look harder than they were because he was new to the position. You think Pujols needs to go sprawling all over the place to make that play in Toronto? No chance. He stretches forward towards the home plate side because he has the right foot on the right part of the bag and he's prepared for the throw. You don't see first basemen around the league doing things like Mark did. And it isn't because Reynolds was making plays that no one else could, it's because he was forced to overcome the fact that he had no idea what he was doing there. He didn't magically learn how to field a ground ball, he still had very little range and I'm sure his poor ground ball fielding ability will come to light in Cleveland this year.

Also, I was unaware that we lost Saunders. Who did he sign with?

Reynolds was a loss pure and simple. We may very well replace his production with Reimold and others, but again it remains to be seen. I was never under the illusion his defense was great at 1B. It was better than his defense at 3B, but that isn't saying much.

You're right about Saunders, of course. He isn't lost yet.

That still doesn't explain your grade. Where's the slight improvement? Last year we added Chen, Hammel, Betemit, Wada, and yes Eveland.

I contend that by your scale we are basically the same team. Which by the way I'm ok with. Now, I have every hope that Reimold is healthy and outproduces what Reynolds put up last year, Casilla or Flaherty step in at 2B and do more than we got from Andino and others last year and so on. Right now, though, I'd say we're basically the same team.

[isestrex]

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.

I think this is a horrible grading system.

Your A - If several tier 1 FA were signed to bad long term contract (i.e. Teixeira, A-Rod, Pujols etc) and we lost draft picks because of it, I would consider it a bad offseason even if it made the team better the following year.

Your B - One major addition works well regarding on your situation. If the team is one piece away from contention, signing a major FA works well (like the Tigers with Fielder last winter). But if you're not ready to win now and you spend all your budget on one player it can severely cripple your team.

Your C - Again, sometimes this can be good, sometimes this can be bad. It depends in what position your team is.

Your D - Last offseason the Yankees acquired... Bill Hall, Russell Branyan and Hiroki Kuroda . And yet they still won the division. Why? Because they stood pat with already loaded team.

Your E - In 2011 the Rays lost a large chunk of their best players, 15 in all, while gaining only a small handful of gap fillers from outside the origination. Why did they make the post season that year? Because INTERNAL PLAYERS stepped up.

Your F - Sometimes blowing up a team is the best thing for it. Case in point, the Phillies haven't blown up the team and continue to re-sign their aging veterans (Rollins, Howard) hoping to cling to the past. It isn't working and the organization is suffering because of it. They should be blowing it up right now but are resorting to making bad signings like Michael Young and yes-he-needs-to-wear-a-glove-now-Delmon Young.

Your grading system is very narrow minded. Given the situation, any one of these moves could be the correct course of action and gain an A+. For the Orioles, you seem to view their limited action as being a bad offseason. However, I think they've done well in avoiding bad moves while depending on their internal players for improvements. In other words, they've pulled a D in your world... but it could be an A in the real world.

[notyourbuddy]

You consider Hiroki Kuroda an organizational filler signing? The dude got 10$M and he would be our #1 starter.

[Yachtsman]

The guy lost me at no alternative for second base for Brian Roberts. His name is Schoop. Sometimes I really wonder whether these clowns know a thing about baseball. Future left side in two years: 2nd Base - Schoop; SS - Machado; 3rd Base - Delmonico. He's bringing them up one at a time. He's letting guys play through their contract, and building the core to create a winning team for years from the minors. He's not losing draft picks for dumb signings in the form of one year rentals. Sometimes the best move is no move, and many of these writers fails to appreciate strategy in off-season acquisitions and holding back.

[ricowiz]

The guy lost me at no alternative for second base for Brian Roberts. His name is Schoop. Sometimes I really wonder whether these clowns know a thing about baseball. Future left side in two years: 2nd Base - Schoop; SS - Machado; 3rd Base - Delmonico. He's bringing them up one at a time. He's letting guys play through their contract, and building the core to create a winning team for years from the minors. He's not losing draft picks for dumb signings in the form of one year rentals. Sometimes the best move is no move, and many of these writers fails to appreciate strategy in off-season acquisitions and holding back.

I did not realize Schoop and Delmonico were sure things.

[Yachtsman]

The same thing was said about Machado last year.

[ricowiz]

The same thing was said about Machado last year.

Well, except Machado's pedigree was far greater then Schoop or Delmonico's. I dont recall Machado ever not making a top 100 prospect list.

[DrungoHazewood]

The same thing was said about Machado last year.

You're generalizing to the point of making things almost meaningless. Machado was almost universally regarded as a top 10 prospect in all of baseball. Schoop barely made the top 100 last year, and has slipped off a lot of top 100 rankings this year.

Delmonico has never been regarded as one of the better prospects in the game, he's a 5-ish prospect in a middling farm system. He had the 8th-best OPS among Sally League 19-year-olds.

Not only that, Machado was still surprisingly good in 2012. Nobody expected him to make a great leap forward upon promotion to the majors. You certainly can't expect that out of all of your prospects.

[Ruzious]

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.

Sometimes, what seems like a bad move in and of itself ends up getting you where you want to be - as opposed to a do nothing approach which leads to getting nowhere. The Nats would have been nowhere near as good last year and maybe for several years without Werth.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sometimes, what seems like a bad move in and of itself ends up getting you where you want to be - as opposed to a do nothing approach which leads to getting nowhere. The Nats would have been nowhere near as good last year and maybe for several years without Werth.

How? I think they would have done much better with a more efficient use of his ridiculous salary.

[Ruzious]

How? I think they would have done much better with a more efficient use of his ridiculous salary.

And I would answer that your way of doing things would usually lead to doing nothing - and not winning anything.

[Yachtsman]

Well, except Machado's pedigree was far greater then Schoop or Delmonico's. I dont recall Machado ever not making a top 100 prospect list.

Schoop:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130125&content_id=41168206&c_id=bal

Delmonico:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25580139

[DrungoHazewood]

And I would answer that your way of doing things would usually lead to doing nothing - and not winning anything.

What? How does paying near $20M for a mediocre player make you more likely to win? They almost could have achieved the same results setting the cash on fire.