Should we just spend like drunken sailors for the next 2.5 seasons no matter the long term effects?

[weams]

The problem is the difference between World Series Champ and one game out of the wildcard is often health and timing more than drunken sailor acquisitions.

Or Marco Scutaro having a Rick Dempsey week.

[Il BuonO]

And, when he becomes average and drops below average due to age and the O's are on the hook for 25 million?

I don't buy your premise, but let's suppose I did. Is it worth it if he pitches lights out and we get a WS Title this year?

And his contract is for this year and next year with a vesting option that will make him a bargain if he can meet those marks. For him to have that dramatic a drop off would be remarkable. If he does, however age that quickly while we have already won a WS in the process then one year at $25 mil for a diminished Cliff Lee will still have been worth it. You have to assume if he drops off that dramatically then we won't be on the hook for the option year because he probably won't get close to 200 IP or 400 over the course of two years.

[allquixotic]

If it's one player, yes I'm alright with that.

If it's a slew of players, no. I don't want to go through what the Cubs have gone through the past 4 years.

The Playoffs are a crap-shoot. If you consistently put your team in position to make the Playoffs, you'll have a great chance to win a title eventually. There's no reason to overpay for a minimal increase in likelihood to win for one or two years. It's best to spread out your chances of winning over several seasons.

Good argument. I was on the fence about this, thinking that maybe after 2015 we could completely lose our opportunity to maintain a contending team, but now that I think about it, it seems we have a rather binary choice:

Choice 1 is to go out in a blaze of glory and spend all of our resources and exhaust the farm, in an attempt to stack up the best players we can find for 2013 and 2014, giving us an above average chance of winning the world series in one or both years. The consequence of this approach, of course, is that, whether or not we win the world series zero, one, or two times, the years following our contending years are likely to resemble the period of 1998 through 2011. Losing baseball. In the basement of the AL East.

Choice 2 is to buy low and sell high, raise guys on the farm, but don't go buying a superstar from another team that'll cost us an arm, a leg and 2 eyeballs. With this approach, our chances of winning the world series, statistically speaking, diminish for 2013 and 2014, but, if we manage the team's resources correctly, we could probably keep the team's playoff-contending baseball well into the 2020s decade, giving us an above-average chance of at least a wildcard spot every year for the next 10-15 years, or at the least, playing .500 baseball and avoiding the cellar of the division.

The advantage of Choice 2 is that it will raise and retain a new generation of Orioles baseball fans in the Del-Mar-Va region, who will show up to games, buy MLB.TV, bumper stickers, baseball caps and T-shirts, and provide a much needed fuel for the Orioles economy (and monetary worth). This could create a positive feedback loop that snowballs and the teams we roll out there could get better and better as the years go on, eventually being one of those teams that creates a generation-long dynasty that all the sportscasters are 100% sure is going to the playoffs before Game 1 of the regular season has been played.

Another interesting point. If we were to play Choice 2 in a situation such as the one the Astros or the Marlins were in, the results wouldn't be the same. The problem is that the players in their organizations have very little value, by and large, so they can't get out of the gutter and start to gain some traction (and an increasing fan base). I think the Orioles management tried to play Choice 1 in the early 90s, then switched to Choice 2 during the 14 consecutive losing seasons, without realizing that Choice 2 is only really effective after you first give your club a "kick" (2012, and the last quarter or so of 2011, were the years where we got a real "kick" by rattling off a bunch of wins, thanks to Buck and some new players) that's enough to get the media talking about your team, and bring up that "c" word in relation to the team ("contender").

[RHall31]

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get over the hump while this nucleus is together. Trade, FA's, whatever. This team is a TOR starter away from being an odds on favorite throughout the playoffs.

I think Cliff Lee would be the guy and I wouldn't hesitate to trade Gausman and prospect(s) for him. I just can't imagine we'll be able to resign all of our top position players and develop the necessary starting pitching that it will take to go all the way. DD must fill that last void now and give this nucleus 2+ years to get it done.

[brianod]

I don't buy your premise, but let's suppose I did. Is it worth it if he pitches lights out and we get a WS Title this year?

And his contract is for this year and next year with a vesting option that will make him a bargain if he can meet those marks. For him to have that dramatic a drop off would be remarkable. If he does, however age that quickly while we have already won a WS in the process then one year at $25 mil for a diminished Cliff Lee will still have been worth it. You have to assume if he drops off that dramatically then we won't be on the hook for the option year because he probably won't get close to 200 IP or 400 over the course of two years.

I don't buy your premise that Cliff Lee guarantees anything. The successful business model in the professional sports of today is to draft well, develop well and resign your own. Cliff Lee might give us a title, but he definitely would hamper our ability to have long term success. I'd rather spend a ton of money locking up a 27 year old superstar who already plays for our team then spend a ton of money on a 36 year old starting pitcher. I completely agree with those that say the goal should be to constantly compete for a playoff spot. The best team loses more then it wins the title, it's a 7 game crapshoot. So, maximize your chances. Make the playoffs five years in a row and take your chances.

[Il BuonO]

I don't buy your premise that Cliff Lee guarantees anything. The successful business model in the professional sports of today is to draft well, develop well and resign your own. Cliff Lee might give us a title, but he definitely would hamper our ability to have long term success. I'd rather spend a ton of money locking up a 27 year old superstar who already plays for our team then spend a ton of money on a 36 year old starting pitcher. I completely agree with those that say the goal should be to constantly compete for a playoff spot. The best team loses more then it wins the title, it's a 7 game crapshoot. So, maximize your chances. Make the playoffs five years in a row and take your chances.

The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies(all recent WS winners) say hello.

[Malike]

I wish Jose Abreu would defect and play for the O's! The kid has 74 HR's in 579 AB's! Kidnap him from Cuba, give him 114 billion dollars and watch him hit like Ruth!

[TradeAngelos]

Who was the last team to win the WS solely with players they developed and no free agents of note?

[waroriole]

The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies(all recent WS winners) say hello.

They all play in much bigger markets, have more money, and an owner willing to spend it. Huge difference.

[TradeAngelos]

They all play in much bigger markets, have more money, and an owner willing to spend it. Huge difference.

What exactly does that have to do with what model wins championships?

[waroriole]

What exactly does that have to do with what model wins championships?

Obviously, we can't follow the same model as teams with much larger financial resources.

[mdbdotcom]

I think we should spend like Smurfs... much more interesting than drunken sailors.

[Can_of_corn]

I think we should spend like Smurfs... much more interesting than drunken sailors.

You ever see a Smurf with a three day pass in a major metropolitan city?

It isn't pretty.

[Il BuonO]

Obviously, we can't follow the same model as teams with much larger financial resources.

Come on, if you've been looking at this thread and others you'll notice I'm not advocating imitating those teams, but there is a middle ground.

[Br10n]

Per John Heyman....

While considering a couple of needs recently, an Orioles-connected person used the phrase "tapped out'' to describe their financial situation.

Suffice it to say, the Orioles will not be acquiring an ace pitcher via trade, and any outfield and DH considerations will have to fit financially into a limited budget. When asked recently about Justin Morneau, who has $6 million to go on his 2013 salary, one Orioles person responded with two telling words: "too expensive.''

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/22829970/are-contending-orioles-tapped-out-after-landing-feldman