Revisiting Duquettes' second half moves

[hoosiers]

I'm a bit confused by your post. The first sentence implies that our roster was good enough that we didn't need to improve. But I interpret your last sentence as saying that DD overestimated our talent and shouldn't have tried to improve the team because we weren't competitive enough anyway. If I'm wrong, then what did you think DD's fundamentally incorrect decision was?

I am sorry for your confusion regarding my posts.

My point was that the roster prior to the trades had put the team in a relatively competitive position and that team should have been left to its own fate without giving up prospects, draft picks, etc. In fact, IMO, knowing the difficult schedule, the cost of acquiring major league players at the deadline, etc, I think our GM should have entertained being a seller of perhaps a key bullpen arm or two.

I think almost any GM in baseball would have left the Os with a better talent base entering 2014 than what DD did last summer. His collective moves were awful.

[luismatos4prez]

I loved the Feldman trade at the time. Still do. It was a good deal for us.

I was iffy on the Norris trade but I'm leaning towards liking it. The price was a bit steeper than I would have liked, but I think he's going to end up being a nice piece.

The K-Rod trade looked bad at the time and looks even worse in retrospect. Giving up that much for a good but not great RP isn't a smart move.

[Redskins Rick]

The team was doing just fine without them and should have been allowed to play out the season as constructed.

We were passed by about four teams and finished six games out of a playoff spot. We were NOT competitive with them.

Terrible trades no matter how it is sliced - team finish or individual player WAR. Our GM made a fundamentally incorrect decision regarding the team's competitiveness.

You are entitled to your opinion.

DD did what he needed to do, end of story.

[CA-ORIOLE]

IMO, DD misjudged our competitive position like a drunken sailor and our organization's talent base is weaker now as a result. As I've posted, DD performance last summer in his trades was bottom of the pile GM decision making.

I think we get you don't like the DD trades by now. I'm guessing you've made at least 40-50 similar comments along these lines....at least. This easily being the most ridiculous one. Since hardly anyone agrees with you (and your points have already been countered), I guess you're forced to ramp up rhetoric as you go along.

How many of these types of comments did you make before or at the time of the trades? I think your acumen regarding our pending downfall in the second half of the season and the folly of making these deals would be better received if you could point out all those posts that you made with similar vigor.

[wildcard]

I really don't like to post in absolutes, but I am really shocked that such a majority of folks still look favorably upon DD's decisions last summer.

- from a WAR perspective at the major league level, DD gave up more than he received.

- from a prospect perspective, DD gave up multiple top 10 prospects, traded down international slots and gave up a top 40 draft pick. That's a LOT.

- subsequent to the trade, the Os fell six games out of the second wild card and were passed by at least four teams.

- these trades cost the team several $M (maybe we could have used this $ internationally?)

- these trades were made with the knowledge that our September schedule would be very difficult and that several key players on other teams (Yankees - Jeter, ARod for example) would be returning in the second half.

I guess we disagree over what DD owes the fans.

I believe DD owes the fans an accurate assessment of his team's competitive position and to act accordingly. IMO, DD misjudged our competitive position like a drunken sailor and our organization's talent base is weaker now as a result. As I've posted, DD performance last summer in his trades was bottom of the pile GM decision making.

DD had good reason to add talent in late July and August. For the prior two years the O's finished strong with many of the same players. There was no reason to believe it would not happen again under Buck.

As far as the trades themselves, I think you have to look at what the O's gave up and what they received.

Arrieta and Strop were part of the problem not the solution. They were about to be DFA'd and DD turned them into 3 months of Feldman. They also introduced Feldman to a team he might want to come back to.

The KRod trade didn't work. He didn't play the role that Strop did in 2012 which what I think DD envisioned. Delmonico was a hitter that in the teams judgement was not going to make it to the majors as a impact player. We will have to see whether they were right but it looks like a good bet as the moment.

Norris was immediate help. They gave up a lot. The draft choice on average probably has a small chance of being what Norris already is. However, there is that chance that the draft choice would excel. I think the O's hated to give up Hader but needed immediate help. Hoes is projected as a backup OFer. Something that is easily given up for a starter. However Hoes could have been a useful major leaguer for the O's.

Avery for Morse was a poor trade from the beginning. Not because Avery will become a great player but because Morse was not performing at a level that could help the O's for the last month. I said it at the time of the trade. It was a waste of money and talent.

Trades are a crap shoot and no GM wins all of them. I think two of the four had merit.

I don't have the trouble with the trades that I have with DD inability to add a starter and hitter before the season. If that had occurred the trades may not have been needed. DD held to 90M budget before the season started but added close to 8m during the season. Seems like a strange philosophy.

[jamalshw]

Overall...I didn't care for several of the trades and DD showed this summer what I was afraid of when he was given the GM (or whatever Angelos wants to call it now). Up until this summer, he pleasantly surprised me with what he was able to do, but this summer I was underwhelmed.

I liked the Feldman trade. I think we gave up some talent, but it was clear that Arrieta wasn't going to reach his potential in Baltimore and Strop (although talented, was too inconsistent to rely on). I fully expect Strop to put together stretches of dominance (like early on in 2012) and then stretches of ineptitude moving forward. Arrieta may find himself and prove to be a solid rotation arm for the Cubs, but that wasn't going to happen in Baltimore.

Other than that trade, however, I wasn't too impressed. The idea of acquiring K-Rod or Norris was okay, but I didn't like what we gave up. As for Morse, I don't view it as too bad (because Avery's ceiling at this point is a 4th OF), though I find it surprising that if he was hurt the whole time that DD either didn't know that or was willing to make the trade anyway.

I appreciate that DD didn't part with Bundy, Gausman, Schoop, E-Rod or Wright, but our system is quite top heavy so it hurt to lose some of the next tier guys.

We will see if Norris is able to come around and provide significant value over the next couple years and we'll see if Delmonico or Hader or Hoes or the draft pick develop into anything.

[hoosiers]

I think we get you don't like the DD trades by now. I'm guessing you've made at least 40-50 similar comments along these lines....at least. This easily being the most ridiculous one. Since hardly anyone agrees with you (and your points have already been countered), I guess you're forced to ramp up rhetoric as you go along.

How many of these types of comments did you make before or at the time of the trades? I think your acumen regarding our pending downfall in the second half of the season and the folly of making these deals would be better received if you could point out all those posts that you made with similar vigor.

CA, sorry you did not like my analogy (and have decided to be quite personal in your response). I am not trying to ramp up any rhetoric and I am now only posting about last summer's moves when someone else re-visits the topic. I had thought that to be rather obvious - especially given how little I post here these days.

As I've posted, I find it difficult to believe anyone else could have done worse, but I'd like to understand HOW WELL DO YOU BELIEVE DD JUDGED OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION?

Have you looked at what the Os traded away versus what other teams did? Did the Royals give away a lot to compete? Cleveland? NYY? Statistically, what were our chances of making the playoffs relative to what we gave up and the action of other teams?

The Os don't operate in a vacuum, but it seems most folks are okay with the GM's decision to part with future assets for a small % chance to make the playoffs. Yet, no one seems to post against the actual WAR results, the fading of our team in the standings against a difficult September schedule, the cost in prospects, etc.

It seems quite obvious to me that the moves were poor in concept and worse when reviewing the results.

[Redskins Rick]

CA, sorry you did not like my analogy (and have decided to be quite personal in your response). I am not trying to ramp up any rhetoric and I am now only posting about last summer's moves when someone else re-visits the topic. I had thought that to be rather obvious - especially given how little I post here these days.

As I've posted, I find it difficult to believe anyone else could have done worse, but I'd like to understand HOW WELL DO YOU BELIEVE DD JUDGED OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION?

Have you looked at what the Os traded away versus what other teams did? Did the Royals give away a lot to compete? Cleveland? NYY? Statistically, what were our chances of making the playoffs relative to what we gave up and the action of other teams?

The Os don't operate in a vacuum, but it seems most folks are okay with the GM's decision to part with future assets for a small % chance to make the playoffs. Yet, no one seems to post against the actual WAR results, the fading of our team in the standings against a difficult September schedule, the cost in prospects, etc.

It seems quite obvious to me that the moves were poor in concept and worse when reviewing the results.

14 years of incompetent guys running this team, making bone head moves, and DD has a playoff contending team, making the best moves he can within their budget.

So yeah, many others could have done worse, they already have.

[hoosiers]

14 years of incompetent guys running this team, making bone head moves, and DD has a playoff contending team, making the best moves he can within their budget.

So yeah, many others could have done worse, they already have.

What is your point? The bar was previously set very low by Os GMs, so it's okay if DD makes dubious moves.

Why are folks not judging DD relative to his peers in Cleveland, KC, etc and what they did at the trade deadline?

[Singleton]

You are entitled to your opinion.

DD did what he needed to do, end of story.

I'm not sure what you mean by "DD did what he needed to do." We didn't make the playoffs. In fact, we ended up further away from the playoffs then we were when he made the moves and we gave up several players (and a pick) that could help us in the future.

Is that what he needed to do?

The point I made at the time of each of these moves is that I think it is a GM's job to accurately evaluate the true talent of the team and their real chance to make noise in the playoffs. At the time of the deals, I thought the O's were unlikely to make the playoffs but could sneak into the wild card if things really went their way. In a one game wild card it is a 50/50 proposition and if you are fortunate to win you have an uphill climb against a more rested team with a better record and a rotation that is properly aligned.

So what was the realistic impact of the deals. To me -- after we made the deals, I thought the O's were unlikely to make the playoffs albeit a little less unlikely. I thought our chances once in the wild card were largely unchanged since I thought (hoped) that neither pitcher would be the starter in that game anyway.

I don't think the moves were catastrophic in and of themselves but it makes me worry about management's appreciation for building a long-term powerhouse.

To me, DD's moves make sense IF you believe they gave us a good chance to win the division (I didn't). If so -- you make the move. If in an honest assessment, it is really about the wild card, I think it is a pretty big gamble. Given the players involved in this series of moves -- I thought it was a poor gamble and in the end it didn't work out.

As we face an offseason with holes to fill and a minor league system that is unlikely to deliver much in 2014 -- I sure wish we had some other pieces to improve the club and that is the bummer about making these kinds of trades. It's not just about waiting for Josh Hader, it's about having a weaker system from which to deal.

[wildcard]

CA, sorry you did not like my analogy (and have decided to be quite personal in your response). I am not trying to ramp up any rhetoric and I am now only posting about last summer's moves when someone else re-visits the topic. I had thought that to be rather obvious - especially given how little I post here these days.

As I've posted, I find it difficult to believe anyone else could have done worse, but I'd like to understand HOW WELL DO YOU BELIEVE DD JUDGED OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION?

Have you looked at what the Os traded away versus what other teams did? Did the Royals give away a lot to compete? Cleveland? NYY? Statistically, what were our chances of making the playoffs relative to what we gave up and the action of other teams?

The Os don't operate in a vacuum, but it seems most folks are okay with the GM's decision to part with future assets for a small % chance to make the playoffs. Yet, no one seems to post against the actual WAR results, the fading of our team in the standings against a difficult September schedule, the cost in prospects, etc.

It seems quite obvious to me that the moves were poor in concept and worse when reviewing the results.

Texas Jon Daniels traded 1st rounder Mike Olt for two months of Matt Garza. Garza went 4-5 for the Rangers who missed the playoffs.

He also pick up 4m of Alex Rios albatross contract and 13M of his contract next year.

For that the Rangers owner have jettisoned Nolan Ryan and promoted Jon Daniels.

[Singleton]

Texas Jon Daniels traded 1st rounder Mike Olt for two months of Matt Garza. Garza went 4-5 for the Rangers who missed the playoffs.

He also pick up 4m of Alex Rios albatross contract and 13M of his contract next year.

For that the Rangers owner have jettisoned Nolan Ryan and promoted Jon Daniels.

You have a causal link issue. The two trades you mention are NOT why Ryan is gone.

[wildcard]

You have a causal link issue. The two trades you mention are NOT why Ryan is gone.

From what I understand, Daniels has been battling Ryan for control of the Rangers and Daniels won.

The trades are just showing that Daniels did what DD did. He tried to get his team into the playoffs by trading prospects for a short term FA and spent a lot of money on Rios. Either got him to the playoffs. However, it didn't seem to affect his standing in the Ranger organization.

[Singleton]

From what I understand, Daniels has been battling Ryan for control of the Rangers and Daniels won.

The trades are just showing that Daniels did what DD did. He tried to get his team into the playoffs by trading prospects for a short term FA and spent a lot of money on Rios. Either got him to the playoffs. However, it didn't seem to affect his standing in the Ranger organization.

I think just about everyone agrees that there are some situations in which it makes sense to deal a prospect for an impending FA. We disagree on what is the appropriate situation but Texas was in a very different position than the O's. They were just in the WS. They knew they would lose Cruz for 50 games but get him back for the playoffs. They have a stud starter who could dominate in the playoffs. They have a pretty loaded system. Their only competition for the division is Oakland. Daniels also has a longer track record of success which makes it harder to question an individual move (at least for me).

In short, I get a win now move for Texas much more than I do the O's.

[hoosiers]

Texas Jon Daniels traded 1st rounder Mike Olt for two months of Matt Garza. Garza went 4-5 for the Rangers who missed the playoffs.

He also pick up 4m of Alex Rios albatross contract and 13M of his contract next year.

For that the Rangers owner have jettisoned Nolan Ryan and promoted Jon Daniels.

Excellent. Texas did make some moves that appear to be criticized above regarding production yet Garza, Rios performed to about .9 WAR while Feldman, Norris, Morris and KRod performed to about .5 WAR. I also think one can argue that the Os gave up more prospect-wise AND that the Rangers were in significantly better position to make the playoffs than the Os from mid-July to the end of the season. As noted in the attached article, the entire Rangers rotation was on the DL in the summer.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/23937565/rip-2013-texas-rangers

So, the Rangers gave up quite a bit, dealt with significant injuries, tied for the second WC and did not make the playoffs.

Which team gave up more prospect-wise? Which team received more ML production? Which team remained competitive throughout Aug/Sept? I think our GM did worse than Texas', and folks can chime in, but shall we keep going to the other teams? Cleveland? KC? NYY?