Revisiting Duquettes' second half moves

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

It's one thing to criticize the trades, it's patently absurd to refer to Duquette's judgement as akin to a "Drunken Sailor". While i appreciate many of the tangible points you have made (although I disagree with your general overall analysis), you've lost your credibility in my view with rhetorical comments like this.

To answer your question, and if you need a number, I would go with about a 15-20% chance of making the playoffs (wildcard berth) at the time of the trades with maybe another 5-10% added after the trades. I'm not going to into detail about the merits of each specific trade as I'd just be repeating stuff that has already been said, but I was fine with the Feldman/Norris trades, not thrilled with the Krod trade and indifferent on the Morse trade. Not mentioned much, but I actually like Clevenger and think he could be a decent backup to Wieters. Yeah, losing Hader hurt (and the Draft pick) but I wouldn't be surprised if Norris out values Hader and he could be a nice asset. The Arrieta/Strop situation was untenable in my opinion. Pretty far out there to look at their WAR with the Cubs and conclude that they would have performed similarly if only we had just kept them.

So yeah, I guess I was another Drunken Sailor who thought we had a "reasonable" chance at a wildcard berth, who enjoyed watching competitive baseball (and did so right up until the end), and who didn't really think (and still don't) that we put ourselves at some significant competitive disadvantage (in the long or short term) as a result of the trades. In summary, I thought it was reasonable risk management given our circumstances and considering the circumstances of other teams.

Now answer my question if you will. If you were so sure that these trades were ridiculously incompetent, why weren't you more vocal about them at the time of the trades? Or did I just miss them?

[wildcard]

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?

On July 31st Texas was 4 back of Oakland. The O's were 5 games out of first. If I remember correctly the O's beat the Rangers is a wildcard game to end Texas' 2012 year. They came into the year pretty even and they were within a game of each other at the trade deadline. That's two team pretty close in results.

Olt is by far the most touted prospect that was given up between the two teams. Teams have been after Texas for years to trade Olt. And it final happen in the two month trade for Garza. Plus Texas spend 17M dollars in outstanding salary for Rios. That is a twice what DD spend of 6 players during the season. Rios has been wildly inconsistent on a year to year basis. 613 OPS one yearand 850 the next. At the time of the trade he was at a 749 OPS. Not someone that I want to spend 17M on.

So you say Texas needed Rios and Garza. The O's need starting pitching. Its no different.

Your point was did any contending team make poorer trades than DD. I'd say Daniels' trades were equally poor. Never the less both the O's and Rangers failed to make the playoffs so neither GM acquired enough talent to put them over the top.

Actually the O's pitching late in season was doing fine boosted but the trades. The offense fell way short which is something that didn't happen in 2011 or 2012 with a lot of the same players. And wasn't expect after the O's great offense outburst in the first half.

I don't blame DD for his trades or the resource he spent mid season. What I don't like that he did go into the season without adding the starter and hitter that most of us knew would have helped the O's. It was probably the difference maker for the O's in 2013.

[hoosiers]

Now answer my question if you will. If you were so so sure that these trades were ridiculously incompetent, why weren't you more vocal about them at the time of the trades? Or did I just miss them?

I purchased a new business in early June and have been on the job and at training during most of that time. The difficulty of talking against these deals today, however, hints out how difficult it would have been to be more vocal in July when everyone was dancing in the streets.

I never felt this team was going to make the playoffs, posted that I would not even make those trades to earn the second wild card if we would finish so far out of first place, and, when judging those moves considering the difficult September schedule and the moves of other GMs, could not accept the prospect-cost of those trades (for a 15%-20% chance at the playoffs? really?) and the decisions of our GM. They were awful.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I purchased a new business in early June and have been on the job and at training during most of that time. The difficulty of talking against these deals today, however, hints out how difficult it would have been to be more vocal in July when everyone was dancing in the streets.

I never felt this team was going to make the playoffs, posted that I would not even make those trades to earn the second wild card if we would finish so far out of first place, and, when judging those moves considering the difficult September schedule and the moves of other GMs, could not accept the prospect-cost of those trades (for a 15%-20% chance at the playoffs? really?) and the decisions of our GM. They were awful.

If they were as patently absurd and incompetent as you've said, I'm sure you could have taken a few minutes to chime in and say so at the time. FYI, I don't recall anyone dancing in the streets over any of these trades.

That said, I do appreciate you answering my question directly. Lets just end it at disagreeing. Good luck on your new business. It's tough being an entrepreneur these days.

[weams]

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

He was saying that despite those HORRIBLE trades, Daniels was promoted.

[Singleton]

Yeah, I find a lot of hyperbole in Hoosier's comments. I think the biggest fallacy in his logic is saying that we gave up more WAR than we got back. Show me one person who thinks Strop and Arrieta would have had the same impact had they stayed with the Orioles. Strop was done in Baltimore. He was a negative. Pretty much the same for Arrieta whose only future in Balimore was likely as a reliever. The trades didn't get us into the playoffs and we have just Norris to show for it. Pretty easy to sit back now and attack them. And I don't blame anyone for criticizing them. It's the worst GM in baseball and the drunken sailor types of comments. The trades were logical and can be defended.

I don't really subscribe to the "change of scenery logic" so you just found your one person. I'm not saying Strop or Arrieta would have been as good here. I don't know. I just don't think think it's that simple.

I don't want to go too far off topic but while I like Buck overall I do think he tends to play too many games like its the WS. Our top position players got little or no rest in the season and I think it showed. I would have liked Buck to use Strop in lower leverage situations even if he had to create them. I also would have liked to have at least tried Arrieta in relief. Why not?

There are very few trades made in baseball that have no logic to them or can't be defended. That's too low a bar for my taste. As I said in my earlier post, we were 5 games out of first. We were really playing for a wild card spot with a pack of other talented teams. If we got the wildcard, it's a crap shoot to win the one game playoff. Given all that, I think we gave up too much for not much more hope. And except for Norris -- who may be best suited as a bullpen guy, we've got nothing to show for it.

Seems like there's some room for criticism to me.

[jtschrei]

I don't think anyone danced in the streets when we made any of these deals. I personally was optimistic. I felt that we made upgrades without giving up too much. I still feel that way. I think DD recognized that we needed to upgrade to get to the playoffs and he hoped we'd catch fire if we made it as a wildcard. I'm glad DD tried to make moves.

The FRod trade did not work. The bullpen was a wreck in the second half; it was not only FRod. I thought Norris and Feldman did about what I expected. I have no complaints about either trade. If Arrieta turns out to be a stud, then we have clearly have a problem developing guys. It wasn't that Jake wasn't given plenty of chances to succeed. He was. It was time to move on. Hader is very far away.

The reality is that the Orioles window for winning is short... just like it is for every ML team. I don't blame DD for going for it. And I don't blame him for not going harder. It just didn't work out.

These trades or lack of other trades did not keep us from the postseason. It was many factors.

[TonySoprano]

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.

I'll ask again, what would you have done in his position since you want to grade the deals he made? Who would you have pitching in place of Chen or Hammel?

[BillySmith]

Great discussion. The only concerns I deep down have are Hader and the supplemental pick. If the Cubs want to get excited about Arrieta and Strop, that's fair. I just don't see much happening with those guys myself. Avery and Hoes are non-issues. We dealt from surplus. It's not like Arrieta is going to the spots of Bundy, et al., Chen, et al. Plus, did you read Weams comment about the Guthrie led hazing of Wieters and being shook off all the time by Arrieta? Says a lot to me.

[eddie83]

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.

I couldn't disagree more with basically everything you say.

How can you bring up WAR in this argument and not talk about the negative WAR of Arrieta and Strop that lead to them being traded to begin with. It wasn't as if the Orioles didn't give them a chance, they were both performing poorly. So I guess pitching guys with ERA over 7 is OK on a contending team. I like Strop but he was out of options and needed a change of scenery. Arrieta had been given numerous chances. Feldman actually give the team a chance to win unlike Jake. What they did on a team going nowhere has no relevance to the Orioles.

We play in the best division in pro sports so worrying about our September schedule means nothing to me. It is never going to be easy. I don't think the Orioles wasted time thinking about the impact of two guys at the end of their career in Jeter and Arod.

We traded Hader, a pick and a guy in Hoes who most think is a 4th outfielder.You have to give up something to get something in return.

[eddie83]

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.

The Royals dealt maybe the best young power hitter in the game in Will Myers for two years of James Shields.

The Indians gave up a second round pick and 56M guaranteed that may reach 70M for Swisher as a FA signing.

Since you keep using WAR in your arguments then how can you talk highly of the Yankees when they were outscored during the season.

We gave up a kid that has control issues in Hader who is in A ball.

[eddie83]

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?

We were one game out of the playoffs with 11 games in the season, that is not competitive to you?

[Tony-OH]

Would you rather he did nothing at all? Didn't he owe it to the fans to try after last season? What would you have done with Chen out a month? Ditto, Hammel?

Yeah, I don't get how some people think Duquette should have done nothing. Sure, Hader might end up being a solid major leaguer, but at least Duqutte tried to make the team better and like weams said, without those moves, I think we finish under .500.

[El Gordo]

The main thing DD did was acquire SP. The SP improved the second half. It was the offense and the bullpen that kept us out of the playoffs

[hoosiers]

Yeah, I don't get how some people think Duquette should have done nothing. Sure, Hader might end up being a solid major leaguer, but at least Duqutte tried to make the team better and like weams said, without those moves, I think we finish under .500.

Lots to reply in this thread and I will get to some of it, but Tony posts pretty much the core issue to me here - why does it matter whether we finished under .500 versus where we did (six games and four or so teams out of a playoff spot)? It doesn't to me - at any cost, let alone a top 40 pick, international draft slots and Hader/Delmonico.

It did seem very unlikely that Strop and Arrieta would turn their seasons around, but that happens all the time. Guys go to the minors, work on things and come back better. Why is it so difficult to believe these guys performed so well for the Cubs after the trade, but could not have done the same for the Os?

What would have been so horrible about committing to Arrieta, Britton, Wada and Gausman in the rotation? And if it had turned out horrible, it would not have been much worse than what happened - falling out of the race and being passes by multiple other teams.

The Rangers/Os were somewhat similar regarding the WC, but within the divisions, the Rangers had no other competition besides the As, while the Os did have Tampa ahead of them in late July and the NYY right behind. So somewhat similar, but not exactly the same competitive positioning - at least in my opinion.

I am very familiar with Mike Olt - a BA Top 50 at the beginning of the past two seasons. The Mike Olt of 2013 is summed up nicely by a Baseball America writer in the recent PCL Top 20 chat -

Frank (Chicago, IL): Will the trade to the Cubs give Mike Olt a better shot at playing everyday? Was he considered for this list?

Matt Eddy: Cubs 3B Mike Olt hit .197/.302/.368 in 104 games at Triple-A this season, giving him the lowest AVG among qualified PCL batters. He did manage 14 home runs, and he probably will once again approach 30 at Triple-A once his vision problems are cleared up, but his feel to hit is in serious question after a troubling season. He may too closely resemble early-Rockies-career Ian Stewart to be a reassuring presence for Cubs fans.

Mike Olt is a prospect who has lost an enormous amount of luster. The Cubs took a flier on a former highly regarded prospect, but his inclusion in a trade in late 2013 means little to me.

Other trade examples included some before the season - which I really don't believe is an apt comparison for sake of reviewing deadline deals and a GM's mid-season assessment of our competitive positioning.

Regarding the Os being near a second wild card in the last two weeks of the season, I say that our September schedule should have been a surprise to no one. Those late September series were with very competitive teams (BoSox, Tampa, NYY) and it was not a surprise to me that we fell further behind in the WC race. Further, winning the second WC while finishing 10+ games behind the BoSox would not have justified the deadline deals IMO. I would prefer an organization so far behind other teams in its division be an accumulator of prospects at the trade deadline and not a buyer.

That's about it. I enjoyed most of the responses above. I would just like to re-iterate one more time that our September schedule should have been a shock to no one. It's is not practical to look at our position in the standings without taking into account the remaining schedule. There were threads devoted to complaints about our September schedule acknowledging its difficulty and the likelihood of our fading as we did. This should have been taken into account at the time we made the deals.