Looking at the Big Picture

[Can_of_corn]

The guy from AZ was John Manuel. The one who like Bundy over Walker.

He's from BA.

[HbgOsFan]

Off topic, a bit. Frobby has stated that it is his intent to step back a bit, from posting. His opening post is the reason why I very much hope he doesn't follow through on his wish. Quality post, and a quality thread.

[weams]

Off topic, a bit. Frobby has stated that it is his intent to step back a bit, from posting. His opening post is the reason why I very much hope he doesn't follow through on his wish. Quality post, and a quality thread.

Agreed. A great contributor.

[Singleton]

Good thread. Every team faces a tough situation. I agree that unless either Gausman has a Wacha like jump or we hit the lottery on the 2014 version of F. Liriano, we're not true contenders next year.

So where does that leave us?

I hope DD is scanning the market for our soon to be free agent hitters and seeing if another team will give us a favorable return. If so, I hope he is brave enough to take it and not try and keep the gang all together with bandaids on our other issues.

Unfortunately, i think last offseason is a pretty good indication of where we are heading this winter and that is likely to mean another year of decent play that maintains solid attendance and around the fringes of the playoff race. If we're lucky, we sneak in like 2012 and if we're unlucky we stay home like this year. I'm hoping for better.

[wildcard]

The problem with the decision to trade Wieters and Davis, is we won't know whether we can extend them until arbitration. Boras always drags out negotiations to the very end. By that time teams may have made other moves. In Wieters' case it makes sense for him to wait until next to extend. If he has a good season then he will probably go FA, if not he'll be more likely to extend

Carlos Gonzalez signed a 7/80M contract on January 11, 2011. Scott Boras was his agent. It can be done if the O's and the player want to get it done.

[El Gordo]

Carlos Gonzalez signed a 7/80M contract on January 11, 2011. Scott Boras was his agent. It can to be done if the O's and the player want to get it done.

I see, one example makes it a given. And by Jan. 11 no teams will have made other moves because they will be waiting to see what the O's do with Davis and Wieters.

[wildcard]

I see, one example makes it a given. And by Jan. 11 no teams will have made other moves because they will be waiting to see what the O's do with Davis and Wieters.

I said can be done not given.

[wildcard]

I think there is an inflated opinion of our "core" position players. The inflation is based on Chris Davis's incredible year last year. This offense was average or worse before he blew up. You have to pick and choose who the real core players are and which ones are worth paying the big money too and which ones aren't. Jones is already making the big money. Chris Davis, obviously even with a little regression, going into his age 28 season, is another. Machado is a no brainer. That's about it, IMO. We have to be smart and not sentimental when it comes to guys like Wieters, Hardy, and Markakis. The Orioles won't be true WS contenders until the pitching develops and that's not happening until 2015, at the earliest, if Gausman takes a huge step forward and Bundy is 100% and pitching by seasons' end this year. Duquette's job is to keep the Orioles competitive (over .500) while that happens. Unfortunately, that sometimes is at odds with what is the optimum for developing that WS contender 2 years down the road. Trading Wieters now, while his value is highest, would be best for the future but would hurt the team significantly short term, most likely. Still, that's what should be done. The long range picture of the Orioles should include and infield of Machado at SS and Schoop somewhere. Hopefully, Flaherty will take the 2B job and become a fixture there for 5 years. Either way, we should have a middle infield that does not include J.J. Hardy. We got the best 3 years of J.J. Hardy's career at a discount. Should we go for 4,5, or 6? Should we now pay market value for a 31 year old SS, who figures to lose some range and bat speed as he moves into his mid 30's. Unless the Orioles can get away with extending Hardy for two years from now, he should be traded. If you have to go out any further than his age 34 year (and that's risky alone), then make the tough call. Again, the best thing for the longer range plans, is to take the risk for 2014. Trades of Hardy and Wieters don't necessarily mark a death toll on 2014 either but it would probably be tough.

As long as the O's offer fair market value of a player productive years I don't have a problem extending them into his 30's. I think there has to be a limited no trade clause instead of a complete no trade clause. If the O's can trade a player after a couple of years even just to dump the salary and not have to pay money to get rid for him then I am fine with that. There is risk of decline but it goes both ways. Frank Robinson was termed a "old 30" and was the key to three World Series races.

[weams]

Trades of Hardy and Wieters don't necessarily mark a death toll on 2014 either but it would probably be tough.

Unlike you, I am not interested in taking any steps back. Only forward.

[Babypowder]

Unlike you, I am not interested in taking any steps back. Only forward.

Right now it looks like we will be moving in neither direction. Just like last offseason.

[weams]

Right now it looks like we will be moving in neither direction. Just like last offseason.

You are probably right.

[weams]

Ever hear of the expression "take one step back to take two steps forward"? Sometimes taking a step back will get you to where you ultimately want to go faster than just trying to stay where you are or take one step forward at a time. If your goal is to field an 80-88 win team over the next two years and then have a bunch of holes in to fill in 2016, that's one strategy.

Heard of it. Don't believe it. No need to regroup here. Sorry.

[weams]

Ever hear of the expression "take one step back to take two steps forward"? Sometimes taking a step back will get you to where you ultimately want to go faster than just trying to stay where you are or take one step forward at a time. If your goal is to field an 80-88 win team over the next two years and then have a bunch of holes in to fill in 2016, that's one strategy.

An 80 to 88 win team can get luck a couple times and win 95 games.

[hoosiers]

An 80 to 88 win team can get luck a couple times and win 95 games.

Why hope for luck?

Why does the team have to take a step back if it deals Wieters? It is possible, perhaps likely, but hardly a given. I don't understand opposition to any trade that would improve the organization's overall talent base.

[weams]

Like I said, it's one strategy. Yours could even be the right strategy. Hold onto as many of the core as we can, hope that Gausman and Bundy both hit and then you've got something. Just a few questions for you.

1. I assume you want to extend Hardy. Suppose Hardy demands a 4 or 5 year extension at 12M per year. You okay with that?

2. Do you want to sign Wieters to a 5/75M contract, trade him this year or next, or hold onto him, and let him walk, hoping to get a pick?

3. How about Davis? Sign him now for 5/75M, trade him this year or nrxt, or hold onto him even if we can't extend him?

Supposed we can't extend any of these players heading into ST? Hardy entering his walk year and if we can't extend Wieters or Davis, it will probably get harder to do so, especially in Wieters case, and possibly in Davis's case if he doesn't regress too much. Are you okay with just doing the best we can with what we've got the next two years and then figuring things out then?

1. We can have Hardy for two years as it is. And if he walks we get a pick. So either way there.

2. Sign him or trade him next year. Or get the pick. All are ok.

3. Sign Davis. Sign Davis. Sign Davis.