Looking at the Big Picture

[weams]

...glad you do what you do, Big Brother! #1984ishere :clap3:

"The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.[3] Smith is a diligent and skilful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother."

[weams]

...glad you do what you do, Big Brother! #1984ishere :clap3:

"The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.[3] Smith is a diligent and skilful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother."

Ignorance is strength.

[weams]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/?team=BAL

Interesting on several levels. Thanks Baseball Prospectus.

[SteveO]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/?team=BAL

Interesting on several levels. Thanks Baseball Prospectus.

Great post and info....thanks Weams

[Frobby]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/?team=BAL

Interesting on several levels. Thanks Baseball Prospectus.

I like the pie chart towards the bottom that shows percentage allocation of payroll between hitting, pitching and players who didn't play at all. On a quick look:

AL East:

BAL 62-30-08

BOS 52-48-00

NYY 48-34-17

TBR 55-39-06

TOR 48-50-02

Other AL Playoff Teams:

DET 61-39-00

OAK 62-32-05

TEX 62-26-12

NL Playoff Teams:

ATL 68-30-02

CIN 48-48-04

LAD 53-43-04

PIT 51-45-04

STL 48-31-21

It's amazing to me that St. Louis was the best team in the NL despite spending 21% of its payroll on players who didn't play -- Carpenter, Furcal and Motte. The Yankees spent 17% of players who didn't play, according to their pie chart, but I can't see where they are coming up with that number. I don't think that guys who played a partial season (half the Yankee squad) fall into the "did not play" category. The only ones who didn't play at all who are listed by BP are AJ Burnett (who earned $8 mm from New York to play for another team) and Michael Pineda (who only earned $500 k). Needless to say, that's nowhere near 17% of the Yankees' payroll.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to see (though not surprising) that the O's were on the high end in terms of percentage of payroll devoted to hitters vs. pitchers.

[weams]

I like the pie chart towards the bottom that shows percentage allocation of payroll between hitting, pitching and players who didn't play at all. On a quick look:

AL East:

BAL 62-30-08

BOS 52-48-00

NYY 48-34-17

TBR 55-39-06

TOR 48-50-02

Other AL Playoff Teams:

DET 61-39-00

OAK 62-32-05

TEX 62-26-12

NL Playoff Teams:

ATL 68-30-02

CIN 48-48-04

LAD 53-43-04

PIT 51-45-04

STL 48-31-21

It's amazing to me that St. Louis was the best team in the NL despite spending 21% of its payroll on players who didn't play -- Carpenter, Furcal and Motte. The Yankees spent 17% of players who didn't play, according to their pie chart, but I can't see where they are coming up with that number. I don't think that guys who played a partial season (half the Yankee squad) fall into the "did not play" category. The only ones who didn't play at all who are listed by BP are AJ Burnett (who earned $8 mm from New York to play for another team) and Michael Pineda (who only earned $500 k). Needless to say, that's nowhere near 17% of the Yankees' payroll.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to see (though not surprising) that the O's were on the high end in terms of percentage of payroll devoted to hitters vs. pitchers.

They probably have AROD listed as a did not play in that he was not activated until August 5. I could be wrong though.

[Frobby]

They probably have AROD listed as a did not play in that he was not activated until August 5. I could be wrong though.

Maybe, but he played more than Teixeira, Jeter or Youkilis. If you really sit down and think about how many games the Yankees lost to injury in 2013, it is almost inevitable that they will be better in 2014, just like the Red Sox were much better in 2013 than in their injury-plagued 2012.

[weams]

Maybe, but he played more than Teixeira, Jeter or Youkilis. If you really sit down and think about how many games the Yankees lost to injury in 2013, it is almost inevitable that they will be better in 2014, just like the Red Sox were much better in 2013 than in their injury-plagued 2012.

If their pitching is better.

[Frobby]

If their pitching is better.

Their pitching doesn't have to be much better than last year, it just can't be worse. They need to replace Pettitte, Hughes and Rivera -- no easy task, for sure. They will get at least one of Tanaka, Jiminez, E. Santana and Garza, without a doubt.

The Yankees scored 154 runs less in 2013 than in 2012. They've pretty much fixed that problem, I think.

[weams]

Their pitching doesn't have to be much better than last year, it just can't be worse. They need to replace Pettitte, Hughes and Rivera -- no easy task, for sure. They will get at least one of Tanaka, Jiminez, E. Santana and Garza, without a doubt.

The Yankees scored 154 runs less in 2013 than in 2012. They've pretty much fixed that problem, I think.

I think so as well.

[Singleton]

You do understand that the OP was written in early October, right?

As of today, with JJ traded and Feldman departing for Houston, and neither really replaced, I think we're a .500ish team, plus or minus 2 or 3 games.

The roster will almost certainly change in the next month or two but i can't see this team as .500 now. As you note, we've lost JJ and Feldman and that's probably a couple of wins there. But just to tread water we have to be as lucky with injuries as we were last year. It will be tough for CDavis, AJ, Hardy and Tillman to repeat their performance. We didn't have too many underachievers last year who we can reasonably hope to step up. I suppose MW but we've been waiting for that train for a while and then there's Markakis. sigh.

I'd say more like 76-78 wins. If we add a closer and another mediocre starter (like Feldman) up that by 2 or so.

[Frobby]

The roster will almost certainly change in the next month or two but i can't see this team as .500 now. As you note, we've lost JJ and Feldman and that's probably a couple of wins there. But just to tread water we have to be as lucky with injuries as we were last year. It will be tough for CDavis, AJ, Hardy and Tillman to repeat their performance. We didn't have too many underachievers last year who we can reasonably hope to step up. I suppose MW but we've been waiting for that train for a while and then there's Markakis. sigh.

I'd say more like 76-78 wins. If we add a closer and another mediocre starter (like Feldman) up that by 2 or so.

Your point about injuries is a very good one. I do feel like we might pick up a win or two off the bench this year, and that the starting pitching may be better. Remember, we didn't have Feldman or Norris in the first half last year, plus Chen missed a bunch of starts. So while the loss of Feldman hurts,, we are still better off than we were in the first half of last season, I think. But I do think this team needs to pick up a solid starting pitcher.

On my point about the bench, I note that all the projection sites seems to predict that Clevenger will be a decent hitter. Improving on Teagarden (.480 OPS) and Snyder (.350 OPS) should be low hanging fruit. I think both Reimold and Urrutia can do much better than the .586 OPS each put up last season (198 PA for them).

Most of the projection sites seem to have the O's putting up a team OPS in the low .740's, compared to last year's .744. My gut is that they'll score about 20 runs less than last year if no further additions are made.

I'm sticking with .500ish for now, but your 76-78 wins may not be off base. Let's see what the rest of the offseason brings.

[Frobby]

From November:

So how good is this team for 2014-15, and where does that leave us?

We won 85 games last year, and to me, that's exactly what we were and figure to be if changes aren't made. I think our pitching could be a little better in 2014 if we resigned Feldman (after all, our ERA dropped from 4.39 to 3.93 in the second half). Our bullpen could get better results and we could have a better record in one-run games. So, there's a 90ish win upside if we leave the team "as is," but there's also an 80ish win downside if the team experiences injuries to one or two of its six core offensive players, none of whom had a single DL stint in 2013.

For me, "stay the course" makes little sense, unless we are trying to mimic the 2006-10 Toronto Blue Jays, who won 87, 83, 86, 75 and 85 games. Yet, the alternative courses are also dangerous. The free agent market is pretty mediocre, and the guys who clearly would help us will be very expensive and cost a draft pick. Even the guys who won't cost picks figure to be expensive with the new TV money that teams have available to spend. Shopping Hardy, as has been suggested, is not a bad idea, but it carries its own risks, as the infield defense is the strength of this team and it's unlikely that the combo of Machado at SS and whoever at 3B is going to be as good as Hardy/Machado have been. So, Hardy would have to bring back someone who very clearly would improve the pitching for a trade to make any sense.

Overall, I don't envy Dan Duquette. He's got his work cut out for him over the next two years, with a "pretty good" team that has a relatively short window in which to win, and very little help coming from the minor leagues in the foreseeable future. He's going to have to be both smart and lucky to put this team back in the playoffs while at the same time positioning the team to remain contenders in the longer run.

I think Duq has more or less pulled it off. I can't say with any certainty that we'll make the playoffs, but our chances have improved this offseason. Meanwhile, he hasn't badly hamstrung the team in the longer run. We still have the expiring contracts to deal with over the next two years, and we'll have to see how that goes.

[srock]

I think Duq has more or less pulled it off. I can't say with any certainty that we'll make the playoffs, but our chances have improved this offseason. Meanwhile, he hasn't badly hamstrung the team in the longer run. We still have the expiring contracts to deal with over the next two years, and we'll have to see how that goes.

Depth: got it

Rotation: improved, deeper

Bullpen: equal for less money, maybe better

Lineup: got a DH! Less at bats for the defensive replacements

Budget: intact!

Parts to trade: option less trade fodder and backups. Not much in the prospect ranks to trade. That may be the only shortcoming and that ain't bad for a team contending.

Things are really falling into place. It's going to a fun year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ven6]

I think Duq has more or less pulled it off. I can't say with any certainty that we'll make the playoffs, but our chances have improved this offseason. Meanwhile, he hasn't badly hamstrung the team in the longer run. We still have the expiring contracts to deal with over the next two years, and we'll have to see how that goes.

Plus he didn't deal any prospects.

Given his restraints, he probably couldn't have done a better job than he did.