Did Dan have a plan all along?

[Stotle]

It's a simple question why do you avoid answering it? Do you agree that a non contending team like the Cubs or Houston for example, would have little use for two years Davis or Wieters?Or are you counting on one of them to be stupid? Well the lets look at contenders. NL: ATL? they have Freeman and Gattis/Laird, WAS, maybe one of Wieters or Davis, but how much of their pitching would they be willing to give up? STL. They have a C and I doubt they are trading SP for a 1B, but maybe. CIN has a C and a 1B, LAD have a 1B, maybe would spring for Wieters, but that seems more like his FA destination. Arizona has 1B they're pretty happy with a nd a good C too. Giants possible. AL: BOS and NY not likely for either, they wait two years. TB, forget about it. DET has a 1B how badly do they need Wieters? KC, set at C and 1B, CLE doubt they'd be interested, TEX, have a 1B, maybe Wieters, but how much do they want to give up for two years of him. OAK I doubt it. LAA they have a 1B, Ianetta career .355 OBP, Wieters? nah.

Maybe SEA would be crazy enough to go after one who knows both? What do you think? Looks to me like WAS, SEA, and SF, are maybes, maybe.

Because I think it's crazy you can say with a straight face that you don't think there is a trade market for Chris Davis.

[Stotle]

The chance that both Markakis and Cruz accept the QO is pretty much zero unless both of them play terribly. The chance that 1 out of 2 accepts it is non-zero, though I'm inclined to believe that no one will accept one.

Even if you look at it pessimistically and think that, after a solid season from both of them, one of the two has a 50% chance of signing the QO, you should only assign about 8 million as the cost of assigning both of them. Since the reward is fairly nice (first round sandwich picks) and the penalty is simply that you are forced to field a roster with them, I would take that risk under the principle that there are no bad one-year contracts.

That's not true, though. If a team is to operate on a fixed budget (which I thought was the assumption around these parts re: Baltimore) then paying Cruz or Markakis $15 MM for one year is a huge deal. I don't see any reason why they would decline the offer other than you and weams just saying they will. Cruz was apparently lucky to find someone who would give him 1/8 this year. You think he's looking forward to that again, only a year older? Markakis was a negative fWAR player last year -- he's turning down $15MM? What kind of contract is he expecting?

[mcgraw238]

That's not true, though. If a team is to operate on a fixed budget (which I thought was the assumption around these parts re: Baltimore) then paying Cruz or Markakis $15 MM for one year is a huge deal. I don't see any reason why they would decline the offer other than you and weams just saying they will. Cruz was apparently lucky to find someone who would give him 1/8 this year. You think he's looking forward to that again, only a year older? Markakis was a negative fWAR player last year -- he's turning down $15MM? What kind of contract is he expecting?

I find it unlikely that the O's would even run the risk of offering a QO to Cruz or Markakis unless those guys have really huge years. If both of those guys accept, I think DD would have to nearly gut the roster. I'll wager with anyone on this board that at least one QO is accepted in MLB next offseason. I'll add a further wager that if Cruz and Markakis are offered QO's, then at least one will accept.

[El Gordo]

Because I think it's crazy you can say with a straight face that you don't think there is a trade market for Chris Davis.

I think it's specious of you not to demonstrate what you think it is, since trading him is such an important part of your "plan".You often hear fantasy baseball types saying things like oh yeah we'll just flip him for some top prospects. But trades are made between teams with mutual needs. Team A needs pitching team B needs 1B e.g. Which of the contending teams I mentioned have a strong enough need for a 1B or a C to trade some top prospects or ML ready talent for two years of either. A number of them will be in on them when they are FA. Which can't afford to wait?

[LookinUp]

The QO will be less than Markakis' option next year, right? Can the O's decline the option but make a QO? If they did nickle and dime Markakis like that, I wonder what the fallout would be. Granted, if he's in a weak position, he'd take whatever he can get. If he has moderate leverage, that option/QO might make him want to leave.

[waroriole]

This clearly wasn't Plan A or B. But, he did a good job of adjusting to what was there and seemed to find a potentially great deal for Jiminez.

I don't like losing the picks, but I respect that they doubled down and got Cruz too. It's playoffs or bust now.

[TonySoprano]

I think it's specious of you not to demonstrate what you think it is, since trading him is such an important part of your "plan".You often hear fantasy baseball types saying things like oh yeah we'll just flip him for some top prospects. But trades are made between teams with mutual needs. Team A needs pitching team B needs 1B e.g. Which of the contending teams I mentioned have a strong enough need for a 1B or a C to trade some top prospects or ML ready talent for two years of either. A number of them will be in on them when they are FA. Which can't afford to wait?

I know Davis would be a huge upgrade in DC over LaRoche, and it would give the Lerners to stick it in Angelos' face that they could afford a player that Angelos couldn't and on Pete's network to boot. But other than that why would they want to make a trade?

It's like the Life of Brian bit about "What have the Romans ever done for us? We'll apart from the roads, the sanitation, the aqueduct, and keeping peace......"

[24fps]

This clearly wasn't Plan A or B. But, he did a good job of adjusting to what was there and seemed to find a potentially great deal for Jiminez.

I don't like losing the picks, but I respect that they doubled down and got Cruz too. It's playoffs or bust now.

I think Jiminez is good buds with Cal Ripkin isn't he?

I agree with your post. I can literally think of nothing worse as an Orioles fan than suffering through another season of well reasoned excuses for not doing enough.

The gamble is exciting. A hell of a lot more exciting than learned arguments about why another, more cautious route is better for me.

Baseball as entertainment. What a concept.

[El Gordo]

I know Davis would be a huge upgrade in DC over LaRoche, and it would give the Lerners to stick it in Angelos' face that they could afford a player that Angelos couldn't and on Pete's network to boot. But other than that why would they want to make a trade?

It's like the Life of Brian bit about "What have the Romans ever done for us? We'll apart from the roads, the sanitation, the aqueduct, and keeping peace......"

And of course PA would approve of such a trade, right? Oh that's right he doesn't interfere any more, his GM has a free hand, I forgot. I'm living in the past.

[Guest rochester]

Does that sound like a GM whose plan has worked and/or one who has rolled with the punches, or one who is a bit apprehensive about how the off-season has played out (not getting his guys) and might be making some desperate moves? Some people have applauded this change of strategy as "going for it", I see it as somewhat desperate.

Nice total post, but I just can not agree that these moves were "desperate." Getting Jiminez on a fair contract, and spending $8M on Cruz is not desperation to me. If they way overpaid Jiminez and gave Cruz $12-14 then I would agree.

[TonySoprano]

And of course PA would approve of such a trade, right? Oh that's right he doesn't interfere any more, his GM has a free hand, I forgot. I'm living in the past.

Aren't you the one who played GM and ran down a list of trade possibilities and said they were "maybe?" Now if the discussion is will Angelos approve a trade of Davis, then why bother at all going through the mental gymnastics involved? Peter would never approve trading Davis with two years left to any team. Next winter, when he has a better feel for Davis' price tag he may entertain such a trade. However it's still not a given even then when one considers that it took a lot for Andy, a man he trusted most, to convince him to trade Bedard. Trading Davis would be much bigger from a PR standpoint than Bedard.

[Il BuonO]

I find the Opening Post in this thread interesting for lavishing so much praise on DD for having a plan and then adjusting to the market. What I find interesting is that it appears the Os "plan" was to obtain Lough (love the move), Webb (love the move) Balfour (obtained without a pick) and Burnett (obtained without a pick") plus DD specifically stated many times he would trade for a bat. Instead of Burnett and Balfour and keeping our picks, DD ends up with Jimenez and Cruz and without first and second round picks and no closer - acknowledging that the offseason is not yet over.

Does that sound like a GM whose plan has worked and/or one who has rolled with the punches, or one who is a bit apprehensive about how the off-season has played out (not getting his guys) and might be making some desperate moves? Some people have applauded this change of strategy as "going for it", I see it as somewhat desperate. Folks can belittle the picks all they want, but building the farm internally is what generates winners for franchises with payrolls under $140M or so. In fact, it is completely ridiculous for our GM and fans to hint that teams can give up their first rounder, supplemental first rounder and second rounder but make up for it internationally. Practically EVERY team invests internationally and practically every teams spends more than the Os internationally. So that is really a high bar to clear to hint that not only can the Os out-scout and find more talent than other teams internationally while spending less, but to out-scout them internationally to make up for giving up three top 60 draft picks.

Last season, our GM added three quality draft picks in Harvey, Hart and Sisco (plus some others to get excited about) and have spent good $ on (what he claims) are quality international signings in Peralta, Diaz and Reyes. It only takes two more years of adding that kind of talent to have a top five or 10 system. If you add those talents to an organization that trades away Jim Johnson (last season as some here requested), JJ Hardy (this offseason or last), Davis (this off-season) for appropriate talent, and add on top of all those talents Machado, Tillman, Bundy, Gausman, Schoop, EdRod and Harvey, you know what you will have? A winning organization. That would be so much talent at so little cost that it would be impossible NOT to win .... and for a long time. That's the plan I would have signed up for. How much time would it have taken for that plan to create a winner? Probably much less time than one would think.

Been busy today, Stotle, didn't mean to let you handle this buy yourself.

Me, too. Singleton also had a good post in Tony's thread which mentioned Hudson whom I would have preferred and also would not have cost us a pick. The entire premise of this thread is revisionism in lieu of orange kool-aid inebriation. Wasn't it Dan who made those statements about not building the team through FA? I know I read them. I'll admit the deal for Cruz isn't going to break anyone, but how much value do you think he's providing?

We could have made moves that would have kept those picks in tact while providing similar production for less cost in the FA market. I'll be pulling for the guys we acquired obviously. I like Jimenez and Cruz had paid his debt but I'm not convinced either puts us over the top and saying that we have a pick lined up next year isn't a given.

[El Gordo]

Aren't you the one who played GM and ran down a list of trade possibilities and said they were "maybe?" Now if the discussion is will Angelos approve a trade of Davis, then why bother at all going through the mental gymnastics involved? Peter would never approve trading Davis with two years left to any team. Next winter, when he has a better feel for Davis' price tag he may entertain such a trade. However it's still not a given even then when one considers that it took a lot for Andy, a man he trusted most, to convince him to trade Bedard. Trading Davis would be much bigger from a PR standpoint than Bedard.

Trading Davis was an important part of the "plan". So I tried to identify the possible market for him. That's the point. As far as I can see the only teams willing to give up much for two years of him would be WAS, SF, and SEA. and I think that is pretty slim. I wasn't using the mean old PA argument since that was dismissed by Mr. Baseball. You have any ideas on Davis' massive market?

[LookinUp]

Trading Davis was an important part of the "plan". So I tried to identify the possible market for him. That's the point. As far as I can see the only teams willing to give up much for two years of him would be WAS, SF, and SEA. and I think that is pretty slim. I wasn't using the mean old PA argument since that was dismissed by Mr. Baseball. You have any ideas on Davis' massive market?

Sure, we don't know the return, but it's entirely illogical to presume that only 3 of 30 teams would want Davis.Just admit you don't know and move on.

Stotle's point is that a franchise playing the long game would be setting this stuff up all the time for various players. Sometimes you pull the trigger. Sometimes you don't.

That's the only flaw with his premise...that DD should have done those moves this off season. It assumes he didn't try, and we don't know that at all. On the other hand, it's crazy to think that guys worth 2-7 WAR have no value to any other teams.

[Stotle]

I think it's specious of you not to demonstrate what you think it is, since trading him is such an important part of your "plan".You often hear fantasy baseball types saying things like oh yeah we'll just flip him for some top prospects. But trades are made between teams with mutual needs. Team A needs pitching team B needs 1B e.g. Which of the contending teams I mentioned have a strong enough need for a 1B or a C to trade some top prospects or ML ready talent for two years of either. A number of them will be in on them when they are FA. Which can't afford to wait?

Nevermind -- I'm done. You win.