Have we sacrificed too much the last 2 seasons trying to be in "win now" mode?

[Stotle]

1) Thoroughly agree about DD. I think he's a great GM and agree that our development is on the right path.

2) Again, I agree with this. We should be adding young talent by dealing off veterans. The Rays are great at this and I would have loved to see us trade off Davis or Wieters or Hardy this past offseason. Heck, I'd look to deal ANYONE outside of Machado, Jones, and Gausman in the right deal.

3) Again, agree with you. Instead of Jimenez, we should have just inserted Gausman in the rotation at the beginning of the season and been done with it. Now, I really liked the Jimenez signing and am hopeful that he will turn things around down the stretch for us. In retrospect, that money could have been used to add a second baseman, giving Schoop a full year of development in either Bowie or Norfolk.

I remember Stotle wrote about a trade proposal with the Nats where we would trade them Davis + for Rendon, LaRoche, and others. That would have been the kind of deal this team could have used...especially if Rendon could have played an acceptable second base. Then, next year they could have slid Rendon back to third, Manny to short, and Schoop at second. Then, you'd be able to afford to go look for a slugger to replace LaRoche at first or a right fielder for Markakis in right.

I think there really needs to be a balance of dealing proven talent for that equal value in young talent you are talking about. We don't need to do a Bedard for Jones/Tillman + deal. We need to make smart moves to deal some vets for more "inventory" for the major and minor leagues. Not all are going to pan out, but we need to be able to identify talent in other organizations that will help us for the long term.

Right. The idea there was that Davis would upgrade Laroche and serve as a one year bridge to (likely) shifting Werth to first in 2016. Rendon was arguably redundant in Washington, though he obviously would not be available at this point after such a strong first half.

[Stotle]

You can't force players to play here. And starting pitchers don't want to come here. So of course they aren't getting their first choice. They have a team 10 games over .500 at the all star break. Fifth best record in baseball. I do to know how you can criticize management like you have. It is like you are totally ignoring reality when you state your opinions.

DD has built a winner today while keeping the real prospects and adding new ones to the mix. What more could you ask for?

And the team has added payroll.

Shrug. I'm not flaming the front office. I'm stating that my own personal opinion is that I'm not confident in this team holding together as competitive, moving forward. I think "well played Jenga" is apt. It's a skill to continue to keep things together and the front office has done just that. But eventually that tower is going to topple.

I'm just a shlub typing on a message board -- if I were you I'd take the front office's side, too. Hopefully you're both right and I'm tilting at windmills. I'd love to be flying back to Baltimore in October to sit in the yard and take in a World Series game.

[Stotle]

Cruz will, w the caveat you provided. You don't give him a big deal for his mid 30s, and you recoup a better pick than the one you lost. Now, if they do something stupid like sign him for 4-60, I'll criticize the hell out of them.

Markakis and Hardy are different.

I think in a window, yeah, neither of them will get annually 15 million a year on the market. But I think they could both get 4-40+, and Hardy maybe even more.

I'd put extensions in front of them both for 3-30. I think the O's get a bit of excess value there, and they get to stay somewhere they know and presumably like.

Regardless, even if they don't take it, I think that's because they'd expect offers on the market that exceeded that, and thus they'd reject arb.

I think this past offseason shows us that if your contract comes with a first rounder tied to it you better be ready to take a hit on your annual salary. Were I Hardy's agent or Markakis's agent, I'd make it clear to Baltimore not to make a qualifying offer unless they want my guy on the payroll next year for around $15 MM. I can't imagine either getting something like 3/$30 or 4/$40 if the signing team has to sacrifice its first draft pick.

The Mets may be the exception since they would be giving up a second rounder.

[Pickles]

I do not necessarily think we should have gutted the team and traded everyone. I was articulating one approach that represented a specific plan for restructuring payroll commitments and supplementing an upper-minors that is light on potential contributors.

In this thread I said I'd be fine with moving a bunch of our young talent if it meant really going for it.

I don't in any way shape or form overrate prospects; I deal with analyzing them on a daily basis and I am comfortable saying I'm as familiar, if not more familiar, with risk profiles than anyone posting on here (which is why I've been more bearish on guys like Sisco and Harvey than the average poster).

My issue, and you're right I'm apparently not articulating it well, is that this organization is not really pushing in any direction with any coherent (from the outside) strategy. There isn't much premium put on bringing in an influx of amateur talent. FA targets seem to be based on who is available at random times in the offseason, and often it appears the organization is not landing its first or second choice. Trades have centered on second and third tier players.

Slightly modifying the line I wrote earlier expresses it best, for me: Observing from the outside, the last two years of activity for this org look a lot more like skillful Jenga than methodical Legos. I get the desire to capitalize on a competitive season a year or two earlier than previously expected. But I wish the org elected to do that by adding payroll rather than stalling out on building the farm.

First, I agree with the bolded 100%. I said that all winter. Then they spent a little bit of money, and frankly, they're pushing the boundaries of payroll ownership is comfortable with.

And how they chose to allocate that money, has largely come up roses. I didn't love the Ubaldo signing, but it's hardly imo crippling, and even in a poor half the guy's almost earning that contract. And Cruz, unless they resign him to a big contract, is the coup of the winter. I would have done different things, but it's hard to argue with what they got for what they spent.

To other matters: I don't doubt your expertise in prospects at all. You're far more knowledgeable than I, or like you said, just about anybody else here. I don't want to criticize you, but I think it's your very expertise which causes you to focus on prospects as opposed to MLers in regards to value.

So those are both specific things, but let's talk more broadly about the FO's strategy and direction.

Is it a grab bag?

I think it very much is. Let's be honest, unless you're paying top dollar, you don't get your pick of free agency. The Orioles aren't going to pay top dollar. I accept that. They're going to have to shop at the bargain bin.

As long as they do it well, and they have to, they can compete.

This FO has done it pretty well. Yeah Cruz has been manna, but it extends beyond him. It's the smaller signings like Young and Betemit; where they identified guys who had a skill set they could use and got him cheaply.

They've also done things like find value in the independent leagues and the Rule V.

Hell, when they've had the picks, they've drafted well.

Yeah, I agree they're walking a tightrope, but they're doing it alright, and they can remain competitive as long as they keep finding value in these kinds of places.

And again, I don't think it's directionless. I think it's more helter skelter, and a result of payroll limits, which almost every team in baseball operates with.

I don't want to sing DD's praises to highly, because I still think AM is more responsible for the last few years of competitiveness than he gets credit for, and the truly difficult part of DD's job is only beginning. But he's shown an ability to find value very, very cheaply, and if he can continue to do that, he'll continue to be successful.

[Pickles]

I think this past offseason shows us that if your contract comes with a first rounder tied to it you better be ready to take a hit on your annual salary. Were I Hardy's agent or Markakis's agent, I'd make it clear to Baltimore not to make a qualifying offer unless they want my guy on the payroll next year for around $15 MM. I can't imagine either getting something like 3/$30 or 4/$40 if the signing team has to sacrifice its first draft pick.

The Mets may be the exception since they would be giving up a second rounder.

It turned out that way for a couple guys, but that's pretty much the first time it ever has. Also, we don't know what they were asking. Cruz and Morales probably would have been signed if they had accepted 4-40s earlier in the offseason.

I'd be surprised if Hardy couldn't find a 4-40 on the market this offseason even w a pick attached.

Markakis I could see it going either way. But I'm positive he would get a multi-year contract offer in the 10 range.

[Pickles]

I think this past offseason shows us that if your contract comes with a first rounder tied to it you better be ready to take a hit on your annual salary. Were I Hardy's agent or Markakis's agent, I'd make it clear to Baltimore not to make a qualifying offer unless they want my guy on the payroll next year for around $15 MM. I can't imagine either getting something like 3/$30 or 4/$40 if the signing team has to sacrifice its first draft pick.

The Mets may be the exception since they would be giving up a second rounder.

Well, in that case, they'd take the 3-30 here I'd imagine over the 1-15.

And I could live with both of those contracts.

[Frobby]

Yankees/Dodgers - Trading pitching to the Cubs for Castro would be top on my list. Maybe check in on Andrus/Profar, as well, in Texas (who could be looking to restructure things. Rollins won't have his contract picked up and could probably be had on a relatively cheap one year deal if he wants to keep playing and compete for a title.

I could see Hardy to the Mets as a possibility if they decide that's where they want to start spending money. I don't see the Mariners punting on Miller or the Brewers punting on Segura. If Rollins leaves, Philly might give a two year deal to Hardy to keep the position warm of JP Crawford.

Just thinking out loud.

As someone who doesn't follow non-Oriole prospects closely, and hardly ever watched an NL game (or any game not involving the Orioles), I really have to defer to you as to which of the younger shortstops have enough potential to be a superior option to Hardy. I do question whether the Yankees have the assets or the organizational mindset to trade for any of them. The Dodgers, maybe, but my guess is they win the Hanley Ramirez auction. I noticed that you didn't identify any of the non-Hanley free agents as being superior to Hardy. So, it's still my guess that Hardy will be the choice of the loser of that sweepstakes, especially if it's the Yankees.

[Frobby]

3) Again, agree with you. Instead of Jimenez, we should have just inserted Gausman in the rotation at the beginning of the season and been done with it.

To me this is 20/20 hindsight. Gausman did not do enough last year to prove he was ready to be inserted into a major league rotation on Opening Day, and the O's would have had no Plan B if either Gausman had floundered badly or if any of our starters had gotten hurt for any length of time. We've been extraordinarily fortunate with the health of our rotation, and while I'm glad that Gausman now seems to have developed as we hoped, that wasn't a foregone conclusion this offseason. You can debate whether there were other options than Jimenez, but going into this season without acquiring another reliable starter would have been foolish IMO.

[weams]

Markakis isn't turning down $15 MM. Neither is Hardy. Cruz probably will unless it's an awful second half for him.

Then they will be the very first. Ever. And there are no bad one year contracts

[weams]

To me this is 20/20 hindsight. Gausman did not do enough last year to prove he was ready to be inserted into a major league rotation on Opening Day, and the O's would have had no Plan B if either Gausman had floundered badly or if any of our starters had gotten hurt for any length of time. We've been extraordinarily fortunate with the health of our rotation, and while I'm glad that Gausman now seems to have developed as we hoped, that wasn't a foregone conclusion this offseason. You can debate whether there were other options than Jimenez, but going into this season without acquiring another reliable starter would have been foolish IMO.

Of course hindsight is great vision. Even if poster was in favor of a bold move, the 30 guys that have these job in the entire world don't have the luxury of doing these things based on good instinct.

[DrungoHazewood]

Is it really that hard to figure out?

We has on an innings limit. If he had started from day one in the rotation, he wouldn't be available for a deep playoff run.

By limiting his starts and his innings pitched in the minors, he is now free to pitch the entire second half and playoffs. Pretty much common sense.

Also service time considerations. I suppose some people don't believe in the innings limits. I can get that - I'm not convinced it's the total innings as much as high-stress games and innings. But it's hard to fault the team for being conservative with a key pitching prospect.

[clapdiddy]

To me this is 20/20 hindsight. Gausman did not do enough last year to prove he was ready to be inserted into a major league rotation on Opening Day, and the O's would have had no Plan B if either Gausman had floundered badly or if any of our starters had gotten hurt for any length of time. We've been extraordinarily fortunate with the health of our rotation, and while I'm glad that Gausman now seems to have developed as we hoped, that wasn't a foregone conclusion this offseason. You can debate whether there were other options than Jimenez, but going into this season without acquiring another reliable starter would have been foolish IMO.

Yeah, I kind of made that point in hindsight, as I was a big fan of the Jimenez deal..as I pointed out in my post. You make good points about Gausman's status at the beginning of the season.

I guess the bigger question is could we have used that money to get more of an "innings-eater" type that wouldn't have cost as much. Again...all taken in hindsight. I'm not not really complaining about having Jimenez on the team...just wish he was able to harness his control.

[Aristotelian]

On the overvaluing of prospects, look at Boston this year. They made a gamble that Bogaerts and Bradley Jr. could replace Drew and Ellsbury. These guys may go on to productive careers but you cannot expect them to produce immediately. Look at Taveras, Buxton, even Myers. Look at Schoop for us. It is extremely risky to rely on prospects to produce immediately at the minor league levels.

I like what DD is doing in terms of balancing the present and the future. This is our third year in a row of competitive >.500 baseball. This may appear to be an incoherent strategy, but I don't think people would like it if we copied the Marlins and kept swinging violently back and forth between firesale and contender. (That is how my kids play with Legos--build and destroy--more like the kids in movie than the dad's nice and orderly city).

We hopefully have at least one more year left with this window. We do need to be thinking about what happens next. We have a potential core of AJ, Manny, Schoop, Bundy, Gausman, and possibly Harvey and one or two of Alvarez, Urrutia, and Walker. If we fall out of contention next year, we will have a bunch of interesting assets to trade to contending clubs. That is plenty to build around, in my opinion.

[Stotle]

First, I agree with the bolded 100%. I said that all winter. Then they spent a little bit of money, and frankly, they're pushing the boundaries of payroll ownership is comfortable with.

And how they chose to allocate that money, has largely come up roses. I didn't love the Ubaldo signing, but it's hardly imo crippling, and even in a poor half the guy's almost earning that contract. And Cruz, unless they resign him to a big contract, is the coup of the winter. I would have done different things, but it's hard to argue with what they got for what they spent.

To other matters: I don't doubt your expertise in prospects at all. You're far more knowledgeable than I, or like you said, just about anybody else here. I don't want to criticize you, but I think it's your very expertise which causes you to focus on prospects as opposed to MLers in regards to value.

So those are both specific things, but let's talk more broadly about the FO's strategy and direction.

Is it a grab bag?

I think it very much is. Let's be honest, unless you're paying top dollar, you don't get your pick of free agency. The Orioles aren't going to pay top dollar. I accept that. They're going to have to shop at the bargain bin.

As long as they do it well, and they have to, they can compete.

This FO has done it pretty well. Yeah Cruz has been manna, but it extends beyond him. It's the smaller signings like Young and Betemit; where they identified guys who had a skill set they could use and got him cheaply.

They've also done things like find value in the independent leagues and the Rule V.

Hell, when they've had the picks, they've drafted well.

Yeah, I agree they're walking a tightrope, but they're doing it alright, and they can remain competitive as long as they keep finding value in these kinds of places.

And again, I don't think it's directionless. I think it's more helter skelter, and a result of payroll limits, which almost every team in baseball operates with.

I don't want to sing DD's praises to highly, because I still think AM is more responsible for the last few years of competitiveness than he gets credit for, and the truly difficult part of DD's job is only beginning. But he's shown an ability to find value very, very cheaply, and if he can continue to do that, he'll continue to be successful.

No offense intended, but you clearly do not have familiarity with how I view the game. The fact that I chime in on prospect related items on a message board (because I feel that's an area where maybe I have some level of expertise to share) does not mean that prospects are the center of my baseball universe. I don't see prospects as a panacea at all. I do believe that, for an organization such as Baltimore, you should have a pipeline of homegrown talent to help offset the fact that you are not likely to solve 25-man holes by signing impact free agents or trading for expensive, established talent.

It's really as simple as that. It's great that Cruz worked out. I'd by much more impressed if Baltimore actually targeted and signed Cruz early, or even half way, through the offseason. Instead, Cruz is what was left over, and Baltimore grabbed him (and a bunch of other corner outfielders) as the offseason was expiring. Again, it's great it worked out. But the only reason it could is that 29 other teams either didn't need that piece or was wary of signing him. It wasn't a proactive move by Baltimore, identifying a guy they thought would be a key cog. It was jumping on a guy once no one else was interested and they felt hey would accept a low enough offer.

When Baltimore signed Jimenenz I said that I thought he had a decent shot to be "worth it" from a WAR/$ standpoint, but that the contract was too long and the profile was too volatile for the org to have any sense of when that value would come. Add to that the fact that starting pitching is one area where Baltimore looks to have some potential horses, long term, and it once again appears to be a happenstance approach to player acquisition, rather than a targeted effort to identify players that fit into the org in the near and long term.

It comes down to you being happy with results and me being nervous with process. Simple as that. I respect the fact and am glad that you and others are content with that. My brain doesn't work. Process matters a lot to me.

[Stotle]

As someone who doesn't follow non-Oriole prospects closely, and hardly ever watched an NL game (or any game not involving the Orioles), I really have to defer to you as to which of the younger shortstops have enough potential to be a superior option to Hardy. I do question whether the Yankees have the assets or the organizational mindset to trade for any of them. The Dodgers, maybe, but my guess is they win the Hanley Ramirez auction. I noticed that you didn't identify any of the non-Hanley free agents as being superior to Hardy. So, it's still my guess that Hardy will be the choice of the loser of that sweepstakes, especially if it's the Yankees.

I think the Yankees system is not strong, but they have a couple of young arms that Chicago might be interested in. The Dodgers have more than enough to trade for Castro, but I agree with you that Hanley would SEEM like the obvious fit to stay there.

As far as young prospects superior to Hardy, Lindor is it in Cleveland. There is no question he gets the opening day job. The Cubs have 2016 as their targeted year to start pushing to compete, so next year is more about sorting through their glut of middle-infielders to figure out who they want long term. Houston isn't competing next year but will be handing over the opening day job in 2016 to Correa (it would have been the 2015 job had he not missed the rest of this season). JP Crawford will be in Double A next year with 2016 circled for his taking over the SS job in Philly. If the Phils decide to carry the salary for one more year, Rollins could bridge that gap (maybe they part ways and renegotiate a less expensive deal -- I don't know).

As I said, I totally buy that it's possible for Hardy to find a multi-year deal. I just think it gets a lot more difficult with a first rounder pick tied to his price tag, and that's a big risk for him and his agent to take.