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

[Stotle]

I guess Alverez and Walker are meaningless? I guess you haven't noticed the infusion of catching talent in the minor league organization? I guess you haven't noticed that the O's will have money to spend on players in the future?

You make some good points, but you ignore a lot of positives because they don't make noise in Baseball America, etc., coverage. You ignore moves, obvious moves, that have been made to address some of these issues.

I'm not sure you are fully familiar with my background. I'm pretty well aware of all of that stuff.

[Ohfan67]

Yep. And this is my biggest fear. We haven't stocked up the farm enough' date=' we've done just the opposite in order to maintain our current status ([b']at least Philly was a WS contender when they did it[/b]). So you're forced to extend players beyond where you should, because the unknown you are facing with a lack of young player ready to step up, is even scarier. Then you have these stud pitchers, some positional talent, but you're all tied up with bad contracts to really be where you should be, so you miss what should be your championship runs.

Are you guys seriously equating the O's situation to Philly's?????? Have you seen how little salary the O's have on the books in a couple of years???? The Philly's spent themselves into a long-term contract hole. And the O's have never had the kind of trade chips that the Philly's have had in the past few years. Davis does not equal Lee et al.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Are you guys seriously equating the O's situation to Philly's?????? Have you seen how little salary the O's have on the books in a couple of years???? The Philly's spent themselves into a long-term contract hole. And the O's have never had the kind of trade chips that the Philly's have had in the past few years. Davis does not equal Lee et al.

Not at all. I said my concern is that we are heading towards that direction, not that we are like the Phillies.

[Ohfan67]

I'm not sure you are fully familiar with my background. I'm pretty well aware of all of that stuff.

Oh, I am very aware of your background. I've read the scouting reports and other verbiage you have posted on the site over the years. You are quick to remind people of your "background". Some people misinterpret making noise and the ability to say simple things in paragraphs of jargon as insight.

[Ohfan67]

I'm not sure you are fully familiar with my background. I'm pretty well aware of all of that stuff.

Then why did you ignore it in the statement I quoted?

[Number5]

So, you misrepresented my post and now we are switching topics? Just clarifying so we are on the same page.

I am more than open to being convinced that the Orioles have been something other than reactive in their efforts. I think the offseason speaks for itself as far as having to fall back on backup plan upon backup plan, but it's unfair for me to characterize the whole term of the front office through analysis of one offseason.

I'd say the fact that this will be Gausman's second full season, that he logged solid innings at LSU, and that he's been healthy, it is less than progressive thinking to have him still ineligible for a full season's worth of innings. The reason, of course, is because Baltimore preferred the short term benefit of Gausman in the pen last year (in search of a low probability playoff appearance) as opposed to filling that hole otherwise and letting him continue to build up innings. That had the ripple effect of limiting his MLB availability this year.

We know the team is unlikely to keep all of Hardy, Wieters, Davis, and Markakis. What has the FO done to start succession planning? Who is set to fill any of these gaps at the MLB level such that we won't have a significant drop in performance there?

What's a move this organization has made outside of participating in the draft that has been a significant step towards building up future assets, as opposed to 25-man/40-man assets?

How far can we project the rotation and lineup based on what is currently in-house?

Those are a couple of questions that come to mind with little thought.

Well, you've lost me. I can't understand how I have misrepresented your post.

You said:

Dude, did you skip over the post where I said reactive thinking is key to being a GM? Of course that's a valuable attribute of an MLB decision maker. My issue is simple -- your central "plan" shouldn't be "I'm smart enough to figure it out no matter what is available."

I replied:

I'm not really sure how you have arrived at the conclusion that DD has no game plan other than to operate on the seat of his pants. I don't think that is the case. I suppose we just have a fundamental disagreement on that point.

Both statements seem very clear in meaning and directly related to each other. If I have misunderstood your meaning, I apologize, but, even now I take your words to be saying that DD has no plan other than to operate on the seat of his pants. I can't see any other way to interpret "your central "plan" shouldn't be "I'm smart enough to figure it out no matter what is available."

I certainly have no desire to misrepresent your views, and was simply responding to your statement.

[Stotle]

Oh, I am very aware of your background. I've read the scouting reports and other verbiage you have posted on the site over the years. You are quick to remind people of your "background". Some people misinterpret making noise and the ability to say simple things in paragraphs of jargon as insight.

Ahhh, got it. Remind me then why I would pay any notice to what Baseball America says? You know what, never mind. Good day.

[Pickles]

It just depends on the plan. The Astros and Cubs are losers right now. But they at least have a vision and a plan to carry out that vision' date=' neither of which involves them peaking with a 3 to 5 year wild card run.[/quote']

Terrific.

Plans don't mean sh--.

Wake me up when the Astros and Cubs aren't laughingstocks.

[MrOrange82]

I guess Alverez and Walker are meaningless? I guess you haven't noticed the infusion of catching talent in the minor league organization? I guess you haven't noticed that the O's will have money to spend on players in the future?

You make some good points, but you ignore a lot of positives because they don't make noise in Baseball America, etc., coverage. You ignore moves, obvious moves, that have been made to address some of these issues.

Sorry, but these points are indicative of tunnel vision regarding the O's organization.

I'd wager that neither one of us could, without looking up facts/examples, name comparable prospects (to Walker and Alvarez) in other organizations. And yet, you think that the existence of those two players supports the idea that the O's have done a good job with their MiL development (which is, by necessity, a relative appraisal that pits the O's progress, or lack thereof, against every other ML team).

And who are these catchers you're talking about? How do they differ from what other teams have been able to put together?

I'd further wager that other teams around the game have LOTS of prospects like Alvarez and Walker (i.e., guys who are interesting, but who aren't highly touted or likely to become All-Stars). And even beyond that, I'd bet that the fact that you can list on one hand the Orioles' positional prospects with any chance whatsoever of making an impact in the big leagues is a bad sign.

[Pickles]

Yep. And this is my biggest fear. We haven't stocked up the farm enough' date=' we've done just the opposite in order to maintain our current status (at least Philly was a WS contender when they did it). So you're forced to extend players beyond where you should, because the unknown you are facing with a lack of young player ready to step up, is even scarier. Then you have these stud pitchers, some positional talent, but you're all tied up with bad contracts to really be where you should be, so you miss what should be your championship runs.[/quote']

Where are these bad contracts we're tied up in?

I don't see any.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Terrific.

Plans don't mean sh--.

Wake me up when the Astros and Cubs aren't laughingstocks.

So you're against organizations having plans for the future in general? Or just their plans and approach?

[Pickles]

So you're against organizations having plans for the future in general? Or just their plans and approach?

I'm against the idea that a "plan" is superior to results.

Everybody has a plan. Not has everybody has results.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I'm against the idea that a "plan" is superior to results.

Everybody has a plan. Not has everybody has results.

Are there a lot of teams that just Forrest Gump their way into results? Seems like a solid X = a solid Y

[DrungoHazewood]

It just depends on the plan. The Astros and Cubs are losers right now. But they at least have a vision and a plan to carry out that vision' date=' neither of which involves them peaking with a 3 to 5 year wild card run.[/quote']

It's nice that they have plans. I hope their fans enjoy rooting for plans as much as I enjoyed rooting for the rebuilding plans of Messers Beattie, Flanagan, Thrift, and MacPhail. I hope for their sakes their plans work out a bit better.

It will be quite an accomplishment for them to have a 3-5 year run of being the best team in their divison/league/MLB. In the Astros' entire history they've won 90+ games in consecutive years once, in '98-99, and followed that up with a 72-win season. The last time the Cubs had consecutive 90-win seasons was 1929-30. That's more-or-less 80 years of not making any 3-5 year runs of wild card contention.

[Stotle]

Well, you've lost me. I can't understand how I have misrepresented your post.

You said:

I replied:

Both statements seem very clear in meaning and directly related to each other. If I have misunderstood your meaning, I apologize, but, even now I take your words to be saying that DD has no plan other than to operate on the seat of his pants. I can't see any other way to interpret "your central "plan" shouldn't be "I'm smart enough to figure it out no matter what is available."

I certainly have no desire to misrepresent your views, and was simply responding to your statement.

Sorry, I'm dealing with people quoting individual posts and not following the full conversation, so I'm having to clarify over and over again. I'll take this as an opportunity to short hand it:

1. Duquette is really smart and I'm impressed that Baltimore has held together as a successful regular season team as long as it has given how unlikely the 2012 success was.

2. I don't see any moves over the last two years that indicate the team was looking to legitimately push all in and go hard for a World Series.

3. I don't see any moves over the last two years that indicate the organization is seriously planning for 2015/2016/2017, though it's great that at the micro level the org has given up little in the way of impact.

4. There are a lot of holes that will potentially be forming at the MLB level over the next two seasons, which makes #3 above very worrisome.

5. This offseason in particular seemed to be characterized by fallback options than any sort of coherent targeting of acquisitions (and I think the FO would agree it was not the offseason they expected to have).

That is the totality of facts facing me. The farm system is okay. The org isn't adding much to it this year because it punted draft picks and international space to try and remain in contention for the playoffs (not set up as a favorite, but remain competitive). We are constantly reminded this isn't a team that is going to be adding tons to payroll.

So something has to fill those holes. We don't see moves setting up succession plans. The roster is good enough now to be a solid everyday team, but far from a world beater, and it is going to get a lot more expensive quickly (especially if Baltimore decides to try and save long term money by giving at least Machado an early extension (maybe Gausman too?).

I see reactive actions, almost nothing in the way of 2015/2016/2017 planning, almost no situations where you can string three or four moves together and get a picture as to what the org is working towards.

As noted, it might be that there is a thin line between genius and madness. I honestly don't know. But this seems to me to be a non-traditional way to build an organization that is consistently good. That doesn't mean it won't work, just that it isn't the way folks normally operate (and it shares a lot of characteristics with organizations that end up in trouble).