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

[Pickles]

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

According to you, apparently the Orioles are doing it right now. Right?

[DrungoHazewood]

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

You may be confusing "my plan" with "a plan". It would be interesting to see you explain to Dan Duquette how not purposely engaging in attempted cyclical lose/rebuild/win cycles is totally idiotic.

[Stotle]

Terrific.

Plans don't mean sh--.

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

Astros, tough to tell. That org is really difficult to figure out (and actually has a lot of similarities to aspects of how Duquette runs things).

The Cubs? If they AREN'T successful moving forward it will be shocking. I think it would take catastrophic injuries to arms they sign or trade for over the next 18 months. The cheap talent in-house and the money available to spend in the future is scary.

[DrungoHazewood]

According to you, apparently the Orioles are doing it right now. Right?

Yes, he apparently think Duquette is a well-meaning rube who has aimlessly stumbled into turning a .400 team into a .550 team.

[Reboulet'sStache]

According to you, apparently the Orioles are doing it right now. Right?

I mean, I don't really see much "results," at least within the context of the concerns that are being brought up in this thread. But no, there is a clear strategy that is being in terms of this current team. That strategy is one of the issues in this thread.

[Stotle]

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.

I think the Astros might be a good example of how having a plan (and smart people) doesn't guarantee anything. I think the Cubs are an example of putting a plan in place and constantly tinkering with it to maximize your options. What the Cubs have done is pretty incredible.

[Reboulet'sStache]

You may be confusing "my plan" with "a plan". It would be interesting to see you explain to Dan Duquette how not purposely engaging in attempted cyclical lose/rebuild/win cycles is totally idiotic.

We do we have to engage in those cycles continuously? I'm not sure we wouldn't be in the exact same position we are currently in if we had traded some of the players at their peak value, or not signed Ubaldo, etc.

[Pickles]

I mean' date=' I don't really see much "results," at least within the context of the concerns that are being brought up in this thread. But no, there is a clear strategy that is being in terms of this current team. That strategy is one of the issues in this thread.[/quote']

LOL.

So now it goes from they don't have a plan, to they don't have a plan you like.

There's a big difference there.

BTW, you don't see the results? The playoff appearnace in 2012, and the likely one in 2014? Must have missed those.

[DrungoHazewood]

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).

I appreciate the summary. We often get hung up on individual statements or phrases taken half out of context.

I share many of the same concerns, but maybe place more faith (maybe too much) on the power of non-traditional thinking. Especially in a system (MLB) that defaults to tradition and orthodoxy.

[Pickles]

Astros, tough to tell. That org is really difficult to figure out (and actually has a lot of similarities to aspects of how Duquette runs things).

The Cubs? If they AREN'T successful moving forward it will be shocking. I think it would take catastrophic injuries to arms they sign or trade for over the next 18 months. The cheap talent in-house and the money available to spend in the future is scary.

I think the Astros are going to find out going from 45 wins to 90 is real difficult. The first 30 should be relatively easy; the last 15 are going to be a real b----.

The Cubs are different. Largely because of the money they can spend; not necessarily their prospects. No matter how good their positional situation is, building a pitching staff from scratch isn't easy, and that's what they're going to have to do. They're going to need to trade some of that surplus positional talent for pitching talent and they better get it right- or all that planning will be for naught.

[Stotle]

We do we have to engage in those cycles continuously? I'm not sure we wouldn't be in the exact same position we are currently in if we had traded some of the players at their peak value' date=' or not signed Ubaldo, etc.[/quote']

I think that's a fair point. It's tough to discern how much of the Orioles' success is tied to the poor performance of other teams in the division. I think it's obvious the Orioles have a very solid, if inconsistent, squad this year. And the wins have come without Davis performing and a lot of poor performance from Machado.

I still don't know what to make of this team. The first couple weeks after the all star break will probably be telling.

[Reboulet'sStache]

LOL.

So now it goes from they don't have a plan, to they don't have a plan you like.

There's a big difference there.

BTW, you don't see the results? The playoff appearnace in 2012, and the likely one in 2014? Must have missed those.

Well I wanted to grant that DD is the smartest person in the room, and guys like Cruz were apart of his genius scheme.

And the title of the thread is acknowledging those seasons. That's kind of the point of the thread.

[DrungoHazewood]

We do we have to engage in those cycles continuously? I'm not sure we wouldn't be in the exact same position we are currently in if we had traded some of the players at their peak value' date=' or not signed Ubaldo, etc.[/quote']

It would require very careful planning and execution, and a fair amount of luck, to maintain a higher-than-wildcard level of talent for many years with the Orioles budget and competition. It might be nearly impossible. Which is why I set my threshold at aiming for contention on a regular basis.

[Stotle]

I think the Astros are going to find out going from 45 wins to 90 is real difficult. The first 30 should be relatively easy; the last 15 are going to be a real b----.

The Cubs are different. Largely because of the money they can spend; not necessarily their prospects. No matter how good their positional situation is, building a pitching staff from scratch isn't easy, and that's what they're going to have to do. They're going to need to trade some of that surplus positional talent for pitching talent and they better get it right- or all that planning will be for naught.

Baltimore essentially built the current pitching staff in two or three seasons. I don't see any reasons the Cubs won't be able to do the same. No guarantees, but they are in a really really good spot.

[Stotle]

I appreciate the summary. We often get hung up on individual statements or phrases taken half out of context.

I share many of the same concerns, but maybe place more faith (maybe too much) on the power of non-traditional thinking. Especially in a system (MLB) that defaults to tradition and orthodoxy.

I totally get that. I really do. And honestly, even if it all crashes and burns that won't negate at least three seasons worth of winning baseball. That counts for something, no matter what the future holds.