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

[Stotle]

Hey, not everyone hits. You'll always have Rendon.

Besides, the Orioles drafted Hobgood and Givens and they stunk worse.

But that defense though...

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=34439983?topic_id=51231442&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=33665447?topic_id=51231442&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=34363733&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

[Stotle]

What makes Jackie Bradley a better hitter then he is showing well maybe some since he is showing nothing but his stats don;t show great hitter. 2013 In AAA he hit .275 and in 2012 in AA he hit .271. That is nothing special IMO He does walk which helps his OBP but as for being a good hitter a .275 mark in the high minors is not impressive.

People who know how to evaluate have told me they think he can hit. I have watched him hit since he was a freshman in college and I think he can hit.

[bpilktree]

People who know how to evaluate have told me they think he can hit. I have watched him hit since he was a freshman in college and I think he can hit.

People in the know also said Bill Rowell was the best hitting player in the draft and that Matusz was a sure thing pitcher with all his pitches and control. At some point you have to show results and the last three years Bradley has hit .271, .274 and .234 in AA, AAA, and Boston.

[awannabegeek]

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).

This is such an interesting discussion. I agree with this post on many levels (as much as my heart does not want to).

I will say, it seems the Orioles value player types not specific players. They evaluate and group players based on ability and cost, then target that type. More like Plan A1, Plan A2, than Plan A, Plan B...

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and maybe not the best plan for baseball, but it is a plan that the Ravens actually use (different sport, different dynamics I know).

I think there is a plan just highly-unorthodox.

[Stotle]

People in the know also said Bill Rowell was the best hitting player in the draft and that Matusz was a sure thing pitcher with all his pitches and control. At some point you have to show results and the last three years Bradley has hit .271, .274 and .234 in AA, AAA, and Boston.

Rowell...not close. And I'm talking about evaluators who have seen him in each of the last four seasons (as have I).

[weams]

People who know how to evaluate have told me they think he can hit. I have watched him hit since he was a freshman in college and I think he can hit.

I'm gonna guess against this one. I'm not a Bradley lover.

[Stotle]

I'm gonna guess against this one. I'm not a Bradley lover.

Booo! Hater!

[atomic]

---

People in the know also said Bill Rowell was the best hitting player in the draft and that Matusz was a sure thing pitcher with all his pitches and control. At some point you have to show results and the last three years Bradley has hit .271, .274 and .234 in AA, AAA, and Boston.

Yeah that what I was thinking. If people could judge who could hit and who couldn't before players got drafted they would be easily worth 50 million a year. Instead most picks are busts. Until he proves he can hit in the bigs he is not something to get excited over.

[Stotle]

---

Yeah that what I was thinking. If people could judge who could hit and who couldn't before players got drafted they would be easily worth 50 million a year. Instead most picks are busts. Until he proves he can hit in the bigs he is not something to get excited over.

Okay, but you realize that all struggles are not for the same reasons, right? Like, Kris Bryant and Javier Baez are both Triple A Cubs prospects with massive power and lots of strikeouts. They have completely different issues at the plate. If either you or bpliktree can explain to me what it is about Bradley's approach or swing that will prevent him from succeeding, I'm all ears. If you are going to point to a minor league stat we can just stop the convo here and save ourselves some time and frustration.

[bpilktree]

Rowell...not close. And I'm talking about evaluators who have seen him in each of the last four seasons (as have I).

Baseball America lauded Rowell as the Orioles’ top prospect, one of the most promising players from the 2006 draft class, and the 47th-best prospect in all of baseball.

[Stotle]

Baseball America lauded Rowell as the Orioles’ top prospect, one of the most promising players from the 2006 draft class, and the 47th-best prospect in all of baseball.

Rowell's risk profile was completely dissimilar from JBJ's. They aren't in the same universe. Completely different swing, approach, and refinement level. Why on earth would we compare the two?

[Flash- bd]

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).

Must spread rep. Very nice post.

I'm less pessimistic about the future (probably just because of my nature), though I share your concerns, and certainly appreciate how well/logically you've laid this out. I didn't like the deals last summer and still am not totally sure where I stand on the Jimenez contract--which obviously is crucial in defining opinion of the last offseason--yet I am still definitely not a critic of the regime, in fact I was a full-believing supporter until the deals last summer, when some doubt started to creep in.

People will continue to justify the Arrieta deal on the basis that he was never going to make it here, but the fact is small market clubs need to systematically rely on guys like Arrieta making it and producing before their FA years, and in the end we traded what was a really, really good arm under team control for an average arm with 3 months on his contract. That is we should be living and dying with guys like Arrieta, and compiling enough guys like him that the inevitable "deaths" that will happen in many cases aren't too harmful. If you are going to go the route of saying Arrieta never would've made it here then you are also implicitly suggesting that there is something built in the properties of our club which prevented Arrieta's success, which is also a problem; in other words, we should've kept Arrieta and tried to do a better job of maximizing his talent, rather than just accept defeat and make the kind of trade which, IMO, doesn't make sense under any conditions, even if we were a team on a 90-100 win pace last season who had a legitimate chance to win a title.

The Norris trade I'm less decided on. On the one hand it's good that--if we were going to trade Hader and a high draft pick--we got a rather inexpensive player with now value who would be under control for a couple of years, but on the other hand I would've had us targeting someone else...hopefully Norris proves me wrong in the second half and proves his success is sustainable.

That said, what gives me hope in the long-term is the massive potential of Machado, Gausman, Bundy, and Hunter. These guys can cover up a lot of flaws. Our farm system isn't great in general, yeah, but the top-heaviness for me is a virtue not a fault. It puts us in a hugely risky position if they don't hit but I think with the sheer impact they can have you wouldn't be surprised to see us reaping more rewards from them than the output of those from clubs whose farm systems are ranked higher.

So, I still see reasons for definite hope but am aware and wary of the fact that things could easily go pretty bad in the coming seasons if we don't catch the breaks we need to. Just a bit less wary than you I suppose.

[hoosiers]

Must spread rep. Very nice post.

I'm less pessimistic about the future (probably just because of my nature), though I share your concerns, and certainly appreciate how well/logically you've laid this out. I didn't like the deals last summer and still am not totally sure where I stand on the Jimenez contract--which obviously is crucial in defining opinion of the last offseason--yet I am still definitely not a critic of the regime, in fact I was a full-believing supporter until the deals last summer, when some doubt started to creep in.

People will continue to justify the Arrieta deal on the basis that he was never going to make it here, but the fact is small market clubs need to systematically rely on guys like Arrieta making it and producing before their FA years, and in the end we traded what was a really, really good arm under team control for an average arm with 3 months on his contract. That is we should be living and dying with guys like Arrieta, and compiling enough guys like him that the inevitable "deaths" that will happen in many cases aren't too harmful. If you are going to go the route of saying Arrieta never would've made it here then you are also implicitly suggesting that there is something built in the properties of our club which prevented Arrieta's success, which is also a problem; in other words, we should've kept Arrieta and tried to do a better job of maximizing his talent, rather than just accept defeat and make the kind of trade which, IMO, doesn't make sense under any conditions, even if we were a team on a 90-100 win pace last season who had a legitimate chance to win a title.

The Norris trade I'm less decided on. On the one hand it's good that--if we were going to trade Hader and a high draft pick--we got a rather inexpensive player with now value who would be under control for a couple of years, but on the other hand I would've had us targeting someone else...hopefully Norris proves me wrong in the second half and proves his success is sustainable.

That said, what gives me hope in the long-term is the massive potential of Machado, Gausman, Bundy, and Hunter. These guys can cover up a lot of flaws. Our farm system isn't great in general, yeah, but the top-heaviness for me is a virtue not a fault. It puts us in a hugely risky position if they don't hit but I think with the sheer impact they can have you wouldn't be surprised to see us reaping more rewards from them than the output of those from clubs whose farm systems are ranked higher.

So, I still see reasons for definite hope but am aware and wary of the fact that things could easily go pretty bad in the coming seasons if we don't catch the breaks we need to. Just a bit less wary than you I suppose.

Agree about the issue with Jake. If we weren't developing him properly, then it is our fault for that and for selling him cheap. I believe his WAR so far in 2014 would be the best on the team .... At least the discussion on Jake is moving past the "he's never going to put it together" to the "he wasn't going to put it together here" stage. Something the Os were doing with him appears very wrong and somewhere Joe Jordan is feeling very vindicated (about both the pick and the issues with the Os developmental side).

The top-heaviness of our system is more of a fault to me than a virtue. It creates a heavy reliance on top prospects - many of who still don't pan out. The lack of depth makes trades either very difficult or very costly (if involving a top prospect). It is only top heavy and not deep because of the dealings in the past year which have cost us something like four top 12 prospects between Hader and the lost 2014 picks.

[BarclaySouthway]

This is a great thread (which really needs a poll).

Over the long term, trading youth for rentals is certain death to a mid-market team. Over a 15 year period, the team that gets young talent for expensive or soon-to-be expensive vets clearly is going to win a lot more games than the boom and bust team. There was a sense of DD running around the store at closing time on Christmas Eve last year. This team still operates on emotion at some level. They have a history of getting too attached to their players. It's fair to criticize all that.

But the stink of 14 straight isn't quite gone. You only smell it slightly and only once in a while now, but it's still there, dammit. It would be washed away for good if we make the playoffs again. I think that's the overarching strategy right now. Get rid of that stink once and for all. Maybe it's a little silly. But there's also merit in that goal.

When they signed Jimenez they pretty much chose their path. Now they have to ride down it until it ends. If we make the playoffs (the real ones) and especially if we make the ALCS, the O's will be forced to up payroll again- 125? higher?- to have one more go. They'd have to. They're not going to go all 1998 Florida Marlins on us.

I admit, I'd love to see it happen. Have the team be forced to build on their success of this year, that is. Get to watch all the players we were so patient with over the years take one more crack at the big time. That's the best case scenario and we won't even be favorites, but, as a fan, that's about as good as it gets around these parts right now. If they keep winning, they're stuck on that path as I see it. There are worse paths, as we know.

(If they don't make the playoffs this year, disregard this, go into panic mode and scurry around trying to find that copy of Syd Thrift's "Tips for Rebuilding" that was lying around here somewhere.)

No, no just kidding. Then just do what hoosiers says.

[Pickles]

I want to add to this because I think I've been a little unfair to Stotle and Roubs here. I've just been a bit contrarian and haven't really attempted what they have in stating a thesis. So, I'll give one now.

I guess my overall thesis is I don't feel the O's have given up future wins as much as they have given up future flexibility, which possibly could effect the win column; however, if DD continues to scrounge up cheap value year after year to fill in the edges of his roster, that loss of flexibility probably won't touch them, at least not for quite a while. Until the man ceases to show that ability, I'm going to keep my mouth shut, by and large, and enjoy the first competitive team I've seen in my adulthood.

And a quick break down of many of the major deals in the last 2 or so seasons:

I disliked the Thome trade. I thought Lino had a future; catching is so rare that even a modest talent (cough-Joesph-cough) can hold some value.. I just read a pretty poor scouting report on him at BP- basically, said he's a lazy player, but could one day still find a ML role. I also didn't think we were for real that year, and that team never would have won 93 games if I, or anybody else here, was the GM. In hindsight we gave up the greater value with a longer shelf life for modest immediate improvement. But what did we really lose?

I bolded that because that pretty much sums up most of DD's in-season trades since he's been here. In fact, that pretty much sums up the entirety of his in-season trades (w one exception, which I will address next) so I'm going to pretty much drop it here.

Now, I know a lot of people will say: "Yes, in each instance perhaps we didn't give up much, but it's the overall effect."

I can't disagree with that, and I say that's where we lose flexibility. But this team has to develop stars. Moving middling prospects and punting a draft (RARELY, though I'm quite optimistic we'll regain a few picks in the next few years)won't cripple us- with the caveat that DD can keep finding value in strange places. Some are skeptical of that. Fair enough. I'm currently ceding to success.

Now a final note on the deal that was different where we did give up value: Arrietta.

I was never a fan of Jake's really. And the longer he was here, the more that became true. I hope he does well in Chicago. I'm skeptical that this little Cinderella story is going to last.

Now, I don't think it was ever happening here for Jake. And I don't think that's a commentary on either Jake or the staff here. Some guys just need a change of scenery for the lightbulb to come on. We see it all the time. Chris Davis' development here doesn't mean the Rangers can't develop hitters. It's just one of those things- it's psychology and little luck imo. The guy had ran out of chances here, literally. I'm glad he's doing well, but I can't fault DD for trading him. Not at all.

So, in summation, I think a lot of us do indeed see the same things; we just interpret them differently. I too see a team that is walking a bit of a tight rope (but I think every team in the league is doing that to a greater or lesser extent), but I think they have shown the ability walk it. And right now, I'm ceding to success.