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

[Frobby]

You subjectively needed them, apparently. Neither are producing or particularly relevant to the team this year and the Orioles are in first place.

With hindsight, this is true so far. I suspect, though, that we will need a much stronger 2nd half from Davis in order to hold our position and made up for weaker 2nd halves from the likes of Cruz and Pearce. And the loss of Wieters may bite us yet.

[Stotle]

We gave up a second round pick and if he leaves after this season we get a first round pick. So we would actually be gaining picks by signing Curz for one year.

This is a good point. It wasn't in any way guaranteed, but it has worked out that way and is good to point out. Glad No one signed Cruz before February so Baltimore had that option.

[Stotle]

With hindsight, this is true so far. I suspect, though, that we will need a much stronger 2nd half from Davis in order to hold our position and made up for weaker 2nd halves from the likes of Cruz and Pearce. And the loss of Wieters may bite us yet.

My point is just that it was subjective then -- not a matter of hindsight. There is nothing magical about Davis and Wieters. You could trade them or sign others and still be in the same spot as the team is now. My contention was with the statement that as an objective matter Baltimore could not make any move involving Wieters or Davis in the offseason or the team would have no chance of competing.

[bpilktree]

The only move I waas not a huge fan of was Ubaldo because of the 4th year though it seemed we had to do that to get him to come here. That may or may not be true but noone here knows for sure. The loss of the pick does not mean a lot to me. The MLB draft is such a crapshoot that giving up the pick is not a big deal unless you to a top 5 pick and then that is still not a given. In the years from 2006-2011 there have been 293 1st round and supplemental picks( not including a top 5 selection. Out of those 293 picks 18 have made an all star team and only 5 are multiple all stars. So basically out of the 50 picks a year 3 have made an all star team.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Bundy might turn out to be nothing. You don't know. Even if Bundy and Gausman succeed in the bigs you need three other solid starters and a couple of guys in the wings. Gausman and Bundy can't win on their own.

As for Davis we have been trying to acquire a power hitting first baseman for years and no one would come here. It looks like we finally got one and you are going to trade him away? That makes no sense. Hopefully, Chris can turn things around this year. I didn't expect Chris to have a year like last year again but I figured him good for 30 HRS and 90 RBI's which he will probably hit. But I was expecting more OBP and Average and Slugging. I was expecting 2012 Chris Davis. And if you got that you would be happy.

You're right, they might turn out to be nothing. But that isn't the point really. In the end, they are your best chance at being a team you pencil into the playoffs every year. When the dealer shows a 6 in blackjack, and you get two 7's, you split them. Maybe you get nothing out of it, maybe the deal has a 5 under that 6 and ends up with blackjack. I dont' know. But you split because its your best chance at winning big. It's still the right move.

And DD seems to acknowledge that. We have made our pitchers untouchable in trades because we know they are our best chance at having what you must have to be consistently good: front end starters.

And I sure hope Bundy doesn't turn out to be nothing. Because really, the state of this franchise is going to revolve around him and Gausman. The Orioles let Markakis, Hardy, Davis, Wieters walk, it probably means a downgrade in overall talent because the farm system isn't loaded with players ready to take their place. They sign some/all of them, it probably means the Orioles are stuck with some bad contracts the next few years. Neither is a great situation, but both can be masked with Bundy and Gausman.

[Stotle]

The only move I waas not a huge fan of was Ubaldo because of the 4th year though it seemed we had to do that to get him to come here. That may or may not be true but noone here knows for sure. The loss of the pick does not mean a lot to me. The MLB draft is such a crapshoot that giving up the pick is not a big deal unless you to a top 5 pick and then that is still not a given. In the years from 2006-2011 there have been 293 1st round and supplemental picks( not including a top 5 selection. Out of those 293 picks 18 have made an all star team and only 5 are multiple all stars. So basically out of the 50 picks a year 3 have made an all star team.

All true. But you still have to get your future players from somewhere, and Baltimore isn't likely to do premium free agent shopping to fill holes...

[atomic]

My point is just that it was subjective then -- not a matter of hindsight. There is nothing magical about Davis and Wieters. You could trade them or sign others and still be in the same spot as the team is now. My contention was with the statement that as an objective matter Baltimore could not make any move involving Wieters or Davis in the offseason or the team would have no chance of competing.

I believe the team tried to trade Wieters in the off-season but did not get enough of an offer of return value to make it worth losing him. Anyway the team has done well without him. I think Cruz and Pearce production has gone over and above what anyone expected and that has what has kept the team winning without Davis producing like he did the two previous seasons. If we hadn't signed Cruz we would not be winning like we are.

Also a couple years back everyone wanted Jones traded for prospects. Where would we be now if that happened?

[jcarm]

Here is what I posted in the other thread:

I agree the cost of acquiring Bud Norris might have been a bit steep and that he did not pitch well on Tuesday-but look at his numbers this year! 3.96 ERA-pretty solid. 1.187 WHIP-very solid as well. He is performing well and is an asset to the team. If Chris Davis was dealt in the off season-the majority of the fan base would have been outraged! Of course, if Davis continues to perform the way he has-he may very well be a non tender candidate. Hind sight is 20/20. Nelson Cruz has been well worth the price paid(and may not have signed here if the Orioles had traded Davis and Wieters-I am sure that he wants to win now). The Orioles are in first place and are playing well. Last years draft did a world of good for the farm system-maybe this years draft will surprise some people. Things are not all doom and gloom. I do think that the thing that would help the Orioles most long term is not neccessarily anything to do with drafting or handling current assets(major or minor league players). The thing that would help them most long term is to start spending big on the international market. The signings that they have made in the last few years do seem nice and they are a step in the right direction-but they are chump change compared to what the so called "model franchises" spend-Boston, St. Louis, Tampa, Oakland(or most any other team for that matter).

[Stotle]

I believe the team tried to trade Wieters in the off-season but did not get enough of an offer of return value to make it worth losing him. Anyway the team has done well without him. I think Cruz and Pearce production has gone over and above what anyone expected and that has what has kept the team winning without Davis producing like he did the two previous seasons. If we hadn't signed Cruz we would not be winning like we are.

Also a couple years back everyone wanted Jones traded for prospects. Where would we be now if that happened?

Depends on what the return would have been for Jones, and what the "Jones" money would have been spent on in the alternative, right??

[bpilktree]

All true. But you still have to get your future players from somewhere, and Baltimore isn't likely to do premium free agent shopping to fill holes...

Yeah but that goes back to how you scout and develop players. I believe we did not do well for that long drought because we made bad decisions on who we drafted and how we developed them not by what position we drafted in. The Cardinals have not had a top pick and they have a good farm system that fills the holes they need with player development. If you are good at that and pick guys in the 3-6 rounds you have the same shot then a team that drafts high year in and year out and does not develop the players. The last few years we seem to have players that are less talented and drafted lower and made them into prospects compared to guys with talents that ended up repeating year in and year out in A ball. How we develop the young talent we bring in will affect the team long term more then anything we have done so far.

[Stotle]

Yeah but that goes back to how you scout and develop players. I believe we did not do well for that long drought because we made bad decisions on who we drafted and how we developed them not by what position we drafted in. The Cardinals have not had a top pick and they have a good farm system that fills the holes they need with player development. If you are good at that and pick guys in the 3-6 rounds you have the same shot then a team that drafts high year in and year out and does not develop the players. The last few years we seem to have players that are less talented and drafted lower and made them into prospects compared to guys with talents that ended up repeating year in and year out in A ball. How we develop the young talent we bring in will affect the team long term more then anything we have done so far.

I don't think there is much evidence that Baltimore is excelling at developing low-draft prospects yet, but hopefully what you are describing is the case.

[clapdiddy]

I don't think there is much evidence that Baltimore is excelling at developing low-draft prospects yet, but hopefully what you are describing is the case.

I would consider the O's player development system as a work in progress. I still think we need time to see if Dan's hand-picked development team is going to be producing capable Major League players.

[Stotle]

I would consider the O's player development system as a work in progress. I still think we need time to see if Dan's hand-picked development team is going to be producing capable Major League players.

Agreed. Making any sort of statement now is probably just finding narrative to fit your own bias (aimed at both sides).

[eb45]

I think I made my point in the other thread, so I'm not going to go into it at length here, but here's the gist of it:

- I have no issue with giving up future assets for present ones. A first-round pick for Ubaldo Jimenez is fine. A second-round pick for Nelson Cruz is a steal.

- I think, apart from the Norris trade, the current front office has done a good job of valuing assets and building a winning team both now and in the future.

- I think the Norris trade was poor asset valuation, because it was targeting a guy primed for regression (who promptly regressed) while giving up a pair of assets that would very likely increase in value. In addition, I think it was an overpayment for Bud Norris, whose chief value is that he can provide a lot of innings and not be awful. I'd much rather the O's have gone for broke and acquired a genuine difference-maker, even if it meant paying more. Overpaying for genuine assets (see: Jeff Samardzija) isn't something worth complaining about, nor is paying appropriately for marginal assets (see: most of Duquette's trades) but overpaying for marginal assets to the tune of two top five-caliber prospects? Yeah, that's something to get mildly up in arms about.

Basically, Frobby, I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not "have we sacrificed too much," it's "are the assets we're targeting good enough" or "are we giving up assets just so we can be seen to be doing something".

[jtschrei]

We have not given up too much; but, we have given up a lot. If that makes sense.

Cost controlled Arrieta (you're telling me he couldn't have succeeded in the bullpen ala Britton?), Hader, and a sandwich pick, and a 1st round pick for 1/2 a season of Feldman, 4 years of Ubaldo, and 2.5 years of Norris. It's not horrible. We're going to get a 1st round pick back for Cruz. But still, Feldman, Ubaldo, and Norris have not put us "over the top" by any means.

That said, and this is directed to Stotle, not in a bad way, I'm just saying, I think there is a plan. The plan is to have a very good MLB team at a certain price point. That's the Angelos directive and I think it's pretty obvious.

Of course, your plan of buying more free agents in the short term to bridge the gap between prospects makes sense. As does the plan of investing lots of money on foreign prospects and overslot guys. But the budget is not unlimited and there is a mandate to win now at the ML level both because we have a core that is rapidly approaching huge money and because the RedSox, Rays, and Yankees are down.

There are those who say well if we want to win now then trade Bundy or Harvey for Utley and let's really, really try to make this happen. Well, I'm just not sure it works like that. For one, I don't think we want to take on much more money. For another, DD doesn't trade the prime prospects. I think he's willing to trade any not stud prospect (Hoes) b/c DD thinks he can get equal production from the scrap heap of AAAA guys -- Steve Pearce, Nate McClouth, etc.

I see no reason to think that this team won't be competitive for the next 2 years. DDhas the organization in a good position.