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

[Pickles]

I'm not interested in extensions.

If I wasn't interested in extensions, or thought that any extension would be a bad move for the franchise, then I would have been screaming to trade those 4 last offseason.

I do agree that if we can't extend any of those 4- reasonably- that's a lot of talent to lose in 12 months, and we can't replace it internally. Though, I doubt any team in baseball could.

[Reboulet'sStache]

If I wasn't interested in extensions, or thought that any extension would be a bad move for the franchise, then I would have been screaming to trade those 4 last offseason.

I do agree that if we can't extend any of those 4- reasonably- that's a lot of talent to lose in 12 months, and we can't replace it internally. Though, I doubt any team in baseball could.

I think this part is what people are debating. The lack of a plan.

[Pickles]

So the John Kruk's of the world and the same group of people that gave Derek Jeter a bunch of GG's' date=' also liked Markakis' defense?[/quote']

You know this is such BS.

Yes, the in the history of baseball some guys have won GG who hven't deserved them.

Shall I now go through the list of players who have absurd defensive numbers that aren't supported by reality?

And act all high and mighty because of it?

[hoosiers]

I appreciate the honor of the original post (though I've expressed preference to same poster to not put my thoughts up for discussion in this manner previously). Anyway, there are a lot of points made in this post that I disagree with, but this is not going to be a dissertation. I will just list out some thoughts and counter-thoughts:

1) I think we have a good GM. His scouting director has drafted very well. His international operations are signing quality prospects, but to a lesser extent financially than expected. (IMO the international scouting is moving at an incremental pace to what AM had the last few years instead of the leap forward many of us had hoped for). I think our prospect development is better than at any time since at least the 1990s.

2) I continued to be frustrated by the consistently solid examples of teams dealing veterans for prospects WHILE continuing to remain competitive at the major league level that are ignored by this board. Players should be judged on a value sprectrum (relative to their salary, remaining contract or years under control,etc) whereas this board appears to mostly use a production spectrum - as in declaring that a player (Davis, Wieters, Hardy) is too productive to trade. That is why I constantly post about trades having to be EQUAL. Surely, if we give up a productive player, we'll get equal value in return. It seems inconceivable to people that trading Chris Davis or Matt Wieters last offseason would have made the major league team worse (even allowing that we would have received appropriate prospects in an equal trade), but it appears through this point in the season that would not be the case. I post about creating net positive organizational value - trading productive veterans for prospects in an equal trade and then using the freed up $ to get additional productive veteran players. People have remarked that this is the policy of small market teams, I believe it is the policy of winning teams.

3) If none of the trades of our GM of the past year had been made, we'd have a better starting rotation (minus Norris, minus Jimenez plus Gausman plus Arrietta), similar bp with an overpaid JJohnson about to be released, a lesser lineup (minus Cruz) plus approx. $10M-15M to spend on FAs and three top 60 picks from the 2014 draft and Hader in our farm system (hinting at a top 10 farm system). I think that team would still be in first place and would be considered to have more payroll flexibility short and long term plus and a much stronger minor league system. Maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

[Pickles]

I think this part is what people are debating. The lack of a plan.

Whose to say there isn't a plan?

If the FO feels they can sign some of those guys to reasonable extensions, just because you don't agree w their logic, it doens't mean there's no plan.

[Reboulet'sStache]

You know this is such BS.

Yes, the in the history of baseball some guys have won GG who hven't deserved them.

Shall I now go through the list of players who have absurd defensive numbers that aren't supported by reality?

And act all high and mighty because of it?

I dont't understand what you mean? You mean people who have great defensive numbers, but in reality, aren't good? Or people who have bad defensive numbers, but in reality are great?

[Pickles]

A better example might be the A's. Outside of Sonny Gray and Doolittle (who was drafted as a hitter...wahoowa), I don't think they have anyone on their current 25-man roster that they've drafted and developed. Of course, they're also getting tons of production from guys who once looked like AAAA guys (Moss, Vogt, Donaldson, J. Chavez).

Or the Royals.

IMO, many people here wildly overrate the value of prospects, particularly in relation to productive MLers.

[Pickles]

I dont't understand what you mean? You mean people who have great defensive numbers' date=' but in reality, aren't good? Or people who have bad defensive numbers, but in reality are great?[/quote']

I think throughout the years we've all seen defensive numbers- good and bad- that don't jive with reality.

The difference is, whenever someone mentions a player won a GG, some hipster has to start talking about Derek Jeter (Or Raffy), and when somebody mentions some defensive stat very few people start talking about the Carlos Lees and Linds of the world.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I think throughout the years we've all seen defensive numbers- good and bad- that don't jive with reality.

The difference is, whenever someone mentions a player won a GG, some hipster has to start talking about Derek Jeter (Or Raffy), and when somebody mentions some defensive stat very few people start talking about the Carlos Lees and Linds of the world.

Whose reality? That's the point of metrics. If you want to say that metrics suck, lets not use them, fine. But don't say because they don't "jive" with reality, because that's just subjective. In Palmer and Thorne's reality, Markakis was a legit all-star candidate this year.

[Pickles]

Whose reality? That's the point of metrics. If you want to say that metrics suck' date=' lets not use them, fine[/b']. But don't say because they don't "jive" with reality, because that's just subjective. In Palmer and Thorne's reality, Markakis was a legit all-star candidate this year.

I think that's excessive.

However, they aren't an end-all-be-all either.

[Pickles]

I think that's excessive.

However, they aren't an end-all-be-all either.

Anymore than a GG is.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Anymore than a GG is.

But surely you would agree that if you were about to sign FAs, and you could only rely on one to determine which FAs to sign, you would use metric stats over GG's?

[Reboulet'sStache]

I appreciate the honor of the original post (though I've expressed preference to same poster to not put my thoughts up for discussion in this manner previously). Anyway, there are a lot of points made in this post that I disagree with, but this is not going to be a dissertation. I will just list out some thoughts and counter-thoughts:

1) I think we have a good GM. His scouting director has drafted very well. His international operations are signing quality prospects, but to a lesser extent financially than expected. (IMO the international scouting is moving at an incremental pace to what AM had the last few years instead of the leap forward many of us had hoped for). I think our prospect development is better than at any time since at least the 1990s.

2) I continued to be frustrated by the consistently solid examples of teams dealing veterans for prospects WHILE continuing to remain competitive at the major league level that are ignored by this board. Players should be judged on a value sprectrum (relative to their salary, remaining contract or years under control,etc) whereas this board appears to mostly use a production spectrum - as in declaring that a player (Davis, Wieters, Hardy) is too productive to trade. That is why I constantly post about trades having to be EQUAL. Surely, if we give up a productive player, we'll get equal value in return. It seems inconceivable to people that trading Chris Davis or Matt Wieters last offseason would have made the major league team worse (even allowing that we would have received appropriate prospects in an equal trade), but it appears through this point in the season that would not be the case. I post about creating net positive organizational value - trading productive veterans for prospects in an equal trade and then using the freed up $ to get additional productive veteran players. People have remarked that this is the policy of small market teams, I believe it is the policy of winning teams.

3) If none of the trades of our GM of the past year had been made, we'd have a better starting rotation (minus Norris, minus Jimenez plus Gausman plus Arrietta), similar bp with an overpaid JJohnson about to be released, a lesser lineup (minus Cruz) plus approx. $10M-15M to spend on FAs and three top 60 picks from the 2014 draft and Hader in our farm system (hinting at a top 10 farm system). I think that team would still be in first place and would be considered to have more payroll flexibility short and long term plus and a much stronger minor league system. Maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

Great post.

[tntoriole]

I appreciate the honor of the original post (though I've expressed preference to same poster to not put my thoughts up for discussion in this manner previously). Anyway, there are a lot of points made in this post that I disagree with, but this is not going to be a dissertation. I will just list out some thoughts and counter-thoughts:

1) I think we have a good GM. His scouting director has drafted very well. His international operations are signing quality prospects, but to a lesser extent financially than expected. (IMO the international scouting is moving at an incremental pace to what AM had the last few years instead of the leap forward many of us had hoped for). I think our prospect development is better than at any time since at least the 1990s.

2) I continued to be frustrated by the consistently solid examples of teams dealing veterans for prospects WHILE continuing to remain competitive at the major league level that are ignored by this board. Players should be judged on a value sprectrum (relative to their salary, remaining contract or years under control,etc) whereas this board appears to mostly use a production spectrum - as in declaring that a player (Davis, Wieters, Hardy) is too productive to trade. That is why I constantly post about trades having to be EQUAL. Surely, if we give up a productive player, we'll get equal value in return. It seems inconceivable to people that trading Chris Davis or Matt Wieters last offseason would have made the major league team worse (even allowing that we would have received appropriate prospects in an equal trade), but it appears through this point in the season that would not be the case. I post about creating net positive organizational value - trading productive veterans for prospects in an equal trade and then using the freed up $ to get additional productive veteran players. People have remarked that this is the policy of small market teams, I believe it is the policy of winning teams.

3) If none of the trades of our GM of the past year had been made, we'd have a better starting rotation (minus Norris, minus Jimenez plus Gausman plus Arrietta), similar bp with an overpaid JJohnson about to be released, a lesser lineup (minus Cruz) plus approx. $10M-15M to spend on FAs and three top 60 picks from the 2014 draft and Hader in our farm system (hinting at a top 10 farm system). I think that team would still be in first place and would be considered to have more payroll flexibility short and long term plus and a much stronger minor league system. Maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

I disagree that any of this would be better. Arrieta was not going to turn around in Baltimore. He would still be pitching terribly. You would have prematurely pushed Gausman's development and his innings total. Johnson would have been impossible to hide and would have probably lost multiple games for us already. Without Cruz, this team would not be in first place. Period. Second guessing is fine and dandy, but the fact is we ARE in first place unlike the hypothetical scenarios proposed.

[Pickles]

But surely you would agree that if you were about to sign FAs' date=' and you could only rely on one to determine which FAs to sign, you would use metric stats over GG's?[/quote']

I would use scouting reports.