Duquette owes it to the team and City to go for it...

[Guest]

Dan owes us nothing. Dan has to think about the Orioles 5 years down the road.

[weams]

That's fair, which is why the real question should be: what are you willing to sacrifice in terms of potential competitiveness over the next 4-5 years to win the 2014 World Series. The O's could sell the farm and "raise" (term used loosely) their WS odds by a theoretical percentage through the acquisition of key players, but that would put their near-term competitiveness at risk (though I think it'd be unfair to say that selling the farm would doom the team to certain failure...as you said, no guarantees). Stacking the all-or-nothing question in favor of future competitiveness (by keeping the WS win on the table) just doesn't make sense. Wasted intellectual energy.

My categorization was evident downsides.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Dan owes us nothing. Dan has to think about the Orioles 5 years down the road.

Well he has traded away draft picks, international money, and some prospects. He kept some of the players that we probably can't resign, knowing that we can't resign them, instead of trading them for prospects when their value peaked. All of this has hurt the Orioles 5 years down the road. At some point, you've Chinese tortured that 5 years down the road enough where you almost have to go all in right now.

[weams]

I think his hypothetical is assuming you could guarantee a WS victory. There are some people that probably would rather see competitive baseball' date=' for 5-6 years, than 1 WS and 5-6 years of non-competitive baseball.[/quote']

So it is a fantasy. And should be ignored as such unless it is not used to support a trade of any of the Orioles top three pitching prospects for improved odds. A guy, who I find to be quite whack job, constantly screams for attention by stating that a World Series championship is ALL that matters. And that any lack of investment in that one agenda is proof that the Orioles ownership and front office is morally corrupt and thieving the fan base.

No, I do not put that same thought process on the person asking that question here. It just tends to be the purpose for asking that question in other places.

[Guest]

Well he has traded away draft picks' date=' international money, and some prospects. He kept some of the players that we probably can't resign, knowing that we can't resign them, instead of trading them for prospects when their value peaked. All of this has hurt the Orioles 5 years down the road. At some point, you've Chinese tortured that 5 years down the road enough where you almost have to go all in right now.[/quote']

Would you trade the top 3? Gausman Bundy and Harvey? Those are the only real players that will get you anything of value.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Would you trade the top 3? Gausman Bundy and Harvey? Those are the only real players that will get you anything of value.

No, because I don't think we're a complete enough team yet to warrant such a trade. If you're the A's, you go all in. Even if I was Seattle I'd think about it. I also don't think Dan has jeopardized the future enough to warrant going all in now. He's made it a little more difficult, but it could still go either way at this point, so I'm willing to assume he has a plan, and I'll wait it out.

[awannabegeek]

Well he has traded away draft picks' date=' international money, and some prospects. He kept some of the players that we probably can't resign, knowing that we can't resign them, instead of trading them for prospects when their value peaked. All of this has hurt the Orioles 5 years down the road. At some point, you've Chinese tortured that 5 years down the road enough where you almost have to go all in right now.[/quote']

Why is the whole "Win-now" or not thought processes treated so binary here? He can prepare for the future without punting the present and vice-versa.

[awannabegeek]

No' date=' because I don't think we're a complete enough team yet to warrant such a trade. If you're the A's, you go all in. Even if I was Seattle I'd think about it. I also don't think Dan has jeopardized the future enough to warrant going all in now. He's made it a little more difficult, but it could still go either way at this point, so I'm willing to assume he has a plan, and I'll wait it out.[/quote']

You think Seattle is closer to being a World Series team than the Orioles? Why exactly?

[weams]

You think Seattle is closer to being a World Series team than the Orioles? Why exactly?

The Orioles at this point have a better chance of achieving a World Series than Seattle. Though both probably have similar odds in a week or two.

[awannabegeek]

The Orioles at this point have a better chance of achieving a World Series than Seattle. Though both probably have similar odds in a week or two.

Odds in statistical projections?

[Can_of_corn]

Odds in statistical projections?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/

Baltimore 4.4%

Seattle 1.1%

[SteveA]

I don't understand why answers to that question are always worded as they are. Maybe the question needs to be made clearer.

Is it: would you rather be guaranteed of at least one WS victory, but have another 4-5 years of uncertainty from a competitive standpoint, or have 5-6 of competitive play, but no guarantee of a WS victory?

Or is it: would you rather win one WS and be terrible for another 4-5 years, or would you prefer to be competitive for 5-6 years but fail to win a WS during that period?

Whatever the "correct" way to approach the question, I think most people answer as though losing is "guaranteed" in the "win the WS" scenario, while winning a WS is possible, though not guaranteed in the "5-6 years of competitiveness" scenario. What's the point of the question if the two choices aren't mutually exclusive? (i.e., if you can potentially receive the "reward," the WS win, by picking either answer choice, why would anyone in their right mind go with "WS, and suckitude"?)

OK, you are right, if the World Series is "guaranteed", I'd go for that.

But if that is the question being asked, than it is a nonsensical, worthless question that has no more relation to the discussion of whether we should make a deal to improve the team than "Do you prefer zebras or unicorns?".

(I go with zebras).

[MrOrange82]

OK, you are right, if the World Series is "guaranteed", I'd go for that.

But if that is the question being asked, than it is a nonsensical, worthless question that has no more relation to the discussion of whether we should make a deal to improve the team than "Do you prefer zebras or unicorns?".

(I go with zebras).

Trick question. Unicorns are imaginary, but zebras are just endangered.

But yeah, I think questions like that don't have much merit. The odds of winning a WS aren't great no matter what a team does. Too many variables. Likewise, IMO, there's a limit to how much damage a team can do to its chances by trading a couple of prospects. If the O's just traded Bundy and a couple of prospects who don't usually come up in prospect discussions, would that really be viewed as a long term hindrance? It'd depend on the return, right? If the farm system is truly "gutted" (i.e., with trades of Bundy, Harvey, EdRod, Walker, Berry, Alvarez, and every other MiLer you've ever heard of)...well, that just wouldn't happen. Choosing between that and something else makes almost as little sense as imagining a "guaranteed" WS victory.

[weams]

Trick question. Unicorns are imaginary, but zebras are just endangered.

But yeah, I think questions like that don't have much merit. The odds of winning a WS aren't great no matter what a team does. Too many variables. Likewise, IMO, there's a limit to how much damage a team can do to its chances by trading a couple of prospects. If the O's just traded Bundy and a couple of prospects who don't usually come up in prospect discussions, would that really be viewed as a long term hindrance? It'd depend on the return, right? If the farm system is truly "gutted" (i.e., with trades of Bundy, Harvey, EdRod, Walker, Berry, Alvarez, and every other MiLer you've ever heard of)...well, that just wouldn't happen. Choosing between that and something else makes almost as little sense as imagining a "guaranteed" WS victory.

I have two feet two eyes and two arms. If you remove my hands, I still have a lot of other stuff. But I am damaged in a way that limits my competitive balance. Bundy and Gausman and Harvey are all very important assets. Especially if all you get is a rental.

[MrOrange82]

I have two feet two eyes and two arms. If you remove my hands, I still have a lot of other stuff. But I am damaged in a way that limits my competitive balance. Bundy and Gausman and Harvey are all very important assets. Especially if all you get is a rental.

Quoting myself seems lazy, but..."it depends on the return, right?"

If the future competitiveness of the O's organization hinges on keeping all of Gausman/Bundy/Harvey, Hell or high water, then I'd argue that the team has already been irreparably damaged, and such damage might actually counsel in favor of "going for it" this year, rather than keeping that group intact.