Paul Folk: Are The Orioles Putting Too Much Faith In Their Own Players?

[weams]

I like our guys!

http://www.pressboxonline.com/2015/01/22/are-the-orioles-putting-too-much-faith-in-their-own-players

The Orioles like their guys. And maybe they're right to do so. But they're taking quite a gamble in eschewing the free-agent market entirely, especially with several unanswered questions in the starting lineup. If Pearce regresses, De Aza disappoints and Lough and Young show they're nothing more than bench players, the Orioles' lack of depth could quickly catch up to them. They might wish they had been more active in pursuing a solid free agent or trade acquisition to bolster their team.

[Frobby]

It's about money. Angelos keeps the team on a tight budget, and they have a lot of players due for raises. That doesn't leave much room to sign free agents. If Angelos authorized a higher payroll, the story might be different. But I'm not complaining. We can win with this team.

[DrungoHazewood]

There is certainly risk in counting on a late-1970s Earl Weaver kind of team coming together year after year. It is difficult to lose key free agents and replace them with David Lough and Pat Kelly and De Aza and Larry Harlow. But there is also significant risk in committing irrational amounts of money/years to declining guys in their 30s and the other inconsistent, wart-filled free agents that might fit the budget.

No matter what they did (within reason) this offseason the likely outcome is fewer wins than in 2014. Even the strong teams who sign baskets full of free agents aren't likely to win 96 games.

[25 Nuggets]

The Orioles have put too much faith in their own players (especially the prospects) before, but c'mon, look at the rest of the division. Whatever question marks we've got, the other teams have just as many if not more.

[Ohfan67]

The tight budget rationale, of course, makes sense. But then why invest so much in Matusz? Not all of their moves and non-moves fit the paradigm.

They are counting on their own players too much IMO, but it's not about De Aza, Lough, et al. I think they believe that chris Davis will be a force and that Wieters will be a factor. I think that's what a lot of decisions are really based on.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's about money. Angelos keeps the team on a tight budget, and they have a lot of players due for raises. That doesn't leave much room to sign free agents. If Angelos authorized a higher payroll, the story might be different. But I'm not complaining. We can win with this team.

Exactly this. DD is not "gambling" or "ignoring" the FA market. He's taking (what he sees as) the best course of action with the resources he has, while balancing our short and long term priorities.

[weams]

The tight budget rationale, of course, makes sense. But then why invest so much in Matusz? Not all of their moves and non-moves fit the paradigm.

They are counting on their own players too much IMO, but it's not about De Aza, Lough, et al. I think they believe that chris Davis will be a force and that Wieters will be a factor. I think that's what a lot of decisions are really based on.

I assume that they still think that Matusz has excess value. I think they are wrong, but they are usually smarter than I.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The tight budget rationale, of course, makes sense. But then why invest so much in Matusz? Not all of their moves and non-moves fit the paradigm.

They are counting on their own players too much IMO, but it's not about De Aza, Lough, et al. I think they believe that Chris Davis will be a force and that Wieters will be a factor. I think that's what a lot of decisions are really based on.

I think paying Matusz 3.2 Mil is fair criticism. What other players do you think we should not have retained?

[weams]

I think paying Matusz 3.2 Mil is fair criticism. What other players do you think we should not have retained?

That could be an error of as much as a million dollars. Like signing Nolan Reimold a couple times.

[El Gordo]

Generalizations about investing more in the FA market are pointless. What free agent should we have gone after and at what cost? Melky? Aoki? Rasmus? Cruz at 58 M? Scherzer? Shields? Miller at 8 M per? I like our guys, sorry.

[wildcard]

I think paying Matusz 3.2 Mil is fair criticism. What other players do you think we should not have retained?

If DD is still here, I think Matusz is traded by opening day.

[primetime]

I'm hoping that the lack of making any kind of splash or going after any relatively high priced FAs is because we're planning to allocate funds to extensions for guys Tillman, Manny and maybe even Gausman.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If DD is still here, I think Matusz is traded by opening day.

Well, good luck with that. I don't see any value there at 3.2 mil.

[El Gordo]

I'm hoping that the lack of making any kind of splash or going after any relatively high priced FAs is because we're planning to allocate funds to extensions for guys Tillman, Manny and maybe even Gausman.

What high priced FA do you think we should have gone after?

[Crazysilver03]

If DD is still here, I think Matusz is traded by opening day.

I don't know how anyone can assume Matusz will be traded. He has lasted well past several benchmarks for being moved.

I can agree that the team is relying on their own players too much but they either succeed with what they got or go down with them.