This is A Mess (Mega RANT Thread)

[CA-ORIOLE]

haha -- I never thought I'd see the day where hoosiers and I were referred to as "cohorts". Message boards are truly a insane place.

Sorry "cohort". I think that's fair. Certainly with respect to Duquette. You guys seam to be in synch and rather enthusiastically agreeing with each other on the subject. No?

[hoosiers]

Bedard was dealt as I am sure you would agree when the team was not competitive. I look at the Donaldson trade now and still shake my head. Unless those prospects pan out Billy dealt a top 10 player for Lawrie.

You have no idea nor do I what they would have received in return? If we deal those players other moves would not have been made. You were going to fill the SS, C and 1B holes in the deals those three players would have opened up? You need a willing trade partner who views these players as game changers and in an era where youth rules would have given up the type of talent that is so hard to find.

If we had ready players in our system to replace those 3 then that changes my thinking.

Again, why does it matter if a team is competitive or not, when discussing trading Erik Bedard for Tillman, Jones and other? Wouldn't you rather increase the talent base of the organization almost regardless? Sure the NYY or LAD are not going to trade their Erik Bedards, but a large majority of teams would be better off.

And why are you so concerned about who plays SS, C and 1B if those guys are dealt? Can't you just assume those holes will be filled in a competent manner including possibly from the prospect haul received in trading Wieters, Davis, Hardy. Between, Bedard, Wieters, Davis and Hardy, two became injured almost immediately - so there were (or would have been) immediate holes to fill without the trades anyway. Either way, conceptually, you are better off making a trade. On the surface, conceptually, a trade should be an even exchange of talent so why worry so much about losing what you are giving up if make a good trade.

[El Gordo]

No I do not think that the Orioles are cheap but I do think that they could spend more and I also don't think they spent their money as efficiently as they could have. The Nationals receive significantly less of the MASN resources yet have a payroll that is $50 million higher. That's difficult to accept. The Orioles don't draft well and they do a poor job of developing pitchers so they have to spend some money to compete.

There's roster manipulation and then there's what the Orioles do. Chen was just sent down to the minors! They have a bunch of part time platoon players that are getting rotated into the starting lineup. Having depth is important but what the Orioles are doing is certainly interesting. You might disagree but I don't think that the combination of Reimold, Parmele, Pearce, Lough, Snider and Flaherty are the answer.

I repeat my question. What OF type would you have signed FA, or traded for, last winter, to get even a Davis type bat (K's and all) instead of these guys. And how much would it have cost. If you have no answer for that then pipe down.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If DD had traded CD then, 99% of this board would have raided the warehouse and promptly transported DD to Sheppard Pratt.

Ridiculous and Ludicrous is a pretty apt description of suggesting DD should have done that. Nobody expected that dramatic a drop in productivity. Some drop....sure but not to the extreme that came to pass.

Well, it makes me a troll apparently. Not saying these things weren't discussed or that I don't appreciate or consider more out of the box opinions, but calling out the GM for NOT doing it (especially under the circumstances) is simply ridiculous criticism in my opinion.

[SteveO]

Well, since this is a mess DD made over the winter, what would you have spent in $$$ or trade to get that bat. And don't say Cruz because he is neither an OF or a 1B.

I'm not a GM I have no clue what deals where realistically out there. I know the FA market was pretty thin. I never buy the whole "well what would you have done thing".....GM's get deals done all the time. Maybe not great ones but my guess is that you can get better value in the offseason trying to trade for an OF than before the July trade deadline.

[El Gordo]

I agree. I think their overall record reflects the team well. Average

As are all the other AL East teams.

[weams]

1927 Yankees did not.

They had no option to play elsewhere or to sell their services to the highest bidder. Either.

[El Gordo]

I'm not a GM I have no clue what deals where realistically out there. I know the FA market was pretty thin. I never buy the whole "well what would you have done thing".....GM's get deals done all the time. Maybe not great ones but my guess is that you can get better value in the offseason trying to trade for an OF than before the July trade deadline.

That's all you really needed to say. Your criticisms are invalid IMO if you can't provide a specific example. It's like saying DD made a mess because he failed to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Other GM's do. Or he made a mess because he failed to identify the best meh players.

[weams]

Again, why does it matter if a team is competitive or not, when discussing trading Erik Bedard for Tillman, Jones and other? Wouldn't you rather increase the talent base of the organization almost regardless? Sure the NYY or LAD are not going to trade their Erik Bedards, but a large majority of teams would be better off.

And why are you so concerned about who plays SS, C and 1B if those guys are dealt? Can't you just assume those holes will be filled in a competent manner including possibly from the prospect haul received in trading Wieters, Davis, Hardy. Between, Bedard, Wieters, Davis and Hardy, two became injured almost immediately - so there were (or would have been) immediate holes to fill without the trades anyway. Either way, conceptually, you are better off making a trade. On the surface, conceptually, a trade should be an even exchange of talent so why worry so much about losing what you are giving up if make a good trade.

You would admit that after losing for so long that winning for consecutive seasons had it's own value for the Orioles though. It did take a few years for the Bedard deal to realize it's true value for us.

[Stotle]

Sorry "cohort". I think that's fair. Certainly with respect to Duquette. You guys seam to be in synch and rather enthusiastically agreeing with each other on the subject. No?

I don't know, to be honest. I was just thinking back a few years when hoosiers and I used to lock horns a lot.

I think hoosiers has a very good feel for the challenges Duquette is facing, and I bet if you go back to my posts they've been reasonably consistent over the past two winters, down to similar word choice during the offseason (probably something like "the next 24/18/12 months will tell us a lot about how this front office is doing at building up an organization that can succeed long term"). We're nearing "the next six months will tell us a lot" and we've seen the same style of moves throughout the tenure. Hopefully it works out; I don't think doubters are wrong to point out concerns just as I'm sure you believe the supporters aren't wrong to believe that the front office is making the best moves available and there isn't anything more that can/could be done.

I would say Drungo and I probably have the largest fundamental disagreement as to team building, but I get where he is coming from when it comes to the Orioles. I don't think we will see eye to eye as far as the extent to which certain outcomes along the way should be attributable to luck, and that's completely fine. He's a very smart guy and nothing about me makes my analysis any more legitimate than his.

There are a bunch of decision-makers in baseball who look at these issues differently and I'm not (quite) egotistical enough to believe that the folks I agree with are the smart ones and the others are all stupid. But that mentality seems to permeate the board (I'd assume all message boards, but I don't really know).

[hoosiers]

If DD had traded CD then, 99% of this board would have raided the warehouse and promptly transported DD to Sheppard Pratt.

Ridiculous and Ludicrous is a pretty apt description of suggesting DD should have done that. Nobody expected that dramatic a drop in productivity. Some drop....sure but not to the extreme that came to pass.

So, of the cost controlled stars the Os have had in recent years, I count Jones, Tillman, Bedard, Wieters, JJohnson, Hardy and Davis. I advocated dealing the last five names. Of the six, we have seen two injuries, three large production declines and pretty good production despite injuries from Hardy until this season and continued strong production from Adam Jones (who I may have advocated trading at one time, can't recall).

Next time I advocate dealing a cost controlled star, I will add extra language to say that dealing a veteran star (instead of keeping)has an added benefit of avoiding injury and production risk so that it is not a surprise when it happens. Really, who cares how dramatic a production drop occurs? Trade the guy at peak value, gather assets and repeat process.

What I don't get is that folks want to either claim 20/20 hindsight on these production declines or other, but miss the lesson. If you had the chance to go back in time and trade Wieters and Davis, would you? If the answer is yes, please keep that in mind the next time the Os get a four orfive WAR guy and someone advocates a trade. Not just any trade, but an equal trade when a great productive player is traded for an equal haul in top prospects.

[Stotle]

That's all you really needed to say. Your criticisms are invalid IMO if you can't provide a specific example. It's like saying DD made a mess because he failed to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Other GM's do. Or he made a mess because he failed to identify the best meh players.

Justin Upton was not cost prohibitive for Baltimore. He isn't right now, either.

Trade Zach Britton to the Cubs -- any number of possible deals there.

Cut bait with Bundy and trade him to Milwaukee for Will Smith. Maybe add Sisco and another piece and grab Lind too.

[hoosiers]

You would admit that after losing for so long that winning for consecutive seasons had it's own value for the Orioles though. It did take a few years for the Bedard deal to realize it's true value for us.

But we won in consecutive seasons with injuries to Wieters AND production declines from the likes of Davis. We won anyway.

Also, as I have posted, the Os were better immediately after the trade because Jones was major league ready. That's an important point.

Sure, there is the need to satisfy a fan base and be mindful of trading fan favorites, but I think fans most prefer to win and I think I have been advocating the best way to not only win, but to sustain that winning over a period of time. Besides, while our GM did not deal ANY of these guys, he could have dealt some of them. Folks here post like it was a long list (at least eight players) of MUST KEEP TO BE GOOD players after 2012 and that is simply NOT the case. You know, Zach Britton replaced JJohnson just fine.

[Frobby]

But when we do that, for instance in the Ed-Rod for Miller deal, people crucify the FO. They really cannot win no matter what they do.

More than 3/4 of the posters supported the Miller trade, according to the poll conducted at the time. I happened to be among the dissenters, and there were some other vocal dissenters as well, but I would not say the FO "cannot win no matter what they do." They had popular support for that move, even if some disagreed with it (and were right ).

Each situation is different. I'd never say you always keep the long-term asset rather than going for short term gain. Exactly how high is the cost, how good is the return you are getting, and how badly do you need the asset you are getting?

[weams]

But we won in consecutive seasons with injuries to Wieters AND production declines from the likes of Davis. We won anyway.

Also, as I have posted, the Os were better immediately after the trade because Jones was major league ready. That's an important point.

Sure, there is the need to satisfy a fan base and be mindful of trading fan favorites, but I think fans most prefer to win and I think I have been advocating the best way to not only win, but to sustain that winning over a period of time. Besides, while our GM did not deal ANY of these guys, he could have dealt some of them. Folks here post like it was a long list (at least eight players) of MUST KEEP TO BE GOOD players after 2012 and that is simply NOT the case. You know, Zach Britton replaced JJohnson just fine.

I was all for moving on from Jim Johnson. Just not after 2012. I was against resigning Brian Roberts.