This is A Mess (Mega RANT Thread)

[Stotle]

Since we don't know the particulars this is all idle speculation. Norris was a league average SP last winter, fairly reasonably priced. He had value in trade and he had value to the O's. No one expected this level of implosion. Maybe they felt that unless they were overwhelmed by an offer it was better to keep Norris and make Gausman earn his way onto the rotation. If he did and Norris was still a league average SP, then he should have been easy to move in a trade. Their error appears in not anticipating this melt down.

I disagree. If you have a cheaper solution, and you believe in that cheaper solution, then your error is not utilizing the cheaper solution. That's $8 MM you could be spending on whatever else -- midseason acquisition, shoring-up something else on the 25-man, signing some of those (as weams would call them) latin american drug-using teenagers...whatever you want.

[El Gordo]

I disagree. If you have a cheaper solution, and you believe in that cheaper solution, then your error is not utilizing the cheaper solution. That's $8 MM you could be spending on whatever else -- midseason acquisition, shoring-up something else on the 25-man, signing some of those (as weams would call them) latin american drug-using teenagers...whatever you want.

If we are talking about Gausman then he's a risk. He isn't a slam dunk to be a mid/back rotation SP and replace Norris of 2014. But if the offers for Norris are attractive enough you take the risk. If not you let Gausman work on that third pitch in AAA.

[Stotle]

If we are talking about Gausman then he's a risk. He isn't a slam dunk to be a mid/back rotation SP and replace Norris of 2014. But if the offers for Norris are attractive enough you take the risk. If not you let Gausman work on that third pitch in AAA.

Right, but then that is not aggressively shopping Norris. And if the team was not aggressively shopping Norris that's fine, but it's part of the reason there is less flexibility now.

[El Gordo]

Right, but then that is not aggressively shopping Norris. And if the team was not aggressively shopping Norris that's fine, but it's part of the reason there is less flexibility now.

I don't see the nuances between listening to offers, using him as part of a package to acquire something you need more like an OF bat, or "aggressively shopping him". It was not like Gausman was a slam dunk TOR in waiting, and Norris was a meltdown walking, and we had to dump his salary before anyone else noticed.

[DrungoHazewood]

I disagree. If you have a cheaper solution, and you believe in that cheaper solution, then your error is not utilizing the cheaper solution. That's $8 MM you could be spending on whatever else -- midseason acquisition, shoring-up something else on the 25-man, signing some of those (as weams would call them) latin american drug-using teenagers...whatever you want.

I don't get why it was a poor idea to go into spring training and then the season with six reasonable starting pitchers, and figure out what to do with #6 (i.e. use Gausman as a shutdown reliever) until such times comes that they need #6 to start. This seems to be just as okay a plan as aggressively shopping one year of a decent starter making $8M, hoping to end up with a deeper organization but less of a plan for when a starter goes down.

[DrungoHazewood]

Right, but then that is not aggressively shopping Norris. And if the team was not aggressively shopping Norris that's fine, but it's part of the reason there is less flexibility now.

Actually, if they'd traded Norris for (insert thing here's that's worth the delta between Norris' expected 1.5, 2-ish win performance and his $8M salary) then every time you need another starter you're dipping further down into the organization. I'd call that less flexibility. Of course, it's worked out that the guy needing to be replaced is Norris himself, but three months ago there were several more likely candidates including the team's current best starter.

[Stotle]

I don't see the nuances between listening to offers, using him as part of a package to acquire something you need more like an OF bat, or "aggressively shopping him". It was not like Gausman was a slam dunk TOR in waiting, and Norris was a meltdown walking, and we had to dump his salary before anyone else noticed.

Why are you using grandiose characterizations rather than just straight talking? I know you don't honestly believe the threshold for dumping a more expensive player for a less expensive, long term solution isn't

1. Younger player must be slam dunk top of the rotation starter

2. Older and more expensive player must be a complete meltdown waiting to happen

When you get to run baseball ops for one of the 30 major league clubs, I don't think it's crazy to say part of your job is to make decisions when you don't have a clear black-and-white matter like a guarantied future stud vs. a one-year vet who is all but guaranteed to bust. In fact, I'd say that almost none of your decisions involve those type of scenarios, and if they did then anyone with half a brain could run a baseball team.

You get paid to make the hard decisions, almost always with imperfect information, and that's what you're judged on.

[Stotle]

Actually, if they'd traded Norris for (insert thing here's that's worth the delta between Norris' expected 1.5, 2-ish win performance and his $8M salary) then every time you need another starter you're dipping further down into the organization. I'd call that less flexibility. Of course, it's worked out that the guy needing to be replaced is Norris himself, but three months ago there were several more likely candidates including the team's current best starter.

No, Duquette doesn't get "Ubaldo could be a huge issue" as an out -- that has been his marquee signing. And if he was such a disbeliever in Ubaldo then why did he give him a four year contract? He thought it was prudent to give a four year deal to a player who, if year one went bad, should not be counted upon for the life of the deal?

I mean, I guess that's possible, but now you have me back to being worried about the decision-making in signing Jimenez.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why are you using grandiose characterizations rather than just straight talking? I know you don't honestly believe the threshold for dumping a more expensive player for a less expensive, long term solution isn't

1. Younger player must be slam dunk top of the rotation starter

2. Older and more expensive player must be a complete meltdown waiting to happen

When you get to run baseball ops for one of the 30 major league clubs, I don't think it's crazy to say part of your job is to make decisions when you don't have a clear black-and-white matter like a guarantied future stud vs. a one-year vet who is all but guaranteed to bust. In fact, I'd say that almost none of your decisions involve those type of scenarios, and if they did then anyone with half a brain could run a baseball team.

You get paid to make the hard decisions, almost always with imperfect information, and that's what you're judged on.

You acknowledge that franchise management is an area with huge swaths of grey, very little black and white, with many paths to a good team. But you're pretty aggressively defending and advocating your stance that the team needs to transfer risk and probable losses from the future to the present to build for the outyears. Duquette seems much more comfortable with keeping the core intact, trying to win now, while patching holes as they come up. I'm pretty okay with that path, while admitting it's not in any way free of risk. It's a preference, not a black and white thing.

[Stotle]

I don't get why it was a poor idea to go into spring training and then the season with six reasonable starting pitchers, and figure out what to do with #6 (i.e. use Gausman as a shutdown reliever) until such times comes that they need #6 to start. This seems to be just as okay a plan as aggressively shopping one year of a decent starter making $8M, hoping to end up with a deeper organization but less of a plan for when a starter goes down.

It's only a problem when you refuse to make a change until halfway through the season, and when the salary you are paying the player is guiding the decision-making. By 2014 production, how was Gausman not one of the top five starters for Baltimore entering the year? Heck, I'd argue he was a better starter than Norris.

[DrungoHazewood]

No, Duquette doesn't get "Ubaldo could be a huge issue" as an out -- that has been his marquee signing. And if he was such a disbeliever in Ubaldo then why did he give him a four year contract? He thought it was prudent to give a four year deal to a player who, if year one went bad, should not be counted upon for the life of the deal?

I mean, I guess that's possible, but now you have me back to being worried about the decision-making in signing Jimenez.

I know you don't believe this, but I think Ubaldo was signed knowing full well that he mixes excellent and poor performances. So he was paid to be a 2-ish win pitcher, but at the peaks he'd perform like a 3-4 win pitcher and a short-term salary/win overachiever. And so far that's been true.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's only a problem when you refuse to make a change until halfway through the season, and when the salary you are paying the player is guiding the decision-making. By 2014 production, how was Gausman not one of the top five starters for Baltimore entering the year? Heck, I'd argue he was a better starter than Norris.

I don't know, I would have had him in the rotation. But maybe he profiled better than the others out of the pen.

[Stotle]

You acknowledge that franchise management is an area with huge swaths of grey, very little black and white, with many paths to a good team. But you're pretty aggressively defending and advocating your stance that the team needs to transfer risk and probable losses from the future to the present to build for the outyears. Duquette seems much more comfortable with keeping the core intact, trying to win now, while patching holes as they come up. I'm pretty okay with that path, while admitting it's not in any way free of risk. It's a preference, not a black and white thing.

Of course. If it were a black and white thing then there would be someone else actually agreeing with me! haha

I've laid out the issues in greater detail in the past, but basically the gist is that plugging holes isn't a sustainable approach to building a consistently competitive team unless you are also flipping players. The logical conclusion to that approach is you end-up with a team primarily built around free agency and bargain barrel/reclamation trade targets.

Free agency is generally the most expensive way to add production to your team. When Baltimore loses $60 MM or so in production, it would cost well over $60 MM to bring those same players back via free agency.

Let's ballpark and say that $60 MM spent in free agency will get you about 65% of the production back (since we know FA contracts are not generally big winners for the organizations). That means you have to cover the other 35% with homegrown talent or trading for players who have not yet reached free agency. Both of those paths requires acquiring/developing talent in your system, which I would hope we all agree has not been a focus over the past couple of years.

If the major league team were run the exact same way, but Baltimore had been splurging on international talent, I wouldn't have nearly the same critiques. That younger talent may not be ready to help, but if you are identifying and bringing in valuable assets they can be used as currency in trade.

Where I get hung up with respect to the Orioles' current path, is I see the team painting itself into a situation where all problems are being solved by free agency. Some of it savvy signings and maxed-out use of the 40-man, which is great. But I don't see how we look at that as a sustainable way to operate a competitive major league club within a mid-level budget, unless Duquette is truly the best mind out there and we can be confident there will always be bargains and undervalued talent via FA and trade that no one else is picking-up on. It's possible, but it seems like an awful big risk to take.

[DrungoHazewood]

To be honest, I think the idea that Adam Jones is a singular player upon whose shoulders the franchises future rests is silly. You don't honestly believe losing Jones for the season on opening day would instantly make this team uncompetitive. So I'm not sure why you believe trading him (a scenario where you actually get back assets -- in this instance Justin Upton among others) would have that impact.

You're exaggerating what I/we have said here. No one said that Jones is the superstar who separates the Baltimore Orioles from certain doom. He's a 3-5 win player, on a team with a true talent of maybe 85-88 wins. Losing him and replacing him with someone like David Lough doesn't immediately render the team uncompetitive, but it would hurt. It takes them from the pretty strong playoff contention bucket to the maybe they're a wildcard if stuff breaks right bucket (yes, there's overlap there). But Jones is also on a ton of billboards, he's the funny guy in the MASN commercials, he's the guy going out and doing community stuff and the guy signed to a pretty good deal through 2018. He's the guy my kids root for and my wife knows as an Oriole she can count on being there and being good. Trade him for technical reasons involving potential talent bases in 2016 and beyond and you not only lose wins, you lose the trust of much of the fanbase. Oh, and the players. No, that's not a primary consideration, but if there was whining about losing Nick for his decline years you can imagine the locker room talk about trading the face of the franchise.

[Stotle]

I know you don't believe this, but I think Ubaldo was signed knowing full well that he mixes excellent and poor performances. So he was paid to be a 2-ish win pitcher, but at the peaks he'd perform like a 3-4 win pitcher and a short-term salary/win overachiever. And so far that's been true.

I agree with you. I think the front office figured they'd get the good and the bad. But like long term investing, you only get the target outcome if you are consistently paying in so that your losses are balanced out by your gains. That means he's got to be in the rotation for those four years so that you get the good along with the bad (unless you get to the small sample size of the very end of the year/post-season, and he's on a "bad" run).

This is why I don't believe Baltimore was contingency planning for Jimenez. They knew they would be riding him at least half a year before making any decisions one way or the other as to whether they had to go another route.