What is our organizational philsophy?

[DrungoHazewood]

Two questions:

1) Does an organization need a core philosophy in order to succeed?

2) If they have a core philosophy, what business is it of the fans?

Honestly, I'm just one of those poor, gullible fools who prefers going to the playoffs twice in three years over 14 years of losing. Winning is the ultimate philosophy.

Pragmatism gets short shrift, and consistency is overrated. Do what works and let others decide whether or not you get to be called a true believer in some kind of theoretical construct. My 25-year-old self would cringe, but I'm done with thinking that your amp can only have two settings - off and 11.

[Aristotelian]

We sign higher-priced free agents only as a last resort, and after their demands have not been met by other teams and we can get them at a reasonable price.

Good point. I would add as corollary that you try to develop the core internally through home grown/pre-arb players (Machado, Jones, Gonzo, Gausman, Tillman, Davis), and use free agents to supplement and fill holes when necessary (Hardy, Ubaldo).

[TINSTAAPP]

Good point. I would add as corollary that you try to develop the core internally through home grown/pre-arb players (Machado, Jones, Gonzo, Gausman, Tillman, Davis), and use free agents to supplement and fill holes when necessary (Hardy, Ubaldo).

Funny enough, I've always believed they should take the exact opposite approach with the pitching staff. Camden Yards is a very tough ballpark to pitch in and there are always so many good power hitting teams in this division that "growing the arms" is not the right strategy for the Orioles to build a winning team. They need to have a core of reliable veteran starters in place so their young minor league pitchers can develop at their own pace and be brought up only when they are ready. Use the minor league pitchers as replacements when pitchers are struck down by injury or just flat out ineffective. Just do not ever count on unproven young pitchers to be the core of the pitching staff no matter how they talented they are. The Orioles did that for years under Flanagan/Beattie and MacPhail and the results were disastrous. Watching all those inexperienced arms pitch to the great Yankees and Red Sox lineups from the mid 2000s was like watching lambs being led out to a slaughter. That should never happen again.

[TouchemAll]

I think we do have a philosophy. We look for a lot of depth and a high volume of players we think are undervalued who are in their late 20's to early 30's. We know that all of them won't hit, but trust that if we create opportunities for enough of these players, in any given year a few of them will perform well and augment the core that we otherwise have. We'd rather try a guy who was a highly rated prospect who didn't succeed as his original team hoped, than hold on to our own Grade B prospects and hope they pan out. Therefore, we're willing to trade mid-level prospects for guys who can help us in the near term.

We use our top level farm teams to house a lot of older players who have some major league experience, who can be brought in when we have injuries, or when some of the initial round of low budget guys we brought in don't work out.

We will decide who is part of the trusted core of the team and pay them what we think they are worth, but not more.

We sign higher-priced free agents only as a last resort, and after their demands have not been met by other teams and we can get them at a reasonable price.

That's the model. It worked well in 2012-14. Only time will tell how it worked out in 2015 and beyond. It's certainly open to debate whether that approach can work over time, or whether it only works when you have a young, cheap core that you don't have to pay market value for (which has been the case the last three years but won't be so cheap going forward).

I have to admit Bingo we have winner you've hit the nail on the head.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I would describe it as pragmatic. (Arguably, that means we don't have a philosophy). On the one hand, we don't go all-in. If we make moves, they are likely of the "tweak" and "retool" variety. We do not sacrifice our top prospects (Gausman, Bundy, Harvey, Schoop). On the other hand, we will sacrifice middle tier prospects (Eduardo, Hader) and draft picks to fill holes.

On the one hand, we will do everything we can to avoid DFA players that are out of options (Norris, Matusz, Lough). On the other hand, when a player is truly failing (De Aza, Delmon) we will eat their salary to give another guy an opportunity (Reimold, Parmelee). We will give veterans a long leash but will reduce their role if they can't turn things around (Ubaldo 2014, Norris 2015).

We do not go after superstar free agents (Cruz 2015), but we will spend some money to fill needs when we think we can find a good value (Ubaldo, Cruz 2014, Hardy extension).

We seem to value home runs and defense from our position players (OBP not so much)

We seem to value balance and depth in the system over a few star players.

It's all working now, more or less. Two playoffs in three years. No reason to change unless things get really bad all of a sudden. Philosophy is not always a good thing, despite my nickname.

This is a good summary. I'll just add the we do seem to have some sort of a core that we value and try to supplement as well can to be competitive. If that core were to disappear, I could see DD selling off, but I think we'll have enough through at least 2016 to be competitive.

[LookitsPuck]

I guess you can define "top" any way you want, but if the 2014 season had ended the day we traded Rodriguez he wouldn't have been on many or any 2015 top 100 prospect lists. He had a nearly 5.00 ERA his second stint in AA, with mediocre peripherals to back that up.

Young, partially injured recently, lefty. Also, does it concern you that he goes over to the BoSox and starts pitching well immediately in the minors? Same w/ Jake Arrieta.

Something about our organization that just screws young pitchers for whatever reason. It's very concerning.

[LookitsPuck]

I think we do have a philosophy. We look for a lot of depth and a high volume of players we think are undervalued who are in their late 20's to early 30's. We know that all of them won't hit, but trust that if we create opportunities for enough of these players, in any given year a few of them will perform well and augment the core that we otherwise have. We'd rather try a guy who was a highly rated prospect who didn't succeed as his original team hoped, than hold on to our own Grade B prospects and hope they pan out. Therefore, we're willing to trade mid-level prospects for guys who can help us in the near term.

We use our top level farm teams to house a lot of older players who have some major league experience, who can be brought in when we have injuries, or when some of the initial round of low budget guys we brought in don't work out.

We will decide who is part of the trusted core of the team and pay them what we think they are worth, but not more.

We sign higher-priced free agents only as a last resort, and after their demands have not been met by other teams and we can get them at a reasonable price.

That's the model. It worked well in 2012-14. Only time will tell how it worked out in 2015 and beyond. It's certainly open to debate whether that approach can work over time, or whether it only works when you have a young, cheap core that you don't have to pay market value for (which has been the case the last three years but won't be so cheap going forward).

Well, this is very true.

But I don't think this model works when a good portion of your team leaves and you have zero left in the farm system to fill the blanks in a meaningful manner. At that point, we all saw what happens when you have AAAA talent filling out your roster this year. Hint: it's not good.

[Frobby]

Well, this is very true.

But I don't think this model works when a good portion of your team leaves and you have zero left in the farm system to fill the blanks in a meaningful manner. At that point, we all saw what happens when you have AAAA talent filling out your roster this year. Hint: it's not good.

I do think you are correct that we can't fill all the holes created by our departing free agents with people who are in our farm system now and depth signings. But, the O's will have more money available to spend than usual with all the salaries coming off the books. Dan has a lot of flexibility this offseason that he didn't have last year.

As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't say we have zero left in our farm system. But we don't have much in the near term that you can see as a core rotation member or starting position player.

[notyourbuddy]

Just do not ever count on unproven young pitchers to be the core of the pitching staff no matter how they talented they are. The Orioles did that for years under Flanagan/Beattie and MacPhail and the results were disastrous. Watching all those inexperienced arms pitch to the great Yankees and Red Sox lineups from the mid 2000s

Its worked pretty well for the Rays.

Seems the Oriole's problem is their young pitchers are never ready. Whatever is going on down in the O's Minor League system with regards to starting pitcher development does not seem to be working. Injuries and general ineffectiveness feel all too common around here.

[brooksfrankjim]

In the 20+ years of PA ownership I would say the philosophy is to never do everything it takes to win a World Series. We won 96 games last year and the plan for this year should have been to go all in. Keep the free agents and add an ace somehow. The old man is like 85 years old. He can't take his money with him.

If we lose most of the free agents, next thing you will hear is Adam Jones asking to be traded. Who wants to be part of an organization that never will do everything to win.

[Nevermore]

In the 20+ years of PA ownership I would say the philosophy is to never do everything it takes to win a World Series. We won 96 games last year and the plan for this year should have been to go all in. Keep the free agents and add an ace somehow. The old man is like 85 years old. He can't take his money with him.

If we lose most of the free agents, next thing you will hear is Adam Jones asking to be traded. Who wants to be part of an organization that never will do everything to win.

I'm joining into this discussion rather late. I actually left Orioles fandom; rather I went into "Orioles Fan Exile" when Angelos bought the team and proceeded to ruin it with his meddling and later, tight-wadiness (I realize that this isn't a word). Character does count with me when it comes to players, and when Angelos insisted on signing Albert Belle, that's when I turned in my 13-game season plan and latched on to the Ravens. Not saying that the Ravens were all of sterling character, but none of them were Albert Belle. During the following 14 year span, Angelos's philosophy seemed to be make money while putting in as little into the team as possible. The results were 14 losing season and attendance plummeting. Myself, I was angrily boycotting Angelos because of what he was doing for the team. I joined campaigns, all which failed, to try and get Angelos to sell the team.

Fast-forward 14 years. Maybe Angelos realized that fielding losing, cheap teams wasn't making money. And/or perhaps a bunch of players came who decided that they wanted to win in spite of Peter Angelos. Either or both ways, the team started winning and contending for the playoffs. And many fans, including myself, came out of exile and began attending games. Now I have a 29-game season plan, which I intend to keep even if this year's Orioles fail to make the playoffs.

So what is the team's philosophy now? I still believe that Angelos wants to make money off the team. The only difference is that Angelos has realized that a cheap, losing team won't make the money that he wants. He will go as cheap as possible, but will try and get his GM to field winning teams, feeding them what is basically propaganda, that the Orioles are "small-market" and thus cannot afford expensive super-star FAs. Which is nonsense. Angelos has plenty of money to spend, he just wants to keep as much of it as he can.

So what is DD's philosophy? To try and do what Angelos wishes and field an inexpensive "small-market" team that still has chances to win. I'm getting more of a gut feeling that DD will be headed off to Toronto sometime next year, where he'll have more freedom to build a winning team. And he'll be replaced by another "small-market" GM who will abide by Angelos's philosophy and guidelines.

The problem with this philosophy is that it fails in building a sufficient core of players who can be assured that they will be with the team for a while. Yes, there are some FA "hired guns" who don't care which team they play for as long as they get the big bucks. But there are others who wish to stick around and invest their efforts for the Orioles. Some come from our farm system and a few are incoming FAs. Teams consist of groups of players, not colored jerseys. If O's management decides on the philosophy of letting just about all FAs walk in their walk years, without serious attempts to keep them, the group of players will be hesitant to invest their efforts in the Orioles because they will have some worries about whether they will be around or whether they will be let go. A prime example in my opinion is Nelson Cruz. O's management got Cruz on the cheap. Now that he has shown that he's worth a lot more, O's management let him walk, using the excuse that he's too old and the contract (which is what the market called for) is too long. And please, I do not want to get into a long, drawn out discussion on whether or not O's management should or should not have resigned Cruz. I'm just trying to use the Cruz case as an example of current O's management philosophy.

One thing I've noticed: when I go to OPACY for games, most fans are wearing jerseys, T-shirts, etc. of their favorite players. Some are of players (such as Cruz or Markakis) who have already moved on. This tells me something, that fans do root for players, not just colored jerseys. I'm not sure that current O's ownership, with their constraints on management, is yet aware of this.

[LookitsPuck]

I do think you are correct that we can't fill all the holes created by our departing free agents with people who are in our farm system now and depth signings. But, the O's will have more money available to spend than usual with all the salaries coming off the books. Dan has a lot of flexibility this offseason that he didn't have last year.

As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't say we have zero left in our farm system. But we don't have much in the near term that you can see as a core rotation member or starting position player.

By my count, we're going to have the following spots open next season:

1. Starting catcher

2. Starting 1B

3. Starting LF

4. Starting RF

Pearce is a FA in 2016. I suppose Snider gets a spot, but really is that optimal?

As for the rotation, we lose Chen and Norris.

In the bullpen, we lose Hunter, Matusz and O'Day.

Obviously the biggest losses are Chen, O'Day, Wieters, and Davis.

Paredes certainly put on a show the first half, but are you OK with him as a DH going into next season? Certainly curious.

We simply don't have any impact position players in the minors. Christian Walker isn't hitting. Urrutia is a bust. Alvarez has no plate discipline...and we don't know if he'd be a starter or simply a 4th OF'er.

Yes, Joseph *could* be our starting C next year, but are you OK with that considering all of the other holes?

Yes, a lot of money comes off the books. Here are the projected 2016 free agents (article was written towards end of last year, BTW):

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/09/2016-mlb-free-agents.html

That market does not look promising from a positional player standpoint.

I think we do get a starter via FA. There's a chance they try and resign Chen. I'm not worried about the bullpen. There's plenty of talent in the system from a BP standpoint.

But the offense really, really worries me.

[Nevermore]

By my count, we're going to have the following spots open next season:

1. Starting catcher

2. Starting 1B

3. Starting LF

4. Starting RF

Pearce is a FA in 2016. I suppose Snider gets a spot, but really is that optimal?

As for the rotation, we lose Chen and Norris.

In the bullpen, we lose Hunter, Matusz and O'Day.

Obviously the biggest losses are Chen, O'Day, Wieters, and Davis.

Paredes certainly put on a show the first half, but are you OK with him as a DH going into next season? Certainly curious.

We simply don't have any impact position players in the minors. Christian Walker isn't hitting. Urrutia is a bust. Alvarez has no plate discipline...and we don't know if he'd be a starter or simply a 4th OF'er.

Yes, Joseph *could* be our starting C next year, but are you OK with that considering all of the other holes?

Yes, a lot of money comes off the books. Here are the projected 2016 free agents (article was written towards end of last year, BTW):

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/09/2016-mlb-free-agents.html

That market does not look promising from a positional player standpoint.

I think we do get a starter via FA. There's a chance they try and resign Chen. I'm not worried about the bullpen. There's plenty of talent in the system from a BP standpoint.

But the offense really, really worries me.

Is there any pitcher, either in the farm system or in FA who could replace Chen (SP) or O'Day (RP)? Why not make a run for them rather than make runs for some sorts of replacements? I don't think that next year's farm system will be able to replace either of these.

As for offense, I agree with you and I'm worried.