Lough DFA (Outrighted to Norfolk)

[LookitsPuck]

GM Dan Duquette on @1057TheFan speaks of the # of players DFA'd: "not a good reflection on my management"

Pretty much nailed it. At least he's admitting such.

[backwardsk]

I'm legitimately curious about Gunkel. In the minors, it looks like he may have won this trade. But if Gunkel doesn't contribute meaningfully to the major league roster...it's another failed trade. FWIW, I'm merely talking hindsight. If Duquette didn't have a million OF'ers on the roster or didn't tender De Aza a contract...it's one less thing to sour about. Or, if De Aza was allowed to play through his struggles without Buck having to shuffle a million OF'ers because of Duquette's roster mismanagement....it's also a different situation, yeah?

Conversely, can't you say the same thing about the Norris and Parra trades?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scrat1]

Going into the season, I was totally OK with Dan's OF moves - I was wrong. Dan was too. Have to do better...

I'm not sure I agree. I think, given the circumstances, they were good moves that just didn't pan out, similar to MacPhail's signing of Guerrero and Lee that blew up in his face. Duquette smartly let Markakis walk rather than pay an average outfielder forty million dollars. Then he spread his risk around by resigning de Aza, trading for Snider, and hanging onto Lough, all of whom were projected, by both steamer and ZIPS, to produce about as well as Markakis. Obviously, as we knew and has been demonstrated, that is not a foregone conclusion. But the odds that all three would be terrible this year (at least while in Baltimore) is not really Duquette's fault. It's not surprising that some of them failed or that most of them failed - his plan accounted for that - but it is surprising that every single one of them failed to produce even a 1.0 WAR season, considering all of them have in the past on multiple occasions.

He had loads of outfield depth, some with a track record and some with upside, and not a single one stepped up and produced, including Alvarez and Urrutia in the minors. I think those were smart decisions. What was not smart, however, was trying to paper over that bad streak of luck by doubling down with Parra.

[eddie83]

It has nothing to do with my point.

What value does Lake have?

You think Lake wins the O's any games in the next two weeks? You think he makes this a better team?

I have no idea if Lake will even be here tomorrow. My point is they have tried 50 million players in the OF. I have no expectations that any of them will work. They can call up a glove man on September 1. They weren't going with Lough next year. I find it hard to believe that they went from wanting Lough in 2016 to having to have guys like Uruttia and or Lake.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not sure I agree. I think, given the circumstances, they were good moves that just didn't pan out, similar to MacPhail's signing of Guerrero and Lee that blew up in his face. Duquette smartly left Markakis walk rather than pay an average outfielder forty million dollars. Then he spread his risk around by resigning de Aza, trading for Snider, and hanging onto Lough, all of whom were projected, by both steamer and ZIPS, to produce about as well as Snider. Obviously, as we knew and has been demonstrated, that is not a foregone conclusion. But the odds that all three would be terrible this year (at least while in Baltimore) is not really Duquette's fault.

He had loads of outfield depth, some with a track record and some with upside, and not a single one stepped up and produced, including Alvarez and Urrutia in the minors. I think those were smart decisions. What was not smart, however, was trying to paper over that bad streak of luck by doubling down with Parra.

And now he looks like he is desperate and scrambling to hold the season together. He's just calling up whatever is left at Norfolk hoping lightning will strike.

[Can_of_corn]

I have no idea if Lake will even be here tomorrow. My point is they have tried 50 million players in the OF. I have no expectations that any of them will work. They can call up a glove man on September 1. They weren't going with Lough next year. I find it hard to believe that they went from wanting Lough in 2016 to having to have guys like Uruttia and or Lake.

There is just no logical reason that I can see to DFA Lough now. They only have a couple weeks left until rosters expand.

Even if they keep him and then non-tender him in a couple of months it makes more sense then doing it now.

[LookitsPuck]

Conversely, can't you say the same thing about the Norris and Parra trades?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Norris trade was somewhat defensible, although I feel like he gave up WAYYY too much (draft pick, Hader, Hoes, int'l money) for a middle of the rotation guy who was owed decent scratch going forward.

The Parra trade I think was idiotic, personally.

[eddie83]

I'm not sure I agree. I think, given the circumstances, they were good moves that just didn't pan out, similar to MacPhail's signing of Guerrero and Lee that blew up in his face. Duquette smartly let Markakis walk rather than pay an average outfielder forty million dollars. Then he spread his risk around by resigning de Aza, trading for Snider, and hanging onto Lough, all of whom were projected, by both steamer and ZIPS, to produce about as well as Markakis. Obviously, as we knew and has been demonstrated, that is not a foregone conclusion. But the odds that all three would be terrible this year (at least while in Baltimore) is not really Duquette's fault. It's not surprising that some of them failed or that most of them failed - his plan accounted for that - but it is surprising that every single one of them failed to produce even a 1.0 WAR season, considering all of them have in the past on multiple occasions.

He had loads of outfield depth, some with a track record and some with upside, and not a single one stepped up and produced, including Alvarez and Urrutia in the minors. I think those were smart decisions. What was not smart, however, was trying to paper over that bad streak of luck by doubling down with Parra.

He rolled the dice at 3 positions, DH, LF and RF. He knows his system lacks position players. I didn't think it would fail like this but with those types of players he was banking on a good bit going right.

[Nevermore]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lough would have to accept outright assignment to AAA if he clears waivers <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/orioles?src=hash">#orioles</a></p>? Roch Kubatko (@masnRoch) <a href="

">August 14, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It's about time.

[Scrat1]

I forgot to mention Pearce as well. Even if no one expected him to repeat 2014, we couldn't have foreseen his total collapse. Not one of Pearce, Reimold, de Aza (in Baltimore), Snider, Lough, Young or Parmalee were able to produce a 1.0 WAR season. That's pretty crazy. In fact, if you add up their fWAR totals (including Parra's abysmal -0.5 WAR in just 50 PA), you come to -0.7 WAR. We could have randomly selected guys from AA/AAA and ad a legitimate shot at outproducing our major league outfield.

[eddie83]

There is just no logical reason that I can see to DFA Lough now. They only have a couple weeks left until rosters expand.

Even if they keep him and then non-tender him in a couple of months it makes more sense then doing it now.

They are hoping these guys from the minors are going to impact the team. I have very little hope they will. Borbon or someone else will replace Lough on Sept 1. They are letting go of a late inning defensive specialist who they didn't want back. I get you think who they are adding isn't much and I don't disagree.

[Can_of_corn]

I forgot to mention Pearce as well. Even if no one expected him to repeat 2014, we couldn't have foreseen his total collapse. Not one of Pearce, Reimold, de Aza (in Baltimore), Snider, Lough, Young or Parmalee were able to produce a 1.0 WAR season. That's pretty crazy.

And the starting pitching regressed significantly.

[Nevermore]

I think he had a very poor year. Too many uncertain players in the corner OF spots, which made it tough on the players and on Buck. The bullpen had limited flexibility with players that could not be optioned.

I agree. Far too much dead money spent. And now we have more dead money. I've said this before: We could have signed Nelson Cruz with all that dead money.

[Can_of_corn]

I agree. Far too much dead money spent. And now we have more dead money. I've said this before: We could have signed Nelson Cruz with all that dead money.

If Cruz had wanted to sign another one year deal I bet Dan would have done it.

[weams]

If Cruz had wanted to sign another one year deal I bet Dan would have done it.

Maybe even for 15.5 million. What do you think?