Duquette says signing Davis a priority.

[DrungoHazewood]

This logic about not needing to resign Cruz because we have Wieters/Davis/Machado is based upon erroneous reasoning. We would have had Wieters/Davis/Machado regardless. Cruz would have been an addition, not a replacement.

I still quibble with the idea that they "needed" to resign Cruz because everyone knew he'd be great. All I knew is that he was 34 and coming off his first real good season in many years coming off a PED bust, and that the O's would have had to sign him to an unreasonable contract. The reason they didn't need to sign him was that he is still in a position to dramatically decline while being guaranteed $15M a year through age 37.

[UpstateNYfan]

But as the Blue Jays have shown, if your starting pitching stinks, you can make up for it by taking a great offense and make it elite.

So, if the O's starters stink, score an extra run a game. That'll help, IMHO.

A few weeks ago, someone said the O's had scored 2 runs or less 36 times. I'm sure it's gone up. Can't win many like that. Looking at stats can be a mirage, 18 run games can skew things a bit.

[Can_of_corn]

Exactly. Which means that the Orioles are not some poor, small-market type. And actually, it wasn't Angelos who decided not to resign Nelson Cruz and instead sign a bunch of AAAA players. It was Dan Duquette. And it wasn't a money decision, it was a baseball decision, whether one agrees with DD or not (and in the case of Cruz, I certainly did NOT).

Actually a more plausible theory would be that as revenues have increased due to higher attendance payroll has also been allowed to increase.

Takes a strong agenda to spin an increase in payroll as evidence ownership is cheap.

[weams]

A few weeks ago, someone said the O's had scored 2 runs or less 36 times. I'm sure it's gone up. Can't win many like that. Looking at stats can be a mirage, 18 run games can skew things a bit.

Over 125 games, nothing is a mirage.

[DrungoHazewood]

Over 125 games, nothing is a mirage.

Oh, weams you're awesome but that's not true at all. Lots of things are mirages over more than an entire season. I learned that in 1987, when the Royals had four starters of roughly equal ability and performance but because run support doesn't even out over 162 games Danny Jackson went 9-18 while Charlie Leibrandt went 16-11.

[Nevermore]

At the budget that was set, Davis would have been traded. Maybe even if Nick had signed as well. Hard to say. Remember. I was all for signing Cruz to his mistake of a contract. All for it.

Does Angelos set a static budget figure each year? Or is there some flexibility allowed? So if Cruz had been signed for 4 years, then would DD have been obligated to trade Davis? My understanding from all of DD's quotes is that DD objected to the 4th year because of Cruz's age, not to the amount of money that would have been spent.

[Can_of_corn]

Whatever you do, don't talk facts. It simply won't do. It must be Cruz.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

At least they quit talking about Miller.

[24fps]

Does Angelos set a static budget figure each year? Or is there some flexibility allowed? So if Cruz had been signed for 4 years, then would DD have been obligated to trade Davis? My understanding from all of DD's quotes is that DD objected to the 4th year because of Cruz's age, not to the amount of money that would have been spent.

None of us know of course, but my pet theory is that PA would be receptive to a GM pleading special cases but at the risk of a severe hit to future credibility in the event of failure.

Watching from the outside, DD's behavior leads me to believe that there is a fixed budget each year and it's taken very seriously.

[mdbdotcom]

For every task there is a priority of some kind. Is signing Davis a high priority, a low priority, or just somewhere on the list?

[Frobby]

Maybe the distribution is the issue, rather than the mirage. Runs aren't dialed in. You get them when you get them. Obviously a team that scored exactly 4 runs per game would win more games than a team that goes 81 games at 0 and 81 games at 8 runs per game, but you don't get to pick. This is where the "it isn't our year stuff comes in". What we've seen this year regarding erratic run production is much more a function of distribution variance than talent (although the type of talent is a component, home run hitters vs OBP guys, but we had the same types last year).

And the Orioles' distribution isn't anything abnormal, except for the three extreme games at the high end, which skew things only a little. We've had 32% of our games scoring 2 runs or less; league average is 34%. The Yankees are at 31%, the Red Sox at 33%, the Rangers at 35% -- those are all top 5 offenses. Among the top offensive teams, only the Blue Jays are significantly better, at 24%.

[srock]

This seems like a good rant to hijack to make a point about single year payroll versus the long term budget.

BBRef Orioles Payroll

2015 23 players guaranteed $98.8M

2016 3 players guaranteed $41.8M

2017 3 players guaranteed $43.8M

2018 1 player guranteed $19.33M (Adam Jones, plus $2M buyout for Hardy)

2019 0 commitments

This team had done a fabulous job of minimizing long term commitments. Because of this, the money is available to make a few long term commitments without hamstringing the roster.

Looking at 2016, the payroll could easily go past $120, way past, so long as the long term payroll projection is still flexible and within the mid-point across baseball.

My guess, they want to keep the guaranteed money under $60 million a year (that goes a bit each year as average payroll goes up).

If I am correct (roughly) there is about $20 million available for guaranteed contracts in 2016 and 2017, and $40 million in 2018, and all $60 beyond.

Can you fit Davis and a Machado extension into those numbers? I think so.

Not sure you can fit O'Day and Chen in with them. Depends on back-loading of contracts.

[LookitsPuck]

Are you intentionally missing the point? The point is that the spot that failed is where we were set. Of course, it is about run differential but a competent FO plans for expected results in RS and RA. RA is our problem despite no attrition. I argued several times that RA would be worse with the same starters because Norris and Chen were due for regression. I was right on Norris and wrong on Chen. I honestly think Norris and Hunter (money, not production) were the biggest mistakes of the offseason before the season started. I also didn't understand De Aza though I could see why we hoped he'd produce like he did with us.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not intentionally missing the point. I think you're missing my point. When you weaken the team, you need to make up for it elsewhere. Duquette tried hopes and dreams and AAAA players. That doesn't fly. And that's why we have a good team...not a great team.

[LookitsPuck]

Maybe the distribution is the issue, rather than the mirage. Runs aren't dialed in. You get them when you get them. Obviously a team that scored exactly 4 runs per game would win more games than a team that goes 81 games at 0 and 81 games at 8 runs per game, but you don't get to pick. This is where the "it isn't our year stuff comes in". What we've seen this year regarding erratic run production is much more a function of distribution variance than talent (although the type of talent is a component, home run hitters vs OBP guys, but we had the same types last year).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don't think it's not talent? If it wasn't, why pick up Parra?

[srock]

I'm not intentionally missing the point. I think you're missing my point. When you weaken the team, you need to make up for it elsewhere. Duquette tried hopes and dreams and AAAA players. That doesn't fly. And that's why we have a good team...not a great team.

It soared high like an Eagle in 2014. Not so much in 2015.

Its a good way to fill holes, and every team has holes, nearly every year. Luck sometimes gets the better of us.

[mdbdotcom]

I'm not intentionally missing the point. I think you're missing my point. When you weaken the team, you need to make up for it elsewhere. Duquette tried hopes and dreams and AAAA players. That doesn't fly. And that's why we have a good team...not a great team.

Whereas if we had Cruz we would have a great team? Of course, it would still be in third place because the starting pitching has been problematic. I really thing that you have no point that hasn't already been refuted.