Dan's Offseason Moves Part One: Cruz

[weams]

Weams is setting up a false dichotomy

And yes, I do resent that you said that. It was never my point.

[weams]

Yeah, options were greatly limited due to previous years' actions, for sure. Agreed.

I think that with the first taste of winning for a long time that the creative ways to team build were constrained by ownership and fan base wanting to continue to win. And not rebuild along the way.

[weams]

A team like Baltimore?

Also, name a team like Baltimore that was forced to give up more than half it's rights territory, whether they should have had that territory grandfathered to them or not, and then had the rug pulled out by conspiratorial practices. Name one. And we can talk about teams "like" Baltimore that are being sabotaged at every corner for lack of acquiesce.

And not in the NFL.

[Stotle]

I never said that. I said all the teams with good young talent that have been successful over multiple seasons have been very bad for extended periods of time, or leveraged the old rules of trading for players that were type a or b free agents at the end of the year to alleviate a losing team's financial distress to accumulate additional draft slots.

I am certain that their are other methods. That do not require replacing Chris Davis with LaRoche. After winning the division by twelve and being four games from the World Series. I am just not smart enough to know what they are.

That doesn't explain the list of teams above, none of whom were required to finish in last for years in order to build up their organization, improve decision-making, and make smart trades and signings at the major league level. It also ignores the fact that Baltimore has already had that benefit, and was able to acquire a lot of top-of-the-draft talent as a result. They just didn't do the other things that go along with building an organization, and in the last three years they've taken their foot off the pedal in acquiring amateur talent and have focused solely on ML acquisitions (at times at the further expense of the organizational talent base on the farm).

[Stotle]

And yes, I do resent that you said that. It was never my point.

Apologies -- I wasn't trying to mischaracterize. I thought that has been your point. That Baltimore didn't have the luxury of tanking and getting a bunch of top-of-the-draft talent for the next four years in order to improve their system then maybe, maybe, compete in 2018.

[weams]

Apologies -- I wasn't trying to mischaracterize. I thought that has been your point. That Baltimore didn't have the luxury of tanking and getting a bunch of top-of-the-draft talent for the next four years in order to improve their system then maybe, maybe, compete in 2018.

No sir. You misunderstood. We can tank anytime we get smart enough to. We just have to be men enough here to take it. I for one enjoyed some playoffs again. And now, I am ok if we do choose a middle ground or last place Red Sox approach.

[Can_of_corn]

That's not close to the same thing, though. They weren't shooting to draft as high as they could. They were acquiring minor league and major league assets, aggressively. Weams is setting up a false dichotomy -- either Baltimore shrugs and wallows in several years of last place finishes or they do what Duquette is doing and try to win with stop-gap bargain acquisitions. Do you believe those are the only two options available to a team like Baltimore?

Whenever a MLB team's goals do not include winning as many games as possible at the major league level then I think they are on perilous grounds in regards to tanking.

I do not think that the Cubs' emphasis was on winning in the recent past. If it was they would not have had a 75M payroll in 2013. I am sure they could have found players that would not have cost draft picks that could have improved the team.

And of course I do not believe that is the only way to build a winner, I do however think it is one possible route. And it goes beyond merely collecting draft picks.

[Stotle]

Also, name a team like Baltimore that was forced to give up more than half it's rights territory, whether they should have had that territory grandfathered to them or not, and then had the rug pulled out by conspiratorial practices. Name one. And we can talk about teams "like" Baltimore that are being sabotaged at every corner for lack of acquiesce.

And not in the NFL.

I guess I don't see sabotage or an unfair field of play for the Orioles.

[weams]

Cardinals, Mets, Rangers, Giants, Royals, Pirates, Cubs, etc.

Mets, Rangers, Royals, Pirates, Cubs all had their time at the bottom of the barrel. We did too. Back when Jim Duquette was in our brain trust. We have done better with other guys lately, even without being so bad.

[weams]

I guess I don't see sabotage or an unfair field of play for the Orioles.

Fair enough. A lot of folks don't. A lot of folks want to see Baltimore shamed for being from where we are.

[Can_of_corn]

I guess I don't see sabotage or an unfair field of play for the Orioles.

When the league extends a team a loan with the understanding that the loan will be paid back when the league finds in favor of said team in regards to their dispute with a second team I have to wonder.

[Stotle]

Whenever a MLB team's goals do not include winning as many games as possible at the major league level then I think they are on perilous grounds in regards to tanking.

I do not think that the Cubs' emphasis was on winning in the recent past. If it was they would not have had a 75M payroll in 2013. I am sure they could have found players that would not have cost draft picks that could have improved the team.

And of course I do not believe that is the only way to build a winner, I do however think it is one possible route. And it goes beyond merely collecting draft picks.

Well, the problem I have with that line of thinking is the Cubs, in 2013, were also playing young cost-controlled players that needed a look and development. They weren't at a low payroll because they were loading the team with $3 MM over-the-hill veterans. Rizzo, Castro, Castillo, Samardzija, Wood, etc. They traded Feldman ($6MM) for ARrieta ($500K) and Strop ($500K) true, but that wasn't cost cutting, and both were plugged into the big league club that year and performed very very well.

Yeah, there might have been non-compensation FA signings they could have gone after, but giving reps to solid players that need to develop is not the same thing as not caring about your big league record.

I do agree the organization formally decided to shift its focus to the big league club, as opposed to overall asset acquisition, in 2014.

[weams]

When the league extends a team a loan with the understanding that the loan will be paid back when the league finds in favor of said team in regards to their dispute with a second team I have to wonder.

Are you sure that they did not do it again recently? Without the fanfare?

[Stotle]

Fair enough. A lot of folks don't. A lot of folks want to see Baltimore shamed for being from where we are.

I don't care about shame. I'm also not interested in tiptoeing around discussing front office moves. I don't have an issue complimenting moves and critiquing others, and I'm not apologetic about that. I don't believe the Orioles front office is a collection of sacred cows above reproach, and I don't think they should be whipping boys, either.

[weams]

Well, the problem I have with that line of thinking is the Cubs, in 2013, were also playing young cost-controlled players that needed a look and development. They weren't at a low payroll because they were loading the team with $3 MM over-the-hill veterans. Rizzo, Castro, Castillo, Samardzija, Wood, etc. They traded Feldman ($6MM) for ARrieta ($500K) and Strop ($500K) true, but that wasn't cost cutting, and both were plugged into the big league club that year and performed very very well.

Yeah, there might have been non-compensation FA signings they could have gone after, but giving reps to solid players that need to develop is not the same thing as not caring about your big league record.

I do agree the organization formally decided to shift its focus to the big league club, as opposed to overall asset acquisition, in 2014.

I do agree that by 2013, the Cubs were again focusing on returning to fielding a competitive MLB team in the future. I just hope for your children's sake that you have not decided to raise them as Cubs fans. Because. Well. We all know how that story ends. Pick St Louis. It will be less painful for them in their middle age.