Dan's Offseason Moves Part One: Cruz

[Aristotelian]

Let's review Dan's moves this past offseason one by one and see what you think. This one is simple. At the time (not now in hindsight)' date=' would you have signed Cruz to the deal he got from Seattle? A simple yes or no.[/quote']

It's never so simple.You have to add "...if that prevents us from resigning Chris Davis, extending Manny Machado, and/or bringing in one or more quality free agents in 2016". You can't just print money to pay these guys. It has to come from somewhere.

[DrungoHazewood]

Let's review Dan's moves this past offseason one by one and see what you think. This one is simple. At the time (not now in hindsight)' date=' would you have signed Cruz to the deal he got from Seattle? A simple yes or no.[/quote']

I consider the contract irresponsible. I have a lot of faith in Dan Duquette, but that would be significantly eroded if he'd signed Cruz to anything like that deal.

[Uli2001]

Sometimes you can outthink yourself, and the correct thing to do is the obvious one. The obvious thing to do was to pay Cruz.

[Uli2001]

I consider the contract irresponsible. I have a lot of faith in Dan Duquette, but that would be significantly eroded if he'd signed Cruz to anything like that deal.

In my view, this is a high-risk, high-reward, win-or-bust business. So what does "irresponsible" mean is such a context? Is it irresponsible to load up trying to win a championship? Were the Nationals irresponsible in going for it this year, given that they apparently have failed?

[DrungoHazewood]

In my view, this is a high-risk, high-reward, win-or-bust business. So what does "irresponsible" mean is such a context? Is it irresponsible to load up trying to win a championship? Were the Nationals irresponsible in going for it this year, given that they apparently have failed?

Irresponsible in that you're committing a fairly large amount of money to a player who is overwhelmingly likely to decline and be more of a drag on the team than an asset. Long-term contracts to players in their mid-30s should be exceptionally rare. I don't know of the specific transactions the Nats made besides Scherzer, who was both younger and had a much better track record than Cruz.

[Frobby]

In the offseason poll on whether we should have matched Seattle's offer, 76% said no. http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/145416-Would-you-have-matched-SEA-offer-to-keep-Cruz-an-Oriole?highlight=cruz So there's a ton of 20/20 hindsight going on here IMO. As I've said a few times recently, if I had known Cruz would have this good of a season in 2015, I would have been in favor of the deal. But there was no reason to expect him to be this good in 2015. More likely was that he'd be somewhat down from 2014 (though still pretty good), and then the back end of the deal would be extremely risky.

[Stotle]

I don't think Baltimore should have signed Cruz to that deal, but they certainly could have without risking anything significant as far as future payrolls/competitiveness. There's little in the way of other long term commitments and plenty of opportunity to restructure the 25-man to account for some dead contractual weight if/when it came to that.

If you want Cruz, however, you have to keep in mind that the Orioles have already hitched themselves to Jimenez (who I think was a much riskier/irresponsible "long term" signing), so your are running out of flexibility quickly. Cruz isn't the asset I'd purchase with my payroll portion earmarked *could be dead money later on*, but it wouldn't have sunk the organization.

[LookitsPuck]

In the offseason poll on whether we should have matched Seattle's offer, 76% said no. http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/145416-Would-you-have-matched-SEA-offer-to-keep-Cruz-an-Oriole?highlight=cruz So there's a ton of 20/20 hindsight going on here IMO. As I've said a few times recently, if I had known Cruz would have this good of a season in 2015, I would have been in favor of the deal. But there was no reason to expect him to be this good in 2015. More likely was that he'd be somewhat down from 2014 (though still pretty good), and then the back end of the deal would be extremely risky.

Is that fair considering Duquette didn't do anything to replace him or Markakis? I'm guessing people voted no hoping Duquette would have done something. Instead of hitching his wagon to half a dozen meh players.

[Rick_Schu]

Yes of course we should have signed him. You can say that the 4th year may not be a great one, but hey, we just got an MVP caliber year from him for peanuts!!! And Ubaldo is good for 4 years?? We can get better, win, and make the playoffs and make more money as a franchise, or be mediocre, watch our stars leave, and wait for football season. Dude is a pro, and it seemed like everyone was more relaxed knowing he was in the lineup.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yes of course we should have signed him. You can say that the 4th year may not be a great one, but hey, we just got an MVP caliber year from him for peanuts!!! And Ubaldo is good for 4 years?? We can get better, win, and make the playoffs and make more money as a franchise, or be mediocre, watch our stars leave, and wait for football season. Dude is a pro, and it seemed like everyone was more relaxed knowing he was in the lineup.

MVP caliber year? You're talking about Cruz? You mean his 2014 season that wasn't half as valuable as the real MVP? Where he was about the 50th-best position player in the majors in the year where he turned 34 and OPS'd under .700 from 1 June through 31 August? Coming off three years of less than two wins each?

[Ripken]

We're all getting somewhat redundant but... I would have signed Cruz to that contract and not signed Hardy.

To a scarier point, In four years DD has made ONE good long term (3+ years) signing. One. Jones.

He better fix that or we're in deep stuff.

[Crazysilver03]

We're all getting somewhat redundant but... I would have signed Cruz to that contract and not signed Hardy.

To a scarier point, In four years DD has made ONE good long term (3+ years) signing. One. Jones.

He better fix that or we're in deep stuff.

Jones. Hardy. Ubaldo. Those are the 3+ year deals.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[fastball]

So I would take all these comments and say DD will not be GM of the year. It's to

bad that the Winter Meetings had so much impact in a potentially good year for the

O's. I guess we all new the out come of not signing a CO and a bat along with a solid

pitcher. Two positions could have made the difference.When will we have this chance

in the near future.Go O's.

[Ripken]

Jones. Hardy. Ubaldo. Those are the 3+ year deals.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

I know. I said "good" ones. Jones is. Hardy and Ubaldo aren't.

[Frobby]

I know. I said "good" ones. Jones is. Hardy and Ubaldo aren't.

I think his point was that Duquette hasn't done a lot of 3+ year deals. It's not like he's 1 for 10. He's 1 for 3, and IMO the jury is still out on Hardy and Jimenez.