MW QO Acceptance: For or Against the QO?

[DrungoHazewood]

You can't look at whether it was a good or bad decision after the fact. It's not the correct way to look at things.

Say I'm playing a game in which I can wager my money and I have a two-pronged decision. Option A will win something for me 75% of the time, and Option B 25%. The correct play is to bet heavily on Option A every single time because statistically I will come out with better results on average than if I chose option B.

Option A is always the correct decision, no matter what the result is. You make decisions based on whether you're more likely to get a positive result with all factors you know of at the time of the decision weighed in. What makes a decision good or bad is whether you properly analyzed the variables and picked the choice most likely to have a net positive outcome for you in the end.

The result has no bearing on whether it was a good or bad decision at the time decision was made. I guess I'll never understand people who view things that way.

That's exactly where I am. If you make this decision 20 times you probably win on 15 or 17 and the organization is way ahead. If you use Wieters a cautionary tale that drives you to be very conservative in the future you weaken the org.

[Stotle]

That's not a stretch, but that includes a zero-win 2015 that would be near a worst-case you'd have used in projecting his value.

I guess. I don't have the energy or interest to try and build a case to disprove there was no other reasonable option for Baltimore in filling a SS/3B hole other than the JJ Hardy contract. I can't believe that's a default stance, to be honest.

[El Gordo]

Maybe DD knew something about this years budget that allowed him to take the risk of offering the QO to MW.

[Stotle]

That's exactly where I am. If you make this decision 20 times you probably win on 15 or 17 and the organization is way ahead. If you use Wieters a cautionary tale that drives you to be very conservative in the future you weaken the org.

I think you weaken the org when you start declaring wins/losses before having any clue how things ultimately shake out. I truly don't understand why Wieters accepting the offer is definitively a "loss." I guess I'm the turtle on this one.

[24fps]

Well, that's nice thinking in a vacuum. But in practice, running a baseball team is a lot more about having a good process to account for the unexpected than it is about everything unfolding exactly as you expect it to.

Nice try. Please demonstrate how the current Wieters situation is the product of good process.

[Es4M11]

I guess. I don't have the energy or interest to try and build a case to disprove there was no other reasonable option for Baltimore in filling a SS/3B hole other than the JJ Hardy contract. I can't believe that's a default stance, to be honest.

You're making this statement with 2015 in the rear view. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And I don't think many, if any, are saying that Baltimore should be averse to giving QO's in the future because Wieters accepted his - I'm certainly not saying that. But Wieters was an obvious risk to accept the QO when you considered past years performance, position, market and age. Anyone who couldn't see that obviously didn't research the circumstances surrounding Wieters, or just flat out didn't understand them.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess. I don't have the energy or interest to try and build a case to disprove there was no other reasonable option for Baltimore in filling a SS/3B hole other than the JJ Hardy contract. I can't believe that's a default stance, to be honest.

I'm quite sure that there were a number of reasonable options. But I think Hardy's contract was one of them.

[El Gordo]

I'm quite sure that there were a number of reasonable options. But I think Hardy's contract was one of them.

If I recall Hardy was looking at a contract in the vicinity of Peralta's, and the one he signed with the O's was very team friendly in comparison The odds of him getting injured were probably about the same as MW accepting a QO.

[DrungoHazewood]

Nice try. Please demonstrate how the current Wieters situation is the product of good process.

Offer the QO to anyone prior to the fall of 2015 and you win. So the foundation of your process is to aggressive in offering QOs, since history suggests the players and their agents are very unlikely to accept and you'll get extra draft picks for each one. Each draft pick has the potential to help heal a broken farm system. Wieters was an especally good case since he has an agent very adept at getting outrageous multi-year contracts for his clients and Wieters will be attempting to build value at age 30 while splitting time with another almost equal catcher.

[Frobby]

You're making this statement with 2015 in the rear view. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And I don't think many, if any, are saying that Baltimore should be averse to giving QO's in the future because Wieters accepted his - I'm certainly not saying that. But Wieters was an obvious risk to accept the QO when you considered past years performance, position, market and age. Anyone who couldn't see that obviously didn't research the circumstances surrounding Wieters, or just flat out didn't understand them.

There was an "obvious risk," but how high of a risk is a matter of opinion. There were multiple estimates that Wieters would receive offers in the 4/$48 mm - 4/$64 mm range. In that scenario, it seemed pretty unlikely he'd accept a QO. We really don't know what intel the Orioles or Boras had on what offers might be available. It may be that Boras decided that offers in that range were not likely to be forthcoming, or it may be that Boras expected such offers but thought that next year's market would be better if Wieters had a healthy, productive 2016.

In any event, paying Wieters $15.8 mm is suboptimal but I don't think it's the deciding factor in whether we build a contending team for 2016. If Wieters returns to 2011-12 form, he can be a big factor in the Orioles contending this year.

[turtlebowl]

I think you weaken the org when you start declaring wins/losses before having any clue how things ultimately shake out. I truly don't understand why Wieters accepting the offer is definitively a "loss." I guess I'm the turtle on this one.

I got your back, lol

[24fps]

Offer the QO to anyone prior to the fall of 2015 and you win. So the foundation of your process is to aggressive in offering QOs, since history suggests the players and their agents are very unlikely to accept and you'll get extra draft picks for each one. Each draft pick has the potential to help heal a broken farm system. Wieters was an especally good case since he has an agent very adept at getting outrageous multi-year contracts for his clients and Wieters will be attempting to build value at age 30 while splitting time with another almost equal catcher.

Examining the risk vs. benefit of a deal exclusively on its intrinsic merit is not thinking in a vacuum as others have suggested, it's filtering out the noise. IMO the lack of that fundamental first step was the flaw in the Orioles FO's process to the degree any of us can determine from the outside.

Matt Wieters decision didn't require the forces of history to be in play, only that he understand his best self interest. It was ultimately a very personal decision as it necessarily must have been. It's on that basis that I find the arguments stemming from Boras' psychology etc. to be secondary at best. If the Orioles FO spent much time looking at the situation from the implicit or explicit standpoint that because it never happened before, it can't happen now I would be worried going forward.

[hoosiers]

I was for the QO to MW based on estimates that MW was looking at 4/$64M in free agency. I think people exaggerate the potential impact on 2016 and the future of MW's acceptance of the QO. It is still very possible that all of this has a positive outcome. Sure, if MW stinks and puts up a .5 WAR season, the outcome will be negative, but I think a healthy MW is still capable of 1.5-2.5+ WAR season over 120 games. The Os could be in a position to offer the QO again next year or could be in a position to net a couple prospects at the 2016 trade deadline - which could be the optimal result. If Wieters has a good year up to the deadline, he could net prospects with a value far in excess of the pick that a QO would have yielded.

It's early December and I still think there are multiple ways to have this even work out before Opening Day. If Caleb Joseph has such value, then let's deal him for a prospect or young major leaguer at another position (SP or COF).

I'm fine with the risk of the QO to MW and believe a positive outcome to all of this is more likely than not (but perhaps not overwhelmingly so).

Regarding some other comments in this thread, I agree with Stotle that Hardy and Ubaldo were worse decisions, but have to express mild surprise at suggestions that other FOs don't view CJospeh as an everyday catcher. I doubt those FOs thought CJ would be a 1-1.5 WAR contributor at the major league level as it is (let alone the possibility that CJ has more perceived value than MW). Not really ready at all to accept suggestions on the limitations of CJ.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's early December and I still think there are multiple ways to have this even work out before Opening Day. If Caleb Joseph has such value, then let's deal him for a prospect or young major leaguer at another position (SP or COF).

Yes, if Joseph is really a 2+ win regular catcher at discount rates for the next four years he should return a pretty big piece in trade.

[weams]

I dunno how you can choose option 3 in this poll and not feel like kind of a goober. "I was for it until it didn't work out as planned and now I don't like it!"

I'm a goober.