MW QO Acceptance: For or Against the QO?

[mdbdotcom]

Now that it's clear that Buck was the only guy who wanted him back (AJ didn't even tweet about it), I wonder if MW is sorry he took the QO.

[Stotle]

I think unexpectedly losing 40% of your presumed discretionary budget gambling on a redundant player speaks well enough on its own. It certainly doesn't require the rest of the offseason for reasonable people to form a conclusion.

I'm viewed as emotional and unreasonable when it comes to discussing the Orioles on this board, so I guess that fits...

[Larry18]

I'm a "It's Boras, Matt won't accept."

I was too. So was Jay Jaffe and 95% of the writers. What I really misread was what the Braves planned for the off season. I thought they would be buyers.

[Stotle]

I was too. So was Jay Jaffe and 95% of the writers. What I really misread was what the Braves planned for the off season. I thought they would be buyers.

In the haste to get out from under the old school, seat-of-your-pants grit-and-bring writing regime, baseball writing has now turned into an echo chamber in a lot of ways. A lot of similarly minded people with innovation in analysis becoming less and less common.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I think unexpectedly losing 40% of your presumed discretionary budget gambling on a redundant player speaks well enough on its own. It certainly doesn't require the rest of the offseason for reasonable people to form a conclusion.

I take issue with the term "unexpected." How can we know that? I would guess that the team ran through accept/not accept scenarios. It could be suboptimal, maybe, but to call it unexpected is essentially an accusation of complete incompetence with respect to risk assessment with nearly zero evidence to back it up besides pure speculation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

In the haste to get out from under the old school, seat-of-your-pants grit-and-bring writing regime, baseball writing has now turned into an echo chamber in a lot of ways. A lot of similarly minded people with innovation in analysis becoming less and less common.

Lets face it. Most analysis is not even that. Speculation, game of telephone. Very few folks with direct and unique piplines into data unknown or unnoticed by others. And a lot of folks who just write to write.

[Larry18]

In the haste to get out from under the old school, seat-of-your-pants grit-and-bring writing regime, baseball writing has now turned into an echo chamber in a lot of ways. A lot of similarly minded people with innovation in analysis becoming less and less common.

In the effort to get news faster has trade offs. We as fans don't have the same accessibility to inside knowledge as a front office does, so we rely on the media to provide the missing pieces. I'm picking on Jaffe because he should know better than to be a member of the herd.

[24fps]

I take issue with the term "unexpected." How can we know that? I would guess that the team ran through accept/not accept scenarios. It could be suboptimal, maybe, but to call it unexpected is essentially an accusation of complete incompetence with respect to risk assessment with nearly zero evidence to back it up besides pure speculation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At risk is 40% of 2016's discretionary budget. The potential reward is a draft pick between 31-40 who has a 15% chance AT BEST of putting of 3 WAR over the entire six years he is under team control. What level of certainly do you require for this to be considered a justifiable risk? For me it would be above 95% certainty for the proposition to be worth considering in the first place. A clearly reachable standard with Davis and Chen. Wieters? He doesn't clear the first hurdle. Sure it's a judgement call, but that's different than guesswork. Zero evidence? Hardly, there were way too many questions about Wieters.

[weams]

At risk is 40% of 2016's discretionary budget. The potential reward is a draft pick between 31-40 who has a 15% chance AT BEST of putting of 3 WAR over the entire six years he is under team control. What level of certainly do you require for this to be considered a justifiable risk? For me it would be above 95% certainty for the proposition to be worth considering in the first place. A clearly reachable standard with Davis and Chen. Wieters? He doesn't clear the first hurdle. Sure it's a judgement call, but that's different than guesswork. Zero evidence? Hardly, there were way too many questions about Wieters.

That's why I am no GM. I only needed "Boras" to form my opinion.

[Es4M11]

You're certainly not claiming I didn't understand the risk, right? Do you want to pull up my posts regarding the old "It's Boras; Wieters won't except" crowd?

It is what it is. Pretending like this is the disaster that sinks Baltimore is to say Baltimore was essentially sunk before the offseason started and the FO was so incompetent that they risked the entire 2016 season on a bet that Wieters wouldn't accept a qualifying offer.

I have my issues with how Baltimore does some things, but even I am not willing to call Duquette stupid, and certainly not to that level.

No, I am not intentionally trying to imply you didn't understand the situation - nor am I saying that DD didn't understand. Lazy assumptions were made by many asserting that Wieters would never accept the QO, based entirely on the fact that no one had before. These people seemed to ignore the reality of Matt's current situation. I can't help but feel DD, at least partially, ignored the circumstances surrounding Wieters, because he wanted that draft pick. I feel it was a little irresponsible - not the end of the world, but certainly not an ideal scenario for the Orioles.

[weams]

No, I am not intentionally trying to imply you didn't understand the situation - nor am I saying that DD didn't understand. Lazy assumptions were made by many asserting that Wieters would never accept the QO, based entirely on the fact that no one had before. These people seemed to ignore the reality of Matt's current situation. I can't help but feel DD, at least partially, ignored the circumstances surrounding Wieters, because he wanted that draft pick. I feel it was a little irresponsible - not the end of the world, but certainly not an ideal scenario for the Orioles.

Have you heard it was his decision to do so? Or was it a composite decision. A "split decision" of sorts?

[Es4M11]

Have you heard it was his decision to do so? Or was it a composite decision. A "split decision" of sorts?

I have no knowledge of that. And if DD was prodded into offering the QO by ownership, that doesn't make it any better, even if it does make DD look a little less responsible. The end result is still the same.

[Number5]

At risk is 40% of 2016's discretionary budget. The potential reward is a draft pick between 31-40 who has a 15% chance AT BEST of putting of 3 WAR over the entire six years he is under team control. What level of certainly do you require for this to be considered a justifiable risk? For me it would be above 95% certainty for the proposition to be worth considering in the first place. A clearly reachable standard with Davis and Chen. Wieters? He doesn't clear the first hurdle. Sure it's a judgement call, but that's different than guesswork. Zero evidence? Hardly, there were way too many questions about Wieters.

Disagree. In every single piece that I read on the subject at the time, the only question being floated was "Why are the Orioles even considering not offering the QO to MW?" It was universally being called a no-brainer decision. That's the way it was. There were a few -- a very few -- posters on this board that called for not making the QO, and that's it. To pretend that there was an outcry in the media and the public for DD to not make the QO is just plain malarkey.

[weams]

I have no knowledge of that. And if DD was prodded into offering the QO by ownership, that doesn't make it any better, even if it does make DD look a little less responsible. The end result is still the same.

Sounds like there may be a group of minds involved in these franchise impacting decisions. A brain trust as it were. Not necessarily just ownership.

[Stotle]

Disagree. In every single piece that I read on the subject at the time, the only question being floated was "Why are the Orioles even considering not offering the QO to MW?" It was universally being called a no-brainer decision. That's the way it was. There were a few -- a very few -- posters on this board that called for not making the QO, and that's it. To pretend that there was an outcry in the media and the public for DD to not make the QO is just plain malarkey.

Agreed. I was fairly vocal as to the fact that MW shouldn't be considered a lock to turn down the QO, and I still said it made since to extend it.