At What Point, Do You Hold DD Accountable, If Any?

[Frobby]

What do you mean by "hold DD accountable?" If you are asking whether it is fair to criticize him for the things he's done that you disagree with, the answer is yes. If you are asking if he has held the job long enough, and has had sufficient room for decision making, that it would be fair to fire him if you were very dissatisfied with his performance, I think the answer is yes again. But, if you are asking if I am sufficiently dissatisfied that I would fire him if I could, the answer is clearly no.

I'm not thrilled with everything Duquette has done. I disagreed with some of the trades he made at the time they were made (Rodriguez for Miller, Davies for Parra) and some of his other trades look bad in hindsight (Arrieta and Strop for Feldman and Clevenger, Tarpley and Brault for Snider). He gambled last winter that he could replace two consistent, regular outfielders with an array of part-time players and he lost that gamble. It looks like he may be doubling down on that outfield gamble and making a similar gamble on replacing Chen. I'm not a fan of the offer we made to Davis and the fact that we aren't aggressively pursuing the better alternatives, though that may well be more PA than DD.

At the same time, you have to give credit where credit is due. He signed Chen to a great deal. He signed Jones to an extension that has turned out to be extremely team-friendly. He found Miguel Gonzalez in Mexico and has gotten great value there. He brought McLouth in, got value from him, and knew when to quit while he was ahead there. He brought in Pearce. He got a great deal on Cruz. Bottom line, the team is 355-293 (.548) in his four years here, he has been to the playoffs twice with one division title, and he hasn't had a losing record. All that has been accomplished even though three of the other four teams in our division operate with higher payrolls than we have, something that DD doesn't control.

So, I don't think Duquette is anywhere close to performing at a level where it would be wise to fire him and bring in someone else. I haven't forgotten that our GM position has been something of a merry-go-round for the entire time Peter Angelos has owned the Orioles, and that the last time the job was open, qualified candidates were turning down the job. I haven't forgotten that Angelos sometimes poses limits on baseball decisions such that the GM is constrained in his choices. And I'm not forgetting that DD does have budget constraints that sometimes require him to forego a more expensive option that has more certainty of good performance, and take some calculated risks.

At the same time, I have my eye on the situation. If 2016 goes well, then DD deserves to keep his job. If it doesn't go so well, then how DD reacts will decide whether he deserves to keep his job. Does he hold on to all his vets and try to tinker enough to get a better result the next time, or does he start making some moves to reposition the team for the longer term?

[DrungoHazewood]

Why was DD not fired last year when he wanted the Toronto job and he did nothing to help the O's last off season because of the distraction?

There is no excuse for neglecting do his job last year?

Because those who witnessed what happened and had the power to make changes didn't view everything as a bizarre, vindictive soap opera?

[Sanfran327]

Hard to say. It's difficult to make moves early when you're working within a fairly tight budget, because players tend to cost more early on in free agency. If we break camp with a BS roster, then you can get upset. But until then, you just have to see what opportunities present themselves.

Having said that, I'm as frustrated as anyone else. I wish we had some idea of what to expect, but... such is life as an O's fan.

[webbrick2010]

There was nothing DD could have done this offseason to replace the FA talent leaving

The bus was driven over the cliff last year when we didn't trade all our FA for near ML ready prospects.

I fear that even if DD had wanted to re-tool last July he probably wasn't allowed to by PA

Now we are in a re-build but not allowed (by PA) to fully go in for the re-build

so we are back in the losing cycle that previously lasted 14 years

and after DD and Buck step down the top folks won't even interview with PA

This is and always will be under PA an extremely poorly run organization.

[DrungoHazewood]

So, I don't think Duquette is anywhere close to performing at a level where it would be wise to fire him and bring in someone else. I haven't forgotten that our GM position has been something of a merry-go-round for the entire time Peter Angelos has owned the Orioles, and that the last time the job was open, qualified candidates were turning down the job. I haven't forgotten that Angelos sometimes poses limits on baseball decisions such that the GM is constrained in his choices. And I'm not forgetting that DD does have budget constraints that sometimes require him to forego a more expensive option that has more certainty of good performance, and take some calculated risks.

For some reason I was having a conversation the other day and the old Nebraska coach came up, Tom Osborne. Wildly successful but eventually retired to go run for Congress. His replacement, Frank Solich, had a number of good-but-not-great seasons in the context of what was expected and the fanbase and athletic department basically said "this is completely unacceptable, this guy needs to go so we can get back to winning national championships". So they fired him, and the next guy, Bill Callahan, presided over several losing records and was fired after four years.

So be careful what you wish for. Given Angelos' track record it seems quite likely the next GM won't have Duquette's success. Last time Duquette was the team's 4th or 5th choice and several of the preferred candidates have since been fired by other teams.

[Redskins Rick]

Hard to say. It's difficult to make moves early when you're working within a fairly tight budget, because players tend to cost more early on in free agency. If we break camp with a BS roster, then you can get upset. But until then, you just have to see what opportunities present themselves.

Having said that, I'm as frustrated as anyone else. I wish we had some idea of what to expect, but... such is life as an O's fan.

I agree with most of what you said.

But, crap, how does 110 million = fairly tight budget. No, we dont spend the 300 million like the Dodgers.

There are also 13 teams with cheaper payrolls, with the Marlins at the bottom at 68 million.

This is a mid market team, spending like a mid market team. IMO

[Camden_yardbird]

I think everyone agreed that the Orioles needed a big offseason, and so far we haven't seen much. I think that has a lot to do with Angelos involvement. The team, and his desire to retain Davis, has put itself in a position to be hijacked and paralyzed by Boras. The team, and I think it probably has something to do with Angelos given his comments about contracts last year when DD was trying to leave, has become reluctant to change with the times and offer deals with opt outs (which are clearly becoming a norm).

It sure looks like a lot of this is on Angelos, but GMs can't keep getting hijacked by that. There are plenty of teams that function with bad owners. The Marlins have a HR champ, batting champ, legit young ace and just spent more in free agency than the Orioles have in the last two years.

[Frobby]

I agree with most of what you said.

But, crap, how does 110 million = fairly tight budget. No, we dont spend the 300 million like the Dodgers.

There are also 13 teams with cheaper payrolls, with the Marlins at the bottom at 68 million.

This is a mid market team, spending like a mid market team. IMO

Yes, but we are talking semantics. "Fairly tight budget" simply means we don't have much flexibility to bring in expensive players beyond those we have already.

[Frobby]

I think everyone agreed that the Orioles needed a big offseason, and so far we haven't seen much. I think that has a lot to do with Angelos involvement. The team, and his desire to retain Davis, has put itself in a position to be hijacked and paralyzed by Boras. The team, and I think it probably has something to do with Angelos given his comments about contracts last year when DD was trying to leave, has become reluctant to change with the times and offer deals with opt outs (which are clearly becoming a norm).

It sure looks like a lot of this is on Angelos, but GMs can't keep getting hijacked by that. There are plenty of teams that function with bad owners. The Marlins have a HR champ, batting champ, legit young ace and just spent more in free agency than the Orioles have in the last two years.

The Marlins have had a losing record for 7 years in a row. The fact that they may have spent some money in free agency isn't very important -- their payroll is way below ours. I like their farm system, which seems to produce a good amount of major league talent. Otherwise, I don't see that their front office is doing a particularly great job.

[Redskins Rick]

Yes, but we are talking semantics. "Fairly tight budget" simply means we don't have much flexibility to bring in expensive players beyond those we have already.

Spending money for the Cano's and the other expensive players in the bigs, does not buy you into the playoffs, either.

We had a good three year run, and a bad season last year, and yet, people are in full blown panic mode and some are automatically assuming the worse for 2016, and its not even ST yet.

[Aristotelian]

I think everyone agreed that the Orioles needed a big offseason, and so far we haven't seen much. I think that has a lot to do with Angelos involvement. The team, and his desire to retain Davis, has put itself in a position to be hijacked and paralyzed by Boras. The team, and I think it probably has something to do with Angelos given his comments about contracts last year when DD was trying to leave, has become reluctant to change with the times and offer deals with opt outs (which are clearly becoming a norm).

It sure looks like a lot of this is on Angelos, but GMs can't keep getting hijacked by that. There are plenty of teams that function with bad owners. The Marlins have a HR champ, batting champ, legit young ace and just spent more in free agency than the Orioles have in the last two years.

It remains to be seen whether these opt-outs are a good idea. They are the latest trend and if the goal is winning right now, then you are right.

I also think DD is in a tough position this offseason. I don't see a way to compete with our budget, especially once Wieters took the QO. If anything, I think a "big offseason" would be a mistake. We need to get younger and more talented and you don't do that by giving up draft picks or getting into major long term deals. As he has throughout his time with the Orioles, he is playing a middle strategy that probably won't satisfy anyone, but also will avoid any major mistakes that would do real long term damage to the O's. I think that is a defensible strategy.

[Frobby]

Spending money for the Cano's and the other expensive players in the bigs, does not buy you into the playoffs, either.

We had a good three year run, and a bad season last year, and yet, people are in full blown panic mode and some are automatically assuming the worse for 2016, and its not even ST yet.

I am with you on this. And I wouldn't call last season "bad" -- "not great" is more like it. At the same time, I'm on fairly high alert. The team as presently constructed is not likely to contend, and it doesn't appear there is much help coming from the farm system in the next couple of years. But sometimes teams surprise you.

[bpilktree]

DD had a bad year in 2015. I'm not happy with his start to 2016. In the minority but I was not a fan of the Wieters QO, the Trumbo trade, or the O'Day signing. It's a ripple effect. Looks like we might overpay for Davis as well. A lot of money that I would have used differently.

Well based on that last. I believe that the Davis move is more Angelos so I see no point in getting upset with DD on that one. I also think that the Wieters move may have been a Buck and Angelos decision more then DD. I don't understand why people just say it is DD's fault when we all know the owner will stay with a certain budget that he can't go over so he can't sign all sorts of players people want. He has to put the best 25 man roster together and also try to keep a farm system. The Miller trade was tough but I think a good move to keep the best bullpen guy away from the team that could face in the playoffs. The Parra trade didn't turn out well but really if the farm system was stronger trading a guy like Davies would be basically nothing. In good farms Davies is probally ranked in the 15-20 range.

We have to improve the farm system as a key point because then when you do make a trade you have other guys available in the farm that it you don't miss that guy to much. The drafting has gotten better the last few years though with the qualifying offers when you sign a free agent has made it a bit harder to draft when you hae holes to fill. That is why we have to be more aggressive in the international front IMO. That does not mean signing the huge overpay guys from Cuba though like Puig and Castillo but solid young talent that may need time to develope.

[DrungoHazewood]

It remains to be seen whether these opt-outs are a good idea. They are the latest trend and if the goal is winning right now, then you are right.

I also think DD is in a tough position this offseason. I don't see a way to compete with our budget, especially once Wieters took the QO. If anything, I think a "big offseason" would be a mistake. We need to get younger and more talented and you don't do that by giving up draft picks or getting into major long term deals. As he has throughout his time with the Orioles, he is playing a middle strategy that probably won't satisfy anyone, but also will avoid any major mistakes that would do real long term damage to the O's. I think that is a defensible strategy.

Maybe it's a trait of Americans, or maybe just humans, but many folks seem predisposed to a binary world. If you're not pegging the dial to 0 or 10 (and trying to go to 11) you're just muddling around in some wishy-washy middle. But almost all of existence is in that wishy-washy middle where do the best you can with the situations you're presented.

Many people are fired for getting 6 or 7 results with 4 resources in exchange for someone who wants zero everything out to prep for an 11. And you're no better off.

[Aristotelian]

Maybe it's a trait of Americans, or maybe just humans, but many folks seem predisposed to a binary world.

I know we can't get into politics here, but this has absolutely gotten worse in the last 10 years, exacerbated by social media and cable news, and it has in fact transferred into sports media.