What was/is the O's plan

[DrungoHazewood]

You think this has been/is being implemented?

As for the post, yes, it's negative, but so what? Wasn't there a poll taken before they re-signed Davis asking if it was a good move. IIRC it was overwhelmingly against signing him, or least the majority.

The fact is Duquette himself downplayed signing Davis as a priority and then the owner did become involved. It wasn't a priority for the team in the off season until Angelos made it one.

Fowler and Leake are not my choices and I don't agree with everything in the OP. Giving up picks should only be for impact players. That isn't Fowler and Leake was an overpay. Hardy wasn't a big move and neither was O'Day but they were debatable. Hardy more so.

People need to be more concerned with the content (or idea) of the post and less concerned with the poster's name. I've seen the same conversation about a clear direction for the organization with others here, including Stotle and RZ. There isn't one.

I didn't make any comment on the tone of the OP on purpose.

[Il BuonO]

I didn't make any comment on the tone of the OP on purpose.

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you, just what I've read as general responses to the OP. The first line was the only thing I was responding to from your post.

[webbrick2010]

That's more a question of whether or not you want to look for silver linings, no? Plus, we have no idea whether or not Bundy would have been an impact talent -- we only know he was/is viewed as a potential impact talent. It's possible he is Matusz.

I might be the biggest Matusz detractor alive, but to compare him to Bundy is quite the insult to Matusz

[Frobby]

I think you are looking at one thing and asking about another. An impact player (as proven by MLB production) is much harder to produce than an impact prospect (pre-MLB player displaying attributes that allow him to project as a potential impact player).

Because it is so difficult to produce homegrown impact players, it's important to produce as many impact prospects as possible so that the attrition rate doesn't result in big chunks of years where your system isn't spitting out any impact producers.

Well, this is why I asked you to define the term you were using. My problem is, I still have trouble understanding who gets to qualify as an "impact prospect." It's all murky to me. For example, is Caleb Joseph an "impact player," and if so, wasn't he by definition an "impact prospect?" If your system produces guys who weren't projected by the experts to be an "impact player," but it turns out that they are, isn't that a credit to the farm system? On the other hand, if a guy projects to be a solid major league reliever, is that an "impact prospect" or not?

Who in the Orioles system right now would meet your definition?

[TheDirtyBird]

[Tx Oriole]

I think #3 is worthy of discussion now. "The Plan" evidently included the strategy to acquire Trumbo - which I think did imply that they were going to use their bigger money on an outfielder - and that Davis was not in their plans. This implies that their Plan was changed - likely by a higher power called Angelos. Imo, you cannot succeed when your front office is overruled by the owner. Your Plan gets thrown into the trash.

I agree with you.

[Stotle]

I might be the biggest Matusz detractor alive, but to compare him to Bundy is quite the insult to Matusz

You are misinterpreting the point, which was that healthy Bundy could have topped out as a reliever -- we don't know.

[Stotle]

Well, this is why I asked you to define the term you were using. My problem is, I still have trouble understanding who gets to qualify as an "impact prospect." It's all murky to me. For example, is Caleb Joseph an "impact player," and if so, wasn't he by definition an "impact prospect?" If your system produces guys who weren't projected by the experts to be an "impact player," but it turns out that they are, isn't that a credit to the farm system? On the other hand, if a guy projects to be a solid major league reliever, is that an "impact prospect" or not?

Who in the Orioles system right now would meet your definition?

Teams would identify an impact prospect by their own metrics/systems. Scouting other orgs, analytics, etc., then project the player out. I would draw the line at a first-division regular. Everyday player on a good club. 3 win type player.

I assumed everyone in the public sphere was basically using prospect sites as their tool for defining impact player.

I don't think you should retroactively go back and give someone an "impact" label, per your Joseph description. I also am not sure Joseph has enough of a track record to be definitively called a "first division regular" type talent.

Two questions I'd asks:

1. What is the outlook of your minor league system? This is where we look for projected impact prospects -- guys who we expect to be good contributors.

2. What is your system producing in practice? This is where we look for the actual production coming from homegrown talent, regardless of what folks were expecting before they reached the majors.

Both are relevant to understanding how well an organization is acquiring/developing talent, and there is some overlap. But they are also questions that can be examined independent of each other.

The qualifier for question 1 for fans would be that public prospect lists are imperfect, so your data is only as dependable as your source. With question 2 you have better hard data, which is the players' actual performance at the big league level.

[Number5]

I think #3 is worthy of discussion now. "The Plan" evidently included the strategy to acquire Trumbo - which I think did imply that they were going to use their bigger money on an outfielder - and that Davis was not in their plans. This implies that their Plan was changed - likely by a higher power called Angelos. Imo, you cannot succeed when your front office is overruled by the owner. Your Plan gets thrown into the trash.

Not sure I agree with you that the Trumbo trade was an integral part of a strategic plan that involved letting Davis go and signing an outfielder. I believe that it was more a case of acting on an opportunity when it presented itself. I don't believe that Wieters accepting the QO was a given, and seriously doubt if it was a vital part of DD's plan for the winter. Trading Clevenger was a move created by Wieters' decision. Seattle had a need for Clevenger, and Trumbo better filled a need for us than Clevenger. We could have retained Clevenger as a third catcher/DH/emergency !B, but that wasn't really an optimal use of a 25-man roster spot. With the catching situation in MLB, it was pretty clear that some team would claim Clevenger if we were to DFA him and try to pass him thru to Norfolk. Trumbo was available, provides power, and provides a decent 1B/DH option. He can play the outfield, though certainly is not a plus fielder there. The trade simply made sense for both teams, given their existing rosters at the time, and the Orioles are a better team as a result of the trade. The trade did, in fact, provide insurance in the event Davis wasn't signed, but it is very clear that the intention was to sign Davis at the time. The Orioles fully expected Davis to agree to terms at the winter meetings, which occurred after the Trumbo trade..

[Frobby]

Teams would identify an impact prospect by their own metrics/systems. Scouting other orgs, analytics, etc., then project the player out. I would draw the line at a first-division regular. Everyday player on a good club. 3 win type player.

I assumed everyone in the public sphere was basically using prospect sites as their tool for defining impact player.

I don't think you should retroactively go back and give someone an "impact" label, per your Joseph description. I also am not sure Joseph has enough of a track record to be definitively called a "first division regular" type talent.

Two questions I'd asks:

1. What is the outlook of your minor league system? This is where we look for projected impact prospects -- guys who we expect to be good contributors.

2. What is your system producing in practice? This is where we look for the actual production coming from homegrown talent, regardless of what folks were expecting before they reached the majors.

Both are relevant to understanding how well an organization is acquiring/developing talent, and there is some overlap. But they are also questions that can be examined independent of each other.

The qualifier for question 1 for fans would be that public prospect lists are imperfect, so your data is only as dependable as your source. With question 2 you have better hard data, which is the players' actual performance at the big league level.

Thanks, that is helpful. The line you are drawing for "impact" is a little higher than I anticipated, so that is useful to know. I wonder if you'd agree with these assessments of past players in the O's system base don your criteria:

Impact prospects (at the time): Markakis, Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, Machado, Britton, Bundy, E. Rodriguez, Schoop, Gausman, Harvey, Reyes, Sisco.

Not impact prospects (at the time): Hobgood, Joseph, Bergesen, Hernandez, Davies, Hoes, Avery, Delmonico, J. Johnson, Olson, Hart, Mahoney, Angle, Givens, Mummey, Wright, Wilson, Walker, Kline, Mancini, Gonzalez, Hess, Scott.

Borderline/question marks: Reimold, Hader, Erbe, Snyder, Rowell, Beato, Klein

Anyone I'm missing from the last 10 years who was an impact prospect at one time for us, or borderline?

[Stotle]

See responses in bold, below.

Thanks, that is helpful. The line you are drawing for "impact" is a little higher than I anticipated, so that is useful to know. I wonder if you'd agree with these assessments of past players in the O's system base don your criteria:

Impact prospects (at the time): Markakis YES, Wieters YES, Matusz YES, Tillman YES, Arrieta YES, Machado YES, Britton YES, Bundy YES, E. Rodriguez YES, Schoop YES, Gausman YES, Harvey BORDERLINE BUT LIKELY YES IF HEALTHY(Passes "rankings" test but low minors resume and lower industry opinion than public lists), Reyes BORDERLINE (low minors resume and hasn't quit snuck into consensus "dude" territory yet, which I think you probably need at lower levels -- good candidate to be an impact prospect type soon, and many I'm sure already have him there), Sisco BORDERLINE BUT LIKELY YES IF HE KEEPS HITTING.

Not impact prospects (at the time): Hobgood AGREE, Joseph AGREE, Bergesen AGREE, Hernandez BORDERLINE (Had advocates as impact late-inning arm, so I think he straddles the line), Davies AGREE, Hoes AGREE, Avery AGREE, Delmonico AGREE, J. Johnson NOT SURE (don't remember profile upon drafting), Olson NOT SURE (I would have said borderline but might be remembering rosier outlook than reality), Hart AGREE (Low minors profile though many really like(d) the profile), Mahoney AGREE, Angle AGREE, Givens AGREE (as shortstop); BORDERLINE (as reliever, as of draft, but would have needed to produce in that role past the low-minors), Mummey AGREE, Wright AGREE (but probably borderline if he came up as shut down reliever), Wilson AGREE, Walker AGREE (worked to borderline due to production), Kline AGREE (may have been borderline/impact as a reliever the whole way), Mancini AGREE (might be borderline due to performance/production), Gonzalez AGREE, Hess AGREE, Scott Tanner? AGREE (still early; in career).

Borderline/question marks: Remold I might put him in IMPACT at certain points in his development; injuries seemed to sidetrack profile/development, Hader AGREE, Erbe AGREE, Snyder AGREE, Rowell AGREE, Beato AGREE, Klein Non-impact -- he was more of a lotto ticket

Anyone I'm missing from the last 10 years who was an impact prospect at one time for us, or borderline?

I don't know -- on the surface that generally covers it? I don't have them in list form so just skimming to see if anyone jumps out...

Liz was probably "impact" at certain points in his development when projected to late-inning work, but I recall him mostly being developed as a starter.

[wildcard]

Thanks, that is helpful. The line you are drawing for "impact" is a little higher than I anticipated, so that is useful to know. I wonder if you'd agree with these assessments of past players in the O's system base don your criteria:

Impact prospects (at the time): Markakis, Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, Machado, Britton, Bundy, E. Rodriguez, Schoop, Gausman, Harvey, Reyes, Sisco.

Not impact prospects (at the time): Hobgood, Joseph, Bergesen, Hernandez, Davies, Hoes, Avery, Delmonico, J. Johnson, Olson, Hart, Mahoney, Angle, Givens, Mummey, Wright, Wilson, Walker, Kline, Mancini, Gonzalez, Hess, Scott.

Borderline/question marks: Reimold, Hader, Erbe, Snyder, Rowell, Beato, Klein

Anyone I'm missing from the last 10 years who was an impact prospect at one time for us, or borderline?

It would appear the Dan traded two impact prospects and both came back to bite him in the butt.

Which might mean in the future don't trade impact prospects.

[QBsILLEST1]

Grow the arms

buy the bats.

Grow the arms

buy the bats.

Grow the arms

buy the bats.

I used to buy into this but looking back on it, it seems like such flawed logic. As a car salesman if I know I personally have a higher closing percentage with younger people vs. Substantially worse closing percentage with older(70 years or older) people but they normally have more money and better credit, I would be broke and living on the streets if I ignored either potential opportunity.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

It would appear the Dan traded two impact prospects and both came back to bite him in the butt.

Which might mean in the future don't trade impact prospects.

At least, not for rentals.

[tntoriole]

Trumbo was insurance in case Davis was not resigned. Plus he fills a hole at DH (albeit somewhat expensive) if he does resign. He also gave us some leverage in the negotiation with Boras, so if he drove Davis's price down by $5m and he puts up a decent season he pretty much pays for himself.

The team did great in 2014 with JJ at SS and Manny at 3B. Since we don't have a prospect at either position, it made sense to extend JJ. Hopefully we get some production there in years two and three.

I agree about O'Day. I wonder if that was also from the Angelos slush fund. We could have had Kazmir for the same years and a few extra dollars and that would have been a much bigger upgrade than O'Day gives us.

Basically I think the long term plan is to build around Davis and the young players (Schoop and Gausman, hopefully Bundy and Harvey) while doing what we can in the short term to fill holes with 1-2 year guys like Trumbo and Kim to stay competitive within budget. If we are .500 or better in July, he will probably trade for a pitcher. If Gausman takes a leap and we acquire a pitcher in July, we could go on a run in August and September. If not, then we trade off Tillman, Wieters, JJ and Ubaldo depending on what we can get back.

Might as well trade Buck too for as likely it is that he will let this happen.