What was/is the O's plan

[Ruzious]

I suppose they could plan on making up for not using the regular draft by getting top international prospects, but I don't see any strong sign of that.

[Frobby]

Regarding the issue with Hardy in the OP, I think it is a problem that Coach Buck gets so close to these players and how hard they play for him that he apparently can't imagine life without them. I'm sure Buck can see with good vision what he needs on a team to compete, but I believe he is too loyal to his players and that does not serve the franchise well when the players get older. I may be mistaken, but I think this is an issue with Buck in his prior managerial positions as well.

Are you suggesting that Buck's loyalty played a role in the Oroles' re-signing Hardy, or that his loyalty prevents him from being objective about what to do with Hardy now? In either case, I am not sure I buy it.

As to the decision to extend him: I think those decisions come mostly from DD, who places great value on Hardy's defense. He could have extended Cruz and/or Markakis (whom Buck has described as being "like a son" to him), but he didn't. If Buck's loyalty was that important, Nick would still be here. But Hardy was a consistent 3+ WAR player, and DD judged he had a few seasons like that left in him. That didn't pan out in 2015, but we'll see about 2016-17.

As to being objective about what to do with Hardy now, we'll see. Hardy had kind of an odd season last year -- through July, I believe he was over 1 WAR in less than three months of playing time, and was at the top in UZR/150 and close to the lead in total UZR despite missing all of April. After that, he had a nagging leg/groin injury (I forget the details) and it slowed his defense considerably and his hitting, which hadn't been good to that point anyway, took a further nosedive. Despite all that, the O's were 64-48 when Hardy started, 17-33 when he didn't. I know you can't assign direct cause and effect there, but if you are the manager you can't help but notice that the team is playing better when Hardy plays than when he doesn't, and so, you don't sit him when he's healthy enough to play, even when his stats don't look so great.

For 2016, I think Buck will watch how Hardy plays, and how the team performs defensively when he plays (because I think he has an influence on Schoop and Manny), and make his decisions accordingly. If he posts a .564 OPS again, he may find himself on the bench more than he is accustomed to. I'm crossing my fingers that Hardy will bounce back, because I think that is a huge factor in how the Orioles do this season.

[DrungoHazewood]

Are you suggesting that Buck's loyalty played a role in the Oroles' re-signing Hardy, or that his loyalty prevents him from being objective about what to do with Hardy now? In either case, I am not sure I buy it.

No suggestion about it, he's explicitly saying Buck cannot be trusted to make objective decisions about players he likes.

[Frobby]

No suggestion about it, he's explicitly saying Buck cannot be trusted to make objective decisions about players he likes.

That's a good reason not to have a combined GM/Manager -- and we don't, though Buck may have more influence than managers on some other teams. As to whether Buck as manager is particularly loyal to older players, it's hard for me to say. Generally, his teams in Baltimore have not featured many older players. Last year, Hardy and Pearce at 32 were our oldest position players, Ubaldo and Gonzo at 31 were our oldest starting pitchers, and O'Day at 32 was our oldest reliever.

[UpstateNYfan]

I think that's one of the problems Brady Anderson would have if he ever gets to a GM position. One example is Reimold. BS seems to refer to BA a lot when talking about a player.

[Dipper9]

My only issue with the plan is, why sign Davis to such a HUGE deal if we did nothing to improve the weakness of the team, mainly starting pitching. It's like buying a huge house, then having no money to put furniture in it.

Fans come for winning, not for a specific player. If Davis is the last move we make this Winter, we've pretty much treaded water this Winter by slightly improving the offense while having a slightly worse pitching staff.

I don't get spending all that money to just go half ass. We should have gone all in if you're spending that much on Davis.

[El Gordo]

My only issue with the plan is, why sign Davis to such a HUGE deal if we did nothing to improve the weakness of the team, mainly starting pitching. It's like buying a huge house, then having no money to put furniture in it.

Fans come for winning, not for a specific player. If Davis is the last move we make this Winter, we've pretty much treaded water this Winter by slightly improving the offense while having a slightly worse pitching staff.

I don't get spending all that money to just go half ass. We should have gone all in if you're spending that much on Davis.

Explain that to PA. It would have made more sense to spend on Zimmerman than Davis but ownership wont allow it. What else could we do? Sign Upton and Alvarez? Ownership wouldn't allow that either.

[twinedenter]

Horse hockey.

They are spending like a mid market team, which they are.

Fixing the farm system doesn't happen overnight and some think they are improved over where it was a few years ago.

They may be spending like a mid-market team, but are they running the orgainzation like one? I say absolutely NOT.

1) Mid-market teams CAN'T trade away 6 starting pitching prospects, in 3 years, all for players no longer in the organization. 3 of the prospects look like they will be solid major league starters.

2) Mid-market teams have to trade their free agents to-be, before this go FA. They certainly don't pay market value for their own players.

3) Mid-Market teams don't overpay middle and long relievers. Ala Tommy Hunter. These players come from the system or from other organizations.

4) The farm system is bad and the main reason is #1 in this list. Our FO is very aware that the cost of starters is insane and needed to value starting pitcher prospects as such. Such as NOT trading 2 of them for a "major risk' like Travis Snider.

5) The farm system Duquette inherited was far better than now.

[Aristotelian]

They may be spending like a mid-market team, but are they running the orgainzation like one? I say absolutely NOT.

1) Mid-market teams CAN'T trade away 6 starting pitching prospects, in 3 years, all for players no longer in the organization. 3 of the prospects look like they will be solid major league starters.

2) Mid-market teams have to trade their free agents to-be, before this go FA. They certainly don't pay market value for their own players.

3) Mid-Market teams don't overpay middle and long relievers. Ala Tommy Hunter. These players come from the system or from other organizations.

4) The farm system is bad and the main reason is #1 in this list. Our FO is very aware that the cost of starters is insane and needed to value starting pitcher prospects as such. Such as NOT trading 2 of them for a "major risk' like Travis Snider.

5) The farm system Duquette inherited was far better than now.

I agree to an extent with 1 & 4. However, the Orioles have been in contention at the trade deadline the last four years. They have done so without trading the top prospects in the organization, namely Bundy and Harvey. These trades look bad in hindsight but we did not give up our elite prospects at the time of the trades. I would not say that the thinking behind the trades reflects a 100% "big market-win now" strategy. Rather, I see DD as a pragmatist who will pivot depending on the situation, but has leaned toward trying to contend during the last four years.

Regarding #2, you just don't trade key players when you are contending. Arguably the pick we got back from Chen (and should have gotten for Wieters except he made a completely unprecedented decision to take the QO) was as much or more than we would have gotten for a rental deal that would have effectively eliminated our chances at contending even though we were only a game behind MIN at the time. I do agree we gave up too much for Parra and Feldman, both of whom seemed like second rate players unlikely to put us over the top.

As for #3, we got rid of Tommy as soon it was clear we didn't need him. His $4.6m was a bargain relative to his 2014 numbers after he came back from the DL. He put up a 2.97 ERA overall even though his ERA was at 6.52 in early June. He finished on a major hot streak and looked primed for a big year in 2015.

#5 not a huge surprise since we were so bad the previous years and had a bunch of high draft picks.

In summary, once we fall out of contention, I think you will see Duquette pivot toward a rebuilding mode. Until then, he will probably continue trying to be as competitive as possible without giving up our most elite prospects. I do hope we keep our #14 pick this year.

[DrungoHazewood]

Regarding #2, you just don't trade key players when you are contending. Arguably the pick we got back from Chen (and should have gotten for Wieters except he made a completely unprecedented decision to take the QO) was as much or more than we would have gotten for a rental deal that would have effectively eliminated our chances at contending even though we were only a game behind MIN at the time. I do agree we gave up too much for Parra and Feldman, both of whom seemed like second rate players unlikely to put us over the top.

Baseball has expanded the playoffs, and the league has more parity than at any time in history. This leads to more teams with realistic playoff shots, but also/often fewer teams among the contenders that will make and then advance in the playoffs. So fewer teams are giving up, more are trying to improve at the deadline. I like that but YMMV.

[oriolediehard]

Can Trey Mancini learn to play right or left field? I read he looks to be a potential good hitter.

[weams]

I agree to an extent with 1 & 4. However, the Orioles have been in contention at the trade deadline the last four years. They have done so without trading the top prospects in the organization, namely Bundy and Harvey. These trades look bad in hindsight but we did not give up our elite prospects at the time of the trades. I would not say that the thinking behind the trades reflects a 100% "big market-win now" strategy. Rather, I see DD as a pragmatist who will pivot depending on the situation, but has leaned toward trying to contend during the last four years.

Regarding #2, you just don't trade key players when you are contending. Arguably the pick we got back from Chen (and should have gotten for Wieters except he made a completely unprecedented decision to take the QO) was as much or more than we would have gotten for a rental deal that would have effectively eliminated our chances at contending even though we were only a game behind MIN at the time. I do agree we gave up too much for Parra and Feldman, both of whom seemed like second rate players unlikely to put us over the top.

As for #3, we got rid of Tommy as soon it was clear we didn't need him. His $4.6m was a bargain relative to his 2014 numbers after he came back from the DL. He put up a 2.97 ERA overall even though his ERA was at 6.52 in early June. He finished on a major hot streak and looked primed for a big year in 2015.

#5 not a huge surprise since we were so bad the previous years and had a bunch of high draft picks.

In summary, once we fall out of contention, I think you will see Duquette pivot toward a rebuilding mode. Until then, he will probably continue trying to be as competitive as possible without giving up our most elite prospects. I do hope we keep our #14 pick this year.

Buck and Dan are gone after 2018. As are Manny and Adam Jones.

[weams]

That's a good reason not to have a combined GM/Manager -- and we don't, though Buck may have more influence than managers on some other teams. As to whether Buck as manager is particularly loyal to older players, it's hard for me to say. Generally, his teams in Baltimore have not featured many older players. Last year, Hardy and Pearce at 32 were our oldest position players, Ubaldo and Gonzo at 31 were our oldest starting pitchers, and O'Day at 32 was our oldest reliever.

Peter and John and Lou Angelos spent their own money on Chris Davis.

[Aristotelian]

Peter and John and Lou Angelos spent their own money on Chris Davis.

That's kind of like when the state says the casino money is going into the schools. It all ends up coming from the same pot, and does not guarantee that at the end of the day the schools will actually get more money.

[weams]

That's kind of like when the state says the casino money is going into the schools. It all ends up coming from the same pot, and does not guarantee that at the end of the day the schools will actually get more money.

It's more than before. I'll say it's Angleos money. Not like last year was a good year for the Orioles, or Baltimore or the Angelos family financially. So I' will disagree with your postulate.