Olney: Orioles

[Frobby]

I think you are projecting further into the future then you can really see. Most of the O's players are before their prime or in their prime which should last until they are 33 when they start their decline. That is 3 to 5 years for the majority of the O's players. Dan will no doubt keep adding on a yearly basis.

I am not missing a thing that MacPhail did. Great trader. However their are many players in the minors that may help and that is only what we know about now.

Here is the 2016 age O's:

2016 O?s by age

23

Bundy

Garcia

Machado

Lee

24

Schoop

Mancini

Bridwell

Gunkel

25

Gausman

Walker

Rickard

26

McFarland

Wilson

Mike Wright

Givens

Hoes

Pena

27

D Alvarez

Paredes

Triggs

Miranda

Chris Jones

28

Britton

Tillman

Worley

Kim

29

Drake

Matusz

Joseph

Wieters

Flaherty

Urrutia

Roe

Despaigne

Navarro

30

Brach

Davis

Adam Jones

Trumbo

Gallardo?

Fowler?

31

Gonzalez

32

Jimenez

Reimold

Tolleson

33

O'Day

Hardy

There are a lot of guys under 33 here. Our perspective will chance on many of the players both in the majors and minors on a yearly basis. Some will be more valued and some will fall away. But Dan does keep the pipeline flowing through many means not just the Rule 4 draft.

I want to be measured in my response here. I have always resisted the "wrong side of 30" argument because any decline in that period tends to be pretty modest, on average. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that there is some decline during that age range, and that the average player peak is more like 27, with decline thereafter. So when you have about five core guys who are 30+, as a group they are likely to be declining even before they get to 33. We just hope the decline won't be too much. Under Duquette, the O's have done a good job of not hanging on to guys who are genuinely old.

Your list seems to be based on how old these players are as of today, but there are several whose birthdays fall before July 1 and who are considered a year older than you have listed them in baseball terms.

If you look at the pedigrees of the guys who I mentioned as core guys:

- Wieters was no. 1 on the BA top 100 before he reached the majors.

- Davis was no. 65.

- Jones was no. 28.

- Machado was no. 11.

- Hardy was no. 19.

That's the kind of pedigree core guys tend to have. I could add Markakis (no. 21) and Schoop (no. 82).

We are lacking those types of players in our farm system, and it will bite us as the referenced players age or their contracts expire. We can't afford to replace them all with equally good free agents.

[wildcard]

I want to be measured in my response here. I have always resisted the "wrong side of 30" argument because any decline in that period tends to be pretty modest, on average. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that there is some decline during that age range, and that the average player peak is more like 27, with decline thereafter. So when you have about five core guys who are 30+, as a group they are likely to be declining even before they get to 33. We just hope the decline won't be too much. Under Duquette, the O's have done a good job of not hanging on to guys who are genuinely old.

Your list seems to be based on how old these players are as of today, but there are several whose birthdays fall before July 1 and who are considered a year older than you have listed them in baseball terms.

If you look at the pedigrees of the guys who I mentioned as core guys:

- Wieters was no. 1 on the BA top 100 before he reached the majors.

- Davis was no. 65.

- Jones was no. 28.

- Machado was no. 11.

- Hardy was no. 19.

That's the kind of pedigree core guys tend to have. I could add Markakis (no. 21) and Schoop (no. 82).

We are lacking those types of players in our farm system, and it will bite us as the referenced players age or their contracts expire. We can't afford to replace them all with equally good free agents.

What I have read is the on average mlb player prime years are 27 through 32. Decline is slight during those years.

I think I used opening day as the date for my list.

Young Orioles have been ranked

Dylan Bundy #1

Manny #9

Gausman #20

Harvey #68

Schoop #82

Law just ranked Sisco #81

Does really matter if they are in the minors or the major if the O's are now proving they can resign them.

[JayThomas]

I think what you are missing is that Dan had some excellent cornerstone players to build around. You need a certain number of those to anchor the complementary pieces. Davis, Machado, Wieters, Hardy and Jones have been constants on this team. Machado will be great for a long time, but the others are all 30+ this year and are going to start declining eventually (just a matter of how soon), and only Davis is under contract past 2018. If the farm system isn't producing any players of that caliber, it eventually catches up with you. And yes, I realize that our system didn't produce three of those five -- Andy MacPhail's clever, future-oriented trading did. Those trades were only pulled off because (1) Andy was very good at milking a lot of value out of his trades, and (2) Andy was willing to sacrifice a good bit of "now" to build for later. Dan has done the opposite, and there will come a time when it catches up to him. That doesn't mean he's wrong, so long as the "now" is good enough, but you are deluding yourself if you don't think we are likely to pay for it down the road.

(But) sacrificing a good bit of "now" to build for later makes a lot more sense when you suck like we did throughout Andy's regime. If you are perennially that bad then of course you sacrifice the "now" for the later. Dan has never been in that position in Baltimore. If and when we suck under his reign we can compare apples to apples and see how he responds.

[25 Nuggets]

Givens is a second baseman?

I'm guessing he meant Schoop.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I want to be measured in my response here. I have always resisted the "wrong side of 30" argument because any decline in that period tends to be pretty modest, on average. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that there is some decline during that age range, and that the average player peak is more like 27, with decline thereafter. So when you have about five core guys who are 30+, as a group they are likely to be declining even before they get to 33. We just hope the decline won't be too much. Under Duquette, the O's have done a good job of not hanging on to guys who are genuinely old.

Your list seems to be based on how old these players are as of today, but there are several whose birthdays fall before July 1 and who are considered a year older than you have listed them in baseball terms.

If you look at the pedigrees of the guys who I mentioned as core guys:

- Wieters was no. 1 on the BA top 100 before he reached the majors.

- Davis was no. 65.

- Jones was no. 28.

- Machado was no. 11.

- Hardy was no. 19.

That's the kind of pedigree core guys tend to have. I could add Markakis (no. 21) and Schoop (no. 82).

We are lacking those types of players in our farm system, and it will bite us as the referenced players age or their contracts expire. We can't afford to replace them all with equally good free agents.

I feel like the constant use of 30+ is a bit of a stretch when other than hardy those guys are 29, 30, and 30. Pretty much the lowest end of that range possible.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk