The Orioles would build a better team if they sold

[weams]

None and they still have 9 times as many as us. They have 5 since we won our last. If you want to see why the Yankees have been is simple. They signed guys to big deals who were aging out of their prime and they traded players in the minors to get proven players to always win now. They have rebuilt the farm system a good bit and with the recent trades they are in good shape as some of the more expensive contracts start to come off the books.

I absolutely agree with you. Under the new rules of how the game is played, we are both at zero. I hope we get to one first.

[osfan83]

I am as big a fan as any and my argument is simple.

1.) Win now for one, maybe two seasons and then struggle to compete as Davis and Jones continue to age and we face losing guys like Wieters and Trumbo.

OR

2.) We sell off some parts for some serious prospects. Maybe we rebuild heavily or maybe we deal those prospects for a stud starting pitcher. I did not say trade Manny or Schoop even though it might eventually come to that as these guys are going to be highly expensive.

If someone would tell me that you will win a World Series, but you will be terrible for a decade I would take it. But if you change the if to a might, then what I am willing to give up decreases. You can easily make an argument that the Orioles trading for players to get better over the last few years has cost them a better run at a championship now. When the Orioles are ready to deal away guys because they need to, other teams may be ready to do the same and the Orioles could get pennies on the dollar.

Here si the problem, we can never tell you that we WILL win the WS. The best you can do is make it to the post season. When you are in contention at the end of July (4 months of baseball) you have every reason to believe you have a shot at the post season, so you don't sell off any semi-important pieces on the team that got you there through 4 months.

[osfan83]

The Cubs have the magic ticket. A true ace who can pitch 2-3 times in a 7 game series. Do I think the Cubs will win a World Series, nope.

So if you were the Cubs GM, you would have sold at the deadline?

[osfan83]

None and they still have 9 times as many as us. They have 5 since we won our last. If you want to see why the Yankees have been is simple. They signed guys to big deals who were aging out of their prime and they traded players in the minors to get proven players to always win now. They have rebuilt the farm system a good bit and with the recent trades they are in good shape as some of the more expensive contracts start to come off the books.

They signed 32 year olds to expensive 5 and 6 year deals. These players all aged well due to PED's allowing 38 and 39 year olds to avoid nagging injuries and play at a peak level longer. The O's, Royals and Pirates were not able to buy 32 year old all-stars. Now that most PEDs are out of the game, it's become a bit more of a fair playing field.

[DirtyBird]

So if you were the Cubs GM, you would have sold at the deadline?

They are the odds on favorite to win the WS this year and most of their guys are under team control next season also.

[DrungoHazewood]

They are the odds on favorite to win the WS this year and most of their guys are under team control next season also.

Just making sure this is framed correctly... "odds on favorite" means that they have something like a 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 chance of winning it all, or a 75+% chance of not going home happy.

[24fps]

I keep forgetting how deeply the Orioles fanbase craves nuanced arguments about the benefits of strategic capitulation.

[DirtyBird]

Just making sure this is framed correctly... "odds on favorite" means that they have something like a 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 chance of winning it all, or a 75+% chance of not going home happy.

Which is a better chance than anyone else, and will be much higher by the time the wild card game is played and things are narrowed down to 8 teams.

[weams]

I keep forgetting how deeply the Orioles fanbase craves nuanced arguments about the benefits of strategic capitulation.

Why I find your posts compelling.

[DrungoHazewood]

Which is a better chance than anyone else, and will be much higher by the time the wild card game is played and things are narrowed down to 8 teams.

No it won't be any higher then. The wildcard has nothing to do with the Cubs. If all eight playoff teams were evenly matched each team would have a 12.5% chance of winning. So I probably overstated their odds. They're not going to be heavily favored, they're playing .613 ball, and will probably be matched up against a .550 team. In each of three series they're going to be maybe 55-45 favorites.

I'd be a little surprised if they had even a 20% chance the day after the wildcard games. A team that has a 60% chance of winning one series has a 21.6% chance of winning three consecutive series.

[weams]

No it won't be any higher then. The wildcard has nothing to do with the Cubs. If all eight playoff teams were evenly matched each team would have a 12.5% chance of winning. So I probably overstated their odds. They're not going to be heavily favored, they're playing .613 ball, and will probably be matched up against a .550 team. In each of three series they're going to be maybe 55-45 favorites.

I'd be a little surprised if they had even a 20% chance the day after the wildcard games. A team that has a 60% chance of winning one series has a 21.6% chance of winning three consecutive series.

The math seams hard to understand. But there it it is factually. In black and white. We can feel differently, but we can't reason differently.

[GoldGlove21]

So if you were the Cubs GM, you would have sold at the deadline?

The Cubs and Orioles are not in similar situations, but if you are asking me if I would have given up the package that the Cubs gave up for Chapman, no I would not of. Not for half a year of Chapman. I value cheap control as much as I do quality. The Cubs have a team of both, but if I am dealing away top prospects I want more of a premium than a couple months of a reliever (even if they do throw 105).

[DirtyBird]

No it won't be any higher then. The wildcard has nothing to do with the Cubs. If all eight playoff teams were evenly matched each team would have a 12.5% chance of winning. So I probably overstated their odds. They're not going to be heavily favored, they're playing .613 ball, and will probably be matched up against a .550 team. In each of three series they're going to be maybe 55-45 favorites.

I'd be a little surprised if they had even a 20% chance the day after the wildcard games. A team that has a 60% chance of winning one series has a 21.6% chance of winning three consecutive series.

Are the Cubs really only 55-45 vs LAD if Kershaw has to pitch the WC game?

[GoldGlove21]

They signed 32 year olds to expensive 5 and 6 year deals. These players all aged well due to PED's allowing 38 and 39 year olds to avoid nagging injuries and play at a peak level longer. The O's, Royals and Pirates were not able to buy 32 year old all-stars. Now that most PEDs are out of the game, it's become a bit more of a fair playing field.

It still isn't a fair play field and here's why. They can still sign 2-3 of the best players in the game during any given offseason. If three of their top 10 prospects become anything that resembles Schoop, Machado and Gausman we will likely be in trouble. But New York is not the team that I am worried about long term. Boston is the team for me.

[osfan83]

The Cubs and Orioles are not in similar situations, but if you are asking me if I would have given up the package that the Cubs gave up for Chapman, no I would not of. Not for half a year of Chapman. I value cheap control as much as I do quality. The Cubs have a team of both, but if I am dealing away top prospects I want more of a premium than a couple months of a reliever (even if they do throw 105).

I believe, on this date, that there is not much of a difference between the O's and Cubs odds of winning the WS. Maybe the Cubs have 10% chance and the O's have a 6% chance or in that neighborhood. But not enough of a difference to react any differently at the trade deadline. Both should have been looking for reasonable ways to improve this years team. (And reasonable does not mean giving up all our top prospects for a very marginal gain in talent)