An inconvenient truth

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I though Dan Lozano was to Scott Boras what Ron Mexico was to Michael Vick? I keed I keed. Thanks for the correction. 

I think I prefer Boras.

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, scOtt said:

My cat's breath smells like Chris Davis.

Has your cat been chewing tobacco?

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, Stevie Janowski said:

 Again, spoken from someone who's been able to see us win a World Series.  And if you haven't, I don't get why you attack others for caring when them winning a championship and losing 30-3 are all the same to you.  Your indifference, in that case, is alarming.

Furthermore, you don't have to rub your irrational optimism in everyone else's face.  It's just as bad as talking politics or religion, and it's a waste of time because again, maybe 2% of all things ever result in the best case scenario.  You're talking in utopian hypotheticals that will never manifest themselves in real life.

Wouldn't this be our success from 2012-present?  

You're criticizing our team's payroll which is like top 10, do you realize that we get a COMPETITIVE BALANCE draft pick every year because we play in the 9th smallest market in the MLB?  

We're closer to the luxury tax than we are having a sub 100 million dollar payroll.  This team is winning now.  Argue about the best way to lose when(if?) we actually start losing.  

[scOtt]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Has your cat been chewing tobacco?

She tries to hide it.

[Dark Helmet]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Wouldn't this be our success from 2012-present?  

You're criticizing our team's payroll which is like top 10, do you realize that we get a COMPETITIVE BALANCE draft pick every year because we play in the 9th smallest market in the MLB?  

We're closer to the luxury tax than we are having a sub 100 million dollar payroll.  This team is winning now.  Argue about the best way to lose when(if?) we actually start losing.  

I can understand where he is coming from. But realistically, this team is probably closer to a sub .500 team than it is a WS contender. And with the way the roster is constructed, the future investment it will take to keep the team intact, and the lack of a farm system, this team could be real bad really soon. 

[weams]

3 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

What everyone is failing to realize is that Machado can basically write his own check. Markakis, Roberts and Jones were "good" players, but not in a similar situation. Add to that him being represented by Boras and his youth and immaturity (demonstrated several times on the field) and there is little doubt in my mind that he will go to the highest bidder. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. 

He is NOT represented by Boras. 

[weams]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think I prefer Boras.

Dan Lozano is one of the worst people in the world. Scott Boras is just a horrible agent for fans. 

[wildbillhiccup]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Dan Lozano is one of the worst people in the world. Scott Boras is just a horrible agent for fans. 

So what does it tell you that Machado hired him as his agent? Kinda supports my earlier claim. He's looking for a BIG pay day. 

[crissfan172]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think I prefer Boras.

As an agent or as a "person"?

[weams]

2 hours ago, Dark Helmet said:

I can understand where he is coming from. But realistically, this team is probably closer to a sub .500 team than it is a WS contender. And with the way the roster is constructed, the future investment it will take to keep the team intact, and the lack of a farm system, this team could be real bad really soon. 

That's just a thing you wish to say. Make the playoffs and you are a WS contender. Nothing else improves those odds. Ask Boston or Washington.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, crissfan172 said:

As an agent or as a "person"?

I prefer Scott as a person to the total phony scam artist that is Lorenzo.

[hoosiers]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:04 PM, backwardsk said:

I don't buy it.  

We won 89 games last year while filling out the roster with at least 6 pre-arb guys from one of the worst farm systems.

I have no doubt that in 2019 we can get contributions from pre-arb guys at catcher, two to three bullpen spots, fifth OF, DH, utility IF (6-7).  And if we catch a break, 1-2 rotation spots (Sedlock, Harvey, and Akin).  So call that 7 players under $4M.

$96M to spend 16 players, including $9M for O'Day.  So $87 for 15 players.  Schoop and Givens will also be under control.  

Filling out a competitive roster with the remainder is definitely doable.

This isn't going to work.  You will probably have spend $75M just on Manny, Davis, Tillman and Trumbo. 

Your 7 guys for $4M are mostly bottom of the roster guys - utility, fifth OF, bullpen. 

With our payroll, you likely need 7-9 of your top 17 players (rotation, every day starters, dh and top 3 bp arms) to be pre-arb - that's a number I have been saying for years.  Otherwise, the payroll just gets too high.  Our run the past five years has been fueled by cheap salaries and big production from Tillman, Britton, Machado, Schoop, Gausman, Davis, Wieters and others with cheap contract to Hardy.

[hoosiers]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:43 PM, wildcard said:

This is a really tired argument.

If the O's do not trade Hader for Bud Norris they may not have gone to the playoff in 2014 when Bud went 15-8.

If the O's don't trade for ERod  for Miller they may not have won enough games to win the division  and beat the Tigers in the division series,

And  so what if they traded 26th round draft choice, 155 pound  Davies.   They kept 1st rounder Gausman and Bundy. 3rd round Wright who went 9-1 with a 2.22 ERA  at AAA that year, and 10th rounder  Wilson.   GM don't get the benefit of hindsight.

In 1983 the O's acquired  Todd  Cruz to play 3rd base on June 30th after rookie Leo Hernandez, Aurelio  Rodriguez and Glenn Guliver could not handle the position.  So acquirig players to fill holes in mid season  is not a Duquette invention.

GMs want to win.  Fans want to win.  So  when  Dan does what it  takes  to win more games than  anyone else over the last 5 years,  it doesn't seem right to complain about who he traded to accomplish the teams success.   Its a heck of  a lot better than 14 losing seasons.

Sorry for getting on my soap box, but that argument really gets to me because  it is often said  without  the context of what this team has achieved,

 

WC, you don't seem to understand that there are two sides to a trade - that's the "context".  It was quite clear when DD was making those trades that we were likely pinching off our future for the present.  Folks here want to brag about the incremental playoff glory (Miller) or the winning of the division versus worst case a WC (Norris), but appear to want to - even today - diminish what we gave up in trade.  Probably because it appears today (and to some extent then) that we gave up a LOT.  And that's just the poster who is knocking down Hader's prospect status in his trade and that of Davies, it's not talking about the failed FRod trade, the dealing of Jake, and other dubious moves - the total price of these moves has already been very, very steep and will look incrementally more expensive for several more years.  The long term WAR cost of what was given up versus the incremental gain for what was received (and net, net, Norris, FRod, and others didn't give much WAR) might make the Bedard trade blush.  I'm not sure when some folks switch over and say, "yeah, that wasn't worth it", but I reached that conclusion several years ago - ESPECIALLY when some folks here post about the playoffs being a crapshoot anyway.

In DD's time here, we are down about five top 50 draft picks, Hader, EdRod, Davies, Jake and others - that is a steep, steep part of our future.  If DD didn't make any trades since 2013, we could still be talking about a rotation in 2017 of Tillman, Gausman, Jake, Hader and Bundy with five top draft picks and Davies still in the organization.  If folks are fine with giving that up for however many more or less playoff appearances we would or would not have had without DD's moves, that's fine - but don't discount what he has traded away to justify the trades.  Those other teams made those trades investing for today and now that we see what we have given up, it's not pretty IMO.

[Satyr3206]

2 hours ago, hoosiers said:

This isn't going to work.  You will probably have spend $75M just on Manny, Davis, Tillman and Trumbo. 

Your 7 guys for $4M are mostly bottom of the roster guys - utility, fifth OF, bullpen. 

With our payroll, you likely need 7-9 of your top 17 players (rotation, every day starters, dh and top 3 bp arms) to be pre-arb - that's a number I have been saying for years.  Otherwise, the payroll just gets too high.  Our run the past five years has been fueled by cheap salaries and big production from Tillman, Britton, Machado, Schoop, Gausman, Davis, Wieters and others with cheap contract to Hardy.

Exactly. Hard to explain to others though.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, hoosiers said:

WC, you don't seem to understand that there are two sides to a trade - that's the "context".  It was quite clear when DD was making those trades that we were likely pinching off our future for the present.  Folks here want to brag about the incremental playoff glory (Miller) or the winning of the division versus worst case a WC (Norris), but appear to want to - even today - diminish what we gave up in trade.  Probably because it appears today (and to some extent then) that we gave up a LOT.  And that's just the poster who is knocking down Hader's prospect status in his trade and that of Davies, it's not talking about the failed FRod trade, the dealing of Jake, and other dubious moves - the total price of these moves has already been very, very steep and will look incrementally more expensive for several more years.  The long term WAR cost of what was given up versus the incremental gain for what was received (and net, net, Norris, FRod, and others didn't give much WAR) might make the Bedard trade blush.  I'm not sure when some folks switch over and say, "yeah, that wasn't worth it", but I reached that conclusion several years ago - ESPECIALLY when some folks here post about the playoffs being a crapshoot anyway.

In DD's time here, we are down about five top 50 draft picks, Hader, EdRod, Davies, Jake and others - that is a steep, steep part of our future.  If DD didn't make any trades since 2013, we could still be talking about a rotation in 2017 of Tillman, Gausman, Jake, Hader and Bundy with five top draft picks and Davies still in the organization.  If folks are fine with giving that up for however many more or less playoff appearances we would or would not have had without DD's moves, that's fine - but don't discount what he has traded away to justify the trades.  Those other teams made those trades investing for today and now that we see what we have given up, it's not pretty IMO.

I accept everything you have said here.   The value today of the young players traded by DD is high.  No question.  But that has to be balanced by 5 years of winning more games than any other team.  That also does not happen without DD.   

I think at the time of the trades Dan was willing to give up long term gains for short term gains to achieve winning then.  He did re-strain himself to not trading his top pitchers in Bundy, Gausman, Tillman, Harvey and Wright.  To date three of those look like the right moves.  Wright is still developing, even if that is at an advanced prospect age.   Harvey may yet develop as Bundy is now.

He seems to be good at holding on to top relievers in Britton, O'Day. Brach, Givens and Hart.   Brach may be on the block now but until we see if he is traded and for whom, it hard to evaluate.

We don't know what is going to happen in the future.  One other things that Dan has achieved is to raise the payroll from 90m to 150m that looks now that it might go to 170m.  He is doing that while attendance is not keeping pace.  He apparent has convinced management that the MASN gains in revenue are worth the increased spending.  This is a major accomplishment and could help the team greatly going forward.

So if you want to focus on what DD has traded away, go ahead.  But also focus on who he has kept and what the team has been able to achieve under his guidance.   Then compare that to what other GMs have done trying to work with the Angelos.   I think those inside baseball recognize his achieve.  That is why he was Executive of the Year in 2014.  Now if only O's fans would wake up and understand what they have now under his leadership rather than waiting until he is gone and saying 'Oh, wow, look what we are missing.'