McFarland Released

[wildcard]

Yesterday.

http://m.orioles.mlb.com/bal/roster/transactions/

His salary will depend on what the new CBA says.

[Satyr3206]

Not surprising to me. He a lefty, he'll get a deal somewhere. Of course it will be a Minor League deal.

[wildcard]

The O's have more lefty depth now.  They have Britton and Hart.  They acquired Nuno and Bleier.   Lee looks healthy.  And Aquino has improved his breaking pitches. 

[25 Nuggets]

Thanks for playing, TJ.  I'll remember you for your Houdini act in 2014! 

[Rene88]

Our Rule 5 guys have been underwhelming despite our dedication to this. I like Rickard but ceiling is still low. Santander and Batista might the be the two best guys we selected and neither of which may remain in the organization. 

[Frobby]

My view is, regularly selecting Rule 5 guys is a sign that your own farm system is weak.

Good luck to TJ.    He was serviceable in 2013-14, and hopefully will see the majors again with some other club.    

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

My view is, regularly selecting Rule 5 guys is a sign that your own farm system is weak.

Good luck to TJ.    He was serviceable in 2013-14, and hopefully will see the majors again with some other club.    

But why is the farm system weak?  It because Dan has a win now approach that has pulled the O's out of 14 years of losing.   He used minor leaguers as trading chip for major league help.   Sometime successfully, sometime not.  But overall it has worked.

Then Dan uses the Rule 5 draft, foreign players like Chen and Kim, and late off season FAs to make up for what the farm system doesn't produce.  Unconventional but it works.

He is going out of a limb this year.  He is going old.  Trading for Smith 34, and trying out Bourn 34, and Gentry 33, and Ondrusek 32.   Dan has resisted going old for the most part over the past 5 years. Cruz was the exception.  Mid 30 guys are mostly in decline.   Thinking they will produce like their track record or better may not be wise.  The O's did that in the past with bad results.   I don't know how many of these guys stay but I hope its few.

Certainly a better farm system would be a great thing to have but I think we have to ask ourselves - would the O's have won without Dan's win now approach?  Who we rather lose more games but have a a better farm system? 

[Rene88]

15 minutes ago, wildcard said:

But why is the farm system weak?  It because Dan has a win now approach that has pulled the O's out of 14 years of losing.   He used minor leaguers as trading chip for major league help.   Sometime successfully, sometime not.  But overall it has worked.

Then Dan uses the Rule 5 draft, foreign players like Chen and Kim, and late off season FAs to make up for what the farm system doesn't produce.  Unconventional but it works.

He is going out of a limb this year.  He is going old.  Trading for Smith 34, and trying out Bourn 34, and Gentry 33, and Ondrusek 32.   Dan has resisted going old for the most part over the past 5 years. Cruz was the exception.  Mid 30 guys are mostly in decline.   Thinking they will produce like their track record or better may not be wise.  The O's did that in the past with bad results.   I don't know how many of these guys stay but I hope its few.

Certainly a better farm system would be a great thing to have but I think we have to ask ourselves - would the O's have won without Dan's win now approach?  Who we rather lose more games but have a a better farm system? 

Giving up a draft pick for Gallardo was a bad bad move. Not trading some pieces away 2 years ago instead of trading for Parra was a bad move. These both significantly hurt the system.

Frobby just said that it's a sign of a team with a weak system, which is true. Our selections have been completely underwhelming (McFarland, Flaherty, Garcia, Almanazar). The one guy that was good, Batista, we let go.

Santander looks like a legit prospect and it sounds like he isn't going to go along with being DL-ed all season...so probably won't stick which is a shame.

I think the O's are being too cute with the Rule 5 stuff and it simply isn't paying off enough for it be worth it and that has little to do with a "win-now" approach.

[wildcard]

55 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

Giving up a draft pick for Gallardo was a bad bad move. Not trading some pieces away 2 years ago instead of trading for Parra was a bad move. These both significantly hurt the system.

Frobby just said that it's a sign of a team with a weak system, which is true. Our selections have been completely underwhelming (McFarland, Flaherty, Garcia, Almanazar). The one guy that was good, Batista, we let go.

Santander looks like a legit prospect and it sounds like he isn't going to go along with being DL-ed all season...so probably won't stick which is a shame.

I think the O's are being too cute with the Rule 5 stuff and it simply isn't paying off enough for it be worth it and that has little to do with a "win-now" approach.

I agree that the Gallardo and Parra acquisitions did not work out. But I don't expect Dan to be perfect.  He just has to put a winning team on the field every year and shot for a WS to make me happy. No GM is perfect.

McFarland helped the O's for a few years.  Flaherty is basically too valuable to option.  That says something about what he has done for the team defensively. Garcia is only 24, the jury is still out.  Rickard is still developing.  We have not seen enough of Santander to know if he will stay or not.  There are too many moving parts in the outfield to know how it turns out.   And there may be more to come.

Dan's approach to winning now has everything to do with why the farm system is weak.   He has given up first round draft choices in the favor of trying to win now.  He has trades prospects that have turned out to be good players in favor of win now.  Then he does these other things like the Rule 5 draft among others to try to make up for it.

Dan's win now approach has worked.  That is the bottom line.

[Rene88]

Good post as usual sir. I agree with Garcia. If he can learn and master another pitch, he could definitely be good. No question there. He is best piece we have kept via the Rule 5 IMO thus far.

I would love for us to keep Santander. I think that is a valuable piece.

I would disagree and say it has  not worked. I am pretty sure winning means you win the pennant or win a world series. Winning is not 3rd, 4th or 5th place. Being competitive is nice, but at the end of the day, we haven't won a damn thing since 1983 and the Rule 5 is counter to a win-now approach IMO.

[weams]

 

[Frobby]

19 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I agree that the Gallardo and Parra acquisitions did not work out. But I don't expect Dan to be perfect.  He just has to put a winning team on the field every year and shot for a WS to make me happy. No GM is perfect.

McFarland helped the O's for a few years.  Flaherty is basically too valuable to option.  That says something about what he has done for the team defensively. Garcia is only 24, the jury is still out.  Rickard is still developing.  We have not seen enough of Santander to know if he will stay or not.  There are too many moving parts in the outfield to know how it turns out.   And there may be more to come.

Dan's approach to winning now has everything to do with why the farm system is weak.   He has given up first round draft choices in the favor of trying to win now.  He has trades prospects that have turned out to be good players in favor of win now.  Then he does these other things like the Rule 5 draft among others to try to make up for it.

Dan's win now approach has worked.  That is the bottom line.

It's worked to a degree.   Assume that for the next two years we are contenders, and we make the playoffs once but don't make it to the World Series.    Assume that after that, we have a span of 5-7 straight years of being below .500 and rebuilding.   Would you be satisfied with that scenario?    Is your answer the same now as it would have been if the question had been asked in the spring of 2012 (modified to include the results of the five years that have now followed)?

I think it's a tough question.    If you'd asked me in 2012, I might have been desperate enough to see some winning baseball to take that deal.    Now, that tradeoff seems more dubious.    

Of course, we don't really know (1) if the O's will remain competitive the next two years, (2) whether they'll fall off dramatically after that, or (3) if so, how long a rebuild will take.     But I do think the scenario I painted is pretty plausible.

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

It's worked to a degree.   Assume that for the next two years we are contenders, and we make the playoffs once but don't make it to the World Series.    Assume that after that, we have a span of 5-7 straight years of being below .500 and rebuilding.   Would you be satisfied with that scenario?    Is your answer the same now as it would have been if the question had been asked in the spring of 2012 (modified to include the results of the five years that have now followed)?

I think it's a tough question.    If you'd asked me in 2012, I might have been desperate enough to see some winning baseball to take that deal.    Now, that tradeoff seems more dubious.    

Of course, we don't really know (1) if the O's will remain competitive the next two years, (2) whether they'll fall off dramatically after that, or (3) if so, how long a rebuild will take.     But I do think the scenario I painted is pretty plausible.

I think there is no question that we were that desperate. And that 2012 was so fortunate as an over-performance. I think there is no way the franchise would have continued through another five season rebuild. Without the last five years. 

[tntoriole]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

 

So, I guess he was out of options?  Or the Os just did not see him in the big league mix and didn't want to pay his contract dollars at Norfolk?  (like Miggy)

[wildcard]

15 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

Good post as usual sir. I agree with Garcia. If he can learn and master another pitch, he could definitely be good. No question there. He is best piece we have kept via the Rule 5 IMO thus far.

I would love for us to keep Santander. I think that is a valuable piece.

I would disagree and say it has  not worked. I am pretty sure winning means you win the pennant or win a world series. Winning is not 3rd, 4th or 5th place. Being competitive is nice, but at the end of the day, we haven't won a damn thing since 1983 and the Rule 5 is counter to a win-now approach IMO.

I enjoy your posts but I am going to have to say some something you probably will not like.  You're spoiled.    From 1984 to 2011, a period of 28 years, the O's went to the playoffs 2 times. In 1996-1997.   Having gone through that I appreciate what Dan and Buck have done in the last 5 years.   3 playoff appearances in 5 years.  That feel pretty good to me.

I would love for the O's to win the World Series.  But there is only one of those winners a year.   It is rare when it happens.   They were close in 2014, but injuries and the Royals got in the way.  Maybe this year.  Who knows.