Is Dan going in the wrong direction with aging players?

[weams]

18 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

He plays 1B.

A heck of a lot better than Jagielo does any MLB position.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, weams said:

He means I did. I loved the Travis deal. 

There was several of us, thought it was great deal.

But oh well, amazing afterwards, everybody has a different memory of events.

 

[Can_of_corn]

24 minutes ago, weams said:

He means I did. I loved the Travis deal. 

Wasn't Travis better than the guys they brought in to replace him?

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Wasn't Travis better than the guys they brought in to replace him?

Weams could play better than Parra!!!!!

[wildcard]

6 hours ago, El Gordo said:

It means they are one year solutions. These guys have nothing to do with direction, Quite possibly neither do Buck or Dan, since they only have one more year after this one. But you should know this. 

I look for Buck to sign an extension next off season with the O's to manage.   He doesn't want to go anywhere else and I don't think is close to being done.  He enjoys what he does too much to quit.

Dan is more about money and power.  It's hard to say whether he will sign an extension.  He could if offered the right deal.  I doubt that affects what players Dan signs or for how long.  He is still doing his job of building an organization with the O's.

[wildcard]

I am not a big fan of signing mid 30's players, with a few exceptions.  The team gets 25 years older every years if no players are added or subtracted.  With that reality its much better to try to get younger with players that are added.   

One year contracts to older players just prevents to the team from adding younger players that could improve instead of decline.   In general, that is a strategy that I like to see the O's follow.

If Rickard is able to move to a full time position in the outfield that will help IMO.  He has to earn it but the team should not put road blocks in his way  by giving playing time to mid 30's acquisitions over playing him.  JMO.

I would hope that Dan is on the lookout to add younger players that can do as well or better than Gentry or Bourn.  I know that may be counter to the current  thinking but its better than spend money on older players IMO.

Smith is a different story.  They are paying him 7m.   They got him to get rid for Gallardo's contract.    They have to keep him on the team until they can trade him for some value.   Still I would not favor him over Rickard if Rickard shows he deserves to get the playing time.

[FlipTheBird]

13 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I am not a big fan of signing mid 30's players, with a few exceptions.  The team gets 25 years older every years if no players are added or subtracted.  With that reality its much better to try to get younger with players that are added.   

One year contracts to older players just prevents to the team from adding younger players that could improve instead of decline.   In general, that is a strategy that I like to see the O's follow.

If Rickard is able to move to a full time position in the outfield that will help IMO.  He has to earn it but the team should not put road blocks in his way  by giving playing time to mid 30's acquisitions over playing him.  JMO.

I would hope that Dan is on the lookout to add younger players that can do as well or better than Gentry or Bourn.  I know that may be counter to the current  thinking but its better than spend money on older players IMO.

Smith is a different story.  They are paying him 7m.   They got him to get rid for Gallardo's contract.    They have to keep him on the team until they can trade him for some value.   Still I would not favor him over Rickard if Rickard shows he deserves to get the playing time.

It's not like DD is against acquiring younger players. It's just that they tend to come at a higher cost, as they're in greater demand. Bourn comes cheap. Gentry comes really cheap.

25-year-old outfielders that can do as well or better than guys like Michael Bourn are typically under pretty firm control by other organizations. DD grabbed two of them in the Rule V this year, in Tavarez and Santander. I'd wager he and Buck would LOVE if one of those guys played well enough to boot Bourn or Gentry from the organization. But that's entirely in their control.

[El Gordo]

42 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I look for Buck to sign an extension next off season with the O's to manage.   He doesn't want to go anywhere else and I don't think is close to being done.  He enjoys what he does too much to quit.

Dan is more about money and power.  It's hard to say whether he will sign an extension.  He could if offered the right deal.  I doubt that affects what players Dan signs or for how long.  He is still doing his job of building an organization with the O's.

Umlike you I am incapable of reading either Buck or Dan's mind. However if one or both had ideas about staying on I think we would have seen more emphasis on building the farm system. My guess is they are here to the end of their contracts and the rebuilding will start when they are gone.

[wildcard]

41 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

It's not like DD is against acquiring younger players. It's just that they tend to come at a higher cost, as they're in greater demand. Bourn comes cheap. Gentry comes really cheap.

25-year-old outfielders that can do as well or better than guys like Michael Bourn are typically under pretty firm control by other organizations. DD grabbed two of them in the Rule V this year, in Tavarez and Santander. I'd wager he and Buck would LOVE if one of those guys played well enough to boot Bourn or Gentry from the organization. But that's entirely in their control.

Nice post.  Very logical.

So lets see how high the bar is that a younger player has to met.

At 34, I would not expect Bourn to improve.  Last year he hit:

113 G, 375 AB,  5 HR, 38 RBI, 264/314/371/684 and stole 15 bases in 20 attempts. 

He is no longer considered an everyday centerfield but can play all three outfield positions. 

I don't think that is a very high bar to hit.

Gentry has been injury prone after having 5 concussions. He hasn't hit well in three years.  He has a career 668 OPS.  He has mainly been a platoon player vs left-handed pitching and that is what he is projected to be if he could regain his form  from for 2011- 2013 but that was a while ago.  He has range and can play all three fields.

What does a young outfielder that can play all three fields and hit for a 684 OPS cost?  It can't be THAT much. And a young player would probably not get paid the 2M salary that Bourn is projected to get.

 

[wildcard]

22 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Umlike you I am incapable of reading either Buck or Dan's mind. However if one or both had ideas about staying on I think we would have seen more emphasis on building the farm system. My guess is they are here to the end of their contracts and the rebuilding will start when they are gone.

I don't see it that way.  I don't think the lowly regarded O's farm system has anything to with Dan or Buck's contracts expiring.  He has everything to do with Dan and Buck's win now approach that sacrifices draft choices and minor leaguers for players that they think will help the team in the short term.

My guess is that if Dan and Buck stay there will be no rebuilding.  Instead that will use the 160m+ payroll,  future draft choices and minor leaguers to keep the O's winning.

[SteveA]

3 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Does he?

I haven't seen him yet, but others that I have heard, said Buck would never be happy his skills there.

 

FWIW he's at 1st in tonight's game.

[El Gordo]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't see it that way.  I don't think the lowly regarded O's farm system has anything to with Dan or Buck's contracts expiring.  He has everything to do with Dan and Buck's win now approach that sacrifices draft choices and minor leaguers for players that they think will help the team in the short term.

My guess is that if Dan and Buck stay there will be no rebuilding.  Instead that will use the 160m+ payroll,  future draft choices and minor leaguers to keep the O's winning.

Their win now approach has everything to do with both the limited time they have left here, and PA's desire to see results sooner than later. If they had longer contracts they wouldn't have the same approach.

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't see it that way.  I don't think the lowly regarded O's farm system has anything to with Dan or Buck's contracts expiring.  He has everything to do with Dan and Buck's win now approach that sacrifices draft choices and minor leaguers for players that they think will help the team in the short term.

My guess is that if Dan and Buck stay there will be no rebuilding.  Instead that will use the 160m+ payroll,  future draft choices and minor leaguers to keep the O's winning.

You don't think Dan would be more concerned about the future if he was going to be here?

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Their win now approach has everything to do with both the limited time they have left here, and PA's desire to see results sooner than later. If they had longer contracts they wouldn't have the same approach.

They have had a win now approach for the last 5 years.

[El Gordo]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

They have had a win now approach for the last 5 years.

Exactly they weren't hired to rebuild.