No excuses now

[DrungoHazewood]

Then why can't we find one? Oh, the inept management, oops. So in your opinion, with MacPhail in charge, whether we get Tex or not, we WILL have a long term solution by next year at first?

I'm confident that we'll have a solution next year if we don't get Tex.

I'm not confident that it will be a long term solution and I'm really not sure why it has to be.

I have to agree with Burg. I'm not sure why every solution has to be a long-term one, even on a rebuilding team. Even the 1989 Orioles, who essentially threw away the 1988 team and started over, had many veteran placeholders like Phil Bradley, Kevin Hickey, Bob Melvin, etc. The 2004 Tigers, perhaps many people's example of rebuilding done right, had Dimitri Young, Bobby Higginson, Rondell White, Jason Johnson, Ugeth Urbina, and other middling 30-somethings on the roster.

I'd be surprised if MacPhail didn't have some kind of first base solution in 2009, but I think there's a very good chance it won't be either Mark Teixeira or a 23-year-old prospect.

[66-70-83-??]

I'm confident that we'll have a solution next year if we don't get Tex.

I'm not confident that it will be a long term solution and I'm really not sure why it has to be.

Point is that comparing the past regimes to this one is not valid.

AM and company are, from most indications, much more likely to improve the team than the past several regimes.

....all because someone :scratchchinhmm: finally looked into the mirror and realized that he was the only constant in our long losing streak.

[IamtheSkip]

I have to agree with Burg. I'm not sure why every solution has to be a long-term one, even on a rebuilding team. Even the 1989 Orioles, who essentially threw away the 1988 team and started over, had many veteran placeholders like Phil Bradley, Kevin Hickey, Bob Melvin, etc. The 2004 Tigers, perhaps many people's example of rebuilding done right, had Dimitri Young, Bobby Higginson, Rondell White, Jason Johnson, Ugeth Urbina, and other middling 30-somethings on the roster.

I'd be surprised if MacPhail didn't have some kind of first base solution in 2009, but I think there's a very good chance it won't be either Mark Teixeira or a 23-year-old prospect.

I think what frustrates some is that the O's have attempted to plug the holes with short-term solutions for the last ten years. And it hasn't gone what you would call... well.

Not trying to justify the need for a long-termer, just trying to shed some light on why some folks are so bothered.

[Burg]

I think what frustrates some is that the O's have attempted to plug the holes with short-term solutions for the last ten years. And it hasn't gone what you would call... well.

Not trying to justify the need for a long-termer, just trying to shed some light on why some folks are so bothered.

And that point has merit.

However, IMO, the difference is that past teams had stopgaps everywhere. It seems that we are slowly adding more long term solutions (Markakis, Jones, Weiters by next year, Scott) then we have in recent memory.

While I don't want an entire team of stopgaps its not realistic to expect a team of all long term solutions at any point.

Any successful team will have some fillers.

[Dipper9]

I think what frustrates some is that the O's have attempted to plug the holes with short-term solutions for the last ten years. And it hasn't gone what you would call... well.

Not trying to justify the need for a long-termer, just trying to shed some light on why some folks are so bothered.

Exactly. Millar has been a fine placeholder, IF he has been holding that place for Tex or some other viable option. If he has been a three year placeholder for the next 34 year old placeholder, then THAT is not acceptable.

[66-70-83-??]

Then why can't we find one? Oh, the inept management, oops. So in your opinion, with MacPhail in charge, whether we get Tex or not, we WILL have a long term solution by next year at first?

We would have to be EXTREMELY lucky to find long-term solutions to most of our positions in one or two seasons of rebuilding.

I think AM will get a 1B next year such as 1) Teix, or 2) a *potential* long-term solution that is either a project (Shealy, to pick a name) or a blocked prospect (Carter in Oak to pick a name).

[JTrea81]

The Orioles were a poor franchise with inept management and misplaced priorities.

If it was hard to find a decent first baseman why has the average OPS at first been .837 for the last decade? An average team has someone with the offensive ability of 2007 Nick Markakis at first every year.

I have to agree with Burg. I'm not sure why every solution has to be a long-term one, even on a rebuilding team. Even the 1989 Orioles, who essentially threw away the 1988 team and started over, had many veteran placeholders like Phil Bradley, Kevin Hickey, Bob Melvin, etc. The 2004 Tigers, perhaps many people's example of rebuilding done right, had Dimitri Young, Bobby Higginson, Rondell White, Jason Johnson, Ugeth Urbina, and other middling 30-somethings on the roster.

I'd be surprised if MacPhail didn't have some kind of first base solution in 2009, but I think there's a very good chance it won't be either Mark Teixeira or a 23-year-old prospect.

So why is Milar still our first baseman then? We signed him as a stopgap option to the next 30 something year old stopgap option? It doesn't make sense.

By your logic we'll just re-sign Millar if we don't get Tex and I'm sure even you would find that completely unacceptable...

[geschinger]

So why is Milar still our first baseman then? We signed him as a stopgap option to the next 30 something year old stopgap option? It doesn't make sense.

By your logic we'll just re-sign Millar if we don't get Tex and I'm sure even you would find that completely unacceptable...

Rome wasn't built in a day, it takes time to address the many holes this team had when MacPhail took over. In the past year the team was able to address CF, LF, the bullpen, and land the catcher of the future. Based on the track record over the past year I don't see why anyone would think MacPhail incapable of finding a decent bat to plug in at 1b for 2009 if Tex is not signed.

[TinCup]

Rome wasn't built in a day, it takes time to address the many holes this team had when MacPhail took over. In the past year the team was able to address CF, LF, the bullpen, and land the catcher of the future. Based on the track record over the past year I don't see why anyone would think MacPhail incapable of finding a decent bat to plug in at 1b for 2009 if Tex is not signed.

Indeed, it actually took centuries...

Let's hope that AM can speed the our (re-) building process just a smidge!

[DrungoHazewood]

So why is Milar still our first baseman then? We signed him as a stopgap option to the next 30 something year old stopgap option? It doesn't make sense.

By your logic we'll just re-sign Millar if we don't get Tex and I'm sure even you would find that completely unacceptable...

If you have good young players at catcher, center, right, one or two of 3B/SS/2B/LF, the rotation, and the pen, does it really matter if your first baseman is a 34-year-old, league average performer?

No, obviously not.

My logic doesn't end up with a 38-year-old Kevin Millar on the 2009 Orioles any way you look at it. Not unless he plays far better than expected for the rest of the year and MacPhail doesn't come up with a good young player for the position.

Stopgaps and short-term solutions are only bad ideas when they're someones idea of how to remake a mediocre team. When Kevin Millar and Jay Payton are major acquisitions and expected to fill big roles on a 75-win team you have a problem. When a Millar-type is brought in as a complimentary player on a team full of prospects and established youngsters I don't see the problem.

[Tx Oriole]

81, i would never get Tex for the money he will get. He would be the first abseman and fix that. Then you still have a hole at SS, 3rd and maybe 2nd in Roberts is not extended. That is way too much for one guy for a team that has more than one problem. If the O's were one player away then fine. I di hope Angelos does not give Tex what he wants. Say no to Tex. IMO

[TonySoprano]

If it was hard to find a decent first baseman why has the average OPS at first been .837 for the last decade?

Your numbers, while accurate, are a little misleading. The average for the past decade is significantly inflated by the numbers at the early part of it. 2001 was the last year an Orioles first baseman average was above .837. Five of the last seven years the average has been below .800. Can someone calculate for us the OPS since 2002? It won't be a Markakis type number, that I can assure you.

OPS by First Baseman

2008 - .767

2007 - .813

2006 - .785

2005 - .803

2004 - .768

2003 - .722

2002 - .797

2001 - .853

2000 - .881

1999 - .835

1998 - .959

[DrungoHazewood]

Your numbers, while accurate, are a little misleading. The average for the past decade is significantly inflated by the numbers at the early part of it. 2001 was the last year an Orioles first baseman average was above .837. Five of the last seven years the average has been below .800. Can someone calculate for us the OPS since 2002? It won't be a Markakis type number, that I can assure you.

OPS by First Baseman

2008 - .767

2007 - .813

2006 - .785

2005 - .803

2004 - .768

2003 - .722

2002 - .797

2001 - .853

2000 - .881

1999 - .835

1998 - .959

I was talking about all major league first basemen. Not just Orioles.

Overall 1B OPS has been over .800 every year since 1993.

[Burg]

So why is Milar still our first baseman then? We signed him as a stopgap option to the next 30 something year old stopgap option? It doesn't make sense.

By your logic we'll just re-sign Millar if we don't get Tex and I'm sure even you would find that completely unacceptable...

You are too busy overreacting to stop and see the point.

Millar, or any other stopgap, is not the problem.

The problem is if there is a team of Millars.

I'm confident that won't be the case.

I realize that you enjoy screaming that the sky is falling, but can you really not see the difference between having a few stopgaps vs. having a team of up and comers with the occasional Millar to complement them?

[Dipper9]

You are too busy overreacting to stop and see the point.

Millar, or any other stopgap, is not the problem.

The problem is if there is a team of Millars.

I'm confident that won't be the case.

I realize that you enjoy screaming that the sky is falling, but can you really not see the difference between having a few stopgaps vs. having a team of up and comers with the occasional Millar to complement them?

You are the one missing the point Burg. It was stated in this thread that finding a good FIRST BASEMAN is NOT hard to do. JTrea and I are asking, "If's its so easy, why then have the Orioles had stop gap after stop gap at FIRST BASE?"