Dan could go from goat to hero in a hurry

[BohKnowsBmore]

3 hours ago, mdbdotcom said:

You also thought that signing Trumbo for $12.75MM a year for three years was a steal and you were ecstatic about the Davis and O'Day signings. I don't need to sue you, I just don't often agree with you.

This isn't specifically directed at you, but in the dark years wasn't the constant drum beat about how if we were going to be a real major league team, we would have to overpay for some FAs because that's just the way it works?

[Tx Oriole]

8 hours ago, Diehard_O's_Fan said:

Dan is being bashed by the media and fans right now. People are calling him an absolute idiot. Can you imagine how brilliant he will be if the Orioles reach the playoffs? Would he be an absolute lock to win GM of the year if that does happen? There is excitement in birdland once again. That sure is nice especially after several months of bad baseball. Buckle Up!

I would never go so far as to say he is an idiot. I do think he made some unwise decisions. But if the team does make it to the playoffs then I guess he would be considered GM of the year. If the team won the World Series that would be something. Naysayers like me would have to eat crow. 

 

[spiritof66]

20 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

Everyone keeps saying that Angelos vetoed the deal. Did I miss something? The last I read was that Houston had a deal in principle with an unidentified team and that it was "squashed at the top." It didn't identify that the team was the Orioles and it didn't identify what the "top" meant. There were many people trying to link different tweets together to "prove" is was the Os and Angelos. Now we are stating that as fact. My question is legit. Is there a source that has unequivocally identified the Orioles as that team? If not, then let's not state it as fact.

The Orioles made two sets of decisions in connection with the trade deadline. The first was not to adopt a clear or strong strategy to be either buyers or sellers. They apparently considered offers to sell their top relievers, Smith and maybe others, but not their other most valuable assets, and they pursued buying some assets but not the more expensive ones. They ended up being buyers more than sellers, what you might call "opportunistic shopping around."

The second is that the Orioles made a series of individual decisions to make some trades aimed at shoring up two obvious weaknesses at the team today, SPing and SS, and decided not to make deals that they could have made to sell Britton, Brach and possibly others. Through these decisions, they ended up being what someone on this board nicely characterized as "patchers."

We don't know who set the Orioles' strategy or made these individual decisions. It does seem virtually certain that the owner (possibly, and/or his sons) agreed with the strategy or the decisions, but we don't know whether he/they approved Duquette's recommendations or overruled them, or even how actively they reviewed them. (I read Duquette's comments as indicative of disagreements with the owner's directions, but that's just my impression. There are suggestions that Angelos rejected a Britton trade that Duquette wanted to make. I believe that happened, but I don't know whether it happened.) 

These decisions were made by the Orioles. We don't know how or by whom. Yet the vast majority of posts here and elsewhere attribute both the strategy and all these decisions to Duquette, most of them vilifying him for his short-sighted approach and his overly optimistic assessment of the Orioles' chances this year and next, or crediting him for improving the team a bit without giving up much. I'm pleased to see a few posts this morning that focus on Angelos as the place where the buck stops, or where the fish starts to rot, or whatever you want to call it.

Though we don't know the details of what happened over the past few weeks, a few things are clear enough to me. The degree of Angelos' involvement in player personnel matters, and his lack of deference to the professionals he hires, are extreme among baseball owners today. This process makes the team's decision-making slower and hinders deal-making. It's not likely to induce the most talented people to work for the Orioles. It pushes the team to emphasize winning in the near-term and to be less concerned with building for the future. And there's no reason to think it will change under the current ownership.

 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I saw him pitch a game in the minors and his outings with the Orioles and was not impressed with the stuff. I'm not saying the Orioles did anything wrong here, just saying it's amazing that he was able to pitch effectively so far with the Nationals as a starter. You are right though, just three starts but still, it's starting to become a trend for pitchers to be given away by the Orioles only to find success elsewhere.

It's aggravating beyond belief.    But I think of Jackson as a worse version of Ubaldo -- capable of dazzling you one day and looking clueless the next.    Imagine if we'd cut Ubaldo two weeks ago and then he'd gone out and pitched his last two starts for somebody else.     That's kind've the Jackson scenario.    There's a reason he's played on 12 different teams.

 

[Camden_yardbird]

If Dan wanted to reach the playoffs he should have traded for an optometrist.  The best acquisition this team could make is an all star first baseman.

[BohKnowsBmore]

13 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I saw him pitch a game in the minors and his outings with the Orioles and was not impressed with the stuff. I'm not saying the Orioles did anything wrong here, just saying it's amazing that he was able to pitch effectively so far with the Nationals as a starter. You are right though, just three starts but still, it's starting to become a trend for pitchers to be given away by the Orioles only to find success elsewhere.

Given his veteran status, short time with the orioles, and immediacy of success with the Nats, I see almost zero legitimate way to lay this on the Os. Even if it does seem like a trend. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

If Dan wanted to reach the playoffs he should have traded for an optometrist.  The best acquisition this team could make is an all star first baseman.

I'm not really sure what this means. 

[DirtyBird]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

I'm not really sure what this means. 

I think he is saying Davis can't see?

[Tx Oriole]

4 hours ago, eddie83 said:

Any GM should be evaluated for the work they have done, good and bad. That said it floors me at times how much heat he gets. 

Being the GM of the Orioles is a hard job.

-The obvious is the owner. All the talk of the Astros trade that fell through just cements that even more.

-He can't take part in Latin America. Owner. 

-Buck Showalter. I love Buck but in this day and age he has more power than most managers.  

- Brady Anderson. Brady's unique job and his relationship with Angelos is another hurdle.  

-NYY and Boston. The resources those two teams have and both being in the same division.

I am sure other GM's have limitations placed upon them as well but Dan does not exactly have it easy.  

No he doesn't. I wish Peter would retire and let his sons run the organization. Maybe they wouldn't be so meddlesome. 

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, eddie83 said:

Any GM should be evaluated for the work they have done, good and bad. That said it floors me at times how much heat he gets. 

Being the GM of the Orioles is a hard job.

-The obvious is the owner. All the talk of the Astros trade that fell through just cements that even more.

-He can't take part in Latin America. Owner. 

-Buck Showalter. I love Buck but in this day and age he has more power than most managers.  

- Brady Anderson. Brady's unique job and his relationship with Angelos is another hurdle.  

-NYY and Boston. The resources those two teams have and both being in the same division.

I am sure other GM's have limitations placed upon them as well but Dan does not exactly have it easy.  

I think there have been limitations, but the current payroll is significantly higher than folks thought possible and DD inherited a very strong 40 man roster IMO.  Those two factors carry extreme weight IMO in assessing DD.  The worst moves that are providing road blocks to today's competitiveness were DD's - Ubaldo and Gallardo and paying an old SS in Hardy.  Who knows what would have happened if we had an easy physical process and Grant Balfour is signed - I think ZB would have been traded away.  PA didn't mis-assess Bridwell, swap Miranda for Miley, deal Jake, etc.  We have carried veteran after veteran past peak value.  DD has had the assets and the payroll capacity to have the organization in a better position than it is today.  DD has made many strong moves, but that's the bottom line to me.

iMO, pretty much every move since 2013 has been about winning at the major league level - at the expense of the farm system.  Are these moves part of a master plan to win at the major league level as designed by DD?  Was PA involved in that decision?  Did PA suggest that path?  The moves I get most frustrated with are dealing the relievers with our supplemental round picks.  Why?  What happened to the budgets in those years?  Had DD already spent the budget and PA gave no more $?  Those are the things I would like to know about to understand why DD made those moves.  And for PA - why the higher budget now?  Why not invest more into this team - especially internationally - the past few years to have more assets to trade?

It is a bit ironic though to hear someone suggest DD could be a hero if this team makes a run in spite of our current owner - even though it appears DD had multiple trades in place to deal key players and they were squashed by our owner. 

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

Everyone keeps saying that Angelos vetoed the deal. Did I miss something? The last I read was that Houston had a deal in principle with an unidentified team and that it was "squashed at the top." It didn't identify that the team was the Orioles and it didn't identify what the "top" meant. There were many people trying to link different tweets together to "prove" is was the Os and Angelos. Now we are stating that as fact. My question is legit. Is there a source that has unequivocally identified the Orioles as that team? If not, then let's not state it as fact.

It's just the fact Angelos has done this before.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I'm going to disagree with this.    I watch baseball for 6-7 months to enjoy the whole season, not so I can enjoy 2 weeks in late October.   Last year's wild card race, which went down to the final day, was thrilling to me -- not just on that final day, but for months.    Did I think it was likely that if we made the wild card, we'd win the World Series?    No, but making the playoffs is a goal unto itself, and gave us at least a shot at getting further.    If we managed to snag a wild card berth this year after being 7.5 games out in July, I'd really enjoy that journey no matter what happened in the postseason.   

Now don't get me wrong -- winning the World Series is the ultimate goal.    But I'm not going to limit my enjoyment of a season where that goal isn't reached.    Every day the Orioles win is a good day, and I'd rather enjoy the Orioles being in a playoff race in September that goes down to the wire than watch other teams doing it.

I'm with you on this, but not all Os fans are.  There have been many who have openly hoped for losses so the GM wouldn't be deluded into thinking they can compete.  

And a lot of people view it as kind of a black and white, binary situation.  If you are not competing for the championship, nothing else matters.  There's no difference between going 54-107 and going 83-79 if you miss the playoffs.  

But of course there is.  Thousands of people attend a game and many thousands more watch or listen to it.  It's a daily part of fans' lives for 6 months out of the year.  People talk about last night's game at work the next day.  And the tangible enjoyment we get from the fan experience IS better when the team is 82-79 as opposed to when it is 54-107.  And as a fan, that matters to me.

Yes, there are times when a team should probably punt, and this year may have been one of them.  But it should always be a last resort.  Making it a common strategy is a slap in the face to the thousands of fans to make following a team an important part of their summer.  

I know a lot of people wanted to completely blow up the team in July 2012.  If they had gotten their way, we never would have had that thrilling pennant race and taste of postseason play that year.

I know a lot of people wanted to completely blow it up in July 2013.  If they had gotten their way we wouldn't have had that thoroughly enjoyable 2014 season 

I know people wanted to blow it up in 2015.  They felt a window was closing and there was no way this team could compete in 2016 and 2017.

I'm not saying blowing it up isn't sometimes the right thing to do, but I think it should be a last resort.  Because it does  ruin the summer for thousands of fans - customers of your product as a team.  When it's done it should be explained up front and executed with a clear and consistent strategy.  A team like the Tigers who are having their second or third July selloff in the last three years and doesn't seem that much better off for it, is just $#!+ting on their fans.  Getting them to invest emotionally in players and a team and spend their money at the ballpark, then quitting halfway thru the season.  And doing it again a couple years later.

 

[Cumberbundy]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It's aggravating beyond belief.    But I think of Jackson as a worse version of Ubaldo -- capable of dazzling you one day and looking clueless the next.    Imagine if we'd cut Ubaldo two weeks ago and then he'd gone out and pitched his last two starts for somebody else.     That's kind've the Jackson scenario.    There's a reason he's played on 12 different teams.

 

Being good in Washington over a few starts doesn't mean anything but giving up assets to get someone who isn't significantly better incredibly frustrating to me. Let him go, but don't trade for Hellickson. Or keep him and don't trade for Hellickson. If we wanted a 6th starter we should have given him a single chance to start. His era was 0.44 in AAA for Washington. It just seems we deal for guys or spend for guys we've got. Trumbo is Mancini, Beck is JJ, Hellickson is Edwin. That money & those prospects are a heavy price when assets are limited and you're not necessarily improving.

[Cumberbundy]

8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I'm with you on this, but not all Os fans are.  There have been many who have openly hoped for losses so the GM wouldn't be deluded into thinking they can compete.  

And a lot of people view it as kind of a black and white, binary situation.  If you are not competing for the championship, nothing else matters.  There's no difference between going 54-107 and going 83-79 if you miss the playoffs.  

But of course there is.  Thousands of people attend a game and many thousands more watch or listen to it.  It's a daily part of fans' lives for 6 months out of the year.  People talk about last night's game at work the next day.  And the tangible enjoyment we get from the fan experience IS better when the team is 82-79 as opposed to when it is 54-107.  And as a fan, that matters to me.

Yes, there are times when a team should probably punt, and this year may have been one of them.  But it should always be a last resort.  Making it a common strategy is a slap in the face to the thousands of fans to make following a team an important part of their summer.  

I know a lot of people wanted to completely blow up the team in July 2012.  If they had gotten their way, we never would have had that thrilling pennant race and taste of postseason play that year.

I know a lot of people wanted to completely blow it up in July 2013.  If they had gotten their way we wouldn't have had that thoroughly enjoyable 2014 season 

I know people wanted to blow it up in 2015.  They felt a window was closing and there was no way this team could compete in 2016 and 2017.

I'm not saying blowing it up isn't sometimes the right thing to do, but I think it should be a last resort.  Because it does  ruin the summer for thousands of fans - customers of your product as a team.  When it's done it should be explained up front and executed with a clear and consistent strategy.  A team like the Tigers who are having their second or third July selloff in the last three years and doesn't seem that much better off for it, is just $#!+ting on their fans.  Getting them to invest emotionally in players and a team and spend their money at the ballpark, then quitting halfway thru the season.  And doing it again a couple years later.

 

Rooting for an O's loss should be punishable by being forced to sing an entire ace of base album on YouTube in a Red Sox jersey. 

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

This is a great post and I'm not at all surprised that nobody has responded to it.  Life is so much more complicated when you have to factor in a bunch of messy details.  So much easier to point at someone and throw a tantrum. 

I wish I had more confidence in the starting pitching, a lot more, but now that the decisions have been made, regardless of who made them, I've got my fingers crossed for some exciting baseball from here on out. 

Oh i want some exciting baseball too. DD does have a tough row to hoe working for Angelos and maybe Brady gets in the way too. I've been tough on DD. Maybe I shouldn't be. But doggone it. I don't want the O's to be successful just one or two years. I want a team that can be close for years. Maybe that's an impossible dream and I am an idiot thinking the O's could become that.