Dan could go from goat to hero in a hurry

[Can_of_corn]

50 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, I didn't know he was a redhead.     Just goes to show I should check my facts before making random jokes.

 

At almost any other time the joke would have worked out fine.

Shame the Yanks made him cut his hair, it was pretty impressive.

[Frobby]

He literally looks like Bozo in that picture.    

[weams]

5 hours ago, Tx Oriole said:

Why can't they have a better run organization like some top run teams in baseball? I remember when Palmer was pitching. When the team had 4 twenty game winners. Now they can't development pitchers. What's happened? 

 

Game changed. Market changed.  Regional competition changed.  Big got bigger. Small got tiny. 

[eddie83]

10 hours ago, hoosiers said:

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. 

I think Dan has made mistakes without a doubt. Losing those draft picks hurt. 

Dan did inherit a solid core. That said if not for Dan's pitching acquisitions we don't make the playoffs in 12. Davis came on that year and Manny arrived. 

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on one thing. I have no issue with Dan going for it. The core was very solid and we were built to win. Now, he has made mistakes in trying to do that, no question. 

I think it is very difficult to build a system with no international help while you are winning. Very hard. I also don't think the cupboard is quite as bare as some people think.  

[Barnaby Graves]

You don't make trades in a vacuum.  I had previously said Britton's value wasn't what people thought.  They don't like that he wasn't traded but I bet they would have howled at a low return, and given the year he's had I don't think we were going to get a lot.

Ultimately only Dan Duquette and a few other people know the cards he has to play.  I'm bewildered at the way he dumps international money but I was OK with the Beckham trade and OK with the Hellickson trade.

[eddie83]

6 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

I'd like to hear more about the Astros trade before we string up Angelos over it. If it's really a situation where Duquette told Angelos that the trade including Prospect A and Prospect B and they weren't anything special and that'd we be selling relatively low on Britton...I'd rather us keep him than make a trade just to make a trade. But if Angelos vetoed it without good reasoning (and no, the Orioles trying to compete this year/next is not a good reason), then I'd be miffed. But as it stands now...how many times has Angelos interfered on trades/acquisitions over the years? You'd think he would have interfered on signing an injured Gallardo...

The Latin America debacle is unacceptable and certainly wreaks of an archaic mindset from Angelos.

Buck is the least of our worries. 

Brady Anderson...how much of a hurdle is this really?

I don't want to hear any excuses about New York and Boston. The Orioles have a $170m payroll. And the Rays have a $70m payroll and have a better record than the Orioles and are right in the thick of things. With a better roster. A better farm system. And a better organization. Just saying.

Couple of things. 

The fact is we all know that working for PA is challenging. I do not think he interferes as much as the old days. That said his impact is still there.  

I love Buck but my point stands. In this day and age it is a GM's game. Buck has a ton of horsepower in this organization. I am not saying I have an issue with that in general. However he is strong minded and no doubt has impacted DD.  

Brady has a direct line to the owner. 

It is hard for Dan's vision to implemented to the fullest extent with the owner, Manager and Brady impacting things.  

The Orioles have been better than Tampa except for one season. Tampa has 3 straight losing seasons and one playoff berth since 12 and the Orioles 3.  

[Enjoy Terror]

4 hours ago, SteveA said:

And figure out ineffeciencies in the market to exploit.   Got any new ones of those that no one has thought of yet?

In case you wanted to know whether the Orioles have figured out something out no one else has yet.

Keep tabs on those players.

[eddie83]

7 hours ago, hoosiers said:

I was a blow it up guy several times around 2013-2014.  I think those ideas were good ones.  I think we would be in a much better competitive position today and probably would have had stronger teams in several of the last few years.  Those ideas centered around dealing players at peak value and not signing big LT contracts to players who would see production decline into their 30s..

Dealing Matt Wieters after 2012 after he produced 4.9 and 3.5 WAR in consecutive years as a pre-arb guy would have produced a monster haul in prospects.  We kept Wieters and saw him injured and produce less than one WAR every year between 2013-2015 at a cost of $21.5M.  What recent Os vintage was Wieters a key producer for that the prospect haul and the salary saved would not have more than made up for?  Luckily, we let Wieters go this season though we probably tried to extend him and MW is a negative WAR guy for the Nats at $10M.

Chris Davis played full time for the first time in 2012 to generate 1.6 WAR pre-arb, before blowing up and producing 6.5 WAR in 2013 for $3.3M.  Imagine the prospect haul if we had dealt him then as advocated at that time!  Davis took a step back in 2014 produclng less than 2 WAR for $10.3M.  Wieters and Davis produced about 2.5 WAR in 2014 for about $18M for a playoff team.  I have no doubt that DD could have replaced that production with the $18M or the prospects received for the team to still make the playoffs.

Other players fit into that category as well.  As advocated at that time, we could have dealt Hardy in the final season of his last contract instead of extending him into his mid 30s and paying him $38M for 1.3 WAR and dealing with injuries - surprise, right.  Has he been a crucial part of the last three teams?  The blow it up group advocated dealing Jim Johnson a year before DD actually dealt him for peanuts.  If I advocated dealing Tillman, Chen and others in that time frame, I think those moves would have turned out positively as well.

Not only do I think the "the blow it up crowd" has nothing to apologize for, I believe we were right and have been vindicated by time.  Honestly, I don't think we miss the playoffs without Wieters and Davis in 2014.

It's all hypothetical of course, but IMO it is difficult to exaggerate the benefits derived from an appropriate prospect haul for the players above.  Not only could we have loaded up the farm system likely with multiple top 50 and top 100 guys, but we would have reduced payroll.  Cycling the players above would very likely have prevented several major mistakes by DD.  If one of those prospects had developed into a 2 WAR starting pitcher, maybe we don't sign Ubaldo and Gallardo.  If one had been an OFer, maybe we don't give up prospects for Travis Snider and have the merry go round we've had in LF and RF since.  Maybe the reduced payroll allows us to shed two relievers without giving up supplemental picks.  Maybe, maybe we miss one playoff run, maybe we don't.  Maybe we make the playoffs one more time than we did, maybe not.  Most assuredly, we would be in significantly better competitive position today and going forward with a lower payroll and a much deeper farm system.  There is no doubt in my mind the opinions I expressed after the 2012 and 2013 seasons have been fully vindicated.

My issue with your merry-go- round approach is at what point do you keep a player? You want to constantly deal at peak value. Those trades will bring you prospects. Prospects though are volatile. How many years did it take Chris Davis to blossom? The Orioles acquired Tillman in 2008, he didn't make an impact until 2012. 

Your method may have helped to build an organization with high prospect rankings but would that have translated to big league success? 

There is also a business aspect you ignore. Flipping players is not a good way to build a fan base and selling tickets.  

[eddie83]

8 hours ago, SteveA said:

1982 and 1989 are two of my all time favorite Oriole seasons.  

Partially for personal reasons... 1982 was the first time I had a car and could drive to games so I went to a bunch of games with my high school buddies instead of just the few games a year my Dad would take me to.   And 1989 was my first year as a mini season plan holder, out of college, and I went to 45 games, a figure I have never matched since then.

But also because of the excitement of being in the race down to the wire.   1980 was that way too

I define a successful season as one where you are a legitimate playoff contender heading into September.  I view it as the team has given me an entire summer of entertainment and contended. 

An example would be the 1992 and 93 seasons. 1994 was headed that way as well. In 92 and 93 we faded in September both years and I was frustrated by that but those were still enjoyable years. Pre Wild Card was a different time. In today's game a season Iike 2013 you are in it basically until the end of the season. Another successful one in my opinion. 

1989 was my favorite season prior to 2012. I remember 1983 vividly but being a kid I could not appreciate as much as I would now. 

Of course I don't want the franchise to be satisfied with that, but in the process of trying to win a title those are still fun years. 

[hoosiers]

7 hours ago, SteveA said:

He'll let us know in five years after a couple of them are going strong and the other ones have declined.

The ones that will have declined are the ones we should sell now!

You are a funny bird.

You post about those who called for blowing it up five years ago as if we are in hiding or something.  My posts from five years ago are out there for anyone to find - just as the ones today are. Go find them and show where I've made things up before you attempt to discredit me in the manner you attempt in the post quoted.

I'm right here, SteveA.  I have been posting here for nearly 15 years and it has been a consistent "invest heavily in the farm system, keep your draft picks, expand international investment, don't make LT payroll commitments to FAs, deal guys at peak value (which is pretty much around the first and second arbitration year)."  As Frobby hinted, it is a TB/Oak type of $ with more $.

Which guys would I attempt to deal today?  As much as I love ZB, and have been following him since before he was drafted, I would deal him before next season.  I would try to sign Manny LT because I think he is a generational talent, but I would deal him before FA if he won't sign here.  I would attempt to sign Schoop to a medium term deal through his first FA year or then deal him in the time frame mentioned above.  I would treat Gausman same as Schoop.  Not sure who else there are decisions on.  Anything else you want me to state now so there is no gray area in five years?

What would you do, SteveA?  What's your plan?

  

[hoosiers]

4 hours ago, eddie83 said:

My issue with your merry-go- round approach is at what point do you keep a player? You want to constantly deal at peak value. Those trades will bring you prospects. Prospects though are volatile. How many years did it take Chris Davis to blossom? The Orioles acquired Tillman in 2008, he didn't make an impact until 2012. 

Your method may have helped to build an organization with high prospect rankings but would that have translated to big league success? 

There is also a business aspect you ignore. Flipping players is not a good way to build a fan base and selling tickets.  

The benefit of waiting for Chris Davis to blossom is that he doesn't cost much.  As noted above, many prospects don't pan out - though I think it is easy to sit at a keyboard and call prospects "suspects".  It is funny though to look at DD's trade history and see all those "suspects" right - Miranda, Bridwell, Hader, Brault, Jake, EdRod, ZD - obviously not a complete list.  Not many suspects there.  Turns out the suspects were the major leaguers who DD acquired Ubaldo, Snider, Gallardo, FRod, though Cruz, Trumbo and a couple others panned out.  

I think there can be generational talents like Manny who could be signed LT and others like Schoop or Gausman who might be extended into FA if possible and depending on the team construct.  Obviously, there is a team construct since one really can't field an entire team of pre-FA guys.  On the other hand, I've seen posted for a while here how vital a particular player is and that is simply not the case - Wieters being the poster child for folks here to say - "we can't do without this guy" - even Buck threw a little fit about possibly losing MW to the NYY when he hit FA - and MW clearly, clearly wasn't "invaluable" to the last four Orioles teams!

The prospects don't have to pan out in spectacular fashion and be 3 WAR producers.  There is enormous value in pre-arb guys contributing 1-1.5 WAR.  As we see at this deadline, these prospects don't have to pan out as major leaguers, they can be dealt at the trade deadline for key pieces - so they have value that way as well.

It's not a merry-go-round - though it is hardly the "let's keep the band together another year" approach as DD has been doing for a while now and not letting JJ or CD or MT leave.  I have posted for a long, long time that I believe Bmore would need about about half of it's key producers (top five starters, top 3 bp guys, starting lineup) to be pre-arb in order to compete with NYY and Boston.  That number has dwindled recently and that has caused our payroll to explode in order to keep the team together.  

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, hoosiers said:

The benefit of waiting for Chris Davis to blossom is that he doesn't cost much.  As noted above, many prospects don't pan out - though I think it is easy to sit at a keyboard and call prospects "suspects".  It is funny though to look at DD's trade history and see all those "suspects" right - Miranda, Bridwell, Hader, Brault, Jake, EdRod, ZD - obviously not a complete list.  Not many suspects there.  Turns out the suspects were the major leaguers who DD acquired Ubaldo, Snider, Gallardo, FRod, though Cruz, Trumbo and a couple others panned out.  

I think there can be generational talents like Manny who could be signed LT and others like Schoop or Gausman who might be extended into FA if possible and depending on the team construct.  Obviously, there is a team construct since one really can't field an entire team of pre-FA guys.  On the other hand, I've seen posted for a while here how vital a particular player is and that is simply not the case - Wieters being the poster child for folks here to say - "we can't do without this guy" - even Buck threw a little fit about possibly losing MW to the NYY when he hit FA - and MW clearly, clearly wasn't "invaluable" to the last four Orioles teams!

The prospects don't have to pan out in spectacular fashion and be 3 WAR producers.  There is enormous value in pre-arb guys contributing 1-1.5 WAR.  As we see at this deadline, these prospects don't have to pan out as major leaguers, they can be dealt at the trade deadline for key pieces - so they have value that way as well.

It's not a merry-go-round - though it is hardly the "let's keep the band together another year" approach as DD has been doing for a while now and not letting JJ or CD or MT leave.  I have posted for a long, long time that I believe Bmore would need about about half of it's key producers (top five starters, top 3 bp guys, starting lineup) to be pre-arb in order to compete with NYY and Boston.  That number has dwindled recently and that has caused our payroll to explode in order to keep the team together.  

In order to win in any plan you need to have enough talent to produce at one time. This year was severely impacted by Tillman and Gausman. 

Dan also added Chen and Gonzalez. Once again without those 2 the team isn't in the playoffs in 2012. Making the playoffs in 12 changed everything. 

Certainly based on 2017 the team could have used some of the pitchers you mention. You mention Gausman as someone who could be extended. Even with his recent surge he has had a poor year. If Gausman's down season isn't enough for you not to believe in his talents conversely I am not going to go wild over Bridwell, Miranda etc. ERod is an argument over Miller which many have debated pros and cons. Hader hurts but right now is a bullpen arm. We will have to see if he works as a starter. From a WAR standpoint Norris didn't pan out due to a horrible 2015 but his 2014 season he was a big part of the rotation. Arrieta wasn't working here and to pin that solely on Dan isn't fair. 

Once again trading a fan favorite like Davis after his 50 plus HR season was never a realistic play. There is a business aspect of this that you are ignoring.  

[Cumberbundy]

19 hours ago, PHRESH said:

What's wrong with Ace of Base?! 

I shouldn't have said what I said about ace of base. That was inappropriate & disrespectful. I take it back. 

[Cumberbundy]

19 hours ago, 24fps said:

In well over 50 years of being a baseball fan the most appalling thing I've encountered is the rise of the notion that a season is worthless without a WS appearance.  When I hear this I imagine an army of overgrown children, all with an eerie resemblance to The Rick, stomping around mom's basement, smashing their WoW action figures and demanding accountability.  NOW by God, so violently that their backwards-facing caps fly clear across the room disturbing all the half-empty Diet Coke cans.

There's a lot enjoyment that comes from appreciating a single game on its own merits or an entire season that keeps you engaged up until the end even if it fell a little short.   

I never expect anything but for the Birds to take the field 162 times and from mid January - September my O's enthusiasm is always on high. Well, unless we are playing in Tb, I hate watching games played in tb. 

[SteveA]

8 hours ago, hoosiers said:

You are a funny bird.

You post about those who called for blowing it up five years ago as if we are in hiding or something.  My posts from five years ago are out there for anyone to find - just as the ones today are. Go find them and show where I've made things up before you attempt to discredit me in the manner you attempt in the post quoted.

I'm right here, SteveA.  I have been posting here for nearly 15 years and it has been a consistent "invest heavily in the farm system, keep your draft picks, expand international investment, don't make LT payroll commitments to FAs, deal guys at peak value (which is pretty much around the first and second arbitration year)."  As Frobby hinted, it is a TB/Oak type of $ with more $.

Which guys would I attempt to deal today?  As much as I love ZB, and have been following him since before he was drafted, I would deal him before next season.  I would try to sign Manny LT because I think he is a generational talent, but I would deal him before FA if he won't sign here.  I would attempt to sign Schoop to a medium term deal through his first FA year or then deal him in the time frame mentioned above.  I would treat Gausman same as Schoop.  Not sure who else there are decisions on.  Anything else you want me to state now so there is no gray area in five years?

What would you do, SteveA?  What's your plan?

  

I think the TB/Oak strategy is basically for teams with lower payrolls.   It will be really tough to sell to a fanbase that you are getting rid of guys who have several productive years left for your team, over and over again, just as fans grow to love them.   TB and Oak can do it for two reasons:  1) they really don't have much of a fan base to worry about losing  and 2) they can legitimately claim that they are small market, low payroll teams with no other choice.

And, of course, the TB/Oak strategy presupposes that you have a farm system that is continually pumping out good players to replace the good ones you are getting rid of.   Time to dump Archer?   That's OK, we got Faria and Honeywell.   We don't have that type of farm system.   Yeah, I know it's a chicken/egg thing, if we start dumping now we MIGHT have that farm system several years down the road (if you believe that we don't have any deep issues in terms of player development?).

Anyway, not a lot of time this morning but you ask my plan.   I posted this in another thread a couple days ago as a blueprint for the offseason.   It's not that far off from what you say above...