.500+ record, or no. 13 overall draft pick?

[Sessh]

The Astros, an example already put forth here, shrugged their shoulders for several years and it seems to be working out well for them. In that article, I agree that the value of draft picks is highly variable and dependent on perspective. A rebuilding club would value them more because draft picks are a crucial part of rebuilding which is what the Orioles should be doing right now, but aren't. Second, the higher the pick is in the first round, the better chance that they will be successful in the majors. Again, a great reason to try to improve your draft position if your team is not a playoff team or is rebuilding. I can't really disagree with much in that article and don't really see how it is in opposition to anything I said or suggested was a viable strategy for some teams.

 

[jerios55]

Which picks are protected when signing FAs?  I think top half, so anything in the that range is fine. 

I don't know if we'll consider any of those targets, but I'd rather hold on to our first rounder.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, jerios55 said:

Which picks are protected when signing FAs?  I think top half, so anything in the that range is fine. 

I don't know if we'll consider any of those targets, but I'd rather hold on to our first rounder.

I don't think any since first round picks are no longer lost.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Black Bat said:

Of course.  Sadly, I monitor this daily with similar interest level to a playoff chase.  With just a few losses, we can elevate our selection position by as many as 7-8 slots based on how others finish.  A lot of sub-500 teams bunched together in the AL. 

I'm not sure what the over-500 status would bring other than the masked notion that the team is okay and close to being very good.  The reality isn't so and I'd much prefer sliding a bit if for no better reason than to give PA an awakening that the current model ain't working too well.

Honestly I don't want Dan going into the offseason thinking this team is close.

[Frobby]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Honestly I don't want Dan going into the offseason thinking this team is close.

Close to what?   In 2015, we were close enough to contending that we made a few tweaks and made the playoffs the following year.    And in 2011, when we won 69 games, I guess we were close enough to win 93 the following season.    So, I doubt our exact record will affect Duquette's opinion much.   

[24fps]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Honestly I don't want Dan going into the offseason thinking this team is close.

I don't think many of us do, including myself.  However it's much easier to make the case that the Orioles are close than it is to assert that the organization is a basket case like the Astros were in 2010, or for that matter the Orioles in 2007.  The assumption that a sizeable rebuild is necessary has slowly crept into this thread, and I think that's unwarranted.

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Close to what?   In 2015, we were close enough to contending that we made a few tweaks and made the playoffs the following year.    And in 2011, when we won 69 games, I guess we were close enough to win 93 the following season.    So, I doubt our exact record will affect Duquette's opinion much.   

2012 was a fluke.  A happy fluke but still a fluke.

[maybenxtyr]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Honestly I don't want Dan going into the offseason thinking this team is close.

Exactly. This team is way more than a couple of pitchers away from being a World Series caliber team. I expect them to apply some "band aid" moves and roll though.

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

2012 was a fluke.  A happy fluke but still a fluke.

To a degree.    When Manny and McLouth arrived in August, they became a pretty good team, rather than just a so-so team that was getting miraculous results in one-run and extra-inning games.

My point is, whether they win 78 or 81 games, it will be reasonable to believe they could contend for a wild card spot next year with some offseason moves that work out well.    It's probably not reasonable to believe they're likely to be one of the top 2 teams in the league.   That's why I asked "close" to what?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

To a degree.    When Manny and McLouth arrived in August, they became a pretty good team, rather than just a so-so team that was getting miraculous results in one-run and extra-inning games.

My point is, whether they win 78 or 81 games, it will be reasonable to believe they could contend for a wild card spot next year with some offseason moves that work out well.    It's probably not reasonable to believe they're likely to be one of the top 2 teams in the league.   That's why I asked "close" to what?

What I am saying is you can't look at a team like the 2011 team and go "Yea, that team is close.".

These days if you can play around .500 you might end up "close" to the second wildcard.  I don't see the point in playing for .500.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What I am saying is you can't look at a team like the 2011 team and go "Yea, that team is close.".

These days if you can play around .500 you might end up "close" to the second wildcard.  I don't see the point in playing for .500.

I'd rather finish at or above .500 than below .500, if you put the draft consequences to one side.   Obviously, that's not a goal when the season starts.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I'd rather finish at or above .500 than below .500, if you put the draft consequences to one side.   Obviously, that's not a goal when the season starts.

If you are satisfied with competing for the second wildcard you goal ain't much more than 500.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you are satisfied with competing for the second wildcard you goal ain't much more than 500.

First of all, I'm not satisfied with competing for the second wild card.    But I'd be partly satisfied by winning the second wild card.   Last year that took 89 wins; I don't consider that to be that close to .500.     It took 93 wins when we did it in 2012.     What's happening this year is unusual.    Honestly, if we'd won 85, gotten the 2nd wild card, and then lost the WC game, I wouldn't have been very satisfied at all.     I wouldn't have called it a failure, but I wouldn't have considered it much of a success, either.    But I certainly would have far preferred it to whatever this finish will turn out to be.

[osfan83]

4 hours ago, Sessh said:

The Astros, an example already put forth here, shrugged their shoulders for several years and it seems to be working out well for them. In that article, I agree that the value of draft picks is highly variable and dependent on perspective. A rebuilding club would value them more because draft picks are a crucial part of rebuilding which is what the Orioles should be doing right now, but aren't. Second, the higher the pick is in the first round, the better chance that they will be successful in the majors. Again, a great reason to try to improve your draft position if your team is not a playoff team or is rebuilding. I can't really disagree with much in that article and don't really see how it is in opposition to anything I said or suggested was a viable strategy for some teams.

 

How many consecutive years of playoff baseball will it take for the Astros to recoup the lost revenue dollars from the 100 loss seasons?  

[osfan83]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

2012 was a fluke.  A happy fluke but still a fluke.

I disagree....to me a fluke would be if that 2012 team won 93 game, then followed it up with a couple of sub .500 seasons. This team has been a wild card caliber team or better for the past 5 years. Yes, even the 2017 team could have made the WC. And we have the core in place for at least a WC caliber team in 2018.

If the 2007 team won 93 games, that would have been a fluke.