TT: Orioles Games of Thrones and the Way Forward

[webbrick2010]

Thanks Tony

What I get from this is that Brady/Buck are the driving force behind what I call the lifetime achievement contracts, which I define as extension to good guys, good players, ignoring red flags such as recent performance declines or their age at the time of extension.

I'd love to hear your opinion on who was the architect of the Hardy extension as I consider this the first major step back to a losing team

For DD sake I hope that he was against:

1. Hardy extension 2. O'day extension 3. Davis extension 4. Trumbo extension

We'll know that Brady/Buck are in complete control and completely incompetent when they extend Jones

 

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

Thanks Tony

What I get from this is that Brady/Buck are the driving force behind what I call the lifetime achievement contracts, which I define as extension to good guys, good players, ignoring red flags such as recent performance declines or their age at the time of extension.

I'd love to hear your opinion on who was the architect of the Hardy extension as I consider this the first major step back to a losing team

For DD sake I hope that he was against:

1. Hardy extension 2. O'day extension 3. Davis extension 4. Trumbo extension

We'll know that Brady/Buck are in complete control and completely incompetent when they extend Jones

 

The Hardy extension occurred before the decisions to let Markakis, Cruz and Miller all leave.   I’d be really surprised if Duquette wasn’t involved in that decision.    I think Dan knew he didn’t have the money to keep all four, and chose the one he thought was most important.    

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The Hardy extension occurred before the decisions to let Markakis, Cruz and Miller all leave.   I’d be really surprised if Duquette wasn’t involved in that decision.    I think Dan knew he didn’t have the money to keep all four, and chose the one he thought was most important.    

I agree.  Nick was hurt and wanted 4 years. The O's offered three.   Cruz was mid 30 and wanted a long term deal.  At the time it seemed like a lot to ask for Cruz's waning years.  Miller wanted closer money (at the time) and the O's had Britton.  The O's have no SS replacement for Hardy without taking their Gold Glover off 3B.   Money was an issue.

[LookitsPuck]

50 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

Thanks Tony

What I get from this is that Brady/Buck are the driving force behind what I call the lifetime achievement contracts, which I define as extension to good guys, good players, ignoring red flags such as recent performance declines or their age at the time of extension.

I'd love to hear your opinion on who was the architect of the Hardy extension as I consider this the first major step back to a losing team

For DD sake I hope that he was against:

1. Hardy extension 2. O'day extension 3. Davis extension 4. Trumbo extension

We'll know that Brady/Buck are in complete control and completely incompetent when they extend Jones

 

I don't think there was much opposition to the O'Day contract. Let's remember that from 2012-2015, he averaged 66 IP and a 214 ERA+. He was durable as all get out. And his contract was reasonable especially relative to the market.

I think the big question mark is...why let Andrew Miller walk and then sign O'Day to damn near the same contract?

[LookitsPuck]

14 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I agree.  Nick was hurt and wanted 4 years. The O's offered three.   Cruz was mid 30 and wanted a long term deal.  At the time it seemed like a lot to ask for Cruz's waning years.  Miller wanted closer money (at the time) and the O's had Britton.  The O's have no SS replacement for Hardy without taking their Gold Glover off 3B.   Money was an issue.

Miller got a 4 year deal for $36 million. $9/m a year wasn't (and still isn't) closer money. 

Cruz was 33 at the time. So, yes, teetering on mid 30s. But, once again, he was a pillar of consistency and durability. The only blip was the suspension in 2013. And I'm not sure that logic applies all that well when Trumbo was signed to a 3 year deal when he was 31 with a much less consistent offensive past. Essentially the O's bought high on him. Trumbo has an AAV of about $12m. Nelson Cruz roughly $14m. 

These are just decisions that I feel are at odds with one another. O'Day ends up with a 4 year deal for roughly $8m/year. Andrew Miller $9m/year. Mark Trumbo 12m/year for 3 years. Nelson Cruz $14m/year for 4 years.

FWIW,  I still don't fault Duquette for Darren O'Day. I think most people assumed Andrew Miller would walk. I think most people thought 1 or both of Markakis and Cruz would be resigned. When all of them (Miller, Markakis and Cruz) walked and the prize in the offseason was trading Brault and Tarpley for Travis Snider...that's what really irked me (and a lot of others) especially after the Blue Jays mess. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could support how Duquette handled it.

[ArtVanDelay]

Great article Tony.  Buck looks really bad here. 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

I don't think there was much opposition to the O'Day contract. Let's remember that from 2012-2015, he averaged 66 IP and a 214 ERA+. He was durable as all get out. And his contract was reasonable especially relative to the market.

I think the big question mark is...why let Andrew Miller walk and then sign O'Day to damn near the same contract?

I think there are a couple of answers to that question.   

1.   Timing.    The market for what relief pitchers get paid changed a lot in the 2014-16 period.  When Miller was signed, $9-10 mm was considered closer money.   The O’s had a closer, and they also had O’Day and Brach.   They just didn’t have the money to spend on a non-closer, and their bullpen had been quite good even before they acquired Miller (and, remained quite good after he left).    Resources seemed scarce and the O’s just had other priorities.

By the 2015-16 season, the market had changed quite a bit.   Top set-up guys were making more money than before.    Losing O’Day would have put a pretty good sized hole in their bullpen.    And, there probably was some loyalty factor involved, compared to Miller.   O’Day has been there four years, had been great the whole time, and was considered the leader/mentor of the bullpen.    And for the record, in his four years with the Orioles to that point, he had a 23-8 record with a 1.92 ERA, including 1.52 ERA in the just-concluded season.

[LookitsPuck]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think there are a couple of answers to that question.   

1.   Timing.    The market for what relief pitchers get paid changed a lot in the 2014-16 period.  When Miller was signed, $9-10 mm was considered closer money.   The O’s had a closer, and they also had O’Day and Brach.   They just didn’t have the money to spend on a non-closer, and their bullpen had been quite good even before they acquired Miller (and, remained quite good after he left).    Resources seemed scarce and the O’s just had other priorities.

By the 2015-16 season, the market had changed quite a bit.   Top set-up guys were making more money than before.    Losing O’Day would have put a pretty good sized hole in their bullpen.    And, there probably was some loyalty factor involved, compared to Miller.   O’Day has been there four years, had been great the whole time, and was considered the leader/mentor of the bullpen.    And for the record, in his four years with the Orioles to that point, he had a 23-8 record with a 1.92 ERA, including 1.52 ERA in the just-concluded season.

Sure, and this all makes sense. So I think what I'm arguing here is not that letting Miller walk was a poor decision, but that...I think based on everything you said, Duquette wanted O'Day back. Probably with input from Buck, of course. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What I do, however, think is a bad thing is letting all 3 of them walk and not having a plan going into 2015. It seemingly caused a domino effect of bad decisions when it came to DH types on this club. 

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

Thanks, Tony. 

I have a number of thoughts and reactions to this piece, much of which I found pretty discouraging.

I'll focus on the most depressing part -- Tony's suggestion that Brady Anderson looks like the front runner to succeed Dan Duquette as the Orioles ' Executive Vice President. 

Hangout posters are a pretty contentious bunch, and there's usually disagreement about pretty much anything. Would anyone would answer "Yes" to any of the following questions? 

1. Do Brady Anderson's background and experience qualify him to serve as the Executive VP of the Orioles?
    
2. Is there any possibility that Brady Anderson would be named to an analogous position with any other MLB team?
    
3. In the past 20 years or so, has anyone whose background and experience are similar to Brady's been appointed to a similar leadership position with an MLB team?
    
4. By making Brady Anderson their Executive V.P., the , would the Orioles not put themselves at a competitive disadvantage relative to most other MLB teams?

First off really enjoyed the article. Very well done.

I think spiritof66 says all we need to know. 

Overall this seems to be an organization where personal relationships are more important than hiring the best people for the job.  

I am not naive about powerful people but one thing that ticks me off are the egos involved.  The goal should be about building the best franchise possible. This is not about taking care of your buddy or gaining power for ones own personal gains. Is this a team where people work together as one? I don’t see it.  

It all comes back to ownership. Building a cohesive organization starts there and unless the team is sold or the sons wise up nothing will change. It is always possible the team puts together another 2012-16 run but if they truly want to be great this isn’t how you run a baseball franchise. 

There are more important things in life than the Orioles but it angers me at what has happened. Overall the last 25 years have in general been wasted by poor ownership. The names and faces have changed in leadership positions over the years but the chaos hasn’t. That pretty much says it all.  

[eddie83]

16 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Sure, and this all makes sense. So I think what I'm arguing here is not that letting Miller walk was a poor decision, but that...I think based on everything you said, Duquette wanted O'Day back. Probably with input from Buck, of course. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What I do, however, think is a bad thing is letting all 3 of them walk and not having a plan going into 2015. It seemingly caused a domino effect of bad decisions when it came to DH types on this club. 

I have no idea how any “planning” can go on with how this place operates. How can anyone’s vision be implemented? The only hope is that enough good decisions are clustered together to have a window to win. 

[MMussina35]

Excellent read, too bad you don't write for MASN, MLB.com/Orioles, or the Baltimore Sun. 

Brady thought Cobb & Cashner were good ideas at this moment in time? C-ya!

Buck also probably pushed that ridiculous Hardy extension, so Buck is clearly a terrible GM and while I appreciate some of his in-game strategy, him playing favorites (something I detest) is as obvious as the day is long.

For me personally, I live on the West Coast now and I am trying to adopt the Dodgers as my team but it's hard when your first taste of baseball was the 89 season at Memorial Stadium and meeting Cal Ripken in the players lot. However without a new owner, we know what is coming next, another 14 years lost at sea adventure. I can't hang for that but divorce isn't an easy thing. 

[LookitsPuck]

8 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I have no idea how any “planning” can go on with how this place operates. How can anyone’s vision be implemented? The only hope is that enough good decisions are clustered together to have a window to win. 

I'd say it was pretty obvious what Duquette's vision was: win now, farm be damned. Strategy: elite/strong relief pitching, average starting pitching with a focus on homers that are readily available.

He's largely stuck with that strategy for awhile. But we've seen how that strategy fails when guys get older and are DH types....and when members of the relief corp breakdown. Aside from Bleier, what meaningful relief pitching has Duquette acquired that has been impactful both last year and now? We've seen pretty much everybody falter aside from...well...Bleier.  Miguel Castro is taking some nice strides, but everybody else? Not so much. And there are injuries like woah. I wish Duquette put more of an effort on relief pitching going into this season instead of rolling the dice with Rule V types damn well knowing Britton would be out for an extended period and Brach struggled at the end of last year. It was poor planning.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, LookitsPuck said:

I don't think there was much opposition to the O'Day contract. Let's remember that from 2012-2015, he averaged 66 IP and a 214 ERA+. He was durable as all get out. And his contract was reasonable especially relative to the market.

I think the big question mark is...why let Andrew Miller walk and then sign O'Day to damn near the same contract?

 

I was.

 

[Frobby]

Just now, LookitsPuck said:

Sure, and this all makes sense. So I think what I'm arguing here is not that letting Miller walk was a poor decision, but that...I think based on everything you said, Duquette wanted O'Day back. Probably with input from Buck, of course. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What I do, however, think is a bad thing is letting all 3 of them walk and not having a plan going into 2015. It seemingly caused a domino effect of bad decisions when it came to DH types on this club. 

As I’ve said before, it seems the team was operating as though it was on a tight budget constraint in the 2014-15 offseason, and then in  the 2015-16 they spent like drunken sailors.    Part of that could be Duquette vs. Brady/Buck, or it could be that Angelos saw his window of contention slipping away after the .500 season in 2015 and concluded it would close unless he spent more money to try to keep it open.   

[LookitsPuck]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I was.

 

I just assume you're opposed to every contract that is over 1 year and the player is over 30 years old.