Angelos Has Sold the O's to You. What's Your Plan?

[Chromehill]

9 minutes ago, Mondo Trasho said:

Yeah, I don't get the beat down on Duquette for Arrieta, Cruz and Markakis.

Arrieta was never going to win a Cy Young in Baltimore. Just wasn't going to happen the way his development here went down. He needed a change of scenery.

Cruz was 33, just had a career year (in a walk year no less) and had a history of PED use (which while I think should be legal, it isn't currently).

Markakis was a corner outfield with declining defense, no power and no speed. We wouldn't cheer his signing if he was from another team.

 

I think you can be critical of the Arietta trade from this perspective, trading for a mediocre starting pitcher that season was not going to get the Orioles in the playoffs.  No matter who they gave up to get Scott Feldman, it was a trade that should not have been made.  Same thing for the Parra trade, was not going to make a difference.

I would not have resigned Markakis either, was declining and his medical was questionable.  I would have resigned Cruz, but with the Orioles, you never know who made the decision to not resign him and may not have approved of offering a fourth year. 

[tntoriole]

6 hours ago, bird watcher said:

 Admit that I don’t know the other potential GM’s work enough to judge. Maybe they would be better. 

I can speak to DD.  I did say most, NOT ALL of his moves were for lack of other options  

Trading for Parra was dumb. That is on DD.  Letting go of Miggy also looked to be short sighted but there was money saved.  Why the need to feel he had to save that money?  Angelos edict or his doing?  

Arrietta looked to be awful in his time here. I would blame the development folks for that.  He wasn’t allowed to be himself. 

Cruz wanted a bunch of years and had a history of PED’s. We would have been better off signing him but it looked like too much risk at the time.

Nick Markakis had not been a world beater slg % was way down, defense looked slower and he had neck injury issue question marks.  4 years was a bridge too far.

Ubaldo and Gallardo are a pefect example of the middle road dumpster diving that I believe DD would NOT have done if he could have run his show, his way.  Who knows what he would have found over the years internationally and theough the premium FA route to not have to sign thos guys.  My opinion.  If I am wrong there (and I would find out by interviewing him and others) then my opinion would change. 

 

I seriously doubt Angelos had much to say about Miguel Gonzalez staying or leaving until the decisions were considered and made and presented by Duquette.

I do not know if Angelos had anything much proactively to say until the decision was made about trading Jake Arrieta until the decisions were already made and presented by Duquette. 

If Angelos had anything to say about Nick, I would suggest that there is at least some likelihood given the relationship between Nick and Angelos that he would have been inclined to favor another year but was perhaps recommended against it either by DD or by his own medical people. 

Same way with Nelson Cruz- I think Duquette recommended against even pursuing a resigning of Cruz and Angelos agreed. 

I think that Duquette specifically decided on Ubaldo and Gallardo and that in both instances there were other available options earlier in both of those offseasons in our affordable range that Duquette could have selected but chose not to go after. 

As you say, neither of us knows the truth, but this is my opinion.   The real issue I have about assessing his GM performance is not just saying whether the decisions made at the time were "understandable"...heck, guys on this board can make decisions about Cruz and Markakis that are "understandable."   The standard metric is whether those decisions turned out to be correct or wrong after they are made.   In both instances as well as the ones already mentioned, although Dan's choices could be, were and still are defended by a lot of posters here as "reasonable at the time"...the reality is that the results did not go well- Ubaldo, Gallardo, losing Davies, not resigning Cruz or Markakis- all of these ended up as absolutely wrong...period.  As to whether Dan had any input or not into the Trumbo, Davis signings, the common wisdom is that those were all on Angelos- maybe that is true, but the fact is we don't know because neither Dan nor Angelos has said anything about it, to my knowledge.    This is what gets GMs fired.   Not whether choices were "reasonable at the time" but did they turn out right or wrong.  Maybe that is not fair, but that is just the way it is.    That, plus catastrophic seasons like this one and last season.     Just my opinion. 

[bird watcher]

2 hours ago, tntoriole said:

I seriously doubt Angelos had much to say about Miguel Gonzalez staying or leaving until the decisions were considered and made and presented by Duquette.

I do not know if Angelos had anything much proactively to say until the decision was made about trading Jake Arrieta until the decisions were already made and presented by Duquette. 

If Angelos had anything to say about Nick, I would suggest that there is at least some likelihood given the relationship between Nick and Angelos that he would have been inclined to favor another year but was perhaps recommended against it either by DD or by his own medical people. 

Same way with Nelson Cruz- I think Duquette recommended against even pursuing a resigning of Cruz and Angelos agreed. 

I think that Duquette specifically decided on Ubaldo and Gallardo and that in both instances there were other available options earlier in both of those offseasons in our affordable range that Duquette could have selected but chose not to go after. 

As you say, neither of us knows the truth, but this is my opinion.   The real issue I have about assessing his GM performance is not just saying whether the decisions made at the time were "understandable"...heck, guys on this board can make decisions about Cruz and Markakis that are "understandable."   The standard metric is whether those decisions turned out to be correct or wrong after they are made.   In both instances as well as the ones already mentioned, although Dan's choices could be, were and still are defended by a lot of posters here as "reasonable at the time"...the reality is that the results did not go well- Ubaldo, Gallardo, losing Davies, not resigning Cruz or Markakis- all of these ended up as absolutely wrong...period.  As to whether Dan had any input or not into the Trumbo, Davis signings, the common wisdom is that those were all on Angelos- maybe that is true, but the fact is we don't know because neither Dan nor Angelos has said anything about it, to my knowledge.    This is what gets GMs fired.   Not whether choices were "reasonable at the time" but did they turn out right or wrong.  Maybe that is not fair, but that is just the way it is.    That, plus catastrophic seasons like this one and last season.     Just my opinion. 

You make good points. 

It would be tempting to have an interview process to see who presents themselves better.  I wouldn’t rule out DD but might have him interview like everyone else. That would be pretty unusual I am sure. 

Sadly I’ll likely never have the billions needed to find out what I would really do.  If I did have the billions owning the Orioles wouldn’t be very high on my want list either. 

[Hank Scorpio]

On 7/1/2018 at 6:08 PM, Chavez Ravine said:

I would assemble an all female front office....partly just for the novelty value.....but mostly because I assume I could get exceptional people without competition. Not only are women non existent in baseball, they get systematically undervalued in all the other potentially competing professions like statistics, computer science, infomatics, business administration, marketing, sports medicine. Hire Ng to talk with the good 'ol boys and be the lady with "cred", then put an open call out for women.

Haven’t you ever seen Major League?!?!

[tntoriole]

10 hours ago, Chromehill said:

I think you can be critical of the Arietta trade from this perspective, trading for a mediocre starting pitcher that season was not going to get the Orioles in the playoffs.  No matter who they gave up to get Scott Feldman, it was a trade that should not have been made.  Same thing for the Parra trade, was not going to make a difference.

I would not have resigned Markakis either, was declining and his medical was questionable.  I would have resigned Cruz, but with the Orioles, you never know who made the decision to not resign him and may not have approved of offering a fourth year. 

It is fine to say...”well there were reasons to not resign Cruz or Markakis”..so is that your expectation of a GM?  It is Ok to get it wrong because they are “reasonable”? 

.but the question is “well, yes, but how did that turn out?”  Right field has been a total disaster area since Nick left and now in that fourth year that everybody was so willy about, well,  he is just about the best hitter in the NL...but, no, that wouldn’t have helped us any... And Nelson Cruz would have made Trumbo unnecessary and is much better than Trumbo, anyway.  

Duquette’s answer to the loss of Nick Markakis and Nelson Cruz during the winter after the 2014 season when we were this close to the World Series was Travis Snider and then Gerardo Parra ...and for him to try to get a different gig in Toronto.  He did absolutely nothing that winter to get this core team to a World Series.  Nothing.   And for that I would have fired him right then.  

The Duquette apologizers I don’t get at all.  

[MDtransplant757]

On 7/1/2018 at 3:44 PM, tntoriole said:

Larry Luchino fired him too, in a hurry...and there weren’t any shackles of bad ownership there.  I think Duquette has gotten way too much of a pass because of the ogre owner theory.  Anything that goes right, he gets the credit, anything that goes wrong is that dumb Angelos fault.   

Nope, 2 last place seasons in a row along with possibly the worst season in MLB history is reason enough.  Plus I don’t trust Dan (see footsie with Toronto)...nope, I am canning him as fast as Lucchino did. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/sports/baseball-new-owners-of-red-sox-quickly-fire-duquette.html

 

The main reason Luchino fired him was mainly because he wanted either Billy Beane or Theo Epstien in office. That and the Boston media made DD into a punching bag. 

[tntoriole]

6 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:

The main reason Luchino fired him was mainly because he wanted either Billy Beane or Theo Epstien in office. That and the Boston media made DD into a punching bag. 

You can have your guy Duquette.  I wish Larry Lucchino had been successful buying the Orioles with DeWitt instead of Angelos.   Duquette also let Roger Clemens leave saying he was “in the twilight of his career” .  He also fired Jimy Williams midstream in the prior season and they went 17-26 under Joe Kerrigan.  He also interfered constantly with managerial decisions., who played or didn’t which led to the controversy and dissatisfaction among players towards him in particular that spilled into the media.   

Time for the Orioles to find a new GM...and new ownership. 

[MMussina35]

Hire the best baseball mind with strong analytics background. Give him/her a budget and then I’m getting the (blank) out of the way. If after 5 years I’m unhappy with the direction, I’ll make changes, rinse & repeat. 

[Natty]

I wouldn't blame the inept clowns who put us in this bad spot. What's done is done. 

I'd give Davey Johnson a call. Have a good talk with him. 

[LookitsPuck]

On 7/1/2018 at 10:32 AM, Can_of_corn said:

You forgot the decimal point.

He might not be too far off.

The Rams were looking for $30m/year for naming rights over a 20 year period. 

Naming rights are all of the map. Although that's certainly the NFL. I'd imagine MLB he's probably looking more like < $10m/year.

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

He might not be too far off.

The Rams were looking for $30m/year for naming rights over a 20 year period. 

Naming rights are all of the map. Although that's certainly the NFL. I'd imagine MLB he's probably looking more like < $10m/year.

http://www.fromthisseat.com/index.php/blog/19324-most-expensive-naming-rights-deals-for-major-league-ballparks

With some notable exceptions MLB deals are in the 2-3 million range per annum.

 

[Natty]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

http://www.fromthisseat.com/index.php/blog/19324-most-expensive-naming-rights-deals-for-major-league-ballparks

With some notable exceptions MLB deals are in the 2-3 million range per annum.

 

Sun Trust 250 million 25 years. 

[Natty]

My 900M offer is a good deal. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Natty said:

Sun Trust 250 million 25 years. 

You did see where I said that notable exceptions did exist?

Honestly you should have kept reading until you got to Citi Field.

[Natty]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You did see where I said that notable exceptions did exist?

Honestly you should have kept reading until you got to Citi Field.

But our ownership paid Davis 160M.

And recouped 0 in naming rights. Like I said...I can do better.