DD is not under contract next year and

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, weams said:

And that year, I think he did.

He didn’t.  Every single corner OF we tried in 2015 underperformed their career numbers.   It was a travesty but I think DD gets too much blame for it.    

What continues to puzzle me is how cheap (or, one could argue, disciplined) we were with Cruz/Markakis/Miller in the 2014-15 offseason, and then spent so lavishly (or without discipline) in the 2015-16 offseason.    It really made no sense.    

[weams]

Just now, Frobby said:

He didn’t.  Every single corner OF we tried in 2015 underperformed their career numbers.   It was a travesty but I think DD gets too much blame for it.    

What continues to puzzle me is how cheap (or, one could argue, disciplined) we were with Cruz/Markakis/Miller in the 2014-15 offseason, and then spent so lavishly (or without discipline) in the 2015-16 offseason.    It really made no sense.    

I was thinking Nick had a worse year than he did due to the surgury. You are right. All of them. 

[25 Nuggets]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

He didn’t.  Every single corner OF we tried in 2015 underperformed their career numbers.   It was a travesty but I think DD gets too much blame for it.    

What continues to puzzle me is how cheap (or, one could argue, disciplined) we were with Cruz/Markakis/Miller in the 2014-15 offseason, and then spent so lavishly (or without discipline) in the 2015-16 offseason.    It really made no sense.    

It makes sense in the context of Duquette, Toronto, and then the power struggle.

[atomic]

Also I don't see how we are getting much younger next year. We are stuck with Trumbo,  Davis,  Cobb and ODay next year.  Probably will have Cashner and Caleb on the team. Mancini and DJ Stewart aren't actually that young.  Machado was relatively young. Briton wasn't that old.   Everyone will be a year older.   Hard to do a rebuild when you have a bunch of large unreadable contracts. 

[tntoriole]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that simple and you know it.

He determined that ONE YEAR of Travis Snyder was a better bet than a FOUR YEAR commitment to Markakis. 

It wasn't a matter of who will win me more games this season.

Except that the Orioles by all accounts had at least a three year offer on the table the whole time (actually was 4 years by reports right after after the World Series, when they bought out his option year for 2 million, and they did not QO him and up till the neck issue, then they tried to get him to go for a reduced term of 3 years and so he signed with the Braves because he got the fourth year).  So the Os  were apparently absolutely fine to go for three years, even with the neck issue, before the Braves came in to it at all  and before any contingency plan for RF would be needed.   So the real difference maker was that one year on his offer.  The fourth year of Nick out in 2018 vs. having to go to the Travis Snider, Reimold, Parra, Paredes, De Aza, Trumbo, Dariel Alvarez, Seth Smith, Rasmus, etc.  was the equation, imho. 

You are right that it wasn’t simple.  

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2015/02/jones-offers-opinion-on-markakis-comments.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[tntoriole]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

He didn’t.  Every single corner OF we tried in 2015 underperformed their career numbers.   It was a travesty but I think DD gets too much blame for it.    

What continues to puzzle me is how cheap (or, one could argue, disciplined) we were with Cruz/Markakis/Miller in the 2014-15 offseason, and then spent so lavishly (or without discipline) in the 2015-16 offseason.    It really made no sense.    

I would argue “cheap” rather than “disciplined”  because we were that close to the World Series.  Rather than spending right then to actually try and take a shot in 2015, the roster was degraded  by losing Cruz and Markakis and Miller and not seeking to improve in any of those places during the offseason.  

It only makes sense in the context of Dan trying to go to Toronto that winter and Angelos likely  being furious.  The old man and Dan’s working relationship ended, in my view, right at that point.  Dan was still there in name but the old man subsequently went to others and took his own counsel on big decisions after that, imho. 

I just would like to know sometime from Dan...Did he recommend to Mr. Angelos NOT to go for the fourth year to Nick due to his own assessment of the pluses and minuses  OR was that the old man’s call over your recommendation after the neck issue came up?   

[Beef Supreme]

12 hours ago, MCO'sFan said:

This fixation on DD's age "Old as dirt" is disgusting! I am surprised a mod hasn't chimed in.

atomic likes to take craps on people about their number of years they have lived. Once, he personally insulted @Aglets for being too old to understand baseball. He based his opinion on Aglets' avatar. Turned out, atomic didn't know who Larry David is. 

[brianod]

exactly my point about him trading our players.  Why didn't we put that on a GM that was in for the long hall? Why didn't we fire him before we decided to rebuild?

[weams]

6 hours ago, brianod said:

exactly my point about him trading our players.  Why didn't we put that on a GM that was in for the long hall? Why didn't we fire him before we decided to rebuild?

Maybe they are going to keep him? Or maybe they let the guy that is leaving do the dirty work. Or maybe they think he is one of the 30 most qualified men on the planet to do this. Especially because he has done it before. 

[24fps]

12 hours ago, weams said:

Me.

Me too. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 hours ago, tntoriole said:

Except that the Orioles by all accounts had at least a three year offer on the table the whole time (actually was 4 years by reports right after after the World Series, when they bought out his option year for 2 million, and they did not QO him and up till the neck issue, then they tried to get him to go for a reduced term of 3 years and so he signed with the Braves because he got the fourth year).  So the Os  were apparently absolutely fine to go for three years, even with the neck issue, before the Braves came in to it at all  and before any contingency plan for RF would be needed.   So the real difference maker was that one year on his offer.  The fourth year of Nick out in 2018 vs. having to go to the Travis Snider, Reimold, Parra, Paredes, De Aza, Trumbo, Dariel Alvarez, Seth Smith, Rasmus, etc.  was the equation, imho. 

You are right that it wasn’t simple.  

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2015/02/jones-offers-opinion-on-markakis-comments.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Three years = OK level of risk, four years = too much risk.

But it isn't just about the fourth year.  The sticking point wasn't that they thought he would break down in year four.  You do understand that right?  The cumulative risk of a four year deal was deemed excessive.

Frankly you are making my head hurt.

This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, tntoriole said:

I would argue “cheap” rather than “disciplined”  because we were that close to the World Series.  Rather than spending right then to actually try and take a shot in 2015, the roster was degraded  by losing Cruz and Markakis and Miller and not seeking to improve in any of those places during the offseason.  

It only makes sense in the context of Dan trying to go to Toronto that winter and Angelos likely  being furious.  The old man and Dan’s working relationship ended, in my view, right at that point.  Dan was still there in name but the old man subsequently went to others and took his own counsel on big decisions after that, imho. 

I just would like to know sometime from Dan...Did he recommend to Mr. Angelos NOT to go for the fourth year to Nick due to his own assessment of the pluses and minuses  OR was that the old man’s call over your recommendation after the neck issue came up?   

Just remember, Markakis, Cruz and Miller all signed with other teams before the first reports of Toronto’s interest in Duquette.   Just by a few days, and we don’t know what was happening behind the scenes before those first public reports came out, and when Angelos knew something was up.    But it’s not clear that your scenario for how those departures happened is correct. 

[tntoriole]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Just remember, Markakis, Cruz and Miller all signed with other teams before the first reports of Toronto’s interest in Duquette.   Just by a few days, and we don’t know what was happening behind the scenes before those first public reports came out, and when Angelos knew something was up.    But it’s not clear that your scenario for how those departures happened is correct. 

Another never to be answered question for Dan....Did you recommend signing Nick, Nelson or Andrew and were overruled OR, if not, what exactly was your plan to upgrade the division winning team in the winter of 2014?  Because whether it was Dan or the old man or both....nothing happened, absolutely nothing.  We lost Nick, Nelson, Andrew Miller and we signed Wesley Wright and gave up young pitchers for Travis Snider.    Was this the grand plan, Dan?   Or was it all the old man?  The rebuild will not look good if this was Dan’s plan that winter.   Oh, and when did all this Toronto stuff start exactly?  Before or after the ALCS? 

[tntoriole]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Three years = OK level of risk, four years = too much risk.

But it isn't just about the fourth year.  The sticking point wasn't that they thought he would break down in year four.  You do understand that right?  The cumulative risk of a four year deal was deemed excessive.

Frankly you are making my head hurt.

This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

Sorry about the head...lol.....Take two Tylenol before reading any further...

My only real point was did Dan think it through as a GM should before just letting Nick go? We have a division winner starting right fielder...Did Dan think...OK, I am only going three years on this guy no matter what....that is my level of risk red line.   And if he did, then what was his contingency plan of improving the best team we had since 1997? ....I believe there was ZERO contingency.  That Dan either thought he could just convince Nick, he bought out his option year and we did not even QO him and just seemingly took it for granted he would stay and that his leaving took him TOTALLY unprepared to then find an upgrade at the corner outfield spot for a team that had just won the division.  I choose to believe that it was the Toronto situation that caused Dan to not be as focused as he should have been that winter.   

 

But all is forgiven, the mistakes were made.  Dan can lead the rebuild just fine if John A is in charge.  

[atomic]

12 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

atomic likes to take craps on people about their number of years they have lived. Once, he personally insulted @Aglets for being too old to understand baseball. He based his opinion on Aglets' avatar. Turned out, atomic didn't know who Larry David is. 

I knew who Larry David is.  Aglet was attacking me so I made a joke.  The personal insult was against me and I made a joke in return.  And somehow I am the bad guy.