Dan says "tear it completely down"

[weams]

 

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, wildcard said:

I have no problem with the O's deciding to tear it completely down.   I have a big problem with trading Gausman and Schoop and not getting quality players in return.   There is no reason that they needed to be traded at the deadline if they couldn't get highly rated players back.  They have all winter to get better deals.

I understand this to a certain extent as there should be more received in trade over the winter.  That said, we had a competitive bidding process here and we might have been in sell mode over the winter and received less …..   I think folks here don't appreciate the need to lower payroll - especially since we were already a last place team with these guys.

We are hearing of a major commitment internationally that will cost $ to start up, $ to put scouts on payroll, and $ to sign players.  I am guessing that is a spending of $12M-$15M.  Plus DD has mentioned additional investments in technology and other.

I don't think these investments can be made with a payroll north of $120M given the attendance and low TV ratings.  We had to cut payroll and we will probably keep cutting payroll.

[Aristotelian]

19 minutes ago, atomic said:

So you basically are saying no matter who we got in return and how lowly other teams scouts thought of the prospects it wuld be a good trade?  You prefer players outside of the top 100 over ones in it because we got the guys we wanted.  This might the most ignorant post I have ever read. 

That is not even close to what he said. He may be wrong, but at least represent his post accurately.

[atomic]

17 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

 That is not even close to what he said. He may be wrong, but at least represent his post accurately.

Oh sorry he said he prefers guys drafted in later rounds who aren't rated highly to guys drafted in high round that are rated highly because we got them in return in a trade. 

[NashLumber]

16 hours ago, NashLumber said:

I wanna see Mullins and the others, but would bringing them up in a meaningless August and September be worth losing the year of control? Someone mentioned tonight that holding off on the Schoop early call-up would have meant one more year of team control (and maybe more back in that trade). Wouldn’t a September (not sure how far into it the rosters expand - what date) call-up be better with that in mind? I think the minor league regular season ends the first week of September. Maybe after that?

 

12 hours ago, eddie83 said:

If the plan is for Mullins to be the starting CF next year then it does not matter. The only advantage in keeping him down longer is a Sisco situation this year. Chance was up last year for a month so if the Orioles can keep him down long enough this year then he will not have a full year of service time.   

Thanks. Was trying to get some insight from those who have a better feel for the service time or controllable years issue. This helps. 

11 hours ago, baltfan said:

Made sense to call Schoop up when we did. We were trying to win in what looked like the beginning of our window.  Orioles won 96 games in 2014

And I agree, that was the idea. Was more interested in some insight into the pros and cons of controllable years vs. having him then. I just remember him struggling at the plate (outside of 16 HRs) in his rookie year, 137 games in 2014. 

.209

.244

.354

.598

 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

Oh sorry he said he prefers guys drafted in later rounds who aren't rated highly to guys drafted in high round that are rated highly because we got them in return in a trade. 

No, he says he prefers guys that the organization thinks are good regardless of their draft status or rankings. He may be wrong that these guys are better, but that's what he said.

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

No, he says he prefers guys that the organization thinks are good regardless of their draft status or rankings. He may be wrong that these guys are better, but that's what he said.

Well I am sure the team would prefer the highly rated guys from the Braves.  They made the deal they made because of saving 12 million dollars.  And all the deals the other teams has an opinion of whom you get.  If you don't get what you want in Gausman and Schoop deals you wait until the off-season.  After looking at what we got in Schoop deal it isn't terrible.  Just the Gausman one stinks. 

[wildbillhiccup]

3 hours ago, foxfield said:

You are not splitting hairs.  What you are saying is that the Orioles undersold Schoop to the Brewers and trading him after this season ends would have simply resulted in more.

This is simply false.  First of all, it is possible someone would have paid more, but I suspect the real issue or premise here is that you are overvaluing Schoop now.  Waiting honestly was not likely to change the equation for you since your opinion is that he should have netted more.

That is truly debatable.  

FYI. Thing that are debatable are not "simply false."

[jrobb21613]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

He made quite a few changes in the scouting department, both personnel and the way duties are divvied up.    The scouting director and his two chief deputies are all Dan hires.    The analytics department are all Dan hires.    I would not say he did a massive overhaul of player development but he did hire a AAA manager, a director of pitching development (now replaced), and promoted a director of player development and got rid of the person holding that title.    He revamped international scouting but then wasn’t able to really operate except at the margins due to ownership restrictions on spending in that area.    Overall, you can’t say Dan wasn’t allowed to bring in his own people.  

Good to know thanks. So it sounds like areas inside the originization analytics and international scouting development where Dan hired his people and I believe heard Dan speak of in the beginning of his tenure are areas that financially ownership has not allocated the resources toward. Dan wanted these areas developed as positions of strength from the beginning and it sounds like that up until now the support of ownership wasn’t there and therefore the necessary amount of funds were not allocated to those areas for them to be successful. I can’t help but to have to keep going back to the whole DD and Bluejay fiasco and think that situation is what lead to Brady and Buck making more decisions and DD making less. I believe that fiasco ended up setting this originzation back years and were suffering the consequences of it now. I believe ownership lost trust and faith in DD’s commitment to the orioles and therefore had a guy like Brady in over his head and because of that lack of trust the areas inside the orginazation that DD is again talking about developing suffered tremendously. 

I hope it’s DD that’s rehired but if he’s not no matter who it’s I hope they have the full support and trust of ownership because if not it will be more of the same.

[Natty]

Where does Davis and all that money fit into "tear it completely down?

[foxfield]

42 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

FYI. Thing that are debatable are not "simply false."

2 things.  One trying to be kind and open to your opinion.  Two perhaps I was unclear.  

It is simply false to say the Orioles would have gotten more by simply waiting.  That is false.

I also said, that I believed you expressed as fact that this would happen because your opinion is that the Orioles did not get enough value for 1 year and three months of Schoop.

That opinion is debatable.

 

[crawjo]

7 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I don't mind tearing it down, but I'm not sure they needed to load it up with dynamite and hit the plunger. It could have taken place over a few months and Schoop and Gausman could have been traded during the off season. Teams are looking to bolster their rosters to make a playoff run in July. In December, January, etc. teams are looking to improve their rosters for the season. Plus if this off season plays out like last off season teams will be much more inclined to address their needs via trades then with bloated free agent contracts. 

I'm not sure that you would get a better deal, or as good of a deal, in the offseason as you would right now. At this time teams start getting very aggressive to add players, and often there is a very limited supply of quality pieces available. In the offseason there will be less urgency and more options for teams looking to improve. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Natty said:

Where does Davis and all that money fit into "tear it completely down?

Nothing you can do about that, except cut Davis if he continues to be as unproductive as he’s been this year.   The money is spent and nobody’s going to help us with that.   

[wildbillhiccup]

6 minutes ago, crawjo said:

I'm not sure that you would get a better deal, or as good of a deal, in the offseason as you would right now. At this time teams start getting very aggressive to add players, and often there is a very limited supply of quality pieces available. In the offseason there will be less urgency and more options for teams looking to improve. 

I guess we'll never know. There are other solid 2B free agent options (Dozier, LeMahieu, Murphy), but they're all a little long in the tooth. Schoop is significantly younger then all of them. The pitching market's a little more saturated (Keuchel, Morton, Corbin, etc.). I guess my point is, I think there still would have been a solid trade market for Schoop in the offseason, but I'm not so sure about Gausman. 

[wildbillhiccup]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Nothing you can do about that, except cut Davis if he continues to be as unproductive as he’s been this year.   The money is spent and nobody’s going to help us with that.   

Can we start a GoFundMe campaign? How great would that be?