Eye On The Prize - Blow It Up

[hayek]

The plan is not to win now and in the future, because there is no reasonable possibility that the team can win now. And if they don't take steps to build a core of young, high quality players who are all ready to contribute towards a winning team in the future, there is no reasonable possibility that the O's will win in the future either...

The "precedent" we set last year by trading Bedard and Tejada wasn't that we'd be trading our best players year after year. It was that we would trade "expiring assets" who won't be contributing when the team plans to be competitive (by all accounts - 2010 / 2011) in an attempt to fill needs in our organization with as many players as possible who are under our control until that time.

Using that precedent, it makes sense to trade Huff, Mora, Millar, Hernandez, Roberts, Walker and Bradford unless we are willing / able to extend them.

It's no coincidence that the players we got back in the Bedard / Tejada trades are ALL under the O's control for at least 3+ years. This is an indication of the plan that the OP describes in such excellent detail. AM specifically targeted players that had the chance to contribute in 2010 / 2011 whether they were veterans under our control till then (Sherrill, Scott, Albers, Sarfate) or prospects who we expect to be ready by that time (Jones, Tillman, Mickolio).

I expect the plan is pretty simple - trade expiring assets to fill holes in the organization at key positions (2b, 3b, ss, 1b, P), sign key free agents to long term contracts so that we have them available when we are ready to compete (Texeira), extend key veterans who we believe represent the our best option at their position (Roberts, Markakis, Guthrie), develop quality minor league talent towards being ready to contribute in 2 - 3 years.

When we get to the point that we ARE competitive, then we can fill in holes with short term free agent pickups or by making trades for key veterans. There is no need to hold onto veterans in the meantime who are not part of our plans in 2010+ and are more expensive than young players like Reimold, Liz, Olson, Weiters, etc. who can take their spots now.

I don't post very often, but I just wanted to say that I thought this description of the plan the Oriole's are, or might be, following is excellent.

And I think it highlights the actual crux of the disagreement between the "blow it up" crowd (Honorary Captain - SG) and the "stay the course" crowd (Honorary Captain - RShack).

"Blow it up" adherents want to trade "expiring assets" for prospects that might contribute to the next competitive Orioles team, whereas "stay the course" adherents want to hold on to "expiring assets" so that current prospects aren't rushed and the Oriole's hopefully better short term record better attracts the top free agents. I think both sides make a logical and rational argument (and thus find RShacks rants that only HIS SIDE is being logical to be extremely petty and small-minded).

I think progress in this debate might be made by focusing on the pros and cons for trading a specific "expiring asset." I hereby nominate Aubrey Huff - he is having a very good year, yet is only signed through 2010. I would love for adherents to both philosophies to give an in-depth argument as to why Aubrey should be traded, or not. I would think that everyone in the "blow it up" camp would be very willing to trade Aubrey, even for a not so great return, and that everyone in the "stay the course" camp would want to hold on to Aubrey even if offered a pretty strong return. Am I right?

[bsebllfan4life]

Winning now entails a wholly different set of decisions than does winning in the future.

This seems obvious on its face, and you hint at this when you comment that in the last round of trades, the focus was to get better in the long run.

The rest of your post, though, leaves me uncertain as to whether you're prioritizing winning now, winning in the future, or some halfway point in between the two.

I dont have a set timeline for winning. I think you can have a balance to win now and continue to get better in the long run. Look at the big trades

bedard for Jones (future, good for us it looks as though he ahead of schedule), Tilman (future), butler (future), Mik...(soon) was said at the time of the trade he could be in the pen this year and Sherrill (now)

Tejada for Scott (now) sarfate (now), Patton (future), Albers (now), costanzo (future)

To sum up, I only prioritize winning,when it happens I cann't control. Hopefully now and later, Meaning a team that continues to get better with time and eventually becomes the dynasty that we are all hoping for.

Sorry for the delayed response...

[bsebllfan4life]

I think your leaving out the third party, its those of us who are on the fence. Where we agree that certain trades are good, For example my opinion is that we should keep huff,not extend him but keep him while he is productive and worst case get the picks later for him. However, if there is a trade for quality (and yes i understand that it is allways one preception) that it should be done. I would say the same for Sherrill.

There will and allways should be some trades some great draft picks and some quality FA. You have to Ballance it all. It's not about trading everybody (as some would suggest) or keeping everybody (as others would suggest). A long lasting good franchise allways should balance today and tomorrow equaly. The only reason why we value tomorrow more is because yesterday was soo bad, we think its all we have left.

[hoosiers]

[*] The Orioles hit a rough spell and lose a few in a row.

[*] In response, there are various threads in which somebody shouts "Blow it up!

[*] In the details that follow the "Blow it up!" chant, the same dogma is repeated like clockwork:

• AM needs to get back to the One True Path and immediately trade some list of guys, each of whom are 30.
• Therefore, AM must make deals (preferably "deadline deals") to get rid of players X, Y, and Z, each of whom are 30 or more, and get "prospects" in return.

Here's what I wonder:

Do these folks really believe that this does not routinely happen?

Or do they realize that it happens like clockwork but, for some reason, they just like to pretend it doesn't?

Anybody know?

This might be my fourth "blow it up thread" since the 05/06 offseason when we contemplated dealing Miggy to the BoSox and Cubs. If the above poster wants to be condescending and attribute my opinion to some losing-streak-johnny-come-lately thought process, this poster is very much mistaken.

It's also interesting this poster nags about throwing out everyone 30 or older as if the original post advocates some "throw out the baby and the bathwater" argument. Jeremy Guthrie was mentioned in the original post and he's 29. It's only a year, but it hints at the lack of substance behind the soapbox generalizations made by this poster throughout this thread.

Over all of this, the original poster chooses to completely ignore the actual merits of our dealing valuable assets like Bedard (who many here thought should be traded and ... he was ... and ... Bedard was under 30) as outlined in the original post and has instead practically written a book simply bashing opinions (on his own soapbox) as without merit without really addressing those opinions in any serious manner.

I guess we should ask rshack - did you like the Bedard trade and why? Cause that's what most of us are asking for a repeat of - deal a quality asset while it still has value to get younger, cheaper prospects to rebuild. Several other teams, besides the Orioles, did this very thing this past offseason and those teams are competing for playoff spots. They became younger, cheaper AND better - this was mentioned in the original post, but another point that does not seem to have been addressed in rshack's meanderings.

[bsebllfan4life]

This might be my fourth "blow it up thread" since the 05/06 offseason when we contemplated dealing Miggy to the BoSox and Cubs. If the above poster wants to be condescending and attribute my opinion to some losing-streak-johnny-come-lately thought process, this poster is very much mistaken.

It's also interesting this poster nags about throwing out everyone 30 or older as if the original post advocates some "throw out the baby and the bathwater" argument. Jeremy Guthrie was mentioned in the original post and he's 29. It's only a year, but it hints at the lack of substance behind the soapbox generalizations made by this poster throughout this thread.

Over all of this, the original poster chooses to completely ignore the actual merits of our dealing valuable assets like Bedard (who many here thought should be traded and ... he was ... and ... Bedard was under 30) as outlined in the original post and has instead practically written a book simply bashing opinions (on his own soapbox) as without merit without really addressing those opinions in any serious manner.

I guess we should ask rshack - did you like the Bedard trade and why? Cause that's what most of us are asking for a repeat of - deal a quality asset while it still has value to get younger, cheaper prospects to rebuild. Several other teams, besides the Orioles, did this very thing this past offseason and those teams are competing for playoff spots. They became younger, cheaper AND better - this was mentioned in the original post, but another point that does not seem to have been addressed in rshack's meanderings.

I know this question is for another poster, and hopefully he will also respond, But I wanted to chime in also. I did like the bedard trade because it addressed alot of areas both in the present and in the future. However if Sherrill did not add anything of Value to this team and Jones did not live up to the billing, and Bedard was in the Pitching for a Cy Young this year I believe the "blow it up" crowd would be a little gun shy. As it turned out, It was very well ballanced for an orginization that needed a jumpstart in the right dirrection.

The problem I have with the "blow it up" philosphy is that it sounds like the expos plan for a dirrerent reason. Thiers was $$ but the end result is the same. Get a player max his potential and then trade him for two more prospects. Sound like a good plan but to often you trade a proven talent for the chance of more tallent. That does not allways work, that is why it can get risky.

A better model to follow is Tampa. (which I think is what we are doing). Get as much pitching as you can by drafting wisely. Develope young position players again using the draft wisely. (we did not have much of this which is why we are trying to obtain it now) and then finally when you think you are close make a trade for a proven talent wiether he is a young stud or an aging vet., or obtin through one through FA. Using the draft,trades,FA,player development together is they only way to win and keep wining for years to come.

"Blowing it up" teands to lead to having to so every couple of years (based on which prospects pan out and which ones flop). The Marlins have mastered the art of the 5 year fire sale, somehow, but htis should not be the model for teams to follow.

[RShack]

I think your leaving out the third party, its those of us who are on the fence...

I agree 100%. IMO, that's exactly where it makes sense to be.

[RShack]

I guess we should ask rshack -

Who is "we"?

did you like the Bedard trade and why?

Sure. It appears to be a great trade, for all the obvious reasons.

I was never against AM maybe trading Bedard, depending. I hated the idea of losing Bedard, but I thought it might well be advisable, depending.

I disagreed 100% with those who claimed he absolutely, positively had to do it. It came down entirely to whether he could get enough.

What he actually did appears to have jump-started franchise repair, but AM could have worked on repairing the franchise with it or without it.

The diff was not about whether he was gonna fix the franchise. The diff was about taking 3-or-4 years to do it vs. 5-or-6 years.

Cause that's what most of us are asking for a repeat of

Well, you're not gonna get it, because AM doesn't have another Bedard to trade.

And if he did have another Bedard, I betcha anything he would *not* trade him. He'd keep him.

The mistake is thinking that the Bedard trade is some kind of template for future actions. It's not. It was a one-of-a-kind thing.

AM did it because his back was against the wall, and the cupboard on that wall was bare. That's the reason he did it.

After Bedard and Miggi, I think he's pretty much shot his wad about big trades.

He might have 1 big trade left, or none left, beats me, but I bet it's one of those two.

As for trading good guys in their prime, AM opted for the 3-or-4 year plan, not the 5-or-6 year plan.

Which means he doesn't have time to keep doing that again and again and again.

If you keep trading guys in their prime for prospects, you're never gonna be any good.

The Bedard trade is gonna prove to be the exception, not the rule.

And while AM might trade another good 30-year old for kids, he's not gonna make a habit of it.

The folks who took the Bedard trade as "evidence" that AM somehow believed in "blowing it up" just read it wrong.

IMO, he's not gonna blow anything up. Instead, he's gonna do a little of this and a little of that. You just watch.

[mweb]

Jeez, lighten up! I just didnt want you to think that I was changing direction on the whole thread so explained I wasnt suggesting this but . . . never mind. why bother?

Didn't realize what I said was such an attack on you or whatever, maybe you should lighten up.

[mweb]

If you have an incredible, lights-out, consistent shutdown guy you lock him up. Otherwise, yes, that's the strategy. Flip him for something more valuable.

A closer with a 4.00 ERA almost always has more perceived value than real value. Pretty much the definition of a guy you make out on by selling high.

What he said. Most closers are very overrated and none are worth 10 million a year to a team with a reasonable budget, but dominant guys like Rivera and Papelbon are different than guys like Sherrill. If we had a dominant young closer, I'd prefer to keep him.

[mweb]

Maybe the posters who consider themselves in the "blow it up" crowd should start a new thread where we all say who we think would be best to trade and keep based on what we expect to get back. Then maybe, just maybe, Rshack will realize the truth, that for every 30 something player, there are people who want to deal them, but there are few if any who want every 30 something(or soon to be 30 something) to be dealt.

This obviously isn't that thread, but since I'm pretty sure I'm in this group Rshack speaks of, I'll start:

I want to trade Sherill, Huff, Payton, Bradford, Hernanadez.

I want to keep Millar and Scott based on what I'd expect to receive for them in a trade. Same for DC even though he is not in the 30 something crowd.

I'd consider trading Brob and Guthrie, but I doubt we'd get a good enough offer for me to deal them, so I'd likely have them stay.

Somehow that doesn't seem like I'd want all 30 somethings gone, yet I'm likely in the group that wants just that. Fascinating how that works.

[NoVaO]

Sure. It appears to be a great trade, for all the obvious reasons.

I was never against AM maybe trading Bedard, depending. I hated the idea of losing Bedard, but I thought it might well be advisable, depending.

I disagreed 100% with those who claimed he absolutely, positively had to do it. It came down entirely to whether he could get enough.

This is a perfectly reasonable opinion. I don't think anybody would have a problem with this even if they disagreed with it.

What he actually did appears to have jump-started franchise repair, but AM could have worked on repairing the franchise with it or without it.

The diff was not about whether he was gonna fix the franchise. The diff was about taking 3-or-4 years to do it vs. 5-or-6 years.

Would you wait 5 or 6 years to fix a franchise when you can do it in 3 or 4? Would you wait 4 years to fix a franchise when you can fix it in 2 or 3?

My opinion is by trading off older, but still productive players who are not under control for the next 3 or so years, or players that are usually overvalued at the deadline (relievers for instance), you can continue to speed up the rebuilding process.

Well, you're not gonna get it, because AM doesn't have another Bedard to trade.

You're not going to get the same talent Bedard would bring back, but if you have people who know how to evaluate talent, you should get back multiple players that will contribute at the major league level and be under your control for 5 or 6 years at a cheap cost.

And if he did have another Bedard, I betcha anything he would *not* trade him. He'd keep him.

The mistake is thinking that the Bedard trade is some kind of template for future actions. It's not. It was a one-of-a-kind thing.

AM did it because his back was against the wall, and the cupboard on that wall was bare. That's the reason he did it.

This is where we run into problems. You don't have a clue as to what McPhail would do if he had another Bedard on his roster. Neither do I. But, in my opinion, if he wanted to further speed up the process of fixing the franchise, he would look to deal him assuming he got a deal he felt was of value.

My opinion is based on what I think would be best for this franchise. We can disagree on that, fine. I just don't see why you have to speculate on what McPhail would do if he had another Bedard on the roster to make your point because in reality neither of us has a clue as to what he would do under that circumstance. I think we can agree that McPhail traded Bedard because it was the best thing to do for the future of our franchise.

But I really wonder how you completely missed the point hoosiers was making. You're a smart guy. The point was obvious and you just missed it.

He said:

Cause that's what most of us are asking for a repeat of - deal a quality asset while it still has value to get younger, cheaper prospects to rebuild.

It isn't about Bedard himself. It is about doing the part I put in bold.

As an example, it is about trading Huff, a productive, but older player with just 1 year left on his deal after this year for 2 or 3 younger, cheaper players that we will have control over for 5 or 6 years. Doesn't that make sense?

After Bedard and Miggi, I think he's pretty much shot his wad about big trades.

He might have 1 big trade left, or none left, beats me, but I bet it's one of those two.

Well, that one big trade would be Roberts if he chooses to do so. But there are a couple smaller deals that could fetch us some pretty good talent in return.

As for trading good guys in their prime, AM opted for the 3-or-4 year plan, not the 5-or-6 year plan.

Which means he doesn't have time to keep doing that again and again and again.

If you keep trading guys in their prime for prospects, you're never gonna be any good.

The goal is to be smart about the deals you make and determine the repercussions they could have.

If we're in the middle of a playoff run and you have Huff and Sherrill on the roster in their current contract situations, I don't think you would see many (if any) people wanting to deal them. In fact, you would see a lot of people clamoring for McPhail to trade a couple prospects for somebody to help for a playoff run.

You have to look at each individual player and situation differently and ask yourself if by trading this player and getting this offer in return, will my team be better in the long run.

The Bedard trade is gonna prove to be the exception, not the rule.

And while AM might trade another good 30-year old for kids, he's not gonna make a habit of it.

Who cares? People aren't basing their opinions on what they think McPhail will do. They are basing their opinions on what they think is best for the franchise.

No, we won't know exactly what was offered if a deal doesn't get done, but proper value is implied. I'm sure that is one of the things you get all upset about...well, can you just deal with it if that does happen to be the case and not complain about it?

The folks who took the Bedard trade as "evidence" that AM somehow believed in "blowing it up" just read it wrong.

Irrelevant. All we know is he did something the "blow it up" crowd wanted him to do.

And if McPhail does not trade at least a couple players out of the Huff, Sherrill, Bradford crowd, that does not mean McPhail is right or the "blow it up" philosophy is wrong. You'll just see a lot of people complaining that McPhail did the wrong thing.

It should be pointed out that McPhail does like to deal in August, so he should be given some leeway if he doesn't do everything by the deadline.

IMO, he's not gonna blow anything up. Instead, he's gonna do a little of this and a little of that. You just watch.

What, are you going to gloat if/when he doesn't? Nobody is going to care if McPhail does what you predict. They aren't swayed by what McPhail does. They are swayed by what they believe is the best direction of the franchise.

You can disagree, but you're constant talking point about what McPhail will do in reality and in different hypotheticals does nothing to add to any discussion because people aren't basing their opinions on what McPhail will do. Only on what they think he should do.

[Roll Tide]

[/b]

I know this question is for another poster, and hopefully he will also respond, But I wanted to chime in also. I did like the bedard trade because it addressed alot of areas both in the present and in the future. However if Sherrill did not add anything of Value to this team and Jones did not live up to the billing, and Bedard was in the Pitching for a Cy Young this year I believe the "blow it up" crowd would be a little gun shy. As it turned out, It was very well ballanced for an orginization that needed a jumpstart in the right dirrection.

The problem I have with the "blow it up" philosphy is that it sounds like the expos plan for a dirrerent reason. Thiers was $$ but the end result is the same. Get a player max his potential and then trade him for two more prospects. Sound like a good plan but to often you trade a proven talent for the chance of more tallent. That does not allways work, that is why it can get risky.

A better model to follow is Tampa. (which I think is what we are doing). Get as much pitching as you can by drafting wisely. Develope young position players again using the draft wisely. (we did not have much of this which is why we are trying to obtain it now) and then finally when you think you are close make a trade for a proven talent wiether he is a young stud or an aging vet., or obtin through one through FA. Using the draft,trades,FA,player development together is they only way to win and keep wining for years to come.

"Blowing it up" teands to lead to having to so every couple of years (based on which prospects pan out and which ones flop). The Marlins have mastered the art of the 5 year fire sale, somehow, but htis should not be the model for teams to follow.

The flaw in this line of thinking is that Tampa was among baseballs worst over the last 10 plus years. They often drafted in the top two or three slots.

in 2008 Tampa (Beckman) 1st -----O's 4th (Matsuz)

in 2007 Tampa (David Price) 1st -----O's 5th (Wieters) (Point A ***)

in 2006 Tampa (Longoria) 3rd ---- O's 10th (Rowell)

in 2005 Tampa (Townsend) 8th ----- O's 13th (Snyder)

in 2004 Tampa (Neimann) 4th ----- O's 8th (Townsend)

in 2003 Tampa (D. Young) 1st ------ O's 7th (Markakis)

in 2002 Tampa (BJ Upton) 2nd ----- O's 4th (Lowen)

in 2001 Tampa (Brazelton) 3rd ----O's 7th (Smith)(B**Tex 5th,Floyd 4th)

in 2000 Tampa (Baldelli) 6th ------ O's 13th (Hale)

in 1999 Tampa (Josh Hamilton) 1st----- O's 13th (Paradis)

In 10 years of drafting the Rays had the opportunity to draft the best player available 4 Times & their average draft slot was 3rd & never drafting lower than 8th. At the same time the Orioles have never had the opportunity to get the best player and the average draft slot was 8th & they only drafted better than 7th 3 times & out of the top 10 picks 3times. Obviously in 2007 Tampa as everyone else in front of the O's passed on Wieters because of signing concerns. I guess my point is for the O's to do it the way Tampa did we would need 10 more years of Bad baseball (But really 10 more years of WORSE baseball). I realize that the O's picks from the list above outside of Markakis could be blamed on bad selections(I didnt mention Matsuz & Wieters as the jury is still out as they haven't reached the majors yet). But would the Orioles selected the players Tampa did over the same period had they been available?

In that span Longoria 3rd, Delmon Young 1st, BJ Upton 2nd, & Jeffrey Niemann are current pieces of their roster. I am not counting Beckman & Price as the jury is still out). Depite injuries Baldelli was a contributor at the majors for Tampa for a number of years. And we all know about Josh Hamilton So in 10 selections the Rays have busted twice with Wade Townsend & Brazelton.

In that same period only Markakis has made any real contribution to the Orioles or another major league team.

[Sports Guy]

The flaw in this line of thinking is that Tampa was among baseballs worst over the last 10 plus years. They often drafted in the top two or three slots.

in 2008 Tampa (Beckman) 1st -----O's 4th (Matsuz)

in 2007 Tampa (David Price) 1st -----O's 5th (Wieters) (Point A ***)

in 2006 Tampa (Longoria) 3rd ---- O's 10th (Rowell)

in 2005 Tampa (Townsend) 8th ----- O's 13th (Snyder)

in 2004 Tampa (Neimann) 4th ----- O's 8th (Townsend)

in 2003 Tampa (D. Young) 1st ------ O's 7th (Markakis)

in 2002 Tampa (BJ Upton) 2nd ----- O's 4th (Lowen)

in 2001 Tampa (Brazelton) 3rd ----O's 7th (Smith)(B**Tex 5th,Floyd 4th)

in 2000 Tampa (Baldelli) 6th ------ O's 13th (Hale)

in 1999 Tampa (Josh Hamilton) 1st----- O's 13th (Paradis)

In 10 years of drafting the Rays had the opportunity to draft the best player available 4 Times & their average draft slot was 3rd & never drafting lower than 8th. At the same time the Orioles have never had the opportunity to get the best player and the average draft slot was 8th & they only drafted better than 7th 3 times & out of the top 10 picks 3times. Obviously in 2007 Tampa as everyone else in front of the O's passed on Wieters because of signing concerns. I guess my point is for the O's to do it the way Tampa did we would need 10 more years of Bad baseball (But really 10 more years of WORSE baseball). I realize that the O's picks from the list above outside of Markakis could be blamed on bad selections(I didnt mention Matsuz & Wieters as the jury is still out as they haven't reached the majors yet). But would the Orioles selected the players Tampa did over the same period had they been available?

In that span Longoria 3rd, Delmon Young 1st, BJ Upton 2nd, & Jeffrey Niemann are current pieces of their roster. I am not counting Beckman & Price as the jury is still out). Depite injuries Baldelli was a contributor at the majors for Tampa for a number of years. And we all know about Josh Hamilton So in 10 selections the Rays have busted twice with Wade Townsend & Brazelton.

In that same period only Markakis has made any real contribution to the Orioles or another major league team.

And who knows, had the Rays not been so difficult to deal with and traded more of their guys, they may have gotten to the mountain top much quicker.

[TonySoprano]

The mistake is thinking that the Bedard trade is some kind of template for future actions. It's not. It was a one-of-a-kind thing.

AM did it because his back was against the wall, and the cupboard on that wall was bare. That's the reason he did it.

There's no more room left in the cupboard now?

Maybe somebody can list for us how many position players we have in the minors that could be ready for the bigs in 2-3 years.. That should give a sense of the need to continue to stock our "cupbpoard."

MacPhail called Tejada and Bedard expiring assets. He knew the chances of retaining them weren't great and dealt them when their value was highest. If he felt that way about another player, e.g. Brian Roberts*, I don't feel MacPhail would hesitate to deal him either.

*Roberts is used for illustration purposes, and is not meant to imply he wants out of town.

[bsebllfan4life]

The flaw in this line of thinking is that Tampa was among baseballs worst over the last 10 plus years. They often drafted in the top two or three slots.

in 2008 Tampa (Beckman) 1st -----O's 4th (Matsuz)

in 2007 Tampa (David Price) 1st -----O's 5th (Wieters) (Point A ***)

in 2006 Tampa (Longoria) 3rd ---- O's 10th (Rowell)

in 2005 Tampa (Townsend) 8th ----- O's 13th (Snyder)

in 2004 Tampa (Neimann) 4th ----- O's 8th (Townsend)

in 2003 Tampa (D. Young) 1st ------ O's 7th (Markakis)

in 2002 Tampa (BJ Upton) 2nd ----- O's 4th (Lowen)

in 2001 Tampa (Brazelton) 3rd ----O's 7th (Smith)(B**Tex 5th,Floyd 4th)

in 2000 Tampa (Baldelli) 6th ------ O's 13th (Hale)

in 1999 Tampa (Josh Hamilton) 1st----- O's 13th (Paradis)

In 10 years of drafting the Rays had the opportunity to draft the best player available 4 Times & their average draft slot was 3rd & never drafting lower than 8th. At the same time the Orioles have never had the opportunity to get the best player and the average draft slot was 8th & they only drafted better than 7th 3 times & out of the top 10 picks 3times. Obviously in 2007 Tampa as everyone else in front of the O's passed on Wieters because of signing concerns. I guess my point is for the O's to do it the way Tampa did we would need 10 more years of Bad baseball (But really 10 more years of WORSE baseball). I realize that the O's picks from the list above outside of Markakis could be blamed on bad selections(I didnt mention Matsuz & Wieters as the jury is still out as they haven't reached the majors yet). But would the Orioles selected the players Tampa did over the same period had they been available?

In that span Longoria 3rd, Delmon Young 1st, BJ Upton 2nd, & Jeffrey Niemann are current pieces of their roster. I am not counting Beckman & Price as the jury is still out). Depite injuries Baldelli was a contributor at the majors for Tampa for a number of years. And we all know about Josh Hamilton So in 10 selections the Rays have busted twice with Wade Townsend & Brazelton.

In that same period only Markakis has made any real contribution to the Orioles or another major league team.

When I say look at Tampa, it's not allways where you pick, its how you pick. Yes I agree that If you have the top picks then the odds are with you for not getting a bust but it's not a gaurentee. If you look at the O's thier latter 1st round picks, sup. picks and later round picks are much better in the eyes of some.

Then if you continue to look since 1999, the Orioles are playing Roberts, Olsen, Ray (when he returns), Dcab, Liz, Bedard and Maine Traded, Penn Close, Reimold Close, Not to mention most of our top prospects (weiters and Matuz (sp) excluded) that were all drafted after our 1st pick or even after the first round.