MLB.com: O’s farm system is the 4th-most improved

[jabba72]

One thing about Elias. I dont think he's one to shy away from trades. If he sees a prospect package he likes, probably no Oriole is safe. I hope he stays on that course AR included, though I think AR will always be affordable to the Orioles because his Free Agent years start in his 30's, which means a short extension is likely.  AR's earning window is going to be small unfortunately for him. Even smaller if Elias plays the service time game with him. 

[HowAboutThat]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It is not easy to trade the guys who you developed and became fan favorites and key members of good teams.  Everyone hates that.  Even the GM doing it hates it.  When they let Markakis go probably 75% of Orioles Hangout thought it was a terrible idea, and it just kept getting terrible-er every time someone played the outfield in Baltimore who wasn't great.  Frobby still hates it even thought it made financial and on-field sense.  Letting Nelson Cruz walk was a very Rays kind of decision, and to this day probably 90% of the board thinks that was a tragic mistake.

Yes, you have to set emotion aside when you're in the Orioles' position.  But it will always be controversial and if it doesn't work out (which it won't some of the time) the fans and the press will crucify you.

Do things for the team, not for the fans. Letting Cruz go was stupid, not just a good decision that didn’t work out. They didn’t want to give Cruz an extra year. Seattle did. And then the Twins did... and then gosh, someone will now. Man, will Cruz EVER be done?

Letting Kakes go was logical, but sad. It was even more sad because he was replaced by Mark Trumbo, and THAT was a tragedy of epic proportions. If we’d had a real right fielder instead of a guy dancing through a minefield, letting Markakis go would have been easier to take.

 But the point remains. Trade them before they turn into pumpkins.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

Letting Cruz go was stupid, not just a good decision that didn’t work out. 

But the point remains. Trade them before they turn into pumpkins.

So you want the O's to trade guys before they turn into pumpkins but letting Cruz go was stupid?

Huh?

What beastie should they have been elbow deep into the entrails of to find out that Cruz would age historically well?

 

 

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It is not easy to trade the guys who you developed and became fan favorites and key members of good teams.  Everyone hates that.  Even the GM doing it hates it.  When they let Markakis go probably 75% of Orioles Hangout thought it was a terrible idea, and it just kept getting terrible-er every time someone played the outfield in Baltimore who wasn't great.  Frobby still hates it even thought it made financial and on-field sense.  

Actually, I was fine with it.    Didn’t like it as a fan, but understood it from a GM point of view.    Was fine letting Miller and Cruz go too.    But I wasn’t fine with doing all that and then spending $161 mm on Chris Davis the next year.    I didn’t get that at all.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Actually, I was fine with it.    Didn’t like it as a fan, but understood it from a GM point of view.    Was fine letting Miller and Cruz go too.    But I wasn’t fine with doing all that and then spending $161 mm on Chris Davis the next year.    I didn’t get that at all.   

I would have kept Miller over O'Day, or let both go.

[Sports Guy]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would have kept Miller over O'Day, or let both go.

They were the types of decision made based off of emotion.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, Philip said:

Do things for the team, not for the fans. Letting Cruz go was stupid, not just a good decision that didn’t work out. They didn’t want to give Cruz an extra year. Seattle did. And then the Twins did... and then gosh, someone will now. Man, will Cruz EVER be done?

Letting Kakes go was logical, but sad. It was even more sad because he was replaced by Mark Trumbo, and THAT was a tragedy of epic proportions. If we’d had a real right fielder instead of a guy dancing through a minefield, letting Markakis go would have been easier to take.

 But the point remains. Trade them before they turn into pumpkins.

The only context in which resigning Cruz was good is hindsight.  At the time you have to set aside emotion and let him walk, unless you know and don't care that he has access to essentially undetectable PEDs.

The Orioles had Cruz for his age 33 season (one day shy of 34).  His top bb-ref comps for ages 32-35 are:

Henry Rodriguez (last good year at 32)
Gus Zernial (okay in last year as a regular at 34)
Kevin Mitchell (hit well but never played 100 games in his 30s)
Jeromy Burnitz (had a 120 OPS+ in Colorado at 35, but had a combined 98 OPS+ from 33-on)

There is just no logical way you can argue that you need to be emotionally detached and let players go instead of resigning them for their expensive decline years, and then turn around and argue that you should have signed Nelson Cruz at 34/35.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

So you want the O's to trade guys before they turn into pumpkins but letting Cruz go was stupid?

Huh?

What beastie should they have been elbow deep into the entrails of to find out that Cruz would age historically well?

 

 

MLB GMs are paid to see into the future, and should be fired when they don't.

[HowAboutThat]

The Os were willing to give Cruz 3 years but not four. If they had kept Cruz they wouldn’t have needed to worry about Davis. So the choice was one extra year for Cruz or 6 for Davis, and even risking an age curve, it was a good choice.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

The Os were willing to give Cruz 3 years but not four. If they had kept Cruz they wouldn’t have needed to worry about Davis. So the choice was one extra year for Cruz or 6 for Davis, and even risking an age curve, it was a good choice.

Neither should have been signed.

[DrungoHazewood]

24 minutes ago, Philip said:

The Os were willing to give Cruz 3 years but not four. If they had kept Cruz they wouldn’t have needed to worry about Davis. So the choice was one extra year for Cruz or 6 for Davis, and even risking an age curve, it was a good choice.

Yes, I suppose you could argue that if the choice is between an ill-advised four year deal for an old DH, or a $160M deal for a guy who's going to hit .170... you're right, the Cruz deal is awesome and should have been signed.  But the real answer was don't do either, especially if you're arguing that the Orioles need to be completely cold and unemotional and let everyone who's even moderately expensive/risky go.  Which you are.

[HowAboutThat]

34 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, I suppose you could argue that if the choice is between an ill-advised four year deal for an old DH, or a $160M deal for a guy who's going to hit .170... you're right, the Cruz deal is awesome and should have been signed.  But the real answer was don't do either, especially if you're arguing that the Orioles need to be completely cold and unemotional and let everyone who's even moderately expensive/risky go.  Which you are.

Yes, I think I need to concede your point. I honestly don’t remember how I felt at the time, but I think I was in favor of giving him the extra year I was definitely opposed to the Davis contract from day one.

however, in my defense I can say that a couple of comments back discussing AR, That there are unique factors in every case and therefore exceptions to the rule. 
 

In the case of Cruz, I could say that he was already ours, he had been outstanding and not just us but for the rangers as well, so 2014 wasn’t an outlier, and Camden was ideally suited for him.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes, I think I need to concede your point. I honestly don’t remember how I felt at the time, but I think I was in favor of giving him the extra year I was definitely opposed to the Davis contract from day one.

however, in my defense I can say that a couple of comments back discussing AR, That there are unique factors in every case and therefore exceptions to the rule. 
 

In the case of Cruz, I could say that he was already ours, he had been outstanding and not just us but for the rangers as well, so 2014 wasn’t an outlier, and Camden was ideally suited for him.

But he was an older guy who provided no other value except at the plate.  He doesn’t have the profile of the guy who normally ages well.  He bucked the trends and became an exception to the rule.  It happens but you shouldn’t use that one exception as an “I told you so” moment.  The odds are that those types of deals will come back to bite you 99 times out of 100.

How many here were happy they kept Trumbo after his big year?  

[HowAboutThat]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But he was an older guy who provided no other value except at the plate.  He doesn’t have the profile of the guy who normally ages well.  He bucked the trends and became an exception to the rule.  It happens but you shouldn’t use that one exception as an “I told you so” moment.  The odds are that those types of deals will come back to bite you 99 times out of 100.

How many here were happy they kept Trumbo after his big year?  

I did not want to keep Trumbo because he was being played in the field and his defensive ineptitude canceled out his offense. Also, Mancini had debuted, and even though it was risky, I would have been quite happy letting Mancini take Trumbo’s role.

But I already conceded Drungo’s point: there are certainly exceptions to every rule, and there was an argument for giving Cruz that extra year, but on balance more prudent to let someone else take the risk. Seattle did and it paid off.

BTW I checked Cruz’ stats and they aren’t HOF-worthy, But when the time comes, I bet he’ll get a few votes.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 hours ago, Philip said:

I did not want to keep Trumbo because he was being played in the field and his defensive ineptitude canceled out his offense. Also, Mancini had debuted, and even though it was risky, I would have been quite happy letting Mancini take Trumbo’s role.

But I already conceded Drungo’s point: there are certainly exceptions to every rule, and there was an argument for giving Cruz that extra year, but on balance more prudent to let someone else take the risk. Seattle did and it paid off.

BTW I checked Cruz’ stats and they aren’t HOF-worthy, But when the time comes, I bet he’ll get a few votes.

I appreciate you conceding the point, it's a relatively rare thing in an online debate.

One more point on Cruz.  In his 20s he was tied for 741st all time in homers.  Fewer than Rafeal Furcal, or Chris Hoiles or Nate McLouth.  Well behind Ty Wigginton and Disco Dan Ford.  He had fewer homers than Hugh Duffy, who played his entire career in the 1800s when you could lead the league with 11 homers.

Since he turned 30 he has more homers than Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew.  More than Arod or any number of PED era sluggers like Steve Finley and Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi and Sammy Sosa.  More than Eddie and Yaz, Franks Thomas and Robinson.  More than all but nine players, ever.

And his top six performances in that last timeframe have come since he turned 33.  So not just his 30s, but his mid-to-late 30s.  The only players to hit more homers than Cruz from 33-39 were Bonds, Ruth, Raffy, and Aaron.

Betting on that happening is certifiably crazy.