Olney on O’s losing

[foxfield]

SteveA's post above is outstanding.  The obsession to make marginal but costly move to incrementally improve is essentially what the Orioles have done for most of the Angelos era.  SteveA spelled out perfectly why this year has been a disappointment. And why we fans should not lose focus during a total rebuild.

[Aristotelian]

Good post SteveA. Totally agree about the failure of Akin and Kremer as well as Lopez, Lowther, and Wells (Zimmerman is something of an exception). Only I would not characterize it as tanking, it was just a developmental year with poor results. Could have been a lot different if any of these guys performed.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

We heard they were 10M apart on Manny.  I don’t think Davis had anything to do with it and they may have tried to sign Manny before the Davis deal even happened.  
 

Either way, I don’t see the impact there.

It was just a stupid contract from the beginning.

There is a very good argument that the worst thing to ever happen to this franchise was making the playoffs in 1996…when PA nixed trading guys and  instead they were buyers.  He ended up being right and from then on, he thought he knew everything.  It was his idea to keep Davis and bid an insanely stupid number.  

I think Davis had something to do with Manny, in some shape or form.  

There's the basic idea that the Davis money is money that could have gone to Manny instead.  Certainly possible.  As you mentioned, they were 10 million apart on Manny.  If they don't give Davis that money, it could have gone to Manny.  As you mentioned, they might have tried to sign Manny before the Davis deal happened and I think that's fairly likely.

But if the idea that they tried to sign Manny before signing Davis is correct, IMO it's also likely that Manny took one look at that contract and said "If you're going to give Davis THAT contract, my price just went up.  He's a first baseman, average defender, not an all around hitter.  I'm a platinum/gold glove 3rd baseman, all around hitter and an overall better player.  I'm worth twice that contract and if they don't give it to me, I'll get it in free agency."

I think the first scenario is possible, I think the second scenario is almost more likely.  By giving Davis that contract they inadvertently gave Manny an idea of what he should be able to command and what he could get in free agency.  In giving Davis that contract they pretty much assured themselves that Manny wouldn't be here long term.  

 

[waroriole]

7 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Good post SteveA. Totally agree about the failure of Akin and Kremer as well as Lopez, Lowther, and Wells (Zimmerman is something of an exception). Only I would not characterize it as tanking, it was just a developmental year with poor results. Could have been a lot different if any of these guys performed.

Lopez is about who we thought he was. He’s a 1 time through the lineup guy, but he’s had to take one for the team and start every 5 days. I still have hope for him. 
 

Akin, Kremer, and Lowther have been disasters. They can’t even get AAA hitters out. I’m not understanding their incredible struggles when there’s apparently no injury problems (except Lowther now). 

[Moose Milligan]

And yeah, @SteveA's post is a masterpiece.  Well done.

Though I will say, a guy like Taijuan Walker (who I wanted this offseason) would have been more than a cosmetic upgrade.  

[Sports Guy]

Well, obviously the failure in the development of guys is the biggest issue.  That goes without saying and it has certainly been said enough.

However, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other issues to discuss.  Acting as if it’s an either/or situation just isn’t logical to me.

You or anyone else not finding it to be a big deal is fine.  But that’s not the way a lot of fans feel, so I’m not sure why you would get all bothered and upset about it.  Fans fan differently.  Some want instant gratification, some are patient and Some, like myself, want it both ways.  I want this team doing what it needs to do to get a great franchise long term while also not ignoring the team now.  In other words, I want them operating like most of the teams in MLB operate.  I don’t really see how that is asking so much.  
 

And btw, there is definitely a fallacy in there not being a big deal between winning 65 games and 75 games.  The issue with it is HOW are you winning those games.  Is it being done because of younger players or because of aging SF Giants-esque vets or is it a combo?  If it’s because of a bunch of aging vets that are going nowhere, I agree it’s no big deal.  But if it’s because of young players and/or vets that can be helpful in other ways, then it is a big deal.  

If it provides you a long term foundation, that matters.  In 2011, the Orioles entered Sept with a 54-80 record.  They went 15-13 in Sept and capped it off with the Robert Andino game against Boston.  I really think how they ended the season and that game in particular helped to set a tone for 2012.  Obviously Buck had something to do with that too, as did the FA acquisitions they made but the point is, the team started to come together at a time where the team sucked.  They started to learn to win a little bit, even if it was just in a SSS.  Learning how to win is important for young players.  A guy like Akin has been on the bad side of a lot of inherited runners allowed.  Now, it is of course his fault for putting those runners on but how much of it is him overdoing things because he feels he has to be perfect because the pen sucks?  Having actual MLers and winning games and being competitive, even if you are losing, is important.  It’s all part of the learning process.

These guys are professionals.  The best in the world at what they do.  Talent is obviously there for every one of them.  But the mental side of things is what separates the men from the boys. I think this is the type of stuff that we just overlook and say, it doesn’t matter.  I disagree with that.

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes ago, foxfield said:

SteveA's post above is outstanding.  The obsession to make marginal but costly move to incrementally improve is essentially what the Orioles have done for most of the Angelos era.  SteveA spelled out perfectly why this year has been a disappointment. And why we fans should not lose focus during a total rebuild.

Signing guys like Jay Payton, Baez, Segui, et al, were always pretty terrible moves for a variety of reasons.  
 

I don’t think those of us who wanted to see them do more are talking about those types of dramatic overpay, go nowhere type moves.

Sure, Franco is a go nowhere move but he’s a cheap, 1 year deal and based off of his history, he looked to be a guy worth taking a gamble on.  Sometimes those moves work and sometimes they don’t.  I certainly wouldn’t have wanted every move to be like that.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think Davis had something to do with Manny, in some shape or form.  

There's the basic idea that the Davis money is money that could have gone to Manny instead.  Certainly possible.  As you mentioned, they were 10 million apart on Manny.  If they don't give Davis that money, it could have gone to Manny.  As you mentioned, they might have tried to sign Manny before the Davis deal happened and I think that's fairly likely.

But if the idea that they tried to sign Manny before signing Davis is correct, IMO it's also likely that Manny took one look at that contract and said "If you're going to give Davis THAT contract, my price just went up.  He's a first baseman, average defender, not an all around hitter.  I'm a platinum/gold glove 3rd baseman, all around hitter and an overall better player.  I'm worth twice that contract and if they don't give it to me, I'll get it in free agency."

I think the first scenario is possible, I think the second scenario is almost more likely.  By giving Davis that contract they inadvertently gave Manny an idea of what he should be able to command and what he could get in free agency.  In giving Davis that contract they pretty much assured themselves that Manny wouldn't be here long term.  

 

Manny didn’t get his money because PA didn’t want to give it to him.  I am convinced and have been convinced that Manny’s attitude, showmanship, etc…is something that PA would be against and not someone he wants to represent the team and franchise.

Look at who he has paid..all guys that fit into a certain mold of athlete.  Not just good players but guys who are leaders, don’t do anything to show the other team up, play the game the right way, great in the community, etc…

Manny didn’t fit all that criteria and I think that’s why.  Call it a bias or whatever but he didn’t fit PAs idea of what a player should be if they are making that type of money.

[Moose Milligan]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Manny didn’t get his money because PA didn’t want to give it to him.  I am convinced and have been convinced that Manny’s attitude, showmanship, etc…is something that PA would be against and not someone he wants to represent the team and franchise.

Look at who he has paid..all guys that fit into a certain mold of athlete.  Not just good players but guys who are leaders, don’t do anything to show the other team up, play the game the right way, great in the community, etc…

Manny didn’t fit all that criteria and I think that’s why.  Call it a bias or whatever but he didn’t fit PAs idea of what a player should be if they are making that type of money.

I can see that, but if that's the case then he shouldn't have started talks with him at all.  It is bias and it's a stupid one but Angelos is probably that guy.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I can see that, but if that's the case then he shouldn't have started talks with him at all.  It is bias and it's a stupid one but Angelos is probably that guy.

I think Dan started the talks.

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I can see that, but if that's the case then he shouldn't have started talks with him at all.  It is bias and it's a stupid one but Angelos is probably that guy.

I think he was ok with paying him at a certain time in his career when he didn’t know as much about him…but as time went on and gold chains became pronounced, the antics increased and the salary increased, PA said F this.  
 

I obviously don’t know this..but it’s always been a theory of mine.  The one thing PA was pretty consistent about, especially since losing Moose, was keeping our best players past the arb years.  He didn’t with Manny.  I think the reasons are obvious but I could also be wrong and it was strictly a money thing.

I believe Manny when he kept saying he wanted to stay here.  A lot of people didn’t buy that but I did.

[JR Oriole]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, obviously the failure in the development of guys is the biggest issue.  That goes without saying and it has certainly been said enough.

However, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other issues to discuss.  Acting as if it’s an either/or situation just isn’t logical to me.

You or anyone else not finding it to be a big deal is fine.  But that’s not the way a lot of fans feel, so I’m not sure why you would get all bothered and upset about it.  Fans fan differently.  Some want instant gratification, some are patient and Some, like myself, want it both ways.  I want this team doing what it needs to do to get a great franchise long term while also not ignoring the team now.  In other words, I want them operating like most of the teams in MLB operate.  I don’t really see how that is asking so much.  
 

And btw, there is definitely a fallacy in there not being a big deal between winning 65 games and 75 games.  The issue with it is HOW are you winning those games.  Is it being done because of younger players or because of aging SF Giants-esque vets or is it a combo?  If it’s because of a bunch of aging vets that are going nowhere, I agree it’s no big deal.  But if it’s because of young players and/or vets that can be helpful in other ways, then it is a big deal.  

If it provides you a long term foundation, that matters.  In 2011, the Orioles entered Sept with a 54-80 record.  They went 15-13 in Sept and capped it off with the Robert Andino game against Boston.  I really think how they ended the season and that game in particular helped to set a tone for 2012.  Obviously Buck had something to do with that too, as did the FA acquisitions they made but the point is, the team started to come together at a time where the team sucked.  They started to learn to win a little bit, even if it was just in a SSS.  Learning how to win is important for young players.  A guy like Akin has been on the bad side of a lot of inherited runners allowed.  Now, it is of course his fault for putting those runners on but how much of it is him overdoing things because he feels he has to be perfect because the pen sucks?  Having actual MLers and winning games and being competitive, even if you are losing, is important.  It’s all part of the learning process.

These guys are professionals.  The best in the world at what they do.  Talent is obviously there for every one of them.  But the mental side of things is what separates the men from the boys. I think this is the type of stuff that we just overlook and say, it doesn’t matter.  I disagree with that.

While I have very real concerns about the talent we have in developing talent (something that seems to be no problem whatsoever for Tampa, Miami, St. Louis, etc.), I think the part of the quote above regarding learning how to win is 100% spot on.  Our roster is filled with guys who are experts at losing......but what we lack are players who have experience being successful in the majors, competing for division titles, and winning in the postseason.  Having some veterans who have experienced success can provide valuable mentorship to young players who are struggling.  The 1990 Braves went 65-97 and then returned almost the same exact roster in 1991 and went 94-68, winning the division, the pennant, and nearly the World Series. The big difference was adding Terry Pendleton, who was a veteran with a lot of valuable experience playing for the 1980s Cardinals and going to two WS.  Suddenly, all of the Braves young talent figured out how to win games.  At some point, I think it would really help to surround our young players with an established winning player.....even if that player is past their prime.

[SteveA]

33 minutes ago, JR Oriole said:

While I have very real concerns about the talent we have in developing talent (something that seems to be no problem whatsoever for Tampa, Miami, St. Louis, etc.), I think the part of the quote above regarding learning how to win is 100% spot on.  Our roster is filled with guys who are experts at losing......but what we lack are players who have experience being successful in the majors, competing for division titles, and winning in the postseason.  Having some veterans who have experienced success can provide valuable mentorship to young players who are struggling.  The 1990 Braves went 65-97 and then returned almost the same exact roster in 1991 and went 94-68, winning the division, the pennant, and nearly the World Series. The big difference was adding Terry Pendleton, who was a veteran with a lot of valuable experience playing for the 1980s Cardinals and going to two WS.  Suddenly, all of the Braves young talent figured out how to win games.  At some point, I think it would really help to surround our young players with an established winning player.....even if that player is past their prime.

And the Astroball book talks about the same thing... despite their reputation for being all about data and numbers, Luhnow and company deliberately targeted Carlos Beltran when they felt they were ready to contend because they felt his leadership, experience, and ability to communicate with the teams Latino players would be a huge plus.   [And apparently he also had the leadership and organizational ability to be the leader of a complex sign stealing operation, though the book didn't mention that].

So I do think it likely that we might target a veteran of that ilk when we are close to contention as well.   This isn't something that would be news to Oriole fans, after all we famously did the same thing in December 1965.

[Sports Guy]

41 minutes ago, SteveA said:

And the Astroball book talks about the same thing... despite their reputation for being all about data and numbers, Luhnow and company deliberately targeted Carlos Beltran when they felt they were ready to contend because they felt his leadership, experience, and ability to communicate with the teams Latino players would be a huge plus.   [And apparently he also had the leadership and organizational ability to be the leader of a complex sign stealing operation, though the book didn't mention that].

So I do think it likely that we might target a veteran of that ilk when we are close to contention as well.   This isn't something that would be news to Oriole fans, after all we famously did the same thing in December 1965.

This is where your and other posts lose me.  

The basic attitude around here is that we will bring up our prospects, we will get a lot better and then you spend.   There are a lot of assumptions being made.  As you pointed out, this year has been a failure because of the health and development of those young players we were counting on.  I agree and have written about that many times.

Yet, the plan is to continue to wait on the health and development of young players.  I don't get that logic.  Don't get me wrong, we are only going to go as far as the current players in the system allow us but you don't need to sit around and wait to make real FA or trade acquisitions.

Bring in these guys now and let the young players learn from them.  A guy like Kris Bryant is a good example of a proven vet who knows how to win.  He also represents a guy who plays a position of need.  We will see what direction his contract goes in but I think they should be aggressive for him.

David Price is another guy who fits that profile.  

There is nothing wrong with acquiring guys a year too early.  

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

This is where your and other posts lose me.  

The basic attitude around here is that we will bring up our prospects, we will get a lot better and then you spend.   There are a lot of assumptions being made.  As you pointed out, this year has been a failure because of the health and development of those young players we were counting on.  I agree and have written about that many times.

Yet, the plan is to continue to wait on the health and development of young players.  I don't get that logic.  Don't get me wrong, we are only going to go as far as the current players in the system allow us but you don't need to sit around and wait to make real FA or trade acquisitions.

Bring in these guys now and let the young players learn from them.  A guy like Kris Bryant is a good example of a proven vet who knows how to win.  He also represents a guy who plays a position of need.  We will see what direction his contract goes in but I think they should be aggressive for him.

David Price is another guy who fits that profile.  

There is nothing wrong with acquiring guys a year too early.  

I agree, and would welcome Bryant or Price.

I think before the 2021 season would have been two years too early, so unless you are talking about a 4 year contract with someone, all you were going to get was a Franco-type patch.

Now before 2022, I think you start looking at 2 or 3 year contracts for guys who can be part of a contender.