The Biggest Fallacy: We Need a 1B or DH

[Old#5fan]

The O's are not going to fix their pitching needs through free agency. They may pick up one or even two starters via Free Agency, but we're going to live and die over the long term based on our ability to develop pitchers through our farm system.

Having said that - signing Tex to even a 10 / 200 deal would not prevent the O's from signing key free agent pitchers assuming they don't also give out bad contracts to marginal veterans as they've done in the past.

Just as a fun aside, would you rather have Baez, Walker, Bradford, Millar & Gibbons OR Texeira, Scott and three league minimum relievers (such as Johnson, Ray & Mickolio?). I know my choice.

There is no reason why the O's can't sign Tex AND extend Markakis, Roberts, Weiters and Jones AND have enough cash to sign 2 or 3 additional, top quality free agents in 2010 / 2011 (or whenever they are next ready to compete).

So if you were told by the O's that signing Tex for 18 - 20 million per season wouldn't prevent them from making other necessary signings in the future, would that change your mind?

No, because in my view you constantly need to pursue pitching on an annual basis. Pitchers are more prone to injuries than position players so you need to be constantly looking to add healthy starters until you have an abundance if that is ever possible.

[Anonymous]

The O's are not going to fix their pitching needs through free agency. They may pick up one or even two starters via Free Agency, but we're going to live and die over the long term based on our ability to develop pitchers through our farm system.

Having said that - signing Tex to even a 10 / 200 deal would not prevent the O's from signing key free agent pitchers assuming they don't also give out bad contracts to marginal veterans as they've done in the past.

Just as a fun aside, would you rather have Baez, Walker, Bradford, Millar & Gibbons OR Texeira, Scott and three league minimum relievers (such as Johnson, Ray & Mickolio?). I know my choice.

There is no reason why the O's can't sign Tex AND extend Markakis, Roberts, Weiters and Jones AND have enough cash to sign 2 or 3 additional, top quality free agents in 2010 / 2011 (or whenever they are next ready to compete).

So if you were told by the O's that signing Tex for 18 - 20 million per season wouldn't prevent them from making other necessary signings in the future, would that change your mind?

There are legitimate arguments that CAN be made for signing Tex to a a contract for a fifth of a billion dollars. They'll never persuade me; but they can be made.

Having acknowledged that, the arguments you've put forward are clearly not legitimate. (And I say that with massive respect for you, bluedog, as you're a star on this board from my perspective.)

1. There's not a single poster I've ever seen on here who has argued that we should avoid signing Tex so that we can instead sign guys like Baez, Walker, Bradford, Millar, and Gibbons. I know you said that this was just a fun aside. But it's a complete red herring even to suggest that this is the choice we're facing (even if the dollars for those 5 did equal the 200 million you're suggesting it may cost to ink Tex, which it clearly does not).

2. The idea that throwing a fifth of a billion dollars at Tex will leave unaffected all other future spending decisions is naive bordering on bizarre. Argue if you'd like that this is the BEST use of our limited resources; but don't claim that there is a magical box of dollars available for Tex, and Tex alone -- such that if it's not spent on Tex, it disappears. Why can't people just accept the obvious fact that Tex is one of the choices for where we can use this 200 million dollars. A choice to use it on Tex is a choice to forego using it on whatever YOU or Andy or whomever would consider the next most valuable use of those resources. That's the very essence of opportunity cost; and that is truly the choice we are facing, and the decision we are making, if we choose to allocate those dollars to Tex. The idea that this becomes untrue just because someone from the O's says so, or because you say so, is cute. But so are the things that the tooth fairy used to tell my kids. And they have about the same validity.

[Crazysilver03]

I totally agree with your take on this but am most certain we are in the minoirty here on the OH. Then again, the majority here apparently seem to want Chris Ray to be the closer over Sherrill this season. So what can I say?

Do you feel the need to take shots at posters with a opinion that has nothing to do with this thread?

I agree that we dont need Teixeira. I would rather the money not be utilized in that way and would prefer it to be spent on pitching. I agree that I wouldnt mind seeing Salazar/Montanez split DH with Huff at 1B. We have Snyder coming up in the minors and he needs a position.

[DrungoHazewood]

No, but my grandfather did and I can recall Chuck Thompson going bonkers on the radio as to what a great play it was. I also as I said in another post did see Blefary many games playing the outfield and I thought he was very good defensively.

Yikes, I just saw this.

We've now reached the point where:

Stories my grandfather told me >>>>>>>> Metrics.

Yikes.

Feel free to use fanciful yarns spun by 86-year-olds as proof of a player's greatness, but if you actually do the legwork to come up with a fact-based assessment you'd better treat it with a huge grain of salt!

Oh, and by the way, Curt Blefary was such a fine outfielder that he had been moved to first base full time by the age of 25, and never played a full season in the outfield again.

[bluedog]

If we are counting only on the Orioles minor league system developing sucessful major league starters in the numbers the Orioles need right now (at least three but more like four, than I guarantee you that we will be long dead before it ever happens. I mean seriously, they haven't been able to do this in nearly 30 years!

The O's have developed two excellent major league starters (Bedard and Maine) and two excellent relievers (Ray & Johnson) in the past 5 years during a time when almost everyone agrees they had the weakest farm system in club history.

They have also acquired an excellent starter (Guthrie) on waivers and traded for two other excellent pitchers (Albers, Sherrill), without resorting to Free Agency.

During that same time, the O's have failed to sign a single excellent free agent pitcher despite more than a dozen acquisitions. The best we've done is Chad Bradford, an aging, specialty reliever. You have to go back 10 years to Scott Erickson to find a Free Agent pitcher who the O's had any success with and even he spent as much time on the disabled list as he did pitching well for the O's.

I would argue that all evidence suggests the O's have been far more successful at finding pitchers through every other means except for Free Agency in the past decade.

Also - I'm shocked that someone who so vociferously denies the validity of using stats and past performance to predict future success would throw up and argument based on our track record in developing talent over the past 30 years!

Instead of using historical evidence concerning our ability to develop pitchers, take a dose of your own medicine and just watch guys like Arrieta, Tillman, Matusz and Bergesen pitch! As you so consistently argue, seeing these guys play with your own eyes is far more valuable than any statistical analysis of the O's past success in developing minor league pitchers.

I've watched all of them pitch personally and I think all four of those guys are better than John Maine ever was and that they are far far better than Cabrera, Liz or Olson. Our young pitching really is exceptional - believe!

[bluedog]

There are legitimate arguments that CAN be made for signing Tex to a a contract for a fifth of a billion dollars. They'll never persuade me; but they can be made.

Having acknowledged that, the arguments you've put forward are clearly not legitimate. (And I say that with massive respect for you, bluedog, as you're a star on this board from my perspective.)

1. There's not a single poster I've ever seen on here who has argued that we should avoid signing Tex so that we can instead sign guys like Baez, Walker, Bradford, Millar, and Gibbons. I know you said that this was just a fun aside. But it's a complete red herring even to suggest that this is the choice we're facing (even if the dollars for those 5 did equal the 200 million you're suggesting it may cost to ink Tex, which it clearly does not).

2. The idea that throwing a fifth of a billion dollars at Tex will leave unaffected all other future spending decisions is naive bordering on bizarre. Argue if you'd like that this is the BEST use of our limited resources; but don't claim that there is a magical box of dollars available for Tex, and Tex alone -- such that if it's not spent on Tex, it disappears. Why can't people just accept the obvious fact that Tex is one of the choices for where we can use this 200 million dollars. A choice to use it on Tex is a choice to forego using it on whatever YOU or Andy or whomever would consider the next most valuable use of those resources. That's the very essence of opportunity cost; and that is truly the choice we are facing, and the decision we are making, if we choose to allocate those dollars to Tex. The idea that this becomes untrue just because someone from the O's says so, or because you say so, is cute. But so are the things that the tooth fairy used to tell my kids. And they have about the same validity.

Well its a different discussion if we're talking about the total contract for Tex as opposed to the annual cost and to me they should be addressed separately.

On a year by year basis, I would argue that since we are currently able to carry more than 20 million a year in poor contracts with mediocre, injured or completely redundant players, that we should just as easily be able to justify carrying a talent like Tex for the same price.

Whether we sign Tex or not, the O's have more than 20 million committed last season to players like Gibbons, Hernendez, Payton, Millar, Baez, Walker and Trachsel - all of whom can be replaced in 2009 from within the organization with league minimum salaried players who will likely provide equal or better performance at each position. To me that means you can afford Tex simply by not making these kinds of poor free agency decisions in the future. If you are going to spend on Free Agents, get cornerstone players, not an unending parade of marginal ones.

Over the long term, I think the 200 million number is misleading. Setting the possibility of career ending injury or a horrible decline in production (both very scary, but seemingly low probability occurances) aside for a moment, I believe that 20 million a season for a player of Tex's caliber will be the norm in 5 years. Just like with the Tejada contract - which people thought was outrageously expensive at signing, but a bargain just 3 years later - I feel that a 10 year / 200 million dollar contract will "age well".

Additionally, I think that the O's will be able to move Tex and his contract down the road if they need to do so (again this assumes no injury or performance decline). As insane as the ARod / Texas contract was at signing, there was no shortage of suitors to take him off the Ranger's hands when they decided to trade him. Same for Manny and his huge contract, despite being a butcher in LF and a perceived clubhouse cancer.

Finally, the O's don't seem to have an "in house" solution at first base anywhere in their system, unless Brandon Snyder or Rowell surprises us all by developing 30 - 40 HR power and a slick glove at 1b (even then, having both Tex and a 30 HR, Brandon Snyder is a problem we WANT to have!). It seems likely we'll either have to schlep by with the Millar's of the world or eventually sign another free agent first baseman like Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez.

Tex or not, top young free agent sluggers are going to command 15 - 16 million a year and 6+ year contracts and the price is only going to go up as time goes by. Even Aubrey Huff, assuming he has another great year like last year, will be able to command 13 - 14 million a year.

So the risk to me isn't 200 million bucks for Tex - its the difference between whatever we pay Tex and whatever we'd have to pay someone else to play 1b for us and give even a significant fraction of his production.

The O's need a 40 HR slugger to anchor their lineup for years to come. I don't see that guy anywhere in the O's organization right now (maybe Wieters, but maybe not). I don't see other teams lining up to trade us that guy from their farm system for anything short of our top pitching talent, which I'm unwilling to do. I don't see a better option coming available in free agency anywhere in the near future.

I'd have no problem carrying a lighter hitting 1b if we could make up that production elsewhere. But we're barren at SS, barren at 2b and barren at 3b as well. The outfield we do have looks solid, but there's no cleanup hitter there either.

Some would argue that we can get the same production out of Dunn and that may be true offensively. But I'm willing to pay the premium for Tex to get his defense at 1b, his clubhouse presence and his hometown appeal.

And clearly a 200 million dollar contract WILL affect our spending decisions in the future - I'm certainly not saying anything to the contrary. My position is that it won't prevent us from being able to sign key free agents down the road who are essential for us to compete. The idea that Tex represents a definitive THIS or THAT scenario is what I argue against. I don't think we're faced with a TEX or Ace Pitcher or a TEX or Shortstop situation which is what Old #5 Fan seems to be suggesting.

I believe we have the net salary available to sign Tex and 1 - 2 top free agent pitchers and a solid shortstop and still extend all our key young players and sign top draft picks as required. But only if we avoid throwing 20 - 30 million a season out the window on mediocre free agents as we've done for the past 10 years and more.

[osfan83]

There are legitimate arguments that CAN be made for signing Tex to a a contract for a fifth of a billion dollars. They'll never persuade me; but they can be made.

Having acknowledged that, the arguments you've put forward are clearly not legitimate. (And I say that with massive respect for you, bluedog, as you're a star on this board from my perspective.)

1. There's not a single poster I've ever seen on here who has argued that we should avoid signing Tex so that we can instead sign guys like Baez, Walker, Bradford, Millar, and Gibbons. I know you said that this was just a fun aside. But it's a complete red herring even to suggest that this is the choice we're facing (even if the dollars for those 5 did equal the 200 million you're suggesting it may cost to ink Tex, which it clearly does not).

2. The idea that throwing a fifth of a billion dollars at Tex will leave unaffected all other future spending decisions is naive bordering on bizarre. Argue if you'd like that this is the BEST use of our limited resources; but don't claim that there is a magical box of dollars available for Tex, and Tex alone -- such that if it's not spent on Tex, it disappears. Why can't people just accept the obvious fact that Tex is one of the choices for where we can use this 200 million dollars. A choice to use it on Tex is a choice to forego using it on whatever YOU or Andy or whomever would consider the next most valuable use of those resources. That's the very essence of opportunity cost; and that is truly the choice we are facing, and the decision we are making, if we choose to allocate those dollars to Tex. The idea that this becomes untrue just because someone from the O's says so, or because you say so, is cute. But so are the things that the tooth fairy used to tell my kids. And they have about the same validity.

I don't know that it as much of a red herring as it is a history lesson. Over the past 10 years this team has often spent money on several middle-of-the-road FA instead of using that same money to sign one high impact FA.

[Old#5fan]

Do you feel the need to take shots at posters with a opinion that has nothing to do with this thread?

No, that was certainly not my intention, I was merely illustrating that in my opinion the majority is not always right on something.

I agree that we dont need Teixeira. I would rather the money not be utilized in that way and would prefer it to be spent on pitching. I agree that I wouldnt mind seeing Salazar/Montanez split DH with Huff at 1B. We have Snyder coming up in the minors and he needs a position.

I don't know if Snyder needing a position warrants handing him a job as a major league first baseman or not but everything else iI agree with you on.

[Old#5fan]

Yikes, I just saw this.

We've now reached the point where:

Stories my grandfather told me >>>>>>>> Metrics.

Yikes.

Feel free to use fanciful yarns spun by 86-year-olds as proof of a player's greatness, but if you actually do the legwork to come up with a fact-based assessment you'd better treat it with a huge grain of salt!

Oh, and by the way, Curt Blefary was such a fine outfielder that he had been moved to first base full time by the age of 25, and never played a full season in the outfield again.

It wasn't a "story" he told me this the day after he saw the game, a game which I had been listening to on the radio at home and heard Chuck Thompson go ballistic over what a great play it was. There is a huge difference between this and a yarn. This actually happened.

[clapdiddy]

This thread definitely needs to go into the "Classics" archive.

Every time I come here, I get a new chuckle!

[Old#5fan]

The O's have developed two excellent major league starters (Bedard and Maine) and two excellent relievers (Ray & Johnson) in the past 5 years during a time when almost everyone agrees they had the weakest farm system in club history.

They have also acquired an excellent starter (Guthrie) on waivers and traded for two other excellent pitchers (Albers, Sherrill), without resorting to Free Agency.

During that same time, the O's have failed to sign a single excellent free agent pitcher despite more than a dozen acquisitions. The best we've done is Chad Bradford, an aging, specialty reliever. You have to go back 10 years to Scott Erickson to find a Free Agent pitcher who the O's had any success with and even he spent as much time on the disabled list as he did pitching well for the O's.

I would argue that all evidence suggests the O's have been far more successful at finding pitchers through every other means except for Free Agency in the past decade.

Also - I'm shocked that someone who so vociferously denies the validity of using stats and past performance to predict future success would throw up and argument based on our track record in developing talent over the past 30 years!

Instead of using historical evidence concerning our ability to develop pitchers, take a dose of your own medicine and just watch guys like Arrieta, Tillman, Matusz and Bergesen pitch! As you so consistently argue, seeing these guys play with your own eyes is far more valuable than any statistical analysis of the O's past success in developing minor league pitchers.

I've watched all of them pitch personally and I think all four of those guys are better than John Maine ever was and that they are far far better than Cabrera, Liz or Olson. Our young pitching really is exceptional - believe!

I would argue that John Maine was sucessfully transitioned into a good major league pitcher by the Mets as the Orioles really didn't even know what they had or they certainly wouldn't have traded him for Benson to begin with. I would also argue that Ray is far from a proven major league success story either. Furthermore, as far as starters which is what they sorely need most, just look how many years they came up dry other than Bedard. If you are relying on the development of another Bedard good luck and even he has been a bomb since traded. The last good pitcher they developed that stuck around was Mussina and before that probably Mike Boddiker or Flanagan and McGregor. That is a long, long dry spell.

[bluedog]

No, because in my view you constantly need to pursue pitching on an annual basis. Pitchers are more prone to injuries than position players so you need to be constantly looking to add healthy starters until you have an abundance if that is ever possible.

What, like the Yankees signing / trading for Kevin Brown, Vazquez, Randy Johnson & Pavano? That strategy hasn't really worked out very well for them.

The best pitchers on the Yankees last year, after all their big trades and free agent signings were Rivera, Pettite, Wang and Chamberlain - all developed internally.

For every organization that you can rattle off that's built a fine staff through Free Agency (Boston) there are far more that you can point to who've tried that same strategy and failed miserably. Free Agent pitchers are a crap shoot. They are the last piece in the puzzle of building a winning franchise - organizational development, not free agency is the first and most important piece.

[Old#5fan]

What, like the Yankees signing / trading for Kevin Brown, Vazquez, Randy Johnson & Pavano? That strategy hasn't really worked out very well for them.

The best pitchers on the Yankees last year, after all their big trades and free agent signings were Rivera, Pettite, Wang and Chamberlain - all developed internally.

For every organization that you can rattle off that's built a fine staff through Free Agency (Boston) there are far more that you can point to who've tried that same strategy and failed miserably. Free Agent pitchers are a crap shoot. They are the last piece in the puzzle of building a winning franchise - organizational development, not free agency is the first and most important piece.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it would be best to develop your own home grown pitching talent from within, its just the Orioles are about the worst at doing it over the past 30 years in baseball. So placing any hope of suddenly changing that as a hallmark of future sucess is worse than playing the lottery in my estimation.

[bluedog]

I would argue that John Maine was sucessfully transitioned into a good major league pitcher by the Mets as the Orioles really didn't even know what they had or they certainly wouldn't have traded him for Benson to begin with. I would also argue that Ray is far from a proven major league success story either. Furthermore, as far as starters which is what they sorely need most, just look how many years they came up dry other than Bedard. If you are relying on the development of another Bedard good luck and even he has been a bomb since traded. The last good pitcher they developed that stuck around was Mussina and before that probably Mike Boddiker or Flanagan and McGregor. That is a long, long dry spell.

The following pitchers were all developed by the O's system and have gone on to have at least one exceptional season and excellent overall career numbers in the big leagues.

Erik Bedard

John Maine

Chris Ray

Jim Johnson (small sample size)

BJ Ryan

Mike Mussina

I left out Rodrigo Lopez, Sidney Ponson and Ben McDonald because although each of them had at least one excellent season, they are all considered busts over their entire career. Given that, these three pitchers had more quality seasons with the O's between them than all of the free agent pitchers the O's signed in the past 15 years combined.

I could only find two free agents who had excellent seasons pitching for the O's during that time frame even though neither pitched in the past 7 years:

Scott Erickson

Jamie Moyer

So I would humbly submit that as bad as our player development has been, our ability to sign free agent pitchers who actually help this team win has been far far worse.

[Lucky Jim]

The following pitchers were all developed by the O's system and have gone on to have at least one exceptional season and excellent overall career numbers in the big leagues.

Erik Bedard

John Maine

Chris Ray

Jim Johnson (small sample size)

BJ Ryan

Mike Mussina

I left out Rodrigo Lopez, Sidney Ponson and Ben McDonald because although each of them had at least one excellent season, they are all considered busts over their entire career. Given that, these three pitchers had more quality seasons with the O's between them than all of the free agent pitchers the O's signed in the past 15 years combined.

I could only find two free agents who had excellent seasons pitching for the O's during that time frame even though neither pitched in the past 7 years:

Scott Erickson

Jamie Moyer

So I would humbly submit that as bad as our player development has been, our ability to sign free agent pitchers who actually help this team win has been far far worse.

You've used Erickson twice, but didn't we trade for and extend Erickson?