The Biggest Fallacy: We Need a 1B or DH

[Old#5fan]

If Eddie Murray was a FA this year at the age of 28 would you be interested in him? That's exactly the kind of player Tex is.

Not if it handicapped funds available over the next few years for filling the biggest need which is starting pitching.

[Anonymous]

No big deal about having a conversation stray, Lucky Jim – and I should have made that clearer. The problem I have with many (certainly not all) of the responses is that for those who DID address the OP, sangar and Baltimoron were alone in processing the info that was actually presented rather than some cardboard cutout version of what they assumed, with no basis, was an anti-Tex or an ignore-the-long-term thread, which this obviously was intended not to be.

You were clearly one of the posters who did precisely that by indicating that you agree (“Exactly”) with SG’s beyond-ludicrous claim that this thread asserts that 2009 is what we need to focus on and that we don’t need a long-term answer at first. This is horsesh*t coming out of SG’s mouth and I call you on it for agreeing with him.

For those who want to pursue a high-ceiling minor league 1B as a potential long-term solution, I'm with you on that one. But that's true of a lot of team needs (and I would say SS and 3B even more). This is something we should always be on the look-out for; but there's no criticality in finding such a guy today as opposed to a year from now. When you find a young and undervalued gem at almost any position, of course you pull the trigger.

Here is another fallacy....

2009 is what we need to focus on.

This thread basically does that. It is completely wrong to say we don't need a long term answer at first...We may not need to spend a bunch of money to do it but we certainly need it.

There is no doubt about that.

Exactly. I'm not huge on the Teix wagon, but I'm definitely not on the "let's prioritize starting pitching" one either.

Well, I’m revising my assertion that needing a 1B or DH is the biggest fallacy. Returning to the board 7 pages and 7+ hours after the OP to see what became of it, I see that the truly biggest fallacy is that people actually read and process and respond to what other posters have written.

So the conversation strayed? What's the big deal?

[DrungoHazewood]

Not if it handicapped funds available over the next few years for filling the biggest need which is starting pitching.

So you really believe that you should never count on any prospects panning out, and a team should simply target whatever their current weakness is without any regard to the farm?

The Orioles have many plausible starting candidates in the minor leagues, and several guys with stuff that could translate to a #1 starter in the majors. They also have no one who stands out as a potential impact first baseman. You propose that those facts are not considered in the Orioles decision making process, right?

[El Gordo]

Not if it handicapped funds available over the next few years for filling the biggest need which is starting pitching.

If we are counting on using money to cure our SP ills long term, we're toast. For the most part it has to be developed. No one knows what the financial contraints of this club are. If we can afford 10/200 for Tex, then we should do it.

[Old#5fan]

So you really believe that you should never count on any prospects panning out, and a team should simply target whatever their current weakness is without any regard to the farm?

The Orioles have many plausible starting candidates in the minor leagues, and several guys with stuff that could translate to a #1 starter in the majors. They also have no one who stands out as a potential impact first baseman. You propose that those facts are not considered in the Orioles decision making process, right?

I am not convinced the Orioles have corrected the serious problem of developing minor league pitchers who can translate their success to the major league level. They seem to fail in this endeavor rather well.

I think a first baseman can be addressed at any time down the road after the pitching is where it needs to be. I see zero rush to do it right now. In fact, I see it as putting the cart well before the horse.

[Old#5fan]

If we are counting on using money to cure our SP ills long term, we're toast. For the most part it has to be developed. No one knows what the financial contraints of this club are. If we can afford 10/200 for Tex, then we should do it.

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!

[Lucky Jim]

Not if it handicapped funds available over the next few years for filling the biggest need which is starting pitching.

“Not necessarily. I think I try to pay attention to applying resources in the most efficient or effective manner,” MacPhail said. “I suppose you would think that could be considered fiscally conservative. And there are areas that I have been. But there are other areas I haven’t been.”

While MacPhail was with Minnesota, the Twins made outfielder Kirby Puckett the highest-paid player in the game and Frank Viola one of the highest-paid pitchers.

In his 12 years with the Chicago Cubs, that club doled out several eye-popping contracts, including Sammy Sosa’s nearly historic four-year, $72 million extension.

He also wasn’t shy about paying handsomely for highly touted but unproven draft picks, something that seems to be carrying over to his Orioles regime.

Consider this: In the two summers MacPhail has overseen amateur signings, the Orioles have spent $14.6 million total in bonuses. In the four previous years, the Orioles spent $14.5 million, according to Baseball America...

Paying big money to amateurs, however, doesn’t guarantee success. In fact, none of the four Cubs who received $2.5million or more bonuses under MacPhail - Mark Prior, Corey Patterson, Lou Montanez and Bobby Brownlie - is still with the franchise.

The philosophy has an inherent risk, MacPhail said. But he’ll assume it, compared with the cost incurred by filling holes with free agents.

“As a club, it’s easy to spend a couple extra million [for draft picks] opposed to what it costs in major league free agency,” he said. “All of a sudden, the risks look more attractive, even though the odds are such that the vast number of players in the amateur world won’t work out.”

Signing and properly developing draft picks, MacPhail said, bolsters a franchise even if those players don’t become stars. And he has brought that mind-set here.

“One of the ways to try to develop depth in an organization, in a system, is through the amateur draft,” he said. “To get those players, you have to be looking for things that make sense up and down the draft.”

http://proathletesonly.com/news/locker-room/orioles-not-afraid-to-spend-big-money-on-draft-picks/

''If you rely on free agency to acquire pitching you'll find that they are expensive and fragile,'' MacPhail said. ''Better to spend on bats.''

He has been around long enough to be realistic about prospects. ''Prospects are just prospects,'' he said. ''Not all will pan out. It's hard to trade Tejada and Bédard and say you're going be better in '08, but I think we took steps to make us better in the future.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE3DF1138F937A15751C0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

This the MacPhail approach. It's time we learned to live with it. FA money is very unlikely to go to pitchers for multi-year deals. Very.

BTW, I support the above statements 100%.

[El Gordo]

I am not convinced the Orioles have corrected the serious problem of developing minor league pitchers who can translate their success to the major league level. They seem to fail in this endeavor rather well.

I think a first baseman can be addressed at any time down the road after the pitching is where it needs to be. I see zero rush to do it right now. In fact, I see it as putting the cart well before the horse.

The problem with trying to get into contention by buying SP is that you can't rely on FA's SP to be consistent for 3-4 years, any more than you can with MiL prospects. But you can count on it being a lot more expensive.

[Old#5fan]

The problem with trying to get into contention by buying SP is that you can't rely on FA's SP to be consistent for 3-4 years, any more than you can with MiL prospects. But you can count on it being a lot more expensive.

True, which is why I think you add just one per year. This year Burnett, next year a Harden, or Sheets, or whomever is one of the top FA's out there. If they blow the wad on a multi-year contract with Texiera I don't think they can afford to address the bigger need which is starting pitching.

The last time they had good starters was the 97 team and everyone was a FA aquisition but Mussina I believe. Its just reality.

[Lucky Jim]

True, which is why I think you add just one per year. This year Burnett, next year a Harden, or Sheets, or whomever is one of the top FA's out there. If they blow the was on a multi-year contract with Texiera I don't think they can afford to address the bigger need which is starting pitching.

The last time they had good starters was the 97 team and everyone was a FA aquisition but Mussina I believe. Its just reality.

It's hardly reality. It was reality for the O's - who drafted and developed more poorly than nearly any organization in baseball.

It's not reality for most teams that win these days - a FA signing or two that gets you over the top? Sure. Building a staff with FAs? Nope.

[bluedog]

Not if it handicapped funds available over the next few years for filling the biggest need which is starting pitching.

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?

[El Gordo]

True, which is why I think you add just one per year. This year Burnett, next year a Harden, or Sheets, or whomever is one of the top FA's out there. If they blow the was on a multi-year contract with Texiera I don't think they can afford to address the bigger need which is starting pitching.

The last time they had good starters was the 97 team and everyone was a FA aquisition but Mussina I believe. Its just reality.

You can't count on any of these guys giving you career average performance next year let alone over the 3-5 years of their overpriced contracts. Barring injury, you can count on 6-8 career ave. performance years from Tex and his over priced contract. And he costs only $5mm per year more than Burnett.

[bluedog]

This the MacPhail approach. It's time we learned to live with it. FA money is very unlikely to go to pitchers for multi-year deals. Very.

BTW, I support the above statements 100%.

Agreed - but I'm pretty sure you'd be all over signing a Burnett, Sheets or Lowe, even to a multi-year deal, if we already had an 85 win team and just needed one more top flight starter to push us over the top, yes?

I think AM would do that as well. He simply doesn't want to do it until we are actually poised to compete because of the risks involved with pitchers. There are great pitchers available every off-season and there's no reason to sign them before absolutely necessary.

[Lucky Jim]

Agreed - but I'm pretty sure you'd be all over signing a Burnett, Sheets or Lowe, even to a multi-year deal, if we already had an 85 win team and just needed one more top flight starter to push us over the top, yes?

I think AM would do that as well. He simply doesn't want to do it until we are actually poised to compete because of the risks involved with pitchers. There are great pitchers available every off-season and there's no reason to sign them before absolutely necessary.

Yep. That's been my argument all along. Also if we can exploit a market advantage (i.e., Burnett) - but it depends on the extent of that advantage.

You spend big when that spending is a difference maker. For instance, we deride Bavasi - and rightly so - but his mistake wasn't (in total, at least) giving up so much talent for Bedard. It was not realizing the team wasn't on the verge.

[Old#5fan]

You can't count on any of these guys giving you career average performance next year let alone over the 3-5 years of their overpriced contracts. Barring injury, you can count on 6-8 career ave. performance years from Tex and his over priced contract. And he costs only $5mm per year more than Burnett.

Which is why you must add one per year and hope you develop one at least every third year of your own. If you don't get pitching talent, whether having Tex or whatever Tex does is moot.