Buster Olney misses the point

[waroriole]

I agree with most of this. My only caveat is that to me, the only REAL investment this organization has made in FA's in the last decade was with Tejada. The rest of them were poorly negotiated deals by an inept FO.. perhaps hamstrung by ownership.

No question.

[davearm]

The Tigers signed Magglio/Pudge/Hoffman/Rogers over two offseasons, timed with the arrival of Bonderman/Verlander Robertson and some of the young bats and made the World Series. They've made some other silly moves since then, but that was a case of singing talent a year before you were ready for the "push".

Equating Teixeira for $160M to Magglio/Pudge/Hoffman/Rogers is kinda sketchy. I'm not even sure which guy is the headliner there.

The Tigers' competitive situation was certainly similar, though.

[Lucky Jim]

The Tigers signed Magglio/Pudge/Hoffman/Rogers over two offseasons, timed with the arrival of Bonderman/Verlander Robertson and some of the young bats and made the World Series. They've made some other silly moves since then, but that was a case of singing talent a year before you were ready for the "push".

Outside of Verlander, though, the Tigers weren't dealing with "arriving pitchers" were they?

Bonderman had three full seasons of MLB starting heading into 2006, Robertson was in his thrid full season, and Kenny Rogers was as sold as...well, the other Kenny Rogers.

Not really the same as having a guy whose never thrown an inning of MiL ball, a guy whose never pitched above A+ and a 20 year old in AA with - as you bring up often - command AND control issues.

The difference is, they were perched in a position where an influx of FA talent was designed to pay high yields - and even then, they surprised people. We're at least two years away from even being comparable.

I'm not really arguing - I've long said pushing all-in needed to wait only long enough that we had enough info to know what we needed to compete. I think two years - when we'll be more similar to the Tigers - is a good start.

I don't think we can get away - or should try - to get away with such drastic FA signings as it will decimate our draft. But buying on the FA market should wait until then.

THAT said, I've supported the Teix signing. Though the numbers now are irresponsible.

[Stotle]

Outside of Verlander, though, the Tigers weren't dealing with "arriving pitchers" were they?

Bonderman had three full seasons of MLB starting heading into 2006, Robertson was in his thrid full season, and Kenny Rogers was as sold as...well, the other Kenny Rogers.

Not really the same as having a guy whose never thrown an inning of MiL ball, a guy whose never pitched above A+ and a 20 year old in AA with - as you bring up often - command AND control issues.

The difference is, they were perched in a position where an influx of FA talent was designed to pay high yields - and even then, they surprised people. We're at least two years away from even being comparable.

True, but to be fair none of those four were as young as Teix or rumored to be signed to as long a contract. In order to buy into a Teix deal, you have to buy into the possibilities in years 3 through 7/10 being enough to outweigh the almost guaranteed nothing of years 1 and 2. For the record, I'm not close to being all aboard that train.

[Lucky Jim]

True, but to be fair none of those four were as young as Teix or rumored to be signed to as long a contract. In order to buy into a Teix deal, you have to buy into the possibilities in years 3 through 7/10 being enough to outweigh the almost guaranteed nothing of years 1 and 2. For the record, I'm not close to being all aboard that train.

I think we're both eyeing that train warily. And I think we both said - without hesitation - "no" when the issue of a 3-year opt-out was broached.

I actually like the idea of more imminent success on shorter-term contracts. I think, in a lot of ways, it's safer than guessing as to what Teix would provide over seven-to-ten years of a contract.

Of course, it's not just the nothing of years 1 and 2, it's the premium we'll be paying ($20m+) for the likely decline of years 8 through 10.

As I've said all along, I agree that you can move early on FA talent - but by early, I mean a season. We're assuming far too much with Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta (and probably even Wieters).

[Stotle]

I think we're both eyeing that train warily. And I think we both said - without hesitation - "no" when the issue of a 3-year opt-out was broached.

I actually like the idea of more imminent success on shorter-term contracts. I think, in a lot of ways, it's safer than guessing as to what Teix would provide over seven-to-ten years of a contract.

Of course, it's not just the nothing of years 1 and 2, it's the premium we'll be paying ($20m+) for the likely decline of years 8 through 10.

As I've said all along, I agree that you can move early on FA talent - but by early, I mean a season. We're assuming far too much with Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta (and probably even Wieters).

Agree with all of this. Well said.

[allorioles]

I think it great that he has an opinion and a vaild one at that but it doesnt matter period as half the time these baseball experts get things wrong.. The tigers were supposed to be great last year and they sucked it up.. the rays came out of no where to be in the playoffs.. So maybe signing Tex brings life into the players and makes them believe they can win and compete in the al east.. This can be the beginning of bringing the winning swagger we lost because the players we have and the young ones certainly don't have it right now so Tex could be the key..

But then again i could be wrong as any season anything can happen.. no one really knows what will happen.

[ledzepp8]

Really for me what it comes down to is, where is the baseball version of the Reggie White/Green Bay Packers success story?

Lots of teams have tried to replicate it. I can't think of one that's pulled it off, though I can name several that have tried and failed.

Maybe, just maybe Olney is right, and signing a savior-figure like Teixeira to some outrageous contract is not the way to climb up from the ashes in baseball.

The Reggie White/Green Bay Packers success story was also aided through the young talent they had acquired (Brett Favre).

[Lucky Jim]

You beat me to it. They did exactly what we're contemplating only we won't have to fill nearly as many holes with big contracts as they did. The question is will Arrieta, Tilman, and Matusz turn into our version of their big 3 (at the time)?

I addressed this earlier, too. I think the situations are deceptively similar. It's attractive to want to make that comparison. But the Tigers had already gotten nearly 70 ML starts from their big three. We barely have 70 MiL starts from our big three.

[davearm]

We didn't have most of the other pieces in place when we signed Tejada and Lopez and it showed. We are in a much better position now.

That's debateable. There were lots of young players in the O's system that had folks excited back in 2004 too. I surely won't think of them all but amongst them were Cabrera, Bedard, Loewen, Roberts, Lopez, BJ Ryan, Julio, etc.

You'll surely make the case that this crop of talent is better, but realistically, outside of Jones and Markakis, none of them have had a bigleague AB or IP, so there's a whole heckuva lot of faith involved.

[davearm]

?????

I don't even partially understand this post.

Those guys were signed for much more per year cumulatively than we'd be paying Teixeira. I'm not sure what looking at the full contract value even means in any particular year. The remaining contract value only matters IF he stops playing well because we've still got to pay him the remaining years.

Ordonez for $15 mil per (coming off a serious knee injury)

Pudge for $10 mil per (in the midst of steroid allegations)

Rogers for $8 mil per (at 40ish years old)

There were more players but these are the big three. I'd say the Tigers were laying out a lot more cash per year to close their holes than what we're discussing.

Who amongst those guys was the designated franchise-saver?

There isn't one. They spent lavishly to be sure, but diversified their risk.

[Lucky Jim]

So, you have to decide if you want to wait another year or two and then sign the best available where we have holes. I've looked at the names and I don't want to do that. Tex is a good bet to be very good for the next 5-6 years or so and a decent bet to be very good for another 2-3. I'd rather take my shot with him. I don't want to be very close and end up paying a Soriano-type by 3 extra years and 20 extra percent because now we need to hurry up and fill our holes. This guy fits so I'd make the move.

Hey, we all understand the gamble. But it's a gamble, nonetheless.

Frankly, I'd be shying away from the FA market to find my replacement and I'd be looking to swap arms for young positional talent. That's just me.

[LookitsPuck]

I'm on the fence about Tex. On one hand he fills quite a bit of needs: 1B, power and both with gusto. He's also relatively young. But he's going to be ridiculously expensive. I do look at him like a Palmeiro type, for sure. Hopefully his body holds up and if we snag him for 9-10 years, he'll perform accordingly to expectations.

I still think the Orioles are in a terrible situation right now franchise wise. We have *1* solid pitcher in our rotation. Everyone else are throw-aways as far as the rotation is concerned or don't knows. As for our pitchers in the minors, they're obviously question marks. Put it this way, Olson had a damn good MiLB career with all peripheral statistics indicating that he was a control pitcher, he comes up and is absolutely abysmal. Don't get me started on Liz. Not saying all of our guys are going to do that, but it's just something to consider. Aside from that, we don't have much (if anything) in the positional talent farm pool that is of the caliber that we have in our pitching talent farm pool. This is Roberts' last year, Huff's last year, and Mora's last year. We've *somewhat* fixed our SS issue, albeit not a phenomenal/flashy one. Scott is our LF, but who's our DH? So, that leaves the following holes for 2010:

1B

2B

3B

DH

Ideally I'd like to see the Orioles get a better solution at SS, but he'll do for now. Basically we'll also need a real DH. Tex can fix 1B for sure. This is, of course, strongly dependent on Wieters stepping up in 2009, and I'm assuming he will.

Hopefully our "Big 3" step up, but I can't assume they will. I think the Orioles are certainly turning it around (and have as far as their farm system is concerned), but they still have a long way to go before they're an organization like the Rays.

[ledzepp8]

I want to sign Tex because he fills a position of need with great defense, great offense, power, and he projects to be very good for half a decade or more. If he does that, he will have done his job. I'm not even sure he is the best offensive position player on the team if we sign him. Heck, Markakis and Huff had years that were debatably better last year. Wieters could turn out to be better offensively.

I want to sign him because this one guy will fill about 4 different holes very well. That sounds like synergy to me. This franchise-saver stuff is for people a lot less analytical than I try to be.

I also don't remember anyone making that argument.

[geschinger]

The Rays also had 10 years to put their scouting and development to where it is today. You want to wait 8-10 more years to win? I don't.

Not really, they would still be struggling to win if they had the LaMar regime. They made a brilliant hire in Friedman who made the moves to make them a winner. It's just ridiculous to say it would take 8-10 years to win by building within. It simply is inaccurate with decent FO management.