Buster Olney misses the point

[hoosiers]

Was there a single player out of the group you listed that were ranked as highly as Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, and Arrieta are today? I don't think so.

I do not believe this is correct.

I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong, but I believe Loewen was a BA Top 50 at one point - putting him at Arrieta's level, IMO.

Bedard certainly would have been if he had not been injured. Bedard was about to make a list as the best or second best LHP prospect in the minors at mid-season when he was injured. So, while he was not high on a BA Top 100 list, that is solely due to timing and the injury - if Bedard had been healthy the entire time, he likely would have been a BA Top 40 player - if not in the Top 25. Bedard, right before his injury, IMO, had a prospect status similar to Tillman and Matusz and ahead of Arrieta.

Regarding the larger point, I believe we will have a much better rated minor league system entering 2009 than the time period in question. Not only that, but the quality players are at a high level so there should be a better likelihood that they will contribute in the majors.

[Stotle]

I do not believe this is correct.

I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong, but I believe Loewen was a BA Top 50 at one point - putting him at Arrieta's level, IMO.

Bedard certainly would have been if he had not been injured. Bedard was about to make a list as the best or second best LHP prospect in the minors at mid-season when he was injured. So, while he was not high on a BA Top 100 list, that is solely due to timing and the injury - if Bedard had been healthy the entire time, he likely would have been a BA Top 40 player - if not in the Top 25. Bedard, right before his injury, IMO, had a prospect status similar to Tillman and Matusz and ahead of Arrieta.

Regarding the larger point, I believe we will have a much better rated minor league system entering 2009 than the time period in question. Not only that, but the quality players are at a high level so there should be a better likelihood that they will contribute in the majors.

Lowen ranks according to BA (Top 100 Prospect Lists)

2006 - #45

2004 - #13

[geschinger]

We are several moves away from being a contending team. This one move will not make us a contender. Therefore, we should not make this one move.

By that logic, the team will always be stuck in a cycle of losing. At some point, you have to make the first move and then hope that you can continue to make the right moves to build a contender.

Its not always the best idea to start off with the first move as essentially the biggest move, but the Tex in Baltimore scenario is one in which I think that would be a good way to go about things.

I agree with the bolded part and do think it fits with Teix as well as anyone else. We should be in the mode of trying to acquire as much talent as possible no matter what positions they play. I think we'd be better off having that $20m available to target specific needs that we have when we are close. The opportunity cost of going crazy for Teix may prevent us from having the resources to do what we need to do to go from winning team to championship caliber team.

[geschinger]

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".

The buy it approach can certainly work in the short term (Detroit / Marlins) but can it work towards long term success?

[Lucky Jim]

I guess I'm confused. Magglio Ordonez was signed before the 2005 season. Verlander had never made a start at that point. Nate Robertson had a full year behind him with a 4.90 ERA. Bonderman had two full years behind him with an ERA over 5.

None of these guys were "proven" and the big name in the group was Verlander who'd never made a start and was over a full year away.

Verlander is a good example of how finding a #1 moves all the other guys down in the rotation and makes them all better because of it IMO.

I guess I don't see a lot of difference between us and the Tigers. Insert Liz and Olson for Robertson and Bonderman and put 3 potential starters behind them in Tillman, Arrieta, and Matusz instead of 1 (Verlander). It looks to me like what the Tigers did was debatably more risky than what we're discussing, not less.

I'm not sure how you can compare Bonderman and Robertson to Liz and Olson. I'm really not. I mean, both were (more or less) league average the year before with 4.50ish ERAs. And both had thrown approximately 190 innings the year before. I don't think Liz and Olsen are unsalvageable, but they're not as reliable as the Bonderman and Robertson.

More importantly, the Tigers got lucky. All of those guys outperformed expectations. Any one of our prospects could - rather than blossoming - have a Bucholz-like regression.

We have Guthrie. And then we have Arrieta, Matusz and Tillman.

I don't think they're move was a prudent one - the Tigers - though it briefly paid off.

Quick question: if we don't sign Teix do we trade Markakis et al? Because your post would seem to imply that there are no other options.

[Lucky Jim]

The buy it approach can certainly work in the short term (Detroit / Marlins) but can it work towards long term success?

This is the question. I don't like the odds. Apparently others do. There are cogent arguments on both sides.

[LookitsPuck]

Our farm ranking via Baseball America:

2005: 25th

2006: 12th

2007: 22nd

2008: 24th

Baseball America's Organization Talent Rankings that is.

FWIW, the Rays were #1 in 2007. 10th in 2006, 9th in 2005....

[bej6789]

I have always respected him, but anyone trying to argue that there should be two classes of baseball teams, and that somehow is GOOD for baseball, is missing the big picture. It's almost like we're "tampering" somehow to try and improve our team by signing a player that one of the big market teams covet. There is a team here, and we're trying to compete. If the owner is comfortable writing the check, and he will help us win games, that's all that matters. Bow out? Go to hell. The financial inequity and subsequent competitive imbalance is maddening for all but the select few. But to have the media pile on and tell us to go back to the hull of the ship while the first class passengers light fire to the excess life boats to stay warm.....well, that just pisses me off.

"You must spread some rep around"

Beautiful post, all around. Signing Mark Teixeira makes the Orioles better in all facets of a baseball organization. One can't argue that the difference between a team with and without Tex isn't substantial both now and 3 years from now. I agree winning brings fans, but darn does he miss the point after that. Tex allows for the Orioles to go around to other free agents (including their own) and say "we're serious." Whether its Brob and Kakis, or future free agents... signing a player of Tex's caliber to the kind of money it will take shows that the Orioles are serious about winning. Olney should bow out from his Orioles analysis if he isn't going to do a thorough job. It must be the rust showing being as he hasn't written an article of substance about the Orioles in quite some time. Take one look at the Orioles payroll both now and two years down the road and say with a straight face that this decreases flexibility.

[geschinger]

Do you think we won't have a need at 1B when we get close?

I don't know... If we're doing everything we can to obtain as much talent (regardless of position) I think it's much more likely we find a solution for 1b than it is for a lot of other positions.

If you do think we'll have a need at 1B, do you think we will fill it for less than 12 mil/year or so?

Certainly. I think there are all kinds of options out there if we are creative... Take some chances on guys who have talent but have struggled (Carlos Pena) Take some chances like the Red Sox did on players who had talent but for one reason or another didn't click with their previous teams(Ortiz,Millar), make trade for undervalued young players like the Padres did with Adrian Gonzalez... I think we would be much more likely to have success with approaches like those finding a 1b than we would with some other positions.

[Lucky Jim]

I guess I'm confused. Magglio Ordonez was signed before the 2005 season. Verlander had never made a start at that point. Nate Robertson had a full year behind him with a 4.90 ERA. Bonderman had two full years behind him with an ERA over 5.

None of these guys were "proven" and the big name in the group was Verlander who'd never made a start and was over a full year away.

Verlander is a good example of how finding a #1 moves all the other guys down in the rotation and makes them all better because of it IMO.

I guess I don't see a lot of difference between us and the Tigers. Insert Liz and Olson for Robertson and Bonderman and put 3 potential starters behind them in Tillman, Arrieta, and Matusz instead of 1 (Verlander). It looks to me like what the Tigers did was debatably more risky than what we're discussing, not less.

Honestly - I wasn't thinking of the timing of the Magglio contract. They did indeed go in on him earlier than I would counsel as wise.

I guess I could explain it as an example of what I've been counseling with Teix. They got him at a discount because of the injury - or at least felt they were exploiting a market undervaluation.

I was all for Teix when it looked to be the case. At upward of $20m a year over 8-10 years, I don't think that's the case.

[Stotle]

The buy it approach can certainly work in the short term (Detroit / Marlins) but can it work towards long term success?

Sure, you just need to buy the right pieces -- pieces that will be useful for a majority of the contract. You also have to select which of your young above-average talents you sign and which you move for more prospective young talent. BAL should be able to hover in the $90-120 mios payroll range with a perennial Top 5 (or at least top 10) minor league organization once everything is up and running.

It would be very challenging and would require good, hard work -- but it is certainly possible.

[Stotle]

Our farm ranking via Baseball America:

2005: 25th

2006: 12th

2007: 22nd

2008: 24th

Baseball America's Organization Talent Rankings that is.

FWIW, the Rays were #1 in 2007. 10th in 2006, 9th in 2005....

I believe those rankings are a little off -- wasn't BAL in the 15-20 range last year?

[LookitsPuck]

The Orioles most certainly need to go after those low risk, high reward hitting guys, i.e. a Carlos Pena, Jack Cust, David Ortiz type. And actually play them. I fully understand these guys are diamond in the rough fellas, but at the same time I'd much prefer to give these guys a shot than someone like a Jay Payton or a Kevin Millar. For example, I would not be opposed to seeing Salazar play a lot more than he did last year. Not saying Salazar is of the caliber of Pena, Cust, or Ortiz, btw. The Orioles just need to take chances on some hitters. If that means playing guys like Montanez, Salazar more, than so be it.

[Stotle]

Honestly - I wasn't thinking of the timing of the Magglio contract. They did indeed go in on him earlier than I would counsel as wise.

I guess I could explain it as an example of what I've been counseling with Teix. They got him at a discount because of the injury - or at least felt they were exploiting a market undervaluation.

I was all for Teix when it looked to be the case. At upward of $20m a year over 8-10 years, I don't think that's the case.

To play devil's advocate, you could argue that Teix considering BAL for personal reasons (if true) could be a case of taking advantage of the market. Even though it's on a larger scale, price-wise, it may be a bargain compared to what you'd have to pay a comparable talent with no area ties.

In no way am I saying this is absolutely true, but there's an argument in there, somewhere.

[OrioleBird79]

Our farm ranking via Baseball America:

2005: 25th

2006: 12th

2007: 22nd

2008: 24th

Baseball America's Organization Talent Rankings that is.

FWIW, the Rays were #1 in 2007. 10th in 2006, 9th in 2005....

What is our rank for this coming year? I would guess 8-12