Buster Olney misses the point

[Stotle]

Maybe but I'm not so sure. He doesn't have the same kind of cushion either... He's not an elite offensive player like a Manny Ramirez or an ARod to where if you sign them to a ten year contract you could withstand a 10% drop in production and still have a contract that isn't awful. If Teix has a 10% drop in production at 33 or 34 years of age it makes it a horrible contract to have on the books and I know I'm in the minority but I do think there is a legitimate chance of obvious decline as he approaches his mid 30s.

What I was getting at is that the rate of decline tends to be less for 1B since there is generally less wear-and-tear on the body. Same reason 2Bs tend to fall-off dramatically around age 32.

[geschinger]

What I was getting at is that the rate of decline tends to be less for 1B since there is generally less wear-and-tear on the body. Same reason 2Bs tend to fall-off dramatically around age 32.

I agree w/that but there are also a lot of 1b that have declined early in their 30s as well. Not as many in recent years but the one thing that troubles me about concluding anything from that is not knowing how many players extended their productive years chemically.

[Stotle]

I agree w/that but there are also a lot of 1b that have declined early in their 30s as well. Not as many in recent years but the one thing that troubles me about concluding anything from that is not knowing how many players extended their productive years chemically.

Yeah, there is no guarantee. For me, it's more a case of "if you're going to take a risk, Teixeira would appear to be the type of FA you take that risk on" if you are the Orioles.

[Sports Guy]

I agree w/that but there are also a lot of 1b that have declined early in their 30s as well. Not as many in recent years but the one thing that troubles me about concluding anything from that is not knowing how many players extended their productive years chemically.

Let's say Tex signs a 10 year deal and in years 7-10, he gives us an 810ish OPS and above average but not GG level defense.

Let's say in the first 4 years, he was elite(similar to this past year) and in years 5-6, he was above average but not quite elite.

Would this end up being a good contract IYO?(figure 10/200 for discussions purposes)

[geschinger]

Yeah, there is no guarantee. For me, it's more a case of "if you're going to take a risk, Teixeira would appear to be the type of FA you take that risk on" if you are the Orioles.

I agree to a point although his pricetag has shot past what I consider to be a worthwhile risk. As I have said numerous times I believe the market for FA is cyclical like any other market. To use an analogy, I would argue the current market is not all that different than say the oil market gave us $4.00 gas. Signing Teix is filling up the tank for the next decade at today's prices when if we are patient we can get similar production at a fraction of the price. Buy low, sell high... Buying Teix is buying high and from day one there is little chance it'll be a good deal for us long term.

[osfan83]

1. The argument that spending all this money on Tex will inhibit our ability to spend when we need additional parts is flawed. A: Tex would be a big part of actually getting us to the point of being "close", and B: What difference does it make if we spend the money now or 3 years from now? The payroll at that time will be the same, the only difference is, now there is a power hitting gold glove first baseman who is willing to play here available, we jsut don't know if there will be one of those available in 3 years.

2. I don't think we can build exclusivley through our system, and spending money on lesser FA's doesn't help much either. I can't think of a better way to send $20 million. I wouldn't want 4 $5 million dollar a year FA's, and I wouldn't want to risk that monet on big money pitching FA's.

[geschinger]

Let's say Tex signs a 10 year deal and in years 7-10, he gives us an 810ish OPS and above average but not GG level defense.

Let's say in the first 4 years, he was elite(similar to this past year) and in years 5-6, he was above average but not quite elite.

Would this end up being a good contract IYO?(figure 10/200 for discussions purposes)

Define above average?

Here is an likely scenario that I could see if we're lucky and he stays healthy...

Age 29-31 - avg .910 OPS

Age 32-34 - avg .860 OPS

Age 35-38 - avg .810 OPS

Even with his defense that does not come anywhere close to being worth $200m IMO.

Now imagine instead at 32-34 he's an .825 OPS player and at 35-38 he's a sub .800 OPS player. Then I think it becomes a truly awful contract to pay $200m for that kind of production at 1b.

[Fan4Life]

I agree to a point although his pricetag has shot past what I consider to be a worthwhile risk. As I have said numerous times I believe the market for FA is cyclical like any other market. To use an analogy, I would argue the current market is not all that different than say the oil market gave us $4.00 gas. Signing Teix is filling up the tank for the next decade at today's prices when if we are patient we can get similar production at a fraction of the price. Buy low, sell high... Buying Teix is buying high and from day one there is little chance it'll be a good deal for us long term.

I agree with you theory. If there was a class on "How to Build a winner in MLB" this is how they'd teach it. However, considering how many teams have been trying to apply this philosphy without success leads me to conclude that in practice what is being taught isn't quite the same. If an Ardian Gonzales was that easy to by low on and/or sell high on, everyone would have an AGon at 1B. The fact that these guys costs so much as FA's is directly related to the scarcety of their talent.

[coachkuhn]

Buster and pretty much the whole ESPN crew are sompletely biased. They have little to nothing good to say about Baltimore. Of course, how long has it been since we have given them anything good to talk about.

How is it ever wrong for any team to make big offers to very good players in the hopes of getting better?

This team needs Tex and not only will it make us better but it will also keep the Yanks/Sox from getting better. 10 years/200 million is not too much

[LookitsPuck]

Is the poster sure of this information?

2005: 25th http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-talent-rankings/2005/26224.html

2006: 12th http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-talent-rankings/2006/26854.html

2007: 17th (subscription)

2008: 16th (subscription)

Sorry was looking at the wrong chart for 2K7/2K8. Wasn't Baseball America.

[davearm]

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.

Bedard was probably at Arrieta-level at one point, but I'm sure the rest weren't ranked nearly as well. The fact that you listed two relievers and a guy we picked up off waivers should tell you all you need to know.

In 2003-2004, Reimold would have been one of our top 3 prospects. Our second tier guys like David Hernandez, Reimold, Berken, Bergeson, etc... would have compared favorably to our top ranked prospects back then. Not to mention that we currently have Markakis and AJ in the majors. There wasn't a single young established position player on the team when we signed Tejada.

I don't think it is debatable at all.

I've posted on this topic a few times in the last few weeks. Rather than regurgitating those points I'll just point to them.

Regarding Tillman/Matusz/Arrieta being better than anything the O's have had in the minors lately:

In 2008, Chris Tillman ranked #67, Arrieta was outside the top 100, and Matusz was not yet drafted at the time the rankings were published.

Other O's pitching prospects that have been ranked in BA's top 100, just in the ten years prior to 2008:

Erbe (#78, 2007)

Beato (#99, 2007)

Loewen (#45, 2006; #13 2004)

Penn (#81, 2006; #94 2005)

Maine (#54, 2004)

Bautista (#59, 2004)

Bedard (#90, 2002)

Riley (#15, 2000, #19, 1999)

Ponson (#78, 1998)

I count 4 guys with rankings higher than Tillman's #67, including Riley, Loewen, and Maine. link to thread

Regarding the State of the Orioles in 2004 vs 2008:

This is the same story as it was entering 2004, when Tejada/Lopez/Palmiero were brought in! The situation is nearly identical. Only the names have changed.

Then, the hot up-and-coming pitchers were named Loewen, Riley, Maine, Ainsworth, Cabrera, Ponson, Roddy Lopez, Jorge Julio, and surely some others I'm forgetting. The only one that became worth a darn to the O's was BJ Ryan, and back then he was an also-ran on this list. Today it's a "big three" of Matusz, Arrieta, Tillman.

The young, core players then were Roberts, Bigbie, Matos, Gibbons, Cust, etc. Well guess what, one of those five panned out. Today it's Markakis, Jones, Wieters.

You're surely going to say that today's core is better than yesteryear's core. But that would ignore the fact that folks were just as excited about that nucleus then, as they are about this nucleus now. If anything, the O's were much closer to contention then than they are now. link to thread

As was quickly pointed out, the above listing did not include Bedard.

I admire your optimism vatech but from where I'm sitting the situation today isn't really all that different from what it was four years ago.

[TonySoprano]

Couple that with the fact that he said on the radio this morning that Tex signing with the Red Sox "would be good for baseball".

What Olney and his pals at ESPN want is for the Yankees to get involved so this could be ARod II, and rerun the same trite script they used ad nauseum last offseason. How dare the pesky Orioles and Nats screw up another battle scenario in their beloved rivalry.

[Lucky Jim]

I've posted on this topic a few times in the last few weeks. Rather than regurgitating those points I'll just point to them.

Regarding Tillman/Matusz/Arrieta being better than anything the O's have had in the minors lately:

Regarding the State of the Orioles in 2004 vs 2008:

As was quickly pointed out, the above listing did not include Bedard.

I admire your optimism vatech but from where I'm sitting the situation today isn't really all that different from what it was four years ago.

Honestly, I've largely agreed with you in this thread, but your response to VT is way-too-simplistic.

First, having "ranked" prospects in the past is fine. But at no time - as your list indicates - did we have ranked prospects in the numbers necessary to - truly - be optimistic. We may have been optimistic, but not reasonably optmistic. Only Riley and Loewen - a solid 4-5 years apart - ever made the top-50 among those players. Now, we have three legitimate pitchers who are top-50, including two who are top-20 by at least one (fairly unreliable) ranking.

Second, our enthusiasm is not a very good metric for the similarity of the situations.

None of those position players - including Roberts - in your above list compares to Jones or Wieters (or Markakis). Not even close. Our enthusiasm aside (why would you even use that as a metric?)

[nadecir]

I agree w/that but there are also a lot of 1b that have declined early in their 30s as well. Not as many in recent years but the one thing that troubles me about concluding anything from that is not knowing how many players extended their productive years chemically.

It is kind of creepy that the second most similar batter in Baseball Reference comparables for Mark Teixeira is arguably the biggest bust in Orioles history: namely Glenn Davis. I know the comparables really don't mean anything, but it is a bit of a strange coincidence when we think about Tex.

On the other hand, Teixiera's most similar batters through age 28 all seemed to continue to hit pretty well into their mid 30's, with the exception being Kent Hrbek and Richie Sexson.

[davearm]

You don't expect Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta to all be top 75 MiLB prospects this year? You don't expect Tillman to be top 25? Aren't your stats a year old at this point?

I suppose Maine, Bautista, and Loewen in 2004 are somewhat comparable to the current group, but I feel this group is still ahead of that 2004 group when you compare the levels they've played. Loewen was in low A ball when he was ranked that high.

Riley was as good a prospect as Tillman for sure and I surely hope Tillman turns out better, but Riley was basically all we had at that point.

I just don't agree with your points in the threads you've copied. I can't give a lot of creedence to a comparison of Markakis, AJ, and Wieters to Bigbie, Matos, and Gibbons. They aren't at all comparable when you look at their minor league stats IMO. Markakis has already had a better career than all those guys combined. Wieters has done things in ONE year in the minors that these other guys have never even approached.

Sorry, I don't think you're being even handed in your comparisons. I think you're being overly pessimistic.

I'm sure this will be overly simplistic too, but my take is the '04 O's had more younger guys with (perceived) legit longterm potential playing at the ML level, but less in the prospect pipeline. For instance guys like Julio and Lopez, who have long since been forgotten, were once ROY candidates.

So to focus so heavily on the state of the O's farm system now vs. then really misses a lot, IMO.