Buster Olney misses the point

[hoosiers]

According to the BA handbook, we were ranked:

2005: 25th

2006: 12th

2007: 17th

2008: 16th

The 08 number is the Handbook as the poster acknowledges.

The ranking is not reflective of the prospects received for Bedard which surely would have kicked us up a couple of teams.

[hoosiers]

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.

Dave, I think the current crop is stronger at the top and significantly deeper than in 04. The top four in 04 were Loewen, Maine, Markakis and Majewski - all fine prospects, but none had played above Frederick at the time whereas Tillman and Wieters have spent time at AA and Arrieta would have pitched at AA if not for the Olympics. The overall talent is a decent pull for the current crop (with Arrieta well ahead of Majewski from a rating perspective) while the entire 08 group is more advanced.

In the next batch - 5-15, the 04 group is also decent with major league time earned by Riley, Bedard, Fontenot, Bautista, Ray and DCab. This group also had some traded for talent in Hannaman and Bautista, already mentioned, plus Levinski at 16. Not a bad group, but, at the end of the day, an all-star pitcher (Bedard), a very strong bullpen arm (Ray) and a utility guy who may get an everyday shot in Fontenot. By contrast, the 08 group contains several number one picks and league top 20 guys like Snyder, Reimold, Rowell and other traded for talent like Mickolio and Patton (former BA Top 100 talent).

The weakness of the 04 group was in the depth of 15-30 like Don Levinski, Eddy Rodriguez, Forystek, Lorenzo Scott, Walter Young, Carlos Perez, Tripper Johnson, Mike Huggins, Eli Whiteside, Darnell McDonald, Jose Morban, Tim Raines Jr, Richard Stahl, Aaron Rakers and Bryan Bass. That group includes 6 guys 24 or older (lack of depth, faint hopes for former number one picks to regain prospect status). The current group of 15-30 will have significantly better chances of yielding an everyday position player or starting pitcher - it is difficult to imagine the current group performing worse.

I appreciate the attempt to brink some perspective to the discussion, as the 04 group had several outstanding talents, but, IMO, the current crop is stronger and deeper than 04.

[Hallas]

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.

So our prospects have failed in the past. What does this prove?

At some point you have to take a chance to improve your team. We have pitchers that have a shot at helping us in 2010. Is it possible that they will fail? Sure. But we know that there is a practically zero chance that we will develop a first baseman in that time. We also know that the free-agent possibilities over the next two years aren't particularly palatable. So we either take a gamble on our pitching, or essentially lock ourselves into a perpetual cycle of player development. While our situation isn't perfect by any means, there's enough out there to be hopeful.

And the reason we're not talking too heavily about trading Tex in the future is because we're still hopeful that things will work out. There's still an excellent chance that in 3 years if we fall flat on our faces, we will be able to trade him for prospects to reload.

[Old Beta]

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

To focus so heavily on the rankings alone misses a lot too--for example, character. It doesn't begin to factor in the non-professional approaches to baseball of Riley, Matos, and RLopez.

The poor attitudes of Riley and Matos have been well documented here in the past. Lopez was perceived as a guy whose goal was to be a ML starting pitcher, without the drive to do what it took to get better and stay good every year. His best years came when he was trying to prove something. When he got what he wanted--a spot in the rotation--his results suffered. Even a mediocre ML career at mediocre salaries is enough to keep you rich for life.

But all of that came when you were probably not paying too much attention to the Orioles.

There is a light year's worth of difference in the character of some of those guys (note I said some) with what seems to be that of the ones we have now.

[alskor]

Is Olney's point that only good teams that are a big bat away from being championship-caliber should be considering Tex?

Is his point that only teams that have the financial clout to support $120+M payrolls should be considering Tex?

Or is his point that only the media darlings like NYY BOS and ANA should be considering Tex?

Either of the first two are valid and easily defensible positions.

The third is obviously pretty offensive, but I doubt that accurately reflects the point he's making here.

You nailed it. Out of the possible explanations people here seem to be consistently choosing the least likely one - and the one that makes the least sense. Why would they do this? Its the only explanation that fits the predetermined conclusion that the Orioles must sign Mark Teixeira. So they choose one unlikely explanation after another to buttress the absurd conclusion they started with.

Fwiw, the rest of the country is picking the Sox and Angels as favorites for the same reason - because it really does only makes sense for a championship caliber team with a big payroll to hand a mega deal to Mark Teixeira, a 29 year old 1B.

Now, if people here still want Teixeira - well, that's fine. He's a hometown star and its fun to watch him play baseball... BUT don't try to rationalize this as making a ton of baseball sense. Just be honest with yourself. Look in the mirror and say: "I know this doesnt make a lot of sense for the team, but I would really like the Orioles to sign Teixeira despite that." Then you can stop blaming the national media, Roch, etc... for every piece of evidence that comes out and further unravels the elaborate lie in your head that it somehow makes sense to give Tex 200 million. :rolleyestf:

[davearm]

So our prospects have failed in the past. What does this prove?

At some point you have to take a chance to improve your team. We have pitchers that have a shot at helping us in 2010. Is it possible that they will fail? Sure. But we know that there is a practically zero chance that we will develop a first baseman in that time. We also know that the free-agent possibilities over the next two years aren't particularly palatable. So we either take a gamble on our pitching, or essentially lock ourselves into a perpetual cycle of player development. While our situation isn't perfect by any means, there's enough out there to be hopeful.

And the reason we're not talking too heavily about trading Tex in the future is because we're still hopeful that things will work out. There's still an excellent chance that in 3 years if we fall flat on our faces, we will be able to trade him for prospects to reload.

Once again, I get the pro-Tex argument just fine. No need to repeat it to me.

The counterargument is that the same basic plan has been tried elsewhere, and history shows the failures outpace the successes by a wide margin.

And speaking of history, I doubt you want to look back and see what has happened to teams needing to deal away a player with a ginormous contract. Hampton, ARod, Manny Ramirez... all ugly situations.

[Lucky Jim]

You nailed it. Out of the possible explanations people here seem to be consistently choosing the least likely one - and the one that makes the least sense. Why would they do this? Its the only explanation that fits the predetermined conclusion that the Orioles must sign Mark Teixeira. So they choose one unlikely explanation after another to buttress the absurd conclusion they started with.

Fwiw, the rest of the country is picking the Sox and Angels as favorites for the same reason - because it really does only makes sense for a championship caliber team with a big payroll to hand a mega deal to Mark Teixeira, a 29 year old 1B.

Now, if people here still want Teixeira - well, that's fine. He's a hometown star and its fun to watch him play baseball... BUT don't try to rationalize this as making a ton of baseball sense. Just be honest with yourself. Look in the mirror and say: "I know this doesnt make a lot of sense for the team, but I would really like the Orioles to sign Teixeira despite that." Then you can stop blaming the national media, Roch, etc... for every piece of evidence that comes out and further unravels the elaborate lie in your head that it somehow makes sense to give Tex 200 million. :rolleyestf:

While I think your tone has been overly dismissive in this thread, I do tend to agree with you - now that the bidding has reached its astonishing heights.

We could make an argument that going after Teixeira made fiscal sense when we were operating under the idea that we had a market (geographical) advantage, that meant we were getting SOME kind of discount (even if that discount was merely not paying an additional security based on our "bad credit", i.e., decade of losing.)

It's difficult to see that we're really enjoying any kind of market advantage at this point - we're allowed in the conversation because we're willing to overpay on a level with everyone else.

I don't begrudge folks for wanting Teix here - and even I have the giddy excitement you get from watching a poker player go "all-in". But going all-in early is rarely the most prudent move a player can make.

So, I think our rationalization is somewhat threadbare: you CAN rationalize it, because there's a depth of talent on the horizon we haven't seen for a while. But it's still a risk-laden scenario, requiring a lot of assumptions (even things we don't consider assumptions...like that Wieters will provide above-average offense).

I chastised Dave because I think he's deeply mistaken in thinking this team is set up in a manner similar to the 2004 team. It's not. That said, while we've got better infrastructure, we're not there yet.

I guess I'm in the lucky position of feeling like I win either way: if we get Teixeira I'll be excited, as I'll have one more very good player to watch on the O's. If we don't, I'll be relieved.

[Fan4Life]

Once again, I get the pro-Tex argument just fine. No need to repeat it to me.

The counterargument is that the same basic plan has been tried elsewhere, and history shows the failures outpace the successes by a wide margin.

And speaking of history, I doubt you want to look back and see what has happened to teams needing to deal away a player with a ginormous contract. Hampton, ARod, Manny Ramirez... all ugly situations.

For DaveArm assumptions See *** Below

***Teix is not a worthy investment if his dollars will prevent continued investment both now and in the future***

This isn't to say you aren't correct, but it appears to be a perspective you are coming from that may not be known when making your posts. I agree with it. The question is, is it a correct assumption?

[davearm]

For DaveArm assumptions See *** Below

***Teix is not a worthy investment if his dollars will prevent continued investment both now and in the future***

This isn't to say you aren't correct, but it appears to be a perspective you are coming from that may not be known when making your posts. I agree with it. The question is, is it a correct assumption?

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with this assumption.

Unless the O's are increasing their operating budget by the full amount of Teixeira's contract, then it's a mathematical certainty that some dollars will have to be cut elsewhere.

[Fan4Life]

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with this assumption.

Unless the O's are increasing their operating budget by the full amount of Teixeira's contract, then it's a mathematical certainty that some dollars will have to be cut elsewhere.

Looks like we have about $30ish million committed for 2010 and beyond. Seems to me there should be room for Teix, extensions for BRob and Nick, and some room left over to add some bridge-the-gap pitchers now.

[alskor]

Looks like we have about $30ish million committed for 2010 and beyond. Seems to me there should be room for Teix, extensions for BRob and Nick, and some room left over to add some bridge-the-gap pitchers now.

That's exactly the problem. Tex and BRob in their 30's and Markakis... and some bridge-the-gap pitchers... whoopee...

[Fan4Life]

That's exactly the problem. Tex and BRob in their 30's and Markakis... and some bridge-the-gap pitchers... whoopee...

You're welcome to see that as a problem. I see it as a plan coming together. Am I happy I need to wait until 2010-2011 to compete, NO. But the FO is making a serious effort to put a different team on the field from last years (mainly pitching and Teix) which is progress to me.

[Lucky Jim]

That's exactly the problem. Tex and BRob in their 30's and Markakis... and some bridge-the-gap pitchers... whoopee...

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Obviously, we also have Wieters. And Jones.

And Wieters and Jones are two of the most highly-regarded up-the-middle prospects in the last few years.

[alskor]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Obviously, we also have Wieters. And Jones.

And Wieters and Jones are two of the most highly-regarded up-the-middle prospects in the last few years.

My point is only having the resources left to sign some bridge the gap pitchers is a bad thing. Probably means O's arent winning anything, unless you think Tex-Wieters-Markakis-Roberts-Jones-Guthrie and stop-gap pitchers are enough.

[Lucky Jim]

My point is only having the resources left to sign some bridge the gap pitchers is a bad thing. Probably means O's arent winning anything, unless you think Tex-Wieters-Markakis-Roberts-Jones-Guthrie and stop-gap pitchers are enough.

I've never heard any scout or analyst claim that Tillman, Matusz and Arrieta are "stop-gap" pitchers. Quite the opposite: all - barring catastrophic injury - have ceilings of front-of-the-rotation guys with mid-rotation floors.

Behind that, you've got a solid number of potential #3-5s in Patton, Spoone (both injured, but well-regarded), Hernandez, Patton, Berkens, Britton (a sleeper), as well as sleepers in the lower minors like Bundy and Drake.

Pitching is not the problem here. MacPhail's philosophy doesn't require "money" to sign pitchers because he thinks that it's bad risk management.

You seemed pretty well-informed up until that point. Do you really not know this? Or are you choosing to ignore it?