Buster Olney misses the point

[Fan4Life]

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.

Probably not winning anything when?

[TakebackOPACY]

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?

Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta are pitchers. The floor of their potential is career debilitating injury.

While very different than Matusz, Jeff Niemann is an interesting comp in one respect. He was considered to have a full repertoire of major league ready pitches right out of college... in 2004.

Which brings us back to the argument that you made, Jim, concerning why going all-in before the hand develops is such a risky move.

[Lucky Jim]

Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta are pitchers. The floor of their potential is career debilitating injury.

While very different than Matusz, Jeff Niemann is an interesting comp in one respect. He was considered to have a full repertoire of major league ready pitches right out of college... in 2004.

Which brings us back to the argument that you made, Jim, concerning why going all-in before the hand develops is such a risky move.

Well, I did mention, pretty explicitly, "catastrophic injury" - it's always a risk. That's the reason we DON'T go after FA pitchers, though, not really support for an indictment of our organization as having no pitching capital. As I noted, the real strength of our system is the intriguing guys like Erbe and Spoone and Hernandez (and even Bergesen and Berken) who lie in wait behind the front line, all of whom figure as excellent insurance (with solid upside) behind the front line.

The problem I have here is that Dave and this other guy (Boston troll?) are seriously undervaluing the talent in our system. Meanwhile, those arguing that the signing is a good idea are seriously miscalculating the imminence of our deriving ML value from these guys.

Both sides are wrong. This is a risky move, to be sure. But we're not - exactly - retrofitting our arguments to fit our desires...the arguments are there.

[davearm]

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 may be true, but simple common sense would indicate that committing 20 to 25% of your payroll resources to one player is going to require some sacrifices somewhere else.

Maybe those sacrifices are justifiable. I'm not really arguing they are or aren't. Just pointing out that they're inevitable.

[davearm]

Well, I did mention, pretty explicitly, "catastrophic injury" - it's always a risk. That's the reason we DON'T go after FA pitchers, though, not really support for an indictment of our organization as having no pitching capital. As I noted, the real strength of our system is the intriguing guys like Erbe and Spoone and Hernandez (and even Bergesen and Berken) who lie in wait behind the front line, all of whom figure as excellent insurance (with solid upside) behind the front line.

The problem I have here is that Dave and this other guy (Boston troll?) are seriously undervaluing the talent in our system. Meanwhile, those arguing that the signing is a good idea are seriously miscalculating the imminence of our deriving ML value from these guys.

Both sides are wrong. This is a risky move, to be sure. But we're not - exactly - retrofitting our arguments to fit our desires...the arguments are there.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

Let's not parade it about as fact though, and spin it as you're right and I'm wrong.

[Lucky Jim]

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

Let's not parade it about as fact though, and spin it as you're right and I'm wrong.

Obviously it's an opinion. Sheesh. I believe, however, that I am right. And I'm quite sure taht you are, however, wrong - to the extent you think that 2004 and 2008 are essentially the same. "Objective" as you are.

Look, I've supported your point throughout this thread - up until your attempt to mark 2004 and 2008 as interchangeable. You keep doing that. And you're wrong to.

[alskor]

Well, I did mention, pretty explicitly, "catastrophic injury" - it's always a risk. That's the reason we DON'T go after FA pitchers, though, not really support for an indictment of our organization as having no pitching capital. As I noted, the real strength of our system is the intriguing guys like Erbe and Spoone and Hernandez (and even Bergesen and Berken) who lie in wait behind the front line, all of whom figure as excellent insurance (with solid upside) behind the front line.

The problem I have here is that Dave and this other guy (Boston troll?) are seriously undervaluing the talent in our system. Meanwhile, those arguing that the signing is a good idea are seriously miscalculating the imminence of our deriving ML value from these guys.

Both sides are wrong. This is a risky move, to be sure. But we're not - exactly - retrofitting our arguments to fit our desires...the arguments are there.

Dude, Im not undervaluing the talent in the system - Im saying the AGES dont match up. Tex is 29 and BRob 31. Tillman is 21, Matusz is 22, Arrieta is 23 and Wieters is 23. I love those prospects - but by the time theyre hitting their prime (27ish-32ish) and the team is ready to make a real championship run - McPhail will be stuck with Tex and Roberts on big money deals paying for past performance and Tex and BRob will be past THEIR primes - AND the amount of payroll tied up in those two might very well keep the team from acquiring the missing piece marquee free agent that could put the team over the top in 2013.

The Orioles need to get younger - not older. My position is no move should be made that limits team flexibility in 2012 and beyond... and why? BECAUSE THOSE PROSPECTS LOOK SO GOOD. The front office has a sacred duty not to screw around with the ceiling of the 2012+ teams because of those guys...

[Lucky Jim]

Dude, Im not undervaluing the talent in the system - Im saying the AGES dont match up. Tex is 29 and BRob 31. Tillman is 21, Matusz is 22, Arrieta is 23 and Wieters is 23. I love those prospects - but by the time theyre hitting their prime (27ish-32ish) and the team is ready to make a real championship run - McPhail will be stuck with Tex and Roberts on big money deals paying for past performance and Tex and BRob will be past THEIR primes - AND the amount of payroll tied up in those two might very well keep the team from acquiring the missing piece marquee free agent that could put the team over the top in 2013.

The Orioles need to get younger - not older. My position is no move should be made that limits team flexibility in 2012 and beyond... and why? BECAUSE THOSE PROSPECTS LOOK SO GOOD. The front office has a sacred duty not to screw around with the ceiling of the 2012+ teams because of those guys...

I've made largely the same arguement in the past. And even - to a degree - in this thread. I don't think there's any screwing around with the ceiling, here. I think this is a one-time, context-specific allocation of funds.

I think you're wrong to think that our pitchers need to be "in their prime" in order to compete, as well. Instead, I think it far more likely that we compete while these guys are still fairly young. Teixeira shouldn't become dead weight on the back end of the contract - performance-wise. His approach should point to a .820+ OPS with good defense even when he's in decline.

We've got another thread going on here about PA meddling. A lot of us agree that IF Angelos tightens the budget once signing Teix - if, indeed, he allows his own obsession with Teix foreclose future signings, then it's a bad outcome.

But there's no guarantee of that.

[alskor]

I've made largely the same arguement in the past. And even - to a degree - in this thread. I don't think there's any screwing around with the ceiling, here. I think this is a one-time, context-specific allocation of funds.

I think you're wrong to think that our pitchers need to be "in their prime" in order to compete, as well. Instead, I think it far more likely that we compete while these guys are still fairly young. Teixeira shouldn't become dead weight on the back end of the contract - performance-wise. His approach should point to a .820+ OPS with good defense even when he's in decline.

We've got another thread going on here about PA meddling. A lot of us agree that IF Angelos tightens the budget once signing Teix - if, indeed, he allows his own obsession with Teix foreclose future signings, then it's a bad outcome.

But there's no guarantee of that.

I said "championship run," not "compete." And Ive seen you arguing the same thing, which is why I didnt understand your last post.

Its important to remember that - other than Wieters, who believe will be pretty much a ready made superstar - the other guys will in all likelihood need a year or two to get adjusted to MLB. As you say, Tex wont be terrible 5 or 6 years from now - but he most likely wont be worth what he's getting paid. The value would be in the first few years of his contract.

As for the team salary - sure, PA could increase payroll after Tex, but pretty much every piece of evidence we have points to the opposite... especially if Tex doesnt equal immediate success in 09 -which he almost certainly wont - either on the field or at the box office.

[Stotle]

Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta are pitchers. The floor of their potential is career debilitating injury.

While very different than Matusz, Jeff Niemann is an interesting comp in one respect. He was considered to have a full repertoire of major league ready pitches right out of college... in 2004.

Which brings us back to the argument that you made, Jim, concerning why going all-in before the hand develops is such a risky move.

I know you sort of allude to this, but Niemann and Matusz aren't really comparable at all. Niemann had ML ready pitches in that he commanded them and they had solid-AVG ML potential. Classic guy you'd target in the mid-rounds projecting to be a back-end arm or someone solid in the pen, who likely costs little in developmental time.

Matusz has above-AVG to plus-secondary stuff already, above-average command and has a ceiling closer to the front-end of a ML-rotation.

[Lucky Jim]

I said "championship run," not "compete." And Ive seen you arguing the same thing, which is why I didnt understand your last post.

Its important to remember that - other than Wieters, who believe will be pretty much a ready made superstar - the other guys will in all likelihood need a year or two to get adjusted to MLB. As you say, Tex wont be terrible 5 or 6 years from now - but he most likely wont be worth what he's getting paid. The value would be in the first few years of his contract.

As for the team salary - sure, PA could increase payroll after Tex, but pretty much every piece of evidence we have points to the opposite... especially if Tex doesnt equal immediate success in 09 -which he almost certainly wont - either on the field or at the box office.

This is the difference. I don't see this evidence. I really don't. We've made too many long-term changes and institutional adjustments to think that not winning with Teixeira in 2009 (and everyone knows we won't win in 2009) will have a serious (negative) effect going forward.

[davearm]

Obviously it's an opinion. Sheesh. I believe, however, that I am right. And I'm quite sure taht you are, however, wrong - to the extent you think that 2004 and 2008 are essentially the same. "Objective" as you are.

Look, I've supported your point throughout this thread - up until your attempt to mark 2004 and 2008 as interchangeable. You keep doing that. And you're wrong to.

You can keep telling me I'm wrong but it won't make it true.

Despite your protestations it's completely reasonable to conclude that a bigleague roster much deeper in quality young players coupled with an average collection of prospects is roughly equal to a bigleague roster with Markakis and Jones the only notable young guys, and a slew of great prospects in the pipeline.

[TakebackOPACY]

I know you sort of allude to this, but Niemann and Matusz aren't really comparable at all. Niemann had ML ready pitches in that he commanded them and they had solid-AVG ML potential. Classic guy you'd target in the mid-rounds projecting to be a back-end arm or someone solid in the pen, who likely costs little in developmental time.

Matusz has above-AVG to plus-secondary stuff already, above-average command and has a ceiling closer to the front-end of a ML-rotation.

I didn't know that, exactly. (But I was careful in my wording to not say anything I wasn't sure about.) I was actually hoping you'd come across my post and respond.

By "different," I was referring to Niemann being more of a power pitcher first, and obviously to Niemann being a 6'9" righty while Matusz is a 6'4" lefty.

I was under the impression Niemann was considered to have a very good fastball and a great slider, and two other pitches that fit the way you describe him. He was, after all, a top 5 overall pick.

[Stotle]

I didn't know that, exactly. (But I was careful in my wording to not say anything I wasn't sure about.) I was actually hoping you'd come across my post and respond.

By "different," I was referring to Niemann being more of a power pitcher first, and obviously to Niemann being a 6'9" righty while Matusz is a 6'4" lefty.

I was under the impression Niemann was considered to have a very good fastball and a great slider, and two other pitches that fit the way you describe him. He was, after all, a top 5 overall pick.

You're right; my mistake (sorry about that -- really). I was scanning quickly here at work and read Sonnanstein. Niemann is an okay comp with regards to having ML-stuff, but his command wasn't what Matusz's is. Niemann was a likely mid-rotation ceiling with outside front-end projection given his size. Matusz also has four pitches he commands really well while Niemann was a two-pitch guy with a third projecting to be a ML pitch.

[Hallas]

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.

I think it's overly simplistic to say that it fails more often than it succeeds. On top of that, I don't even know if it's true. Boston, Anaheim, and both NY teams all essentially ride FA signings in their way to the playoffs, year in and year out. Boston gets the most help out of those teams from their farm system, and we will unfortunately be competing against a team with both the resources and the ability to make extremely sound baseball decisions. Nonetheless, it's the hand we are dealt, being in the AL East. Given the resources of other teams in our division, it's fair to assume that, if the O's are to make any good-faith attempt at competing in our division on a consistent basis, our payroll will need to approach 110-120 million, while still maintaining the ability to develop major-league talent in the farm system.

While ARod might be seen as a failure of FA signings, it wasn't his performance (or lack thereof) that led to Texas's failure. He earned his money. It was Chan Ho Park (and the rest of the pitching staff) that didn't. The real moral of the story is to be wary of FA pitchers, as also evidenced by Hampton's failure.

Manny also earned his money, and the Red Sox went to the playoffs numerous times during his time there, so he is in no way a failure signing.

The real missing components to this signing are whether the O's are both willing and able to continue their improvements in player development, and whether the O's still have a little bit of flexibility to sign additional players as needed. Based on the O's current finances, the state of MASN, and the numbers being thrown around for Tex, I'd say that the answer to both questions is a resounding "yes." If that is not the case for either of those questions, then yes, Tex is a bad signing and we are dooming ourselves to failure. However, I think it's a bit premature to make that call.

You can make the Tampa Bay argument as an example of success without spending. However, Tampa had 10 years' worth in top-3 picks in the draft to stock up, and they were forced to use that strategy because of their own financial issues. The O's are far better off than the Rays in terms of finances, and should not be forced to rely 100% on drafting/player development for their players. On top of that, Tampa Bay will not be able to maintain their success indefinitely once their players hit free agency and they are unable to replace the departing players with comparable talent. (They're not drafting first or second as long as they're successful.) No other team is in a comparable situation because no other team has two financial powerhouses to contend with within their division.