Buster Olney misses the point

[The Wedge]

It's inferred?...a good journalist needs to spell it out instead of assuming people realize the back story.

It's not exactly the crux of his argument, you realize that right? He doesn't need to bring up the "whys" of the O's and Nats bidding to point out that they shouldn't be based on his criteria.

If you don't like him, don't read him.

[Stotle]

By the end of 2009, doesn't BAL have almost $20mios coming off the books?

Olney is fine for "passing the time" reading, but I think he's really lacking in analysis. I really have not been impressed with much of anything he's written from a "oh, I haven't thought about THAT before" point of view. He's an okay writer, just not terribly insightful (in my opinion).

[The Wedge]

Obviously, but I think he comes off as somewhat of an elitist. He seems to be saying that it's pure folly for the O's or Nats to even think of signing someone away from the Red Sox or Yankees or Angels or whomever. How could they even dream of bettering their team?

That I'd agree with, which is weird because he hardly ever does come off as elitist. He could have made his point in a less dumb way, but hey, it's his piece.

[AZOriole]

An 8 to 10 year deal is not about 2009 alone.

If you are building a franchise, you do so around the players who can be long-term contributors.

Tex obviously fits that mold…

Joining the existing core of Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta……

The fact that this has to be explained to a Senior National Correspondent for ESPN is just sad.

Exactly. This move, if it happens, isn't designed for immediate success, but rather adding to the foundation for 2010 and beyond.

[ledzepp8]

An 8 to 10 year deal is not about 2009 alone.

If you are building a franchise, you do so around the players who can be long-term contributors.

Tex obviously fits that mold…

Joining the existing core of Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta……

The fact that this has to be explained to a Senior National Correspondent for ESPN is just sad.

Exactly...wonderful post Chris. Buster would have a point if we were trying to sign him to like a 2-3 year contract, as that would suggest that we're trying to contend immediately.

[Runs2the1Show]

An 8 to 10 year deal is not about 2009 alone.

If you are building a franchise, you do so around the players who can be long-term contributors.

Tex obviously fits that mold…

Joining the existing core of Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta……

The fact that this has to be explained to a Senior National Correspondent for ESPN is just sad.

Exactly! This is why signing Teix to a huge deal could be a BAD thing. None of the guys you listed are making more than the minimum at this point. What happens when they are extended? And throw in Roberts and Guthrie, that leaves only a little bit of money to go spend elsewhere. His contract may not hurt us now, but a couple of years down the road it could be prevent us from signing other guys who could contribute to our team.

[The Wedge]

Is it just me, or do some people (not all people, obviously) just jump all over some sports writers simply because they're saying things they don't want to hear?

[ledzepp8]

That I'd agree with, which is weird because he hardly ever does come off as elitist. He could have made his point in a less dumb way, but hey, it's his piece.

I agree and I've never gotten that kind of impression from him before. Perhaps he's sees the writing on the wall and actually thinks that the O's or Nats could dare to steal Tex away from the big boys.:scratchchinhmm:

[Runs2the1Show]

Exactly...wonderful post Chris. Buster would have a point if we were trying to sign him to like a 2-3 year contract, as that would suggest that we're trying to contend immediately.

Teixeira's contract is most likely gonna have an out-clause after 4-5 years, if Boras has anything to say about it. So Buster does have a point.....

[tywright]

It's not exactly the crux of his argument, you realize that right? He doesn't need to bring up the "whys" of the O's and Nats bidding to point out that they shouldn't be based on his criteria.

If you don't like him, don't read him.

Don't get me wrong, I like Buster and definitely respect him and his writing. But if you're going to write an opinion piece on why the O's shouldn't sign Tex then you have to illustrate why exactly the O's would be going after him in the first place. For that reason, his writing and arguments are flawed because it doesn't tell the whole story and the dymanics of the situation. And that's why I said he missed the point.

And like I said before this clearly illustrates how the national media doesn't quite get it and that they are overlooking the O's and their importance.

[The Wedge]

Don't get me wrong, I like Buster and definitely respect him and his writing. But if you're going to write an opinion piece on why the O's shouldn't sign Tex then you have to illustrate why exactly the O's would be going after him in the first place. For that reason, his writing and arguments are flawed because it doesn't tell the whole story and the dymanics of the situation. And that's why I said he missed the point.

And like I said before this clearly illustrates how the national media doesn't quite get it and that they are overlooking the O's and their importance.

Are you sure it's that the national media doesn't get it? Or that they don't think the national audience cares?

[tywright]

Are you sure it's that the national media doesn't get it? Or that they don't think the national audience cares?

Probably a little bit of both. Sure the idea of Tex signing with Boston will excite more fans, but when the national media has blinders on then they aren't doing their job.

[Runs2the1Show]

Which is way you sign Markakis this winter, when he has 3 years left of Arbitration… when if you put enough money in-front of him with a guaranteed deal, he can not risk not signing.. With FA (and the potential for career ending injuries) still that far away.

Which is why you sign Jones, and Wieters to Longoria -esque deals as soon as possible…

The other way to look at the all the young players I mentioned, is that the core we are building around, will be together for years at minimal cost.

This is the way the O's will have to be built going forward… a couple of high-priced established stars, and young players with ceiling making nothing.

But all of these contracts you mention will still END before Teixeria's does. We will have to re-extend them for a much larger amount of money.

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly...wonderful post Chris. Buster would have a point if we were trying to sign him to like a 2-3 year contract, as that would suggest that we're trying to contend immediately.

You've really proven his point here. If you're conceding that a 2-3 year contract would be useless, you're admitting that the Orioles are paying Teix to be a mere "bauble" for the 2-3 years it takes to contend. In other words, while he may be an important cog in 2011, in the meantime, we're paying him $20m a year just to "shine." Maybe he'll be the valuable asset we hope when 2011 rolls around. Maybe he won't.

The problem with this is that we don't know, in the end, exactly what we'll need in 2-3 years. We've got pitching in the minors, a potential superstar catcher, and some bit parts. The idea that Teix will be an answer, let alone the answer, at that point involves some large assumptions and a good bit of risk.

I don't think Olney's a particularly insightful columnist. Mostly conventional wisdom stuff, with a bit of insider legitimacy. That said, his point here isn't elitist: it's only questioning when the proper time to buy talent occurs.

All of the things we're saying here are what Mariners fans could've said to us when they purchased Bedard: who were WE to tell them they were crazy to get Bedard at that cost?

It's the same old mantra - even with money coming off the books, the Orioles' resources are finite. As such, the timing of our spending is important. Obviously, when you're spending 20% of your entire payroll, you want to make sure the risk is low and the reward is large.

We're not doing that. Which is why it's a gamble - whether we decide to buy other talent or not.

[TakebackOPACY]

Put me in the camp with those who don't understand what point Olney supposedly missed. The O's may be able to increase payroll, but we all know they can't buy a championship.

I'm willing to role the dice; I hope they sign Teixeira. But does anyone actually believe spending $20m+ on one player doesn't result in sacrifices somewhere else?!

As for not mentioning the prospects, it wasn't lazy. I follow the minors as close as anyone, but they are just prospects. The Yankees have Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy waiting in the wings. Hughes was a higher rated prospect than Matusz, Tillman, or Arrieta are. In a couple years, at least one of our BIG 3 will get to read on the OH how he was overhyped by the O's organization even though it's not the organization that is hyping them up.

As for the contracts that come off the books after 2009, those are the contracts of our players. That means players (not just contracts) come off the books after 2009. We have to replace those players. We don't have enough prospects to do that from within, so we'll have to go get replacements through trades and free agency. To get something through trade, you have to give something up. And as for free agency, you either have to spend big bucks or go with more mediocre 'stop-gap' players. In other words, with or without Teixeira, either the payroll will go up or the team will likely become worse than it is.

Teixeira helps! $20+m/yr to one player hurts! Does $20m+ to one player hurt more or less than Teixeira helps? In Olney's opinion, the answer is obvious. I think he's wrong that it's obvious, but I don't think he misses the point.