Buster Olney misses the point

[tennOsfan]

This franchise is closer to competing than Olney gives it credit for. Who in baseball has a better 1-2 punch than Weiters and Matusz on the near horizon? Few, I'd say. Add in two more top-caliber pitchers in Tillman and Arrieta, and there we are, possibly.

Adding Tex makes one heck of a lineup for 2009, and he certainly can be a plus player for many years for this franchise. His signing also adds a relevancy to the franchise that has been sorely lacking.

IMO, for Tex to go to Boston, the Orioles' fanbase will be unfathomably demoralized. All those Red Sox Tex jerseys being walked around Camden Yards will be more than a lot of Os fans can take.

I think 10/200 is too much for the guy, and if he doesn't come to Baltimore, I won't weep especially I'm not from there. But I do think if the Os are ever going to splurge on a FA, this is the guy.

[davearm]

The bottom line is, if you want to write an interesting article about WAS/BAL and Teix, why not make it interesting? Instead, we get the same tired "storylines' re-hashed by sports writers looking to churn out pieces with no real care as to whether they are adding anything to the national discussion. This is particularly inexplicable when you are talking about an opinion piece.

Again, it isn't a matter of "Buster doesn't get it -- there are millions of reasons why Teixeira is the perfect move!" I'm just tired of the "leader in sports" providing us with writers that don't put in the effort to write something original. Any college kid could take the angle of "winning teams should spend now; losing teams should focus on the future."

Eh, maybe I'm expecting too much? I know if I could write about baseball for a living I'd maybe enjoy challenging myself AND my readers...

Olney is certainly not writing anything earth-shattering here, that's for sure.

If someone wanted to blast him for doing nothing much more than echoing conventional wisdom, I wouldn't stand in their way.

[tywright]

I'd said it before and I'll say it again: to win and survive in the AL East for the long term, you must invest in young talent through the draft and international signings, develop young talent through good coaching in the minors, trade for talent by being proactive and having good scouting, and sign (and resign) talent. You can't just be good at implementing 3 of the 4, you must do all 4. The Rays still are vulnerable because they may not be able to afford resigning all their talent.

Signing talent is not a question of when you should shell out the bucks, it's a matter of how and why. Tex is no ordinary free agent....he's a stepping stone to bigger things. No other free agent in the next 3+ years gives the O's that opportunity.

In the Nationals' case, they're more in a position to develop more talent before investing in someone like Tex. The dynamics surrounding the O's are much more different.

[Lucky Jim]

The bottom line is, if you want to write an interesting article about WAS/BAL and Teix, why not make it interesting? Instead, we get the same tired "storylines' re-hashed by sports writers looking to churn out pieces with no real care as to whether they are adding anything to the national discussion. This is particularly inexplicable when you are talking about an opinion piece.

Again, it isn't a matter of "Buster doesn't get it -- there are millions of reasons why Teixeira is the perfect move!" I'm just tired of the "leader in sports" providing us with writers that don't put in the effort to write something original. Any college kid could take the angle of "winning teams should spend now; losing teams should focus on the future."

Eh, maybe I'm expecting too much? I know if I could write about baseball for a living I'd maybe enjoy challenging myself AND my readers...

Well, I think his analysis was watered down. I think the issue of when to spend money, and on what kind of risk, is almost endlessly fascinating, though.

But Stotle, your argument (while valid) really isn't the argument of anyone else on here, including (from what I can tell, VT).

But you're right - a properly written article would have taken current and expected production of guys under contract - using PECOTAs or the like - combined that with the performance and risk profile of the minor league systems of BAL and WSH and taken a measure of where these teams are likely to be over the next few years.

The next step would be an accounting of the likely FAs available to measure what the opportunity costs of not acting now might be.

Those of us who are debating the idea that Olney missed the point are not saying this is a well-written article - it's not. But it's not because he missed the point.

On the other hand, the "leader in sports" isn't really the leader in nuanced analysis of sports - and it's not really a vehicle for in-depth written analysis. I guess I don't expect much. Not being wrong is about it. And here, Olney isn't wrong. He's not right, necessarily. But his point is a valid one. (Though lunacy was a silly and unnecessary slap.)

I don't get upset when USA Today's coverage of the election fails to account for crucial shifting demographies...that why I have Harpers or 538.com; I don't get upset when USA Today's review of the most recent Scorcese movie is vapid. That's why I have the New Yorker.

(And, by extension, Baseball Prospectus.)

The real argument here - the one of relevance - is that folks think that this criticism is wrong. Which means they haven't taken measure of these risks themselves, yet. Which means that fans - even informed, intelligent fans like those on here - are setting themselves up for a potentially massive late-blooming realization that we've bought big on bad risk. In other words: folks need to realize the risk so that if/when failure comes, it's not a surprise.

[Lucky Jim]

I'd said it before and I'll say it again: to win and survive in the AL East for the long term, you must invest in young talent through the draft and international signings, develop young talent through good coaching in the minors, trade for talent by being proactive and having good scouting, and sign (and resign) talent. You can't just be good at implementing 3 of the 4, you must do all 4. The Rays still are vulnerable because they may not be able to afford resigning all their talent.

Signing talent is not a question of when you should shell out the bucks, it's a matter of how and why. Tex is no ordinary free agent....he's a stepping stone to bigger things. No other free agent in the next 3+ years gives the O's that opportunity.

In the Nationals' case, they're more in a position to develop more talent before investing in someone like Tex. The dynamics surrounding the O's are much more different.

I fundamentally disagree. Ignoring the temporal element means that your answers to "how" and "why" are based on incomplete (and likely faulty) information. Means they're not actually answers but merely guesses.

This is how the Orioles ran their system for a very long time. It's destined for failure.

[vab]

I think the 11 years of losing combined with this being a hometown guy is skewing the thinking of many on the board with regard to whether signing Teixiera is the right move at this point. I'm as tired of the losing as anybody but the rebuilding still has to be done right and you don't start with a $200 million 1st baseman (or $200 million anybody for that matter). Put those resources into building the foundation (scouting and player development) for now and maintain the flexibility to get that big bat when it will make a real difference.

[davearm]

I'm not sure where you get that from because I never made that argument. But you be sure to attack away at it.

It has nothing to do with the O's (or Nats) being attacked, it has to do with Olney's notion that really only teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, etc should be signing premier FA. 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".

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.

[Moose Milligan]

He might have nailed it he didn't fail to mention the O's desire to sign a local talent who can fill a hole at 1B for 8-10 years. As well as the O's continued effort to build a solid minor league system like the Rays.

However in the AL East, you need to not just build a strong minor league system you also have to pay the big bucks to attract talent.

Really? Cause the Rays won last year without paying the big bucks to attract talent.

[Orioles West]

Good Lord. That is just awful. I'm amazed that he thinks that.

I think a lot of the national media folks live for the Bosox-Yankees games. I guess it is good for TV ratings too, but it is weird to hear that "good for baseball" line from a presumably objective journalist.

-Don

[tywright]

Really? Cause the Rays won last year without paying the big bucks to attract talent.

And are they going to be able to keep that talent over the next few years. I doubt they have the financial capacity to do so.

[tywright]

I fundamentally disagree. Ignoring the temporal element means that your answers to "how" and "why" are based on incomplete (and likely faulty) information. Means they're not actually answers but merely guesses.

This is how the Orioles ran their system for a very long time. It's destined for failure.

Aren't all free agent signings based on guesses? And do the Sox really need to acquire Tex?

[vab]

And are they going to be able to keep that talent over the next few years. I doubt they have the financial capacity to do so.

That's where trading guys who you know you can't re-sign comes in. The Orioles will have to do some of this to survive in this division. Not as much as the Rays but they'll never be able to go toe to toe with Boston and New York payroll-wise either.

[Stotle]

Well, I think his analysis was watered down. I think the issue of when to spend money, and on what kind of risk, is almost endlessly fascinating, though.

But Stotle, your argument (while valid) really isn't the argument of anyone else on here, including (from what I can tell, VT).

But you're right - a properly written article would have taken current and expected production of guys under contract - using PECOTAs or the like - combined that with the performance and risk profile of the minor league systems of BAL and WSH and taken a measure of where these teams are likely to be over the next few years.

The next step would be an accounting of the likely FAs available to measure what the opportunity costs of not acting now might be.

Those of us who are debating the idea that Olney missed the point are not saying this is a well-written article - it's not. But it's not because he missed the point.

On the other hand, the "leader in sports" isn't really the leader in nuanced analysis of sports - and it's not really a vehicle for in-depth written analysis. I guess I don't expect much. Not being wrong is about it. And here, Olney isn't wrong. He's not right, necessarily. But his point is a valid one. (Though lunacy was a silly and unnecessary slap.)

I don't get upset when USA Today's coverage of the election fails to account for crucial shifting demographies...that why I have Harpers or 538.com; I don't get upset when USA Today's review of the most recent Scorcese movie is vapid. That's why I have the New Yorker.

(And, by extension, Baseball Prospectus.)

The real argument here - the one of relevance - is that folks think that this criticism is wrong. Which means they haven't taken measure of these risks themselves, yet. Which means that fans - even informed, intelligent fans like those on here - are setting themselves up for a potentially massive late-blooming realization that we've bought big on bad risk. In other words: folks need to realize the risk so that if/when failure comes, it's not a surprise.

I understand, and well put. However, back in math class (way back when) and in law school (more recently) I remember you got credit for a correct answer and credit for showing the work/analysis leading to that. Olney falls drastically short on the latter, and he does so on a regular basis.

I'm not looking for all the nice stuff you talk about -- that's a completely different type of analysis which has its place on sites like BP (as you point out). I'm just looking for a paragraph or so that shows ANY sort of meaningful thought. Why is WAS in on Teix? Why is BAL? Is there a good reason for it? Can I make an argument for it? Whay about the larger question of competitive team vs. non-competitive team? Does it ever make sense for a non-competititve team to pay for a superstar? Does the length of the contract come into play? Should it?

I don't get the sense he looked at many, if any, of the above issues. Each could produce at least one sentence that could provide the reader with some new insight. Again, maybe I'm expecting too much -- and regardless of ESPN is or isn't supposed to be, they hold themselves out as specialists. They have "insider" pieces that supposedly give premium content and analysis (some of it does -- and you have to pay for it). They have reporters on site at the winter meetings, and countdowns to trade deadlines with tons of analysis (or at least lip service) from former players, managers and current writers on a nightly basis, in-season. I don't think it's asking too much to read something I couldn't find written in the Observer (ND student newspaper).

[Lucky Jim]

Aren't all free agent signings based on guesses? And do the Sox really need to acquire Tex?

Not all guesses are created equal.

[tywright]

Not all guesses are created equal.

Of course...educated guesses are nice

FYI, signing Tex doesn't equal signing Belle.