Ok, so now what?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Really? You don't get that if we didn't compete for Tex, we'll never compete for a top FA? Wow, ok

Let's see:

- Payroll flexibility to do it = check

- Top flight offensive player who can give you power you don't have on the team or in the pipeline = check

- Top flight defensive player who plays a position that is virtually dry organizationally = check

- Top of the shelf community guy/family man who clearly won't embarrass the organization or due anything to make you regret his contract = check

- Virtually all immediate family lives in the area and his wife has expressed a clear wish to remain near family = check

- Young enough that he will be a contributing force through our next "up" cycle at the top of his game = check

What negatives were there about Tex that would make us walk away? It just doesn't fit any better than he did. I'm not saying he wasn't a bit too expensive. Of course he was. All top flight FAs for the rest of our lives will be "too expensive" unless the rules of the game are changed. The Yanks have a virtually unlimited payroll. There are a couple other teams that aren't far behind.

We have issued an edict that we no longer will compete for a top free agent. Heck, MacPhail's own words about Minnesota confirmed as much. When was the last time that Minnesota signed an "A" free agent? Has it ever happened?

I think you're deceiving yourself if you don't think this is conclusive evidence that we intend to operate as a smallish market team rather than the mid-to-upper market team we should be.

This post couldn't be more right...and it makes me sick.

[Lucky Jim]

Yes.

Anyone who does not see that this non-signing was the nail in the coffin to our dreams of being competitive at a "high level" with regards to free agency is fooling themselves.

We officially declared ourselves small market. And, unlike Minnesota, when you are competing with the likes of Boston and New York, that's a very bad place to be.

I will keep saying it, we will not finish above third for the next decade. And at 27, I highly doubt I will see more than 5 postseason appearances for the rest of my life.

There's no doubt you'll keep saying it. You've given us proof of that. You say it without offering anything other than this pessimism. Pardon the rest of us for not taking your word for it.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Look, I'm done giving this franchise the benefit of the doubt.

Were there negatives to signing Tex? Sure, there are negatives for any move you make as a baseball Front Office.

The point many here are trying to make is that in the Tex situation, the positives far outweighed the negatives -- maybe moreso than any other FA we've tried to obtain in recent memory and failed to do.

I have a really hard time believing that there will be a better time or place for the O's to make a spalsh on the FA market than with 2008 Mark Teixeira.

There will always ALWAYS be an excuse as to why we didn't get the job done.

[geschinger]

I have a really hard time believing that there will be a better time or place for the O's to make a spalsh on the FA market than with 2008 Mark Teixeira.

You really don't believe that if this team is a player or two away from a championship caliber team that it wouldn't be a better time to go heavy into FA compared to going in when the team is still a few years away?

[Lucky Jim]

Look, I'm done giving this franchise the benefit of the doubt.

Were there negatives to signing Tex? Sure, there are negatives for any move you make as a baseball Front Office.

The point many here are trying to make is that in the Tex situation, the positives far outweighed the negatives -- maybe moreso than any other FA we've tried to obtain in recent memory and failed to do.

I have a really hard time believing that there will be a better time or place for the O's to make a spalsh on the FA market than with 2008 Mark Teixeira.

There will always ALWAYS be an excuse as to why we didn't get the job done.

That's fine. I think all of us understand this line of thinking. In the end, only time will provide the answer. If we're winning in 2010 or 2011, then it wasn't the wrong decision. If we don't compete by 2012, then a lot of us were wrong.

The fact that those of us who didn't want to sign Teixeira at the $$$ required understand and sympathize with the disappointment of those who do is a sign that this was a tough call and a bitter pill.

We also understand that many of you think the positives outweigh the negatives. That's fine, too. It's a close enough call that any of us can see why you (and others) would think that.

We disagree. And we've laid out strong arguments in opposition.

Losing the lot of you as fans would be difficult - I like these discussions. On the other hand, clearing out the white noise of anti-AM hate spewing around here wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, either.

Considered opinions on all sides should be respected. Period.

[Lucky Jim]

You really don't believe that if this team is a player or two away from a championship caliber team that it wouldn't be a better time to go heavy into FA compared to going in when the team is still a few years away?

Exactly. The fact is, FA purchases based on short-term need are always a better bet than those based on distant need.

[El Gordo]

Wow! From one of my favorite posters, one of his worst posts.

Just because we failed to sign Tex, you reach an irrational conclusion that we will never win the bidding for a top FA again? That's a huge leap of (negative) faith.

Top FAs want two things - $ and the chance to compete. The Os have $ and will someday offer an opportunity to compete.

One thing not mentioned here is the LT nature of these NYY contracts. When will they be in a position to sign a 1B or 3B again? Not for another 8 years will they be able to bid for a top corner infielder.

There is so much statistical evidence saying having too much $ invested in one ballplayer hampers the competitiveness of a team. If we had to go to $25M to sign Tex (and we were never really treated by Tex as a likely destination, it's the Nats he used), it would have been near impossible to compete in four or five years when AJ and Wieters would be in arbitration, NM getting paid big bucks and nothing invested into the pitching staff. You know what team we would have been like - Toronto - with a huge % of the payroll invested in five or six players and little left over for everyone else. IMO, the Os would not have competed in the next two or three years with Tex and by then Tex's affect on the payroll, along with the $ due to everyone else, would have negated our ability to compete.

One other point - since we have so many long term question marks, why fill the one at 1B with the big $ several years in advance? How logical is that? Where is the precedent for that? What re-building teams have invested into their future competitiveness several years down the line with a top FA 1B?

Tex is all the things in VT's post - but, surely, there reaches a point when the $ is not worth it. Still, that's not the point. Until we are in a position to compete, we will not sign a top FA. When we are in a position to compete, I expect we will sign an appropriate FA and to argue otherwise is a reactionary opinion for an otherwise level-headed poster.

I commend you on an eminately sane post. It is just to early to make these points IMO. We need another month of whining before people will be able to entertain rational thought again.

[Sports Guy]

You really don't believe that if this team is a player or two away from a championship caliber team that it wouldn't be a better time to go heavy into FA compared to going in when the team is still a few years away?

The thing you constantly overlooked in all of this was the idea of Tex being from here and how important that was.

For what I heard, AM felt he was obligated to go after Tex(and AJ)...because of him being from here.

If Tex was from Kansas City, the Orioles wouldn't have gone after him.

However, since he was from here and he does fit a large need, the Orioles were prepared to give him the largest contract in FA history.

However, it didn't happen...Why on earth should we believe that the Orioles will get into that area again?

Do you honestly think the Orioles will be players for Albert Pujols?

Now, we may be able to land the next Tejada...an undervalued superstar at a position of need.

I believe we will sign FAs up until the point of 15 million per year and 5 years or less...Much beyond that, I have trouble believing we will ever be a serious player for them unless MASN is an absolute gold mine and we can start having payrolls with Boston, or at least close to it.

And the other thing that you are overlooking is what has been said by AM...Too much money for one player.

I kept saying that Tex was the exception to the rule and guess what, he was. AM felt obligated, so he went after him. Any other player? Not going to happen.

AM + PA = not paying too much. That is why PA hired him..they think alike.

End of the day, I really see nothing that says, the Orioles will be a major player for upper level, high caliber FAs unless they get another Tejada type bargain.

Other than that, forget about it.

This is just another reason why AM has got to make a ton of moves...Why he has to continue to bring in a lot of talent and why he has to continue to make trades.

We just can not obtain enough talent without doing that...It just isn't possible, unless you are willing to sit around for at least another 3 years before we start to sniff the idea of potentially contending and with the way Jordan likes to draft, 3 years is really stretching it.

[Sports Guy]

Exactly. The fact is, FA purchases based on short-term need are always a better bet than those based on distant need.

If the player is a short term answer...a player signed to a short contract...a vet player or something like that, I agree.

When talking about obtaining a superstar, particularly one with local ties, then this is completely wrong.

Tex wasn't signing a short term contract.

I guess you feel signing Tejada was a waste at the time it was done then...right?

[Lucky Jim]

If the player is a short term answer...a player signed to a short contract...a vet player or something like that, I agree.

(1.) When talking about obtaining a superstar, particularly one with local ties, then this is completely wrong.

Tex wasn't signing a short term contract.

(2.) I guess you feel signing Tejada was a waste at the time it was done then...right?

1. No. It's not. The years beyond the immediate in a long-term contract for a FA are the premium you pay for the high probability that the player will help you win. If the player remains productive, it only mitigates that premium. It's not wrong. It surprises me, however, that you can't see that.

We've had this discussion before: signing a superstar long-term before the rest of the talent base in ML-ready is, historically speaking, a mistake. And the idea that you do it based on long-term competition means you're wagering that this guy is a difference-maker down the road. The likelihood of that is so small compared to immediate need as to be a very poor substitute.

By the way, you should note that I said "better bet" - as in, probability paying off. That doesn't mean you can't purchase a FA with a long-term contract before you're ready to compete is always a bad idea. It's just a question of what point along the contract continuum it becomes one.

2. In retrospect, the timing of signing Tejada was off. I was happy at the time because I was laboring under the false optimism that we could rebuild on an existing MiL talent base. In retrospect, the signing was bad. That "badness" of the signing was mitigated by the fact that we went in on a down-market and got Tejada for relatively cheap. This is Geschinger's point: a down market will allow the O's to take risks not otherwise prudent.

[mweb]

1. Offer Markakis a deal from 6-8 years at a very good value. Let him know that you want to retain him, but you need a commitment. If he rejects, trade him.
2. If Markakis signs, offer Roberts a contract that is reasonable like 4/45 or something. If Markakis doesn't sign, trade Roberts. If Roberts rejects the offer, trade him.
3. If we end up trading Roberts or Markakis, Huff, Sherrill, and Scott must be traded. If Roberts and Markakis extend, give thought to extending Huff for two more years if he can be had for a reasonable price.
4. Screw the crappy replacement level pitchers. Put Olson, Liz, Penn, Albers, Patton, Hernandez, and Bergeson out there this year and see who sinks and who swims.
5. Promote Arrieta and Matusz as soon as you think they are ready to compete without it hurting their progress.
6. Draft every single hard-to-sign player available in the amateur draft and throw the money at them that isn't being spent on ML payroll.
7. Build the best facilities in the game in the areas where baseball is taking off like Brazil.

This is a pretty good way to go imo, especially the focus on the draft and international facilities. I'll add international amateur free agents as well.

I would still like one of the Japanese starters though. And depending on contracts, I would actually like a guy like Bradley or Burrell, especially if we keep most or all of the guys who could be traded on your list. Would likely be another good trade chip if nothing else.

I would prefer to trade most if not all of those guys other than Nick though if good value can be had.

[mweb]

I'm not saying they will or won't be, but how on earth do you come to that conclusion from this? Seems like an illogical conclusion to me.

It seems like an illogical conclusion because it is. And so is being livid that a player signed with someone else for more than you said was the most should be given to him, but hey, many don't seem to have a problem with that either. But I regress...

Gonzalez, Fielder, and Howard will possibly be free agents when we are hopefully ready to compete. At that point, if 1B is still a position that needs to be addressed, I would advocate strongly going after them. That would be much better timing for a player of that ilk.

[Lucky Jim]

This is a pretty good way to go imo, especially the focus on the draft and international facilities. I'll add international amateur free agents as well.

I would still like one of the Japanese starters though. And depending on contracts, I would actually like a guy like Bradley or Burrell, especially if we keep most or all of the guys who could be traded on your list. Would likely be another good trade chip if nothing else.

I would prefer to trade most if not all of those guys other than Nick though if good value can be had.

It looks a lot like what I wrote earlier:

Things I do:

Extend Nick. 6/66-7/80. If he won't extend, trade him for a boatload of prospects.

Look to trade Guthrie for a decent sized package. Hopefully something bigger than Blanton but obviously smaller than Haren.

Look to trade Roberts.

Look to trade Huff.

Look to trade Scott.

Look to trade Sherrill (or potentially Ray).

From the above two scenarios, I'd be looking for a couple of high-ceiling prospects, but also near-ready middle infielders who can provide average ML value.

I would also look to move some of our second-tier MiL arms in packages to fill positional needs. As part of this, drafting arms in bulk is necessary. I'm high on Bundy and Drake and Britton (among others) and think if we keep moving forward like this, we'll be good to go.

In all scenarios I'd be looking for talent at any position, but especially corner infielders (high ceiling guys). I'd also, as above, be looking for a near-ready MiL SS and 2B (but keeping an eye out for 2B/1B who may not be high-ceiling but could provide value soon.)

Keep drafting prospects who drop for signability reasons - with above slot bonuses.

In the cases of Scott and Guthrie, who are under control going forward, I would only trade if we got back some combination of very good prospects with someone who can provide immediate ML value. Keeping an eye out for legitimate prospects who are blocked is important. Even overpaying with added high-risk/high-upside talent would be wise (we've long had this, in folks like Cabrera and Liz for instance and rarely turn it into value). I'm willing to give up high-risk talent for high-probability value.

Those are just quickly jotted-down ideas. I'm sure I've missed some things. Looking for established players who are FAs and/or on the trading block should be done next off-season (or late in the season) when we have a better idea of what kind of contributions Reimold, Snyder, Tillman, Arrieta and Matusz are going to give us.

In fact, one of the downsides of signing Teixeira would be that it would make it hard for us to trade our expiring assets (Roberts, Huff) or our likely over-valued assets (Guthrie? Sherrill - hard to say) out of some misbegotten idea about contending more quickly.

[Sports Guy]

It seems like an illogical conclusion because it is. And so is being livid that a player signed with someone else for more than you said was the most should be given to him, but hey, many don't seem to have a problem with that either. But I regress...

Gonzalez, Fielder, and Howard will possibly be free agents when we are hopefully ready to compete. At that point, if 1B is still a position that needs to be addressed, I would advocate strongly going after them. That would be much better timing for a player of that ilk.

And Gonzalez is the only one we have even a remote chance at obtaining.

[Sports Guy]

It looks a lot like what I wrote earlier:

In fact, one of the downsides of signing Teixeira would be that it would make it hard for us to trade our expiring assets (Roberts, Huff) or our likely over-valued assets (Guthrie? Sherrill - hard to say) out of some misbegotten idea about contending more quickly.

We aren't likely to deal them anyway.