Ok, so now what?

[Lucky Jim]

Well, I wasn't looking at it as an argument so much as a discussion. However, I agree that there is simply no way for anyone to know who is right until we're on the cusp on contending in an offseason with a need at a position where a top FA is available. i'll see you here at that point.

I didn't mean that as a pejorative. Just...well...we were fashioning and marshaling evidence as if there was a conclusion we were hoping to find.

I guess, in the end, we'll be able to tell who's the better card player by how the team acts on the verge of contention. Because, of course, we're guaranteed to get to that verge, right?

[geschinger]

This, in particular, has cause and effect backwards. After Hampton got his huge deal from the Rockies, there was a dearth of under 30, premium free agent pitchers. Simply because the talent wasn't available for clubs to pursue is not evidence that the market was "down". I'm very doubtful that there is any real empirical evidence to support the theory that the FA market saw a serious downturn.

Was Bartolo Colon's resume all that different than CC Sabathia? I'm pretty sure he was under 30 and he got a fraction of what I think he'd have received if he was a FA with his resume in 2001 or 2008.

[Lucky Jim]

One quote gives me hope from AM.

He said something to the effect of, we felt it was too much to tie into one player, at least at this point.

I like that he said at least at this point. If he thought that he didn't want Tex making 23 million for 2 years before we contend in his eyes, I disagree, but it's completely logical.

If we were 87-75 last season and boarderline contenders this year, I sure do hope he would have went the extra mile for Tex.

Honestly, this is what I'm counting on. And why I'm not baying at the moon and/or cursing the stars.

If the O's don't spend when it's the difference between contention and not, then I'll take my stand.

I understand that Teixeira appeared - to some on here - to be that difference. Just never to me.

And, yes, I agree with you. It's the only real evidence in my theory's favor.

[Lucky Jim]

I think his goal was to keep people engaged. He has now convinced some of us that he really wanted him, but stopped because it was prudent. Sounds like a worthwhile effort to me. Image means something in this business.

You don't have any nagging questions about the "we have flexibility" statement in real relation to the "we can't afford to spend that much on one player" statement a couple days later? Really? These statements don't sound at all contradictory to you?

In this situation? Not really. It makes sense to me, I guess. In a way that it doesn't make sense to others.

[Lucky Jim]

I think his goal was to keep people engaged. He has now convinced some of us that he really wanted him, but stopped because it was prudent. Sounds like a worthwhile effort to me. Image means something in this business.

You don't have any nagging questions about the "we have flexibility" statement in real relation to the "we can't afford to spend that much on one player" statement a couple days later? Really? These statements don't sound at all contradictory to you?

I was never convinced of that. I think he was a compelling option, worth a look. With certain financial parameters that were acceptable. But, once these were exceeded (in spite of AM's attempts not to bid it up at all, a la the Nats), then...we didn't "really want him."

[Eight]

Was Bartolo Colon's resume all that different than CC Sabathia? I'm pretty sure he was under 30 and he got a fraction of what I think he'd have received if he was a FA with his resume in 2001 or 2008.

Other than them being fat starting pitchers, I'm not sure I see a ton of similarities. CC has been probably the most valuable pitcher in baseball over the past three seasons, and he's still just 28. Colon was 31 at the time, and was significantly worse than Sabathia was.

[TonySoprano]

This isn't what I'm saying at all.

There is one thing I don't know about this process. Did we or did we not improve on the 7/140 offer with a "wow" offer or whatever?

I don't think we ever did. MacPhail's comments about "the model that we have to follow just doesn't allow us to devote that much of our resources to one player, at least not at the present time," tells me we didn't go balls to the wall, nor did we ever intend to do so.

Simple two reasons

1) Nobody believed a 7 year offer was going to be enough from day one. That is an offer designed to fail. We all know that.

Some of us know that and have said the same thing. Others think it is part of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. That was not a reasonable starting point given that Tex walked away from 8 - $140 million in the summer of 2007. It was a poor misread of the market that was developing.

2) We offered either 7/140 or 7/150 (depending on what source you believe) which is either 20 mil or 21.3 mil per year. He signed for 22.5 mil per year. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that an extra 1.2 - 2.5 mil per year is enough to go from "lets go get him" to "we just can't prudently do that". We're talking about less than 10%. I'm not saying he was a bargain at any of those prices. He probably isn't worth that amount of money per year, but it would be inconsistent to me to be willing to do X but not 1.05X so something smells fishy to me.

They told the press they were still in it, but weren't flexible enough to match three existing offers (and four total, including the expired Rangers offer) all of which had an eighth-year.

[JTrea81]

Honestly, this is what I'm counting on. And why I'm not baying at the moon and/or cursing the stars.

If the O's don't spend when it's the difference between contention and not, then I'll take my stand.

I understand that Teixeira appeared - to some on here - to be that difference. Just never to me.

And, yes, I agree with you. It's the only real evidence in my theory's favor.

The only problem is the FA market is going to continue to get worse and the Orioles aren't going to be able to sign anybody until they are actually contending.

[Lucky Jim]

The only problem is the FA market is going to continue to get worse and the Orioles aren't going to be able to sign anybody until they are actually contending.

Well, folks are always going to need players. Obviously, some other market will open up. Draft well and bundle talent. That's all teams will be getting anyway if they let guys go.

I'm not sure I buy this "last chance for a good player" argument with Teixeira. If there are no more good players other than Teixeira available by any means, our chances of competing even in 2011 are going to be slim.

[TonySoprano]

Tony,

Am I reading this right? Are you and I in agreement here? Stop the presses... Of course, you got here long before I did. I've just now seen the light.

We agree on this from what I can tell. What I said two days ago:

It was an offer designed to fail. He turned down 8 years - $140 million from the Rangers in the summer of '07.

Three offers on the table were reported to be higher than the Orioles. In spite of that, we held our line in the sand. We didn't push it.

Don't tell me from one side of their mouth their offer was flexible and from the other side contradict it saying the economics weren't there. It's like that famous line in "Cool Hand Luke" "don't [pee] down my back and tell me it's raining.":angryfire:

[Lucky Jim]

Tony,

Am I reading this right? Are you and I in agreement here? Stop the presses... Of course, you got here long before I did. I've just now seen the light.

Congrats, you've been supported by both Tony and SG. Obviously, you've gone to the dark side. It's been nice knowing you.

The "Rationalists and Empiricists Club" would like our members' jacket back.

Seriously kidding. I do understand your side. Disagree, but understand.

[Sports Guy]

But by the reaction on here and on the Sun, he didn't do this. He didn't save face. I think it's just the opposite: he wagered as much as he could afford to (up to the point of our market advantage) and didn't go further.

AM only went after Tex because he was from this area.

[Sports Guy]

Miggy didn't fall through the cracks, the market was down during that period of time. The ceiling for players in the FA marketplace was signifcantly lower than it was several years before. Look how long we went betwen 100m pitchers. We went years before free agents started getting the same kind of yearly salaries again that players were getting at the end of the last / begining of this decade. It is a lot more than a player or two falling through the cracks.

I disagree with this.

Its all about the big market teams and who they are bidding on.

None of them went after Miggy and that caused his value to be brought down.

And Vlad had us, Ana and the Mets...The Mets were vary weary of his back, so they didn't put a real offer out there and the Angels just waited it out and put up an offer similar but a little less than ours.

I don't think it was a down market..just the idea that the big boys weren't really going after these guys.

[Lucky Jim]

AM only went after Tex because he was from this area.

No problem with that. I said all along, that the only reason to go forward w/ Teixeira is if we have a market advantage.

[JTrea81]

If there are no more good players other than Teixeira available by any means, our chances of competing even in 2011 are going to be slim.

And this is exactly correct. Using the model that MacPhail wants to use I would expect at least 4-5 more seasons of losing at best...

We could be staring at 20 straight losing seasons since 1997 before we make the playoffs again under Andy MacPhail...

My only hope is that Angelos or his sons sell the team to Ripken/Biscotti before that and they fire the frugal MacPhail...