At what point do you plan on winning?

[Sports Guy]

Agreed. Now, when do we get this train started?

It amazes me that we're possibly getting into a "bidding war" for a guy like Redding, and we're not focusing on dealing off Roberts or Guthrie or whomever.

I'd rather we keep Waters in the rotation at the (or close to) the league minimum instead of going after guys like Redding or Looper. Why pay millions for these guys when you can get near the same production from guys making far less?

If the idea is for us to acquire "place holders", make them CHEAP "place holders". Don't spend money on mediocre talent when you've got guys like Waters or Bass or others to do this. I'd have no problem going after someone like Pavano or Colon on a cheap incentive-based deal as well. These are the types we should be looking at, because we could possibly move them if they do wind up pitching well.

Yep...There is absolutely zero justification for going after Redding and Hendrickson.

[ThisIsOurHouse]

Not to be pessimistic or all, but I can not imagine us going to the playoffs in 2010. Although that is when our prospects reach the majors, they need a year to get into the swing of things. Just look at the first half's of Markakis's and Jones's first year. I think we will be a fun team to watch in 2010, and we will be similar to the competiveness of the first half of the 2008 season. But 2011 is when we make serious strides towards the playoffs.

[RShack]

After reading this, this is what I take from it:

1) You think the Orioles are close, in terms of top level talent, to the rest of the league...You know they need experience and to prove they can play with the big boys but you think the talent is there and we don't need much more.

2) You are basically banking on what we have to all hit.

I think these are 2 of your largest ideas...You feel that since those 2 things are true, that AM is addressing the near future, as those guys will be the reasons we win.

Suffice it to say, I think you are kidding yourself if you think we have even remotely enough talent and depth right now....You can't assume what we have will all be fine.

No, I don't think we have "enough" talent. Nobody every has enough of that.

However, I do think that:

• The non-P aspects of the current team are strong enough that the team would be better-than-OK if it had a good P-staff, which it doesn't.
• There is a lot of P talent in the MiL system. We don't know who among them will prove to be good vs. a bust, but there's enough of it there that it is reasonable to expect that some of those guys will show up at some point and truly help.
• I don't think you can say the same about the MiL positional talent. After Wieters, there's just a few guys who look like they might be Somebody, but not that many.
• So, the ML club's major weakness (P) is where the MiL talent is strongest, and vice versa.

This tells me that AM doesn't need to be focusing on acquiring "top level" P-talent, because he's growing that. What he needs is some P's to help hold down the fort until some kid-pitchers are ready to show up and be Somebody.

It also tells me that, while he does have issues to deal with re: position players, it's not like the starting-8 we have (assuming Wieters shows up soon) are a big weakness. They're not. There's a couple iffy spots in there, and there are surely some future-issues, but as a whole the group is good enough to be competitive in terms of both O and D.

As for the misc. guys who round out the roster, they don't really matter that much. Nobody has studs riding the bench. The last 8-10 roster spots are always mostly-replaceable spare parts.

What happens if Tillman gets hurt and Arrieta ends up a bullpen pitcher?

We need a lot more...Aftr the top 4 guys, our system really drops off...I like the upside of a lot of our players but really, none of these guys look like they will be able to stay as a starter except for maybe Spoone but he has to prove his health is ok...same with Patton.

Right now, we have no realistic chance to contend any time soon....Maybe if some miracle happened we could but of course, that has been the mantra of the Orioles for the last 11 years.

Talent talent talent...Without it, we aren't going to have any chance against the big boys.

Well, this is where we disagree.

You seem to think that the O's are basically crappy everywhere. I don't.

• I think the OF is fine.
• I think C is likely to be fine.
• I think the right-side of the IF is fine (for the moment, but maybe not for long).
• I think the left-side of the IF is OK-enough (for the moment, but not for long).
• I think the BP *might* be fine... or not... hard to say.
• I think the SP is a huge issue where we have talent who *might* show up before long to help fix it... or maybe not. Hard to say. It's certainly where we need both short-term and long-term improvement, but it's also where the MiL system is strongest.

So, when I look at the whole thing, it is not true that everything is fine, nor is it true that everything sucks. It's very much a mixed bag: some things are fine and some things are not. It's not nearly as 1-sided-bad as the picture you like to paint.

You know how Jeter is simultaneously a HOF'er and over-rated?

It's seems oddly schizophrenic: how can both things be true at once? But they are.

Well, I think a very similar thing happens with your assessment of the O's: you both undervalue and overvalue them at the very same time.

• On the one hand, you undervalue the team's strengths, say the team's personnel pretty much sucks, and therefore AM supposedly needs to do trades helter-skelter to fix everything from top to bottom.
• But then you immediately overvalue the team's assets, and claim that AM can somehow get "top level" talent for guys like Luke and Huff and Guthrie. I think you're dreaming. I think the idea that other teams are gonna give up tons of "top level talent" for those guys is true only in the imaginary world of trade-equations you construct in your mind.

Of the people you want to trade, the only one who might bring "top level talent" is BRob, and even that is somewhat debatable.

We have got to make trades...We have got to take risks on some high reward type guys...

SG, that is *always* what you say. That's not where you end up. Rather, that's the belief you start with.

It's your Baseball Ideology. It's your standard prefab answer, and it never changes.

In politics, some ideology-people think the answer to everything is tax cuts; same basic thing here w/prefab answers: you think trades are always called for.

I think it's naturally how your head works: dreaming up ways to wheel-and-deal comes naturally to you. You see the world through trade-eyeballs.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same thing as being objective about it. Making trades is your built-in bias.

Can you imagine *any* circumstance where you would not be saying that it's necessary that we make lots of trades?

[deleted list of guys SG would like us to get via trade]

[deleted list of guys SG would like to trade away]

End of the day, it is all about inventory...AM has said this and used that word...Their are only a few ways to acquire inventory but of all those ways, the only ways that can improve us short and long term are trades and FA...FA is basically out...So, we need to make trades.

Trading guys doesn't deviate from any plan...It enhances it...It makes it better because it gives AM more inventory to work with.

FA is not out. Just because he didn't get Tex, that doesn't mean FA is out.

There could well be some small-headline FA P news for all we know.

As for the rest of it, I have no problem with AM making trades to improve the overall situation.

However, I think you are just very unrealistic about several things:

• How much value he can get for the O's you want him to trade.
• How willing other teams are to trade "top level talent".
• How easy it is to make trades. You think it's easy for both sides to agree on fair trade value, when *all* evidence indicates it's actually quite hard.
• It's especially hard to make trades that involve "top level talent" and proven ML players. It's much easier to make trades involving guys who are spare parts and/or marginal prospects who don't really matter. Trades involving starting ML players and/or top prospects are incredibly hard to pull off. Yet you want to see lots of trades among *precisely* the kind of players for whom it's the *hardest* to construct trades that both sides will accept. You pretend these things are easy to do, when all evidence shows that they're very hard to do.

As for the particulars, I think you're ideas about how much ML pitching the O's can afford to trade away right now are kinda bizarre.

How anybody can look at the O's situation right now and conclude that they should trade their only reliable SP is beyond me.

That alone tells me that you're more interested in making trades for the sake of wheeling-and-dealing than you are in addressing the team's situation.

I don't think you mean to do that, I think it's just how your head works. I think your natural talent for dreaming up imaginary trades compromises your judgment.

[Lucky Jim]

To suggest that we are going to have to go through two more losing seasons and compete in 2011 is crazy. It really should not take that long. Also, why is everyone sold on Markakis, Weiters and Jones as being the centerpieces of the team?

Are you seriously suggesting that those three are the most important part of a major league squad, or that over the next three years none of these three "angels", will get hurt, or be lured away to another franchise?

As has already been noted on here the Tampa model works if you have ten years of las place finishes and top draft choices. but when the time comes to pay those players, and you don't you are on the bottom again.

Far better is the model that brings up a few minor leaguers, and sign a lot of free agents, the Detroit model is not a bad one, nor is the White Sox model.

It looks like we are following the Indians and we saw that while the contended briefly they prety quickly slipped back into mediocrity. (Markakis = Sizemore, Weiters=Martinez, Huff= Haffner), and I would suggest that all of our players are inferior to those. . . .

What am I saying. . . It is not sensable to not take a shot each year. Sign what you need and see what happens. . . there are very few certainties in life and in baseball where the vast majority of minor leaguers never make it to the majors, it is stupid to expect them to make us contenders.

Three months before this season it is too depressing to write off both this season and the next two or three.

How would they get lured to another franchise?

[Sports Guy]

The non-P aspects of the current team are strong enough that the team would be better-than-OK if it had a good P-staff, which it doesn't.

We have Wieters, Jones and Markakis...After that, we have nothing beyond next year. BRob maybe extends...Perhaps the Orioles do something stupid like pick up Mora's option or extend Huff but hey, that isn't likely to be of help to us.

There is a lot of P talent in the MiL system. We don't know who among them will prove to be good vs. a bust, but there's enough of it there that it is reasonable to expect that some of those guys will show up at some point and truly help.

This is sort of a fallacy...We do have talented arms but very few of them are likely to become starters...I do like the potential and the future of our bullpen though...I think that will be outstanding.

As for the misc. guys who round out the roster, they don't really matter that much. Nobody has studs riding the bench. The last 8-10 roster spots are always mostly-replaceable spare parts.

As long as the Orioles don't continue to be idiots when it comes to putting together a bench, I think the bench will be ok.

I think the OF is fine.

We agree...I would still trade for Pie because I like his talent and upside but I do agree.

I think C is likely to be fine.

Agree

I think the right-side of the IF is fine (for the moment, but maybe not for long).

I think the left-side of the IF is OK-enough (for the moment, but not for long)

Izturis is borderline fine...It just depends on if his defense stays consistent...BRob is fine but for how long? The rest of it isn't good and all of it, outside of Izturis, is gone after 2009. Where do you expect the IF to come from?

I think the BP *might* be fine... or not... hard to say.

I have full confidence in the pen, as I already have stated.

I think the SP is a huge issue where we have talent who *might* show up before long to help fix it... or maybe not. Hard to say. It's certainly where we need both short-term and long-term improvement, but it's also where the MiL system is strongest.

I have liked the potential of our starters for years now and have continually been wrong about them...I still like the potential of our starters...And I hate the idea of signing FA pitchers unless you can get guys for a steal, which is why I want us to go get Sheets.

So, when I look at the whole thing, it is not true that everything is fine, nor is it true that everything sucks. It's very much a mixed bag: some things are fine and some things are not. It's not nearly as 1-sided-bad as the picture you like to paint.

I have never painted it like this...That is how you have chosen to read things...big difference.

End of the day, this team is 3-4 starting pitchers and 2-3 more legit starting position players away from being a competitive team...Then, on top of those things, they need to be smart about the bench and pen...They need to make sure they have good depth and not waste money on crappy talent, so that in July they can go trade for a piece to put us over the top.

The Orioles are not even remotely close to contention...They are miles away...You think they are closer than they are and you are completely wrong.

They have some good pieces..They have some very good potential on the pitching side but they don't have depth, they don't have nearly enough talent and they aren't going to make the big splashes in free agency...AM and PA do not believe in that. That is a fact that can't be argued. Yes, we will be able to sign the Aubrey Huff type FAs and every once in a while, we may get lucky and get another Tejada but you can't count on that and the Aubrey Huff type FAs normally bust than boom.

So, it goes back to AM and him wanting to build the system...And that is great...That is what they need to be doing...But its going to take a lot of time and they can't just say, screw the next 3-5 years...They need to do what they can to bring in as big an influx of major league ready talent as possible...They need to do that ASAP. The only way that is going to be accomplished is if they make some trades.

Now, no one on this site has ever said to trade these guys for the hell of it....We obviously are only talking about trading them if we get the right offer...The problem is, the right offer is liable to come along but its not enough for AM because he wants an unfair offer.

Ultimately, I have no very little doubt that AM will do the right things and that we will be in good shape in 5 years or so.

But, as of today, I say he is absolutely the wrong man to make us true contenders within the next few years and that is my problem with him. He has been on this job for a while now and over the past 10 months, he has done nothing to improve the talent and depth of the franchise.

[Lucky Jim]

No, I don't think we have "enough" talent. Nobody every has enough of that.

However, I do think that:

• The non-P aspects of the current team are strong enough that the team would be better-than-OK if it had a good P-staff, which it doesn't.
• There is a lot of P talent in the MiL system. We don't know who among them will prove to be good vs. a bust, but there's enough of it there that it is reasonable to expect that some of those guys will show up at some point and truly help.
• I don't think you can say the same about the MiL positional talent. After Wieters, there's just a few guys who look like they might be Somebody, but not that many.
• So, the ML club's major weakness (P) is where the MiL talent is strongest, and vice versa.

This tells me that AM doesn't need to be focusing on acquiring "top level" P-talent, because he's growing that. What he needs is some P's to help hold down the fort until some kid-pitchers are ready to show up and be Somebody.

It also tells me that, while he does have issues to deal with re: position players, it's not like the starting-8 we have (assuming Wieters shows up soon) are a big weakness. They're not. There's a couple iffy spots in there, and there are surely some future-issues, but as a whole the group is good enough to be competitive in terms of both O and D.

As for the misc. guys who round out the roster, they don't really matter that much. Nobody has studs riding the bench. The last 8-10 roster spots are always mostly-replaceable spare parts.

Well, this is where we disagree.

You seem to think that the O's are basically crappy everywhere. I don't.

• I think the OF is fine.
• I think C is likely to be fine.
• I think the right-side of the IF is fine (for the moment, but maybe not for long).
• I think the left-side of the IF is OK-enough (for the moment, but not for long).
• I think the BP *might* be fine... or not... hard to say.
• I think the SP is a huge issue where we have talent who *might* show up before long to help fix it... or maybe not. Hard to say. It's certainly where we need both short-term and long-term improvement, but it's also where the MiL system is strongest.

So, when I look at the whole thing, it is not true that everything is fine, nor is it true that everything sucks. It's very much a mixed bag: some things are fine and some things are not. It's not nearly as 1-sided-bad as the picture you like to paint.

You know how Jeter is simultaneously a HOF'er and over-rated?

It's seems oddly schizophrenic: how can both things be true at once? But they are.

Well, I think a very similar thing happens with your assessment of the O's: you both undervalue and overvalue them at the very same time.

• On the one hand, you undervalue the team's strengths, say the team's personnel pretty much sucks, and therefore AM supposedly needs to do trades helter-skelter to fix everything from top to bottom.
• But then you immediately overvalue the team's assets, and claim that AM can somehow get "top level" talent for guys like Luke and Huff and Guthrie. I think you're dreaming. I think the idea that other teams are gonna give up tons of "top level talent" for those guys is true only in the imaginary world of trade-equations you construct in your mind.

Of the people you want to trade, the only one who might bring "top level talent" is BRob, and even that is somewhat debatable.

SG, that is *always* what you say. That's not where you end up. Rather, that's the belief you start with.

It's your Baseball Ideology. It's your standard prefab answer, and it never changes.

In politics, some ideology-people think the answer to everything is tax cuts; same basic thing here w/prefab answers: you think trades are always called for.

I think it's naturally how your head works: dreaming up ways to wheel-and-deal comes naturally to you. You see the world through trade-eyeballs.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same thing as being objective about it. Making trades is your built-in bias.

Can you imagine *any* circumstance where you would not be saying that it's necessary that we make lots of trades?

FA is not out. Just because he didn't get Tex, that doesn't mean FA is out.

There could well be some small-headline FA P news for all we know.

As for the rest of it, I have no problem with AM making trades to improve the overall situation.

However, I think you are just very unrealistic about several things:

• How much value he can get for the O's you want him to trade.
• How willing other teams are to trade "top level talent".
• How easy it is to make trades. You think it's easy for both sides to agree on fair trade value, when *all* evidence indicates it's actually quite hard.
• It's especially hard to make trades that involve "top level talent" and proven ML players. It's much easier to make trades involving guys who are spare parts and/or marginal prospects who don't really matter. Trades involving starting ML players and/or top prospects are incredibly hard to pull off. Yet you want to see lots of trades among *precisely* the kind of players for whom it's the *hardest* to construct trades that both sides will accept. You pretend these things are easy to do, when all evidence shows that they're very hard to do.

As for the particulars, I think you're ideas about how much ML pitching the O's can afford to trade away right now are kinda bizarre.

How anybody can look at the O's situation right now and conclude that they should trade their only reliable SP is beyond me.

That alone tells me that you're more interested in making trades for the sake of wheeling-and-dealing than you are in addressing the team's situation.

This is an excellent post. I guess I come in somewhere in the middle (as usual). I think our talent is fine for next year - outside of our pitching - to avoid embarrassing ourselves. But, after next year, we have no replacements for Huff, for Roberts, or for Mora (though we have a 2010 option).

Thus, our talent beyond THIS year at the ML level is very very poor. And we have nothing in the minors below it. And a team's ML inventory is essentially what it has at the ML level, and what it has that is ML-ready. Thus, our inventory at the ML level from a global perspective is very poor.

Now, we've foresaken the FA market as a place for long-term replacements for position players - which is fair, because, frankly, long-term FA signings are always problematic (except for the best of the best - and even then, risky if there's no short-term reward). And, even if we've drafted well, we've focused heavily on toolsy speedsters who are either young (Hoes, Avery) or raw (what's his face out of Illinois).

Thus, there are only two ways to insure we're not a complete joke NEXT year: (i) re-signing Huff, Roberts and Mora. But this runs the risk of creating long-term drag while leaving us STILL a joke due to declining production (these are really the kinds of guys you avoid signing as FAs); or (ii) trying to trade whatever chips we have for long-term solutions at a couple of key positions.

Now, we're lucky, because we have some high-upside, fairly low-risk guys at key positions: catcher, centerfield, and right field. LF is okay for now (and possibly for next year and beyond w/ Reimold). Thus, we really need to be looking for 1B, 2B, SS and 3B.

Shack, you're absolutely right that trading non-superstars is very difficult. But we have a couple of advantages that diminish the transaction costs: Huff and Roberts are reasonably priced and their contracts are expiring - thus, they're low-risk for other franchises. We have one marked disadvantage: they have an expiring contract, which means their value is limited to contenders needing that final puzzle piece.

So, we can't expect a big haul from either of them, likely, unless a team is desperate. Counting on desperation is a mistake.

The exception is Scott: I think a fast start from Scott this year (health) would be a great plus in swapping him. He's cheap, he's signed beyond the year, and he provides good power (and adequate defense) from LF. He's essentially a poor man's LF-version of Guthrie.

This leaves two other decent chips: Sherrill and Guthrie. An good year from Sherrill should drive his value up (I think it will be higher as a solid specialist than a flawed closer). A solid start from Guthrie should take his value - he's cheap, and consistent and offers more years - up to a fairly significant level.

The problem with trading Guthrie is that we'll be subtracting from an already deficient area (ML-ready SP). Which means that we'll have to get ML-ready pitching back for him, which will cut into our return on what we really need, position prospects.

It's a difficult position. And one that makes me completely understand why folks would want to look at the FA market.

I'm not sure of the solution, but these guys should all be shopped heavily, IMO, and shopped in search of diversified packages of position players (with possible starting pitchers considered, too).

Where I disagree with SG is what we should be looking for: I don't think high-risk is particularly helpful if we're giving up ML value. High risk is great on the wire (Pena, Guthrie) but I don't trade low-risk ML value for high risk prospects.

I think we should be looking for packages that include at least one above average positional prospect with near-ready ML-average guys in bunches. Likely, these will be available if they are blocked.

We shouldn't be panicky about finding +production guys because we're actually expecting plus production from three-to-four positions (C, CF, RF, LF). We need to be searching for solid everyday players.

And, as I said before, we should be looking to bundle arms in interesting ways. If a team wants high-ceiling guys, but are willing to take high-risk/high-ceiling guys (like, say, Erbe or Liz) then we should be swapping that risk for lower-risk, ML-ready prospects. If they want the best of our best (Tillman, Arrieta, and Matusz) then we're obviously looking for low-risk, high ceiling in return.

But these are where we need to trade from:

Guthrie

Sherrill

Roberts

Huff

Scott

MiL arms

And this is what we should be looking for (preferably blocked):

ML-average SS prospect

ML-average to + 2B prospect

1B

2B

3B

What holes we don't fill, we can reconsider again next offseason, looking to package guys in our system who we don't really know their value yet: Britton, for instance, or Patton and Spoone. We've got guys coming up behind.

What holes THESE don't fill, we can reconsider both the FA market and further trades.

[RShack]

Ultimately, I have no very little doubt that AM will do the right things and that we will be in good shape in 5 years or so.

But, as of today, I say he is absolutely the wrong man to make us true contenders within the next few years and that is my problem with him. He has been on this job for a while now and over the past 10 months, he has done nothing to improve the talent and depth of the franchise.

Well, we agree that the tough issue is how to best manage things between now and when he's got the org fixed.

When we go through the details about the state of things, we agree about more than we disagree about.

The diff is in the conclusions we reach: You think we are more-guys-away from being competitive than I think we are.

Here's where the diff appears to be:

• I think we don't need to be strong at every position to be competitive. Nobody is strong everywhere.
• I don't think being competitive requires as many good SP's as you do. I think being competitive requires 3 good SP's and a good BP. That may not be ideal, but it's enough to be competitive. Once you get past the top-3 starters, having adequate spare parts for the other SP slots is good enough to be competitive.

As for AM, he's been here about 1.5 years. The 1st half-season was basically his assessment window, and he decided that things are worse than he realized ahead of time. So, it really comes down to whether you think the changes are satisfactory for 1 year of work. I think they are, you think they're not.

As for "the last 10 months", I think that's a very arbitrary metric and is the wrong metric. Despite the annual noise around here about unrealistic "deadline deals", what AM's mainly gonna do is use the off season to make changes, and the off season isn't over yet.

His opportunities are a lot less now, simply because he pretty much shot his wad with Erik and Miggy. With the possible exception of BRob, he just doesn't have anything that will bring back "top level talent" (and even with BRob, that's not a sure thing).

I agree (and AM would agree) that he has lots of things to do.

I do not agree with your claim that what he needs to do is somehow obvious and easy to pull off.

IMO, it's neither one. (The goals are, but the specific actions to reach the goals are not.)

Our disagreement pretty much comes down to what I said previously:

I have no problem with AM making trades to improve the overall situation.

However, I think you are just very unrealistic about several things:

• How much value he can get for the O's you want him to trade.
• How willing other teams are to trade "top level talent".
• How easy it is to make trades. You think it's easy for both sides to agree on fair trade value, when *all* evidence indicates it's actually quite hard.
• It's especially hard to make trades that involve "top level talent" and proven ML players. It's much easier to make trades involving guys who are spare parts and/or marginal prospects who don't really matter. Trades involving starting ML players and/or top prospects are incredibly hard to pull off. Yet you want to see lots of trades among *precisely* the kind of players for whom it's the *hardest* to construct trades that both sides will accept. You pretend these things are easy to do, when all evidence shows that they're very hard to do.

I think your natural talent for dreaming up imaginary trades compromises your judgment.

At Disney World, there's some thing they used to have (and maybe still do) about the important thing is being able to "imagine it".

The problem with Actual Baseball is that "imagineering" isn't enough.

Just because you can imagine trades that would do what you want, that doesn't mean your imaginary trades are realistic.

For the most part, I think they are not. If AM could somehow brain-control other GM's, then sure. But he can't.

You do have a gift for dreaming up trades, but IMO your strength in that area is more than counterbalanced by your weakness at evaluating how realistic they are.

Just because they make sense in your head, that doesn't mean they are realistic trades. Nor does it mean that they unproven talent you want to get will pan out.

IMO, the whole thing is way harder than you seem to think it is.

[Sports Guy]

I think we don't need to be strong at every position to be competitive. Nobody is strong everywhere.

Well, seeing as I said 2-3 IF positions, that means I am not saying strong at every position. But I do think you underestimate the amount of talent we need.

I don't think being competitive requires as many good SP's as you do. I think being competitive requires 3 good SP's and a good BP. That may not be ideal, but it's enough to be competitive. Once you get past the top-3 starters, having adequate spare parts for the other SP slots is good enough to be competitive

You need more than 3 starters in the AL..If we were in the NL, I would agree.

As for AM, he's been here about 1.5 years. The 1st half-season was basically his assessment window, and he decided that things are worse than he realized ahead of time. So, it really comes down to whether you think the changes are satisfactory for 1 year of work. I think they are, you think they're not

I think they were up until last ST..Since then, nothing...And when I say nothing, i am talking about the talent and depth in the organization...I fully acknowledge the strides in Int'l scouting.

As for "the last 10 months", I think that's a very arbitrary metric and is the wrong metric. Despite the annual noise around here about unrealistic "deadline deals", what AM's mainly gonna do is use the off season to make changes, and the off season isn't over yet.

Its not arbitrary..Its the time period since the Bedard.

His opportunities are a lot less now, simply because he pretty much shot his wad with Erik and Miggy. With the possible exception of BRob, he just doesn't have anything that will bring back "top level talent" (and even with BRob, that's not a sure thing).

BRob and Guthrie could bring back some good talent.

As for the rest of your post...Stop bringing it up. It is annoying, it is bs and has nothing to do with anything. YOu can write some good posts, then you bring that stuff into it and it just makes me not even want to waste my time replying to you...It is the biggest thing that everyone has problem with when it comes to you and yet, you continue to do it.

[RShack]

As for the rest of your post...Stop bringing it up. It is annoying, it is bs and has nothing to do with anything. YOu can write some good posts, then you bring that stuff into it and it just makes me not even want to waste my time replying to you...It is the biggest thing that everyone has problem with when it comes to you and yet, you continue to do it.

SG, it's not BS. Imaginary trades are not the same thing as reality.

You act as if there is zero diff between trades you imagine and trades that are realistic.

You may not like to hear it, but the diff between the 2 things is huge.

I understand that dreaming up trades is your favorite activity.

Nothing wrong with that. It's something you're very good at.

I just don't see why you have to be in denial about how realistic they are.

You talk as if making a team a contender by making trades involving starting-ML'ers and top-level prospects is easy to do.

Meanwhile, any rational analysis shows this is perhaps the hardest thing for any baseball GM to pull off.

Take any period of time that includes 100 trades. How many of them are important? Very, very few.

Why is that? It's not because everybody-but-you is stupid.

Face it, making important trades is a very hard thing to do. It is not easy. That is why they're so rare.

You know enough to know this is true. I don't know why you deny it and pretend they're easy.

[Sports Guy]

SG, it's not BS. Imaginary trades are not the same thing as reality.

You act as if there is zero diff between trades you imagine and trades that are realistic.

You may not like to hear it, but the diff between the 2 things is huge.

I understand that dreaming up trades is your favorite activity.

Nothing wrong with that. It's something you're very good at.

I just don't see why you have to be in denial about how realistic they are.

You talk as if making a team a contender by making trades involving starting-ML'ers and top-level prospects is easy to do.

Meanwhile, any rational analysis shows this is perhaps the hardest thing for any baseball GM to pull off.

Take any period of time that includes 100 trades. How many of them are important? Very, very few.

Why is that? It's not because everybody-but-you is stupid.

Face it, making important trades is a very hard thing to do. It is not easy. That is why they're so rare.

You know enough to know this is true. I don't know why you deny it and pretend they're easy.

I never have..Again, this is how you choose to read it and quite frankly, you are completely wrong but whatever, keep toiling in fantasy land.

[badbird73]

We have Wieters, Jones and Markakis...After that, we have nothing beyond next year. BRob maybe extends...Perhaps the Orioles do something stupid like pick up Mora's option or extend Huff but hey, that isn't likely to be of help to us.

The Orioles are not even remotely close to contention...They are miles away...You think they are closer than they are and you are completely wrong.

But, as of today, I say he is absolutely the wrong man to make us true contenders within the next few years and that is my problem with him. He has been on this job for a while now and over the past 10 months, he has done nothing to improve the talent and depth of the franchise.

We won't be contenders as long as Peter the Great owns the team:cussing:

[RShack]

It's a difficult position.

Well, that's the crux of it right there.

The simple truth is that we have no idea what AM may be working on.

And, of the things he may be working on, we have no idea what viable possibilities are there (in terms of what other teams will/won't do).

So, it really comes down to whether you trust AM to make reasonable judgments or not.

So far, we have zero facts about what trades AM didn't make. We only know about the ones he did make.

I think he made good ones. So, I do have reason to trust his judgment and zero reasons to not trust it.

[Camden_yardbird]

The Orioles need to plan on winning in at one of two times:

1) Long term, "dynastic", year in and year out, competition for a championship can only be obtained by developing in the draft over the next 3-6 years and shelling out BIG money to keep their elite players and sign others, or

2)Plan to have a 3-5 year window to compete when Tampa is on the decline. Four teams can't compete for 1 playoff spot in the AL East or even two if you add the wildcard. The Orioles I think are going to have to plan to be competitive when the window runs out on tampa. I think that means if and when Crawford is gone, and some of their elite pitching is declining or leaving via free agency. I would estimate that is 3-4 years from now at least.

I think that means maximizing the eficiency of contracts and preparing all you elite talent to be ready to contribute by 2012 using the second option. If you use the first option I don't think Roberts, Markakis, or Guthrie are part of the equation. You build around Wieters, Jones, and any of the big three that make it.

[RShack]

I never have..Again, this is how you choose to read it and quite frankly, you are completely wrong but whatever, keep toiling in fantasy land.

SG, I'm not the one basing things on imaginary trades.

When it comes to actual facts, here's what we know:

• This is AM's 2nd off-season here.
• During his 1st off-season, he made good trades that appear to be important.
• In the case of the Erik trade, he got more for him than you wanted him to accept.
• While it's not about trades, he also stared down Boras on Wieters and won, when you wanted him to pay way more.

So, during his time so far, his track record is better than what you wanted him to do.

Yet your opinion is, "I say he is absolutely the wrong man to make us true contenders within the next few years and that is my problem with him."

In terms of actual results, he out-did your specific recommendations, and yet you think he's the wrong man for the job?

Why? Because he hasn't made deals by XMAS?

If you admit that making important trades is hard, then how can you say he's the wrong man for the job when:

• His 1st off-season was successful
• His 2nd off-season is only half-way through?

The only reason I can think of is because you think making important trades is easy.

You might not say it out loud, but that idea is 100% consistent with the conclusions you reach.

[Sports Guy]

SG, I'm not the one basing things on imaginary trades.

When it comes to actual facts, here's what we know:

• This is AM's 2nd off-season here.
• During his 1st off-season, he made good trades that appear to be important.
• In the case of the Erik trade, he got more for him than you wanted him to accept.
• While it's not about trades, he also stared down Boras on Wieters and won, when you wanted him to pay way more.

So, during his time so far, his track record is better than what you wanted him to do.

Yet your opinion is, "I say he is absolutely the wrong man to make us true contenders within the next few years and that is my problem with him."

In terms of actual results, he out-did your specific recommendations, and yet you think he's the wrong man for the job?

Why? Because he hasn't made deals by XMAS?

If you admit that making important trades is hard, then how can you say he's the wrong man for the job when:

• His 1st off-season was successful
• His 2nd off-season is only half-way through?

The only reason I can think of is because you think making important trades is easy.

You might not say it out loud, but that idea is 100% consistent with the conclusions you reach.

Yet again, another thing where you leave off the most important part.

Based on some things we heard, the Bedard deal held us up in doing other things and those things didn't get done.

If that is the case, then holding out for one extra player was wrong IMO...it was more important to get other things done.

But if he wasn't handcuffed by that and it didn't prevent him from getting things done, then I have no issue with him holding out for more.

Ultimately, I believe it did handcuff AM and he probably could have done more had the Bedard thing been resolved weeks before it was, so therefore I think he did the wrong thing...especially since I don't see Butler becoming much of anything.