A lot of little moves = a significantly better team?

[Anlbdz]

Everyone is focusing on the pitching here. Which does matter, don't get me wrong. I think just as important is the fact that we should also be wary of what Huff and Mora do this year. They both played above their heads last year. If Huff and Mora sink back down to expected performance levels our offense will be extremely average to go along with a pitching corps that will be near the bottom.

No offense to our bullpen, but this run of starters will only get us so far.....hopefully I'm wrong.

Win or Lose, there is a lot to be excited about. 2nd year of Jones snagging everything, Markakis continuing to turn into a great player, Wieters breaking in, Uehara starting, and Ray coming back to form a very strong end of the game bullpen.

I'm excited.

[DrungoHazewood]

He doesn't hold runners well at all. He doesn't field his position. He struggles to cover first base on all plays, but especially on bunts to the 1B side. He throws a TON of wild pitches and pitches in the dirt. He doesn't strike me as a guy that would warm up quickly. You never know when he is going to just lose the zone for an inning.

I think he'd be an absolute horror as a reliever. If I saw Cabrera on the mound with runners on base late in a close game as an opposing manager, I'd be excited. Stealing, bunting, hit-and-run all become much more viable options with a Cabrera on the mound.

He isn't a good fit out of the pen. I know that nobody wants to talk about it, but this guy did none of the intangible things well at all. For goodness sake, this guy visibly FLINCHED whenever a ball was hit between SS and 2B.

I liked the guy. I had high hopes. I still hope his does better in DC. But, it was time to go. This was a classic change of scenery situation for both parties.

He was usually an absolute horror as a starter, and they let that go on for five years.

I would have at least given him the chance to throw 100 mph gas for a couple innings at at time, ditch all of his other pitches, maybe he gets some consistency and comfort in mopup situations. Couldn't have ended up much worse. It's worked for others with something like his profile.

[bluedog]

Apparently I can't give you rep now bluedog, but I think I've typed the same thing you just did no less than ten times in various threads over the past month.

There's no possible way that our rotation in 2009 could be worse than it was in 2008. I'd take Uehara, Liz, Olson and whoever over Trachsel, Burres, Loewen and Cabrera any day of the week. Combine this with a brand new catcher who may actually know how to call a game/stop a ball, and a much deeper AAA rotation to pick up the slack, we could be in for a more pleasant season.

I gave you rep to make up for it.

Even if we struggle in the win / loss columns, I'll be happy if we simply make progress with our young pitching. I'd happily live through 100 losses this season if at the end of the year we've found three youngsters who've proven they can effectively compete at the major league level over the long haul.

But in reality, I expect this year's team to be much better than last year's team.

In fact, I'll go on record as saying that I expect the 2009 O's to win 80 games and stun just about everyone in the process. Someone stick that in their sig and you can laugh at me when I'm wrong - but I have a weird feeling about this year.

I think Wieters will win ROY.

I think Markakis has a huge season and establishes himself as a bonafide all-star

I think Guthrie and Uehara both win 16 games.

I think Ray re-establishes himself as a dominant closer by season's end.

I think somewhere in the mix of our young pitchers we find three solid starters by season's end.

Aint the Kool-aid cold!

[bluedog]

The moves AM has made would be pretty much ideal for 2009 if he would have made long term moves to go along with it.

He still has time, but right now we are a few wins better in '09 and that's it, and that does squat for us come 2010 so we aren't in a better position as an organization moving forward, other than opening up the Japanese doors.

That's the bottom line really and what this offseason should have been about.

Sometimes the best long term moves are to not block your young players with mediocre veteran players at the big league level.

If Wieters, Reimold and two or three of our young starters establish themselves this season, then not signing long term, big dollar free agents will have been exactly the right decision moving forward.

[WietersOvechkin]

I gave you rep to make up for it.

Even if we struggle in the win / loss columns, I'll be happy if we simply make progress with our young pitching. I'd happily live through 100 losses this season if at the end of the year we've found three youngsters who've proven they can effectively compete at the major league level over the long haul.

But in reality, I expect this year's team to be much better than last year's team.

In fact, I'll go on record as saying that I expect the 2009 O's to win 80 games and stun just about everyone in the process. Someone stick that in their sig and you can laugh at me when I'm wrong - but I have a weird feeling about this year.

I think Wieters will win ROY.

I think Markakis has a huge season and establishes himself as a bonafide all-star

I think Guthrie and Uehara both win 16 games.

I think Ray re-establishes himself as a dominant closer by season's end.

I think somewhere in the mix of our young pitchers we find three solid starters by season's end.

Aint the Kool-aid cold!

I wish I were this optimistic, however, I will take you up on that offer...

[TonySoprano]

There's no possible way that our rotation in 2009 could be worse than it was in 2008. I'd take Uehara, Liz, Olson and whoever over Trachsel, Burres, Loewen and Cabrera any day of the week. Combine this with a brand new catcher who may actually know how to call a game/stop a ball, and a much deeper AAA rotation to pick up the slack, we could be in for a more pleasant season.

Olson and Liz each had more starts (26 & 17 respectively) than Trachsel (8) and Loewen (4) did in 2008. If Uehara outpitches Cabrera *and* if Guthrie *and* Liz *and* Olson at least match their 2008 numbers, then 2009 could be better than 2008. Emphasis on could instead of will because there are several intangibles. As it stands, about four weeks from when pitchers and catchers report, our rotation is Guthrie-Uehara-Olson (maybe)-whoever-whoever.

It's way to early to definitively state that "no possible way" pitching could be worse, particularly when 40% of the rotation is "whoever."

[El Gordo]

The moves AM has made would be pretty much ideal for 2009 if he would have made long term moves to go along with it.

He still has time, but right now we are a few wins better in '09 and that's it, and that does squat for us come 2010 so we aren't in a better position as an organization moving forward, other than opening up the Japanese doors.

That's the bottom line really and what this offseason should have been about.

What long term moves has he missed out on, and what options are left to him in this regard?

[bluedog]

Olson and Liz each had more starts (26 & 17 respectively) than Trachsel (8) and Loewen (4) did in 2008. If Uehara outpitches Cabrera *and* if Guthrie *and* Liz *and* Olson at least match their 2008 numbers, then 2009 could be better than 2008. Emphasis on could instead of will because there are several intangibles. As it stands, about four weeks from when pitchers and catchers report, our rotation is Guthrie-Uehara-Olson (maybe)-whoever-whoever.

It's way to early to definitively state that "no possible way" pitching could be worse, particularly when 40% of the rotation is "whoever."

Although you are obviously correct from a statistical standpoint, I think his point is that there is no possible way that in retrospect:

Guthrie, Cabrera, Loewen, Trachsel, Burres

is preferable to

Guthrie, Uehara, Olson, (pick anyone), (pick anyone)

regardless of how either lineup would perform statistically.

And I agree with him.

Going into the 2008 season, Trachsel and Burres were the BEST options we had available to us (which is pretty frightening in and of itself)

Going into the 2009 season, we have multiple options who are seemingly superior to Burres and Trachsel, even if they are only superior in terms of the fact that they have the potential to develop into much better pitchers at some point in the future where Burres and Trachsel did not.

Even in the worst case, where none of our young pitchers lay claim to those rotation spots, we'll end up with journeyman players like Hendrickson and AAAA players like Waters in those spots for now - which is exactly what we had there last year in Burres and Trax.

I'd say that:

Guthrie, Uehara, Olson, Waters, Hendrickson

probably couldn't be worse than what we actually got from our rotation last year -

DCab - 5.25 ERA / 1.60 WHIP

Lowen - 8.00 ERA followed by career ending injury

Burres - near 6.00 ERA

Trax - 8.30 ERA in 10 starts

[RShack]

The moves AM has made would be pretty much ideal for 2009 if he would have made long term moves to go along with it.

Well, it's pretty clear that AM's priority is on rebuilding the franchise for the long term.

I think pretty much anybody who's not a rabid AM-hater agrees with that.

There is some disagreement about whether he has done a good job (so far) of balancing that with putting together a 2009 team that is as decent as possible.

However, disagreement about that issue is within the context of his overall priority on the long term.

Given these things, it seems pretty obvious that he has not encountered available moves with appropriate long-term value, or else he would have made them.

AFAIK, the only way to conclude otherwise is to imagine some kind of secret bad-guy agenda, which seems kinda silly to me.

Just because you wish for moves that fix things long-term, that doesn't mean they're really there.

Which is exactly why rebuilding means mainly focusing on growing your own.

[El Gordo]

Except no one is saying that he should block our prospects with mediocre veteran players.

But guys like Sherill, Huff, BROB, Mora (if he will waive his NTC), and maybe even Scott should all have been gone before this season.

3 of those guys do nothing for us beyond 2009, and 2 of them are redudant and may have more value to us in a trade.

The IF is really the problem going forward. If what you said happens, then we are all well and good other than no 1B, 2B, SS, or 3B.

What, we should DFA them? Please name the trades that are just there for the pickings but for the FO's myopia.:rolleyestf:

[Enjoy Terror]

I think MacPhail's biggest challenge is going to be finding an infield for 2010.

[bluedog]

I think MacPhail's biggest challenge is going to be finding an infield for 2010.

What, you're not sold on:

1b - Brazell

2b - Turner

ss - Izturis

3b - Snyder

?

Seriously though - I expect us to go after a 1b in free agency in 2010 or 2011. Maybe LaRoche next year or resign Huff to play 1b in 2010 with a move to DH in 2011 and go after one of the big name 1b in 2011.

But at 2b, SS and 3b the cupboard is barren in the free agency market.

I think Turner might work at 2b. I like him quite a bit in fact.

And I think McPhail is totally comfortable with a all glove / no hit guy at SS - so maybe Izturis is the guy for a while.

But 3b - I have no idea what we can do there. Maybe trade BRob and Sherrill for Vitters and call it a day?

[RShack]

he hasn't added talent or depth to the organization in unconvential ways or through trading anyone other than top, obvious trade pieces.

The way you can get top talent for the system from other clubs is by trading special guys.

He already did that.

Now, you want him to get top talent from other clubs by trading not-so-special guys.

Good luck with that.

Just because you wish he could do that, that doesn't make it true.

All it does is make it wishful thinking.

[bluedog]

So you don't think there was any team willing to offer a Reimold and Olson quality for Huff??

You don't think there was a team that would have offered a semi top end IF prospect for Sherill?

If that's the case, then it's tough to fault him I guess, I just think it's very naive to think that was the case.

BTW...He could have traded Hoey for Reyes and that is a trade I make in a second.

I find it hard to beleive the Cubs wouldn't deal Pie, Hill, and Cedeno for Scott, given the values of the players the Cubs would be moving. That's a deal that should have been made, or something similar.

And again, he royally screwed up the Tex deal.

Tex wanted to go to NY. There have been reports bubbling around that NY was always Tex's target and that everything else was just smoke and mirrors to drive up the final price tag. Have no idea how AM had anything to do with screwing that up.

I really doubt AM has been offered anything so good as a Reimold caliber prospect for Huff, much less a Reimold / Olson caliber deal. He'd have jumped all over that in my opinion. This is the guy that authored the Tejada and Bedard deals - he does know how to pull the trigger on favorable trades.

And for all the people that like to complain about the O's front office only being interested in dumping payroll, the fact they haven't moved Huff in a cost saving trade is evidence against this mentality. Clearly AM believes that Huff is still more valuable as an Oriole than anything that's been offered by other teams in trade, even counting the 8 - 9 million bucks he's due in 2009.

As for Sherrill for a "semi-top end infield prospect", how can we know if he's been offered that? It takes two parties to make a trade. I'm sure he could have gotten someone like Cedeno from the Cubs for Sherrill, but would that have been a good trade? Not likely. Who is this semi top end infield prospect you think we've been offered?

[Enjoy Terror]

So you don't think there was any team willing to offer a Reimold and Olson quality for Huff?? No, I don't. Huff is a poor defender and really can only contribute at DH. This pretty much eliminates him from the NL. He's also coming off a fluke season; numbers he hasn't seen in years. If you were offered Huff for your team for a year, would you give up a Garrett Olson?

You don't think there was a team that would have offered a semi top end IF prospect for Sherill? Would it be worth the time to get a "semi top end IF" for Sherrill if you could sign someone like Izturis for free?

If that's the case, then it's tough to fault him I guess, I just think it's very naive to think that was the case.

BTW...He could have traded Hoey for Reyes and that is a trade I make in a second.

I find it hard to beleive the Cubs wouldn't deal Pie, Hill, and Cedeno for Scott, given the values of the players the Cubs would be moving. That's a deal that should have been made, or something similar. You're kidding right? You think all of that would have come back for a platoon left fielder?

And again, he royally screwed up the Tex deal. Tex wasn't coming to Baltimore, and that fault falls squarely on Tex. Or haven't you read anything about this?

characters