Wigginton Official/Moore DFA

[JTrea81]

Well, the latest developments are big here, folks.

Since I pointed out to JTrea that the O's value defense and that's why guys like Cust, House and Knott were allowed to pass through, he's stopped his Moore rant.

And we also have Puck saying he likes the Wigginton signing.

Sound the trumpets. Cue the Fat Lady. I think we're moving on here, people.

Well to be fair, I was out all day...

And Moore isn't as bad defensively as the other three you mentioned. He'd probably be at least league average at 1B as he was drafted as a SS. I like the Wigginton signing as well, I just don't like what the Orioles did with Moore.

[El Gordo]

I think the simple point is that the O's don't have any openings for a corner IF bench guy, but we do have 3 openings on our starting rotation. So if you have to choose between Moore or Simon or Bass, then choose to keep the two guys who have a shot at making the rotation over a guy who has no shot at making the team and a good shot to pass through waivers. It doesn't matter how good he was or wasn't last year.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well to be fair, I was out all day...

And Moore isn't as bad defensively as the other three you mentioned. He'd probably be at least league average at 1B as he was drafted as a SS. I like the Wigginton signing as well, I just don't like what the Orioles did with Moore.

About 80% of everybody who plays in the majors was a SS/P at some point in their careers. Lou Montanez, who is currently a barely adequate LFer was drafted as a shortstop. Kevin Mitchell was a shortstop as a kid.

[DrungoHazewood]

The game changed in those 17 years. Several teams were added, which in turn led to the "Quad A" type players -- which I discussed in another message.

Umm... no. There are exactly the same percentage of marginal major leaguers today as there were 17 years ago. There are always players 10% or 20% or whatever worse than MLB average. The AAAA label isn't dependent on number of teams or even quality of those teams.

Even if it was, expansion hasn't even kept up with population and player pool growth, so you could make the argument that many players who were labeled AAAA in 1981 would struggle to succeed in AAA at all today.

[elsid]

Umm... no. There are exactly the same percentage of marginal major leaguers today as there were 17 years ago. There are always players 10% or 20% or whatever worse than MLB average. The AAAA label isn't dependent on number of teams or even quality of those teams.

Even if it was, expansion hasn't even kept up with population and player pool growth, so you could make the argument that many players who were labeled AAAA in 1981 would struggle to succeed in AAA at all today.

Then I guess that is where we disagree. The terminology of "Quad A" vs marginal major leaguer. A "Quad A" player is not a marginal major leaguer to me. A marginal major leaguer is someone who you state is below major league average at a position. I am fine with that definition. However, by going with that definition, Derek Jeter belongs in this category. He is below major league average at his position.

That is a very big difference to what I think of as a "Quad A" player. A "Quad A" player, to me, is a filler type of player. He will bounce back and forth between AAA and the bigs, spending most of his time at AAA. In a sense, too good for AAA, but not quite good enough for the bigs.

Back in the 80's, there was A, AA, AAA and MLB. Guys quit if they couldn't make it to the pros after a couple of years at AAA, unless they just loved the game. There wasn't much sending guys up and down as there is now, therefore I don't think there were as many "Quad A" guys back then. Now there is Rookie League, A-, A+, AA, AAA and MLB, plus there are 30 teams. There are more people playing baseball professionally, but there are less people (at least in the U.S.) playing baseball overall -- would have to relocate the article. To me, that means that even though the overall pool of players is greater, the talent pool has lessened, to a certain extent, which in turn creates more of the "Quad A" type players.

[Fan4Life]

Back in the 80's, there was A, AA, AAA and MLB. Guys quit if they couldn't make it to the pros after a couple of years at AAA, unless they just loved the game. There wasn't much sending guys up and down as there is now, therefore I don't think there were as many "Quad A" guys back then. Now there is Rookie League, A-, A+, AA, AAA and MLB, plus there are 30 teams. There are more people playing baseball professionally, but there are less people (at least in the U.S.) playing baseball overall -- would have to relocate the article. To me, that means that even though the overall pool of players is greater, the talent pool has lessened, to a certain extent, which in turn creates more of the "Quad A" type players.

I think this paragraph hits the nail on the head and I agree with you completely.

[DrungoHazewood]

Back in the 80's, there was A, AA, AAA and MLB. Guys quit if they couldn't make it to the pros after a couple of years at AAA, unless they just loved the game. There wasn't much sending guys up and down as there is now, therefore I don't think there were as many "Quad A" guys back then. Now there is Rookie League, A-, A+, AA, AAA and MLB, plus there are 30 teams. There are more people playing baseball professionally, but there are less people (at least in the U.S.) playing baseball overall -- would have to relocate the article. To me, that means that even though the overall pool of players is greater, the talent pool has lessened, to a certain extent, which in turn creates more of the "Quad A" type players.

I really couldn't disagree more with this paragraph. In the 70s and 80s there were almost the same number of minor league teams as today, and the additions have all been at the lower levels. Every team had AAA, AA, several A ball teams, and usually one or two rookie ball teams in the 70s and 80s.

I don't think there's any validity to the claim that players just quit the sport after a few years if they didn't make the majors. The 80s were littered with players like Tom Dodd, Rick Lancellotti, Skeeter Barnes, Billy Taylor, and Doug Jones who spent many, many years in the high minors in careers much like Jon Knott or JR House.

The pool of available players is greater now than at any time in history, and as such the level of talent is greater than ever. The number of Americans in MLB has been constant for quite a while, but the foreign-born talent has exploded. The number of MLB players to unit of population is lower today than at any time 20, 40, 60 or whatever number of years in the past. If you wanted to match the talent level of 1970 or 1980 you'd have to add four, six or maybe eight more MLB teams.

[Fan4Life]

The pool of available players is greater now than at any time in history, and as such the level of talent is greater than ever. The number of Americans in MLB has been constant for quite a while, but the foreign-born talent has exploded.

what's your basis for concluding more players = more talented players?

[ledzepp8]

Well to be fair, I was out all day...

And Moore isn't as bad defensively as the other three you mentioned. He'd probably be at least league average at 1B as he was drafted as a SS. I like the Wigginton signing as well, I just don't like what the Orioles did with Moore.

Geez, what exactly did the Orioles do with Moore that was so wrong and that you don't like? I'll play along and concede the argument that the Orioles somehow wronged Moore by bringing him up, playing him sporadically (your opinion) and then sending him down. Do they now owe it to him to bring him back up the ML team even though he's playing like ****? This argument makes no sense.

[LookitsPuck]

This is in response to Tommy because he's been hunting me down apparently:

In 2001, the Red Sox had gone 83 years without a World Series title. So yeah.

I never took this out of context, FWIW. I said this: 'Have the Red Sox been sucking that long?' And you responded with that. I think it was a worthless stab at the Red Sox, which is what a lot of the members on this forum do. I'd much rather have the history of success the Red Sox have had since 1983 until the date the Red Sox had Calvin Pickering as opposed to the Orioles. I don't think a World Series ring makes a team a winner or a team that "doesn't suck". Consistent winning seasons and being competitive every year does, IMHO. Saying "86 years" was/is just ignorant and is just as bad as people that chant the Yankees suck at games the Yankees aren't even participating in...

In regards to Pickering. I picked him for a variety of reasons. One, he's the type player that the Orioles have consistently not given a legitimate shot. Knott, Salazar, House, Cust, yada, yada, yada. But it's okay to trot out Fahey in LF, old man time Surhoff, Paul Bako, and the like. Hell, the merry go round failure game at SS even. We had an anemic bench. Heaven forbid we have a legitimate bat in the DH slot or on the bench. That's my issue.

Pickering definitely did well with the Red Sox and the Royals. The Red Sox were a successful team at the time (and still are). The Royals let him go for whatever reason, but they were a terribly run team as well (compared ot the Orioles).

That's my beef. Trotting out guys like Fahey who have no business on a major league team, especially in LF stealing at bats from guys like Knott who is a legitimate threat. The Orioles can definitely afford to try inexpensive options at DH and on the bench and they may find a diamond in the rough (Pena, Cust, even Ortiz to an extent).

[TommyD4207]

This is in response to Tommy because he's been hunting me down apparently:

Not really, I just found it hillarious that you were getting pissed off at people for picking quotes and you were doing the same thing the night before. I mean, you don't see the humor in that?

I never took this out of context, FWIW. I said this: 'Have the Red Sox been sucking that long?' And you responded with that. I think it was a worthless stab at the Red Sox, which is what a lot of the members on this forum do. I'd much rather have the history of success the Red Sox have had since 1983 until the date the Red Sox had Calvin Pickering as opposed to the Orioles.

Nay, you said they were a successful franchise and I inquired if you thought Dan Duquette was a good GM to which you never responded (no surprises there). I'm still wondering.

And, you do realize, that there's a middle ground, right?

Just because Dan Duquette did a better job than Beattie/Thrift doesn't mean that he's necessarily a good GM, and that was my point.

I don't think a World Series ring makes a team a winner or a team that "doesn't suck". Consistent winning seasons and being competitive every year does, IMHO. Saying "86 years" was/is just ignorant and is just as bad as people that chant the Yankees suck at games the Yankees aren't even participating in...

My point was, mainly, that 3 playoff berths in 11 years doesn't equate to a successful franchise. Yes, it's better than the Orioles in the last 11 years, but it's still not that good. Clear?

In regards to Pickering. I picked him for a variety of reasons. One, he's the type player that the Orioles have consistently not given a legitimate shot. Knott, Salazar, House, Cust, yada, yada, yada. But it's okay to trot out Fahey in LF, old man time Surhoff, Paul Bako, and the like. Hell, the merry go round failure game at SS even. We had an anemic bench. Heaven forbid we have a legitimate bat in the DH slot or on the bench. That's my issue.

This reminds me of our Bako/House argument. I presented statistics to which you responded "I don't buy it, Bako sucks" or something to that extent, while, once again, providing no evidence.

Pickering definitely did well with the Red Sox and the Royals. The Red Sox were a successful team at the time (and still are). The Royals let him go for whatever reason, but they were a terribly run team as well (compared ot the Orioles).

The Red Sox went one game over 500 that year and had had 2 wildcard berths and 1 divisional championship in 11 years. They weren't that particularly successful in that timeframe. Better than the Orioles yes, but not a model franchise by any means. To praise the Red Sox for their treatment of Pickering when he was given LESS AB's than the Orioles gave him is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm also guessing that if the Orioles gave Pickering 149 AB's and cut him in one season after only 22 AB's that you would be irate. Correct? Or, let me guess:

61 AB's- That's bad

50 AB's- That's somehow better, but it it is.

149 AB's- Now THAT is great.

That's my beef. Trotting out guys like Fahey who have no business on a major league team, especially in LF stealing at bats from guys like Knott who is a legitimate threat. The Orioles can definitely afford to try inexpensive options at DH and on the bench and they may find a diamond in the rough (Pena, Cust, even Ortiz to an extent).

Jon Knott is 30 years old and in his past 2 years in AAA (his 4th and 5th seasons in AAA) he's batted barely for over 800 OPS. He's not a legitimate threat.

[LookitsPuck]

I'll go through your post more in detail later tonight. BUT:

3 playoff births in 11 seasons as well as how many above .500 seasons is infinitely better than the Orioles have been, IMHO. Were they well run? Better than the Orioles. That was my point, as you can tell with me relating them to the Orioles.

Regarding Pickering's ABs, when you have a team that is so much better than the Orioles, they can afford to do things like not give Pickering a chance. The Orioles and the Royals? Not so much.

In regards to Jon Knott, what alternatives did we trot out there? That's my point. He's a much more legitimate threat than whatever we've thrown out there in LF (and even CF, for that matter) and sometimes even at DH as a full time role (not in the last year, obviously).

[TommyD4207]

I'll go through your post more in detail later tonight. BUT:

Can't wait.

3 playoff births in 11 seasons as well as how many above .500 seasons is infinitely better than the Orioles have been, IMHO. Were they well run? Better than the Orioles. That was my point, as you can tell with me relating them to the Orioles.

Seriously man, I have to ask again:

Do you read my posts?

Like, to their entirety?

I honestly don't think you do. At least I hope you don't. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be that bad, I hope.

I said how many times that while it is better than the Orioles, it's still not a successful organization. Good now? Or should I repeat it again?

Regarding Pickering's ABs, when you have a team that is so much better than the Orioles, they can afford to do things like not give Pickering a chance. The Orioles and the Royals? Not so much.

So now you're not praising the Royals. OK, I guess you've kind of conceded that point, while not admitting that you were wrong. You previously acted like 149 AB's was a decent chance, now it appears that you've abandoned that position. I guess that's progress.

In regards to Jon Knott, what alternatives did we trot out there? That's my point. He's a much more legitimate threat than whatever we've thrown out there in LF (and even CF, for that matter) and sometimes even at DH as a full time role (not in the last year, obviously).

He's still not any good.

[Florida_Osfan]

3 playoff births in 11 seasons as well as how many above .500 seasons is infinitely better than the Orioles have been, IMHO. Were they well run? Better than the Orioles. That was my point, as you can tell with me relating them to the Orioles.

In regards to Jon Knott, what alternatives did we trot out there? That's my point. He's a much more legitimate threat than whatever we've thrown out there in LF (and even CF, for that matter) and sometimes even at DH as a full time role (not in the last year, obviously).

I think you only feel this way because the O's have had 11 consecutive losing seasons. Otherwise, you'd be singing a different tune. Three playoff berths in 11 years, no matter the additional winning records, is not a successful model for a rebuilding team. Following AM's plan of rebuilding through the farm should, and probably will, yield much better results.

And I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but why are people still fussing over guys like Knott, House, and Moore? Worrying about the fate of these players when we have Pie, Montanez, Reimold, Wigginton and Freel to fill the bench this year and next year is a little absurd. Who really cares? People overreacted when Salazar was designated, convinced he would be claimed, and yet here he is... in our organization. Maybe some people are overvaluing these 4A types a little much. We have more dire needs with pitching and using a spot on the 40 man with Moore in the hopes that one day he MIGHT be useful isn't smart. He hasn't hasn't forced his way into the plans of the FO, period.

[DrungoHazewood]

what's your basis for concluding more players = more talented players?

Lots and lots of examples of systems that hold to that rule. Such as, larger countries do much better in athletic competitions like the Olympics than smaller countries. It's no coincidence that the US and China win the most medals.

Countries that have large populations usually do much better in team sport competitions like the World Cup than smaller countries. The UK and France and Germany and Brazil are much more successful than Luxemborg and Costa Rica.

High Schools are usually divided up into size classifications because a school that can pick a football team from 4000 students will almost always crush a school that's picking from 1000.

Colleges that mainly recruit from high population areas like Florida, Texas, and California tend to do better in sports than teams that come from smaller areas. This effect has washed out as schools recruit nationally, but it's no coincidence that most of the traditional powerhouses in NCAA sports were able to monopolize a population base.

While comparing the pool of baseball players in 1950 and 2008 isn't the difference between France and Andorra, but the difference is very significant. In 1950 there were 16 major league teams representing some fraction of the US's 150M population. Today there are 30 teams representing 300+ million people in the US, plus a hundred million or more people from around the world. It's like having the US compete with the UK in the Olympics. The UK might be competitive in some sports, but overall it's not going to be close.