The State of the Orioles Address

[Pickles]

Pickles...Heading into the 2007 season, would you have considered Aubrey Huff a premium bat?

No. But did I or did I not already establish that Chili Davis was a better hitter than Aubrey Huff?

[Pickles]

LOL...There is no way Chili Davis was considered a premium bat when AM signed him.

I bet you won't find one person on this site to agree with you.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

So your defenense is:

Chili Davis' ops was under 800 (enviroment be damned)

and

Nobody else will agree with you.

This is getting pathetic. Just admit your wrong. Say it. It will make you feel better.

[Sports Guy]

No. But did I or did I not already establish that Chili Davis was a better hitter than Aubrey Huff?

So, you don't think Huff is a premium bat but Davis was, despite these facts:

In the 4 years prior to us signing Huff, he averaged an OPS+ of 128.

In the 4 years prior to Davis signing with Minnesota, he averaged a 114 OPS+.

Should I continue to make you look poor or is this enough?

[Pickles]

So, you don't think Huff is a premium bat but Davis was, despite these facts:

In the 4 years prior to us signing Huff, he averaged an OPS+ of 128.

In the 4 years prior to Davis signing with Minnesota, he averaged a 114 OPS+.

Should I continue to make you look poor or is this enough?

That's just a lie. I'm not sure were you learned to count but I'm guessing it was Maryland Public Schools.

The previous two years Huff had an ops of 108 and 98. Davis was better than that every year.

[Sports Guy]

That's just a lie. I'm not sure were you learned to count but I'm guessing it was Maryland Public Schools.

The previous two years Huff had an ops of 108 and 98. Davis was better than that every year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/davisch01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/huffau01.shtml

Huff: 2006(combined): 108

2005: 98

2004: 124

2003: 145

2002: 135

avg: 122

Davis:

1990: 114

1989: 120

1988: 114

1987: 111

1986: 124

avg: 116

[Pickles]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/davisch01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/huffau01.shtml

Huff: 2006(combined): 108

2005: 98

2004: 124

2003: 145

2002: 135

avg: 122

Davis:

1990: 114

1989: 120

1988: 114

1987: 111

1986: 124

avg: 116

Are you going to keep changing the parameters of the argument? Why don't we use Huff's High School #s- I'm sure they're fantastic. First it was four years; then it was 5 years. Huff was trending in the wrong direction when we'd signed him. If he had consistently put up the #s he did early in his career then he would have been premium. He didn't. Davis was consistently good.

He was also the best hitter on a World Champion. He was furthermore a FA that AM signed.

To say that AM won't sign a premium FA hitter is just false.

[TGO]

Why are we even arguing about Huff and Chilli Davis?

You're both stupid. There, someone had to say it.

A couple of things after reading through what some people are saying - first, I think people are taking the word "buy" too literally. Trades count as buying, for the purposes of this strategy. Yes, someone is inevitably going to look at the trades MacPhail made as GM in 2000-01 in Chicago and say he made no impact "buy" trades, but that was a rebuilding team. Hendry did make several impact trades while MacPhail was overseeing him. People say the best free agent the Cubs got while AM was there was Moises Alou, but they went out and dealt for Fred McGriff, then Erik Karros, then Derrek Lee. They absolutely stole Aramis Ramirez from Pittsburgh. Damian Miller, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Grudzielanek, Michael Barrett, Nomar: all trades.

Second, yes, there is some value in looking at what MacPhail did in Minnesota and Chicago, but only some. The situations are all different.

Third, I don't think growing the pitchers means we won't sign any pitchers. We'll sign one if it's the right guy. See: Jack Morris.

[Sports Guy]

Are you going to keep changing the parameters of the argument? Why don't we use Huff's High School #s- I'm sure they're fantastic. First it was four years; then it was 5 years. Huff was trending in the wrong direction when we'd signed him. If he had consistently put up the #s he did early in his career then he would have been premium. He didn't. Davis was consistently good.

He was also the best hitter on a World Champion. He was furthermore a FA that AM signed.

To say that AM won't sign a premium FA hitter is just false.

LOL...Oh, so now that I proved you to be totally wrong, you pull this out?

How was Huff trending downward when he had a 98 OPS+ in 2005 but a 108 OPS+ in 2006?

I mean, if you want to say thatm Davis had a lower OPS + in 1990 vs 1989.

I only used 5 years just as a basis...If you want to use the 2 years prior, that's fine...At that point, Davis has the edge but an averaged of a 117 OPS+ is hardly a premium bat, so you are wrong there.

And you keep bringing up the idea that Davis was the best hitter on the Twins that year...its true but I guarantee you that no one felt that would the case when he was signed.

That's like saying Duq brought in a premium starter in Guthrie.

It is just very misleading.

I have no doubt that AM can sign the middling FA, like a Davis or Huff....But can he get the real premium guys?

[Lucky Jim]

Why are we even arguing about Huff and Chilli Davis?

You're both stupid. There, someone had to say it.

A couple of things after reading through what some people are saying - first, I think people are taking the word "buy" too literally. Trades count as buying, for the purposes of this strategy. Yes, someone is inevitably going to look at the trades MacPhail made as GM in 2000-01 in Chicago and say he made no impact "buy" trades, but that was a rebuilding team. Hendry did make several impact trades while MacPhail was overseeing him. People say the best free agent the Cubs got while AM was there was Moises Alou, but they went out and dealt for Fred McGriff, then Erik Karros, then Derrek Lee. They absolutely stole Aramis Ramirez from Pittsburgh. Damian Miller, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Grudzielanek, Michael Barrett, Nomar: all trades.

Second, yes, there is some value in looking at what MacPhail did in Minnesota and Chicago, but only some. The situations are all different.

Third, I don't think growing the pitchers means we won't sign any pitchers. We'll sign one if it's the right guy. See: Jack Morris.

What a ridiculous argument over Chili Davis, of all people!

[notfast]

What [free agent] bats have you bought, Andy?

What arms have we grown?

[Pickles]

LOL...Oh, so now that I proved you to be totally wrong, you pull this out?

How was Huff trending downward when he had a 98 OPS+ in 2005 but a 108 OPS+ in 2006?

I mean, if you want to say thatm Davis had a lower OPS + in 1990 vs 1989.

Are you really this dense? Or are you this adverse to admitting you're wrong. Huff was trending downward from his 03-04 peak. You do understand that right? There's a difference between hitting 290 and 286 the next year, but it isn't a trend. A trend is hitting 320 for two years and then hitting 275 for the next two years.

I only used 5 years just as a basis...If you want to use the 2 years prior, that's fine...At that point, Davis has the edge but an averaged of a 117 OPS+ is hardly a premium bat, so you are wrong there.

You used 5 years because it put your argument in the best possible light. Davis was a better hitter in the years leading up to his FA than Huff was. That isn't difficult to see.

And you keep bringing up the idea that Davis was the best hitter on the Twins that year...its true but I guarantee you that no one felt that would the case when he was signed.

That's like saying Duq brought in a premium starter in Guthrie.

It is just very misleading.

There is a huge difference between gravbbing a guy off waivers, and signing a productive, established FA. Nice strawman though.

So being 20% better than league average isn't premium? It's a semantics issue, but it doesn't change the fact that Chili Davis was an established, excellent hitter and AM signed him as a FA. It's hardly middling.

I have no doubt that AM can sign the middling FA, like a Davis or Huff....But can he get the real premium guys?

Who cares if he does or not. As long as we win I don't care if we never sign another FA. This is just a way to b--ch that AM didn't sign Tex.

[Sports Guy]

So, you don't think Huff is a premium bat but Davis was, despite these facts:

In the 4 years prior to us signing Huff, he averaged an OPS+ of 128.

In the 4 years prior to Davis signing with Minnesota, he averaged a 114 OPS+.

Should I continue to make you look poor or is this enough?

That's just a lie. I'm not sure were you learned to count but I'm guessing it was Maryland Public Schools.

The previous two years Huff had an ops of 108 and 98. Davis was better than that every year.

Ok, so in this post, you question my education, intelligence and call me a liar yet when I posted the link and stats, you bring out the argument of what criteria is being used.

So, this shows you to have the inability to admit you were wrong and shows that I was 100% right in what I said even though you called me a liar. Pretty pathetic on your part.

Are you really this dense? Or are you this adverse to admitting you're wrong. Huff was trending downward from his 03-04 peak. You do understand that right? There's a difference between hitting 290 and 286 the next year, but it isn't a trend. A trend is hitting 320 for two years and then hitting 275 for the next two years.

I already said that Huff was trending downward if you want to use those 2 years...i never disagreed with that statement. But still, over a greater sample size, Huff was the better hitter..BTW, Davis was also older.

You used 5 years because it put your argument in the best possible light. Davis was a better hitter in the years leading up to his FA than Huff was. That isn't difficult to see.

Davis was better the 2 years prior..Of course, the year prior, it was a 108 OPS+ to a 114 OPS+ which is hardly a huge difference...And to act as if that OPS+ and that difference in OPS+ makes Davis a premium hitter and Huff not one is ridiculous.

Who cares if he does or not. As long as we win I don't care if we never sign another FA. This is just a way to b--ch that AM didn't sign Tex.

Oh, I don't care about FA's all that much either. There will be some here and there that i would like to see us get but I don't care that much about them..Most of them are a waste of money.

[El Gordo]

Really bad example.

He is another Aubrey Huff type guy...Those guys are available every year...Those middling guys who have the potential to have a big year but could also be average at best.

However, they aren't big bats and naming him is a horrible example of what is being talked about on here.

Name the Aubrey Huff available in tis fall's FA, besides Aubrey Huff.:laughlol:

[Pickles]

Ok, so in this post, you question my education, intelligence and call me a liar yet when I posted the link and stats, you bring out the argument of what criteria is being used.

So, this shows you to have the inability to admit you were wrong and shows that I was 100% right in what I said even though you called me a liar. Pretty pathetic on your part.

It was a lie. Huff didn't avg a 128 ops+ the prior 4 years. It was 118. And, its obvious to anyone, that the reason you then changed to 5 years is because Huff was trending downward and the farther back you could go the better his #s would look.

I find it hilarious that you of all people are whining about etiquette. You routinely trash people but it seems you don't like it when the favor is returned. That's what's pathetic.

I already said that Huff was trending downward if you want to use those 2 years...i never disagreed with that statement. But still, over a greater sample size, Huff was the better hitter..BTW, Davis was also older.

Davis was better the 2 years prior..Of course, the year prior, it was a 108 OPS+ to a 114 OPS+ which is hardly a huge difference...And to act as if that OPS+ and that difference in OPS+ makes Davis a premium hitter and Huff not one is ridiculous.

It's almost 10% so there is a difference. There is also the difference in consistentcy. Of course in the year before that it was 120 to 98. But don't mention that because it would weaken your argument. Davis was better and more consistent; he also wasn't seemingly falling off a table like Huff was.

Oh, I don't care about FA's all that much either. There will be some here and there that i would like to see us get but I don't care that much about them..Most of them are a waste of money.

We'll we agree on something.

If you don't care about FA then why is it so important that AM sign premiums one's?

[Mad Mark]

Why are we even arguing about Huff and Chilli Davis?

You're both stupid. There, someone had to say it.

A couple of things after reading through what some people are saying - first, I think people are taking the word "buy" too literally. Trades count as buying, for the purposes of this strategy. Yes, someone is inevitably going to look at the trades MacPhail made as GM in 2000-01 in Chicago and say he made no impact "buy" trades, but that was a rebuilding team. Hendry did make several impact trades while MacPhail was overseeing him. People say the best free agent the Cubs got while AM was there was Moises Alou, but they went out and dealt for Fred McGriff, then Erik Karros, then Derrek Lee. They absolutely stole Aramis Ramirez from Pittsburgh. Damian Miller, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Grudzielanek, Michael Barrett, Nomar: all trades.

Second, yes, there is some value in looking at what MacPhail did in Minnesota and Chicago, but only some. The situations are all different.

Third, I don't think growing the pitchers means we won't sign any pitchers. We'll sign one if it's the right guy. See: Jack Morris.

Thanks for being the voice of reason here. Sorry that (mostly) nobody's listening.

We're barely into a large expanse of uncharted water here. The last thing I'd want to do, in this economy and such a short distance "out of the steroid era" is lay down a bunch of cash on a long-term commitment to a "slugger".

The game could be evolving into something more like that of the seventies and eighties: more emphasis on speed and defense, less on power.

(We aren't going back to Astroturfed multi-purpose stadiums, but manipulation of the ball is always within MLB's power.)

There are only two things that could blow up MacPhail's plan: that too many of the expected pitchers fail to turn out, or a work stoppage just as this team gels.