Andy's Mistakes

[Mark Carver]

I guess it's always easy top 2nd guess, especially on Wigginton, but at the time, it was a good signing, and may still work out.

- 2 year $6m.

- plays 5 positions, including Mora's backup at 3rd base.

- .828, .792, .876 OPS the last 3 years

- 24, 22, 23 HRs in 486, 604, 429 PA the last 3 years.

- Had experience playing in the AL East with Tampa Bay for 1.5 years.

[bluedog]

There haven’t been many, IMO. But starting this past offseason in particular, I believe there have been a few. These are moves that I recall disliking when he pulled the trigger, not those that simply haven’t worked out as hoped-for or as expected. Here are the ones that stand out for me. All of these transactions wasted money that could have been better used elsewhere.

- Not getting enough net dollars recovered in the Ramon trade.

- Not getting even a single dollar recovered in the Freel discard.

- Signing Wigginton to a $6 mil deal rather than going with Salazar.

- Although I’m completely ecstatic that we finally signed Nick to a long-term deal and one which I believe was a pretty fair value for both parties, I still believe we could and should have signed him a year earlier, when it probably would have been much cheaper to do so (as Nick would have had one extra year at risk).

- Signing Eaton and Hendrickson at all. Even if he wanted to keep the youngsters in the minors for a couple of months, it was clear from the outset that both pitchers would be horrid and probably post 6.00 ERA+ seasons in the AL East. We certainly could have muddled through with Waters and Liz as returning starters from last season and gotten the same production rather than waste time and roster spots on either Eaton or Hendrickson.

I'm not so much worried about the money issues you mention above, but I totally agree on Wiggy vs. Salazar. Now we have a guy hitting nearly .400 at Norfolk that we can't promote because he's blocked by a guy hitting .200 at the big league level. Salazar did enough last year with the O's to deserve a shot at the backup corner infield spot and its a shame the O's didn't give it to him.

[Anonymous]

Well, except for Wiggy, none of those have anything to do with baseball.

They're all about how you think you're a better horse-trader about dollars than AM is. Maybe you are, but I figure you're probably not. No reason to think you are. As for Wiggy, the time to evaluate him is when we get to the end of the season, not after 6 weeks of him being tight as a drum and swinging at the the first or second pitch he sees. I agree that he's been painful to watch at the plate. But either he had a brain transplant over the winter, or else he'll get back to being his normal self pretty soon.

So, bottom line, the only real items you are labeling as mistakes have to do with dollars, and we really have zero idea what the alternatives might have been. Also, in the insane world of baseball dollars, it's not that much anyhow. So, given all that, I don't see how you can conclude they were mistakes. If you wanna call it nit-picking then I need a magnifying glass to even see the nits.

However, it is an interesting idea to track AM's successes and mistakes. Probably also need a third column for "too soon to call".

Wow, rough crowd here.

You're off-base here in declaring that I think I'm a better horse-trader about dollars than Andy. It's a philosophical issue about whether it's more advisable to seek dollars or players in these kinds of transactions. In Ramon's case, given that I don't see a big-league future for either of the prospects, I would instead have focused on a trade partner willing to take on more of Ramon's contract and settled for the kind of prospect we got in the Bradford deal. I don't know for a fact that such a deal was available. I'm speculating, obviously -- but suspect that we could have done better opn dollard had we chosen to forego the players.

When we unloaded Freel, we got zero dollars back. We instead obtained a player who, in my view, has zero value for us, other than to give a small boost to Norfolk. Speculation again -- but I suspect that some other club might have eaten a least a small portion of Freel's contract had we not asked for a player in return.

As for Wiggy, my complaint is based not on his disappointing performance, but rather on the cheap alternative we already had in-house. Oscar's scorching start this year underscores what we had available, but doesn't really change the fact set. We already knew from last year that this guy can hit the crap out of the ball. We already know that he's defensively versatile, playing the exact same positions that Wiggy can play, albeit not quite at the same level of proficiency. It never made sense to me to allocate $6 mil for the modest-at-best upgrade that Wiggy could conceivably offer.

As for Nick, I stand by my prior argument.

As for the statement that none of these things have anything to do with baseball because they're about the money, I can't believe that a smart guy like you would deny the obvious fact that dollars happen to be the medium of exchange through which baseball personnel are acquired -- and that dollars wasted on one transaction means less dollars available for other, more useful, trancations.

Are these nit-picky complaints? Yes, of course. I thought I made clear at the bginning of this post that Andy, IMO, hasn't made many mistakes. There aren't many posters who are bigger supporters of his than I am. So why is it unacceptable for an Andy booster like me to acknowledge the nit complaints that I have with someone I support? As I said, a rough crowd here indeed.

[RShack]

I would instead have focused on a trade partner willing to take on more of Ramon's contract and settled for the kind of prospect we got in the Bradford deal. I don't know for a fact that such a deal was available. I'm speculating, obviously -- but suspect that we could have done better opn dollard had we chosen to forego the players.

So, you have no info whatsoever about what the options were, but you think it was a mistake anyway? Speculating based on what?

You phrase it as if the facts are a minor detail, and that you can infer that it was a mistake. You inferred that based on what?

I agree that we can sometimes infer things without knowing all the facts. For example, if we see a guy climbing out of the manor's 2nd story window with mi'lady's jewels at 3am, we can infer that he's a burglar, even though we don't know that for a fact. But on what circumstantial evidence do you conclude he could have gotten a better deal for Ramon?

[Anonymous]

- Signing Eaton and Hendrickson at all. Even if he wanted to keep the youngsters in the minors for a couple of months, it was clear from the outset that both pitchers would be horrid and probably post 6.00 ERA+ seasons in the AL East. We certainly could have muddled through with Waters and Liz as returning starters from last season and gotten the same production rather than waste time and roster spots on either Eaton or Hendrickson.

I'm not so much worried about the money issues you mention above, but I totally agree on Wiggy vs. Salazar. Now we have a guy hitting nearly .400 at Norfolk that we can't promote because he's blocked by a guy hitting .200 at the big league level. Salazar did enough last year with the O's to deserve a shot at the backup corner infield spot and its a shame the O's didn't give it to him.

I happen to think that signing Eaton to a minor league deal was an excellent move. (Giving a minor league deal to just about ANY plausible starting pitcher candidate this past offseason would have been okay with me.) Putting him on the OD roster was a reasonable move, given that every other candidate either got injured or performed horrendously (e.g., Penn and Pauley). Keeping him on the team after last night's performance is a questionable move. (I'd act now by promoting either Berken for the rotation or Miller for the pen, with Bass shifted to the rotation -- but am trying to be patient about this.) Retaining him for any considerable length of time beyond today, barring a dramatic turnaround in Eaton's perfomance, would be a sad move. Kind of a moving target, if you ask me.

I liked the Hendrickson signing at the time we did it. In retrospect, we clearly overpaid for a guy who was never worth more than a major league min kind of deal.

[Anonymous]

So let me get this straight...

You think Bradford was a bad trade because we got rid of all his money but didn't get anyone back.

And you think Ramon was bad because we didn't get money, but got players back?

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Personally, I don't give a flying flick if we got anything back for Bradford. So what if we got a real PTBNL? He'd be 24 years old in A ball.

What he got for Ramon was astonishing.

Wigginton I didn't agree with because I am of the belief that it's better to have cheap, ML minimum players like Salazar and Montanez over mediocre guys like Wiggy making 3 million. But if AM thought Wiggy would be a plus and that a guy like Salazar would be over-exposed, that would be fine, and he's got a good track record.

No, the Bradford trade was good because we got dollars rather than marginal players. We should have done the same with Ramon. And if I'm gonna order cake, I sure as heck plan on eating it.

[Skeletor]

Wait a sec,

AM got rid of an overweight, lazy, defensive liability C who has an OPS+ of 80 right now, got two prospects (Turner will be a big leaguer, as a Util IF at least), and a guy who filled a need at the time before he was upgraded and you have a problem with that?

[Anonymous]

So, you have no info whatsoever about what the options were, but you think it was a mistake anyway? Speculating based on what?

You phrase it as if the facts are a minor detail, and that you can infer that it was a mistake. You inferred that based on what?

I agree that we can sometimes infer things without knowing all the facts. For example, if we see a guy climbing out of the manor's 2nd story window with mi'lady's jewels at 3am, we can infer that he's a burglar, even though we don't know that for a fact. But on what circumstantial evidence do you conclude he could have gotten a better deal for Ramon?

This is a message board, not a court of law.

[El Gordo]

AM has made even more mistakes. On Feb 13 he tied his shoes in a knot instead of a bow, and on March 28 he spilled bouillabaisse on his tie.:rolleyestf:

[Sports Guy]

Not bringing up Reimold at the end of last year.

Still don't like that he went so long without doing anything after the Bedard deal and it is still up in the air as to whether or not he has acquired any true game changing talent but all in all, he has put us in great shape.

[LookitsPuck]

Mistake = Adam Eaton

[Anonymous]

AM has made even more mistakes. On Feb 13 he tied his shoes in a knot instead of a bow, and on March 28 he spilled bouillabaisse on his tie.:rolleyestf:

That bouillabaise thing really got to me. I'm still pretty upset about that.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, thought you mentioned something about Bradford. My fault!

Yes, partner -- I did indeed mention Bradford. BTW, does anyone know who the PTBNL turned out to be?

[El Gordo]

That bouillabaise thing really got to me. I'm still pretty upset about that.

I thought it was his best tie and a very inferior bouillabaisse.:laughlol:

[RShack]

This is a message board, not a court of law.

I wasn't talking to a jury. I was just asking you why you think he coulda done better for Ramon. The criteria around here for circumstantial evidence is extremely weak, like when GoofyTradeRumors.com says a little birdy told them. About Ramon, we didn't even have that. So, I was just wondering why you thought somebody else was dying to pay Ramon's salary for us.