Jump to content

MacPhail's worst move for the Orioles


paulcoates

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would have liked to seen the O's take a more polished college player instead of a high school guy with the #5 pick. We might have seen that pick help the O's in a couple of years. Now, Hobgood is a long way from the majors and the O's could have use more immediate help.

I trust that Jordan got a high quality guy, but I also think he took unneccessary risk. A college guy with the #5 pick should have a better chance to make the O's and do it in the shorter period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst move is not doing enough to close the gap between Boston, NY and us.
1. That's a result, not a move (and you knew this, bb -- you're just trying to be provocative).

2. Even taken on the level of result, if you don't think that our overall organizational personnel, including youngins on the 25 and 40 and talent at lower levels, isn't both massively improved and much closer to the Boston/NY level than it used to be, you're simply not being objective. Obviously, you're focusing on a very narrow short-term gratification perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Moves That Other Folks Hate

- Trading Bradford for $ recovery

- Putting Eaton in the Starting Rotation Out of Spring Training (the only bad move was keeping him there too long)

Bad Moves

- Waiting a year longer than he should have to extend Markakis (thereby losing a lot of $)

- Trading Ramon for nearly useless personnel rather than focusing on $ recovery

- Signing Wigginton for $6 mil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Moves That Other Folks Hate

- Trading Bradford for $ recovery

- Putting Eaton in the Starting Rotation Out of Spring Training (the only bad move was keeping him there too long)

Bad Moves

- Waiting a year longer than he should have to extend Markakis (thereby losing a lot of $)

- Trading Ramon for nearly useless personnel rather than focusing on $ recovery

- Signing Wigginton for $6 mil

Markakis who has been worth roughly $2.5m this year? Heck, apparently he should have waited another year.

And, yeah, $6m contract for guys who've been worth $19m over the last two years is stupid!

I mean, really. First, explain why the Bradford trade was good. Second, tell me why investing in an undervalued asset (TW) is bad. Third, tell me how much money we lost on Markakis (versus his actual value.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markakis who has been worth roughly $2.5m this year? Heck, apparently he should have waited another year.

And, yeah, $6m contract for guys who've been worth $19m over the last two years is stupid!

I mean, really. First, explain why the Bradford trade was good. Second, tell me why investing in an undervalued asset (TW) is bad. Third, tell me how much money we lost on Markakis (versus his actual value.)

1. Strategically, expecially in light of our rotation's low-innings-eating profile, it made all the sense in the world to swap out a ROOGY for someone who could go longer in the pen. Ejecting an aging, ailing, and highly overpriced guy like Bradford was a bonus deluxe. (Bradford's physical ailemts were disclosed in the weeks before the trade, when it was noted that he was being held together with various low-level medical supplies, although I can't recall the precise quote.)

2. Offensively, Salazar could have given us everything that TW does against LH pitching -- and considerably more against LH pitching. I think the only strong argument that could have been made for the Wiggy signing is if he had been plugged in considerably more at 3B, as he clearly is much better than Oscar at that spot. The only problem is that he's barely played at 3B this year. If that changes, and he starts getting a significant share of starts going forward, then I might feel differently about the acquisition.

Wiggy has also brought value as a SS emergency. But we could have brought up a AAA guy for a few weeks to fill that role rather than spend big $ for such a contingency.

3. I have no idea of the magnitude on the Markakis loss. I have no doubt, however, that we did lose, as it's axiomatic that the team pays more each season, and by extension each piece of a season, the closer the player gets to FA -- assuming, of course, that there's no perceived change in the probability of future success (based on either injuries or unanticipated change in performance). It's nevertheless in BOTH parties' interest to get a deal done early. For the team, they get the player at a cheaper aggregate price, albeit with somewhat greater risk. For the player, he gets a contract at lower risk, albeit with somewhat lower $. Even though it sounds like a zero sum game, it's not, as the team player has a higher risk tolerance due to its possession of a wider portfolio of player personnel. A U. Chicago law & econ guy is surely aware of that, right? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst move is not doing enough to close the gap between Boston, NY and us.

Yea, I think we all long for the days when we would sign middling relievers like Walker, Bradford and Baez to long term, expensive contracts and give up draft picks for each of them......and don't even get me started on Jay Payton! Back in those days we weren't even giving the MFY or the Sox a chance. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team's timeline is on a different track than the Yankees. I don't think it's fair to compare those signings to what MacPhail has been doing for the past 2 years.

We have no idea what the Yankees will look like in 5 years, but the O's look to be in pretty good shape going forward.

See the proble is once our timeline (whenever that is) hits the Yankees and Bosox will sign the likes of Mauer, etc... etc.. etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading for Jones, Sherrill, Tillman, Scott, Albers... drafting Wieters, Matusz, Arrieta... extending Markakis. Also doing all this at a significantly less price than $423 million. Outside of this you're right... we have done nothing.:rolleyes:

Again we resting on 3 trades made over a year and a half ago and 2 players drafted before AM got here. Not enough to make up ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. That's a result, not a move (and you knew this, bb -- you're just trying to be provocative).

2. Even taken on the level of result, if you don't think that our overall organizational personnel, including youngins on the 25 and 40 and talent at lower levels, isn't both massively improved and much closer to the Boston/NY level than it used to be, you're simply not being objective. Obviously, you're focusing on a very narrow short-term gratification perspective.

The organizations is somewhat better but not closer to NY of Boston. There is still not much position talent in the minor league system. For every Weiters we wait to come and produce NY or Boston just goes out and signs a Mauer once they hit free agency. I'm not sure if anyone can break that cycle but I do know we have to do more than we currently are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The organizations is somewhat better but not closer to NY of Boston. There is still not much position talent in the minor league system. For every Weiters we wait to come and produce NY or Boston just goes out and signs a Mauer once they hit free agency. I'm not sure if anyone can break that cycle but I do know we have to do more than we currently are.

So you think that just because they can write big checks that makes them better?

Building an Organization takes a baseball man and MacPhail is quietly doing a good job. Sorry he can't spend half a billion or so to speed up the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the proble is once our timeline (whenever that is) hits the Yankees and Bosox will sign the likes of Mauer, etc... etc.. etc...

If Duquette were still here, do you believe we would've signed t-bag and/or Burnett?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst move is not doing enough to close the gap between Boston, NY and us.

Except that he HAS done that.

Look at our rotation in 2011. Which one of those teams has a brighter young group of starters than us?

I'd take our OF over either of their's TODAY, and I sure as heck would in 2011.

Who has the better long term C?

The gap IS closing, and IMO it's closing a lot quicker than many thought. He's not doing it the "sexy" way, but he's replenished our farm system. If you can't see the Os becoming a more competitive team, then I'm not sure really sure how to help you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the proble is once our timeline (whenever that is) hits the Yankees and Bosox will sign the likes of Mauer, etc... etc.. etc...

I see. So, in order to close the gap, we need to get good really, really fast and steal their checkbooks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that he HAS done that.

Look at our rotation in 2011. Which one of those teams has a brighter young group of starters than us?

I'd take our OF over either of their's TODAY, and I sure as heck would in 2011.

Who has the better long term C?

The gap IS closing, and IMO it's closing a lot quicker than many thought. He's not doing it the "sexy" way, but he's replenished our farm system. If you can't see the Os becoming a more competitive team, then I'm not sure really sure how to help you...

This is exactly right. Anyone who argues that we haven't improved/closed the gap either isn't paying attention or has an agenda. I'm not saying we'll necessarily get there, but McPhail has greatly improved this organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...