Anyone still want to make a compelling argument against rebuilding?

[cindyluvsbrady]

Hey, when things need to be changed, they need to be changed.

This is a bad team.

You need to ad IMO:rolleyes:

Some people still love the Os!

[Mackus]

You need to ad IMO:rolleyes:

Some people still love the Os!

Come on Cindy, even you have to admit the team sucks.

Doesn't mean we don't love 'em, they just aren't a good team.

[mweb]

Like SG says, every year we say, well if we can improve x, y, and z, we'll be a contender. Well every year they attempt to fix some or all of those problems,(bullpen, LF, CF, 1B, backup C, parts of the rotation etc) but it often doesn't pan out and new problems always arise.

I feel that the people who think we can contend next year with a few upgrades are basically planning for the best case scenario or pretty close to it. Yes, we can make some upgrades that would theoretically add x wins based on last years performance, and some current guys will likely improve. Yet new problems/production decreases will likely keep the new upgrades(most likely provide less than the projected x wins) and the upgraded performance from within low enough to keep us from being a contender.

That holds true every year, even after most of us are predicting the team to win 81-95 games based on the part in the paragraph above before yet. However, we along with the FO keep falling into the same trap.

I've been a part of this as well as I've picked the O's to win 81-85 games the last few years, certainly less optimistic than many, but still much too optimistic, I think I've learned my lesson now. Hopefully the FO will as well.

[ChaosLex]

Anyone?

Bueller?

Heck no. Blow it up!

[RShack]

Like SG says, every year we say, well if we can improve x, y, and z, we'll be a contender. Well every year they attempt to fix some or all of those problems,(bullpen, LF, CF, 1B, backup C, parts of the rotation etc) but it often doesn't pan out and new problems always arise.

That holds true every year, even after most of us are predicting the team to win 81-95 games based on the part in the paragraph above before yet. However, we along with the FO keep falling into the same trap.

I've been a part of this as well as I've picked the O's to win 81-85 games the last few years, certainly less optimistic than many, but still much too optimistic, I think I've learned my lesson now. Hopefully the FO will as well.

Yeah, but what is the trap? As you said, every year they *attempt* to fix LF and 1B and DH... but they don't do it. They just apply band-aids. So, what is the lesson? Go attempt to solve less-glaring problems at other positions? Or finally fix the ones that they never quite fix, and get some guys who can knock the cover off the ball while we learn to live with kid pitchers?

SG wants us to replace every single everyday player except Nick. But let's not worry about that. Let's worry about what is plausible, and it ain't plausible to think they're gonna change more than half the dang starting lineup. I'm guessing the practical max is 3, with 2 a lot more likely. You may disagree, but just play along: If you could acquire new guys to fix 2 positions, and live with what's there for the rest, which 2 positions would you pick? If it was 3 instead of 2, which 3 would you pick?

[mweb]

Yeah, but what is the trap? As you said, every year they *attempt* to fix LF and 1B and DH... but they don't do it. They just apply band-aids. So, what is the lesson? Go attempt to solve less-glaring problems at other positions? Or finally fix the ones that they never quite fix, and get some guys who can knock the cover off the ball while we learn to live with kid pitchers?

SG wants us to replace every single everyday player except Nick. But let's not worry about that. Let's worry about what is plausible, and it ain't plausible to think they're gonna change more than half the dang starting lineup. I'm guessing the practical max is 3, with 2 a lot more likely. You may disagree, but just play along: If you could acquire new guys to fix 2 positions, and live with what's there for the rest, which 2 positions would you pick? If it was 3 instead of 2, which 3 would you pick?

The trap is getting old players who aren't that good to begin with, but better than what we had to replace others while often assuming the rest of team will be as good or better than it was the season before. Then thinking that team can compete.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with trying to improve those positions, but if we're going to do it, do it right, and don't neglect the supposed solid to strong aspects of the team. We need to go in one of two directions, either go out and get premium players to upgrade the team and produce a real contender or go into a true rebuilding mode.

To answer your question, LF would be the biggest priority to fix, otherwise, there's not really any glaring hole's in the starting lineup, but many of those spots could use an upgrade. The main spots being CF, DH, and 3B. Need a new backup C as well.

So if we go out and get Arod, Hunter/Jones/Fukudome/Cameron/Bradley, and everyone's favorite player: Barry Bonds, and make a couple smart BP moves, sure, that's a team that can likely compete. That's a lot of money to spend though.

But to go out and get next year's version of Payton, Sosa, Huff, CPat, Baez, Raffy, DeJean, Bradford, Walker, etc isn't going to cut it. Note, that I liked some of those moves. Either go premium or rebuild.

[DrungoHazewood]

Or finally fix the ones that they never quite fix, and get some guys who can knock the cover off the ball while we learn to live with kid pitchers?

Yes. But you have to realize that "fix(ing) the ones that they never quite fix, and get some guys who can knock the cover off the ball" likely will require trading something of value* and disposing of or greatly reducing the role of the mediocre talent that now occupies positions that are easiest to fill with big sluggers. Either you give up players like Bedard, Tejada, and Roberts or you give up tons of cash and future draft picks.

* That something may be a lot of money, as opposed to players or prospects.

[Sapper]

Maybe you should just follow for a new team! You're probably a hoot in fantasy leagues.

Those kind of responses are a cop out.

[cindyluvsbrady]

Those kind of responses are a cop out.

Actually I think it speaks the truth:rolleyes:

[birdystolle]

SG I have advocating for years the need for the Orioles to genuinely rebuild and by starting with revitalizing their farm system to bring it at least close to where it once was. I think they've made progress in the last couple of years in this area but still have a ways to go. In other words instead of scrapping the bottom they're more toward the middle of the pack.

But in the old days back in the late 60s early 70s the O's had one of the top 2 or 3 farm systems in baseball. They did that not by happenstance but by assembling the best collection of scouts, coaches, managers, instructors and whoever else they need they could find.

Over the 1970s the farm system went to a gradual decline--primarily due to factors of normal attrition-- the personnel refered to above left for a variety of reasons-- death, retirement, opportunities for promotions (and better salaries) from other teams and those that replaced them weren't as good-- and if the people who left were the best they couldn't be as good.

The strength of the farm system enabled the Orioles to survive losses of several key players to the newly installed free agent system in the mid 70s and still remain actively competitive-- winning pennants in 79 and 83 and being serious contenders in a couple of other years.

But by the 1983 world championship year the Orioles farm system had pretty well dried up and that became apparent over the next two years as by 1985 the Orioles major league roster could no longer deliver at a minimum a winning record. The initial reaction was to scapegoat the manager Joe Altobelli for the collaspe and bring back Earl Weaver-- a move that was about as successful as Joe Gibbs return to the Redskins has been -- move that are almost never successful. Since then pretty much the Orioles and its fan base solution to the problem of losing has been to blame the manager and believe replacing the manager will somehow make losing go away.

At the same time Edward Bennett Williams brought Earl Weaver back thinking he was capable of performing real magic- he made another decision which probably has greatly contributed to the team's current predicament. And that was a decision effectively to focus the team's resources primarily on signing free agents rather than on rebuilding the farm system. Now one must concede this approach did produce several winning system including playoff appearances in 96 and 97.

And Pat Gillick who built those playoff teams mostly by signing free agents and acquiring veterans in trades usually by giving up prospects was also successful with the formula in Toronto and Seattle and is now trying it in Philadelphia so far to more limited success.

But the collaspe of the Blue Jays and the Mariners after Gillick left and he has the knack of knowing just when to leave quite closely parallels the Orioles collaspe after the 97 season. His method is to sacrifice the future for the present and since the present can't last that long there is an inevitable collaspe. Even the New York Yankees the one organization that might be able to get away with not having a farm system with the loot they could afford to throw at free agents have discovered it's not a bad idea to put some resources into minor league development.

And although i think this has begun to change for the better in the last two to three years and while giving lip service to it from time to time the Orioles have operated from a premise the farm system and player development really doesn't matter that much.

But what has also happened in the last few years is the front line-- the first tier free agents with an isolated exception or two and even many of the second tier free agents are no longer willing to come here. It's not a matter of throwing more money at the free agents when you are offering two to three times what other teams are offering Vlad Guerro and he still won't sign here (he finally signs a comparable but slightly less generous offer with the Angels who came in late into the mix) It's not about the money (true you can afford to be cheap-- and Angelos adamant refusal to pay front line starters and closers the going rate is a concern of course) and if overpaying will get them here it's probably going to be someone you will probably regret signing.

The problem is not the money but the condition of the organization. If that is solved the free agents will start coming here even for less they can get elsewhere as they once did.

Perhaps an organization the Orioles might want to look at as a possible model of successful rebuilding is the Detriot Tigers. They were willing to totally stink up the place for a season or two. Something the Orioles haven't been willing to do although they've managed it of course. The Tigers did sign a couple of key free agents-- something they could do because they could demonstrate they had a credible plan for winning.

If the Orioles are going to return to winning they need to stop trying to pretend to copy the Red Sox and Yankees and try to more closely follow teams like the Braves, the Cardinals, and the Tigers