It's time for the next step

[VTmook213]

It's not just an ace, but a consistant offensive threat as well. The younger pitchers need support in the rotation and at the plate to back them up. We've got a lot riding on their development, so you'd think that the Orioles would want to support them as much as they could instead of just throwing them to the wolves.

I agree it's not about winning, neccessarily but more about building confidence, with themselves and their abilities, and their teammates to be able to support them when they need it.

Gee, I dunno, I think Tim Lincecum turned out alright. I don't believe the Giants had a TOR guy to lessen the burden on him, or a great hitting lineup to score a ton of runs.

:scratchchinhmm:

[Fan4Life]

Oh yeah, I mean if Lackey pitches like an ace, who cares we if we have a 6th very good pitcher? I mean we could always trade Lackey or trade a younger guy to fill a hole.

It's the money that he'd be making when it wouldn't be a necessity to have him on the team...And the bigger factor is the risk of a decline in his performance coming from the AL West and Angel Stadium to the AL East and OPACY, or injury, all while sporting a 15-20 million/year pricetag.

I think you've made some good points. Mainly because the FA pitching class after next year will provide more opportunities than this year has. Depending on how the Yankees and Redsox play things out this offseason, I'd still be open to adding Lackey if their lack of interest brings him into a more reasonable $$$/year range.

[ejf1025]

Gee, I dunno, I think Tim Lincecum turned out alright. I don't believe the Giants had a TOR guy to lessen the burden on him, or a great hitting lineup to score a ton of runs.

:scratchchinhmm:

Same with Matt Cain, Zach Greinke, King Felix....

[tywright]

Great plan..Acquire a 32 y/o infielder coming off a career year in his contract year, who relies on speed and defense getting into his mid 30's, who would be acquired at his peak value, and traded later in his deal when a decline is likely and when he's worth less than what he was when you signed him to his deal.

Well you want to give Halladay a 6 year deal that paid him $19MM until he was 40. And you would sign Pena, a "sure thing", when he would be 32 and would be in his 4th year of decline.

[mweb]

You're 2nd paragraph is a great point.

If we put a team out there that we all like...Young, talented, tons of potential; the kind of team that the "blow it up, be efficient" crowd has been wanting for years...but it doesn't live up to someone's expectations, how can that be a failure?

If by June next year we have Wieters, Synder, Roberts, Izturis, Bell, Markakis, Jones, Pie, Reimold, Scott......Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, BB, Guthrie, DH, Kam, Ray, JJ, Koji, Berken.....

We are either in favor of that, or we're not. The vast majority would love to see that IMO. If those guys are developing, who cares how we finish? How is it a failure if they win 79 games but a success if they win 84?

Now, of course, I don't expect to see them overmatched. I want to see them play well and continue to improve since that team would be our bread and butter going into our contending years.

But you can't ask for a team, and then bash AM when that exact team doesn't work out. And it doesn't make sense to expect that team to win 78-81 games, and calll for a Lackey to improve on that by 4-5 games, because it's still not getting us anywhere.

I expect us to be a very respectable team next season, with the potential to be more. I want the team to gel and develop an identity and learn how to win. You can learn how to win by going 79-83, it's not all about the record.

Yes. This is and what ejf said is what I said in that thread where people were saying AM should be fired if the team isn't .500 next year.

If AM has followed the direction you've wanted, and basically put the team you want on the field, and then to say he's failed and should be fired if they don't go .500 is interesting. If someone falls into that group, they better be willing to also say "I didn't know what I was talking about either."

I think it would be foolish to fire or even blame him if the team wins say 75 games next year, but with a team that was constructed the right way.

Sometimes things just don't pan out the way you'd like, and that's not necessarily the GM's fault. If Wieters never becomes an above average player, is that AM's fault? Same with various other top young players that we're almost all high on?

[ejf1025]

Yes. This is and what ejf said is what I said in that thread where people were saying AM should be fired if the team isn't .500 next year.

If AM has followed the direction you've wanted, and basically put the team you want on the field, and then to say he's failed and should be fired if they don't go .500 is interesting. If someone falls into that group, they better be willing to also say "I didn't know what I was talking about either."

I think it would be foolish to fire or even blame him if the team wins say 75 games next year, but with a team that was constructed the right way.

Sometimes things just don't pan out the way you'd like, and that's not necessarily the GM's fault. If Wieters never becomes an above average player, is that AM's fault? Same with various other top young players that we're almost all high on?

Exactly. Applying some "they must be a .500 club" formula for the 2010 season is just setting him up for failure to push other agendas (...namely anger over missing out on Tex and anger over not being named GM of the Orioles).

[tywright]

Except we would actually need those guys to fill holes, as opposed to signing someone so AM can wave his hands in the air and say look, I did something!

Well we can't sign either until after next season. And both could easily be bad signings.

By this time next year, we may realize signing a TOR starter would not be prudent financially because we may have 2 legit #2's. And then signing a power bat who hits .220 may not be a good move when we have 2 legit 25-30 HR and 2-3 20+ HR guys in our lineup already.

[RShack]

The point is I don't think you will see a proper evaluation of Matusz and Tillman etc, because they will be pitching not to lose, i.e. pitching scared.

It's not just an ace, but a consistant offensive threat as well. The younger pitchers need support in the rotation and at the plate to back them up. We've got a lot riding on their development, so you'd think that the Orioles would want to support them as much as they could instead of just throwing them to the wolves.

JTrea, you've got it all backwards again. As long as they've got good-D behind them, they're not gonna be pitching scared. They're not scared and you have zero reason to think they are. As long as they pitch well and don't give up a ton of runs, they know they've done a good job. They're not candy asses and they're not stupid. They know what a good pitching performance is. The Orioles *are* supporting them by having a priority on good defense. They are doing this to ensure that the kid-P's are not afraid to let the hitter hit the ball that the P wants him to hit, so that they don't think every single pitch needs to miss the bat. They are not "throwing them to the wolves". There is nothing new or controversial about this, it's the basics.

You are getting concern for the kid-P's all blurred up and confused with your own impatience for a contending team and your recent obsession with paying out the nose to get "premium" FA's. Try to keep baseball basics and your own personal obsession with instant fixes a little bit separate, will you please?

[mweb]

You are extremely wrong about this unless Hardy is as bad next year as he has been this year.

Depends on what you and him feel is a huge number of wins. Without knowing that, I'm not sure how anyone can be wrong. Is 2-3 wins a huge amount?

[mweb]

Same with Matt Cain, Zach Greinke, King Felix....

Yeah, JTrea's theory about the young players needing an AGon or Lackey or whoever so they can develop is absurd to me! If you want to go get Lackey, fine, but the reason should be based on what he is likely to produce, not because he's going to have some magical effect on the young players.

[mweb]

Exactly. Applying some "they must be a .500 club" formula for the 2010 season is just setting him up for failure to push other agendas (...namely anger over missing out on Tex and anger over not being named GM of the Orioles).

Haha, that's pretty funny.

Well SG did back off from the statement about firing AM if they don't go .500 next year. Although, I don't think he answered yours or Ravenbirds questions in this thread regarding finishing with 70-74 wins.

[TyCobb]

You are extremely wrong about this unless Hardy is as bad next year as he has been this year.

Hardy max was 4.9 Wins Above replacement.

If Izturis didn't get hurt he is probably look at 2 Wins above replacement. So is 2 Wins that huge of a difference for you?

[ejf1025]

Haha, that's pretty funny.

Well SG did back off from the statement about firing AM if they don't go .500 next year. Although, I don't think he answered yours or Ravenbirds questions in this thread regarding finishing with 70-74 wins.

Of course he didn't.

He needs something to be able to hold against AM--since that team is remarkably close to what we will likely see.

If the team finishes at 500+ he'll claim this is the type of team he wanted to see all along...if that same team finishes below 500 he'll say AM missed his mark and that he should have (insert one of 8 million proposed transactions).

[emmett16]

I wouldn't mind going after Holliday I suppose, but Bay is on the wrong side of 30. We need impact bats that are young enough to have enough prime years to compete for an extended period.

And I just see trading for a bat as a more realistic option that landing Holliday with the competitive teams that will be bidding on him as the best FA bat available.

Bay is 13 months older than Holliday.

[brooksie05]

Is there any way Carl Crawford is available? We could move Reimold to 1B and trade Scott. There is no way our OF is "set" as it is currently comprised.