Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[Sports Guy]

And if we assume they can formulate and execute a well thought out and prudent strategy, why does it only have to be Blow-It-Up?

BEcause it won't work via FA and even if it did, it would likely be short term.

Plus, it would be totally irresponsible to spend another 20-30 million a year on bad contracts.

[TinCup]

This may be an oversimplification but here is the panacea for the Orioles perpetual woes:

1. A new owner

2. A new FO (though to be fair we have not yet seen enough of Andy)

3. A MASSIVE influx/infusuion of young TALENT at the major league level as well as the minors.

Elementary Watson.

Absent all of the above, you will continue to see what you see now, i.e., a very pathetic team when all is said and done.

[DrungoHazewood]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.

I think this is mostly a pointless debate about what "blow it up" means. I don't think anyone wants to trade off everything up to and including the dugout water cooler for whatever they can get as long as it's under 25 years old.

I use "blow it up" as shorthand for both the willingness to trade anyone in the organization in the right deal, and a determined goal of not taking a patchwork approach to 2008.

[frankpembleton]

SG asked what the downside to a full blow up might be.

Yes, its really nice to think about the FO trading everybody for super good minor league talent, the Os going through some tremendous growing pains and then being baller.

My point is that its much harder than one might initially think to successfully implement this, and there is a great downside to it, and I'm not convinced they could execute it properly.

I have no clue why you think I wouldn't want the Orioles to go a different way than they have. I'll repost it again: this team needs to get younger and better. But "blowing it up" is not the only way to get younger.

My point is that "blowing it up" is the most extreme option they have, and its not clear that it is better than other less extreme and less risky options. The options facing this team are slightly more nuanced that 1) try to compete next year or 2) blow it up.

Moreover, the implicit premise that getting better and getting younger are inconsistent is wrong. Its hard to do both, but not impossible.

I want them to make smart decisions. Dumping everybody over 25 or some such none-sense isn't clearly the smart way to go. Nor is trying to win the A.L. East next year.

Who said I wanted to dump everyone over the age of 25? Obviously we want good prospects back. When I refer to blowing it up, I mean that any player on our roster with the exception of Markakis should be actively shopped, including Bedard and Roberts. Obviously you don't make trades purely to get younger though, the players must have the potential to be good major leaguers. Obvously not all prospects we receive would pan out, but if they have the potential to be good, than we should be making these deals.

[Baltimoron]

If you're going to assume they'd screw up any strategy up to and including a blow-up, what are we debating? Seems to me there's no way out given those ground rules, besides blowing up the ownership and management.

I have no idea why you think this is my belief.

Blowing it up is very hard to do and very risky. There are less risky, less difficult paths to getting younger and better.

With a FO with questionable/unproven decision making skills, why is it not sensible to be risk averse, or to be wary of them taking the most extreme and difficult approach possible?

Building this franchise back up will take years - lots of people seem to be a rush to make it happen overnight.

I am very wary of the FO trying to do too much too quick, of biting off more than they can chew. I'm scared of the idea of the FO running around like a bunch of wildman at the winter meeting trying to make multiple trades at once to rebuild in one offseason.

Look to add a productive young player or two this offseason and continue to add to the minor league depth, have another good draft, look to make a trade or two leading into the deadline next season, and repeat. Do more as good opportunities present themselves.

[Boston Dave]

Bottom line for me, if you trade Bedard, Cabrera, Roberts and Tejada, what is the possibility you DON'T get back a promising 2B, SS, 1B, LF, and pitcher (or two)?

The pain of "blow it up" would be quickly forgotten when we come roaring back with a great young team in 2009.

[frankpembleton]

I have no idea why you think this is my belief.

Blowing it up is very hard to do and very risky. There are less risky, less difficult paths to getting younger and better.

With a FO with questionable/unproven decision making skills, why is it not sensible to be risk averse, or to be wary of them taking the most extreme and difficult approach possible?

Building this franchise back up will take years - lots of people seem to be a rush to make it happen overnight.

I am very wary of the FO trying to do too much too quick, of biting off more than they can chew. I'm scared of the idea of the FO running around like a bunch of wildman at the winter meeting trying to make multiple trades at once to rebuild in one offseason.

Look to add a productive young player or two this offseason and continue to add to the minor league depth, have another good draft, look to make a trade or two leading into the deadline next season, and repeat. Do more as good opportunities present themselves.

The problem is that we don't have that much time with Bedard and Tejada to make a trade. We need to trade them before we can get back anything of value. By the time we are ready to compete Tejada will be well past his prime and probably not still an Oriole. Even Bedard and Roberts will be on the downside by the time we are ready to compete so we might as well get something before we have to get rid of them for nothing.

Is everyone pretty much in agreement that the main tenant of "blowing it up" is actively pursuing trades involving Tejada, Roberts, Bedard and Cabrera. Agreeing on that might be the first step in getting on the same page.

[Baltimoron]

It is the only way to get younger quicker...Sure, you can get younger over the next 2-4 years without blowing it up but then you are delaying the process...You know, like we have for 10 years.

I'd argue they never began the process.

I agree the quickest way to get younger is to blow it up. But unfortunately the goal is not to just get younger. It is to get younger *and* better.

Rebuilding a team takes years, why the headfirst rush to take the most difficult and risky option available?

[NewMarketSean]

I'm floored. This team has done seemingly everything wrong for a decade, but nobody seems to be willing acknowledge the likelihood that they would screw up a "blow-up" too.

I thought MacPhail was the savior though???

I think we all have a different opinion on what blow it up means. I think it means changing the organizations philosophy from the ground up and trading the most valuable veteran players we have.

I don't necessarily want everyone gone, but once you trade Roberts, Tejada and Bedard, there aren't many players left that are worthy of keeping.

[Baltimoron]

The problem is that we don't have that much time with Bedard and Tejada to make a trade. We need to trade them before we can get back anything of value. By the time we are ready to compete Tejada will be old and probably not still an Oriole. Even Bedard will be on the downside by the time we are ready to compete.

Is everyone pretty much in agreement that the main tenant of "blowing it up" is actively pursuing trades involving Tejada, Roberts, Bedard and Cabrera. Agreeing on that might be the first step in getting on the same page.

Does trading Bedard and Tejada = blowing it up? Certainly not.

Do we trade them just to trade them?

I think its nuts to preclude the possibility of them team trading Tejada and/or Bedard and/or Roberts and/or DCab and also being better next season. Given the enourmous holes this team has, its not inconceivable that the sum of what is coming back is greater than the worth of what is going out.

How young/close to MLB readiness do the players we trade for have to be to be considered blowing it up?

[Baltimoron]

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.

The Orioles have enourmous holes. They don't need all-stars talent coming back to be better.

[Baltimoron]

Who said I wanted to dump everyone over the age of 25?

No one as far as I can tell.

[frankpembleton]

I know one thing for sure. We need to trade for guys that aren't already in the majors in order to come out with more potential players than we're trading. No team is going to trade All Star caliber major league ready young talent in a 2 or 3 for 1 type of scenario. Young, major league ready players are just too valuable in this day. To go for a "big" return, we would have to trade for mostly guys who are projected to be ready by 2009 or 2010.

You see, we shouldn't even be looking to try and compete before 2010 and by that time Bedard and Roberts will most likely be on the downside of their careers. That is why we should trade them now for multiple good prospects that are 2 to 3 years out. At that point Weiters and Rowell should be ready as well and we really will have some good young players with potential ready to make the jump. Markakis will be entering his prime years and hopefully Reimold works out to be something.

We are just not going to be able to compete in the next 2 years no matter what happens, so why keep Roberts, Bedard and Tejada?

[frankpembleton]

Well, if you trade Tejada, you need at least one eventual all star to come back for it to be successful IMHO. As we all know, a team of mediocre to good players won't cut it. You need a few All Star level guys to win in this league. If we traded Tejada and came out with a 750 OPS SS and a 775 OPS LF, I would argue that we got worse, not better.

If we traded Bedard and came out with a pitcher who produces 200 IP at a 4.00 ERA and a 825 OPS 1B, I'd argue that we came out worse, not better.

If we traded Roberts and came out with a 750 OPS 2B and a 775-800 OPS LF, I'd argue we came out worse, not better.

I just don't think you are taking into account how long we have control of Tejada, Bedard, Roberts, etc vs how long we would have control of prospects at extremely cheap salaries and room to grow. That is a huge part of this. A lot of this is freeing up money (and future money).

[frankpembleton]

If you trade Miggy, Bedard, and Roberts this offseason and all our young pitchers suddenly put it together (like Detroit last year and Chicago the year before), we are going to be mighty upset that we've got virtually no offense at all to support them because all our "prospects" are still in the minors.

Oh God, this sounds exactly like something the front office would say over the past 3 years. You can't honestly be using this for an argument. We need to give up hope on the next two years. Build for 3 years out. Patience is key, but so is instituting the right plan - starting now.