Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[Sports Guy]

In 2010,

Bedard will be 31

Roberts with be 32

They may both be playing worse at that point than they are today, but I would hardly say it is "likely". I think you've been drinking too much of the SG kool-aid. Everyone doesn't magically become terrible just because they are on the wrong side of 30. It might happen, it might not. Both guys are fit and thin. Bedard is more of a risk than Roberts since all pitchers are risks.

Look at the ages of the Yankees' roster. Look at the ages of the All Star Rosters this year. Ortiz is 31. Varitek is 35. Lowell is 33. Manny is 35. Imagine if the Sox had traded all of them a couple years ago, because they would "most likely be on the downside of their careers" at this age. If we trade people JUST because they are 30 or over and their performance might crash, we will never compete.

Just playing the percentages VaTech...Signing these guys after 2009 for 4-7 years, putting them well into their mid to upper 30s, is just not a smart move IMO.

[geschinger]

Just playing the percentages VaTech...Signing these guys after 2009 for 4-7 years, putting them well into their mid to upper 30s, is just not a smart move IMO.

Beat me to it, this is the key point when it comes to Roberts. I'd be comfortable w/him here in 2010 if we couldn't get a good return for him but I wouldn't be at all comfortable being committed to him in 2012 and beyond. That is likely a requirement to have him here in 2010. I don't see him signing another 2-3 year type extension.

[Sports Guy]

However, if Bedard throws two more dominant seasons in 2008 and 2009, I'd probably be willing to sign him for whatever it takes

. See, i disagree with this but agree with your next sentence:

Heck, I'm ready to throw quite a bit of money at him right now to buy out two years and get him to give us 2 years to 2011.

I am fine with giving him a 4 year extension right now...Some days it is my preference and other days i prefer to trade him. I can't decide on him. I tend to think if we dealt Tejada, BRob and DCab(along with some of the others) that we would be ok and could give Bedard the money...However, if we did all of that, would he even want the money?

Same scenario with Roberts. If he looks like he isn't slowing down a bit at 32 in 2009 and he has put up an 850 OPS for 3 straight years, I might be willing to sign him for what it took.

I just can't agree with you on BRob...I really like BRob...He is one of my favorite guys on this team and i love watching him play...He plays the game the right way IMO. But he does have his issues...He wears down some over the course of a long season. He hasn't put together 2 very good back to back years. He still doesn't hit lefties too well.

Now, if you ask me, he is the best second baseman in the game and if not #1, he is #2(talking all around game here). But i don't think he will be by 2009 and i certainly don't think so beyond that.

The other point is, do they even want to sign here? I bet if you ask Brob right now he would say no but that things could change if we win the next 2 years. However, how likely is it that win? What are the realistic chances?

[davearm]

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

[mweb]

I disagree. I think there are plenty of people saying trade them for the best offer we get regardless of whether that offer is good enough. Now, are these people ASSUMING that we're going to get good enough offers. Sure they are. But assuming it will happen, doesn't make it so.

There are people here who thought Aybar and Santana were plenty good enough to trade Tejada. How would that trade look now? Multiply that trade times three and you can see how some of our "experts" can agree with a trade yet be wrong that we can't end up worse off than we are now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6522

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6280

I was not for that trade, but those guys did have decent value at the time. They still may pan out as well, although that is not my prediction. Plus, no one is saying this is without risk, obviously we can be unlucky with the guys we get back, or simply do a poor job choosing who we get back. The point is we can get quite a few top prospects for those guys, likely good enough value to pull the trigger on the trades, whether the guys pan out, only the stat guys know.

BTW, we probably could have gotten Hanley Ramirez plus another very good prospect from the Red Sox before they traded him for Beckett. Would that have satisfied you? I liked the possibility then, and obviously it looks good now.

[mweb]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

At least 100 losses almost assure's us of the top pick, which also helps the rebuilding.

[CEB]

There seems to be a growing group of folks here that think there's basically no such thing as "worse off than we are now" -- for all intents and purposes, 100+ losses (if it came to that) is indistinguishable from 85 or 90 losses.

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up", I think a strong case can be made the there is a world of difference between 70 wins and 40 wins. You don't want to believe it but, things can get worse. A 40-122 team is much, much worse than a 70-92 team -- just like a 100-62 team is much different than a 70-92 team.

The difference between 90 and 120 losses is like the difference between the Orioles’ months of July and August. In July, they may have lost more than they won, but at least they were in almost every game and you could tell yourself that they could win any contest and would turn it around. I and many O’s fans can live with that -- hell, that’s the story of the last 10 years right? But it’s quite another thing to approach every game for 1 or 2 years and know that you’re going to lose and that there is no guarantee of better days on the other side. Listen to the OH Board of late, no one has any fun watching the team lose day in and day out with no hope. Do you think that it will get better if the team trades off every player that is identifiable in the community or that the casual fan recognizes as talented and worthy of the price of a ticket to see play?

Blowing the team up is a high leverage strategy that will almost by definition result in the team losing 100 games (or more given the unbalanced schedule and the strength of the AL East).

The oft-cited teams that has followed that path have not only lost 100 game or more, but have suffered a dramatic decline in attendance. Camden Yards is a glorious place to see a ballgame, to be sure. And Orioles fans are loyal and surprisingly resilient, yet a 100-loss season will likely result in a 30-50% drop in attendance. This is even more true in light of the last 10 years and the level of frustration.

A 30-50% decline in attendance will not only affect ticket revenues, but concession revenue and television royalties. So the club’s revenues will drop by $15 to $45 million per year or more.

In contrast, there will be comparably little reduction in the $90 million in player personnel expenses following the fireworks, since many of the most tradeable players (such as Bedard and Roberts) aren’t among the highest paid and the strategy also called for the club to “eat” the salaries of “underperformers” (such as Gibbons, Huff, Payton and Mora).

So, blowing-it-up may actually reduce the club’s ability to sign free agents for a couple of years, at least until the payroll falls in line with revenues. Some will be happy to hear this, but it reinforces the high-risk nature of the strategy. And for an example of the worst case scenario, you need look no further than the Pittsburgh Pirates free agent signings and consequences. They traded a series of players they could not afford to keep and are saddled with several dreadful mid-tier free agents they never should have signed.

Again, I am simply pointing out that the blow-it-up strategy virtually insures at least one or two 100 loss seasons, and massive fan alienation on the scale of the 1988 Orioles or 2003 Tigers.

Finally, as others have noted, much of the clamor for the team to be “blown up” is out of profound frustration and the lack of an tangible, identifiable alternative. People what to do something. And as the proverb goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks little a nail.

In context, “blow it up” is a strategy, but let’s be clear, it is not the only alternative to another ten years of misery and futility. It is the most drastic, and highest risk strategy. I am not convinced that the marginal return, is worth the risk.

If you can successfully rebuild by ‘blowing-it-up,” you can rebuild through more conventional means without purging the team of every familiar face to the casual fan. Yes, it may take a couple of years longer, but not every pennant winner has had to endure a baptism of fire akin to the 1962 Mets season.

[RShack]

You seem to be one of the few caught up in silly slogans. The rest of us just use "blow it up" as shorthand for trade whoever is necessary to turn the thing around, and quit doing the dumb things they did in the past.

Who really cares what you call it?

Oh, gimme a break. Are you really claiming that "blow it up" is typically used around here to refer to FO practices that have demonstrated traction at establishing a consistent contender? That's bull and you know it. The very words "blow it up" signify destructive action. That's what the words mean in the English language. Around here, that phrase is used as shorthand for getting rid of the O's demonstrated talent and destroying any opportunity for near-term success, in order to acquire potential talent (prospects) who may or may not enable success in the distant future. You know that as well as I do. To say that "blow it up" signifies nothing besides "turn things around" is disingenuous. There is a history of franchises who have turned things around to become consistent contenders, and destructive action is not how they get there. You of all people know that.

[DrungoHazewood]

Oh, gimme a break. Are you really claiming that "blow it up" is typically used around here to refer to FO practices that have demonstrated traction at establishing a consistent contender? That's bull and you know it. The very words "blow it up" signify destructive action. That's what the words mean in the English language. Around here, that phrase is used as shorthand for getting rid of the O's demonstrated talent and destroying any opportunity for near-term success, in order to acquire potential talent (prospects) who may or may not enable success in the distant future. You know that as well as I do. To say that "blow it up" signifies nothing besides "turn things around" is disingenuous. There is a history of franchises who have turned things around to become consistent contenders, and destructive action is not how they get there. You of all people know that.

Believe what you want. You like controversy, splitting hairs, and getting worked into a fit (and more importantly, working the rest of the board into a fit) about meaningless things. You did it in the threads about projecting future outcomes from past performance, and you're doing it now.

[Sports Guy]

Believe what you want. You like controversy, splitting hairs, and getting worked into a fit (and more importantly, working the rest of the board into a fit) about meaningless things. You did it in the threads about projecting future outcomes from past performance, and you're doing it now.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[CEB]

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up" . . . ..

Killed another thread haven't I?

Much too balanced and reasonable to debate, I suppose. Next time, I'll include an argument that the team shouldn't be blown-up because minor league record is irrelevant to a player's Major League future.

[Sports Guy]

As I stated in the dual thread underway on the definition of "blow-it-up", I think a strong case can be made the there is a world of difference between 70 wins and 40 wins. You don't want to believe it but, things can get worse. A 40-122 team is much, much worse than a 70-92 team -- just like a 100-62 team is much different than a 70-92 team.

60 wins? 70 wins? Who cares...You are still pathetic....It really doesn't make that much of a difference.

The oft-cited teams that has followed that path have not only lost 100 game or more, but have suffered a dramatic decline in attendance. Camden Yards is a glorious place to see a ballgame, to be sure. And Orioles fans are loyal and surprisingly resilient, yet a 100-loss season will likely result in a 30-50% drop in attendance. This is even more true in light of the last 10 years and the level of frustration.

If we keep winning 70 wins a game every year, the attendance will continue to drop anyway. I think the fans want some young excitement.

A 30-50% decline in attendance will not only affect ticket revenues, but concession revenue and television royalties. So the club’s revenues will drop by $15 to $45 million per year or more.

Youa re probably overstating the attendance drop. They aren't going to only bring in 1-1.7 million a year. The Yankees and Red Sox series alone will insure that won't happen.

So, blowing-it-up may actually reduce the club’s ability to sign free agents for a couple of years,

This is good news...Who cares about FAs? That isn't how you build a team, at least not proeprly.

They traded a series of players they could not afford to keep and are saddled with several dreadful mid-tier free agents they never should have signed.

We have a lot more resources than the Pirates do and they had the worse GM in the sport(arguably)

Again, I am simply pointing out that the blow-it-up strategy virtually insures at least one or two 100 loss seasons, and massive fan alienation on the scale of the 1988 Orioles or 2003 Tigers.

And this is basically incorrect. To say it, with a guarantee(which you are doing) is completely inaccurate.

Finally, as others have noted, much of the clamor for the team to be “blown up” is out of profound frustration and the lack of an tangible, identifiable alternative. People what to do something. And as the proverb goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks little a nail.

LOL...You haven't been around here that long, have you? Many of us have been asking for this for years.

In context, “blow it up” is a strategy, but let’s be clear, it is not the only alternative to another ten years of misery and futility. It is the most drastic, and highest risk strategy. I am not convinced that the marginal return, is worth the risk.

No its not...Keeping things as is and pissing a lot of money away on overrated FAs is the riskiest strategy.

[CEB]

60 wins? 70 wins? Who cares...You are still pathetic....It really doesn't make that much of a difference.

. . .

Keeping things as is and pissing a lot of money away on overrated FAs is the riskiest strategy.

But of course it does make a difference whether the team loses 90 or 120 games. The effect is reduce your wins by a factor of 50%. How many game do you attend SG? What if you lay down your money, and the O’s won only half of the games they won before. You’d be even more dissatisfied and less likely to attend. But don’t debate me. Look at the attendance following the blow-ups in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida.

If you want to assert that purging the team of all recognizable faces for prospects is worth the pain, don’t deny that there won’t be 100 to 120 losses, dude.

If you really want to blow-it-up and leverage every player for prospects, it means assembling a team of Freddie Bynam’s, Luis Hernandez’s and Paul Bakos for a year or two while all you blue-chip prospects develop and mature in the MiL system. You'll hate that.

Further, you actually need 100 to 120 losses to guarantee the club will pick first in the first year player draft – which is an important piece of the strategy, right? Since the track record or first picks is much better than even mid-first rounders. And of course, from your perspective if you're going to lose 90 games, why not 120?

You say you “think the fans want some young excitement.” Of course the fans want excitement! And winning! It’s just that blow-in the team up isn’t the only way to get there. And there won’t be any excitement if you trade away every quality player and leave a roster of overmatched AAAA and AAA players.

Look at the numbers the Tigers attendance during 2000-2003. They moved into a new stadium and had several poor years before they blew-up the Tigers and still attendance declined by 30%.

Detroit Tigers

Year Record Attendance

1999 69-92 2,026,441

2000 79-83 2,438,617

2001 66-96 1,921,305 Base

2002 55-106 1,503,623 -22%

2003 43-119 1,368,245 -29%

I don’t disagree about a 2-3 year moratorium on free agents if you blow-it-up. If you go down that road, you need 100-120 loses to secure the first or second pick in the draft. But, I don’t think Andy MacPhail disagrees with your point about the futility of signing overpriced second-tier free agents either. So I am not sure that’s a live debate in the Warehouse.

The point about the Pirates is that the blow-it-up strategy is a high risk and high return approach. The Pirates employed it and they couldn’t pull it off. I agree MacPhail is probably more skillful and intelligent. But the Pirate’s example proves that this approach can go bad and stay bad.

Yes, the Orioles have more resources and better management. But as you yourself have noted, there is a limit to what the good people of Baltimore can take isn’t there? After 10 seasons of losing, a couple of 100-loss seasons will do deeper and more lasting damage than if the team had simply had 3-5 losing seasons.

The choice isn’t binary. It’s not purge every established player or condemn the franchise to the status quo and another 10 years of losing. That’s a straw man, man.

If you can successfully rebuild by ‘blowing-it-up,” you can rebuild through more conventional means through careful draft picks, smart trades, reclamation projects and selective free agent signings. You don’t have to purging the team of every familiar face and become the laughingstock of the ML.

[Sports Guy]

But of course it does make a difference whether the team loses 90 or 120 games. The effect is reduce your wins by a factor of 50%. How many game do you attend SG? What if you lay down your money, and the O’s won only half of the games they won before. You’d be even more dissatisfied and less likely to attend. But don’t debate me. Look at the attendance following the blow-ups in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida.

First of all, they aren't going to lose 120 games...That is just absurd to think that.

I would rather watch a 40 win team with a ton of young talent that is building towards something than the garbage that is out there now. But again, saying we would only win 40 games is foolish.

If you want to assert that purging the team of all recognizable faces for prospects is worth the pain, don’t deny that there won’t be 100 to 120 losses, dude.

To guarantee it is a joke....Look at the Marlins just last year...Hell, look at the Nats this year. They may lose 100 but to think it is a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. The team would probably be as good if not better than what we are seeing right now.

If you really want to blow-it-up and leverage every player for prospects, it means assembling a team of Freddie Bynam’s, Luis Hernandez’s and Paul Bakos for a year or two while all you blue-chip prospects develop and mature in the MiL system. You'll hate that.

again, you obviously haven't paid attention to what anyone is saying. We have all said to get ML ready guys to put into the lineup immediately.

Further, you actually need 100 to 120 losses to guarantee the club will pick first in the first year player draft – which is an important piece of the strategy, right? Since the track record or first picks is much better than even mid-first rounders. And of course, from your perspective if you're going to lose 90 games, why not 120?

this has never been anyone's strategy. Are you actually reading what people are saying?

Look at the numbers the Tigers attendance during 2000-2003. They moved into a new stadium and had several poor years before they blew-up the Tigers and still attendance declined by 30%.

Detroit Tigers

Year Record Attendance

1999 69-92 2,026,441

2000 79-83 2,438,617

2001 66-96 1,921,305 Base

2002 55-106 1,503,623 -22%

2003 43-119 1,368,245 -29%

The Tigers don't have Boston and NY 9-10 times each a year and we this city, even through 10 years of losing, has supported the Orioles much more than Detroit did.

The point about the Pirates is that the blow-it-up strategy is a high risk and high return approach. The Pirates employed it and they couldn’t pull it off. I agree MacPhail is probably more skillful and intelligent. But the Pirate’s example proves that this approach can go bad and stay bad.

The Pirates haven't rebuilt....They have pissed away millions on crappy players. They are now just getting younger. If you think they have rebuilt and blown it up, you don't understand the meaning of the terms.

laughingstock of the ML

You mean like we already are?

[utvolzac]

OK....so we blow it up. We trade our $94 million team....Bedard, Tejada, Roberts, et al....for $24 million worth of young, promising, ML and almost ML ready kids. Then, let's say after 2-3 years, it becomes obvious that most of these guys aren't making anyone believe they are ML players. The only person who wins in this scenerio is Peter Angelos. He keeps $70 million in his pocket, and still makes out like a bandit collecting TV revenues, and the money wasted by O's fans who continue to support his team.

So, what happens when blowing it up fails?

(1) Do we blow it up again and start over?

(2) Or do we select that small core of guys who are solid players, and start building a team around them. But wait!.....We can do this now, and definitely have a better chance of fielding a winning team in 2008, and beyond.

Most of our "core" group are on the wrong side of 30 and they are only signed for two more years. I agree w/ building around a core group of talented players, but the current group of O's is not the right ones imo.