Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[utvolzac]

If you keep them, don't contend and then they leave via FA, what do you have?

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

[DrungoHazewood]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

That's a great point. A large part of the team's contracts expire after 2009. If they build around today's core and don't sign anyone to extensions there won't be any more core in 2010. There will be a natural explosion and only Markakis and a few others will be left in its wake.

[utvolzac]

That's a great point. A large part of the team's contracts expire after 2009. If they build around today's core and don't sign anyone to extensions there won't be any more core in 2010. There will be a natural explosion and only Markakis and a few others will be left in its wake.

To be honest, I really consider our real "core" group of players to be Markakis, our young pitchers, Rowell, Wieters, etc. Basically the type of players that the "blow it up" (ie trade BRob Miggy, Bedard) side want to target anyway.

I have very little faith that our current core group is even capable of being the centerpiece of a contending franchise. Most of these guys have been around here long enough to know that the chances of them being part of a contending Orioles team, is very slim.

I really don't see any of our valuable vets being in any hurry to re-sign with this franchise when their contracts run out and most of them, I wouldn't want to resign anyway.

IMO, the time to build around Tejada, BRob, Mora, etc has come and gone. Had we been able to add an impact free agent like a Vladdy or Delgado, I'm pretty sure this core group would have already been a winner by now. Given what's available on the free agency market, I don't like our chances to even build around these guys. Unless we want to start trading our young prospects, which I DO NOT WANT to do. Plus, I think it'll take us at least 1 off-season just to get out of the bad contracts we saddled ourselves with this last off-season.

I just don't see Angelos increasing the payroll to not only get us out of the whole were already in, but adding enough to bring in elite talent and facilitate the farm system. I can't really say I blame him for that either, because although we are a big enough market to spend money, we aren't NY.

- Pay off Payton/Gibbons/Baez/etc just to get rid of them

- Pay ridiculous contracts, well over market value, to get elite FA's to come here or take on other bad contracts to get better players.

- Invest significantly in Latin America/Asia, and overpay slot money in the draft for elite talent that slides, so the farm system still thrives and gives us a back up plan.

That is alot of money.

[Baltimoron]

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.

The first idea is an idea that is unquestionably true for every MLB team.

If by "not taking a patchwork approach to 2008" you mean not trying to fill holes with short-term solutions, that is true for nearly every team (the exception being older but still highly competitive teams, and even in there case, its still arguably sub-optimal, as guys like Brian Cashman have made obvious).

[Baltimoron]

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Its certainly less wrong for a team with the recent history of the Orioles, but more importantly, it misses the point.

Getting younger for the "long term" good of the franchise does not necessitate risking a 100+ plus loss season.

The focus should be on the long term health of the club. But that does not mean one should abandon the current health of the club.

[Baltimoron]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

I couldn't disagree more.

The world is not black or white, and neither are the options facing the Orioles.

[Baltimoron]

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

You mean like we already are?

If the bolded is actually what you think, than perhaps you should consider stopping using misleading, inflammatory and incorrect language like "blowing it up."

The idea that teams win, get old, blow it up and repeat is childish and wrong. Cookie cutter philosophies do not work in a dynamic world.

The goal is to be better, not just immediately but over the next few years. That the Orioles should weigh future success more heavily than more immediate success does not mean immediate success is without value.

To emulate the Marlins is to be stupid. To emulate parts of what they have stressed (adding young talent) is a good idea. But they have also done a lot of dumb things.

Thankfully, the Orioles' options are not a 40 win team or the crap they have now. If they were, the choice is obvious.

[RShack]

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.

Great job of ignoring the point and shifting to personal attacks. And, yes, I'm quite famous for "working the rest of the board into a fit" by suggesting that people stop and think instead of climbing on knee-jerk bandwagons. The fact of the matter is that some people conveniently change what they mean by "blow it up" week by week to fit which way the wind is blowing around here. Lately, it's changed from a radical destruction of the current core to an oh-so-reasonable wish that the O's get better and younger.

[CEB]

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.

....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.

I and others assume that when you advocate “blowing-up” the current team you are seriously advocating this position, rather than simply lobbing out a hand-grenade for your amusement and that you actually believe that such a strategy can work and produce superior results to an incremental rebuilding initiative.

So let’s try this one more time. Blowing-up the team, means to trade established, quality players for prospects, who may or may not be major league ready, with the hopes that by acquiring a greater number of high-quality prospects than the team could through the draft alone, you can shorten or accelerate the rebuilding process.

Examples of teams which took this approach, to one degree or another, include the:

1998 Florida Marlins which finished 54-108,

2003 Detroit Tigers which finished 43-119, the

2003 Cleveland Indians, which finished 68-94, and

2006 Marlins which finished 78-84.

Now, if you think that simply trading Miguel Tejada alone is blowing-it-up, say so. Trading only one established ML Player sounds like a conventional trade and rebuilding plan to me and to others.

Unless I misunderstood you, it sounded as though you advocated a strategy of trading Tejada, Bedard and Roberts with the effort of obtaining blue-chip prospects, hopefully ML-ready. The working assumption is that you would also trade if possible, and DFA if not, the following players: Gibbons, Payton, Huff, Mora, Millar, Danial Cabrera and perhaps Romon Hernandez. You would keep Markakis, and perhaps you would keep Ray, Gurthrie and remainder of the young staff. Presumably, you wouldn’t resign Corry Patterson.

While intriguing and certain worthy of a fine conversation over pizza and beer, the problem is that trading Tejada, Bedard and Roberts will dramatically lower the level of talent and runs scored.

Baseball Prospectus’ value over replacement player is a useful tool in evaluating the impact of such an action. Here are the most recent BP VORP calculations.

Player PA AVG OBP SLG SB CS VORP

Brian Roberts 633 .298 .385 .442 41 7 47.3

Miguel Tejada 483 .310 .365 .467 2 1 34.7

Nick Markakis 619 .295 .362 .469 16 6 29.7

Kevin Millar 479 .258 .372 .429 0 1 16.5

Aubrey Huff 531 .272 .324 .438 0 0 11.8

Melvin Mora 455 .263 .331 .414 9 2 9.6

Corey Patterson 503 .269 .304 .386 37 9 7.6

Thus, blowing-it-up dramatically reduces the teams talent level. It will have a real and tangible impact. Who will be play short and second base? The O’s don’t have an ML-ready prospect at either position in AAA, so it will likely be Brandon Fahey, Freddie Bynam or Luis Hernandez.

You want to believe that the players received in return will all be ML ready. And maybe some will. But not all and not all will pan out. The O’s are likely to get some prospects who are A or AA or still need seasoning in AAA. As a practical matter, you can insist on blue-chip prospects or you can insist on ML-ready, I doubt you can do both. Look at the deals the Tigers, Indians and Marlins did. Not everyone will be ready to step in and hit 0.300 with 30 home runs. And of course, not even blue-chip prospects are overnight successes. Look at Andy Marte, Jeremy Gurthrie, JR House or even Drungo Hazewood.

Moreover, the players you get for Gibbons, Payton, Huff, Mora, Millar, Danial Cabrera aren’t likely to be blue-chip ML-ready prospects. Based on your own valuation, they will be a combination of second-tier prospects. Look back to the Sidney Ponson or Jeff Conine trades.

If this were easy, everyone would do it. The fact is its very hard. A G.M. has to accurately evaluate his own needs, evaluate the other team’s player and then swing the deal. And the player evaluation has to be dead-on or you’ve just traded Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas.

But don’t take my word for it. Read Peter Gammon’s most recent column in Baseball America.

A squad of replacement players and prospects trying to learn on the job at the ML level will be overmatched, especially with the unbalanced schedule in the AL East. Such a team will most likely lose 100 games and maybe over 110.

The attendance declines in Detroit, Cleveland and Florida show that indeed a 30% drop in attendance is highly likely under such a scenario. My point was that there is indeed a difference between losing 90 and 110 games, and the attendance figures prove it. People in Baltimore will care if the O’s lose 100 games. And no, it probably isn’t permanent. But it’s not irrelevant to the front office or the fans.

Again, “blow it up” is not the only viable strategy for rebuilding and it’s not worth the risk or the potential injury to the franchise. 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. And that is the track the organization is on. The only thing that matters is results and only time will tell.

[utvolzac]

I couldn't disagree more.

The world is not black or white, and neither are the options facing the Orioles.

So what other options are there?

If you don't trade your valuable vets for young talent or go all out for elite talent in Free Agency, how else do you fix this team? Espcially in the two-year window we have left.

We've wasted the last two years going with "stop gaps" to fill holes, so we could get back to above .500 and that was a collossal failure.

[davearm]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's time to pick a direction. By 2009, you most likely lose the option to blow it up or build around.

IMO, there are only two ways to go this off-season. Trade our vets that have value and get as much young talent as possible and create a new "core" to build around.

Or

Try and compete (not finish above .500), COMPETE and really invest some money into impact players before our "core" group's contracts expire and they walk or decline to the point where we don't want them anymore. Doing this also screws the farm system, so to counter you'd have to invest a large portion of money into the Latin/Asian market to make sure the farm doesn't get neglected like during the Thrift era.

I personally don't think we can fix the problem areas in two off-seasons and I also don't think Angelos would approve a budget necessary to go with the quick fix plan. Which is why I'm leaning on towards option 1.

Every year we wait, puts our tradable guys closer to being rental players, i.e. not getting as much in return.

This post seems to have garnered both cheers and boos.

I think it's right on the mark.

Barring any contract extensions, one way or another, the O's are going to look dramatically different after 2009, when a slew of contracts end.

So the question is, what to do in that 2-year window: "go for it," or "blow it up."

[Wingman]

Great job of ignoring the point and shifting to personal attacks. And, yes, I'm quite famous for "working the rest of the board into a fit" by suggesting that people stop and think instead of climbing on knee-jerk bandwagons. The fact of the matter is that some people conveniently change what they mean by "blow it up" week by week to fit which way the wind is blowing around here. Lately, it's changed from a radical destruction of the current core to an oh-so-reasonable wish that the O's get better and younger.

Whether "blowing it up" is a good strategy or not, at least the people espousing it have put their ideas forward for the O's to be successful. You, however, only criticize and only offer the ubiquitous "a smart FO" as the solution for the O's woes, never stating what "a smart FO" should do...

I don't like knee-jerk bandwagons either and I always appreciate dissent but I'm always skeptical of someone (like you) who will criticize the popular opinion, without putting forth an alternative solution.

[Three Run Homer]

Barring any contract extensions, one way or another, the O's are going to look dramatically different after 2009, when a slew of contracts end.

So the question is, what to do in that 2-year window: "go for it," or "blow it up."

I think that just asking the question makes the answer obvious.

There is no feasible way that this team can "go for it" in the next two years. There isn't enough available talent in the free agent market or in the upper levels of the farm system to upgrade this team from a doormat to a playoff-caliber team in the next two years.

So all that is left is blow it up.

[RShack]

Whether "blowing it up" is a good strategy or not, at least the people espousing it have put their ideas forward for the O's to be successful. You, however, only criticize and only offer the ubiquitous "a smart FO" as the solution for the O's woes, never stating what "a smart FO" should do...

I don't like knee-jerk bandwagons either and I always appreciate dissent but I'm always skeptical of someone (like you) who will criticize the popular opinion, without putting forth an alternative solution.

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

[Sports Guy]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

First of all, for you to keep saying the idea of blowing it up is a bandwagon idea shows you to be more foolish than many of us ever thought you were...This has been a thought on here for years.

Secondly, who do you think should be hired in the FO??