Do you want anyone from the Marlins?

[crawdad]

Without use of any predictive tools, I'd guess Roberts might do a little worse, Pie a little better and Jones about the same.

But, again, stating Markakis bounces back and Wieters jumps up .100 is optimistic. Stating this will happen with no regression from anyone else (due to injury or otherwise) could certainly be construed as "best case" kinda thinking.

Using the WAR prediction tool from BtBS . . . I am getting 82 wins with the squad SportsGuy mentions and with those improvements. Looks like I was on the money with saying we needed two more acquisitions of elite level talent for it to all work out for next year.

[Stotle]

LOL..ok, if you say so.

I think it is pretty absurd to not expect this type of young talent to really improve but whatever, to each his own.

I find it pretty funny that you and your sidekick are saying not to trade this young talent yet you think it is overly optimistic to think they will improve quickly...if they aren't that good, then shouldn't we be looking to move them?

Well, that's the problem with seeing in black and white, isn't it. It's more fun to argue absolutes, but most of the details that matter are in the subtleties.

Generally, yes, I think young players tend to improve. Of course they do. But you are assuming improvement across the board with no regression from an older player like Roberts. You're also assuming a drastic improvement from Markakis (which could happen, or he could be a .825ish to .850ish guy).

It isn't that your projection can't happen. It's that for most of these players it's a best case scenario, or close to it. It'd be great to see that kind of progress across the board with no set backs, but how is it not "optimistic"?

[Sports Guy]

Using the WAR prediction tool from BtBS . . . I am getting 82 wins with the squad SportsGuy mentions and with those improvements. Looks like I was on the money with saying we needed two more acquisitions of elite level talent for it to all work out for next year.

Which is fine...I said around 85 wins.

[geschinger]

The Orioles can easily support a payroll in the 80-110 million range and still spend on the draft and International signings.

Maybe eventually but unless we assume that everything reported from a revenue persepective is wrong by tens of millions there is no way they could spend 90-100m let alone 110m without Angelos being willing to take some big losses. Realistically I think we can get to 70-80m and if we can get attendance up significantly 90-100m is feasible. I think we have to be realistic when analyzing what we would like to see and overestimating what they can realistically spend makes every else that much more unrealistic.

[crawdad]

Which is fine...I said around 85 wins.

Well, then, yes, if no one degrades in their performance and they all improve to the level you suggested and we traded for Johnson and then spent about 250-300MM on three players . . . we would have a good chance at a playoff squad next year.

[Sports Guy]

Well, that's the problem with seeing in black and white, isn't it. It's more fun to argue absolutes, but most of the details that matter are in the subtleties.

Generally, yes, I think young players tend to improve. Of course they do. But you are assuming improvement across the board with no regression from an older player like Roberts. You're also assuming a drastic improvement from Markakis (which could happen, or he could be a .825ish to .850ish guy).

It isn't that your projection can't happen. It's that for most of these players it's a best case scenario, or close to it. It'd be great to see that kind of progress across the board with no set backs, but how is it not "optimistic"?

Pretty absurd statement there....I never gave any individual prediction except for Wieters and Markakis.

I even just said that if those 2 give you an 850 OPS and everyone else gives you the same OPS next year, that gives you 815...You said Pie better, BRob worse..Jones better...Not sure where you are about Reimold but since you have said he is a 30 homer guy, I would think you would expect at least an 820ish OPS guy...Well, given all of that improvement and the slight decline of BRob, you are basically saying the same thing as I am.

And saying that would be best case scenario for most guys is just dead wrong.

[Sports Guy]

Well, then, yes, if no one degrades in their performance and they all improve to the level you suggested and we traded for Johnson and then spent about 250-300MM on three players . . . we would have a good chance at a playoff squad next year.

I have never talked about being a playoff team next year but don't let that stop you.

[Fan4Life]

The bottom line is there is no compelling reason to fork out the money for Lackey now as opposed to acquiring a comparable arm mid-season or 2011 off-season.

Your presumption here is that the 2010 Orioles are one or two players away from playoff centention and thus are ready to make the investment in that/those one or two players. It's just as likely things don't break right for us next season and we're looking at another 5th place finish.. especially if no additions are made to the pitching. So then you'll move your argument to 2012... and then 2013 etc etc... Markakkis is used up, BRob isn't producing etc etc..

[crawdad]

I have never talked about being a playoff team next year but don't let that stop you.

Back to my point, remember I had a point that we were arguing?, pitchers tend to break down. There is relatively high probability of that. So, if one wishes to invest heavily in a pitcher . . . you want a return on that value immediately. Or else . . . you get saddled with a bunch of sunk cost. Are you just not reading what I write? This point is brought up in perfect context of this argument.

[crawdad]

Your presumption here is that the 2010 Orioles are one or two players away from playoff centention and thus are ready to make the investment in that/those one or two players. It's just as likely things don't break right for us next season and we're looking at another 5th place finish.. especially if no additions are made to the pitching. So then you'll move your argument to 2012... and then 2013 etc etc... Markakkis is used up, BRob isn't producing etc etc..

No, you don't. You look at the production of your team, not the wins and losses per se. You have to look at things in a predictive manner, not in hindsight. If you use your current production as a baseline you will always be 365 days late in moves that you should have made. We can look at players and look at their probable development . . . then plan accordingly.

[Stotle]

Its terrible to dismiss until you know what they want.

Well, I'm quite confident that my supposition that the cost is unwieldy is probably closer to the mark than the likelihood of getting him for 5-6 years for the package described above. "Whatever."

Were I actually in charge of the Orioles I would certainly ask about him if I heard he was being actively shopped -- but I definitely would expect to hear anything to make me pursue him. He also probably wouldn't be a player I'd spend time trying to talk FLA into trading. Just like I wouldn't call up KC and say "So what would it take to pry Grienke away?" And I wouldn't call up TAM and say "What would it take to pry Longoria away?"

[Stotle]

Pretty absurd statement there....I never gave any individual prediction except for Wieters and Markakis.

I even just said that if those 2 give you an 850 OPS and everyone else gives you the same OPS next year, that gives you 815...You said Pie better, BRob worse..Jones better...Not sure where you are about Reimold but since you have said he is a 30 homer guy, I would think you would expect at least an 820ish OPS guy...Well, given all of that improvement and the slight decline of BRob, you are basically saying the same thing as I am.

And saying that would be best case scenario for most guys is just dead wrong.

"Whatever" -- you are reducing a larger argument to symantics in a side-point. You do it often when you can't address the larger argument head on.

Bottom line is Craw laid out a perfect case for why pitching is not a good advance purchase -- why you don't want to trade/buy a pitcher that you don't need for a year. I explained why planning to gain a competitive edge by developing quality arms runs directly contrary to trading for/signing the very thing you're trying to develop.

"LOL" and "whatever" around the room until you're blue in the face -- you don't have a good reason why you would spend resources on these BIG items at this time. The best you have is that in your opinion signing Lackey now somehow saves money, and that BAL should not worry about spending $15mios on an asset they aren't going to use because "it's only $15mios".

[Stotle]

Your presumption here is that the 2010 Orioles are one or two players away from playoff centention and thus are ready to make the investment in that/those one or two players. It's just as likely things don't break right for us next season and we're looking at another 5th place finish.. especially if no additions are made to the pitching. So then you'll move your argument to 2012... and then 2013 etc etc... Markakkis is used up, BRob isn't producing etc etc..

No. But a year from now I have a much better idea of what I have in Tillman/Matusz/Arrieta/Bergesen/Hernandez/Reimold/Pie/Wieters/Mickolio/Bell/Snyder and I can decide what big ticket risk best fits with my organization as currently constructed.

[Sports Guy]

"Whatever" -- you are reducing a larger argument to symantics in a side-point. You do it often when you can't address the larger argument head on.

Bottom line is Craw laid out a perfect case for why pitching is not a good advance purchase -- why you don't want to trade/buy a pitcher that you don't need for a year. I explained why planning to gain a competitive edge by developing quality arms runs directly contrary to trading for/signing the very thing you're trying to develop.

"LOL" and "whatever" around the room until you're blue in the face -- you don't have a good reason why you would spend resources on these BIG items at this time. The best you have is that in your opinion signing Lackey now somehow saves money, and that BAL should not worry about spending $15mios on an asset they aren't going to use because "it's only $15mios".

No, I believe it is important to see a big improvement next year.

It is important for us to have at least 3 pitcher going forward that will give us a sub 4.20 ERA.

I think it is important for us to have someone heading the staff.

I think it important for us to realize that now that a foundation is in place, it is time to augment that roster with long term(3+ year) answers in positions of need.

I think that since we can move some replaceable parts, both vet and young guys, that we can do all of this while still focusing on the long term.

I am fine with the idea that next year isn't a contending year...I am perfectly fine with not wanting a short term option and paying a lot of money and giving up a lot of talent for it....But if you can get guys in positions of need for several years, i am all for that.

Oh and btw, just because your buddy laid out that idea of pitching costs, I am supposed to bow at his feet or something?

[Hank Scorpio]

No. But a year from now I have a much better idea of what I have in Tillman/Matusz/Arrieta/Bergesen/Hernandez/Reimold/Pie/Wieters/Mickolio/Bell/Snyder and I can decide what big ticket risk best fits with my organization as currently constructed.

100% correct.

The problem that you run into on this board is that doesn't satisfy those who clamor for some moral victory in 2010.

To me, you look for improvement out of the aforementioned (plus Jones and Markakis, to a degree) and you hope the pitching stays relatively healthy.

I'm pretty certain that Lackey is not a risk I'd be willing to take on a 5 year deal, and that is likely what it'll take to get him.