We should ignore NY and Boston (for now)

[RandyM]

And what if? What if we sign Holliday to a huge contract and he tanks? What if Lackey blows out his arm after we sign him?

It's not like contending teams don't have solid regulars on their rosters, Trea. And please don't reply with "But thats not what it takes to compete in the AL East."

Your issue, Trea, is that you're so afraid of failure. Paralysis by analysis. Any analysis by you involving our young talent involves you throwing up your hands and saying "Well what if Wieters isn't a HoF catcher, but merely a pretty good one? What if Matusz is Randy Wolf?" And what if? You'll never know till you try. Your problem is that you don't want to try, you don't want to wait and see. You'd be happy to trade them all because they haven't proven themselves. The fact that every major league superstar that you'd love to trade for was once in their boat doesn't sway you at all.

If Matusz turns into a 12-10 pitcher who can log 200 innings a year, I'd gladly take that. Would I be disappointed that he isn't a TOR starter? Yeah, probably...but it's not like he'd be Sidney Ponson or Daniel CaBBrera. If Wieters OPS'd at .775 I'd be disappointed too...but it's not like he'd be part of the problem.

What signing a Holliday or Lackey does is reduce the amount of pressure on all of our young players to reach their potential. If Tillman is just mediocre, it takes some pressure off Matusz, Britton, Arrieta etc..

I am just on the side of not being afraid to trade our young players because of what if's. I don't need to be stealing also (like Arrieta, Erbe, Snyder, and Berken for Pujols ), just a deal for someone that I like that will help the team in the long run.

My issue with this approach is that all the eggs need to hatch and the chickens need to be able to fly and fly soon. Not very likely that all those things will happen. Why don't you supplement with some chickens that can fly along with those eggs. Yes, I know chickens can't fly .

[Moose Milligan]

What signing a Holliday or Lackey does is reduce the amount of pressure on all of our young players to reach their potential. If Tillman is just mediocre, it takes some pressure off Matusz, Britton, Arrieta etc..

I am just on the side of not being afraid to trade our young players because of what if's. I don't need to be stealing also (like Arrieta, Erbe, Snyder, and Berken for Pujols ), just a deal for someone that I like that will help the team in the long run.

My issue with this approach is that all the eggs need to hatch and the chickens need to be able to fly and fly soon. Not very likely that all those things will happen. Why don't you supplement with some chickens that can fly along with those eggs. Yes, I know chickens can't fly .

But signing Holliday and Lackey inflates our payroll to something we don't know if we can sustain (Tigers) and doesn't make us that much better.

And if those youngsters can't handle the pressure, then there's no way they're going to come up with a big pitch when it matters most.

[Hank Scorpio]

Apologies Sly, but you're the guy who was willing to give Teixeira 10/230. You are not allowed to define "stupid money."

[Moose Milligan]

Apologies Sly, but you're the guy who was willing to give Teixeira 10/230. You are not allowed to define "stupid money."

:rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl:

[geschinger]

The same Yankees that brought in David Cone, Roger Clemens, David Wells Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neil, Chuck Knoblauch and Darryl Strawberry to name a few from the outside?,

The homegrown core was Jeter, Williams, Posada, Pettite and Rivera. That's pretty much it.

The Yankees of the mid 90s had a pipeline of talent that created an incredible core and allowed them to deal for other pieces. David Cone for 3 Yankee farmhands. Clemens was traded for. Tino Martinez for Yankee farmhands. Chuck Knoblauch for Yankees farm hands. Paul O'Neil for the homegrown Roberto Kelly. Only David Wells was a FA signing and at the time I would hardly have considered him a "premium talent" signing.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever the Orioles couldn't have the same kind of success if the organization is patient and allows the pipeline to continue to grow.

[Hank Scorpio]

The Yankees of the mid 90s had a pipeline of talent that created an incredible core and allowed them to deal for other pieces. David Cone for 3 Yankee farmhands. Clemens was traded for. Tino Martinez for Yankee farmhands. Chuck Knoblauch for Yankees farm hands. Paul O'Neil for the homegrown Roberto Kelly. Only David Wells was a FA signing and at the time I would hardly have considered him a "premium talent" signing.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever the Orioles couldn't have the same kind of success if the organization is patient and allows the pipeline to continue to grow.

:laughlol:

[MemorialStadKid]

It's what we should have done and its what we did. So why are you complaining about it?

Can you prove to me our scouting is lousy compared to those teams? Where has that been proven as fact? Is it tied into how baseball publications have ranked our farm system in the top 10 over the past few years?

And no, we haven't JUST started spending money on the draft.

I'm not complaining, I am saying its nothing to roll out the red carpet for. No ticker tape parade for signing guys that we need. Whoa, big deal.

Lets make some real moves like signing a player to get us to actually win some games.

I think you folks forget the point is to WIN games, not sit around and hope the team gets better.

MSK

[Mackus]

I'm not complaining, I am saying its nothing to roll out the red carpet for. No ticker tape parade for signing guys that we need. Whoa, big deal.

Lets make some real moves like signing a player to get us to actually win some games.

I think you folks forget the point is to WIN games, not sit around and hope the team gets better.

MSK

But, again, you take nothing into consideration of our payroll limitations. You just assume we can match the Yankees and Red Sox dollar for dollar. That's a ridiculous assumption. Just awful.

Do you honestly think that signing Lackey to a 5/$100M (what it'd take to get him here) contract would make us a winner next year and also not hurt us 3 years down the road? I really hope not, because that just shows such a bad understanding of reality.

[RandyM]

But signing Holliday and Lackey inflates our payroll to something we don't know if we can sustain (Tigers) and doesn't make us that much better.

And if those youngsters can't handle the pressure, then there's no way they're going to come up with a big pitch when it matters most.

There is also a thing about throwing a guy into the fire vs. easing him in. Yes, that kid will have to face the fire eventually (AL East), but it does help assembling others around him.

[MemorialStadKid]

But, again, you take nothing into consideration of our payroll limitations. You just assume we can match the Yankees and Red Sox dollar for dollar. That's a ridiculous assumption. Just awful.

Do you honestly think that signing Lackey to a 5/$100M (what it'd take to get him here) contract would make us a winner next year and also not hurt us 3 years down the road? I really hope not, because that just shows such a bad understanding of reality.

All we're really doing here (and if you note, I am not trying to insult anyone) is engaging in a full-blown game of speculation.

John Lackey COULD have been an awful signing for us.

John Lackey COULD have been one of the best pitchers ever to wear an Orioles uniform.

So you're talking $20 mil a year for 5 years. The last two he would be around 36-37 and we are supposed to assume he will be horrible for those last two years?

So with that, you're saying that there aren't any risks we should ever take in the pursuit of winning anything?

With Lackey, Millwood, Bedard (if we could sign him to a one-year deal) and the youngsters, you're telling me that we couldn't win more games than last year? Winning more games means more ticket sales and an increase in how we are perceived by other free agents around the league.

Folks will say we're not "looking at the big picture" but there are more than one way to analyze a picture. For instance, making some large-scale investments (in better players) can net wins and more ticket sales. If the Orioles begin to win more games, then they can sell more tickets and make more money.

With increased wins, we begin to be perceived as more than a bottom-feeding team and when it comes time to get people to want to play for us outside of trading for them, then we can work that deal and become an honest to god contender.

But that's the risk we have to take. Playing it safe never gets you anywhere except last place.

I hate this "keep playing it safe forever" mentality that infests the OH like bedbugs. Its like we are willing to keep losing for years instead of taking a real shot at winning now. Keeping on losing doesn't make a team better by any stretch of the imagination unless you want to collect first round draft picks for the next 11 years and by 2024 put together a winning team of all first round draft pick homegrown talent to be a contender.

The proof is staring us in the eyes. Wins. Losses. Standings.

The Yankees and Red Sox seem acutely aware that making moves and developing talent go hand-in-hand. The Orioles are stuck in reverse while shouting that we're moving ahead at full steam.

MSK

[DrungoHazewood]

We should ALWAYS ignore them. Just because other teams are making moves doesn't mean that you need to. The Orioles should be jumping on EVERY possible move that can make this team better under their ideal financial restraints.

Yes, this. The Orioles need to build the best team possible in the context of their position in the world and their market. If that's not consistently the equal of the Yanks and Sox, big deal. You don't spend well beyond your means and short circuit sound business/sport practices just because your sport has a screwed up economic system.

You do the best you can. That's all you can do.

[tvz1997]

The Yankees of the mid 90s had a pipeline of talent that created an incredible core and allowed them to deal for other pieces. David Cone for 3 Yankee farmhands. Clemens was traded for. Tino Martinez for Yankee farmhands. Chuck Knoblauch for Yankees farm hands. Paul O'Neil for the homegrown Roberto Kelly. Only David Wells was a FA signing and at the time I would hardly have considered him a "premium talent" signing.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever the Orioles couldn't have the same kind of success if the organization is patient and allows the pipeline to continue to grow.

Best post of the day.

[DrungoHazewood]

So with that, you're saying that there aren't any risks we should ever take in the pursuit of winning anything?

This isn't a yes/no question despite you and Trea's attempt to make it into one.

The answer is that you make investments in free agents when it has an impact.

With Lackey, Millwood, Bedard (if we could sign him to a one-year deal) and the youngsters, you're telling me that we couldn't win more games than last year? Winning more games means more ticket sales and an increase in how we are perceived by other free agents around the league.

Folks will say we're not "looking at the big picture" but there are more than one way to analyze a picture. For instance, making some large-scale investments (in better players) can net wins and more ticket sales. If the Orioles begin to win more games, then they can sell more tickets and make more money.

With increased wins, we begin to be perceived as more than a bottom-feeding team and when it comes time to get people to want to play for us outside of trading for them, then we can work that deal and become an honest to god contender.

There's little real life examples of terrible teams becoming mediocre and having substantial attendance jumps. Instead you end up not being able to support your too-early payroll spike, your post-peak free agents decline by the time the kids are ready, and *poof* you're the Blue Jays.

But that's the risk we have to take. Playing it safe never gets you anywhere except last place.

Really? So all those folks that took a chance and put all of their money in mortgage securities are ahead of the idiots who played it safe and invested in bonds?

I can't believe that so many fans are so impatient that they want to give up most of the Orioles' assets in money and prospects coming off a 64-win season. It's taken years to put the organization back on the right track, and just as things are starting to look up you want to go all in.

Thank God you guys aren't running the show.

[nattyboh]

Best post of the day.

esp. since some of the franchises are paring back the payroll.

[Moose Milligan]

All we're really doing here (and if you note, I am not trying to insult anyone) is engaging in a full-blown game of speculation.

John Lackey COULD have been an awful signing for us.

John Lackey COULD have been one of the best pitchers ever to wear an Orioles uniform.

So you're talking $20 mil a year for 5 years. The last two he would be around 36-37 and we are supposed to assume he will be horrible for those last two years?

So with that, you're saying that there aren't any risks we should ever take in the pursuit of winning anything?

With Lackey, Millwood, Bedard (if we could sign him to a one-year deal) and the youngsters, you're telling me that we couldn't win more games than last year? Winning more games means more ticket sales and an increase in how we are perceived by other free agents around the league.

Folks will say we're not "looking at the big picture" but there are more than one way to analyze a picture. For instance, making some large-scale investments (in better players) can net wins and more ticket sales. If the Orioles begin to win more games, then they can sell more tickets and make more money.

With increased wins, we begin to be perceived as more than a bottom-feeding team and when it comes time to get people to want to play for us outside of trading for them, then we can work that deal and become an honest to god contender.

But that's the risk we have to take. Playing it safe never gets you anywhere except last place.

I hate this "keep playing it safe forever" mentality that infests the OH like bedbugs. Its like we are willing to keep losing for years instead of taking a real shot at winning now. Keeping on losing doesn't make a team better by any stretch of the imagination unless you want to collect first round draft picks for the next 11 years and by 2024 put together a winning team of all first round draft pick homegrown talent to be a contender.

The proof is staring us in the eyes. Wins. Losses. Standings.

The Yankees and Red Sox seem acutely aware that making moves and developing talent go hand-in-hand. The Orioles are stuck in reverse while shouting that we're moving ahead at full steam.

MSK

Find me a 36 or 37 year old pitcher that's worth 20 million a year.

Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens immediately come to mind of recent guys.

Problem is, John Lackey isn't in their league to begin with, not even close.

So yes, I'm going to assume that John Lackey wouldn't be worth that at the end of his contract.

Again, more hyperbole from you. Playing it safe never gets you anywhere other than last place?

Look at the late 90's Yankees, they played it safe.