Roch clarifies AM's "O's will be judged more on wins and losses" comment

[Sports Guy]

Well, I don't know if that belief is widespread or not, but it's certainly not my belief. I think "steps towards moderate success in 2010" are what he's doing, and that he is correct in his view that he needs to see how some of the young guys do before he can know exactly what steps are then needed. The idea that he (or we) can properly assess now exactly what steps are called for prior to 2011 seems bizarre to me. Like it or not, there are important things that are unknown and unknowable right now. No good reason for him to shoot his wad now before he knows exactly how he needs to shoot it. Now, if Holliday or Bay were franchise players, that might be one thing, but they're not. People who say we have to grab them now are acting like they're superstars when they're not. They are good ballplayers, not great ones, but some folks are acting like they're national treasures...

Holliday is a lot better than you are giving him credit for...He may not be elite but he is certainly a very good player.

Can't say I would be upset to have another(and perhaps better) version of a guy like Markakis in our OF.

[Old#5fan]

Holliday is a lot better than you are giving him credit for...He may not be elite but he is certainly a very good player.

Can't say I would be upset to have another(and perhaps better) version of a guy like Markakis in our OF.

He doesn't make this team an "instant contender" though. Who was claiming that? I saw that accusation on the other thread but don't know who was doing so?

[24fps]

I can't disagree with the theory of what you say, I just disagree that this is the obvious time to seize an opportunity. I'd rather wait another year to see how our young OF, our two AAA corner infielders and our young rotation and heirs apparent do this season, and then decide what the most crying needs are. I'm not dead set against a Holliday, Bay or Beltre signing but I don't feel that any of them are once in a lifetime opportunities that the O's can't afford to pass up, either.

Based on several of your other posts, I think we're more in agreement than not; certainly we are when it comes to realistic expectations for 2010 from the current team. I think it's likely our perceptions differ as to how AM should view his role at this stage.

Now that "phase one" is complete, I think it's time for him to become a little more entrepreneurial in his definition of opportunity. Personally I don't care about Holliday or Bay, and I agree that Beltre doesn't qualify as "once in a lifetime" although I think he'd be a good addition. At the risk of sounding like a motivational speaker, I believe that opportunity can be created and this is as good a time as any for AM to start moving more aggressively in that direction, which is the main reason I endorse trading for Adrian Gonzalez, for example.

The threshold for 2010 shouldn't have to be "once in a lifetime" and I see the greater long-term danger as risk aversion not AM's judgement.

[RShack]

The threshold for 2010 shouldn't have to be "once in a lifetime" and I see the greater long-term danger as risk aversion not AM's judgement.

I think you're going on the wrong assumption. The threshold for 2010 is not "once in a lifetime player", it's having clarity about exactly what's called for and getting a guy who addresses your needs. The only reason "once in a lifetime" comes up is because some folks want AM to grab a guy before he knows exactly what flavor of guy he needs. The only good reason for doing that is if you're getting a rare guy who warrants re-shuffling your entire deck because he's so good. That's what getting Holliday implies: it implies re-shuffling our OF deck, which is the one place where we're already in an envious position.

Lots of people (including me) think he's just not good enough to warrant that, given the rather iffy and un-huge marginal improvement he would provide there. In addition, some people think it's no big deal to go re-arranging the OF by trading This Guy and That Guy, but doing good trades is way harder than lots of message-board GM's think it is. It's hard to do that, not easy, and acting like it's easy is silly. Now, if our problem list included the OF and/or if Holliday played some other position where we have a need, then it would be different. But our problem list doesn't, and he doesn't, so it's not.

[Frobby]

I think you're going on the wrong assumption. The threshold for 2010 is not "once in a lifetime player", it's having clarity about exactly what's called for and getting a guy who addresses your needs.

To be fair, he was only using my wording, though what you say here expresses more precisely what I really meant.

[El Gordo]

Based on several of your other posts, I think we're more in agreement than not; certainly we are when it comes to realistic expectations for 2010 from the current team. I think it's likely our perceptions differ as to how AM should view his role at this stage.

Now that "phase one" is complete, I think it's time for him to become a little more entrepreneurial in his definition of opportunity. Personally I don't care about Holliday or Bay, and I agree that Beltre doesn't qualify as "once in a lifetime" although I think he'd be a good addition. At the risk of sounding like a motivational speaker, I believe that opportunity can be created and this is as good a time as any for AM to start moving more aggressively in that direction, which is the main reason I endorse trading for Adrian Gonzalez, for example.

The threshold for 2010 shouldn't have to be "once in a lifetime" and I see the greater long-term danger as risk aversion not AM's judgement.

To get 2 years of AGonz, you are going to have to give up some package of Tillman/Matusz ,Reimold/Pie, Arrieta/Britton/Erbe, and Mickolio/Lopez/Lebron, etc. Does it really make sense to do that?

[Lucky Jim]

The threshold for 2010 is not "once in a lifetime player", it's having clarity about exactly what's called for and getting a guy who addresses your needs.

To be fair, he was only using my wording, though what you say here expresses more precisely what I really meant.

Agree with both of you. People neglect the value - the actual value - of information. And the only way to get improved information on what we have is over time. By waiting, we increase the efficiency of our moves. And efficiency, no matter what anyone says, is vital to the O's reclamation project.

[24fps]

I think you're going on the wrong assumption. The threshold for 2010 is not "once in a lifetime player", it's having clarity about exactly what's called for and getting a guy who addresses your needs. The only reason "once in a lifetime" comes up is because some folks want AM to grab a guy before he knows exactly what flavor of guy he needs. The only good reason for doing that is if you're getting a rare guy who warrants re-shuffling your entire deck because he's so good. That's what getting Holliday implies: it implies re-shuffling our OF deck, which is the one place where we're already in an envious position.

Lots of people (including me) think he's just not good enough to warrant that, given the rather iffy and un-huge marginal improvement he would provide there. In addition, some people think it's no big deal to go re-arranging the OF by trading This Guy and That Guy, but doing good trades is way harder than lots of message-board GM's think it is. It's hard to do that, not easy, and acting like it's easy is silly. Now, if our problem list included the OF and/or if Holliday played some other position where we have a need, then it would be different. But our problem list doesn't, and he doesn't, so it's not.

The only assumption I'm making concerns that speck in the distance made up of the Yankees and Red Sox and the reason why it's getting smaller.

One assumption that deserves closer examination is the one that posits AM still functions primarily in evaluation mode. The proposition that he doesn't know the team's strengths and weaknesses at this stage simply lacks credibility. The real debate centers around valuation and management approach, two areas where he has a lot to say about the outcome of things.

I can't tell if all the language concerning Holliday is directed at my post or not. I'm not particularly interested in him either as I clearly stated in the part of my original post you elected to leave out. As far as the level of difficulty making trades is concerned, lots of things in life are difficult and they get done anyway including trading baseball players.

[Lucky Jim]

The proposition that he doesn't know the team's strengths and weaknesses at this stage simply lacks credibility. The real debate centers around valuation and management approach, two areas where he has a lot to say about the outcome of things.

That's not what anyone is saying.

[osfan83]

Well, I don't know if that belief is widespread or not, but it's certainly not my belief. I think "steps towards moderate success in 2010" are what he's doing, and that he is correct in his view that he needs to see how some of the young guys do before he can know exactly what steps are then needed. The idea that he (or we) can properly assess now exactly what steps are called for prior to 2011 seems bizarre to me. Like it or not, there are important things that are unknown and unknowable right now. No good reason for him to shoot his wad now before he knows exactly how he needs to shoot it. Now, if Holliday or Bay were franchise players, that might be one thing, but they're not. People who say we have to grab them now are acting like they're superstars when they're not. They are good ballplayers, not great ones, but some folks are acting like they're national treasures...

But like it or not, things will be unknown a year from now as well. How much more do we know about Jones today than a year ago? There are always things to learn, and plans will always need to be altered.

[24fps]

To get 2 years of AGonz, you are going to have to give up some package of Tillman/Matusz ,Reimold/Pie, Arrieta/Britton/Erbe, and Mickolio/Lopez/Lebron, etc. Does it really make sense to do that?

I don't want to hijack this thread and make it another AGon trade thread. Let's say I would be willing to trade real value, but there are limits as to how far is too far.

[osfan83]

I think you're going on the wrong assumption. The threshold for 2010 is not "once in a lifetime player", it's having clarity about exactly what's called for and getting a guy who addresses your needs. The only reason "once in a lifetime" comes up is because some folks want AM to grab a guy before he knows exactly what flavor of guy he needs. The only good reason for doing that is if you're getting a rare guy who warrants re-shuffling your entire deck because he's so good. That's what getting Holliday implies: it implies re-shuffling our OF deck, which is the one place where we're already in an envious position.

Lots of people (including me) think he's just not good enough to warrant that, given the rather iffy and un-huge marginal improvement he would provide there. In addition, some people think it's no big deal to go re-arranging the OF by trading This Guy and That Guy, but doing good trades is way harder than lots of message-board GM's think it is. It's hard to do that, not easy, and acting like it's easy is silly. Now, if our problem list included the OF and/or if Holliday played some other position where we have a need, then it would be different. But our problem list doesn't, and he doesn't, so it's not.

If Wieters puts up a worse than expected year in 2010, will be be in the market for a catcher, or will still be in wait and see mode? If Jones has a season in 2010 simalar to 2009, will be looking for additional outfield help, or will we wait to see what he does in 2011?

I think AM has to decided if this is his core, if so, lets go for it...if he's wrong and this is not his core adjust and started trading for the core.

[Frobby]

The only assumption I'm making concerns that speck in the distance made up of the Yankees and Red Sox and the reason why it's getting smaller.

One assumption that deserves closer examination is the one that posits AM still functions primarily in evaluation mode. The proposition that he doesn't know the team's strengths and weaknesses at this stage simply lacks credibility. The real debate centers around valuation and management approach, two areas where he has a lot to say about the outcome of things.

Not sure I agree with the bolded sentence. There's a lot of uncertainty when it comes to evaluating young baseball players. Let's say Brandon Snyder gets a lot of AB's in spring training, hits .375, then goes to Norfolk and hits .330 there for 4-6 weeks. I'd have a very different opinion in that scenario than I would if Snyder comes to spring training, hits .200, and then goes to Norfolk and looks like he is repeating last year's numbers. In scenario 1 I'm not really feeling the need to break the bank for a veteran 1B, in scenario 2 maybe I am.

I used Snyder as an example, but I could have said similar things about Reimold, Pie, Jones, Bell and more than half of the pitching staff (and the likely AAA pitching prospects). I think that talented young pitchers are a strength of this team, but I'd like to know that before I start trading from my alleged surplus.

[osfan83]

Agree with both of you. People neglect the value - the actual value - of information. And the only way to get improved information on what we have is over time. By waiting, we increase the efficiency of our moves. And efficiency, no matter what anyone says, is vital to the O's reclamation project.

But you will have more info after the 2011 season than you will have after the 2010 season, so why not wait until then? You will have even more info after the 2012 season.

[Lucky Jim]

Not sure I agree with the bolded sentence. There's a lot of uncertainty when it comes to evaluating young baseball players. Let's say Brandon Snyder gets a lot of AB's in spring training, hits .375, then goes to Norfolk and hits .330 there for 4-6 weeks. I'd have a very different opinion in that scenario than I would if Snyder comes to spring training, hits .200, and then goes to Norfolk and looks like he is repeating last year's numbers. In scenario 1 I'm not really feeling the need to break the bank for a veteran 1B, in scenario 2 maybe I am.

I used Snyder as an example, but I could have said similar things about Reimold, Pie, Jones, Bell and more than half of the pitching staff (and the likely AAA pitching prospects). I think that talented young pitchers are a strength of this team, but I'd like to know that before I start trading from my alleged surplus.

Knowing strengths and weaknesses is different than knowing value. You're talking about the second, I think. There's still some blurry-ness around the edges at a few positions. And AM is likely to wait for some clarity there before making a big move.