A question for the MacPhail doubters

[Arthur_Bryant]

So to answer your question. I will tweak answer number 2 and say that I will be disappointed knowing that with Tex or Agon at first base or Cabrera or some other big bat at 3rd and Lackey or Sabathia at the top of the rotation it would probably be us in the playoffs.

I can wish we were able to find a way to get those guys and understand that things are such that AM deemed them not possible at this time. i just hope one day it changes.

In regard to trades, you can't have it both ways. Presumably some of the wins that got you to 85 or so were produced by players who would have gone out in a trade for Gonzalez or Cabrera.

And really, you can't even isolate a FA transaction. Holliday would have necessitated a trade of an OFer; Lackey would have taken starts from one of the pitchers. You could even say that team chemistry would have been different, to the extent that matters.

Basically, it's impossible to say convincingly that "We had 87 wins, if we had just done X and Y, we'd have had 94."

So, I fall back on a great quote from a great novel, Semi-Tough, by Dan Jenkins: "What could have happened, did."

[Lucky Jim]

In regard to trades, you can't have it both ways. Presumably some of the wins that got you to 85 or so were produced by players who would have gone out in a trade for Gonzalez or Cabrera.

And really, you can't even isolate a FA transaction. Holliday would have necessitated a trade of an OFer; Lackey would have taken starts from one of the pitchers. You could even say that team chemistry would have been different, to the extent that matters.

Basically, it's impossible to say convincingly that "We had 87 wins, if we had just done X and Y, we'd have had 94."

So, I fall back on a great quote from a great novel, Semi-Tough, by Dan Jenkins: "What could have happened, did."

Okay so I'll post now.

This question is directed to those who do not have a lot of confidence in MacPhail and would like to have seen moves that were more dramatic.

Assume, for sake of argument, that most of our young players have pretty good years and the Orioles win 83-85 games in 2010. That's a 19-21 game improvement over last year. Will you:

1. Think to yourself, "you know, maybe this MacPhail guy really knows what he's doing after all. I will cut him more slack on his decisions this offseason because what he's doing seems to be working." OR

2. Think to yourself, "if only the Orioles had made some more dramatic moves last winter, we might have been contenders this year. To bad MacPhail wasn't bold enough to see that."

I'm curious to see what you say. Obviously we don't know if the O's will actually win 83-85 games next year, but just assume that for purposes of answering.

Why anyone would think a team that's about 12 games away from contention could have been made one in a single off-season would be beyond me. Especially through FA.

Say we win 83 games with Atkins at 1B and Wigginton at 3B. And both are worth a single WAR. So, we'd need players worth about 14 wins from additions to our team in order to truly make a run. The following isn't exact, but just an example of what 14 wins costs...

If we added Lackey, Holliday and Beltre that would be (based on three year averages):

3.8 WAR (Lackey)

3.2 WAR (Beltre)

6.7 WAR (Holliday)

That's your 14 WAR at a cost of $17m (Holliday), $9m (Beltre) and $16.5m (Lackey) this year, and $120/$80/$9 million in total and 13 years.

My point is that a 12 win improvement is enormous. An 83-85 win team is something like the 80th percentile result for this team. And even that falls short of what's needed to make a run through off-season transactions.

Now, if we expect even a linear progression year-to-year, an 83-85 win team next year becomes an 87-88 win team the year after, which means the addition of even 8 wins makes us a possible contender. That's when you buy and buy big and buy in a leveraged manner.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Okay so I'll post now.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I love that quote from Semi-Tough.

[Hank Scorpio]

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[bird watcher]

Okay so I'll post now.

Why anyone would think a team that's about 12 games away from contention could have been made one in a single off-season would be beyond me. Especially through FA.

Say we win 83 games with Atkins at 1B and Wigginton at 3B. And both are worth a single WAR. So, we'd need players worth about 14 wins from additions to our team in order to truly make a run. The following isn't exact, but just an example of what 14 wins costs...

If we added Lackey, Holliday and Beltre that would be (based on three year averages):

3.8 WAR (Lackey)

3.2 WAR (Beltre)

6.7 WAR (Holliday)

That's your 14 WAR at a cost of $17m (Holliday), $9m (Beltre) and $16.5m (Lackey) this year, and $120/$80/$9 million in total and 15 years.

My point is that a 12 win improvement is enormous. An 83-85 win team is something like the 80th percentile result for this team. And even that falls short of what's needed to make a run through off-season transactions.

Now, if we expect even a linear progression year-to-year, an 83-85 win team next year becomes an 87-88 win team the year after, which means the addition of even 8 wins makes us a possible contender. That's when you buy and buy big and buy in a leveraged manner.

I still say I can understand the "why not" involved and still remain disappointed that circumstances aren't different; that we couldn't have been just a bit better....

Sometimes justifying the losing with very reasonable and thoughtful and truthful rationale gets old too. I like letting go of the GM role occasionally and just being a fan. I don't want to be content with losing anymore.

[Lucky Jim]

I still say I can understand the "why not" involved and still remain disappointed that circumstances aren't different; that we couldn't have been just a bit better....

Sometimes justifying the losing with very reasonable and thoughtful and truthful rationale gets old too. I like letting go of the GM role occasionally and just being a fan. I don't want to be content with losing anymore.

Well, if your standard for a GM is "does he make me happy right now" then sure, there's a complaint at the end of an 83 win season that he didn't do more.

If your standard is building a team and system that is self-supporting and sustainable, with more than intermittent chances of going to the post season year-in and year-out, the there's no complaint.

Waiting one year makes abundant sense.

Okay, to sum up: you're tired of being rational. Do you think that AM should also be tired of being rational, and thus waste wins and money down the road so that you can be a happy fan of an 88 win team this year?

Honestly, if the answer is "yes," then that's fine. I just don't know how the answer to that question can be "yes." I mean, how do you blame AM - which is the point of Frobby's post - for not making moves you concede are irrational? Do you think AM is answerable if he makes decides against making moves that can be shown to make no sense?

[Ven6]

This question is directed to those who do not have a lot of confidence in MacPhail and would like to have seen moves that were more dramatic.

Assume, for sake of argument, that most of our young players have pretty good years and the Orioles win 83-85 games in 2010. That's a 19-21 game improvement over last year.

MacPhail supporter here. If this team, as currently constructed, achieves that, given where this franchise has been, we should start erecting statues to the guy.

[JTrea81]

This question is directed to those who do not have a lot of confidence in MacPhail and would like to have seen moves that were more dramatic.

Assume, for sake of argument, that most of our young players have pretty good years and the Orioles win 83-85 games in 2010. That's a 19-21 game improvement over last year. Will you:

1. Think to yourself, "you know, maybe this MacPhail guy really knows what he's doing after all. I will cut him more slack on his decisions this offseason because what he's doing seems to be working." OR

2. Think to yourself, "if only the Orioles had made some more dramatic moves last winter, we might have been contenders this year. To bad MacPhail wasn't bold enough to see that."

I'm curious to see what you say. Obviously we don't know if the O's will actually win 83-85 games next year, but just assume that for purposes of answering.

Well if you consider we could have added Lackey and Holliday and let's say Figgins. That's an additional 13-14 WAR which would have put us at 97-99 wins.

I often think MacPhail realized he made a mistake by not pursuing Tex more aggressively because he thought we were farther away. But he had Holliday, Figgins and Lackey available to him after 2009.

He's going to really be kicking himself if that scenario you proposed comes true because there isn't a heck of a lot he can add before 2011 to put the team at a competitive level. Mauer and Crawford will go elsewhere, and you don't exactly want to sink a first round pick into the likes of Pena or Lee.

His inaction will have caused the Orioles to miss the playoffs for not just one year unneccesarily, but two.

[Lucky Jim]

Well if you consider we could have added Lackey and Holliday and let's say Figgins. That's an additional 13-14 WAR which would have put us at 97-99 wins.

I often think MacPhail realized he made a mistake by not pursuing Tex more aggressively because he thought we were farther away. But he had Holliday, Figgins and Lackey available to him after 2009.

He's going to really be kicking himself if that scenario you proposed comes true because there isn't a heck of a lot he can add before 2011 to put the team at a competitive level. Mauer and Crawford will go elsewhere, and you don't exactly want to sink a first round pick into the likes of Pena or Lee.

His inaction will have caused the Orioles to miss the playoffs for not just one year unneccesarily, but two.

See my post. There's a strong chance that the difference of 12 games becomes a difference of 8 or less after next year, even with minimal linear progression from a very talented young core.

Do you really think that an offseason of Lackey, Holliday AND Figgins is reasonable in any world other than that of your fantasies?

[El Gordo]

Well if you consider we could have added Lackey and Holliday and let's say Figgins. That's an additional 13-14 WAR which would have put us at 97-99 wins.

I often think MacPhail realized he made a mistake by not pursuing Tex more aggressively because he thought we were farther away. But he had Holliday, Figgins and Lackey available to him after 2009.

He's going to really be kicking himself if that scenario you proposed comes true because there isn't a heck of a lot he can add before 2011 to put the team at a competitive level. Mauer and Crawford will go elsewhere, and you don't exactly want to sink a first round pick into the likes of Pena or Lee.

His inaction will have caused the Orioles to miss the playoffs for not just one year unneccesarily, but two.

No It's not, unless you think that we will get replacement level production from, Milwood 3B, and 1B. More likely you won't get a 9 WAR improvement.

[JTrea81]

No It's not, unless you think that we will get replacement level production from, Milwood 3B, and 1B. More likely you won't get a 9 WAR improvement.

You would have that increase if you add those players to a 83-85 win team like Frobby's post suggested.

You didn't read his post. He said the Orioles would already be at 83-85 wins for the scenario to occur.

[Lucky Jim]

No It's not, unless you think that we will get replacement level production from, Milwood 3B, and 1B. More likely you won't get a 9 WAR improvement.

Maybe. But even using his math, it's absurd. For the O's to reach 83 wins with this corp, they'll have to play to about their 80% projection. What are the odds of that? Small. So, take a small possibility, then add over $200m in contracts, and you have an outside shot of competing next year. It's crazy.

[Moose Milligan]

Well if you consider we could have added Lackey and Holliday and let's say Figgins. That's an additional 13-14 WAR which would have put us at 97-99 wins.

I often think MacPhail realized he made a mistake by not pursuing Tex more aggressively because he thought we were farther away. But he had Holliday, Figgins and Lackey available to him after 2009.

He's going to really be kicking himself if that scenario you proposed comes true because there isn't a heck of a lot he can add before 2011 to put the team at a competitive level. Mauer and Crawford will go elsewhere, and you don't exactly want to sink a first round pick into the likes of Pena or Lee.

His inaction will have caused the Orioles to miss the playoffs for not just one year unneccesarily, but two.

I don't think anyone here can predict the future with that amount of certainty.

How do you know what opportunities will spring up between now and next offseason?

You don't.

[El Gordo]

You would have that increase if you add those players to a 83-85 win team like Frobby's post suggested.

You didn't read his post. He said the Orioles would already be at 83-85 wins for the scenario to occur.

Who did we get those imaginary 86 wins with. Milwood , Atkins and whomever we have at 1B. Lackey will not be more than 2 WAR better than Millwood. He wasn't last year. And I would assume you would get at least 1 WAR from each of 1B and 3B.

[GoldGlove21]

This question is directed to those who do not have a lot of confidence in MacPhail and would like to have seen moves that were more dramatic.

Assume, for sake of argument, that most of our young players have pretty good years and the Orioles win 83-85 games in 2010. That's a 19-21 game improvement over last year. Will you:

1. Think to yourself, "you know, maybe this MacPhail guy really knows what he's doing after all. I will cut him more slack on his decisions this offseason because what he's doing seems to be working." OR

2. Think to yourself, "if only the Orioles had made some more dramatic moves last winter, we might have been contenders this year. To bad MacPhail wasn't bold enough to see that."

I'm curious to see what you say. Obviously we don't know if the O's will actually win 83-85 games next year, but just assume that for purposes of answering.

My answer is simple, MacPhail clearly knows what he is doing and he has made some very good moves over the last 2 years. If the Orioles young players develop and the team wins 83-85 games then you would have to feel good about the Orioles being in a good position in terms of both timing and salary to go out and become a much better team through free agency.

I see no scenario where the Orioles could have become real contenders this year without making a few horrible deals. I have a feeling that we are going to see a 75 win team next year which would negate both questions. Ansy MacPhail has done a good job as the team is moving in the right direction and we should be players in signing quality baseball players to upgrade our team for the future.

Andy MacPhail has done nothing since arriving in Baltimore except make our organization stronger. If people want to put up an argument in favor of wins vs. losses then I am fine with that, but wins and losses do not always tell the whole story. Our story is that teams will not be happy to play us in 2011.