A question for the MacPhail doubters

[better]

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.

Oh no. Not Tex again! We all kow how much money they offered him. He was never going to come here, dude..

[Jeff Spicoli]

I'm willing to see what happens this year. But, what if the Orioles lose 100 games this year? Say, we stay pretty healthy, and Jones regresses, Wieters doesn't improve much, and the young starting pitchers all have ERA's areound 5. Would the people that swear by AM start doubting.

As this team stands now, I could see this year being very exciting, but also I can see it being very bad. Basically, I could see us winning 82-85 games, but just as easily see us losing 100.

If this is the year Dave Trembley is going to be judged by wins and losses, I think Andy MacPhail should also be held to that standard.

[Hank Scorpio]

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.

This just isn't how baseball works, buddy. You can add players, add up their historical WAR and just add them to your win total before spring training starts.

And will you stop with the "he's going to be kicking himself" crap? I'm pretty sure he's confident in what he's doing. You need to imagine a world where you don't have to be solely reliant on free agency in order to become competitive. It exists, believe it or not.

[amateurfan]

The questions we should be asking ourselves are:

1. Would a team under Flanagan win more games in 2010 than it will under MacPhail?

2. Would Flanagan have put the team in a better position to win a championship than AM?

3. Would either have been able to put a trophy in OPACY?

A team under Flanagan would win more games in 2010 than this version of the Orioles, but AM's team has a better chance of competing in the future. Compare rosters:

Flanagan

SP

Bedard - Flanagan doesn't trade Bedard, but the contract is a bad one.

Guthrie

Matusz (There's no reason Jordan would have drafted someone else)

Bergesen

Hernandez/Arrieta

Flanagan might have brought in a pitcher like Millwood. There was precedence for such action - Benson.

Closer - There was also precedence for bringing in a closer like Gonzalez and no reason to think Flanagan would not have done similar.

That's pretty close to what we're going to end up with this season. I don't think he would have traded Bedard.

Lineup

2b -Turner? I think he would have traded Roberts, and am unsure what the package would have been. I do think he would have traded RH and brought back comparable return, so I'm putting in Turner (who isn't going to set MLB on fire this season)

RF Markakis

LF Reimold

C Wieters

1B LaRoche - Flanagan gets LaRoche, but for more than AM would have

3B Beltre - I definitely see Flanagan giving Beltre 4/40

SS Izturis - I think Flanagan would have traded Tejada, but not until after the Mitchell report. That, however makes no difference, since AM was limited in talent that he was able to bring back.

CF Mike Cameron - There would have been a big hole in CF and Flanagan would have had no choice but to buy a FA

DH - ? But I'm not sure it matters.

That team is really close to the team AM has put together, but it costs a lot more. That cost would have been prohibitive to acquiring and keeping more talent.

Question 2- AM definitely puts the Os in a better position to win after 2011. He does this with keeping payroll down. He has not, however, brought in that much young talent. He's brought in Jones, Tillman and Bell. That's good, but it's not enough. Since I think Flanagan trades Roberts, he brings back one player of similar potential to those three. AM +2.

Question 3 - The difference between the two teams comes down to cost and young talent. Flanagan's team probably wins more games, but is closer to maxing out. So, in terms of fielding a competitive team, I don't think AM has done a great job for 2010. In terms of using resources, the difference in cost is only beneficial if the surplus (for years forward) and flexibility allows the team to get and keep talent. Otherwise, all AM has done is create a cheaper version of Flanagan's team.

The big offseason is next year. If AM fails to improve the team considerably for 2011, then he really ought to leave.

In 2007 many of us were excited because we thought the moves he made would indeed allow the team to save at some positions so that they could fill other holes. So far, that hasn't really happened (definitely not well through free agency). What AM did was make some excellent trades and be very patient. Considering how Flanagan was already improving scouting and development, I don't think players like Reimold, Wieters, Matusz, Bergesen, Arrieta or DH would have been traded. In fact, Flanagan chose not to trade DH to the Mets.

So, to answer Frobby's OP, I won't be impressed with AM if this team wins 83-88 games. I expected this team to do so in 2010 because of who was in the system. What I will be impressed with is if the Os win the WS in 2011. I see no reason for that not to happen. He can do it.

[DrungoHazewood]

This just isn't how baseball works, buddy. You can add players, add up their historical WAR and just add them to your win total before spring training starts.

And will you stop with the "he's going to be kicking himself" crap? I'm pretty sure he's confident in what he's doing. You need to imagine a world where you don't have to be solely reliant on free agency in order to become competitive. It exists, believe it or not.

You can get a pretty fair estimate of their future worth.

But that isn't the point. To add those 13-14 wins the Orioles would have had to outbid 29 other team three different times. They would have had to pay a bad team premium for each. They would have had to pay $100M or more for Lackey, probably $130-150M plus a NTC for Holliday, and $75M or more for Figgins. That's over $300M for three guys in their 30s, who will never be more valuable than they are today. If the kids slip a year in their overall development, the free agents are all a year closer to retirement. And when the O's are ready to extend the kids that pan out, they've got $50 or $60M a year tied up in three guys through their decline and career ending phases. If Snyder or Bell don't work out, you have to make a trade to fix those positions because there's no payroll room.

No 64-win team has ever signed the top three free agents in a class. Partly because nobody signs the top three free agents, and partly because it makes no sense.

[Hank Scorpio]

You can get a pretty fair estimate of their future worth.

But that isn't the point. To add those 13-14 wins the Orioles would have had to outbid 29 other team three different times. They would have had to pay a bad team premium for each. They would have had to pay $100M or more for Lackey, probably $130-150M plus a NTC for Holliday, and $75M or more for Figgins. That's over $300M for three guys in their 30s, who will never be more valuable than they are today. If the kids slip a year in their overall development, the free agents are all a year closer to retirement. And when the O's are ready to extend the kids that pan out, they've got $50 or $60M a year tied up in three guys through their decline and career ending phases. If Snyder or Bell don't work out, you have to make a trade to fix those positions because there's no payroll room.

No 64-win team has ever signed the top three free agents in a class. Partly because nobody signs the top three free agents, and partly because it makes no sense.

Right, but as you said, the point is it's unrealistic to think that way.

[Moose Milligan]

No 64-win team has ever signed the top three free agents in a class. Partly because nobody signs the top three free agents, and partly because it makes no sense.

Really? But Drungo...

[hoosiers]

I am not a doubter of AM. I am a strong supporter.

I will say, however, if this team as constructed gets to 85 wins, I think it would only be fair to say that AM blew a terrific opportunity to compete in 2010 by holding onto his prospects and keeping his powder (payroll) dry. It would be a very distasteful situation for me that AM sat on $40M of payroll capability and a top 10 farm system and made little effort to compete in 2010 in a serious manner.

[Three Run Homer]

If there had been an impact player available at 1B or 3B this offseason and AM hadn't made a serious effort to sign him, then I'd be more critical. I will be more critical if we don't wind up signing anybody better than Atkins to man the corner infield slots, regardless of what record we wind up with in 2010.

I don't think this was the offseason to make a big-money offer to a free agent--not because of the O's place in their development cycle, but because the available talent didn't match up well with the O's needs. But going forward, I do have my doubts that AM will ever be able to land a big fish--his approach seems to be to let the market shake out to the point where he can get a bargain on someone, and for most players this is the right approach, but you can't get a real impact free agent that way--if you want someone like Tex, you have to jump in and offer serious money from the start.

[TiredofLosing20]

If the kids slip a year in their overall development, the free agents are all a year closer to retirement.

To me this is the key point to this whole FA discussion. We don't know what we already have. I think 2010 will give us a much clearer picture and will give us significant information as to where we need to spend money/prospects to put us into contention.

The one I like to point to is Reimold vs Holliday. I mean we think Reimold is pretty good but we aren't sure. We will likely know a lot more by the end of 2010. If he is within 25 points of OPS to Holliday well then we would have spent millions upon millions of $$ more to purchase 25 OPS points and several years of age. Those $$$ could be spent more wisely to secure areas that we actually don't have answers to. It is to me why Holliday made little sense to us at this point in time.

[Three Run Homer]

I am not a doubter of AM. I am a strong supporter.

I will say, however, if this team as constructed gets to 85 wins, I think it would only be fair to say that AM blew a terrific opportunity to compete in 2010 by holding onto his prospects and keeping his powder (payroll) dry. It would be a very distasteful situation for me that AM sat on $40M of payroll capability and a top 10 farm system and made little effort to compete in 2010 in a serious manner.

I will not criticize AM for holding on to prospects this year, no matter how many games we win. I don't ever want to see the Orioles on the wrong side of an Erik Bedard-type trade, no matter how close we are to winning. Now, granted, not all prospect-for-impact player swaps are as lopsided as the Bedard trade, but the O's are not yet at a point where we have surplus young talent that has no room to play in Baltimore. If Matusz and Tillman and Bergesen all pan out, and we get 1-2 more frontline starters from our next wave (Britton, Arietta, Erbe), then we can start talking about dealing from a surplus.

[hoosiers]

I don't ever want to see the Orioles on the wrong side of an Erik Bedard-type trade, no matter how close we are to winning.

And I don't see anywhere that someone advocated we be on the wrong side of such a trade.

If we are 10 wins short of the playoffs and AM sits on $40M in payroll and retains all his prospects, he's fair game for some withering criticism IMO.

[Frobby]

And I don't see anywhere that someone advocated we be on the wrong side of such a trade.

If we are 10 wins short of the playoffs and AM sits on $40M in payroll and retains all his prospects, he's fair game for some withering criticism IMO.

But if we win 78 games, then he isn't? That's crazy.

Look, we all expect the O's to win more games in 2010 than they did in 2009. Even JTrea81 thinks that (at least I think he does). In my opinion, 83-85 is the realistic best case scenario, 72-74 is the realistic worst case scenario, and 75-82 is the mid-range and most likely scenario. But if the best case scenario is what occurs, it makes no sense to then get mad because MacPhail didn't have the foresight to know that and go out and spend another $40 mm last winter.

[Lucky Jim]

You can get a pretty fair estimate of their future worth.

But that isn't the point. To add those 13-14 wins the Orioles would have had to outbid 29 other team three different times. They would have had to pay a bad team premium for each. They would have had to pay $100M or more for Lackey, probably $130-150M plus a NTC for Holliday, and $75M or more for Figgins. That's over $300M for three guys in their 30s, who will never be more valuable than they are today. If the kids slip a year in their overall development, the free agents are all a year closer to retirement. And when the O's are ready to extend the kids that pan out, they've got $50 or $60M a year tied up in three guys through their decline and career ending phases. If Snyder or Bell don't work out, you have to make a trade to fix those positions because there's no payroll room.

No 64-win team has ever signed the top three free agents in a class. Partly because nobody signs the top three free agents, and partly because it makes no sense.

This was my point, as well. And it's not just the impossibility of singing those guys. It's the fact that, in order for the three big FAs to make a difference, the core would have to combine to a performance somewhere in their loftier projections. It's huge outlay for nothing more than a far-off possibility.

[hoosiers]

But if we win 78 games, then he isn't? That's crazy.

Look, we all expect the O's to win more games in 2010 than they did in 2009. Even JTrea81 thinks that (at least I think he does). In my opinion, 83-85 is the realistic best case scenario, 72-74 is the realistic worst case scenario, and 75-82 is the mid-range and most likely scenario. But if the best case scenario is what occurs, it makes no sense to then get mad because MacPhail didn't have the foresight to know that and go out and spend another $40 mm last winter.

"That's crazy" and "Makes no sense" - did SG steal your account? Very unFrobby-like.

If AM thought this was an 85 win team, he would be spending the $ and dealing the prospects to get us to 95 wins. It's clear AM does not believe this is an 85 win team. We'll see whether AM is correct or not in this judgement.