A question for the MacPhail doubters

[Lucky Jim]

Actually, NYY sent Jackson, Phil Coke and Ian Kennedy in the 3-way with Detroit and Arizona and got back Granderson. The big "loss" for the NYY was the raw, but high ceiling 19 yr.old pitcher Arodys Viscaino (M. Cabrera was not the centerpiece and Atlanta confirmed that) for Vasquez. But, I do agree with your premise, that Jackson plus Coke (RP) and Kennedy (back end SP) are and a 19 yr pitcher, plus an avg at best OF is mortgaging the future.

I agree with this, though only to the extent that we realize mortgages aren't always bad things. Sub-prime mortgages? Another question. And any mortgaging the Orioles do right now would be sub-prime special.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not sure what you're getting at SG. And I don't mean that in a snarky way. Are we saying that the Orioles are passing up deals that could offer long-term answers? Or are you simply responding to my earlier posts?

Because those posts did not address prospect-prospect deals or prospect-pre-FA deals. If we make one of those, then I'll be fine with that. Dealing pitchers is dicey, of course. And I'd rather do it later than sooner, because the comfort with which we can do it is vastly different if Matusz, Bergesen and Tillman establish themselves this year than if we try to do it before they have.

Not neccassarily addressing you but just a general feeling on the board and one I kind of was getting in your responses to Hoosiers point about how AM should be looking to improve the team now if he feels this is an 85 win team.

Now, personally I am not worried about how many wins AM thinks this team has in it...But I do think the notion of sitting on your hands and waiting is wrong.

[Lucky Jim]

Not neccassarily addressing you but just a general feeling on the board and one I kind of was getting in your responses to Hoosiers point about how AM should be looking to improve the team now if he feels this is an 85 win team.

Now, personally I am not worried about how many wins AM thinks this team has in it...But I do think the notion of sitting on your hands and waiting is wrong.

I don't disagree. But different moves should happen at different times, all based on the amount of information you have, and when the value of the deal is going to peak.

[JTrea81]

I don't disagree. But different moves should happen at different times, all based on the amount of information you have, and when the value of the deal is going to peak.

Most people seem to think we are going to compete in 2011 or 2012.

If that's the case, what's the difference between signing a Matt Holliday now, as opposed to signing him to a 6 year deal in 2011 or a 5 year deal in 2012?

Or do you doubt we'll be competitive then?

Or would you rather sign a 29 year old Adrian Gonzalez to a 8/160-180 deal or a 27 year old Prince Fielder to a 9/180-10/200 contract in 2012?

[Sports Guy]

Most people seem to think we are going to compete in 2011 or 2012.

If that's the case, what's the difference between signing a Matt Holliday now, as opposed to signing him to a 6 year deal in 2011 or a 5 year deal in 2012?

Or do you doubt we'll be competitive then?

But signing Holliday for what it would have taken to get him wouldn't have made sense for the Orioles.

[SilentJames]

Well, it would be a SS, first baseman or good young starter.

What i am basically asking you is this...

Do you think the Orioles should wait to make a big deal or do you think they should look to improve the team, for the long term, right now?

If the right deal comes along I am sure that the Orioles should make it. Of course any team should make the right deal. But what it comes down to is how many "right deals" actually come across Andy's desk.

We all speculate and postulate on trade scenarios and many that the Orioles would be fools to pass up. But how realistic are those scenarios? That is to say how often are those deals actually being discussed by Andy on the phone with people.

Andy has shown that he will make big deals so long as they fit with a long-term goal and he has stated that there are some "safe" players. Until we either see someone traded or hear about a deal getting nixed we won't know how many players are truly in that "core". Until then its just message board speculation.

[LookinUp]

1. Think to yourself, "you know, maybe this MacPhail guy really knows what he's doing after all.

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."

First off, this thread has produced some excellent discussion. I'm out of rep or several posters (Lucky Jim in particular) would be getting it.

To answer Frobby's questions, both.

There's an analytical side to this (see Lucky Jim's posts) that is incredibly reasonable. There's also the natural fan side that always wants a little more to be done. The analytical side tells us that there's a huge difference between 83-85 and 95 wins, our ability to get the players in question is suspect, the financial risk assumed would have been overflowing and, even with all of that, the odds of actually becoming a playoff team would be very small.

OTOH, the fan in me sure wishes we'd go for it. I wanted Lackey in particular, simply because I feel like we'd have been able to compete with him in future years and may have even hit lightning in a bottle this year (above the 80% projection as outlined in Lucky Jim's posts). Note, I'm aware that I conveniently forget about his age and recent injury prone-ness.

So, yeah, both.

it would have taken a lot of money, we probably couldn't have pulle

[Slappy]

AM has done a good job at plugging organizational holes in LF, CF, C, and probably SP via acquisition of cheap, young players.

He has done a poor job (so far) with 3B, 1B, and RP. I don't hold those completely against him - Mora and Huff should have been adequate last year considering 2008. But the fact remains that what we have for 3B and 1B going into this season is really pathetic, especially considering those are two high-OPS positions.

So, to answer the OP, I don't think we win 83-85 games unless our SP really is great. If we do, I congratulate him on ending the losing streak. After 12 years, I'm not complaining if we finish with a winning season, 82 or otherwise!

[JTrea81]

But signing Holliday for what it would have taken to get him wouldn't have made sense for the Orioles.

The point if you think you are close, and I think most people think we are a year or two away, you get a player now that you will still have when you want to compete, while you can get that player.

It doesn't make sense to look at signing a player to a long term deal to only have them help you for the first two years of that deal. Thus having to wait until you've identified when those two years are.

The Orioles may not have an opportunity to add a player like Holliday when they need to in the next couple of years for as cheap as he went as more teams will get involved in the FA derby, thus increasing demand and price.

[Lucky Jim]

First off, this thread has produced some excellent discussion. I'm out of rep or several posters (Lucky Jim in particular) would be getting it.

To answer Frobby's questions, both.

There's an analytical side to this (see Lucky Jim's posts) that is incredibly reasonable. There's also the natural fan side that always wants a little more to be done. The analytical side tells us that there's a huge difference between 83-85 and 95 wins, our ability to get the players in question is suspect, the financial risk assumed would have been overflowing and, even with all of that, the odds of actually becoming a playoff team would be very small.

OTOH, the fan in me sure wishes we'd go for it. I wanted Lackey in particular, simply because I feel like we'd have been able to compete with him in future years and may have even hit lightning in a bottle this year (above the 80% projection as outlined in Lucky Jim's posts). Note, I'm aware that I conveniently forget about his age and recent injury prone-ness.

So, yeah, both.

it would have taken a lot of money, we probably couldn't have pulle

It's funny - I know I come off as some kind of Vulcan automaton or something on here, but I would have been pretty excited to sign either Lackey or Holliday (well, up to a point). I mean, I'm a fan after all. I go to the game in person and get mesmerized by the emerald grass and the high sky, the sound of a good fastball cracking a catcher's mitt. I remember the sheer joy of watching Robbie Alomar turn a double play.

All of that is mesmerizing. I just want to enjoy it in the context of a system that allows me to replicate that pleasure - accented by winning - over a long period of time. And sometimes - often, sadly - that requires deferring gratification now.

[Lucky Jim]

The point if you think you are close, and I think most people think we are a year or two away, you get a player now that you will still have when you want to compete, while you can get that player.

It doesn't make sense to look at signing a player to a long term deal to only have them help you for the first two years of that deal. Thus having to wait until you've identified when those two years are.

The Orioles may not have an opportunity to add a player like Holliday when they need to in the next couple of years for as cheap as he went as more teams will get involved in the FA derby, thus increasing demand and price.

That you think the O's could - or should - have outbid the Cards really tells us all we need to know about your FO analysis.

[Lurker Todd]

I thought it was against the law to doubt McPhail?

[LookinUp]

It's funny - I know I come off as some kind of Vulcan automaton or something on here, but I would have been pretty excited to sign either Lackey or Holliday (well, up to a point). I mean, I'm a fan after all. I go to the game in person and get mesmerized by the emerald grass and the high sky, the sound of a good fastball cracking a catcher's mit. I remember the sheer joy of watching Robbie Alomar turn a double play.

All of that is mesmerizing. I just want to enjoy it in the context of a system that allows me to replicate that pleasure - accent by winning - over a long period of time. And sometimes - often, sadly - that requires deferring gratification now.

For what it's worth, I personally think that not enough of us who support MacPhail allow the true "fan" in us to show on this site (not just talking about you, of course).

I mean, we all pretty much panned the Holliday contract and wouldn't have gone anywhere near it. There was more disappointment on the Lackey contract and our lack of interest, but our rational sides stole the show in that discussion too. Perhaps too much, IMO.

Personally, I think there's more common ground between the two sides - which for the sake of this post can be represented by you and Trea - then is necessarily apparent in most of the messages.

[Sports Guy]

The point if you think you are close, and I think most people think we are a year or two away, you get a player now that you will still have when you want to compete, while you can get that player.

It doesn't make sense to look at signing a player to a long term deal to only have them help you for the first two years of that deal. Thus having to wait until you've identified when those two years are.

The Orioles may not have an opportunity to add a player like Holliday when they need to in the next couple of years for as cheap as he went as more teams will get involved in the FA derby, thus increasing demand and price.

He signed for more than the most you said you would pay him...We would have had to be much higher to get him here.

I don't disagree with your overall premise but the Holliday example is a poor one at this point.

[Frobby]

"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.

Sorry if my rhetoric seemed a little harsh -- it wasn't intended and as I'm sure you know, I have a lot of repsect for you as a poster.

As to whether "AM does not believe this is an 85 win team," that language is a little too definitive for my taste. We all know (as I said in my prior post) that every team has a range of possible outcomes. Could this team (as currently constructed) win 85 games? Yes. Is that likely? No, I'd put the odds at 10-1 against. But if the team does win 85, I certainly won't be thinking about how we might have won 95. I'll simply be thrilled to death that this team made so much progress in one year.