A question for the MacPhail doubters

[Stotle]

Nothing to add, except thanks to participants for an interesting discussion.

[LookinUp]

Really, guys, and not just DH, why play the game?

Our GM should sit on his butt if he believes we are an 85 win team.

Our GM will have a lot of work to do if we win 85 games because of the regression.

Ha, ha. I guess it's NEVER a good time to commit to signing or trading for an all-star caliber player.

Coming from such a good poster, I suspect that this post is written somewhat in jest.

The analysis of Drungo and Lucky Jim is incredibly compelling. If anything, the question is more along the lines of what the expected win total should be for this group of players. The range is probably wider than it has been for most teams due to the youth versus the pedigree of many of these guys.

Perhaps Frobby's wrong and the up side for this year's team is actually 90 wins. I don't know. But, either way, their analysis applies.

[hoosiers]

Coming from such a good poster, I suspect that this post is written somewhat in jest.

The analysis of Drungo and Lucky Jim is incredibly compelling. If anything, the question is more along the lines of what the expected win total should be for this group of players. The range is probably wider than it has been for most teams due to the youth versus the pedigree of many of these guys.

Perhaps Frobby's wrong and the up side for this year's team is actually 90 wins. I don't know. But, either way, their analysis applies.

I see very little analysis in this thread - lots of interesting conceptual thinking, but little "compelling analysis". Maybe I missed something.

[Lucky Jim]

I see very little analysis in this thread - lots of interesting conceptual thinking, but little "compelling analysis". Maybe I missed something.

Thanks. The respect is mutual.

[LookinUp]

Next offseason is the time to take the aggressive approach towards filling our more defined holes. If we get more of the same next offseason you will see many more people (including myself) become much more critical of AM. But the timing simply is not right now, but then to me the only missed opportunity was Tex and that is only if we could have actually signed him for something less that $200MM.

Even this is debatable, right?

What if Bell and Snyder both perform very well in AAA for 1/2 the season and get promoted, the young starters in the majors do well, Arrieta and Erbe perform well and the bullpen solidifies? Do you still think we should be highly aggressive after the 2010 season? I honestly don't know the answer. I don't know, but it wouldn't be so bad to win big on the cheap (not saying it's very likely).

About the only position where I can say with near certainty that we should probably be highly aggressive in filling is SS. I don't see many scenarios where Florimon exceeds all expectations and is ready by 2011 (that's assuming he's more than a backup even when he peaks), Izturis/Davis or any of the others really hits at all.

[LookinUp]

I see very little analysis in this thread - lots of interesting conceptual thinking, but little "compelling analysis". Maybe I missed something.

I'll help you. Here's the first web definition I came across:

Analysis: an investigation of the component parts of a whole and their relations in making up the whole

Here are some very interesting posts.

But, on the other hand, if we get to 85 wins with that production from 1B/3B and whichever pitcher you are talking about, that would mean that just about every other young player performed just about as well as we could have hoped for. Every one. So we'd be at like our 95th percentile of performance for that group.

Is it such a good idea to hope for that type of perfect situation production and sign guys that will help you if that occurs? What if those guys take 2-3 year commitments but you only think they'll be worth it for a year?

Seriously, it's like Bavasi ignoring the pythag all over again.

Great example.

And its even worse really, because at least Bavasi had seen them overperform the year before and get to those 85ish wins and was just hoping for it to happen again as a baseline. Some people here seem to be actively planning on us getting ideal seasons from just about everybody, except for the people we trade away for a big bat, they would all have terrible seasons if we kept them.

If the O's win 85 games this year I'm a little concerned for 2011. Because there's going to have to be some regression going on there, probably enough to counter most of the growth from the kids. MacPhail might have to add 10 wins just to get to 90.

Bingo. I know that this kind of analysis is boring and feels like the antithesis of being a fan. But building models to deal with risk is boring business. When the model is in place, however, and the cash starts coming in, that's fun.

Pretty compelling analysis, if you ask me.

[Mackus]

Even this is debatable, right?

What if Bell and Snyder both perform very well in AAA for 1/2 the season and get promoted, the young starters in the majors do well, Arrieta and Erbe perform well and the bullpen solidifies? Do you still think we should be highly aggressive after the 2010 season? I honestly don't know the answer. I don't know, but it wouldn't be so bad to win big on the cheap (not saying it's very likely).

About the only position where I can say with near certainty that we should probably be highly aggressive in filling is SS. I don't see many scenarios where Florimon exceeds all expectations and is ready by 2011 (that's assuming he's more than a backup even when he peaks), Izturis/Davis or any of the others really hits at all.

I'd be willing to block a younger player with an established big time FA if they are available next offseason. Obviously will depend on both the available FA and the performance and age of the young player we're blocking, but 2011 I want to compete, and I'll deviate from the "wait for the kids" method to do so. That doesn't mean I'll trade away the kids to get talent, but it does mean that I'd prefer performance that is highly probable to repeat over the uncertainty of a younger guy, especially if its a younger guy that struggled a bit. If someone performed really well like Reimold, I'd probably stick with them, but if they showed promise but ultimately struggled a bit like Tillman, I'm probably signing someone to cover that spot for 2011.

If Snyder comes up and has a .745 OPS over 250 at bats from mid-July on, I'd be looking very hard for a solution at 1B. If he has a .830 OPS over those at bats, I'll still be looking for an upgrade, but wouldn't insist upon getting somebody there.

[mcgraw238]

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?

They should never "wait" to add talent if it makes sense in the big picture. I don't support doing nothing as a strategy. That said, I have no problem with finding a stop gap while you wait for a guy like Bell to develop at 3b. Overall, they should evaluate the package and determine if its benefits the club long term.

[Stotle]

I'll help you. Here's the first web definition I came across:

Here are some very interesting posts.

Pretty compelling analysis, if you ask me.

I've enjoyed it -- even the posts that hurt my (limited) thinking parts.

[TiredofLosing20]

Even this is debatable, right?

What if Bell and Snyder both perform very well in AAA for 1/2 the season and get promoted, the young starters in the majors do well, Arrieta and Erbe perform well and the bullpen solidifies? Do you still think we should be highly aggressive after the 2010 season? I honestly don't know the answer. I don't know, but it wouldn't be so bad to win big on the cheap (not saying it's very likely).

About the only position where I can say with near certainty that we should probably be highly aggressive in filling is SS. I don't see many scenarios where Florimon exceeds all expectations and is ready by 2011 (that's assuming he's more than a backup even when he peaks), Izturis/Davis or any of the others really hits at all.

Everything is debatable I suppose

I suppose I expect us to aggressively fill the holes that I believe will become abundantly more clear over the next 12 months. I think AM will have a much clearer picture of what this team needs to focus their resources on. I suspect SS will be one of those areas. I expect that we will be in a position to trade prospects for ML players next offseason if need be and/or sign FAs in positions of need.

I would add that my level of aggressive is probably fairly different than say the Treasian level of aggressive, but nonetheless status quo next offseason will not do.

I do understand your point tho. Bell and Snyder maybe where Wieters and Reimold are this year but at some point you have to make a move and I think depending on what occurs in 2010 next offseason will be the right time.

[LookinUp]

If Snyder comes up and has a .745 OPS over 250 at bats from mid-July on, I'd be looking very hard for a solution at 1B. If he has a .830 OPS over those at bats, I'll still be looking for an upgrade, but wouldn't insist upon getting somebody there.

I know we're discussing highly undefined hypotheticals, but I'll go ahead and say I disagree w/ respect to Bell/Snyder putting up an .830 OPS. The upgrade would have to be immense and I don't see that being available next offseason.

If our MiL talent develops like we all hope, I'd certainly be more willing to make a big trade for an A-Gon/Fielder assuming we could resign them. Much more willing than I am this offseason.

I think I'm more comfortable with the long, slow, steady organizational building model than most fans. I understand the desire to win though, so I could go either way.

[Mackus]

I know we're discussing highly undefined hypotheticals, but I'll go ahead and say I disagree w/ respect to Bell/Snyder putting up an .830 OPS. The upgrade would have to be immense and I don't see that being available next offseason.

If our MiL talent develops like we all hope, I'd certainly be more willing to make a big trade for an A-Gon/Fielder assuming we could resign them. Much more willing than I am this offseason.

I think I'm more comfortable with the long, slow, steady organizational building model than most fans. I understand the desire to win though, so I could go either way.

Part of the reason I'd be willing to block someone like Bell/Snyder even if they do perform well (although mind you, I'd be much less inclined) is that you don't just lose their performance. You've still got a young player with tons of service time left making nothing who's shown they can play at the MLB level. Basically you'd be sitting there with a Kyle Blanks or Billy Butler on your hand, and you could in turn trade those guys for some other valuable piece and get the benefit of nearly guaranteed hugely productive performance for the next few years from your big signing.

It depends on a lot of undefined factors, but in 2011 and beyond I'm not looking to maximize efficiency. I'm looking to maximize wins. Ideally we can do both, but ultimately, the wins are all I care about as long as they are enough to get into the playoffs.

[TiredofLosing20]

Basically you'd be sitting there with a Kyle Blanks or Billy Butler on your hand, and you could in turn trade those guys for some other valuable piece and get the benefit of nearly guaranteed hugely productive performance for the next few years from your big signing.

Whats funny Mackus is that the few guys on here that are critical of those who preach patience think that those of us with patience think that we believe that we should never trade prospects or never sign FAs. What I believe the vast majority believe is that A. Now is not the time to do so and B. We should not be solely relying on the FA and trade prospects approach to building a team.

Thank you for providing concrete evidence that the patient (I don't call us the Pro AM crowd) does eventually want AM to do these things but we don't want it done hastily to satisfy fanatics.

[blid]

Oh there will be opportunities, but will MacPhail actually take advantage of them?

The question seriously should be asked because he didn't pursue Tex aggressively even though we were likely only two seasons from competing from when he would have signed.

Any time I hear Teix mentioned, images of the bloody scourge in Andy MacPhail's secret closet hasten to mind.

[hoosiers]

I know we're discussing highly undefined hypotheticals,

I guess we'll have to disagree about analysis versus hypotheticals since they are very different things IMO. Only opinions in this thread, IMO.

Seriously, when someone posts - Seriously, it's like Bavasi ignoring the pythag all over again. that's all opinion, no? Perhaps the opinions of a good pster, but where's the analysis?

Regardless, I'd still like to back up the question posed to DH and others - if it's not a good time to invest in a superstar via FA or trade BEFORE the team might produce 85 wins, and if the GM has to worry about regression IF the team gets to 85 wins, when is a good time?

I imagine the window to make that investment under some criteria is ridiculously small.