When will we be good again?

[El Gordo]

Well...let's see...Wieter's OPS last year was .753, Jones was .792, Reimold in 104 games was team leader at .831...Markakis was at .801...Jones at .792... Luke Scott led the team in HRs with 25..

Toronto's leaders included Hill at .829 ( but with 36 HRs) and Lind at .932 (with 35 HRs)...

Tampa Bay's leaders included Zobrist .948 with 27 HRs, Longoria at .889 with 33 HRs, Bartlett at .879 and Crawford at .816..

So...do I think that Wieters is going to increase his OPS by 200 points to equal Zobrist or come close to his 27 HRs...(no, I don't think so...Wieters may likely increase to .800 OPS and hit 20-25 HRs...I think Reimold is not going to be at .831 for a full year- again .800 OPS with maybe 25 HRs...Jones was a player with two seasons last year...the first two months and the last two months- it remains to be seen if he is going to be more consistent, but I would not be surprised if he too is right at the .800 OPS range with 15-20 HRs..)..

Collectively, however, this still projects the Orioles offensively as significantly weaker than all other teams in the AL East and they may not equal last year's production if Reimold, Wieters have sophomore difficulties.

Their power production is abysmal...Luke Scott led the team with 25...I don't know that any of their 2010 lineup will hit 25 HRs...

But they are even worse from a pitching comparison standpoint for 2010 given that this will likely still be a development season for three of their five starters....

Right now they are counting heavily on three very young pitchers, Tillman, Matusz and Bergesen...Matusz has pitched 44 innings in the majors, Tillman 65 and Bergesen, coming off an injury, pitched 123 innings in 2010..

These three will have to take their growing pains lumps in 2010...I would be surprised if any of them had WHIPs less than 1.40 or had winning records in 2010 or won more than 12 games or had an ERA less than 4.50...

Tillman, in particular, had 15 HRs allowed in only 65 innings which would have projected to over 40 during a 200 inning season...

This is not to say that the players mentioned will not ultimately become good or even very good major league players....but it won't be enough in 2010 to reach Toronto's 75 wins last year, in my view.

Fine, you don't have a lot of hope for our young players. Most wouldn't agree with your dim assessment of their prospects, including the major projection systems.

[Since66]

I expect to flirt with .500 in 2010, and contend in 2011.

Anything less than that, would be disappointing.

That seems quite reasonable to me. If we flop this year, at least we will have some answers. Dead wood will be identified and trimmed away.We all hope for al our kiddies to soar but more than likely somebody will fall short of expectations. 2011 will see us with more questions answered than new questions to be answered. Does that make sense?

[RShack]

Let's be reasonable.

OK, let's do...

You admit that things have changed for the better, so quit saying dumb stuff as if things have been done in an irresponsible way for the last decade. It is complete BS for you to repeatedly make charges like that, and then turn around and say you didn't. This is the kind of crap you pull all the time: You level a charge that has no basis in fact, and then when somebody calls you on it, you suddenly change your story. Doing that does not show that you want to have reasonable discussions. It shows exactly the opposite: that you don't. Instead, you just want to throw bricks and repeat the same old crap when you know better than that. Which is worse than having your head in the sand and not knowing. You even admit that you know better, but then you turn around and act like you don't.

The area I have a problem is that IMO MacPhail is moving too slowly and too deliberately to get this team to the next level. It makes me wonder why Angelos has "backed off" because he has never shown to be the type of guy who gives power away to anyone.

I have always believed that MacPhail is just a kind of alter-ego for Angelos -- not literally -- but in a symbolic sense. Angelos went out and got a guy that is more conservative than himself and then handed him the keys to the warehouse.

So, you have concocted some story about how the O's aren't fixed yet because PA got somebody who would be a substitute-PA and stay on a road that keeps the O's crappy. And your only bit of evidence for this is whatever goes on in your head about what other people are supposedly really up to, combined with a belief that AM is taking way too long to fix the franchise. If you really intend to be reasonable about it, then you gotta ask yourself what is reasonable to expect about how long it takes to fix the franchise from top to bottom. Pretty much everybody who follows baseball who is not an O's fan sees that AM is fixing things. They all say that the team is about to be something for real. The only single thing to argue about is how long it's taking. Arguing about anything else, like the idea that PA and AM have a blood pact about being terminal cheapskates, and are lying about signing FA's when AM thinks the time is right, is just making up stuff ahead of time about things we can't possibly know for sure yet. The only real issue so far is not whether the talent level in the franchise is better (everybody including you agrees that it is way better), but rather whether the progress is going way too slowly.

From the get-go, I said that I thought it was at least a 5-year job, and maybe a wee bit less only if all the trades worked out. I have repeatedly asked people to give me examples of GM's who did it faster than that, and nobody can come up with one. All they do is come up with non-examples, like the D-backs, where the guy spent himself into oblivion for short term success, and the Marlins who have a couple cycles of buying a flag and then having a fire sale. These are not real examples because they are not about fixing the franchise so that it's good pretty much all the time. So, if you think it's reasonable to decide that AM should have things fixed already, then you should come up with an example that proves that is even possible. But you can't, because there isn't one. So, instead you make up a story about how PA got AM to help him keep things lousy, and your big piece of evidence to support this is that you want it fixed faster than anybody has ever fixed a franchise before. Which is goofy.

You're deciding stuff based on what you want, not based on what is reasonable to expect about the job at hand. This is the definition of Wishful Thinking. Then, when your wishful thinking is not satisfied, you decide that it's because somebody is up to no good. The problem is not that anybody is up to no good, nor is it the case that nothing has changed. The only thing it's about is that you want things fixed faster than anybody has ever done it before, and then when you don't get the magic fix you want, you start attacking the people involved for not doing the impossible on your own personal thin-air timetable. You even admit that things have improved when somebody calls you on your BS claims about nothing changing. The fact that people have to call you on things to get you to admit the truth doesn't seem like you want to have reasonable discussions at all. If you wanted that, then people wouldn't have to call you on this crap.

[waroriole]

RShack,

I completely agree with you, but you're wasting your breath. This is the same guy who claims that alot of poster are content with doing nothing, and when asked to provide examples of posters saying this has dodged the question for about 3 months. Do you have those examples yet MSK?

[tntoriole]

Fine, you don't have a lot of hope for our young players. Most wouldn't agree with your dim assessment of their prospects, including the major projection systems.

Fine...you asked for my projections...let's hear yours for exactly the same players that I cited....at the end of the year, we will see how an old guy like me does versus your "major projection systems."

[BaltimoreTerp]

Fine...you asked for my projections...let's hear yours for exactly the same players that I cited....at the end of the year, we will see how an old guy like me does versus your "major projection systems."

Oldfan alert! Oldfan alert!

[Lucky Jim]

Fine...you asked for my projections...let's hear yours for exactly the same players that I cited....at the end of the year, we will see how an old guy like me does versus your "major projection systems."

I'll take this up. I think, going forward, we can expect something like:

Nick: .850+ OPS.

AJ: .825+ OPS

Nolan: .825+ OPS

Matt: .875+ OPS

Bell: .825+ OPS

Snyder: .800+ OPS

Brian: .750+ OPS

That leaves SS (this year, about .625 or so) and DH (this year, about .825 or so).

That's a team OPS somewhere in the .790-.800 range from our core starters going forward, provided we merely replace the SS and DH production. (Actually comes out to exactly .800).

This year, I'm unclear what we'll get from 1B and 3B. My guess is that Atkins gives us something like a .725 OPS. If we move Scott to 1B and DH Reimold, putting Pie in LF. Then we'll project to a similar numbers, with something in the likely range of a .725-.775 OPS from Pie.

Doesn't change the outcome that much, I would guess.

That's an offense that will easily keep pace w/ the American league teams. It's not superior, and our run differential will likely lag a bit behind the Yanks, but it's respectable, to be sure.

[JTrea81]

I'll take this up. I think, going forward, we can expect something like:

Nick: .850+ OPS.

AJ: .825+ OPS

Nolan: .825+ OPS

Matt: .875+ OPS

Bell: .825+ OPS

Snyder: .800+ OPS

Brian: .750+ OPS

sure.

Your predictions for Snyder and Bell are extremely optimistic if not unrealistic.

What makes you think they'll have those #'s with the learning curve most rookies go through?

I doubt you see those #'s if at all until 2012 at the earliest.

[tntoriole]

I'll take this up. I think, going forward, we can expect something like:

Nick: .850+ OPS.

AJ: .825+ OPS

Nolan: .825+ OPS

Matt: .875+ OPS

Bell: .825+ OPS

Snyder: .800+ OPS

Brian: .750+ OPS

That leaves SS (this year, about .625 or so) and DH (this year, about .825 or so).

That's a team OPS somewhere in the .790-.800 range from our core starters going forward, provided we merely replace the SS and DH production. (Actually comes out to exactly .800).

This year, I'm unclear what we'll get from 1B and 3B. My guess is that Atkins gives us something like a .725 OPS. If we move Scott to 1B and DH Reimold, putting Pie in LF. Then we'll project to a similar numbers, with something in the likely range of a .725-.775 OPS from Pie.

Doesn't change the outcome that much, I would guess.

That's an offense that will easily keep pace w/ the American league teams. It's not superior, and our run differential will likely lag a bit behind the Yanks, but it's respectable, to be sure.

Pie in the sky numbers....doubtful that Snyder and Bell will produce in the big leagues at that level in 2010.....hope it happens.....there is limited power/run generation in this lineup...I don't think any Os player will hit 30 HRs in 2010....

Now 2011 or 2012...who knows....

[Jeff Spicoli]

As long as Angelos is here, any really good Orioles team will be an accident. I don't believe he will spend what it takes. We've had two-count 'em, TWO-major free agents since the Palmiero signing in 1993-94 off season.And looking what they've drafted since Matusz, I'd say that cheapness has extended down into the draft, too. Angelos seems reluctant to spend big bucks on untried talent even though his best two players were exactly that when they were drafted.

I disagree about MacPhail though. He's a tremendous executive who has done much to build this organization.I think he's thwarted by the owner to some extent. If he goes, all you'll have is a puppet GM who does next to nothing. That's what you had before.

To me, a "good" team is a contender, not one that wins 85 games.I see no difference in watchability between a team that wins 85 and one that wins 65. I acknowledge that seems unreasonable, particularly to the younger posters here who have never seen a really quality Orioles team. But I saw 6 World Series appearances and three championships, and my standards are a lot higher.

Not that it matters much, but I counted three major free agent signings since Palmeiro in 93-94.

1) Roberto Alomar

2) Albert Belle

3) Miguel Tejada

[mikezpen]

ok, 3.

Angelos spent tons of money his first year or two, but not much in recent years.I don't think he sits there and micromanages MacPhail as he's done some other general managers.But I think he sits on his wallet, and this hurts the Orioles plans.

[MemorialStadKid]

So, you have concocted some story about how the O's aren't fixed yet because PA got somebody who would be a substitute-PA and stay on a road that keeps the O's crappy. And your only bit of evidence for this is whatever goes on in your head about what other people are supposedly really up to, combined with a belief that AM is taking way too long to fix the franchise. If you really intend to be reasonable about it, then you gotta ask yourself what is reasonable to expect about how long it takes to fix the franchise from top to bottom. Pretty much everybody who follows baseball who is not an O's fan sees that AM is fixing things. They all say that the team is about to be something for real. The only single thing to argue about is how long it's taking. Arguing about anything else, like the idea that PA and AM have a blood pact about being terminal cheapskates, and are lying about signing FA's when AM thinks the time is right, is just making up stuff ahead of time about things we can't possibly know for sure yet. The only real issue so far is not whether the talent level in the franchise is better (everybody including you agrees that it is way better), but rather whether the progress is going way too slowly.

WHOA... I never said they made a blood pact. I said Angelos signed AM because he knew AM might not cost him a lot of money by making a series of big-budget splash signings. That doesn't assume a conspiracy, it assumes that the powers that be have a financial agenda and/or some kind of plan. In this case, my observation has shown that Angelos has been gunshy about going out and getting major free agents over the years after the Belle and then the Palmiero/Sosa fiascoes.

It would stand to reason that a man who makes public declarations of making improvements to his organization and then does as little as possible with his available resources has some kind of agenda. Otherwise, how else do you explain it?

Once again, because AM has made necessary changes for the better -- nothing above and beyond the call of duty mind you -- suddenly he is above reproach and everyone with a dissenting viewpoint must present a legal deposition whenever we don't like his handling of certain situations?

From the get-go, I said that I thought it was at least a 5-year job, and maybe a wee bit less only if all the trades worked out. I have repeatedly asked people to give me examples of GM's who did it faster than that, and nobody can come up with one. All they do is come up with non-examples, like the D-backs, where the guy spent himself into oblivion for short term success, and the Marlins who have a couple cycles of buying a flag and then having a fire sale. These are not real examples because they are not about fixing the franchise so that it's good pretty much all the time. So, if you think it's reasonable to decide that AM should have things fixed already, then you should come up with an example that proves that is even possible. But you can't, because there isn't one. So, instead you make up a story about how PA got AM to help him keep things lousy, and your big piece of evidence to support this is that you want it fixed faster than anybody has ever fixed a franchise before. Which is goofy.

I didn't make up anything, this was my conclusion based on the bizarre behavior patterns of Angelos. I may very well be wrong, but your constant insistence that I am trying to shoehorn in fictional motivations from people I don't like to fit a preexisting conclusion is totally false.

I don't think I have ever said AM needs to fix the team in 2 years, but there are other things he could be doing that I have said many, many times in many posts in the past.

As far as the "blood pact" is concerned, are you seriously going to tell me that people tend to hire those that go against the general culture or "personality" of an organization?

When does that happen?

I don't know what you do for a living, but outside of retail, few corporate cultures go out and find people that go against the grain. Its usually not productive and few people like to hire those -- especially in the higher echelons of a business environment --that don't share their general political and/or cultural world-view.

When there are literally hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, do you see someone as baseball conservative as Peter Angelos going out and hiring a guy that has a corporate philosophy that's 180-degrees from how Angelos does business?

You seem hardwired to immediately assume negativity or lack of depth in my words instead of thinking about what I am actually saying. I don't understand why you constantly defend these people with such vitriol. You go as far as to accuse me of everything under the sun instead of holding the Orioles FO under the same skeptical microscope.

I do believe Angelos hired MacPhail -- not to deliberately keep the Orioles as a losing franchise -- but to continue to keep things at an even keel with the team and warehouse. MacPhail is known to be very deliberate and cautious. Doesn't this mean that Angelos won't "meddle?"

Why would he have to meddle if he knows MacPhail won't go out and make any unexpected or fiscally risky moves?

Just think outside of the box of pretense and anti-everything-MSK says and consider my ideas for once in a blue moon.

You're deciding stuff based on what you want, not based on what is reasonable to expect about the job at hand. This is the definition of Wishful Thinking. Then, when your wishful thinking is not satisfied, you decide that it's because somebody is up to no good. The problem is not that anybody is up to no good, nor is it the case that nothing has changed. The only thing it's about is that you want things fixed faster than anybody has ever done it before, and then when you don't get the magic fix you want, you start attacking the people involved for not doing the impossible on your own personal thin-air timetable. You even admit that things have improved when somebody calls you on your BS claims about nothing changing. The fact that people have to call you on things to get you to admit the truth doesn't seem like you want to have reasonable discussions at all. If you wanted that, then people wouldn't have to call you on this crap.

This all comes down to me really wanting to know what this FO has done to earn the staunch benefit of the doubt that is displayed by some of the people on the OH?

I asked about Angelos repeatedly making statements to improve the team but then his actions show the absolute opposite result.

Rshack, you seem to take things very personally in regards to people criticizing the front office. Why?

I know this team has painted themselves into a corner.

I GET THAT.

I am aware that we have a long way to go.

I GET THAT.

I, for one, am totally pissed off that we even got in this predicament, and I am angry that the person that is supposed to lead us out of this darkness moves at a snail's pace, when moving at a tortoise pace could get us a little further down the road at a steady speed.

I have explained how I feel about the public perception of this franchise and my own love for this team.

I don't deserve to be told I making things up because I don't care for the FO. There is no evidence of me making things up. I made a conclusion based on my own observation just as you have done in condemnation of me daring to raise a question about how these guys do business.

Like I always say, I have no beef with you Rshack, you seem to make good points from time to time, although you are sometimes a bit argumentative and snarky when its uncalled for, but you are a decent guy from what I can tell.

However, you need to chill out with this accusation of me making things up. I'm not making anything up at all. This is my opinion about the front office. I don't like them and I don't appreciate their methods.

I have a right to feel this way and the events of the last decade are in the books and are irrefutable.

MSK

[RShack]

I, for one, am totally pissed off that we even got in this predicament, and I am angry that the person that is supposed to lead us out of this darkness moves at a snail's pace, when moving at a tortoise pace could get us a little further down the road at a steady speed.

Then show me one example of any GM fixing a lousy franchise from top to bottom at the pace you want, which appears to be 2.5 years. Just one. Ever. If you can't do it (and you can't), then you're mad because he's not doing something faster than has ever been done before. Don't rant about it, just tell me one guy who did it at the pace you want. Face it, you can't do it, and the reason you can't is because there are zero such examples. None. You're mad because he's not doing something that there is zero evidence to show that it's even possible. That's like getting mad at a taxi driver because he won't drive you someplace at 500 miles an hour.

I don't deserve to be told I making things up because I don't care for the FO. There is no evidence of me making things up. I made a conclusion based on my own observation just as you have done in condemnation of me daring to raise a question about how these guys do business.

I am not condemning you. If I thought you were somehow worthy of condemnation, then I wouldn't talk with you. So, you can forget about the whole condemnation thing. But I am saying that you are making stuff up. You ignore reality-based evidence, and claim that they're going slow on purpose. So, once again, if you can't demonstrate that anybody has ever done it at the pace you want, then your claim that they're fixing it too slowly is something that you just make up based on nothing but wishful thinking.

I have a right to feel this way and the events of the last decade are in the books and are irrefutable.

I agree that you have every right to feel any way you want to feel. But the fact that you went right back into your standard "last decade" story is just another case of you ignoring stuff you know is true. In one post, you agree things are different and better since AM got here 2.5 years ago, but then you go right back to talking about the last decade. This tells me that you're mainly interested in throwing bricks based on how you feel, and not interested in having a reasonable discussion. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to do that. All I'm saying is that you should quit being surprised when other folks say that you aren't reasonable when they try to discuss things with you. Because you're not. On the one hand, you claim that you are, but then you go right back to acting like you're not. So, what do you think people are gonna believe? What you say you want to do, or what you actually do?

[EL_Coyote]

I know I am late to this thread but I thought I would share a fact with everyone.

Andy McPhail was hired In June 2007 as the President of Baseball Operations.

I've checked and rechecked my math on this. That means he has held the job for less than three years. OK. I know I am new here, so if I am over stepping just say so. Is this time period really enough to judge him?

IMO he really has done a very good job to date.

[mikezpen]

I think MacPhail has done a heck of a job.