He's back! Tejada signs 1-yr deal.

[SrMeowMeow]

I'm glad we agree. I know you don't love the signing, but I will say that I don't think stability should be under-rated. (Not that you're under-rating it.) The fact that in the past few years we've trotted out sub-replacement level players at a number of positions has countered the fact that we had good young talent. Finding a 3B with a .750 OPS who can play 150 games is important for creating a foundation that our true talent (the young players) can build upon.

I'm curious about the Bedard thing - because that's a bit different, but equally interesting. He's not necessary stability, like say Tejada, but rather the kind of guy who puts a good young rotation over the top if he's recovered. Big if.

I am willing to take the under on a .750 OPS from Tejada in 2010.

[Lucky Jim]

At this point in his career, a move to third is the most logical step for Miggy. At 36, he will not be anybody's everyday SS. He should be able to adjust. The ball comes off the bat a liitle different down the line with a split second last reaction time. A lost step is not as obvious as long as he maintains good hands and a willing chest. Since the ball gets there a little faster, you do have the extra time to scramble and still make the throw.

I think there's a pretty good chance, with as much baseball as Miggy has played over the years, that he's played a decent amount of 3B in non-MLB settings.

I agree with the above, though. And his arm will make up for a lot.

[tennOsfan]

I haven't been this excited since we brought Palmeiro back!!! :eektf:

Seriously, I like the signing. Now I have to find my old Tejada shirt ...

[Lucky Jim]

I am willing to take the under on a .750 OPS from Tejada in 2010.

It could happen. What's your point? I think it's considerably more likely that Crede plays less than 100 games than Tejada puts up an OPS under .750.

[bluedog]

Of course, I am not against having another bat on the bench. I just wonder who he is going to hit for? Izturis will need to be pinch hit for, but after that I don't see anyone else that a pinch hitter will be used for. The O's will have Wiggy, Scott or Pie on the bench to pinch hit for Izturis.

Late in a game that Izturis has been pinch hit for I who rather have Andino at SS then Miggy.

I am fine with Miggy starting games at SS to give Izturis a break or when Izturis is injured. That makes sense. But if Izturis is not available (he is not durable and goes on the DL roughly once a seaon) then the O's will need a backup at SS. I can see Andino getting more playing time then Montanez or Aubrey as the 25th man.

I'd probably go with Turner and look to get him at bats like this:

1. PH for Izturis with Miggy going to SS late in games and Turner taking over 3rd. Obviously you do this in games where you are behind or tied late and where defense means nothing unless you score some more runs. I can see this happening quite a bit.

2. PR for Wieters, Scott, Atkins, Miggy or Wiggy (depending on who's starting) late in games. Turner can go right into the game at any infield position or be replaced defensively by Moeller or Wiggy at C or OF. We have some very, very slow runners on this team and I suspect that Turner will be a big upgrade on the bases even though he's only got a 70% SB rate in the minors.

3. Start for Roberts at 2b once every 10 to 12 days. The O's need to give everyone on the roster regular days off to keep them fresh for season's end.

4. Defensive replacement for Miggy / Wiggy at 3b late in games.

I could see Turner getting 100 - 120 at bats in this manner.

[Since66]

I think there's a pretty good chance, with as much baseball as Miggy has played over the years, that he's played a decent amount of 3B in non-MLB settings.

I agree with the above, though. And his arm will make up for a lot.

The only thing that scares me is that there are three ways off the mountain. A quick plummet off of a shear cliff, a slow tumble down a gradual slope and a controlled descent (by using whatever methods to slow the process, like moving to third or embracing the DH role); I wonder what lies ahead for this 36(?) year old?

[Lucky Jim]

The only thing that scares me is that there are three ways off the mountain. A quick plummet off of a shear cliff, a slow tumble down a gradual slope and a controlled descent (by using whatever methods to slow the process, like moving to third or embracing the DH role); I wonder what lies ahead for this 36(?) year old?

Who says he has to leave the mountain? It's not a given, on a one-year contract, that some kind of decline is in order or in the offing. Other than the move to 3rd, I mean.

Edited to say that the first sentence came off sharper than I wanted. Sorry. That's what happens when you type messages while writing briefs.

[Babypowder]

I'm not in love with the signing. I would rather they just went with Scott at first and Atkins at third. The Atkins signing seems so strange now, with LaRoche signing for slightly more and Glaus signing for slightly less it seems odd to target a very questionable bat for first in Atkins. I also do not like the idea of relegating Pie to a strict 4th outfielder and this pretty much kills regularly playing time for him.

Tejada to me is likely to put up an OBP closer to .300 than .350 as some are hoping. His walk rate while never high has become abysmal and with his power completely gone I don't want his skillset in the top half of the order. I think his defense will be ok but I think some are overestimating what he will provide offensively. I see Tejada being a very average player, and I don't it will be worth him taking playing time from younger more talented players.

[Since66]

Who says he has to leave the mountain? It's not a given, on a one-year contract, that some kind of decline is in order or in the offing. Other than the move to 3rd, I mean.

I only put forth the possibilty. I never said it had to happen. You are right. His decline could happen on someone else's dime.

[RShack]

As I recall, one issue that Mora seemed to have was with balls hit to his left, which I always felt was due to him positioning himself too close to the bag (and he may have positioned himself in that manner because he felt he lacked range to his right - who knows).

I always assumed it was because he decided to give up some singles in order to take away doubles...

[mweb]

Well it seems to have been largely ignored, but a poster did say Miggy has some experience at 3B in the Dominican league and the WBC. Not sure how much, but that's helpful.

[LookinUp]

Well it seems to have been largely ignored, but a poster did say Miggy has some experience at 3B in the Dominican league and the WBC. Not sure how much, but that's helpful.

And he'll get a lot of reps in spring training.

I'm sure there will be a learning curve, but I doubt he's going to stink it up for 100 games. If he does, I'd bet he'll actually stink it up for 162 games.

[RShack]

That very well could be but that's a questionable strategy if true.

Well, I don't really know. How would we guess about the cost/benefit of standing one step closer to the line?

Not saying we can't, just saying I don't know how to do that. The +/- guys probably know, but I don't.

[jets4ever]

I don't think the uniform number he gets is that important.

Considering 10 is taken. And, 4 (which he wore in Oakland) is retired, how about 44?

But, no matter what number he wears, I like the signing.

[SrMeowMeow]

It could happen. What's your point? I think it's considerably more likely that Crede plays less than 100 games than Tejada puts up an OPS under .750.

I'm not passionate. I just think we made the wrong decision. There are only a few ways to look at this season:

A) Write it off and focus only on player development.

B) Load up and try to make a run.

We're not doing either of those. What we're doing can best be described by:

C) Make marginal improvements all across the team so that if we catch some breaks we can make a run a la the 2008 Rays but not at the cost of the future.

In this scenario, I see no value in having a stable 1.5 WAR player at 3B, especially one whose question marks are purely negative - i.e. maybe Tejada just can't play third and that's the end of that.

What we should do is embrace risk. Look at it as game theory. (I know this is simplified by a ton, but it's a thought experiment). Say we need 95 "points" to make the playoffs, and 25 "game pieces" that are each worth 3 points. That's only 75 points, and there's no variance, so we won't make the playoffs. Now say we have 25 pieces each worth 1-4 points. The expected value of the team is lower, but now we have a non-zero chance to make the playoffs.

Extend this. Say you have a team of 24 pieces that total up to a range of 85-98 points (a mix of variable and non-variable pieces), and you have two pieces you are considering adding - one worth 2 points and another worth 0-5 points. The math is too complex to do in my head right now since it would involve tallying up a lot of individual probabilities that make up this hypothetical 85-98 team, but I argue (and can easily prove, if you want) that this team gets more value, with value defined as the chance to reach or surpass 95 points ("making the playoffs"), from adding the non-variable 2 point piece than another hypothetical 70-90 point team. I'm sure you'll agree with me. Furthermore, the most important goal of a team whose peak is < 95 is increasing the peak of the team, not the overall expected value.

I'm sure you can see where this argument goes. I think the Orioles are in the 65-85 range, and therefore we should favor upside over reliability. I think Crede's range is 0-3 and Tejada more like 1-2. I KNOW, please, I know it's a very simplified analysis, but I think it makes a point worth considering.