Jump to content

Blame MacPhail


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

I DO understand that it takes years for a rebuilding effort and that you shouldn't rush to sign a FA just because he's free because he might not fit into your long-term goals.

I GET IT.

So far, so good...

But I go back to my original question of why do we not get ANYONE that can help the team win games? Why weren't we in the hunt for Halladay or Lackey?

Ooops. Obviously you don't get it.

The reasons for not doing that have been quite clear for some time. Pretending you don't know what they are is just more bizarreness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think that AM missed an opportunity or two this off season to improve the team. That puts me squarely in opposition to the conventional wisdom here and that’s perfectly OK by me. To attribute my or anyone else's position to an inborn lack of intellectual capacity isn’t OK.

The debate over whether AM blew it this off season is sufficient on it's merits without the need to make it personal.

And this is what I don't understand. How did we get to the point where a clearly lousy off season performance by AM gets a free pass?

Excellent post by the way.

MSK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when guys like Tex go someplace else, he puts up INCREDIBLE numbers that we could have used.

If a guy like Tex could be had on a short term deal or if it was like football and we could cut him 3 years into his contract when his numbers drop it would make more sense to be a lot more agressive in FA. In the current system where a guy like Teix can command 8 years it makes a lot less sense. While we could definately use the kind of numbers that many FA will put up in their first year or two I think the franchise could do without the the kind of numbers these mega free agents usually put up in the 2nd half of their deals especially at the % of the teams payroll dollars those type of players consume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a guy like Tex could be had on a short term deal or if it was like football and we could cut him 3 years into his contract when his numbers drop it would make more sense to be a lot more agressive in FA. In the current system where a guy like Teix can command 8 years it makes a lot less sense. While we could definately use the kind of numbers that many FA will put up in their first year or two I think the franchise could do without the the kind of numbers these mega free agents usually put up in the 2nd half of their deals especially at the % of the teams payroll dollars those type of players consume.

But isn't that the risk we need to take? Do you honestly believe Tex's performance will drop off the table dramatically?

And unless he has a no-trade clause, it does take money to make money. Whatever financial hit the team takes with his payroll signing can be easily made up by filling seats during a successful season.

We have to get out of the mindset that the Orioles will be crippled by any risk taking. Angelos is adverse to taking risks after Belle, but that doesn't mean risks aren't necessary or warranted.

MSK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever financial hit the team takes with his payroll signing can be easily made up by filling seats during a successful season.
How expensive do you think tickets are?

We had these conversations a lot during the Tex saga, counting on more than maybe $1-2M in added revenue because of signing a FA is a recipe for a poor financial decision. Winning does bring in more money, but one players doesn't build a winner. Nobody can sell enough tickets to justify a $20M+ contract.

As far as Tex falling off the table, no, I don't think he will. I think he'll be very good for most if not all of his contract. Which is why he was a guy I was willing to throw a $200M+ contract at even if signing him was a couple years too soon in our plan. I'm upset we didn't make a stronger effort to land him. I would've liked us to at least matched the Yankees offer if not beaten it.

However, and this part is in retrospect, I don't think there is any amount of money we could have offered him that the Yankees wouldn't have eventually topped, so even if Angelos did back up the Brinks truck to Tex's house, he still would've ended up in NY. That's where he always wanted to be, can't control the fact that he's a douchebag Yankee fan, and that's the one team that can simply overbid for any player they want to have. If the Yankees want a player, they get him. That's just how it is, they can overbid on anyone by 25-50% and have it make no financial impact to their franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that the risk we need to take? Do you honestly believe Tex's performance will drop off the table dramatically?

Will his performance completely drop off the table? Maybe, maybe not. I think he'll remain a decent player but I don't expect him to be anywhere near a $20m a year player in the 2nd half of his deal.

And unless he has a no-trade clause, it does take money to make money. Whatever financial hit the team takes with his payroll signing can be easily made up by filling seats during a successful season.

We have to get out of the mindset that the Orioles will be crippled by any risk taking. Angelos is adverse to taking risks after Belle, but that doesn't mean risks aren't necessary or warranted.

MSK

Taking calculated risks make sense. Paying $20+m a year for a player like Teix when his peak production in the deal is going to be for years where even if he plays like a superstar you aren't going to win anyway is not smart management. When the young talent develops and we're a 85-90 win team it will then make some sense to overpay and get a premium FA to fill in at a position of need and take us to the next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a set group of dudes that believe they have the lock on all "intellectual discourse" on the site and anyone that posts thoughts and/or feelings outside of the umbrella of what they consider to be "legitimate" dialogue is quickly lambasted and ridiculed.

It happens here all the time, and its funny to me, but I can see how it can be frustrating and ridiculous to constantly be challenged for just posting your feelings on a MESSAGE BOARD.

Its a MESSAGE BOARD, not "me and a few of my sabermetric demagogue online cohorts" discussion site.

Like I said, its funny to me, but some folks let their passions get to them, and I have no right to say whether or not its "legit" subject matter for the Orioles Hangout.

MSK

I really wish you would just drop this crap and just post about baseball. We get it, you feel oppressed, woe is you, the logic squad is out to get you. What do you want? To complain about the FO and not have people argue with you? That is all that is going on here. No one has ever said you don't have the right to post your opinion, but you just spew the same crap over and over as if the OH is some Gestapo out to squelch free thought.

There are more optimistic people here than the Sun Board, Roch's blog, etc. etc., but rather than making sweeping generalizations about some conspiratorial restriction of dialogue, why not just post your opinions, hope you maybe change a mind or two, and leave it at that?

If you can't take people countering your viewpoints, why bother post here? I'll agree that counterarguments can be cutt-throat and not always polite, but it really seems like you take people responding to your ideas too personally. You like to use the line "its a freaking message board" but you seem to get way more up in arms about how the board doesn't meet your expectations than just about anyone else.

I'm not trying to get personal, I just want to see you make posts without playing the matyr/victim game. Really that is all. You can address issues without constantly telling people how your soapbox is in the minority and everyone else is against you.

Sincerely,

Frustrated "Member of the Logic Squad"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish you would just drop this crap and just post about baseball. We get it, you feel oppressed, woe is you, the logic squad is out to get you. What do you want? To complain about the FO and not have people argue with you? That is all that is going on here. No one has ever said you don't have the right to post your opinion, but you just spew the same crap over and over as if the OH is some Gestapo out to squelch free thought.

There are more optimistic people here than the Sun Board, Roch's blog, etc. etc., but rather than making sweeping generalizations about some conspiratorial restriction of dialogue, why not just post your opinions, hope you maybe change a mind or two, and leave it at that?

If you can't take people countering your viewpoints, why bother post here? I'll agree that counterarguments can be cutt-throat and not always polite, but it really seems like you take people responding to your ideas too personally. You like to use the line "its a freaking message board" but you see to get way more up in arms about how the board doesn't meet your expectations than just about anyone else.

I'm not trying to get personal, I just want to see you make posts without playing the matyr/victim game. Really that is all. You can address issues without constantly telling people how your soapbox is in the minority and everyone else is against you.

Sincerely,

Frustrated "Member of the Logic Squad"

Whoa whoa whoa! Who put YOU in the Logic Squad? Wasn't me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the "spend money no matter what" crowd would have a better point if the free agents from last year were actually producing and helping their teams win this year.

Lackey has had 3 starts. 2 good and 1 awful. His team is 4-9. Millwood's definately been better and costed much less.

Chone Figgins was probably the 2nd best hitter out there. He's hitting .238 and his slugging is a horrifying .310. His team is below .500. Tejada has been better.

Matt Holiday has been the best of the bunch and yet Pie was outplaying him until he got hurt. Even still, the difference wouldn't translate into much.

Do you want the team to actually be better for a long period of time or do you just feel better when your team spends $200 million and stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, what do you call it when many other teams sign guys WE COULD USE and then folks get on here and start saying it was a good thing we didn't sign the premium FA?

To me, that screams apologist.

To me, that says that the FO missed the boat and some fans accept the FOs stunning ineptitude and try to back up those ridiculous decisions with long posts about how we'll "lose our future" because the guy will leave or we'll have to "give up our entire farm."

Its like there's some unspoken rule that you can't criticize AM around here unless you're approved by the OH Logic Squad. I don't know why a lot of the FO gets a free pass around here from some of the members, but if I am needlessly critical, some folks are ridiculously soft on the FO.

This happens every. Single. Time. We "try" to go for a major FA.

AM or PA makes token offer lower than other teams' STARTING BID.

We hear that we "tried" to get him.

FA signs with another team.

We hear that we "tried" to get him.

Rinse, cycle, repeat.

Some people on the OH will argue that we shouldn't have bid because the guy would = less than a certain percentage of wins. But when guys like Tex go someplace else, he puts up INCREDIBLE numbers that we could have used.

How many games this season have we have RISP and missed out on a clutch bat? How many games LAST season where we had RISP and missed out on a clutch at bat?

Its always someone saying that we don't need to sign this person or that person. WHICH IS FINE. But if someone says the FO sucks, they have the right to do that.

MSK

See this is where our points of view diverge. AM said, two years ago, that the FA spree would not occur until this team was ready to compete. That the FA spending would only coincide with the conclusion of the rebuilding and maturation of our top prospects. Clearly, since it takes more than two years to rebuild a system like that, I'm not ready to get all upset and begin making comparisons that don't fit. Three years from now, if this is still a conversation to have, I'll share your sentiment. Until then.... oye.

And seriously, dude, you need to stop equating yourself to some abused poster. No one is saying you can't complain--people are challenging your ideas because they see flaws in it. I'm not going to repeat over and over that I'm not saying you're wrong, you're ignoring posts that deflate your rhetoric and focusing on small words and phrases to boost your agenda. It's like listening to Sarah Palin at a tea party.

Besides, as you say, it's just a message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the "spend money no matter what" crowd would have a better point if the free agents from last year were actually producing and helping their teams win this year.

Lackey has had 3 starts. 2 good and 1 awful. His team is 4-9. Millwood's definately been better and costed much less.

Chone Figgins was probably the 2nd best hitter out there. He's hitting .238 and his slugging is a horrifying .310. His team is below .500. Tejada has been better.

Matt Holiday has been the best of the bunch and yet Pie was outplaying him until he got hurt. Even still, the difference wouldn't translate into much.

Do you want the team to actually be better for a long period of time or do you just feel better when your team spends $200 million and stinks.

Did i just read the Matt Holiday and Pie is not much of a difference? Pie has how many allstar appearance and 300 avg seasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s take a look at some of what you actually said:

It looks to me that you’ve constructed an environment populated by two distinct classes, let’s call them the “Haves” and the “Have Nots”, after all it’s explicit in your first paragraph. In fairness it should be noted that you’ve graciously found a place for those of us who you presume are not blessed with ‘vision’ in this Brave New World of yours. I guess we unfortunates don’t have “some of the necessities” in this regard, huh? I’m choosing my words carefully here.

I escapes me why all this convoluted pseudo-intellectualizing is necessary when it’s a simple case of one point-of-view vs. another but evidently you and others before you feel compelled to delve into an area most people are smart enough to leave alone. Do you honestly think anything good can come of dismissing another’s position as a congenital inability to understand?

I think that AM missed an opportunity or two this off season to improve the team. That puts me squarely in opposition to the conventional wisdom here and that’s perfectly OK by me. To attribute my or anyone else's position to an inborn lack of intellectual capacity isn’t OK.

In my opinion, have and have not theorizing licenses all kinds of sloppy thinking. If you want to see the consequences on the lives and careers of two basically decent men when that thought process is carelessly applied to the subject of race, then Google former baseball executive Al Campanis and former NFL broadcaster Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder.

The debate over whether AM blew it this off season is sufficient on it's merits without the need to make it personal.

Or... you could look at it as "some people are born with blue hair, others with brown" or "some people are born with street smarts and others have book smarts."

I did not say that having vision is like a heavenly blessing and that you are placed in a superior class if you do have it. I simply stated some people are born with this ability to plan for the future of an organization or really anything and some people work better in the present. That's it.

EDIT: I will add this and correct myself... having vision is not a complete "you got it or you don't" as my original post may have led on. I do believe some people may have "some" vision and I believe some can be learned. But in the end, I do believe that for the most part this is something that you are born with or without. And if you don't have it, you are usually strong in other areas that people who do have it are weak in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did i just read the Matt Holiday and Pie is not much of a difference? Pie has how many allstar appearance and 300 avg seasons?

I think the point was that there hasn't been much difference between them THIS year (thus far).

Since this thread was started obviously as a reaction to the 1-11 start, you have to take into consideration that even if we had signed Matt Holiday, it's not unlikely that we would have started...1-11. Thus leading to the same knee jerk reactions, and yet we would have done exactly what the OP was asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • It's fine, but I would personally prefer having Cowser and Adley taking tons of pitches back-to-back before Gunnar further punishes the opposing starting pitcher with high exit velo barrels. 
    • I was going to say pretty much the same thing about Cowser in my post, but left out my thoughts to keep the post more Gunnar-centric. But I totally agree that Cowser fits the best as this team's leadoff hitter, especially since Holliday doesn't look like he's going to make an impact offensively as early as most of us thought heading into the season.  Going back to last season, I've said Cowser has the best mix of patience, hit tool, power, and speed to be a great leadoff hitter. The strikeouts are most likely always going to be high with him, but he has .380-.400+ OBP makeup, and having someone like that hitting leadoff with Adley and Gunnar hitting directly behind Cowser is going to set things up for an elite offense which is much more dynamic and less one-dimensional than the what we've seen up until this point. Cowser Adley Gunnar Westburg O'Hearn Santander Mountcastle Is an ideal top 7 against RHP for right now, with Kjerstad (replacing Hays) and Mayo (essentially replacing Mateo and bumping Westburg to 2B) making the lineup legitimately scary within the next couple months. Mullins and Hays need to be phased out, with Santander and Mountcastle not far behind if those two continue struggling and not reaching base enough to justify hitting in the middle of the order.
    • A lot of teams (likely driven by analytics) are putting their best overall hitter at 2 (like the Yankees batting Soto 2, and the Dodgers batting Shohei 2) to maximize ABs while guaranteeing that a high-OBP guy is batting in front of him to give him opportunities with men on base.  That's probably what we want.  It seems logical considering how thoroughly debunked small-ball in the first inning has been.  Rutschman at 3 is fine.
    • Realistically I think Adley as the leadoff guy is the best lineup for us but if he has trouble batting leadoff in half the games because he can't get his catcher's gear off fast enough then I get it.   Cowser has continued to be incredibly patient, and if Adley can't be our leadoff guy then Cowser is probably our next best option.  Of course Cowser also hits a lot of bombs, so it'd be interesting if he goes on another heater.   If Cowser gets off the schneid then Cowser leadoff and Gunnar at 2 could be incredibly potent.  I don't think Cowser is actually playing that badly, he's just been running into some bad luck.  And he's starting to wake up a little bit anyway.
    • Agreed, appreciate the stats. Gunnar isn't a leadoff hitter - he's a prototypical #3 hitter or cleanup hitter. Hyde writes poor lineups, and Gunnar hitting leadoff has been one of the consistent problems with the offense this season. Gunnar hitting mostly solo shots is both a consequence and reflection of this offense's flaws - the O's have too many low-OBP hitters in the lineup (hitting in less-than-optimal spots for the most part) and are too reliant on solo homers to generate runs. At least Hyde has started hitting Westburg leadoff against LHP, which is progress, but Hyde is way too stubborn and too slow to make the correct adjustments. He's very similar to Buck Showalter in that respect.  Anyway, I look forward to Hyde waking up and moving Gunnar down to #3/#4 against RHP.  
    • While the return on the Tettleton trade wasn't ideal, 1: I don't think you can really expect a 30 year old catcher to put up a career year and then follow it up with another one, and 2: we had Chris Hoiles who played quite well for us following Tettleton's departure.  If we had forward thinking GMs we probably would split them at C and give them DH/1B/OF games on their non catching days, which is what Detroit did with Tettleton to prolong his career after 1992.  (He was basically the same hitter from 1993-1995 but he stopped catching with regularity so his WAR was much lower.)   The Davis trade was so completely undefensible on every level, not the least of which because we already had a player who was at least as good as Davis was on the team, but he didn't fit the stereotypical batting profile of a 1B.  At least today teams wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 10 HR first baseman if he's got an OBP of .400.
    • The Glenn Davis trade was so bad it overshadowed another really bad trade in team history. The Orioles traded Mickey Tettleton that same offseason for Jeff Robinson in part because Tettleton had an off year in 1990 with a .223 batting average and a .381 slugging percentage. Except Tettleton drew 116 walks making his OBP .376 and his OPS+ was 116. Jeff Robinson was coming off a 5.96 ERA in 145 innings pitched. I have no idea what the team was thinking with this trade. Robinson did manage to lower his ERA in 1991 to 5.18 his only Orioles season. There's no way this trade is made today in the age of analytics. Tettleton meanwhile put up 171 home runs and an .859 OPS for the remainder of his career. 😬 Just a bad trade that doesn't get talked about enough thanks to Glenn Davis.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...