Sports Illustrated: Orioles Plan Flawed

[mweb]

Look, I wasn't the only one who wanted to dump Wigginton. Frankly he's been a pleasant surprise because he came to camp in shape and is playing everyday. Nobody could anticipate he'd be this good thus far.

As for Holliday. I think it's already been proven that he would have improved our offense. Just because Wigginton is outperforming him to this point doesn't mean that will remain the case for the rest of the season. Not to mention, it wouldn't hurt to have Holliday and Wigginton on this team.

Of course no one could predict Wiggy would get off to this great of a start, but I and plenty of others did predict he'd bounce back and hit more like he has for much of his career.

Yes, Holliday is certainly likely to have the better season at the plate.

However, you've constantly harped on how bad the offense has been so far and how much of a difference Holliday would make and how much a big bat would help the young guys.

Well Wiggy has been much better so far and he wouldn't be on the team if you had your way. So that really invalidates a lot of your comments regarding how bad the offense has done so far and that it's AM's fault and it would be so much better if he had done what you wanted.

Oh, but wait, we'd have Figgins and his .620 OPS instead of Tejada. I take it all back.

[Guest rochester]

Well that's all relative in my opinion. Is putting the lowest offer on the table considered "making a run"? Because we know he's done that before with big names.

So if he did go after AGon and had a package centered around say Tillman and Snyder would that be considered "making a run?" Because it shouldn't be I don't think.

It's no secret MacPhail is too conservative. He has plenty of track record on that previous to the Orioles on payroll and international prospects and free agents. And he's recreated that perception here.

The only thing that would throw us for a loop is actual results on some of these "making a run" for "lurking in the grass" attempts.

I'm "making a run" for Google right now. I'm offering $1billion dollars for the whole company. Is that making a run? It's not when Google is worth around $167.12 billion (as of Friday's market cap close)

I do not (neither do you) what the run was - I tend to believe that AM does not waste his time being completely unproductive by insulting other GMs intelligence like you "excellent" analogy re: Google.

Please show me where I said AM was NOT conservative? All I said was Making a run for AGon (IMO) should throw some "AM is too conservative" folks for a loop. I was a bit surprised myself.

Regarding Well that's all relative in my opinion. Is putting the lowest offer on the table considered "making a run"? Because we know he's done that before with big names. Examples? and proof where you know (or even believe) that the reason we lost someone was purely based on money. Face it, FAs do not want to come here

I am not trying to be an AM apologist here but if you really think about it - most FAs will not sign here for fair money and hardly do they then unless they are past their prime, have no other suitors or have had 3 years of significant decline.

[El Gordo]

No, I'm fairly confident that almost every GM would trade Reddick, Ellsbury and Bucholz for Tillman Jones and Reimold.

Bucholtz MiL and ML numbers are better than Tillmans, Ellsbury's ML numbers are better than Jones' and he's a better defender, Reimold may have a slight edge on Reddick, but he's older. So what are you basing this on besides your Koolaid?

[waroriole]

Bucholtz MiL and ML numbers are better than Tillmans, Ellsbury's ML numbers are better than Jones' and he's a better defender, Reimold may have a slight edge on Reddick, but he's older. So what are you basing this on besides your Koolaid?

:rolleyes:Typical of you, but to the main point. Jones may have lower numbers so far than Ellsbury but the potential is light years ahead. What does Jones figure to be? A .800 OPS guy who plays average to above average defense in CF. Ellsbury is what he's going to be, a .750 OPS guy who steals alot of bases. It took Buchholz a few tries before he was able to stick at the big league level, same with Tillman. The difference is that Tillman is 4 years younger.

[El Gordo]

If Bucholz is greater than Tillman (I agree) because he's ML proven, then why don't you use the same logic with Reimold vs Reddick? Reimold put up a full season last year with good numbers. Reddick has yet to do so. As for Jones vs. Ellsbury. I would bet that most GM's would trade Ellsbury straight up for Jones in a heartbeat. Bottom line, I think Bucholz sways the value towards the Red Sox package. It would be like us trading Matusz.

Jones can't steal bases, or get on bases to steal them, as well as Ellbury, and also won't hit for as much of an average. Ellsbury is a better defender. Jones will hit for more power but I value OBP and D more than HR's. Reimold's and Reddick's MiL numbers aren't that different Reimold has been injury prone is older and is not showing much this season. He is also a poor defender. So I would definitely prefer the Boston package to the O's, but the two are in the same ballpark. We would have to add something else to get AGonz most likely.

[Beach Bum]

I'm sure the Orioles under AM have a 1-year, 3 year and 5 year plan. For most of the last decade it seemed that Orioles had a series of one year plans that weren't endorsed by the Ownership and had little room for success. I am disappointed that the Orioles are not winning more often this year. However, I think the 3 & 5-year plans are looking good with the performance of the young pitchers (Orioles & minor leaguers). I'm much more hopeful than in the past. Hopefully, the Orioles can find the "big" bats that they need to compete. I'm willing to give AM a couple more off seasons before I call the plan flawed.

[NewMarketSean]

The only thing that was flawed this past offseason was signing Atkins to play 1B.

For 3B, it was an OK reclamation project, but for 1B, it was shaping up to be an epic disaster and thats exactly what it has been.

All the other moves were pretty solid and made sense for where this team was at. It's just that the Atkins deal was so bad that it overshadowed anything else.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yeah, but some really good plans might look like a complete mess midway through.

This should be reiterated.

Just look at some of the grand plans through history, even some of the successful ones. Operation Overlord, both before and after the Normandy landings and through the end of the Second World War, had plenty of points where mistakes were made and setbacks happened and the whole plan was questioned. Same with Grant's plan to end the Civil War.

There's a reason they call it the middle of the plan: it isn't nearly over yet.

[RShack]

Not sure who said "the model is flawed", the writer or the exec he spoke to. But whoever it was, that guy doesn't even know what "model" means. When discussing the signings over the winter, he's talking about short-term tactics. That's not the model, it has nothing to do with the model. It's nothing more than a holding action to get through this season. It's not like AM thinks Atkins is the key to the future. He's nothing but a temp spare part. Apparently the guy doesn't know the diff between getting disposable spare parts and signing Jay Payton for years...

[Say O!]

Not sure who said "the model is flawed", the writer or the exec he spoke to. But whoever it was, that guy doesn't even know what "model" means. When discussing the signings over the winter, he's talking about short-term tactics. That's not the model, it has nothing to do with the model. It's nothing more than a holding action to get through this season. It's not like AM thinks Atkins is the key to the future. He's nothing but a temp spare part. Apparently the guy doesn't know the diff between getting disposable spare parts and signing Jay Payton for years...

Excellent post. It's a different GM regime than before, but when discussing the O's, many execs/writers default to thinking about the last decade. it's not their fault really, after all, Angelos is still here.

And I'm hard pressed to see how the model can be criticized. Short-term execution, maybe. But at the end of the day, the model is not flawed. For mid-market teams, there are not too many other models to follow, really.

Option A: Internal player development

Option B: Trade and acquire like crazy to find "undervalued" players, aka, Billy Beane method.