Per Connolly: O's and LaRoche have interest in each other...

[Sports Guy]

You don't believe they can bring one of the DH's here. It is fairly unrealistic to believe the O's could trade for one of the young 1st baseman often discussed... and you are totally unwilling to give a 3rd year to LaRoche?

LaRoche isn't really that good.

He is a 2-2.5ish WAR player...He has value but his upside is limited.

I would give him 2 years but wouldn't be excited by it.

To be honest, I would rather move Scott to first than sign LaRoche for 2 years but we need another bat and I am not convinced we get one of the DH's or get a new LFer.

To be honest, I am perfectly fine with making Reimold the everyday DH and putting Scott at first vs giving LaRoche 2 and especially 3 years...However, I know the Orioles won't do that.

If you could re-sign Huff again for what we gave him when we signed him, would you make that deal?(in hindsight)

[Mark Carver]

All I can say is "Go Nats!"

A .788 OPS while an improvement at 1B is not going to strike fear in any pitcher nor make other players in our lineup see better pitches.

Luke Scott and either Vlad or Thome at DH would be a better combination of offense than Luke Scott and LaRoche.

Vlad away from Arlington in 2010 = .796 OPS.

[TGO]

Why are people acting like the .788 OPS is the career norm for LaRoche?

He's a career .827 OPS guy, with 4 seasons of over .840 OPS and 120 OPS+.

While not elite for a 1st baseman, that's a massive improvement over what the Orioles have had.

I'd give him a 3 year deal without hesitation. He's not a player who's salary will hinder your plans it the slightest.

At the moment Bill James has him pegged at .803 for 2011, so better than last year but not quite what you're expecting. That's just a projection but I think you are forgetting about the age curve here. I would not bet on LaRoche posting an OPS over .827.

[Scrat1]

Still prefer Lee (though not at 3 years), but LaRoche's power will obviously play up here. With the addition of Hardy and Reynolds, and having Reimold on the bench, we should be okay with lefties.

[Mizerooskie]

At the moment Bill James has him pegged at .803 for 2011, so better than last year but not quite what you're expecting. That's just a projection but I think you are forgetting about the age curve here. I would not bet on LaRoche posting an OPS over .827.

I'm forgetting the age curve? Seems to me that the people preferring the player 4 years older are forgetting the age curve.

Even if he were to repeat his .788 OPS from last season, that was good for 14th in the MLB at the position. I'd be more than happy with the O's being around the middle of the league offensively at 1B. It's a huge upgrade from what they've had.

Frankly, this talk about a 3rd year being an absolute deal-breaker makes no sense to me. It's the Orioles. They likely need to give more money or term to a free agent to convince him to come to Baltimore. LaRoche's salary is going to be what? $5M-$8M? That certainly will not handcuff the front office at all over the next 3 years. At worst, you trade him to a team like the Nats.

[Sports Guy]

I'm forgetting the age curve? Seems to me that the people preferring the player 4 years older are forgetting the age curve.

Even if he were to repeat his .788 OPS from last season, that was good for 14th in the MLB at the position. I'd be more than happy with the O's being around the middle of the league offensively at 1B. It's a huge upgrade from what they've had.

Frankly, this talk about a 3rd year being an absolute deal-breaker makes no sense to me. It's the Orioles. They likely need to give more money or term to a free agent to convince him to come to Baltimore. LaRoche's salary is going to be what? $5M-$8M? That certainly will not handcuff the front office at all over the next 3 years. At worst, you trade him to a team like the Nats.

Difference is Lee has proven he can be productive well into his 30s and there aren;t any signs of decline in his peripheral batting stats.

[DannyO]

The Orioles are beginning to lose fans to the Nationals and this is a huge offseason for Baltimore.

????? The Nationals have something like 14 fans. Most people, even in Washington, don't know they exist, despite the new stadium.

[Mizerooskie]

Difference is Lee has proven he can be productive well into his 30s and there aren;t any signs of decline in his peripheral batting stats.

Since 2005 (6 seasons), there have only been 5 first baseman 35 or older that have put up better than an .800 OPS:

Scott Hatteberg

Kevin Millar

Jason Giambi

Carlos Delgado

Todd Helton

[weams]

????? The Nationals have something like 14 fans. Most people, even in Washington, don't know they exist, despite the new stadium.

They will be contracted.

[waroriole]

Since 2005 (6 seasons), there have only been 5 first baseman 35 or older that have put up better than an .800 OPS:

Scott Hatteberg

Kevin Millar

Jason Giambi

Carlos Delgado

Todd Helton

And Lee is equal to or better than everyone one of them.

[Mizerooskie]

And Lee is equal to or better than everyone one of them.

Disagree. Delgado walked more, and hit much more consistently with power. Helton's OPS was driven by his elite ability to get on base, which was significantly better than Lee's. Frankly, Lee's offensive production over his career isn't even in the same ballpark as Giambi, though I'd throw out Giambi's season based on his steroid use.

I'd say Lee is better than Millar and Hatteberg. But, Millar's .800+ OPS season really happened in his age 34 season; he turned 35 in late September of that year. Hatteberg, I really have no explanation for.

But the fact remains, it's really uncommon for 35+ first baseman to produce offensively in the post-steroid era.

I just don't see anything that indicates Lee will bounce back from a .774 OPS at the age of 35. If he were 5 years younger, sure, I could buy the argument about peripherals. But at his age, he's due for a precipitous statistical fall.

[24fps]

2 years is fine. 3 years I'm iffy about.

Most of us would prefer 2 years for LaRoche, but we are the Baltimore Orioles after all.

I think if we're going to get him, we'll not only have to go three years, but also pay more than most people will think is justified. I'm not going to lose sleep over this. LaRoche is a solid ML player and a significant upgrade, not a castoff, not a has-been.

I say put Luke in LF, sign Ordonez or Vlad to a short term contract (high $$$ if necessary to offset the short-term nature) and let Pie and Reimold fight for playing time.

Meanwhile, once the excitement of the off season dies down, Andy MacPhail can retreat to his office and contemplate the remarkable new notion of viewing team building as a dynamic, ongoing process that can provide hours and hours of entertainment all year long.

[LookinUp]

????? The Nationals have something like 14 fans. Most people, even in Washington, don't know they exist, despite the new stadium.

I spend a lot of time in DC and there is definitely a cult following for that team. There is so much lobbying money in that town and the nats are a common social thread for both business and personal relationships, especially with transient DC "citizens."

When Stras and Harper are both in the majors, watch out.

[Sports Guy]

Disagree. Delgado walked more, and hit much more consistently with power. Helton's OPS was driven by his elite ability to get on base, which was significantly better than Lee's. Frankly, Lee's offensive production over his career isn't even in the same ballpark as Giambi, though I'd throw out Giambi's season based on his steroid use.

I'd say Lee is better than Millar and Hatteberg. But, Millar's .800+ OPS season really happened in his age 34 season; he turned 35 in late September of that year. Hatteberg, I really have no explanation for.

But the fact remains, it's really uncommon for 35+ first baseman to produce offensively in the post-steroid era.

I just don't see anything that indicates Lee will bounce back from a .774 OPS at the age of 35. If he were 5 years younger, sure, I could buy the argument about peripherals. But at his age, he's due for a precipitous statistical fall.

By anything, i assume all you are looking at is age, correct? Because you can't really show me stats that back up that claim.

His LD%, BB rate, contact rates, etc...all of that is within his career norms. He had a big second half last year after struggling in the first half..when he was battling injuries.

He is also still solid defensively.

[Mizerooskie]

By anything, i assume all you are looking at is age, correct? Because you can't really show me stats that back up that claim.

His LD%, BB rate, contact rates, etc...all of that is within his career norms. He had a big second half last year after struggling in the first half..when he was battling injuries.

He is also still solid defensively.

You dismiss his age so easily. It's not an insignificant issue at all. In fact, I'd argue it's the most significant issue, especially for a player who battled injuries last year.

Here's a solid statistical analysis that backs up my views:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-do-baseball-players-age-part-1/

Take particular note of the following table:

Table III: Average change in offensive performance from one age to the next (1980-2008)                           Average   Age                     Change   Cumulative Couplet      Players      in LW    Difference  20/21          27        18.4      -27.1  21/22         140         9.4      -17.7  22/23         329         4.6      -13.1  23/24         636         6.0       -7.1  24/25         993         3.0       -4.1  25/26        1224         2.4       -1.7  26/27        1272         1.5       -0.2  27/28        1236         0.2        0.0  28/29        1160        -2.0       -2.0  29/30        1064        -0.4       -2.4  30/31         956        -2.0       -4.4  31/32         819        -1.8       -6.2  32/33         716        -1.7       -7.9  33/34         581        -3.1      -11.0  34/35         461        -3.7      -14.7  35/36         358        -3.0      -17.7  36/37         266        -3.4      -21.1  37/38         183        -4.0      -25.1  38/39         116        -5.9      -31.0  39/40          70        -5.9      -36.9

Any analysis of peripherals is useless without a similar analysis of the expected decline of the player due to aging.