The Redemption of Andy MacPhail

[Stotle]

Totally agree. I think the appeasing the fan base option is a cop out personally.

I think it holds a lot of water in some instances. But BAL has little fanbase left, and it's odd to see an organization worry about a couple million saved on Koji/Millwood (just an example, I'm not looking to debate that) and have no issue tying up $40 million in a player that is unlikely to produce during that time frame.

[mweb]

You haven't voiced a plan other than "wait for Tillman/Britton/Arrieta/Jones/Wieters to all get good at the same time". Last year Dunn was a 3.6 WAR player according to Baseball-reference.com and Lee was sub-1.0. I like Lee as a riskier player that could pay dividends, but I think Dunn is a much safer bet (and would accordingly be more expensive). His bat has been worth 3.9, 3.5, 4.1 and 3.9 wins over the last three years. If you get him to split DH/1B you are taking away his defensive liabilities. If you get him to switch fully to DH and you bring in someone like Fielder, you get none of his defensive shortcomings.

Dunn just turned 31 last month; Lee turned 35 in September. I think Lee is a very nice value target if you get him for one year, and an okay target for two years. I think Dunn is a better hitter and will produce more in the middle of the line-up.

Public defensive metrics are suspect at 1B, and as ugly as he looks at times I am not convinced he costs BAL a crazy amount at 1B. If he's in LF, I think it's a different ballgame and he is a huge liability.

In this one thread you mean which isn't called state your plan to get us to contention. Ok, you got me there.

I've stated various plans multiple times on this board. I don't expect you to recall them, but it would be nice if you didn't flat out state I don't have a plan based on whatever is in this thread.

As far as Lee vs Dunn, well the stats are more favorable to Lee on FanGraphs. I doubt Dunn will be much better over the next two years than Lee and I highly doubt he'll be more valuable enough to justify the difference in cost and the likely declining years in year 3 and 4 of the contract.

The bottom line is we have a difference of opinion between Dunn and Lee and that's all we are discussing now, but yet somehow that means we have very different plans to get to contention. I don't see how that can be concluded from that.

[Tony-OH]

You haven't voiced a plan other than "wait for Tillman/Britton/Arrieta/Jones/Wieters to all get good at the same time".

Last year Dunn was a 3.6 WAR player according to Baseball-reference.com and Lee was sub-1.0. I like Lee as a riskier player that could pay dividends, but I think Dunn is a much safer bet (and would accordingly be more expensive). His bat has been worth 3.9, 3.5, 4.1 and 3.9 wins over the last three years. If you get him to split DH/1B you are taking away his defensive liabilities. If you get him to switch fully to DH and you bring in someone like Fielder, you get none of his defensive shortcomings.

Dunn just turned 31 last month; Lee turned 35 in September. I think Lee is a very nice value target if you get him for one year, and an okay target for two years. I think Dunn is a better hitter and will produce more in the middle of the line-up.

Public defensive metrics are suspect at 1B, and as ugly as he looks at times I am not convinced he costs BAL a crazy amount at 1B. If he's in LF, I think it's a different ballgame and he is a huge liability.

It spoke volumes to me that MacPhail didn't think Dunn was worth the contract he got. Dunn was the exact kind of bat this batting order needed, especially by taking on risky "comeback" players like Reynolds an Hardy. They needed a sure thing, but Lee is another guy we have to hope comes back to his old self. For me, the Orioles missed the boat on Dunn, and now they are left with either a guy who need a comeback year (Lee) or a guy who at best is going to be an average first baseman and who is no better than a number 5 hitter (LaRoche).

[mweb]

Knowing the history of 2B decline at Roberts's age, how could it be reasonably expected that he'd be healthy and productive for any significant part of his contract? Using the criteria you've set forth earlier in this thread, I think BAL needs to be a competitor in the first two years of Roberts' deal for it to make any sense.

Ok. So what are you countering here? I said it doesn't look good in hindsight.

[mweb]

Well, Dunn is one example I threw out there and we are only discussing him. I wouldn't have had an issue paying Crawford and adjusting my approach (though I would have essentially made the Werth offer earlier in the season so that he was the first "BIG" deal of the off-season). I would trade one or two of the young pitchers, I'd trade Jones, etc.

I don't know that you disagree with anything above, but your point against getting Dunn was that the young core isn't ready. I don't think the youg core being ready is all that relevant anymore. At some point you need to try and win, and not just win baseball games but win more baseball games than New York, Boston, Toronto and Tampa.

This off-season is a very nice one so far for BAL. They still need a lot more.

That was a point in which I said depending on the player it can be something that still makes sense. I just don't think Dunn is that player.

[Stotle]

In this one thread you mean which isn't called state your plan to get us to contention. Ok, you got me there.

I've stated various plans multiple times on this board. I don't expect you to recall them, but it would be nice if you didn't flat out state I don't have a plan based on whatever is in this thread.

Sorry, I was only basing it off this thread. I asked what your plan was to move from 81 wins to 90 wins and didn't remember anything specific from other threads. Didn't mean to misrepresent your position.

As far as Lee vs Dunn, well the stats are more favorable to Lee on FanGraphs. I doubt Dunn will be much better over the next two years than Lee and I highly doubt he'll be more valuable enough to justify the difference in cost and the likely declining years in year 3 and 4 of the contract.

The bottom line is we have a difference of opinion between Dunn and Lee and that's all we are discussing now, but yet somehow that means we have very different plans to get to contention. I don't see how that can be concluded from that.

Yup, you summed it up nicely. We just have a difference in opinion on Lee/Dunn.

I guess I'd need to review or be presented with your plan, because from this convo (which is all I'm going by because I don't recall other convos) it seems like you want to wait for the core to get the team to 85 wins and then try and add a couple big pieces. As I stated, I think there is merit there, but I would be adding pieces as they become available at this point. I wouldn't be waiting for big steps in progression.

[Stotle]

Ok. So what are you countering here? I said it doesn't look good in hindsight.

Just that, even without hindsight, there wasn't a good reason to think he would be useful outside of his first couple of contract years. That means BAL needed to be competitive in those two years -- and nothing the FO was doing pointed to that being a possibility.

I wasn't trying to pile on, I just didn't think your non-hindsight reasons were pursuasive.

[Frobby]

Totally agree. I think the appeasing the fan base option is a cop out personally.

I don't like the phrase "appeasing the fan base." Part of the value of any franchise is "goodwill." Take two players with totally equal skills and other attributes, one of whom has played for the team for 5+ years and the other of whom is a stranger to the organization, and the fans would rather pay to see the guy they know. Even in the age of the free agent, fans have loyalty to players who have been around a while, and a team that treats its players like chattel risks alienating its fan base. It doesn't exactly inspire loyalty in the other players you might want to keep, either. So, sometimes a team is going to keep a guy 1-2 years too long or pay them a little more than what their performance strictly dictates. That's not "appeasing" anyone, that's how business is done in almost every industry.

[Sports Guy]

I don't like the phrase "appeasing the fan base." Part of the value of any franchise is "goodwill." Take two players with totally equal skills and other attributes, one of whom has played for the team for 5+ years and the other of whom is a stranger to the organization, and the fans would rather pay to see the guy they know. Even in the age of the free agent, fans have loyalty to players who have been around a while, and a team that treats its players like chattel risks alienating its fan base. It doesn't exactly inspire loyalty in the other players you might want to keep, either. So, sometimes a team is going to keep a guy 1-2 years too long or pay them a little more than what their performance strictly dictates. That's not "appeasing" anyone, that's how business is done in almost every industry.

Are the Orioles, as an organization, better or worse off with BRob right now?

Would less fans be at the stadium? Would the extra money be helpful to us?

Was the contract money well spent?

[mweb]

Sorry, I was only basing it off this thread. I asked what your plan was to move from 81 wins to 90 wins and didn't remember anything specific from other threads. Didn't mean to misrepresent your position.

Yup, you summed it up nicely. We just have a difference in opinion on Lee/Dunn.

I guess I'd need to review or be presented with your plan, because from this convo (which is all I'm going by because I don't recall other convos) it seems like you want to wait for the core to get the team to 85 wins and then try and add a couple big pieces. As I stated, I think there is merit there, but I would be adding pieces as they become available at this point. I wouldn't be waiting for big steps in progression.

So weird that this thread has resulted in me stating some of my ideas to contend, but ok...

Well other than getting Lee instead of Dunn which I obviously think would lead to about the same amount of wins, I've also been a big advocate for trading Jones for something of value. I did also state that in this thread. For instance I advocated dealing him in a trade for Josh Johnson when he was rumored to be available last off-season. Same with Upton and Rasmus this off-season. Billy Butler is also someone I'd be interested in a trade involving Jones. Possibly involve Gordon and/or Soria in that. I'm also open to dealing some of the young pitching for good young talent. I'm not or wasn't open to dealing a lot for 1 year of AGon or Fielder though.

I was interested to some extent in Beltre, Crawford, Werth, Dunn, and Lee this off-season, but again, like most on here, I underestimated the market. I would not go to 7/154 or more for Crawford or 7/126 for Werth or 7/168 or more for Lee or 6/96 or more for Beltre. For the rest of this off-season, I'd like Lee, maybe a low-risk high reward bat like Hawpe or even Nick Johnson for depth, and 1-2 of the top relievers on the market that don't cost a pick. Plus, obviously continue to explore the trade market.

So my plan may not bring in an impact player right now, and I guess you would have with Crawford, but I don't think staying away from giving him 7/154 or more makes me a wait and see guy.

[mweb]

Just that, even without hindsight, there wasn't a good reason to think he would be useful outside of his first couple of contract years. That means BAL needed to be competitive in those two years -- and nothing the FO was doing pointed to that being a possibility.

I wasn't trying to pile on, I just didn't think your non-hindsight reasons were pursuasive.

Well of course you didn't.

I haven't seen anything to persuade me either, so it is what it is.

I do think at the time most on here felt we were on a track to possibly contend by this coming year though. I also feel like he was a decent bet to be worth what he was going to be paid, but obviously the back injury has sprung up and hurt that possibility.

[Stotle]

Well of course you didn't.

I haven't seen anything to persuade me either, so it is what it is.

I do think at the time most on here felt we were on a track to possibly contend by this coming year though. I also feel like he was a decent bet to be worth what he was going to be paid, but obviously the back injury has sprung up and hurt that possibility.

I agree with this, though I would say that my belief was based on the idea that AM would have filled some of these holes, long term or otherwise, by now. I didn't expect to enter the 2010 off-season looking for a 1b/3b/ss, and entire middle of the order, and a bunch of BP arms.

[Stotle]

So weird that this thread has resulted in me stating some of my ideas to contend, but ok...

Well other than getting Lee instead of Dunn which I obviously think would lead to about the same amount of wins, I've also been a big advocate for trading Jones for something of value. I did also state that in this thread. For instance I advocated dealing him in a trade for Josh Johnson when he was rumored to be available last off-season. Same with Upton and Rasmus this off-season. Billy Butler is also someone I'd be interested in a trade involving Jones. Possibly involve Gordon and/or Soria in that. I'm also open to dealing some of the young pitching for good young talent. I'm not or wasn't open to dealing a lot for 1 year of AGon or Fielder though.

I was interested to some extent in Beltre, Crawford, Werth, Dunn, and Lee this off-season, but again, like most on here, I underestimated the market. I would not go to 7/154 or more for Crawford or 7/126 for Werth or 7/168 or more for Lee or 6/96 or more for Beltre. For the rest of this off-season, I'd like Lee, maybe a low-risk high reward bat like Hawpe or even Nick Johnson for depth, and 1-2 of the top relievers on the market that don't cost a pick. Plus, obviously continue to explore the trade market.

So my plan may not bring in an impact player right now, and I guess you would have with Crawford, but I don't think staying away from giving him 7/154 or more makes me a wait and see guy.

Yup, you are right. We see things almost exactly the same.

[mweb]

I agree with this, though I would say that my belief was based on the idea that AM would have filled some of these holes, long term or otherwise, by now. I didn't expect to enter the 2010 off-season looking for a 1b/3b/ss, and entire middle of the order, and a bunch of BP arms.

Fair enough. So for various reasons, some AM's fault and some not imo, we were not as good going into last year or as primed for a run at the playoffs this year. That has obvioulsy hurt the timing issue with Brob's contract, and that was a concern of mine at the time. For quite some time I would have been happy with dealing him, but it never happened and at times the offers were not inspiring anyway, so I was content with the extension at the time.

[mweb]

Yup, you are right. We see things almost exactly the same.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not.