MacPhail's FA signing history with the O's

[El Gordo]

I believe AM could easily trade either player and get back a package worthy of dealing either player.

I also believe that AM totally overrates their value and would ask for way too much for each player.

You didn't need to state this, it's obvious. I tend to be an agnostic on these things I wait for some sort of concrete evidence.

[hoosiers]

I'm going to assume you completely skipped over the data I provided, or else I'd have to ask how you could possibly say this?

Again, risk is made up of several components. Yes, AM has done a good job of avoiding catastrophic signings, simply because he's never offered a contract that had "catastrophic" as it's downside.

But he has consistently paid players with very limited upside (read: mediocre players) 5 to 10 times more than what their mid-case projection would have been worth. In many cases, this amounted to paying several millions of dollars for sub-replacement (negative value) production.

The vast majority of MacPhail's FA signings have been "mistake" signings. Very limited upside, and real downside, at inflated market values.

So, in my view, MacPhail has been totally averse to contracts that have presented both major cost and major benefit, and perfectly willing to make awful commitments to players who presented real risk (the same sub-replacement floor as big-contract players) with very, very limited reward (barely higher than the production you could get from AAAA players and MiL free agents).

I think it's time we stop substituting risk for cost. Risk is something that entails an analysis of the probabilities of cost and benefit. Just because a contract comes with great cost and great benefit doesn't necessarily make it "riskier" than a contract that comes with real cost and barely any benefit.

Have you compared the Os to other organizations? The total $ value of AM's mistakes is probably considerably less than most other organizations' bad contracts during AM's time here. This thread is a nice way to go crazy saying "Atkins was a terrible contract" (and it was), but there's no perspective provided. That does not excuse bad signings by AM, but poor contracts to middling, veteran players is par for the course for many, many teams.

Does the total of the contracts provided compare the $ paid by the great Tampa organization to Pat Burrell alone?

[Sports Guy]

Everything you say is true, however at some point a GM has to say this is the year I am going to become a winner. I think that is what MacPhail is trying to do. Tampa will have great starters but their pen and position players will be much less than what they were last year. Toronto is not doing anything that jumps them up in the standing this off season. They have made some long term moves but overall they are close to being the same team. If the O's are better and the Jays can't beat up on them as the did last year that will even out the two teams in the standings.

It would take something exceptional for the O's be finish better than the Red Sox or Yankees. But a good year could put the O's in position to make another jump the following year.

If MacPhail is saying it is time to stop the losing and be a winning franchise with Buck at the helm, I think that is hard to argue with. It could turn around the attendance dropping and change the national perspective of the O's into an up and coming team. Wouldn't that be a major coup?

One winning season is only going to mean so much. I think you are drastically overrating it. It will depend on how that is accomplished and it will depend on what AM is willing to do with things beyond that winning season.

If the Orioles have a winning season this year, the attendance spike will likely be subtle. It will be 2012 where you will see it but to sustain it, you need to make the right moves beyond that and I am not sure AM is the guy to do that.

[Sports Guy]

Of course, we don't know if either Scott or Guthrie has been shopped at various times in the past, and what has been offered for them.

In July '08, the A's traded Joe Blanton for a return of Adrian Cardenas, Matt Spencer and Josh Outman. Is that the kind of return we'd expect for Guthrie, and if so, is it worthwhile?

That package was actually pretty solid at the time...If we could get similar prospects for Guthrie as those guys, I would make the deal.

I have said it before..I expect a similar return to what we got for Sherrill only a little better.

I would expect a prospect like Alonzo...Or a prospect that is a top 50-60ish guy(ie, better than Bell) and maybe a DH type arm, not a Steve Johnson arm.

[Sports Guy]

Have you compared the Os to other organizations? The total $ value of AM's mistakes is probably considerably less than most other organizations' bad contracts during AM's time here. This thread is a nice way to go crazy saying "Atkins was a terrible contract" (and it was), but there's no perspective provided. That does not excuse bad signings by AM, but poor contracts to middling, veteran players is par for the course for many, many teams.

Does the total of the contracts provided compare the $ paid by the great Tampa organization to Pat Burrell alone?

Why do you always want to compare to other clubs? Everytime we get into discussions about this, you want to bring up what other teams are doing.

Who gives a damn what they are doing? Let's focus on the Orioles screw-ups and not worry about what the Giants are doing.

[Crazysilver03]

Have you compared the Os to other organizations? The total $ value of AM's mistakes is probably considerably less than most other organizations' bad contracts during AM's time here. This thread is a nice way to go crazy saying "Atkins was a terrible contract" (and it was), but there's no perspective provided. That does not excuse bad signings by AM, but poor contracts to middling, veteran players is par for the course for many, many teams.

Does the total of the contracts provided compare the $ paid by the great Tampa organization to Pat Burrell alone?

While the Orioles may have paid fewer dollars overall to bad contracts the last few years compared to other teams, it doesn't change the fact that the Orioles don't take chances and most of the players we wasted money on were low risk picks.

I hadn't realized we had wasted so much money on the low risk players before.

[wildcard]

One winning season is only going to mean so much. I think you are drastically overrating it. It will depend on how that is accomplished and it will depend on what AM is willing to do with things beyond that winning season.

If the Orioles have a winning season this year, the attendance spike will likely be subtle. It will be 2012 where you will see it but to sustain it, you need to make the right moves beyond that and I am not sure AM is the guy to do that.

Yes the moves made next off season are very important. But if things do work this off season and the team becomes a winning team the "Plan" will show that it is working. That will make it hard to change GMs. We can't really know if MacPhail is up to taking the O's to the next level until the team gets to the point to make that jump to the top.

The way the team looks after the 2011 season may be much different from the way it looks now. Matusz may be a true ace. Arrieta could be a great #2. Bergy a sinker balling innings eater that gives the team 200 innings of winning baseball. Britton may balance the rotation lefty/righty wise and prove to be a great performer. Where Wieters, Jones, Markakis and other young players are could be way different. Think if Hardy signs an extension an hits 20 HR in Camden. There is so much that can happen that changes the team and varies the value and importance of Guthrie and Scott next off season.

I guess we just have to play the season and see where the O's go. I just hope MacPhail can finish filling the holes this off season.

[GreatEight]

One winning season is only going to mean so much. I think you are drastically overrating it. It will depend on how that is accomplished and it will depend on what AM is willing to do with things beyond that winning season.

If the Orioles have a winning season this year, the attendance spike will likely be subtle. It will be 2012 where you will see it but to sustain it, you need to make the right moves beyond that and I am not sure AM is the guy to do that.

I agree with this a lot. I believe 2011 is about improving, not necessarily winning. If we go 82-80 next season, then follow that up with more 4th and 5th place finishes, whats the point? I think we have made improvements with Reynolds, and Hardy, with some more pieces to be had. I also think Guthrie and Scott might be at a all time high as far as what you could get for them in a trade. I'd say trade these guys and get some pieces to revamp the minors, possibly get one of those blocked 1st baseman I hear people on hear talk about, sign Lee/LaRoche, Thome/Vlad, a vet starter or two and without looking up WAR, the win total would be around the same.

I left out that the improving is also going to rely heavily on the "core" getting much better, not just adding Reynolds, Hardy, +.

[Frobby]

That package was actually pretty solid at the time...If we could get similar prospects for Guthrie as those guys, I would make the deal.

I have said it before..I expect a similar return to what we got for Sherrill only a little better.

I would expect a prospect like Alonzo...Or a prospect that is a top 50-60ish guy(ie, better than Bell) and maybe a DH type arm, not a Steve Johnson arm.

At this point, do you think we lose much trade value if we wait until the July deadline rather than dealing them this winter? Obviously, they'd lose some value if they performed poorly, but if they give kind of a middle-of-the-projection performance, do we lose a lot?

I hope you understand I'm not asking this question, or my previous one, in an argumentative way. I'm using your answers to think a little bit more about this.

By the way, I may be a minority of one on this subject, but I don't think it's certain that we just have Scott and Guthrie walk out the door after 2012 if they aren't traded by then. Many of your posts operate on the assumption that they will be declining and we won't want them around by then. I'd say that your assumption is likely, but not certain.

[Sports Guy]

At this point, do you think we lose much trade value if we wait until the July deadline rather than dealing them this winter? Obviously, they'd lose some value if they performed poorly, but if they give kind of a middle-of-the-projection performance, do we lose a lot?

The normal rule of thumb is that you get more for positional players in the offseason and more for pitching at the deadline. I worry about Guthrie's peripherals and him struggling, so while he may fetch more at the deadline than right now, I don't think the difference is enough to risk a potential decline. Also, if he is having a good year and the Orioles have some outside shot at 500, will AM even be willing to trade him?

By the way, I may be a minority of one on this subject, but I don't think it's certain that we just have Scott and Guthrie walk out the door after 2012 if they aren't traded by then. Many of your posts operate on the assumption that they will be declining and we won't want them around by then. I'd say that your assumption is likely, but not certain.

Sure, they could be kept around but you also don't see AM in any hurry to extend these guys either. What we do know is that right now, neither of them have a contract for 2013 and therefore, they won't be here.

[El Gordo]

At this point, do you think we lose much trade value if we wait until the July deadline rather than dealing them this winter? Obviously, they'd lose some value if they performed poorly, but if they give kind of a middle-of-the-projection performance, do we lose a lot?

I hope you understand I'm not asking this question, or my previous one, in an argumentative way. I'm using your answers to think a little bit more about this.

By the way, I may be a minority of one on this subject, but I don't think it's certain that we just have Scott and Guthrie walk out the door after 2012 if they aren't traded by then. Many of your posts operate on the assumption that they will be declining and we won't want them around by then. I'd say that your assumption is likely, but not certain.

I've got a feeling we haven't seen the best of Scott. I think if he gets 600 PA this season he could take it to another level. He seemed to have made some adjustments last season that made his cold streaks less protracted and still somwhat productive. If he can continue with this he could have a break out year, making him wiorth a lot more. Not so much for Guthrie. I think we've seen the best from him and we won't be getting that in two years.

[Bradysburns]

Winning is the most important thing, but many people praised what the Mariners did heading into last season and they were horrible. You have to land the right players for what you are trying to do. This is a 72-84 win team IMO. 84 wins is lightning in a bottle and 72 wins is as bad as it should get. We are talking about a 12 win swing and even then, how do we go from 84 to 95 wins if we land LaRoche and the roster remains unchanged heading into the next offseason? The answer is tied to the continued development of the young players which happens to be the main factor in us reaching a .500+ record this season.

All our eggs are in one basket. I don't like that idea, especially over the longer term. Yes, trades, etc., could fix this situation... but right now our pipeline no longer includes the likes of Tillman, Arrieta, Matusz and maybe even Britton (who could get called into the starting rotation this year??)... but does include the likes of Hobgood... makes me puke in my mouth a little.

[GreatEight]

At this point, do you think we lose much trade value if we wait until the July deadline rather than dealing them this winter? Obviously, they'd lose some value if they performed poorly, but if they give kind of a middle-of-the-projection performance, do we lose a lot?

I hope you understand I'm not asking this question, or my previous one, in an argumentative way. I'm using your answers to think a little bit more about this.

By the way, I may be a minority of one on this subject, but I don't think it's certain that we just have Scott and Guthrie walk out the door after 2012 if they aren't traded by then. Many of your posts operate on the assumption that they will be declining and we won't want them around by then. I'd say that your assumption is likely, but not certain.

I know this was directed toward SG , sorry for jumping in. I think the bolded statment is a gamble either way. Right now Scott and Guthrie are coming off some of thier best seasons. Thier trade value might be the highest it has been. So trading now would probably land you some nice players. Option two is if they continue to play like they did last year and you wait till the deadline, a team who needs that one player to make a playoff push will overpay to get one of these guys, then you end up with better players. Or where the gamble comes in, they both play much poorier the first half of the season, and now thier trade value isn't worth much at the deadline. Or you just keep them both and hope for the best. I really don't know which direction is best, hopefully MacPhail does!

[Frobby]

The normal rule of thumb is that you get more for positional players in the offseason and more for pitching at the deadline. I worry about Guthrie's peripherals and him struggling, so while he may fetch more at the deadline than right now, I don't think the difference is enough to risk a potential decline. Also, if he is having a good year and the Orioles have some outside shot at 500, will AM even be willing to trade him?

Winning is the most important thing, but many people praised what the Mariners did heading into last season and they were horrible. You have to land the right players for what you are trying to do. This is a 72-84 win team IMO. 84 wins is lightning in a bottle and 72 wins is as bad as it should get. We are talking about a 12 win swing and even then, how do we go from 84 to 95 wins if we land LaRoche and the roster remains unchanged heading into the next offseason? The answer is tied to the continued development of the young players which happens to be the main factor in us reaching a .500+ record this season.

I think I am feeling a bit more optimistic than either of you about our 2011 upside if we get a good solution at 1B and maybe 1-2 arms for the pen. I could see an upside of 86-88 wins, depending on how the rest of the winter goes. Cetainly, we will not be a lock to be over .500 in any scenario.

SG, to answer your question, If we have a "remote" chance at .500 at the deadline, I think MacPhail would be a seller. Whether he'd trade Guthrie at that point might depend on the health of the rest of the staff and how well the back end of the rotation is doing. I think if the team is actually playing .500 ball in late July, there's little chance he's trade any pitcher who was doing pretty well.

[wildcard]

I think I am feeling a bit more optimistic than either of you about our 2011 upside if we get a good solution at 1B and maybe 1-2 arms for the pen. I could see an upside of 86-88 wins, depending on how the rest of the winter goes. Cetainly, we will not be a lock to be over .500 in any scenario.

SG, to answer your question, If we have a "remote" chance at .500 at the deadline, I think MacPhail would be a seller. Whether he'd trade Guthrie at that point might depend on the health of the rest of the staff and how well the back end of the rotation is doing. I think if the team is actually playing .500 ball in late July, there's little chance he's trade any pitcher who was doing pretty well.

Ditto both comments. Its the 'if we get the 1B and pen solutions' that is holding my optimism down a little.