The 2012 Orioles Winter Thread

Sorry, that first paragraph should be a quote from Devil.  CBS didn't take it.  Thanks CBS!

This team being out of money would explain this offseason. It would explain why DD is going after low-risk, high-reward guys. But you'd like to think Angelos has enough money to make the big splash to help a team that made the playoffs the year before.

The team HAS money.  They are practically swimming in it from the MASN deal.  They are being CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!

It's true that this team has shown it can win with a hole at second base. It doesn't mean that this team can't win 95 games. Just would make it easier to do so if we had a better player at second or dh or a fifth starter.

The stars aligned last year.  Face it, The team did not have any business winning 93 last year with the talent level it has, the run differential it produced, and going 29-9 in one run games.  That doesn't happen this year....because it was unprecedented last year! The team was barely break even in run differential and if it went .500 in one run games, it would have been 83-79.  That's much closer to the expectations of 2012.  The 2013 team has regressed some by losing Reynolds (I even hate having to type that) and their 5th starter while not filling any of the existing holes.  Hence, 78 wins this year.

What would make me change my mind?
1.  Spending a little $ and getting a full time above average player for LF, 2B, or DH.  At least fill one of these holes, not 2.
2.  Spending a little $ and getting a #1 or #2 starter to strengthen the entire rotation from top to bottom.  At least 1 guy, prefer 2.
3.  A second miracle by way of every young player making huge strides - Machado becoming borderline all star, Bundy starting and hanging in, Arrieta, Britton and Matusz finally getting it, Tillman developing into a top half of the rotation guy, plus continued progress by Jones, Wieters, and Davis...plus NO INJURIES.

Its obvious the O's brass thinks #3's gonna happen.

2.  Spending a little $ and getting a #1 or #2 starter to strengthen the entire rotation from top to bottom.  At least 1 guy, prefer 2.

First of all, this would be more than  just "a little" money.  did you happen to see what Greinke and Sanchez signed for?  How about the deal that Felix Hernandez just got?  You talk as if both money and #1 starters grow on trees.  Now, if the stars do allign correctly, there is the possibility that the O's have their #1 & #2 starter already.  They are Dylan Bundy and either Chris Tillman or Kevin Gausman.  It just won't be this year.


As has been mentioned many times, the Orioles are not the Yankees, Dodgers, or Angels.  Hell, even the Yankees were not the Yankees this year as they also want to get under the luxury tax.  You also mention that the O's are swimming in money.  Have you seen the books?  have you seen all the expenses, salaries, etc that the nO's mpay every year?  Didn't think so.  Even though the the MASN deal was sweet it was still nowhere near the deal/money the Dodgers just got, or the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels get every year.  Even with all that extra money coming in, it is still not very prudent to have 1/4 - 1/3, or more, of your salary tied up in one player.  Like all businesses the O's are run on a budget.  There budget went up this year due to the influx of money from the MASN deal as well as the money that came in last year because the O's made the playoffs and the Yards were rocking again. 

3.  A second miracle by way of every young player making huge strides - Machado becoming borderline all star, Bundy starting and hanging in, Arrieta, Britton and Matusz finally getting it, Tillman developing into a top half of the rotation guy, plus continued progress by Jones, Wieters, and Davis...plus NO INJURIES.

Its obvious the O's brass thinks #3's gonna happen.

This is not obvious.  What is obvious is that the O's tried to get some FA's, but because they did not have a protected pick for the first time in a hundred years, they did not want to give up their draft pick, or most importantly, the draft slot money they would forfeit.  The rules have changed and the O's, like most other teams, are playing it differently then before.  I would have no problem sayjing that before the rule changes in the draft, the O's probably would have made a run at Bourn or Lohse, or a few other FA's.  Do you see any other teams running after Bourn or Lohse?  The only one I see is the Mets and they are trying to change the rules just to suit them.  So unless you are the crowd who believe that Kelly Johnson or Edwin Jackson or Yunel Escobar would have made a HUGE difference then what the O's did this offseason wasn't that much different from what others did, including the Yankees.    

What is also obvious is that the O's tried to make trades. This has already been discussed so I won't go into it again.

Last year was great.  I do not have any notions that this year is going to be the same.  I would love to see the O's finish around .500, preferably over, and not finish in last place.  There is also the possibility that the O's finsh around .500, or even above it, and still come in last place as the divsion absolutely got a lot tougher this year. 
        

                

Ok First of all the team is not swimming in money. in fact they are on the MLB watch list as their 10 year revenue does not cover their over all debt. Next the run differential argument is a non issue. Why? Because only the Rangers and Angels skewed that number. I would have to go back and check my old posts or figure it out again, but We were something like 70 runs behind against those two teams and I think the Mets. The other 15 or 16 teams we played gainst we were well ahead. The rest of the arguments about why we were destinys team last year are accurate.

I don't think they think 3 is going to happen this year. I think they are sticking to a very conservative plan. The playoffs were a pleasant surprise and got some extra season ticket holders, but the FO does not think we were that good a team either, so they know that to go out and pay a lot for a big FA would probably not result in putting us over the top. By the same token they think, as some do on here that the below average players we have here are just as good and probably cheaper than the below average players we were willing to afford. 

I understand their philosophy, and I understand not completely abandoning the plan because you won a little more than you thought you would, but winning that many more should have altered he plan a little. At least thats what I think, and signing one guy that you believe could help you long term when they expected this team to contend in 2014/2015, would have been smart. You try to hold serve on your talent, make up the gap for the one run and extra inning games you likely cannot repeat, make your fan base believe you are trying to win to help season ticket sales, and get one piece closer to where you need to be.

To me that is how you build. One solid foundation brick at a time. Young guys are great and when they turn out it is a boon, but when you are already close to being a legit playoff team, you can't depend on it. Maybe they were saying the same thing in Tampa before all their young guys came through and they started winning, but it makes sense to me.  

O's got Jim Johnson and Jason Hammel s arbitration deals done and are close to getting done Darren O'Day but in other news they already DFA'd Robinson who they just acquired for Robert Andino.

"First of all, this would be more than  just "a little" money.  did you happen to see what Greinke and Sanchez signed for?  How about the deal that Felix Hernandez just got?  You talk as if both money and #1 starters grow on trees.  Now, if the stars do allign correctly, there is the possibility that the O's have their #1 & #2 starter already.  They are Dylan Bundy and either Chris Tillman or Kevin Gausman.  It just won't be this year."

F--- you CBS and your formatting errors! 

Kinda my point, it never is this year.  The last time the O's had their home grown prospect take over a #1 role and be a #1 pitcher was Mike Mussina in 1993   The names change each year.  Last couple of years, insert Arrieta, insert Matusz, insert Britton, insert Cabrera, etc.  Next year it will be Bundy and someone else, in 2015 two different names.  Results will be the same.

I was being sarcastic with "a little money".  I am well aware of what Felix Hernandez signed for.

"The rules have changed and the O's, like most other teams, are playing it differently then before.  I would have no problem sayjing that before the rule changes in the draft, the O's probably would have made a run at Bourn or Lohse, or a few other FA's.  Do you see any other teams running after Bourn or Lohse?"

I'm in the camp of giving up the pick.  I don't understand this hesitancy.  If they are waiting for the price to come down, fine, but pitchers and catchers report next week.

"Even though the the MASN deal was sweet it was still nowhere near the deal/money the Dodgers just got, or the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels get every year.  Even with all that extra money coming in, it is still not very prudent to have 1/4 - 1/3, or more, of your salary tied up in one player.  Like all businesses the O's are run on a budget.  There budget went up this year due to the influx of money from the MASN deal as well as the money that came in last year because the O's made the playoffs and the Yards were rocking again." 

The O's don't compare to the Dodgers or Yanks, yes, but does that wipe them completely off the map for ANYONE of consequence?  I do see after going all the way to arbitration they came midpoint on Hammel and Johnson...and enjoy them this year because if they are too good they become "too expensive" and gone either at the deadline if they are struggling or next winter.   

Trust me I have a finance background, the actual situation of what the Orioles show on the books and how they actually are - two different things.  They have a publicly funded stadium in a crumbling city, they have a very nice TV deal, and Angelos' other funds don't show up here.  Licensing fees.  Mega bucks for souvenirs, concessions, tickets.  They are hoarding cash.  Kinda like your university which cries poverty, jacks up your tuition, yet continues to bank more millions in endowments behind your back.

With the deals for Adam Jones (deserved), Markakis (not living up to it), Roberts (robbing the team blind), none of the available guys would be 1/4 to 1/3 of the payroll. 

I agree in the larger argument.  The economics of baseball continue to get skewed.  ITS TIME FOR A FREAKING SALARY CAP!  Remember the housing bubble?  This is the sports bubble.  We are reaching a saturation point where people are going to stop spending $ on sports.  NFL, listen up!  This applies to you too! 
 
 "So unless you are the crowd who believe that Kelly Johnson or Edwin Jackson or Yunel Escobar would have made a HUGE difference then what the O's did this offseason wasn't that much different from what others did, including the Yankees."

A huge difference, no.  But improvements of a few wins apiece, yes.  Add 2-3 wins apiece for each and you go from my 78 wins to 84-87.  That puts you in the hunt.  Bourn and Lohse are game changers though....Bourn fixes more than one spot (solidifies LF, puts Nick at #2 where he should be, adds team speed).  Lohse would improve the ENTIRE rotation from top to bottom.  I would add 5-6 wins for each of them.  Prince Fielder would've fixed several problems and anchored the lineup for 4-5 years to come.  I would have added 8-10 wins for him per year.

We can't continue to pretend we can pick cast offs, AAAA journeymen, ever promising prospects, guys coming off big injuries, and overlooked diamonds in the rough, cobble them together, and compete consistently.  

I'm not saying do what the team did in 1995-96 (when it far outspent the Yankees, BTW, and didn't go bankrupt) when they got every available free agent.  But add a couple legitimate outsiders who can contribute to a core of good players like they did from 1992-93, or that they did in the 70s and 80s when they had a great and wonderful pipeline.  I loved that, but its irrelevant in 2013....its time the O's moved on from that too.

"Last year was great.  I do not have any notions that this year is going to be the same.  I would love to see the O's finish around .500, preferably over, and not finish in last place.  There is also the possibility that the O's finsh around .500, or even above it, and still come in last place as the divsion absolutely got a lot tougher this year."

 
Agreed.  78 wins could very well be last place.  It will be interesting to see if the Rays can stay healthy and continue to compete on their model (I don't see 90 wins, but they are >.500), Boston turns it around (they will be at least .500), the Yankees can hang in there (IMO too old, they drop off this year), and Toronto gets team chemistry (they'll be good to very good)....and if the O's can duct tape another playoff run.
 
Let's revisit these posts in 8 months.  If the O's are up there around 90 wins again, I'll eat crow.  I fully expect - 99%+ chance - that I do not.   
     

Let me throw this one out there.  Let's say the O's come up to the deadline a few games below .500, a perfectly reasonable scenario.  Is there a fire sale?  IMO yes, bye bye Hammel, JJ on the mound, JJ on the field

This too:  if Wieters continues to show progress do they then cheap out and not sign him long term too?  IMO if they do this I will chuck the first lit torch onto the warehouse.

The team HAS money.  They are practically swimming in it from the MASN deal.  They are being CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!

How much does MASN bring in to the team each year?  Curious to know how you know this?

Ok First of all the team is not swimming in money. in fact they are on the MLB watch list as their 10 year revenue does not cover their over all debt.

I'm glad somebody brought this up.

Oday agrees to a two year deal for less than 3 a year with a club option for 4M in 2015. Nice signing

I'm in the camp of giving up the pick.  I don't understand this hesitancy.

But it's not jus the pick...it's also the draft slot money.  The O's could lose about $3 mil or so which could also cut into signing the #2 or #3 pick.  So it's not just the 1st rd pick anymore.  This is why the Mets and every other team has been hesitant.  That and the fact that both Bourn and Lohse are asking for way too much money and/or want a contract that is for to many years. 

BTW, Lohse is not a game changer.  He's a solid #3.  On the O's he would probably be a #1 in much the same way as Jeremy Guthrie was.  

  

Let's say the O's come up to the deadline a few games below .500, a perfectly reasonable scenario.  Is there a fire sale?  IMO yes, bye bye Hammel, JJ on the mound, JJ on the field.

Both Hammel and JJ (pitcher) will be FA's next year.  JJ (shortstop) will be after 2014.  If Bundy or Gausman are ready, you're right.  Bye Bye Hammel.  If a 3B emerges (Schoop?) you're right.  Bye bye Hardy as Machado would move over to SS.  Otherwise Hardy stays.  If another closer emerges, you're right.  Bye bye JJ.  See how that works.  The Rays have been doing that for years.  Usually not in season, but if the scenario plays out like you said, then why not?

This too:  if Wieters continues to show progress do they then cheap out and not sign him long term too?

Cheapness has nothing to do with it.  Remember who his agent is.  Scott Bor-a$$.  The O's could throw as much money and length of contract at Wieters as the Twins did for Mauer but if Bor-a$$ "suggests" Wieters to hold out, and Wieters decides to do so, then it will probably be bye-bye Wieters.  It's still a two-way street.   

Look.  I get everyone's frustration.  But, as kpk mentioned, Jackson, Kelly Johnson, etc. might add two wins a piece for the O's.  So, if the O's would have signed two of the FA's they could possibly win say 82-84 games instead of 78-80.  None of the players by themselves, except Bourn, would have been enought to help the O's get to the next level.  All but Kelly Johnson would/will cost the O's their 1st rd pick as well as their draft slot money and possibly their 2nd or 3rd rd pick either because they lost the draft money or because they signed more than one very mediocre FA.  IMO, that's not cheap.  That's good business.    

Matt Wieters and his future is interesting when talking about the O's. He came out and stated he wants to play his career here. Not that it means anything without action but I cant recall too many Boras clients stating that especially when they where still under team control through the arbitration process and what have you. Maybe it was a new Boras tactic. But it could have been sincere from Wieters and we know how Buck feels about him and can assume how the O's feel about him. With the comparisons to Joe Mauer it compares more than one thing. The money for sure but the size of the two. Both big catchers and seeing what happened to Mauer with his injuries and given the way the O's have been with their money, I just dont know, not without a position change and more consistancy with the bat, being a bigger offensive presence.

There is no way to prove the gut feeling I have, but I think one of the reasons why the Orioles have been hesitant if you will to address first base in the present in past is because I think they may be looking at Wieters there in 3 years and potentially keeping him as either a back up catcher or emergency catcher. A guy that big with the constant up and down movements of a catcher is gonna wear your body out. Look at Napoli, he all but failed his physical costing him more money. Few and far between catchers that are 6 4 or taller last very long and in nearly every case have had similar injuries that have derailed them in seasons.

The Orioles just set a record for money given to a first year arbitration catcher. They have no intention of seeing him go. Who knows what the future holds for him as far as what position he plays, but there is no reason to believe that any time soon he is changing positions and the notion that they didn't sign a first basemen becaus ehe might go there in 3 years is ridiculous as most cotnracts are only 3 years anyway. Anyone they might have signed would likely be a FA by then. There is just as good a chance he plays his entire career behind the plate and breaks all the records set by Bench and Fisk as there is of him changing positions. As for his bat is has improved each year and is fine for a catcher. Not o much for a 1b or DH.


None of the 2b on the market would have cost the Orioles their 1st round pick. The higher level picks at other positions would have. I honestly do not believe that losing a 1st round pick is enough toe keep the Orioles from pulling the string on a guy that is a sure thing. I do think it is correct that some of the guys available just were not worth what they are trying to get, by alot.  I think a fr of them will end up signign one year deals and maybe we get involved in that before its over. If they do well you can resign them and if they dont then you only had the one year deal. It is not wise to sign players, especially pitchers over 32 to high dollar or long term contracts. Lohse would have been an instant #2 or 3 and solidified out lineup that currently has an opening or two. If Hammel stays healthy and pitches wel then it wont matter who comes up, he will be here. He is a DD pickup and those guys will likely be kept if they perform, Hammel is not going to be a 100M dollar guy no matter what he does. We wil make him the qualifying offer and then he will be in the same boat as Lohse is this year.    

A lot of you are singling the Orioles out for not going after Lohse or Bourn. Fact is, NO team is going after them because no one wants to give up their draft pick or the money. It's not just the Orioles, this is a flaw in the system and it's quite possible that Bourn and Lohse will go into the season unsigned at this point. I wouldn't be surprised to see this rule changed before the 2014 offseason.

I honestly do not believe that losing a 1st round pick is enough to keep the Orioles from pulling the string on a guy that is a sure thing.

One more time.  It's not just the pick anymore.  It's also the money.  Losing the money could mean the difference in signing other draft picks. If the O's sign their 1st rd pick below slot, they can use the extra money to sign other picks above slot if they need to.  By losing the 1st rd draft money, they lose any chance of that.  This could mean the difference of possibly not signing one of their other top 5 picks, maybe even their 2nd 1st rd pick this year.  That would mean they just gave up 2 picks, maybe more, for the price of 1 overrated FA that would only add about 2-4 wins per year for the length of his contract (excluding Bourn).  

None of the 2b on the market would have cost the Orioles their 1st round pick.

There's probably a good reason for that. 

As for Wieters.  I really hope he is sincere.  I wanted the O's to try and extend him this year.  I realize there is no rush, as he is contrallable until 2015 (I think), but it just would have been nice to know he would be in an O's uniform for the next 5 or so years.  It could have also saved them some money by buying out his other arb years. 

Thanks for some of the words on how the new rules work, as soon as I figure out how they work they are changed.  Still, I'd rather have the sure thing.  What's the success rate on a late first rounder in terms of them becoming a good MLer?  Gotta be below 50%. 

I read that Kevin Gregg has signed a minor league deal.  He should be well suited for it, as he displayed minor league ability quite frequently on the Orioles. 

kpk, I found an analysis that's about as close as I can find to answering your question. I would think the chances of signing a player who doesn't live up to expectations or gets injured is the same percentage or higher as finding a successful player in the draft.

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blo
g/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-dr
aft-picks-by-slot/

If the Orioles had a deeper prospect base in the minor leagues and a good track record with lower picks, I'd say go get Michael Bourn and lose the pick and the slotted amount of money. But, the minor leagues are just starting to actually develop some players and there aren't enough in the system yet. I'm not sure that a lost pick and money, and the investment needed would be beneficial long term.

All of this talk about Kelly Johnson adding two wins is ludicrous. Even if you assume that Brian Roberts never plays a game, what makes you think that Alexi Casilla and his 40 SB potential isn't a better fit than 15 homers, a Mark Reynolds-like batting average of around .225 and 150 or more strikeouts from Johnson? And the defense is a plus too with Alexi.

And, why is Bourn such an upgrade over Nate McLouth? Nate is every bit as good a fielder (he does have a gold glove) and has nearly the same speed potential, while offering more pop. He's also signed to a team friendly contract for just one season. If any young player down on the farm develops, he'd be blocked by Markakis, Jones and Bourn (if you signed him to his 5 year contract that he wants).

I would have signed Kyle Lohse (and/or Michael Bourn) but Jazz is right. He's really a poor man's number 2 and a solid number 3 starter at this point in his career. And since he just reinvented himself a few years ago, I'm not sure he is actually any better than Wei-Yin Chen, Chris Tillman or Jason Hammel are now or will be in the immediate future. A healthy Jair Jurrjens too. He's certainly not worth the contract he seeks. So, he may slot into the Baltimore ace role by default, but how much of an upgrade is he actually?

If the team doesn't add another veteran bat, by DFAing Trayvon Robinson, I'm going to assume that the team will keep either Conor Jackson (1B/OF) or Travis Ishikawa (1B) as Chris Davis's primary back-up at 1B, joining Casilla, Teagarden and Betemit on the O's bench. That's also assuming that Nolan Reimold is healthy enough to go north out of spring training. If not, both of those guys (with a challenge from Danny Valencia) will make the team. It only makes sense unless DD and Buck are truly confident in Davis's abilities and Betemit's competence as the back-up.

Would anyone still trade for Seattle's Justin Smoak? He was a top hitting prospect who hits from both sides with power, and still has a minor league option left. There was talk about a Smoak for Matusz trade straight up since both were taken just a few picks from one another in the first round of the same draft, and have both busted so far. Or, is Conor Jackson another version (although he hits right handed only)?

How about (LF/1B/DH) Carlos Lee at the right price? He would be a right handed compliment to both Davis and Betemit, and can play defense adequately during inter-league play (unlike Jim Thome and Vladimir Guerrero). He certainly would add a veteran presence and he can still hit.

IMO, although the sexy signings (we all love those) are often used as a gauge of a successful offseason, the cost and the expectations that come with impact additions are great. Nearly none of the contracts given are ever lived up to, and in many cases the signing ends up a hinderance to subsequent seasons. A team like the Orioles thrive on their youth and cohesiveness. Again, IMO, subtle moves like adding McLouth, Casilla and Jurrjens doesn't disrupt team chemistry and add necessary upgrades. That's what the team did last season with Chen, Hammel, O'Day, Ayala and Teagarden. Perhaps making these seemingly small but important additions is the right way to progress.

It creates competition, promotes good work ethic and ensures that professionalism and on field production will be the rule. I'm not saying that an elite, impact player can't be those things, but those type of players aren't easy to pry away from another team, nor are they easy to sign via free agency. And if you want to model yourself after the cash strapped Tampa Rays, and build from within, then the first round draft pick is worth much more than Lohse, Bourn and nearly every other free agent.

kpk, I found an analysis that's about as close as I can find to answering your question. I would think the chances of signing a player who doesn't live up to expectations or gets injured is the same percentage or higher as finding a successful player in the draft.

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blo

g/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-dr

aft-picks-by-slot/

Very interesting read, thanks for forwarding.  Sad to see that the Orioles were 2nd on the not successful though I can't say I'm surprised.  From what I'm gathering, if you have a top 5 or 10 pick you keep it.  If you draft after #20 your percentages are getting kind of low and your chances become less than 1 in 5.   It also sucks to blow a top 5 or 10 pick which the Orioles are not alone in doing (Brien Taylor - LOL).
  

We get it Jazz except that if you dont have the first round pick then you dont need the first round money. The odds of getting your first round pick at less than what his agent knows is what is slotted for it is slim. We have gone to the ladt minutes before signing the last few of them. I think it has much more to do with the players age and what plan DD has and him sticking to it. It may be a good plan, and only time will tell. I just don't agree with being that stuck to your plan. When things change, like us making the playoffs and having such a solid bullpen, I think you have to adapt a little and we simply didn't. He was quite resolved when he said it last year and this year though they did kick the tires on some trades, he was really not ever in a serious negotiation. I think ti will backfire but only time will tell, and I do still think that the future is bright with younger players coming and some of the old anchors being cut loose, both young and old.