Pete's questions:
1) Do you think the O's could support a salary of $105-$110M?
1a) If yes, do you think the O's may consider doing so?
1b) If no, why do you feel the O's are not capable of doing so? Do you think those reasons are justified?
2) With how the O's are currently built, Pete believes there is no reason or excuse why the O's should not be competitive with teams like LAA, Chicago, Miami, Texas, or Philadelphia with regards to going after top FA's. That if there are legitimate options to address glaring holes, which could take an 85 win team to a WS contender, there should be no restrictions on spending. Do you agree?
3) Are you okay with the operating as though they are a mid-market team in MLB?
1) Yes, I think they probably could, but that is just conjecture.
1a) I think the rest of the 2012 season will determine the O's course in the off-season. If the O's internally feel they are close, I could buy the argument that there would be an increasing % chance of them being more aggressive via FA's, if they feel there are FA's who could put them over-the-top. However, based on their comments regarding FA since Duquette was hired, the unwillingness to cut Gregg, etc.; I think that while the odds might be 'higher' they would still be very low.
1b) I think the O's would be plenty justified with not spending towards their limits. There are multiple ways to build a team and an organization. If the O's want to allocate increasing dollars to the internal infrastructure, and away from the ML payroll, I could support that. If they just want to operate at a lower salary, and pocket additional salary, that does not necessarily bother me either. As long as Duquette knows exactly what he can spend, and is allowed to build the roster accordingly.
2) If the O's believe there is an elite FA they want to pursue, I just want to see them aggressive in their pursuit. I'm not necessarily talking about just the dollars offered, but the pursuit itself. I think there are plenty of reasons why the O's may not be able to be competitive with those teams. LAA has been a model team for years, Moreno has major pockets, LA is the 2nd largest market, with a team already littered with stars. The Cubs have limited payroll on the books the next few years, are the 3rd largest market, and will spend like it subsequent years with Theo. The Marlins and Rangers do not have to worry about State tax. Philadelphia has started to experience some of the results of spending wildly, but I could see them attempting to do so again this Winter, trying to give their existing starting pitchers one more chance.
Where I sort of agree with Pete is that with how the O's are currently built, glaring holes should be addressed. If the O's end this year winning around 85 games, the focus has to be on improving the roster to the point you go into the Spring expecting to contend. Where I disagree with Pete, is that I don't believe roster improvement has to be limited to top/elite FA's. Even if you are willing to spend to obtain elite FA's, you still might not land those players. They may not want to come, or it just might take more than you are willing to spend. If you don't get those elite FA's, you have to have another plan in-place to improve.
If the O's made zero attempt on Hamilton and Greinke, I'm not going to care about that if they still improve the roster.
3) Aside from hopefully being able to retain their own players when it makes sense to do so, I don't care how the O's spend. Again, I believe there are multiple ways to build a team. To me, you judge a team based on wins/losses, and what is being developed. By that measure, the O's were a complete failure during '98-'11. Through today, there has been improvement here in 2012. The O's are on the positive side of .500, and there is a solid core of talent existing on the roster, and coming soon from within. I'll judge the off-season by what the O's do to augment that core, not by how much they spend. If the spend like a mid-market team, that is fine - they still have to improve the collective talent.
