23 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Sports on Earth: O's inactivity is the best of many bad options
http://www.sportsone...ticle/40880830/

"Baltimore’s run to the divisional series last year was miraculous, yes, but in baseball “miraculous” is just another word for “unsustainable.”

And while 2013 goes by however it does -- I think the team tops out around 76 wins, more likely something between 70 and 72, but I’ve been wrong about them before -- Orioles fans should hope the team save its money and remember that Baltimore need a starting second baseman more than anything.

I hear there’s this pivot guy up in New York who might test the market next winter."

[BSLChrisStoner]

Any thoughts on this?

[SportsGuy]

Any thoughts on this?

Being in inactive is always poor, no matters your situation as a team.

Whether you are looking to improve for the next season or long term, you should always be looking to improve. The Orioles haven't improved this offseason thus far. It's been a failure of an offseason.

[Russ]

I'm really tired of seeing people try to defend inactivity or to try to unveil the master plan behind it. And save money for when? Like when they're close to contending? Like now?

There are obviously unneeded budget restraints holding back Duquette. There is no master plan "we are smarter than the other guy" stuff going on. He isn't spending the money because he isn't allowed to spend the money.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm really tired of seeing people try to defend inactivity or to try to unveil the master plan behind it. And save money for when? Like when they're close to contending? Like now?

There are obviously unneeded budget restraints holding back Duquette. There is no master plan "we are smarter than the other guy" stuff going on. He isn't spending the money because he isn't allowed to spend the money.

Yeah, but the author's point is that in his opinion the O's are nowhere near contention, and thus the inactivity makes sense.

I think his projection of the O's being a 71 win team, and comments that the O's did last year were 'miraculous' are off.

[tennOsfan]

I'm all for not paying someone like Swisher 3/40 or whatever he got.

However, I think it would make a lot of sense to deal people like Jim Johnson or J.J. Hardy. I love those guys, but they're future for us is probably limited. We could probably package those two for one really nice young bat and move Machado over. Surely that can be done, and we can convert someone in this deep pen to do the closing.

It'd also be nice to see us wrap up Weiters for a while, subject to Boras.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah, but the author's point is that in his opinion the O's are nowhere near contention, and thus the inactivity makes sense.

I think his projection of the O's being a 71 win team, and comments that the O's did last year were 'miraculous' are off.

Then you make moves for the long term.

I mean, if DD agreed with this guy and felt we were a 71 win team, why on earth would you keep Hardy and Johnson?

[DJ MC]

Yeah, but the author's point is that in his opinion the O's are nowhere near contention, and thus the inactivity makes sense.

I think his projection of the O's being a 71 win team, and comments that the O's did last year were 'miraculous' are off.

I half-agree. The win prediction is too low, but what the team did certainly counts as miraculous. Especially in the first half of the season.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I half-agree. The win prediction is too low, but what the team did certainly counts as miraculous. Especially in the first half of the season.

The first-half was smoke and mirrors to a large degree, but what was accomplished over the last 2 months was not. This guy is an O's fan, and I know he watched most every game last year. I just disagree with the characterization of it being miraculous.

That points to an idea that everything (great majority of things) went as optimal as possible. I think there were enough things which did not go according to plan, that calling for that level of regression is hyperbole.

[SportsGuy]

The first-half was smoke and mirrors to a large degree, but what was accomplished over the last 2 months was not. This guy is an O's fan, and I know he watched most every game last year. I just disagree with the characterization of it being miraculous.

That points to an idea that everything (great majority of things) went as optimal as possible. I think there were enough things which did not go according to plan, that calling for that level of regression is hyperbole.

The 1 run record and EI record was pretty miraculous.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The 1 run record and EI record was pretty miraculous.

Sure... to some level, which is certainly part of the reason you would expect some regression from the O's overall. However, calling for the O's to go from 93 wins to 71 wins is past that level of expected regression.

Link to a thread discussing the O's record in 1 run and EI games:
http://baltimorespor....php?f=3&t=2416

[DJ MC]

Sure... to some level, which is certainly part of the reason you would expect some regression from the O's overall. However, calling for the O's to go from 93 wins to 71 wins is past that level of expected regression.

That's why I said I half-agree. What happened was miraculous, but the regression is too much.

[BSLChrisStoner]

That's why I said I half-agree. What happened was miraculous, but the regression is too much.

Maybe it is semantics. I mean based on the expectations they entered the year with, I get the characterization of calling it miraculous. However, based on how they actually won... do think that was a 'miracle'? I don't believe a crazy amount of things went right for the O's. Do you?

[DJ MC]

Maybe it is semantics. I mean based on the expectations they entered the year with, I get the characterization of calling it miraculous. However, based on how they actually won... do think that was a 'miracle'? I don't believe a crazy amount of things went right for the O's. Do you?

Of course. Not everything has to go right for something to be miraculous, it just has to be difficult to explain using what we know of how things work.

And since pretty much the entire explanation for the one-run and extra-inning games comes down to, for better or worse, luck, I consider that miraculous. At least in baseball terms.

[bmoreb]

Miraculous is a blind man seeing, crippled man walking or Bigfoot being real.

The orioles played hard, were coached well, picked up pieces when necessary and had luck on there side. Will they repeat? I don't know, not likely. But is it likely that Toronto has more luck then Boston did? Or will dismantle in two years.

I don't like inactivity, but I don't see a right or wrong or a miracle.

Bigfoot is real BTW!

[SportsGuy]

Maybe it is semantics. I mean based on the expectations they entered the year with, I get the characterization of calling it miraculous. However, based on how they actually won... do think that was a 'miracle'? I don't believe a crazy amount of things went right for the O's. Do you?

Way more went right than went wrong.

[clapdiddy]

Way more went right than went wrong.

I'm not so sure about that. We lost Markakis and Hammel for significant time. We received little offensive production from second base and left field. The defense at second was below average. The defense at third was awful before Machado got here. Hardy was bad offensively. We received little from Britton, Arrieta, and Matusz.

I think this team can be better this season with Machado playing all season at third, Markakis and Hammel remaining healthy, Casilla playing solid defense and providing at least the ability to move runners along and occasionally stealing some bases, and McLouth/Reimold platooning in LF for a full season. These things would help even with some regression (which I expect) from the bullpen.

[SportsGuy]

I'm not so sure about that. We lost Markakis and Hammel for significant time. We received little offensive production from second base and left field. The defense at second was below average. The defense at third was awful before Machado got here. Hardy was bad offensively. We received little from Britton, Arrieta, and Matusz.

I think this team can be better this season with Machado playing all season at third, Markakis and Hammel remaining healthy, Casilla playing solid defense and providing at least the ability to move runners along and occasionally stealing some bases, and McLouth/Reimold platooning in LF for a full season. These things would help even with some regression (which I expect) from the bullpen.

Things like defense being down, performance being down here and there will happen. No team has ever had everyone performing at peak level.

The things that went wrong, the main things, were the injuries to Hammel and Nick and the poor offensive production of Hardy and Reynolds. Those were the main things.

However, the BP pitching to one of the all time best WPAs, the injuries(and subsequent trades) for Boston and Toronto, the EI and 1 run game records,Gonzo and Tillman coming out of nowhere, etc....All of that was enormous.

I don't think we are a 71 win team but if you asked me right now to make a bet on whether we would be closer to 70 or 90 wins, I am betting we are closer to 71 wins or the 93 wins we got last year, I am betting on the 71.

[Mackus]

I feel like nobody is talking about the only interesting and new thought in that entire article (or at least the part quoted in the OP, didn't follow the link).

What about signing Robby Cano in the offseason? 2B could go from the biggest weakness on the team to the biggest strength.

This is obviously entirely hypothetical, because I'll believe Angelos will shell out the type of money Cano will command when my s*** turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet. However, let's just assume for the sake of a boring offseason that he does open things up and we can add some major salary. Would Cano be the best way to spend that money? He'll be entering his Age 31 season when he signs his huge deal. He's had 4 straight years between an 870 and 930 OPS, finishing in the top-6 of the MVP the last 3 seasons. He'll probably take a minimum of 7 years and $25M per year to get him away from the Yankees, and maybe longer and well over $200M.

Is it more reasonable to think Angelos would allow a payroll increase if it came in the form of one huge added free agent, rather than spread out amongst several? We have bidded on studs in recent years (Fielder, Tex) even if they were just gestures more than actual overtures to sign them.

[SportsGuy]

I feel like nobody is talking about the only interesting and new thought in that entire article (or at least the part quoted in the OP, didn't follow the link).

What about signing Robby Cano in the offseason? 2B could go from the biggest weakness on the team to the biggest strength.

This is obviously entirely hypothetical, because I'll believe Angelos will shell out the type of money Cano will command when my s*** turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet. However, let's just assume for the sake of a boring offseason that he does open things up and we can add some major salary. Would Cano be the best way to spend that money? He'll be entering his Age 31 season when he signs his huge deal. He's had 4 straight years between an 870 and 930 OPS, finishing in the top-6 of the MVP the last 3 seasons. He'll probably take a minimum of 7 years and $25M per year to get him away from the Yankees, and maybe longer and well over $200M.

Is it more reasonable to think Angelos would allow a payroll increase if it came in the form of one huge added free agent, rather than spread out amongst several? We have bidded on studs in recent years (Fielder, Tex) even if they were just gestures more than actual overtures to sign them.

MIer in his low 30s ready to sign a big contract? No thanks.

Cano is really good but for how long?