2011 Organizational Rankings: #15 – Baltimore
Average performances in all four categories leads to the biggest surprise in the rankings thus far. Baltimore certainly should be considered a team on the rise, but is it enough to justify their lofty position here?
Present Talent – 75.00 (T-20th)
Future Talent – 85.00 (T-5th)
Financial Resources – 76.67 (17th)
Baseball Operations – 76.82 (T-20th)
Overall Rating – 77.45 (15th)
There are many factors that go into why the Orioles ended up 15th, much higher than anyone (including most of our writers) expected. Before we get into those specific reasons, it is important to note just how bunched up the teams in the middle really are. Baltimore finished with an Overall Rating of 77.45, but the teams that finished in the 15-19 slots were separated by less than a single point. This means that the rankings were extremely tight, and there’s no real difference between the placements of the teams in this grouping. If you wouldn’t have been upset with Baltimore at #19, then treat this accordingly, as a small change in voting could have knocked them down several pegs.
How did they end up in this tier anyway, though? First off, the Orioles didn’t rate terribly in any of the four categories. When you look at the teams directly below the Orioles in the rankings, all of them have at least one category of extreme weakness. The Orioles didn’t rate exceptionally well in any category – it’s comparable to passing all of your classes, but getting straight Cs.
That said, the Orioles look like a team on the rise. Their present talent doesn’t rate well now, but a big reason for that is based on the fact that they recently promoted many of their youngsters who are still adjusting to the major leagues. If Matt Wieters, Brian Matusz, Chris Tillman and Jake Arrieta (to name a few) start to reach their potential, the Orioles major league talent could experience a significant jump in the rankings. The farm system, while depleted due to the recent graduates, still has some promising talents – namely Manny Machado and Zach Britton.
Say what you want about Peter Angelos (and trust me, many people have), but he’s shown a willingness to spend money on his team in the past. When the team did contend in the mid-90s, Angelos authorized heavy spending to import key free-agents. The Orioles tried the same approach in 2004, when they signed Miguel Tejada, Rafael Palmeiro and Javy Lopez to lengthy contracts. When Angelos realized that approach didn’t work, the team attempted to focus on building a strong farm system. Now that the young talent is starting to reach the majors, Angelos seems to be willing to spend money again. While the Orioles’ 2010 off-season was relatively quiet, in recent years they have aggressively pursued Mark Teixeira and Paul Konerko; a sign that the team may start spending once they realize the gains of their young stars.
Despite a promising young core, and a willingness to spend cash, the Orioles will struggle to compete in future seasons due to their division. While finishing in last place every season makes the Orioles look like a hopeless franchise, it’s more a statement on the talented teams within their division. If the Orioles were in the NL Central or NL West, for instance, they would be talked about as a potential surprise team by many analysts this season. Unfortunately, they have to compete with three of the best teams in baseball and the Blue Jays (who look dangerous under Alex Anthopoulos). This gives the perception that the Orioles will continue to fail when they would most likely be competitive in other divisions, but divisional strength wasn’t a factor in these ratings.
There isn’t much hope for realignment, however, so the Orioles will have to play the cards their are dealt. As Omar Little might say, it’s “all in the game,” and you shouldn’t feel sorry for the O’s. In any other division, however, the team’s young nucleus would be feared and they would be on a level playing field financially. Angelos might be more willing to spend money in this situation upon realizing that he wouldn’t have to compete with the likes of New York or Boston, and this ranking of the Orioles wouldn’t be viewed as a surprise.
The Orioles should be credited for building a respectable young core and shedding some payroll the past few seasons. Unfortunately, those gains seem unlikely to pay off unless the team can get out of the AL East. They’ll likely finish in last place again, but it’s going to be a respectable last place finish. As an Orioles’ fan, it’s tough not to look at the team’s situation and utter Clay Davis’ most popular phrase, a long, drawn-out “[expletive].”
I don’t see how the Orioles are much higher than the Royals. I’d rather have KCs future than Baltimore’s.
Money Daniel… plain and simple…
Not me. The Royals will either fail to develop their talent (Gordon, Hochevar), or dump them so they won’t have to pay (Dye, Beltran, Grienke…). Good development might give you a year or two of competing, but good financial resources gives you a chance to be in the game every year. The O’s can support a $90-100 million payroll with MASN.
Maybe you guys are right, but even at your best I think you’re destined to never finish higher than 3rd in your division. The Royals at least are playing in a division where they’ll have a chance.
The royals would have to undergo a major shift in organizational philosophy to “compete” any more than the Rays have.
Losing for 10 years straight nets you a nice farm system and assuming the pieces develop to major league talent, will allow you to compete.
Problem is that model is unsustainable once you start winning if you do not then increase payroll.
@descender
I’m frankly rather shocked that someone at FanGraphs would think the Royals have a great system because they’ve “lost for 10 years straight.” That theory doesn’t really hold water once you realize our system was built in less than three years.
Or that the Rays became competitive only because of their losing.
Losing for 10 years straight didn’t get them Carlos Pena, or Carl Crawford (2nd round pick – almost every team had a shot at him), or James Shields, or Ben Zobrist, or Akinori Iwamura, or Jason Bartlett. In fact, on their first playoff run in ’08, only two top-5 picks played a significant role in getting them to the postseason (with Price logging some memorable relief appearances once they got there).
I agree. Angelos is the owner and he has a 15 year track record of not running a baseball team all that well. I honestly don’t think there is a big difference between the O’s, Nats, Royals and Pirates (and now Marlins)… I’ll take a team like the Indians, with a good front office and ownership that doesn’t seem to mess everything up, over the O’s.
Well fact is Angelos used to run shit. now he just does what his GM tells him to within the bounds of his money. He is much more hands off than he used to be.
i understand your point but macphail has been given a longer leash of late; i suspect angelos has learned how to be somewhat less hands off.
A great example of Angelos “hands-on” approach occurred in ’04. Angelos watched a Rule 5 OF flub a fly ball, turned to his GM and told him to “get rid of that guy”. The OF was Jose Bautista.
ok but there’s no way anyone in 2004 could seriously have seen what bautista did last year coming
The division is murder.Seriously, if you took BAL and TOR and swapped them with MIN and TEX, the view of all those organizations would change dramatically. I know the site loves them some Twins, but the Twins wouldn’t be able to even duplicate what the Rays have done. A team could go from a 1st place team to a 4th place team, just by changing divisions.
I’m not as high on BAL’s future talent as others (the infamous “10-way tie for 5th”), but it’s possible, isn’t it?
I would have guessed that BAL had better financial resources that that.
The Blue Jays, as well, could be Top 10 … and in the end, TOR and BAL are locked into a fierce decade-long battle for last place. Not fair.
Eh, I’m not so sure about that. I think the Rays are due to fall back some – a $50 million payroll is not going to allow you to compete over the long run. The Yanks have a lot of holes and have tied themselves down with some large contracts to aging players. Boston seems to have chronic injury problems, but certainly they look fantastic (despite a horrid spring record).
You never know. Don’t pretend to. Baseball writers have been picking last year’s winners for 100 years now. All this computer analysis hasn’t changed anything as far as prognostications go.
I agree that TB is currently in their “OAK 2000-2003″ phase.
If it makes everyone feel better, I acknowledge that it’s possible that TOR or BAL finish in 3rd place one year in the next decade.
NYY will reload. BOS just did.
I think we can look back over the past 10 years and get a feel for how NYY and BOS will fare currently and in the near future. They aren’t going anywhere. TB will likely fall some as more estbliashed players leave and continually finding similar talent to replace them becomes more challenging.
I’m not claiming to see into the future, only claiming to see the obvious *grin, just having fun*
I agree. I mean, teams like Minny or Texas get praised for the playing in the superior AL. But the only place of signifcant superiority it the AL East. Really, there are three qualities of Major League Baseball right now: AL East, (huge dropoff) rest of the AL, then the NL a little ways behind it.
I’d agree with that sentiment.
Nah, the NL East is at least as competitive as the AL Central, two teams at the top and struggling teams behind, and I’d argue that the Phils and Braves are better than the Twins and White Sox. In a few years it’ll probably be the second best division in baseball. The Marlins are always just smart enought to stick around, the Nats are on their way up, the Mets seem comitted to supporting a new and talented front office, and then you have the Braves and Phils who are categorically viewed as strong this year with fantastic talent on the way.
There’s people that would argue that MIN and CWS are better than PHL and ATL?
The Centrals are comparable, as are the Wests. The ALE is the Big Beast that the NLE has yet to match.
I think there are enough years that the NLC could say it’s better than the ALC and vice versa, same with the West.
When people say “The AL is better”, aren’t they really saying “the NL doesn’t have BOS and NYY?” … because they have equals of all the other teams.
The AL West and AL Central both had better interleague records than the AL East last year.
“In a few years it’ll probably be the second best division in baseball.”
In a few years, the Phillies will be terrible.
As well managed and stocked as the Rays are right now, at some point, they’ll likely be like the Jays and Orioles (if not worse off). But likely not for 2-3 years at least.
Yeah I’m not sure about this. The Blue Jays went 46-44 against non-AL East teams last year which was a worse winning % (.511). I bet they just beat the crap out of the O’s last year to inflate their record.
The O’s were a better against the non-AL East, 42-48, but that’s not much to get excited about… unless you’re really into 75 win teams.
This is correct. I’m pretty sure (without looking) that Toronto went 16-3 against Baltimore last year. I doubt that happens this year and Toronto drops down off the high horse people are putting them on.
I’m questioning future talent as well. Here they were ranked 23rd IIRC, They will pick up a stud with their 1st pick in the Rule 4 draft, but the Rays, Jays and Red Sox will have drafted 20 players in total before the O’s pick again.
Though non-contenders both, the Jays and Orioles have been totally different teams in recent memory. I agree that the Blue Jays probably would have been contenders and occasional winners in most other divisions in the last few years. Not so at all for the Orioles. Their suckitude has by no means been just an illusion of the AL East. Has that much changed this year and going forward that they’re ranked ahead of several teams with at least a track record of at least mediocrity? I think anywhere in the teens is too high.
I think that the Longoria signing will single handily keep the Rays in it for years to come. They have an absolute stud for the stupidest cheap price ever. It allows the to field a team around him for half the price. Add another $15MM a year to the Rays payroll and it doesn’t look super small anymore, and that’s what you’d be paying for a Longoria type anywhere else.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is future talent measuring? I’m assuming it’s referring to minor league talent only. Otherwise, you end up double-counting young, major league players like Wieters and Matusz in the present and future talent categories, which over values teams like the Orioles, who have just recently graduated a lot of young players to the majors, but currently have a pretty terrible farm system. Whereas, a team like the Royals is relatively docked for points, as they have yet to graduate any of their young talent.
The fact that “Future Talent” is also referred to “Minor League Talent” on certain rankings further compounds my confusion. I’m assuming Future Talent considers young major league talent, otherwise it doesn’t make sense for the Orioles 23rd ranked farm system to rank 5th. However, it seems as if different writers interpreted the category in different ways.
Could someone point please explain, or point me to where this probably has already been addressed?
Whoops, that should read, “Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is future talent measuring? I believe it should factor minor league talent only.“
Future talent is minor league only.
Then how do you explain the Orioles farm system, which was just rated by this site as the 23rd best out of 30 teams a couple months ago, as being the 5th best now? That’s a jump of 18 spots without any justification.
This is just my understanding — I hope it’s not wrong and making things more murky.
I think “Future Talent” does take into account recent graduates that will improve, and so those players are “double-counted”, which is correct. A team could have a veteran free-agent signed to a one-year contract projected to perform the same as Weiters in 2011. That team would have the same present talent at the position. But Weiters is under team-control for a few more years and promises to improve. It’s the promise of improvement while under team control that’s counted additionally with a guy like Weiters.
Furthermore, the tie for 5th in Future Talent is a 10-way tie. The tie is centered around 10th place, and “t-5th” here basically means “in the top half of MLB, but not elite”. If the minor-league system is 23rd and they have a lot of just-graduated young talent that figures to improve over the next few years, a jump into the non-elite top-half of the league could be reasonable.
I think, Al, if you look at the teams that they’re tied with, you’d have a hard time justifying that Baltimore is “tied” with most of them in regards to future outlook.
Plus, it’s essentially been explained already that “Future Talent” is mostly about prospects.
It means how the team will look in the future, and if a player is expected to play better in the future but isn’t in the minors, how are you supposed to account for that other than in future talent.
I liked the way you organized this article. It covered the great promise of their young talent, the potential sustainability of higher payroll, and then rolled back expectations with the reality of the division. A team of the rise for sure. It just a question of how high. Nice work. Also liked The Wire references.
This has me thinking about the AL East in general. As the most competitive division in baseball, it might be simple to predict the Yanks or Sox to dominate the division. That’s what we’ve become used to anyways. But when we look at the last few years, because the division is so stout, any small miscues, mishaps, or misconceptions brings a swift order of change. Just consider the Rays 2009 WS hangover, the 2010 Sox injuries, or the 2010 (perhaps 2011?) or Yanks volatile pitching. When one giant stumbles, there’s always another team who quickly exploits the situation. While this of course happens in every other dvision, with the AL East these exploiters are legitimate teams to be reckoned with.
Maybe that’s just one more series obstacles that have to break right for the O’s to find an opportunity, but I think the article confirms that the O’s are decent team. And decent teams do what bad teams usually cannot: do something about it when given the perfect chance. Every team in this division has weaknesses. Maybe fewer than other divisions. But weaknesses can have a way of blowing up in your face over 162 games. This should be one of the most interesting seasons of baseball ever in the AL East. I’m pretty excited for the baseball to start.
Useless drivel. All these rankings blow. I’m done with ‘em.
We thank you for explaining your disagreement with such an insightful, detailed and carefully-argued comment.
The write-up is fair and well written. The only point of contention I have is this:
“While the Orioles’ 2010 off-season was relatively quiet…”
They did pursue Konerko and V-Mart this offseason before signing Derrek Lee. They also signed Vlad Guerrero and Kevin Gregg, traded for Mark Reynolds and J.J. Hardy, resigned Koji Uehara, and committed to hoping Duchsherer rebounds. The Orioles have four new players in their starting nine compared to last year. I don’t see how that is a quiet offseason.
Same here. I actually think they had one of the best off-seasons, in regards to how much the team improved.
The downside is just how the team needed to improve.
Their offense could be as good as their pitching is bad.
The BAL-TOR games this year could feature a bunch of 8-5 scores… with all the runs coming off solo HRs.
I probably should have explained this better. By quiet, I meant that there were no big ticket free-agents brought in.
I agree, the moves they made will definitely help the team this season, but they managed to sign/acquire all these players without breaking the bank.
I actually think this puts them in a much better situation considering the young players on the team and the future state of the franchise.
Tampa has two division championships and one World Series appearance in the last three years. What that means is that teams like the Orioles and the Jays can win, at least for short periods, and whether they do or don’t depends on luck and the quality of management (cue Branch Rickey).
It is important to understand that the Red Sox do not intrinsically have a larger market than Toronto and do not have a more compelling historical narrative than the Orioles. It is also important to understand that the Yankees have good, but not exceptional, management.
I personally believe that the Orioles have a legitimate outside shot at making the playoffs in 2011 (and that the Jays do not). Their odds are, in my view, only slightly less than the Rays’ were entering the 2008 season.
Interesting…
“I personally believe that the Orioles have a legitimate outside shot at making the playoffs in 2011″
In spring training a fan’s hope knows no bounds.
Also, seems like he was drinking early.
Don’t forget about that all-important compelling historical narrative!
My bottom three would be Baltimore, Houston and Pittsburgh (pick your order). Their minor league system is bottom 5. Wins the last three years are 68, 64, 66 with their 2011 Vegas win over/under around 76. The number of wins they are getting per their payroll is very underwhelming. I see nothing that puts this team out of the bottom 5 teams. Of course, bottom five with a “bullet”.
vr, Xei
As a lifelong O’s fan, I really like the fact that this article doesn’t take the easy route of taking pot shots at Peter Angelos, and even *almost* says that he doesn’t do a half-bad job.
Angelos was far too involved and stingy in the early 2000′s, and I believe that he thought that he could buy a championship in the same way the Yanks could. That didn’t work out so well, he took his public scourging, and now has brought in a respectable front office that he trusts to make wise decisions for him. He really does stay out of the way (so far as I know) and is willing to spend money when MacPhail & co. see a legitimate need. The last time I remember him getting in the way or overruling a decision was related to a potential B-Rob to the Cubs trade a few years ago, if I remember correctly.
And please don’t forget that he set up MASN, which not only limited the financial effect of the Washington Nationals move but also guaranteed the financial stability of the club for years to come.
Too many media folks – mainstream and, more disappointingly, otherwise – who don’t follow Baltimore on a daily basis simply resort to blaming Angelos. It’s a cop-out and at this point isn’t really relevant anymore. He’s a rich old bastard shelling out plenty of his own money who put ‘Baltimore’ on the front of our road jerseys and is letting an intelligent GM make decisions on his own. What’s to hate about that?
Yup…and the Angelos critics always seem to gloss over that he owned the team in the late 90s as well, when the O’s had a fantastic team that went to two ALCS’s, including a season when they went wire to wire in the big and bad AL East. They also had a top-5 payroll during that stretch, so he clearly is willing to spend the money if the team is winning.
I don’t like Peter Angelos as an owner very much. But this notion often perpetuated in the media that the O’s can never be contenders so long as he owns the team is preposterous. Maybe they need to do a few more things right in other departments, but clearly they CAN win under him. They already have.
I appreciate The Wire references…
How did FG’s 23rd minor league system get a Future Talent score that’s tied for 5th best?
I have no idea, but I’d like to hear the FG writers’ explanation.
Maybe they have a data entry error and if fixed would drop Baltimore down into the mid 20s?
Or maybe you could actually read the article.
“If Matt Wieters, Brian Matusz, Chris Tillman and Jake Arrieta (to name a few) start to reach their potential, the Orioles major league talent could experience a significant jump in the rankings. The farm system, while depleted due to the recent graduates, still has some promising talents – namely Manny Machado and Zach Britton.”
Future talent is based on young players (prospects or those recently promoted) reaching their potential.
It’s all right there if you read the article.
Chrissy, I think we all read the article. We just don’t agree with part of it. Thanks for being so helpful though. :(
“We just don’t agree with part of it.”
You mis-spelled comprehend there.
Look at O’s record last year under Buck… And that was when Bos & NYY were battling it out until the end… With O’s beating them some, such as O’s denying Sabathia his # 20 for a day or two… Just sayin.
In his introductory piece, Dave Cameron defined these rankings as predicting the teams most likely to contend for the next 3 years. Baltimore is nowhere near #15 by that definition, and I don’t believe that a single FanGraphs writer believes they are.
Your ranking exercise has failed.
I can’t see the Orioles having a record better than .500 over any defined length of time. Maybe something whacky will happen this year and they’ll luck into one, but not over the next 3, 4, or 5 years together.
This is worse than putting Seattle at #6. A good deal worse.
link?
I certainly wouldn’t have Baltimore at 19 either. Nor would I in any way consider them to be essentially “tied” with the Tigers, Cubs, and Athletics. They deserve to be in the mid 20s.
This team reminds me of the late 90s Pirates-desperately trying to build a team that will get to .500, but unwilling to scrap and commit to the total rebuilding effort it needs to. The farm system has graduated a few decent prospects-Wieters, Matsuz-but they aren’t getting enough different guys to their big league team to fill in the gaps around them-you need to be able to find some cheap 2 WAR talent to fill in around your 4-5 WAR potential. They seem to have a really weak international presence, so all their hopes are investing in drafting well, and they don’t stand out very much in that regard. Instead, they’re forced to loan out rental players who don’t stand out enough against their competition. The financial resources seem to be overrated too, since Baltimore has been in the lower third most of the last five years.
I just can’t justify this at all. I don’t know what the goal of these rankings is, but I’d like to think some parts of it include “Fielding a competitive team,” and “making the playoffs,” and “having a chance to win a championship.” The Orioles are a team that is built for praying for realignment.
When you talk about transplanting this team to another division, how they’d be more competitive, I just don’t see it. This year’s team finishes third in the AL Central at best, and they don’t have a ton of extra talent to send up the pipeline. Maybe they’re over .500 if you reduce the number of times that they have to play Boston, New York, and Tampa, but they’re a far inferior team to the Twins, and they would seem destined for an extended period of mediocrity. Their hopes for making the playoffs would be contingent upon winning the division, since you can almost count on the wild card team coming out of the East over the next several years.
Honestly, compare this team to the Brewers. The Brewers have a better current team, a good chance of making the playoffs, a similar payroll. Neither team has a ton of prospect talent, and the Brewers are probably about to lose Prince Fielder, but they still have at least a couple years of Ryan Braun, Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, Corey Hard, and Rickie Weeks. If you take away Prince Fielder, the O’s current talent seems very comparable to what the Brewers would have. And yet the Brewers are mired all the way down at #22 and the Orioles are way up at 15.
Heck, look at the Marlins. 84 wins, 87 wins, 80 wins, and a projection of 84 wins. Most projections have the Orioles in the 70s, while the Marlins are hovering around 84 wins. The Marlins also have a solid core of talent, and might be expected to win around 83 over the next 3 years or so. A win total in the 80s might be enough to let the Marlins sneak into the playoffs at some point. Yes, there’s a divisional difference, but shouldn’t results matter also? I could even justify putting Baltimore ahead of them, but not this much ahead. Not 19th while the Marlins are 27th.
I think, if FG wanted to objectify this more, they needed a more thought-out system. Or they just needed to scrap the whole thing and let writers use their own criteria, and make sure they could defend it. I don’t think Baltimore can be defended at 15 (or 19…but even if I liked them at 19, why am I forced to give you credit for having a team at the absolute wrong edge of a cluster?)
Heck, transplant them to another AL division. They’ve had losing records against the REST of the AL for 5 years. It’s a complete exaggeration to say that they’d be competitive in another AL division.
Put them in the NL, but let them keep their DH, and the might be competitive.
My guess is that at the conclusion of this exercise, the FG writers will also agree that BAL at #15 is a stretch (even given the narrow margin separating teams from the 5 above/below them) … as will they examine the “#5 rating in future talent” thing.
To me the 17, 20, 20 and 5 ratings don’t “add up” to what everyone else seems to think of the Orioles … and what’s screwing it up is the #5 ranking in future talent.
If the 5 becomes a 20 (or worse), then that pretty much matches the consensus on BAL.
But, BAL in another division is not a last place team … and might be a little embarassing for the other divisions to note where BAL might finish in those divisions.
Even considering that, having them at 15, rather than at say 20 (regardless of team score) gives the wrong impression. I think people are right to question whether the components are measured (not calculated) correctly.
BAL at 15, StL will be 14. Compare the outlooks of those two teams.
They’re not last place in another AL division…but they HAVE had losing records against non-east teams for 5 straight years. They’re not a competitor that’s being held down by their division. They’re a bad team that looks more bad because of their division.
And realignment is something of a pipe dream-they will continue to look really, really bad for a long time. The Red Sox and Yankees will be good teams for at least the next 5 years or so, the scope of this ranking. The Blue Jays have the third best farm system, a good GM, a similar payroll, and some decent young talent, so they’ll probably keep beating up on the O’s. And the Rays can continue to compete as long as they’re well run. This year might be their only chance of not finishing in last over the next several years.
I don’t think there’s much difference between the Orioles and say, Cubs, pre-Greinke Brewers, Dodgers, etc.
I think they HAVE been terrible, but so would 12 or so other teams if they were placed in the ALE. I don;t think I’ve really looked at how good the ALE is until this series. Damn. I don’t think I want to know how my Cardinals would do in this division. Would they really be a 4th place team?
I do think it’s that big of a deal. A division that sets out the 2011 season with 3 teams expecting to win 90+ games (not hoping, but expecting). Meanwhile there are other divisions that could be won with 88 wins (both centrals and possibly the ALW).
When I look at the divisions, here’s where I’d predict BAL finishing (if you just plopped them into the division) …
ALE = 5th of 5
ALC = 4th of 6
ALW = 4th of 5
NLE = 4th of 6
NLC = 4th of 7
NLW = 4th of 6
So, they’re better than about 1/3 of the teams in the league. If I were just “making a list in my head”, I’d have them around 20. I know for this activity that the “score difference” between 20 and 15 is not much, but the ranking difference is 12%.
No way they’re in the KC, CLE, PIT type of group. But yeah, they will probably end up with similar W-L records.
Circle:
Okay, that gives you a PRESENT talent of around 20th. Which is where they are above, and which I basically agree with (maybe I’d have them at 21st/22nd). But then you have to figure that their farm system is fairly mediocre, and they’re a middle market team. If you do some hope-casting on Matsuz and Wieters, maybe they hold their position for a while, but for example, the two teams you have them ahead of in the East are the Nationals and Mets. Do you think they continue to hold position ahead of Washington and its young talent? And the Mets, whenever they get their finances sorted out? They could be a last place team in the NLE as soon as next year.
And, again, teams like the Mets, Nationals, and Brewers aren’t just a tiny bit below the Orioles, they’re WELL below them.
As for the ranking #’s, it’s hard to get a good grasp on what the #’s represent or what the scale is-so why am I supposed to pay attention to them? So far, the bottom 16 teams are separated by under 11 points. What’s a “point” exactly? If there’s only 11 of them between Houston and a theoretically middling franchise, they seem to be worth quite a lot, so having four teams inside of a single point doesn’t seem to signify that they’re basically tied. I mean, the team that’s ahead of that cluster is only 1 whole point ahead of Baltimore. In fact, there are only 3.06 points between #24 and #15-that’s 10 teams. Seems like a rather large scale, so perhaps I shouldn’t make much of the fact that four teams ended up inside of a point.
My only disagreement with BAL’s rating was their future talent. I think they’re more along the lines of 20′s across the board, except I would have thought that BAL was a bigger financial advantage (like 10-12).
I think the scale needs to be larger or use letter grades, etc.
I think it does illustrate the point that the “middle teams” say 12-24 are rather clustered together.
Actually, consider this-you’re a Cardinals’ fan, right? So if I’ve calculated this right (they didn’t post an accumulated score for the Cardinals), the separation between the Cardinals and Houston is only 11.8425. Under 12 points between the Cards and Astros?
I think the argument that #15 and #19 are basically the same is specious.
You know, if the 5 becomes a 20, that puts them what, averaging a 18, or just 3 very, very close slots below where they are now?
Yeah, I’m a Cardinals fan.
I don;t think the difference between STL and the other non-PIT teams in the NLC is very much.
I think there is basically a “top tier” made up of a handful of teams, a “bottom tier” made up of a handful of the worst teams, and then a whole big mess in the middle that’s often sorted annual by “injuries”. I have StL near the top of this tier (say 10th) and BAL near the bottom (say 20th).
I think there is a whole clustercuss full of mediocre teams that if their city/team names were removed, we wouldn’t be able to tell one form the other.
Most projection systems have the O’s at 80 or 81 wins. Given the “AL East costs you ~4.5 wins” rule, that means the O’s are projected to be better than the Marlins with 84 wins in the NL East.
THE NL WEST AND CENTRAL ARE EASILY THE WORST DIVISIONS JUST LOOK AT THE DODGERS AND THE PITTSBURGHS
LLLLOOOOOUUUUUUDDD NOISES!!!
“Baseball Operations – (T-20th)”
Maybe it’s just me, but I think Andy McPhail has been doing a hell of a job over there.
As an Oriole fan, I would take a strong exception to this comment.
The Orioles, once again, have allocated a ton of resources in foolish hopes of getting to 500. Vladimir Guerrero might be known to the casual fan, but said fan isn’t going to show up in August when the team is accruing their 80th loss before Labor Day. I mean if Kevin Millar’s gutsy leadership couldn’t do it…
While the organization has made strides in the Rule 4 draft, the team has not demonstrated an ability to scout internationally. The organization simply pales in comparison. Who needs actions when you got words? It’s like the Mets and the June draft.
And they continue to throw playing time away on guys like Derrek Lee and Guerrero rather than searching for next Carlos Pena because developing a first base prospect is currently something of a mystery.
In sum, if MacPhail is brighter than a bunch of other GMs, well, that doesn’t speak well for his competition.
Yeah, I hope MacPhail focuses more on that Rule 4 draft. We could really stand to do better there.
As a fellow O’s fan, I disagree with most of this.
I personally don’t view what MacPhail did this offseason as allocating resources in hopes of getting to .500. I think he allocated resources in hopes of getting better. I also think that, for the most part, he did so rather successfully. Last year, the lowest WAR of any position on any team came at SS for the Orioles. I don’t recall off the top of my head where Orioles 3B ranked there, but I would bet that it was not far away. MacPhail then traded four players, of whom there is probably a better than 50% chance that only one will ever accumulate even one WAR at the professional level, for above average players at both of those positions.
Moreover, it’s always fun to hear people say that struggling teams should simply forgo veterans and instead develop younger players or, as you would have it, search for the next Carlos Pena. I have not scoured the waiver wire recently, but I don’t recall any former top 10 picks who field well, get on base, and have 30 HR power being available for the major league minimum. More importantly, this idealistic notion of unearthing a gem nearly always fails. And as it so happens, of all the free agent 1B out there who were not looking for multi-year deals, I happen to think the one with best (albeit small) chance of posting a 4-5 WAR season is the very one they signed to a one-year, risk-free deal.
If the O’s didn’t sign Derrek Lee, they wouldn’t have the next Carlos Pena. They also wouldn’t have a young player (Reimold, for instance, is 27 years old). They would just win fewer games. As a fan, I’d rather my team spend more money and win more games than save money and win less games if there is no real bearing on the future either way. The O’s future plans at 1B, while bleak, were not affected one iota by signing Derrek Lee. They seem to be interested in finding out what they have in Mahoney and Townsend (likely very little, but you never know). And signing a veteran to a one year deal allows them to do that.
The only signing that was silly this year was Guerrero, but really it’s overblown. For one, everyone seems to think Reimold and Pie are young guys who need time to develop. In reality, neither of them are all that young and both have huge flaws in their game. More importantly between injuries and platoons, both of those guys are going to end up playing plenty. The upside is that there’s potential that Lee and/or Vlad (and/or Luke) could bring back a young player at the deadline if things work out.
I’ve only been truly upset with two of MacPhail’s moves since he joined the club: the drafting of Hobgood and the signing of Garrett Atkins. The Atkins signing was not a huge deal, but it was just so painfully obvious that he was a terrible player that it was difficult to swallow. The Hobgood pick is particularly frustrating when you look at where Wheeler, Matzek, S Miller, and J Turner all currently rank among prospects. Swap Hobgood for any one of those guys, and folks probably aren’t arguing so vociferously with the future talent ranking of the O’s.
Meanwhile, MacPhail has drafted the consensus best player available in three of the last four drafts (Machado, Matusz, Wieters). He’s gone overslot time and time again in the last few years (I believe they signed something like 29 of their 50 picks last year, which is an abnormally high number). The foreign market is still an area of concern, but they did hand out the largest bonus in club history to a foreign prospect last year, and Jonathan Schoop is widely regarded as the biggest sleeper in the system. Meanwhile, in addition to the deft moves for Reynolds and Hardy, he also traded George Sherrill for Josh Bell (regardless of what he’s become, he was a highly rated prospect and it was a lopsided deal), and of course he swapped Erik Bedard for Adam Jones, Chris Tillman, and Sherrill, which is commonly thought of was one of the two or three best trades of the last five years.
Maybe my standards are still just brutally low after climbing out of the Beattie-Flanagan and, worse, Syd Thrift (has to be one of the five worst GM tenures in MLB history) eras, but I think MacPhail is a pretty solid GM. I don’t see how you can look at his work with the club as a whole and conclude differently.
I hate all this “if they played in the NL” stuff. Can we stop calling the AL the “league that can hit” to “the league anyone can hit off of?”. Lee, Marcum, Greinke, and Garza to the NL that already had Halladay, Lincecum, Wainwright, and all those great young pitchers like Kershaw and Hanson. The AL doesn’t have a single staff that would be top 3 in the NL, maybe not even top 5.
As for this ranking, I think it’s bogus. Counting on a “good” group of players and a bad farm system =/= a great future. How often does talent actually achieve it’s “potential” that people give it? Only in situations like Atlanta’s group of pitchers and KCs entire system can you be more than 75% sure of even above average results from the players.
the yankees are avon
the red sox are marlo
the rays are omar
the jays are bodie
the orioles are bubbles.
I see the Jays as Michael.
i’m not that high on the jays. they are much worse off this year without marcum and wells, and as for the financial flexibility and prospects, well, that’s still to be determined.
Why can’t they separate Boston into the AL Central, and just give those two a special exemption to play each other 55 times a year, all on ESPN.