O's interested in another (almost) 36-year-old DH?

According to MASN's Roch Kubatko, the Orioles may be looking at David Ortiz to fill their designated hitter slot. Although Kubatko admits that the interest is "mostly speculation" at this point, he did pass along the following:

The Boston Globe's Pete Abraham tweeted that [executive vice president of baseball operations Dan] Duquette is meeting with [Fern] Cuza, who represents free agent David Ortiz. Abraham speculated that the Orioles have interest in the veteran designated hitter.

That's not much, but who really knows when the O's are involved?

Ortiz had another solid year last season. He hit .309/.398/.554, surpassing his numbers from the past few seasons. For his career, he's a .283/.378/.544 hitter, which is excellent.

He also turns 36 on November 18 (Friday), which is the same age as Vladimir Guerrero -- and we all know how that signing turned out. Ortiz is probably the better hitter between the two at this point. He's been better the last couple of years; maybe the benefit of mostly DHing in his career has helped him and allowed him to stay stronger at the plate.

I understand that it's speculation, but hopefully the O's have learned from the disappointing Guerrero signing. A young, bad team paying a bunch of money for a DH doesn't make a whole lot of sense. With Guerrero on the roster last season, the O's lost a lot of roster flexibility -- and that's not even mentioning that Luke Scott was already the best option at DH even after they signed Guerrero. At least the Guerrero deal was only a one-year deal; I seriously doubt that Ortiz would entertain anything less than a two- or three-year deal. Guerrero also signed for $8 million; Ortiz would likely command at least $10 million per season.

When considering the O's current roster, signing another full-time DH makes even less sense. Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis are not defensive wizards, and I don't think the O's want to enter the season with both of those guys starting at the corner infield positions. Davis may need to DH sometimes, as will Reynolds. It would also be smart to keep the spot flexible so Matt Wieters can stay in the lineup occasionally when he's not catching.

Could the O's lineup use an upgrade? Yeah, probably. But the roster has plenty of holes, not just at DH. For an organization that needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, it wouldn't be smart to sign an aging DH to a multi-year contract just to score a few more runs over the course of a season.

Deciphering Showalter's logic

Here's Buck Showalter on Vladimir Guerrero getting the day off:

“I talked to him today about [his wrist]. I wanted to make sure that the wrist, that wasn’t bothering him. He’s always a pretty level guy. I can tell in the dugout he’s been a little frustrated lately because he’s trying so hard,” Showalter said. “He’s hit a couple balls on the button right at somebody, and you can see he’s had a little different response afterwards that he usually doesn’t have. He’s a proud man, and I want to treat him with the respect that he has coming.”

And here's Showalter again, speaking about Nolan Reimold after last night's 6-4 win:

“Nolan’s a strong guy with a lot of skills,” Orioles manager Buck Showalter said. “He’s got some skills that could play up here if he can grasp some of the small things, and tonight he got a good return for some of the work he’s been putting in. I know he was excited. So were we.”

Showalter was discussing Reimold because he hit a walkoff, two-run homer in the 10th inning in last night's game. Showalter, though, is talking about Guerrero and Reimold like there's a massive difference between the two. From Buck's quotes, you get the sense that he thinks Guerrero has been dealing with an injury and is hitting into some tough luck, but that he still deserves a consistent spot in the lineup. And in Reimold's case, Buck believes that he's got talent but still has a lot to prove.

You'd think Guerrero would be grossly outperforming Reimold. But that's not the case:

Guerrero's 2011: 393 PA, .274/.310/.387
Reimold's 2011: 152 PA, .215/.296/.400

Both of those batting lines are bad. Guerrero's numbers are slightly better and have been accumulated in 241 more plate appearances. But Guerrero has a steady role -- DHing every day and batting in the cleanup spot as long as he's healthy -- while Reimold sits every few days and didn't start playing more until Luke Scott's injury ended his season.

Showalter seems to be viewing Guerrero as the career .318/.380/.554 hitter who no manager would ever consider benching. But Vlad is not close to being that guy. When O's fans look at Guerrero, they see a 36-year-old designated hitter who won't be in Baltimore after this season. They see a guy who's not getting the job done, yet he's being placed in the cleanup spot game after game. And they see a guy who is preventing lineup flexibility because he can't play anywhere in the field. With Vlad in the lineup, the O's can't:

• DH Mark Reynolds, Chris Davis, or Josh Bell or at least use them in some kind of 1B/3B/DH rotation;
• give any of the outfielders a chance to DH and rest their legs; or
• allow Matt Wieters to stay in the lineup once every four or five days without having to catch.

The Orioles don't owe Guerrero anything. Well, I take that back: They owe him the rest of this year's salary and the $3 million of his deal that's deferred until 2016-2017. But they don't have to "respect" him by putting his name in the lineup every single game. That doesn't mean they should badmouth him or throw him under the bus for not having a good season. Guerrero has had plenty of opportunities to turn things around, but it's just not happening. And only truly bad teams keep running out players like Guerrero -- guys who barely have any value, aren't helping the team, and are blocking younger guys from having the chance to play every day.

Reimold is not a star. He may end up not being an everyday player. But it's a little embarrassing that the O's still don't have a clue if Reimold, who turns 28 in two months, can be someone they rely on for next season and beyond. The Orioles are terrible at developing young players at the major league level, and how they've handled many of their talented prospects this season is just another example.

The inflexibility of the Orioles

I was going to give this post a title of "The inflexibility of Buck," but I don't think all of these problems/issues are solely his fault. For example, it wasn't Buck Showalter's decision to sign Vladimir Guerrero (more on that below). Also, I like Showalter (who now has a 69-64 record in Baltimore) and think he's the best manager the O's have had in years. But as the Jim Riggleman-Nationals fiasco recently demonstrated, it's easy to overrate baseball managers and believe that most of them are difference makers. Some of them are, sure. But most of them? Probably not.

Basically, the O's are a below-average team. This is not news. The O's need to get better in several key areas, and even the players and front office personnel would admit that. But after signing a player to fill a specific role, a team sometimes needs to understand that it made a mistake. If no other options are available, then it's normally acceptable to keep using that player in that role. But when other, more intriguing options are available, it only hurts a team to compound that initial mistake by continuing to use said player in a role that just isn't working. Yes, that's a vague description, but here's how it relates to the O's:

Vladimir Guerrero

Guerrero is one of the most exciting baseball players I've ever watched. It would have been a real treat if he had played on the O's during the prime of his career. Sadly, that time has passed. When the O's signed Guerrero to a one-year, $8 million deal in the offseason, I was mostly against it. The issue wasn't just that the O's were overpaying Guerrero, but that as the team's designated hitter, he would clog the roster with a player who can't play in the field anymore. Essentially, he's done just that. With the exception of games in NL stadiums, Guerrero has been in the lineup in most O's games. The O's rarely decide to bench Guerrero and DH someone else, meaning that Luke Scott has to play in the field if the O's want his bat in the lineup.

If Guerrero were hitting, that wouldn't be very important. But he's not. Guerrero is currently batting .282/.313/.386 with six home runs, which is not the kind of production the O's want from their designated hitter. (Here's more on Guerrero's mediocre season from Daniel Moroz of Camden Crazies.) So Guerrero is not hitting for much power or getting on base at a high rate, and yet he's in the lineup every day as the team's DH. Oh, and he continues to bat fourth -- another perplexing decision.

The initial decision to sign Guerrero is not looking good, and unfortunately there's no way to go back and un-sign him. But just because he's on the roster doesn't mean that Showalter has to keep putting Guerrero's name in the lineup every game -- especially in the fourth spot. Not only should Guerrero be moved down in the batting order, but he should sit more often as well. The argument that the O's are trying to pump up his trade value by putting his name in the lineup so often, at this point, is ridiculous. It's not impossible that some AL team in a few weeks makes some kind of offer for Guerrero, but the O's would get next to nothing in return. In fact, they should be happy if another team simply agrees to absorb the rest of Guerrero's salary ($3 million of which, according to Cot's Baseball Contracts, is deferred without interest until the 2016-2017 season).

Guerrero's presence on the roster is not helping the team, and it's actually negatively affecting the O's in other ways (listed below).

Nolan Reimold

The O's treatment of Reimold is baffling. I won't make the argument that he's some kind of defensive wizard in left field. But as a 27-year-old who has demonstrated the ability to hit major league pitching, he deserves the chance to play regularly.

In 2009, Reimold hit .279/.365/.466 with 15 homers in 411 plate appearances. Unfortunately, he battled several injuries in 2010 and only batted .207/.282/.328 in 131 plate appearances that season. But the injuries obviously affected his play across the board; Showalter has admitted (a few times, actually) that Reimold wasn't the same player in 2010. Then, because he still had an option left, the O's decided to keep Reimold off the roster at the start of this season and have him report to Triple-A Norfolk. Because of a few injuries to other players, Reimold was recalled in May, and he's been on the roster since. He got off to a quick start, and in 56 plate appearances he's batting .261/.375/.478 with three home runs. Sure, that's not many trips to the plate, but that's the problem: Why is Reimold not playing more? He gets on base, draws walks, and hits for power. And yet he's been relegated to the bench and pigeonholed into being some kind of lefty-hitting specialist who only gets in the lineup when a southpaw is on the mound.

Here are his (albeit brief) career splits:

vs. RH: 357 PA, .260/.342/.429, 13 HR
vs. LH: 241 PA, .264/.357/.447, 8 HR

So he has slightly better numbers against lefties, but in fewer plate appearances. Overall, those are pretty good numbers against both types of pitchers, and it's not any kind of outrageous split. That's not to say that Showalter (hopefully) believes Reimold hits much better against lefties. The reason he's only playing against lefties is that it pushes Scott to the bench, because Scott doesn't hit lefties quite as well (though that's overblown as well).

I'm not arguing that Reimold is a superstar and that it's a crime against humanity for him to sit on the bench so often. But it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to keep Reimold on the roster if he's going to sit out a week at a time. I'm not a big believer in Felix Pie, but I believe that Reimold has the talent to be an effective major league hitter. And hopefully the O's give him a chance to prove that he either is or isn't before the end of the season.

-----

Here's another point: Before the season, the O's made it known that they wanted to win games now. They weren't going to mortgage the future to do so, but the Guerrero and Derrek Lee signings, along with the Mark Reynolds trade, were made to improve the on-field product for this season in an attempt to reach a .500 record (or close to it). But here's the odd part of that: If the O's are trying to win now so much, the decision to play Guerrero less should be made anyway. His plethora of singles would be nice for, say, someone like Robert Andino, but they're not what the O's want out of their cleanup-hitting designated hitter. Putting Scott at the DH more often gets Reimold's bat in the lineup, and it also saves Scott from having to make throws in the outfield that would put extra stress on his injured right shoulder.

Just like the decision to use Kevin Gregg in situations when either Koji Uehara or Jim Johnson (or both) are available, Showalter and the O's are being rather inflexible when it comes to dealing with Guerrero and the DH position.

Guerrero and the outfield

Here's The Baltimore Sun's Dan Connolly, wondering whether or not the Orioles should allow Vladimir Guerrero to play the outfield in their next few interleague play road games:

But for the next six games in Washington and Pittsburgh, there will be no DH. So what do you do with Guerrero?

He won’t be in Friday’s starting lineup and I doubt he’ll start any – maybe one – in left field. It’s not just that he is considered a liability out there. The Orioles don’t want him to risk injury – and last year his offensive production dipped when he played the field. (By the way, he still shags fly balls in warm-ups and would like to play outfield if the alternative is getting to hit just once. But he says it is completely up to Buck Showalter.)

While in the outfield in 2010, Guerrero batted .234 with four homers in 64 at-bats. As a DH last year, he hit .306 with 25 homers in 523 at-bats. He also saw a serious drop in power between his first and second halves of 2010 – which we assume means he wore down. Even if he isn’t part of the Orioles’ future, you want him as a potential trade chip in July, so keeping him somewhat fresh could be important.

The flip side is, even though his power numbers are down, he still can be a presence in the middle of the lineup and taking him out weakens a group that isn’t exactly playing pinball with the scoreboard.

My suggestion is start him twice in left and use him as a pinch-hitter in the other four games. I don’t’ think that’s what’s going to happen – I see him pinch-hitting in all six – but if I were in charge for a week, I’d let him play the outfield twice.

So do you agree with Connolly? Should the O's allow Vlad to play left field for a couple of games?

Short answer: No way.

Long(er) answer: The 64 at-bats from 2010 that Connolly mentions isn't much of a sample size to go on, but it's not a stretch to suggest that at this point in his career, Guerrero is better when he focuses most of his energy on his offensive production. At 36, he also doesn't run that well anymore. If Nick Markakis occassionally has trouble reaching fly balls in the gap, how exactly is Guerrero going to run them down? The O's may as well just play Adam Jones in left-center if Vlad is out there.

In terms of offense, even though Vlad is having a down year, he's still one of the O's more productive hitters (again, that's not saying much). He's not having a great power year and obviously he doesn't walk much, but out of O's batters with more than 100 plate appearances, Vlad is sixth in wOBA (.317). But because he's not hitting all that well, he's only been worth 0.1 WAR at DH. That's not what the O's expected when they shelled out $8 million for his services.

So say, for some reason this season, Guerrero possibly hits a little better when he's playing in left field. Is it really worth it to deal with his defense just to keep his (still) average bat in the lineup? Remember earlier this season, when the Giants tried to fool everyone into thinking that Aubrey Huff could still play the outfield? Not only was Huff embarrassed early and often, but it (obviously) hurt the team. So yeah, if Guerrero had amazing offensive numbers, then it might be worth it to have this discussion. But even though he's been decent compared to what other O's hitters have done this year, it's not really worth it to roll the dice on his outfield defense.

If Guerrero could play first base, where less running is required, then the move would make a little more sense -- even more so because of how horrible Derrek Lee (.271 wOBA) has been at the plate. However, I seriously doubt that will happen.

The Orioles are not like the Astros

Earlier today on ESPN's SweetSpot blog, Austin Swafford (of Astros 290) wrote that the Orioles are headed down a dangerous road -- similar to one the Astros have taken the last few years. In the piece, Swafford argued that the O's didn't need to make many of their offseason moves because the O's are not "a few overpriced veterans away from going to the World Series."

Here's more of what he had to say:

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to win right now if you have the right parts. But I have thought about the lesson that could be learned from the Astros as I have watched the Orioles since the end of last season. They closed 2010 on a good note. They hired Buck Showalter and, with him at the helm, went 34-23 to end the year.

So, naturally, they looked around at their very talented division and said, "No rush. We have a good manager, we're making good progress and we have young talent. We can be patient while that young talent develops." Right?

It'd be nice if that were the case, but instead of doing that, the Orioles got very involved in free agency, went out and got J.J. Hardy, Derrek Lee, Mark Reynolds, Vladimir Guerrero, Justin Duchscherer and Kevin Gregg. Average age: 31.8.

They're not all old and I don't dislike all of the signings, but why the urgency? Why the apparently desperate need to compete now when they probably won't?

I encourage you to read the whole post. Swafford made some strong points, some of which have been brought up by other baseball analysts, and even O's fans themselves.

But here are a few points before I get to my main problem with the piece:

• Yes, the O's did sign or trade for all of those players listed above. Hardy, Lee, Guerrero, and Duchscherer are all signed to one-year deals. Gregg signed a two-year deal, and sure, that was far from the best signing. And Reynolds has a guaranteed deal through 2012, with a club option for 2013. I'm not arguing that all of those deals are fantastic and will definitely work out, but they hardly strain the organization's position financially like Carlos Lee's six-year, $100 million deal in 2007 with the Astros.
• The O's did not trade away a bunch of young talent in an effort to get better overnight. The best player the O's traded, David Hernandez, is a reliever. Kam Mickolio and Jim Hoey are also relievers who either couldn't stay healthy or simply weren't very effective (or both), and Brett Jacobson, another reliever, is 24 and hasn't played above Single A. Those players -- four relievers -- still have some value, but not a ton of upside. So it's not like the O's took an enormous gamble or anything on Reynolds or Hardy.
• No one thinks the O's are going to the World Series. Even the most optimistic fans would be thrilled with third place -- not that that's the ultimate goal (it's obviously not), but still. It's possible that Andy MacPhail made a few of the team's moves (like the Guerrero signing) to improve the team in the short term, which would be unfortunate. But even someone like Guerrero could possibly be flipped at the trade deadline for a younger player or two, as could several other veterans.

Really, though, my problem is with Swafford's thinking that many of these signed players are blocking MLB-ready talent. To me, there are only two cases where that applies:

1) Guerrero, who's signing may block Felix Pie/Nolan Reimold
2) Duchscherer, who may force Chris Tillman (or another young starter) back to Triple A

That's it. Reynolds, Hardy, and Lee are not blocking anyone in the infield. Josh Bell has recently been working out at first base, but he showed last season that he's not close to being ready to assuming any kind of everyday role. Brandon Snyder probably isn't ready either, if he ever will be. With Guerrero serving as the O's designated hitter, Luke Scott will move to left field, which will likely force Pie and Reimold to either the bench or the minors. It would be nice to see both get regular playing time, so in that sense, Guerrero does seem to be blocking them. But, as I've mentioned before, Pie is 26 and Reimold is 27; we're not talking about young up-and-comers here.

Then there's Duchscherer. Duchscherer is 33, and the O's are banking on him returning to form to give the O's another reliable option in the rotation. If he stays healthy (not a guarantee) and pitches well, he may be another player the O's could trade at the deadline. But he was signed for less than $1 million, so if he can't stay healthy or is ineffective, it's not a huge loss. Considering the O's already have several other young starters to choose from -- Brian Matusz (24), Brad Bergesen (25), Jake Arrieta (24), and Tillman (22), and even Zach Britton (23) down the road -- it's not the worst thing to bring in a low-risk, high-reward starter like Duchscherer. What's the worst that could happen? That Duchscherer keeps getting hurt? Or maybe that he stays healthy enough to pitch but isn't effective? If that's the case, the O's aren't required to keep him in the rotation, and it wouldn't be difficult to let him go. It would be nice to give every young starter plenty of chances, but the season is long and pitchers always get hurt. There will be opportunities during the season to perform.

If someone wants to make the argument (like Keith Law has) that the O's would have been better off using money on signing international prospects or putting that money toward draft picks, that's one thing. But it's hard to get too upset with the majority of moves the O's have made, especially since most of the contracts signed are short-term deals. Besides maybe Gregg, the O's are not stuck with a truly horrible contract, and even Gregg is signed for just two years.

Considering what the O's have gone through for the last 13 seasons, it's hard to say that the O's are headed for trouble. They've been in a ton of trouble for a while, and while playing in the AL East, things will not get any easier. They still have a ton of work to do, but when is that not the case?

O's, MacPhail have busy week

If you've been seeking out Orioles-related content the past week or so, you've had a lot to choose from. There's been a lot of discussion about how effective the O's efforts this offseason have been -- some good, some bad. But the O's were mentioned a lot this week, and not all of it had to do with the team.

O's receive criticism for offseason moves

The Vladimir Guerrero signing was the last major move by Andy MacPhail and the O's front office. It was also the most widely panned. Two of the most vocal critics of the O's moves are two highly regarded baseball analysts: Keith Law and Rob Neyer.

On Thursday, MASN's Steve Melewski posted much of an interview he had with Law, who didn't hold back when it came to his opinion of what the O's were/are doing. Here are a few of his comments from the piece:

"The Orioles are not a club right now that is adding young talent, they have added veteran players to the roster. I don't get it, they are not winning 85 games this year and even if they did, what is that going to buy them? A couple extra fans in the seats? It won't put them in the playoffs," Law said.

"Vlad Guerrero, if he's not toast, he's in the toaster. It doesn't make sense to acquire players like that. I understand (Nolan) Reimold had a bad year last year and Felix Pie is a flawed player. But, they cost you nothing and they have some talent. It's possible that one of those guys will actually develop into a solid big leaguer. You will never find that out if you send them back to Triple-A."

There's much more in the entire interview, including more criticism of the Guerrero and Mark Reynolds moves, his opinion that the O's should invest more money in player development, and Law's belief that the O's should fully commit to a youth movement instead of this season's approach.

As expected, many MASN commenters weren't happy with Law's comments, and some figured that he must have some kind of anti-Orioles bias for not drinking the MacPhail Kool-Aid. Much of that uproar caused Melewski to write another post on the topic, in which he noted that he didn't include every single comment from his interview with Law. Melewski also made a few points of his own at the end of the post about the team's general direction.

Law's comments were harsh, but Neyer has been critical too -- mostly of the Guerrero signing:

And finally, let me address my all-time least favorite argument in favor of moves like this: "Hey, they have to spend the money somewhere, don't they?"

Yes, they do. Or rather, they should. But they don't have to spend it here. Every year, teams don't sign draft picks because they don't want to spend the money. Or don't even draft someone because the asking price will be too high. But that's just the stuff we know about. Do you have any idea how many teen-aged Dominicans and Venezuelans you can sign for $8 million?

I don't know, either. A lot.

If you were making a list of the things that a team like the Orioles should not do, spending $8 million on a player like Vladimir Guerrero is really close to the top.

Hey, I might be wrong. Probably not, though.

Again, Neyer, like Law, brings up many fair points. Neyer also answered a few questions from Camden Chat, which included his take that "reaching .500 is a lot less important than assembling the pieces that might eventually lead to 90 wins (rather than 81)" -- I believe most O's fans would agree with that.

Many fans are upset with the criticism because they believe the team is headed in the right direction for once. It's tough to stomach that two of the most respected baseball writers in the business aren't completely on board with what the O's have have been doing.

Still, they are just two opinions -- well respected or not -- but they're not the only ones who have opinions on the team's moves. Here's what Craig Calcaterra of Hardball Talk (also a respected name) thinks of what the O's have done:

I would agree with Keith that the incremental improvements the O’s made this winter aren’t the things long-term plans are made of. But that’s only bad if the moves foreclose the possibility of making the sorts of changes that do fit in a sound long term plan. In the meantime, there is some value to making the team into one that fans who watch 100 games a year can better stomach than the version they’ve watched the past few years. Derrek Lee, Vlad Guerrero and Mark Reynolds aren’t going to be a part of the next contending Orioles team, but they are far more easy to stomach than the guys they’ve trotted out recently.

And more importantly, they aren’t preventing that next contending Orioles team from coming together.

I'm not really a big fan of the Guerrero signing, but I still tend to look at the overall picture much like Calcaterra. But everyone is entitled to their opinion; the only thing that matters is what happens on the field.

Guthrie and Scott sign one-year deals

The O's avoided arbitration with their last two arbitration-eligible players, agreeing to deals with Luke Scott and Jeremy Guthrie. Scott signed a one-year, $6.4 million deal, and Guthrie agreed to a one-year, $5.75 million deal. Unlike the Guerrero deal, there's no controversy surrounding these agreements.

MacPhail's take on the A-Rod contract

Speaking to law students at the Baltimore School of Law on Thursday, MacPhail, answering a question, offered his opinion on what he thought was the worst free agent signing in baseball history:

"Alex Rodriguez to Texas was the worst signing in the history of baseball in my view," MacPhail said, according to The Baltimore Sun. "Why? Because he played as well as you can possibly ask the kid to play. He had great years. And the needle didn't move at all. ... The team didn't improve. Attendance didn't go up. But hey, they got the lead story on ESPN. Well, if that's what motivates you, you're going down the wrong path. You want to put 35,000 people in the ballpark, win the games. That's what (fans) are there to see. That's what the Orioles need—to win some games."

MacPhail's comments made the rounds, and most people vehemently disagreed. FanGraphs' Dave Cameron probably wrote the most thorough refutation, in which he argued that Rodriguez's contract was a pretty good deal for the Rangers. Here is his conclusion:

Alex Rodriguez’s first contract was far from the worst deal in baseball history. In fact, given his performance in the years after he signed the deal, Rodriguez was actually worth the money he was paid. Unfortunately, the narrative of the deal lives on, despite all the illogical hula hoops you have to jump through in order to reach the conclusion that MacPhail suggested yesterday. Don’t believe the hype; A-Rod was not the cause of the Rangers failures, and the contract they signed him to was actually a wise investment. The problem is that was the only good investment that franchise made in those three years.

Neyer and Calcaterra also offered their takes, along with plenty of others. Is MacPhail wrong? Probably. But is he entitled to his opinion? Of course. It's pretty funny, though, that his comments about the A-Rod contract are being talked about right now considering that he just signed Guerrero to an $8 million deal.

Ernie Tyler passes away

Ernie Tyler, the Orioles' umpires' assistant for many, many years, passed away on Thursday night. He was 86. I could post a ton of glowing quotes and anecdotes about Tyler, but I'll just go with this awesome feat:

A local legend, Tyler once worked 3,819 consecutive home games at Memorial Stadium and Camden Yards, from Opening Day 1960 to July 27, 2007. His streak, which included 3,769 consecutive regular-season games, 40 post-season games and nine exhibitions, ended when he accepted an invitation from Cal Ripken Jr. to attend Ripken’s Hall of Fame induction in Cooperstown, N.Y.

Simply amazing. For more on Tyler, check out these articles. Rest in peace, Ernie.

-----

Didn't mean to end on a sad note, but that's how it goes sometimes. So yeah, I'd say that's a rather hectic week.

O's sign Guerrero to fill DH non-hole

So it's official: The Orioles have signed Vladimir Guerrero to a one-year, $8 million deal. Despite the fact that the O's already have a designated hitter (Luke Scott), they decided to bring Guerrero aboard anyway. Scott will likely shift to left field, meaning a lot less playing time for Felix Pie or Nolan Reimold -- or both.

Before I start to sound completely negative, it's worth noting that Guerrero is a fine hitter. Last season with the Rangers, he hit .300/.345/.496, and for his career he's a .320/.383/.563 hitter. As you can see, his numbers are in decline (he turns 36 next Wednesday), but he's still an above-average hitter who will get on base and hit for power.

Unfortunately, this move doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and here are a few reasons why:

1) As noted above, Scott was already penciled in as the team's DH, and there was no real reason to overpay for another DH. With Scott occupying left field, the O's have an important decision to make regarding Pie and Reimold. Both guys have shown some promise, and Guerrero's presence will not only limit both guys' playing time, but it will likely force one off of the opening day roster. I'm pretty sure that Reimold has a minor league option left, but I don't believe Pie does. Either way, neither player will be happy with his new role, and they're both starting to get older and less valuable (Pie turns 26 on Tuesday; Reimold is 27).

2) The O's are not a contending team, and this move does not push them closer to anything except maybe getting out of the AL East cellar or finishing with a .500 record. Don't get me wrong, those would be nice achievements, but they don't seem to be worth risking the chance of seeing Pie and Reimold develop into solid players. There's no guarantee of that happening, but there's less chance of that occurring now.

3) On a similar note, $8 million seems like a lot to pay for: a) a guy who can't play the field; b) an aging slugger whose body may start to break down soon; and c) a hitter who wasn't widely (or arguably even remotely) coveted. That's more of a knock on the O's than Guerrero, who probably has enough juice left in the tank for a couple more decent seasons.

-----

Those are just my immediate thoughts, so I'm sure I missed plenty of good points. Here are some other reactions, both from O's fans and non-O's fans. (Note: This should be rather interesting, mostly because I haven't had the chance to read other takes on the signing until just now. Enjoy.)

-- "But you know what it feels like to me? 1998. If you recall, that’s the year we took fliers on Joe Carter and Doug Drabek. I realize there’s one huge difference here in that Guerrero had a good year last year while Carter and Drabek were both pretty clearly done when we brought them in. Still, there are echoes. In each case we’re talking about bringing in an aging 'name' veteran on a bloated contract and hoping he has enough left to contribute. . . . Maybe Guerrero does — this is certainly a smarter move than Carter or Drabek were. Maybe it’s even a subtle stroke of genius in that he could be flipped for an upper-tier prospect after a good first half. Hell, maybe he has a fantastic year and the O’s are still in contention for the Wild Card come August. All of these things are possible. . . . I’m not against being excited by 'maybe.' I do it every year with the O’s. But if I’m going on 'maybe' I’d rather it take the form of Pie and/or Reimold." [The Loss Column]

-- "Most fans seem to be looking at the name on the back of the jersey more than Vlad's actual production of late. So they are happy. But Vlad won't help as much as everyone thinks. I've detailed that. Others have too. And I'm sure I will again. . . . Let's not even discuss the money. There is little chance he will be worth that much and given the reduced market for his services, that's an incredible overpay. It had better not affect the draft budget." [Dempsey's Army]

-- "Guerrero's got a name, obviously. But can you really imagine the good people of Charm City getting excited about the chance to see Vladimir Guerrero bat four times? The truth is that there have been very, very, very few players who baseball fans would specifically pay to see. And while there might have been a year or two when Guerrero was one of those players, sort of, he's not anymore. . . . But wait, this gets worse. Guerrero's presence actually shoves a younger, cheaper, and decent-enough player to the bench (or the minors) and weakens the defense." [Rob Neyer, SB Nation]

-- "Interestingly . . . the O’s payroll now sits at approximately $93 million, approximately $20 million more than last season. . . . You can’t say the Orioles aren’t trying to win, but unless their young pitchers take a huge leap forward this season, it’s hard to imagine them being a contender." [D.J. Short, Hardball Talk]

-- "Even if you want Vlad on the team - I don't really, since I'd much rather watch Pie and Reimold play every day - but even if you do, it is still really dumb to pay $8 M to a guy who didn't have many potential job openings. Even if it's not my money, it doesn't instill me with confidence that Andy MacPhail will be making the kinds of moves the O's need him to make to compete in the AL East (where at least New York and Boston have more money, and all of the other GMs were already smarter in my opinion)." [Camden Crazies]

-- "Will Guerrero make the Orioles better? After shattering expectations for him in Texas, Guerrero came back to reality in the second half (.270 average/11 homers/ 45 RBI). He’s no spring chicken, either (he'll turn 36 Wednesday), so assuming he’ll replicate last year's 643 plate appearances in 2011 is being way too optimistic. His production is real, and the Orioles will give Vlad some good players to get on base in front of him. But living by 'the three run homer' philosophy isn't always the best strategy, and the Orioles pitching is not ready to compete in the AL East. One must wonder if all these moves are a vain attempt to appease a fan base that is desperate for the days of Cal Ripken." [Ben Pritchett, The Hardball Times]

-- "Can Guerrero do for the Orioles what he did for the Rangers last year? That's asking a lot, considering he's a year older and the O's are a lot farther away from being a contending team. But he gives the team that much more offensive credibility and gives fans a little more to look forward to as they club gets ready to open training camp just 10 days from now." [The Schmuck Stops Here]

-----

I'm sure there's more, but that's enough. You get the idea -- mostly negative reactions, understandably. It's worth noting that the problem isn't really with the player the O's targeted; Guerrero will probably hit just fine and give the O's what they were looking for. The problem is with bringing in something that wasn't really needed for too much money while also possibly giving up on other younger, cheaper options. So yeah, that's definitely a concern, particularly in the organization's overall decision-making process.

Guerrero, O's still talking

Vladimir Guerrero doesn't exactly have a ton of options left in terms of suitors, so with the Orioles apparently interested in his services, he's listening. And that's what ESPN's Buster Olney is reporting -- that Guerrero and the O's are "making progress in their talks for a 2011 contract."

The O's have already made a few moves this offseason to upgrade the team's lineup (particularly the infield), such as trading for third baseman Mark Reynolds, dealing for shortstop J.J. Hardy, and signing first baseman Derrek Lee. However, Andy MacPhail doesn't appear to be done trying to fix the team's offense and may want Guerrero to be the team's designated hitter. If that happens, Luke Scott would likely see more time in left field since the O's need to keep his bat in the lineup. And that would be bad news for both Felix Pie and Nolan Reimold, who currently seem headed for a time-share role in left field. If Guerrero ends up in Baltimore, the O's could trade one, or both, for pitching depth.

Guerrero is 35, can only DH at this point in his career, and isn't likely to keep posting solid offensive numbers. (Not that a one-year deal is that big of a risk, obviously.) Meanwhile, Reimold is 27 and Pie is 25. Are the O's against giving those two a chance to see what they can do in a split-duty role, or is the team basically convinced at this point of what type of player each guy is?

It's not like the O's will have to break the bank for Guerrero -- they can probably sign him for a few million bucks. But if they do bring him to Baltimore, that may shut the door on the possibility of Reimold or Pie sticking around much longer (unless they both end up as bench guys, which doesn't seem likely).

Why the O's don't have to overpay for a first baseman

Let's take a look at three players' career stats:

Player A: .271/.339/.488, .351 wOBA
Player B: .282/.367/.498, .371 wOBA
Player C: .268/.354/.503, .365 wOBA

Player A doesn't get on base as much as the other two and also hits for slightly less power. Player B and Player C are pretty close, with B getting on base more and C hitting for a bit more power. Again, this comparison is just based on hitting and doesn't bring in other factors like age, fielding, etc., but if you had to choose, it would likely be in this order: B, then C, then A.

Player A is Adam LaRoche, Player B is Derrek Lee, and Player C is Luke Scott. In terms of overall production (not just hitting), they're not all on equal footing. Scott hasn't played much first base in his career and has played more left field and DH. Lee and LaRoche, meanwhile, are both exclusively first basemen. Also, Scott is 32, LaRoche is 31, and Lee is 35.

Now, obviously, the reasons why the Orioles are in the running for a first baseman are: 1) the Garrett Atkins experiment worked out horribly last season; 2) they don't really have any young first base prospects (outside of maybe Nolan Reimold, though he's never played the position at the major league level) who can fill the role; and 3) they're looking for an upgrade at the position, even if it's just for a year or two. And, really, if the O's end up signing Lee or LaRoche to a one-year deal, that's fine. But if they really did extend a three-year deal to LaRoche or are even considering it, I do have a problem with that. Lee is apparently seeking a one-year deal, which seems reasonable even if that deal ends up costing $7-$8 million -- something in that range. But what puts LaRoche in the three-year range? He's definitely an improvement over who the O's have had at first base the last few seasons, but that doesn't mean the O's should overpay for a non-elite first baseman who's already in his 30s. It would be hard to classify that type of signing as anything other than a desperate move.

Last season, Lee (2.1) and LaRoche (2.0) ranked 15th and 16th, respectively, out of all first basemen in WAR. (Ty Wigginton (0.3) ranked 22nd.) Picking either one up would make the O's better, sure, but it's not like it would greatly transform the team. Is it really worth it to sign someone like LaRoche to a multi-year deal just to gain possibly a couple of wins? Maybe, maybe not, though I'd vote no.

Buck Showalter has apparently made it known that he'd like to have a proven first baseman manning that position this year. That would mean that he'd welcome Lee or LaRoche to Baltimore -- as most fans would -- with open arms. I'm for that move, too, as long as the price is right. Why should the O's overpay when the only other two teams that seemingly are in the running are the Nationals and Padres? Baltimore and Washington seem like the two likely landing spots for Lee and LaRoche, not just because they may have the biggest needs at the position, but because they can probably spend a little more than San Diego.

At the trade deadline last year, the O's made the curious decision to not trade either Wigginton or Scott. Scott is still in Baltimore, but Wigginton bolted for Colorado. With Scott still around, the O's do have someone who can fill in at the position, if necessary. In his career, Scott has only played a total of 29 games at first, so it's not like he's completely comfortable playing the position. However, his hitting would likely make up for some subpar fielding, if he's able to improve enough to get to that level in the field.

Playing Scott at first isn't an ideal fall-back plan, but it does give the O's at least an option to go with if Lee or LaRoche decide to sign elsewhere. Signing a DH like Jim Thome or Vladimir Guerrero may even be better for the team offensively, though playing Scott at first would be a defensive risk.

So, basically, if the O's don't sign Lee or LaRoche, it may hurt the team a little, but probably not a whole lot. Remember, we're talking about a 35-year-old Derrek Lee and Adam LaRoche. It's not the end of the world if the O's don't meet either player's contract demands.

Francoeur not too sure about this OBP thing

Jeff Francoeur is a decent major league hitter. He's not bad, and he's not great either. In three seasons and parts of two others, including this one, Francoeur has hit at a .269/.312/.435 clip with 76 home runs.

He's not very fast; in fact, he's been caught stealing 11 times while stealing only 9 bases -- so he doesn't help in that phase of the game. In right field, he is solid and possesses a very strong arm, so that's a bonus.

But anyway, back to his performance at the plate. Francoeur is strong and can hit the ball to all fields, yet he strikes out too much and doesn't walk enough (0.27 career BB/K ratio), and both obviously contribute to his low on-base percentage.

Unfortunately for the Braves, Francoeur doesn't see anything wrong with his approach at the plate:

For Atlanta outfielder Jeff Francoeur, the search for a more disciplined approach is elusive and the source of occasional torment. Francoeur began this season with loose goals of 80 strikeouts and 50 to 60 walks. But he's always been an aggressive player, and he's wary of becoming too passive in the quest for a higher OBP.

"If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it up on the scoreboard?" Francoeur says.

I'd say that someone has been getting in touch with his inner Joe Morgan.

Not that it really matters, but many stadiums actually do put on-base percentage on the scoreboard now; I've seen it up at Camden Yards and Nationals Park. But again, that's not the point. The point, though, is that getting on base is the most important thing a batter can do. And, for the most part, Francoeur still has to improve at this task.

Jerry Crasnick, who wrote the article linked above, delves into the subject of plate discipline by talking to scouts, baseball executives, and other players. Eventually he gets back to the topic of Francoeur's struggles:

Since his arrival in the majors in 2005, Francoeur has struggled to find an identity. He hit 29 homers in his first full season, but posted a .293 on-base percentage. Then he improved his OBP at the expense of his power. Last year he bulked up with an NFL-style conditioning program in an effort to hit more home runs, and everything unraveled.

One scout called him "the most confused hitter in the game" -- a label that Francoeur doesn't dispute. He's sensitive to the criticism of his free-swinging approach, and at times he's put excessive pressure on himself to remake himself as a hitter.

"People forget that I just turned 25," Francoeur says. "I've been up since I was 21, and a lot of people come up when they're 24 or 25. I have 3.5 years in the big leagues, but I'm still learning how to hit."

Yes, he is still just 25 years old, but his solution is in that first paragraph. In that second full season when Francoeur "improved his OBP at the expense of his power," he actually had the best season of his young career. He posted a career-best .338 OBP, which led to a career-best OPS of .782 (not counting his first half season). And even though he hit 10 fewer home runs (19) than the year before (29), he only lost five points on his slugging percentage because he made more contact, collected more hits, and hit more doubles. He even knocked in two more runs without those extra home runs.

And while he posted a slightly better walk-to-strikeout ratio the next season, he posted career lows in batting average, OBP, and slugging percentage, probably because he did bulk up and tried to hit for more power instead of refining his approach from the previous season.

The good news is that through 25 games so far this season, Francoeur appears to be on the right track. He's hitting .283/.305/.444 with 13 runs, 3 homers, and 17 RBI. But more importantly, he has only struck out 9 times while walking 4 times. He'll probably never be a guy who walks a ton, but if he decreases his strikeouts and makes more contact, he'll be much better at the plate.

There's nothing wrong with being selective at the plate; not everyone can be the next Vladimir Guerrero.

Teixeira traded to the Angels

With a 66-40 record, which happens to be the best in MLB, the LA Angels decided that their lineup needed a significant upgrade, so the team traded for the best hitter on the trading block: first baseman Mark Teixeira. In order to get Teixeira, who becomes a free agent after this season, the Angels traded away first baseman Casey Kotchman and minor league pitcher Stephen Marek to the Atlanta Braves.

Before the trade, the Angels had a good lineup but not a great one. When discussing the Angels' lineup, other than the power of Vladimir Guerrero and Torii Hunter, most baseball analysts and announcers usually bring up that the Angels are a very fundamentally sound team. The Angels will hit-and-run, go from first to third on a single most of the time, and lay down bunts when needed. Chone Figgins steals plenty of bases, Howie Kendrick is a great contact hitter, and Reggie Willits can come off the bench to bunt, play defense, and do whatever is necessary at a certain time.

But all of that can only get a team so far, especially when the Angels have had Maicer Izturis (.264/.327/.352) batting third.

The Angels have really been a peculiar team this season. On the one hand, as stated above, they play fundamental baseball and win one-run games (20-13 on the season). The Angels have an outstanding starting rotation and a very solid bullpen; Francisco Rodriguez already has 44 saves. On the other hand, the Angels have been extremely lucky. They are 24 games over .500, but their run differential is just +43. To contrast, the Oakland A's, also in the AL West, have a run differential of +42. And they are just 53-53 on the season.

The Angels also happen to rank ninth in the AL in runs scored (480), 11th in on-base percentage (.322), and ninth in home runs (99).

So instead of just hoping the luck continues and deciding to put Izturis in the third slot for the rest of the season, the Angels took a chance and got Teixeira. Teixeira will slide right into first base to replace Kotchman, and he helps give the Angels a much more formidable lineup. Kotchman is a pretty good hitter, but Teixeira is much better in almost every category:

(2008 numbers)
Kotchman -- .287 BA, .774 OPS, 12 HR, 54 RBI, 47 Runs
Teixeira -- .283 BA, .902 OPS, 20 HR, 78 RBI, 63 Runs

A lineup 1-7 of Figgins, Kendrick, Teixeira, Guerrero, Hunter, Anderson, and Izturis sure looks a lot better than this one: Figgins, Kotchman, Izturis, Guerrero, Hunter, Anderson, Kendrick.

Of course, the 28-year-old Teixeira is a free agent after this season and will want a long-term deal worth more than $20 million per season. Depending on how the rest of this season goes, the Angels may decide to sign him, or maybe they'll just let him walk. Either way, they definitely seem to be serious about making a run at the World Series, and they sure look like the best team in the AL right now.

If the Angels win the World Series this year, no one will care that they traded away Kotchman. (Except Kotchman.)