Since transferring over to Bloguin, I've been going through the Camden Crazies archives and sorting posts to make them accessible again. I thought it wouldn't hurt to re-post some of the more evergreen interesting articles, for those that may have missed them the first go-around.

In honor of the All-Star game being played this evening, I thought I'd go through and pick out the Orioles All-Stars. Just using first-half data would be a little tricky - and it's debatable if that is even the sole manner by which All-Stars should be selected - so this is basically the top seasons at each position for the team. I have previously looked at the top Orioles overall (well, from 1955, since that was as far back as Sean Smith had developed his Wins Above Replacement database at the time), and this will be in a similar vein - great players tend to have great seasons.

C: This is a really easy one for the starting spot, with a fight for second place.

Chris Hoiles, 1993, 7.2 Wins Above Replacement. Hoiles had a great offensive year (irrespective of his position), hitting .310/.416/.585, (.433 wOBA) with 29 HR. Add to that his +6 runs behind the plate, including catching 41% of opposing basestealers, and this monster season not only locks down his position on the O's All-Star team but helps cement his place as the top catcher in O's history. Keep in mind also that Hoiles only had 503 plate appearances in '93 - it makes the whole thing even more impressive. Hoiles wasn't selected to the 1993 All-Star game, even though it was played in Baltimore.

Javy Lopez, 2004, 4.5 WAR. This was Lopez's first year with the Birds, and though it paled in comparison to his .328/.378/.687, 43 HR season the previous year with Atlanta, it was still a very solid .316/.370/.503, (.373 wOBA) 23 HR performance. Lopez had a fuller season with 638 plate appearances, though he wasn't selected to the real All-Star game either.

Mickey Tettleton, 1989, 4.5 WAR. Like Hoiles, Mickey didn't get a full season, putting in only 489 plate appearance - and a good portion of them were as a DH. His .258/.369/.509, (.388 wOBA) 26 HR line was short on average but he clearly made up for it otherwise. He was a real All-Star in '89, and also won the Silver Slugger award. 

So, Joe Posnanski revealed his break-out pitcher for 2011 recently: the Brewers' Yovani Gallardo. Given that Poz picked Ubaldo Jimenez for 2010 and Zack Greinke for 2009, could we be seeing Gallardo go from very good pitcher to Cy Young candidate (possibly even upstaging the team's newest acquisition - Greinke himself)? I looked into that possibility at Beyond the Box Score today: Check it out.

When discussing potential first-base options for the Orioles yesterday, I neglected to mention my real preference: Mark Reynolds. That could be accomplished by signing third-baseman Adrian Beltre, and then shifting Reynolds to first. Beltre's list of suitors has gotten relatively short, and the latest word is that the Angels have pulled their five year $70 M offer, which appears to have already been the highest out there.

First a quick look at the implications for Reynolds:

At third, he's a 2-2.5 WAR player for 2011. The difference in position adjustment from third to first is +2.5 runs to -12.5 over a full season. That means that in order to stay at 2-2.5 WAR, Reynolds needs to go from being a -6 run defender at third (his career UZR there) to a +9 defender at first. That seems like a real stretch to me, and so Reynolds' projection would fall to 1.5-2 wins. Would I want the O's to sign a first-baseman of that quality to a two year, $13 M contract? Not really. But it wouldn't be worse than giving Adam LaRoche three years at $7-8 M per, and there would still be a little bit of excess value in there for the Birds. It would make the trade for David Hernandez and Kam Mickolio look much worse - likely a loss for the team - but what's done is done. Trading Reynolds to a team in need of a third-baseman during the season or next off-season is an option as well.

On to Beltre:

The guy had a fantastic year in 2010. Getting out of Safeco seemed to agree with him - he hit .321/.365/.553 - and combined with his usual excellent defense he posted a 7.1 fWAR season. Obviously a good deal of regression is expected, but Beltre's glove (+15 career UZR/150) keeps him above average overall even if his bat slips quite a bit. If he hits .270/.325/.465 with +10 defense, then he'd be about a 3.5 win player in 600 plate appearances (and I think that's being conservative; his three-year weighted fWAR is 4.8, and while that includes his outstanding 2010, it also includes his injury* marred 2009). I wouldn't be surprised if Beltre's defense kept him above average longer than one would expect due to age related decline as well, but even if it's the "usual" 0.5 wins per year, a four year, $60 M contract would be perfectly fair. That's a higher average annual value than the Angels were offering, and it would allow Beltre to get another longer-term deal at age 35 as a still average to potentially above average player. I'm not sure how likely Beltre would be to accept such a deal, but even going up to $70 M for four years (same money as LA offered) wouldn't be completely crazy. The team would pretty much break even if Beltre starts out as a 4 win player or if he starts at 3.5 wins and ages only half as quickly (though that's not accounting for the second round draft-pick the team would have to give up).

* Not only would it be a pleasure to watch Beltre's glove-work at third from a baseball perspective, it would also be exciting - like a high-wire performer working without a net.

Signing Beltre improves the 2011 club over and above any other free agent option left on the market - notably the first-basemen - and it also sets the team up better for 2012-2013. In my mind, it's pretty doubtful that Josh Bell will be an above average major leaguer in the next few years (if ever). And there aren't any good third-basemen on the market for 2012. Beltre would very possibly be the team's best player in (at least) 2011, and he and JJ Hardy would give the Orioles perhaps the best defensive left side of the infield in baseball. Now, I think the odds of Andy MacPhail actually seriously going after Beltre are very long - perhaps even longer than the odds of Beltre coming to Baltimore even if the O's were to make a run at him. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea though.

The Orioles offered Victor Martinez a lot of money to be their first-baseman for the next four years. He turned them down. They also offered Adam Dunn a lot of money (though less*) to be their first-baseman for the next four years. He also turned them down. Now they're apparently going after Adam LaRoche, and may have even offered him the three year deal he's seeking. That, I think, wouldn't be a particularly smart thing to do.

* This seemed crazy to me. So much of V-Mart's value comes from him being a great hitter for a catcher. The important part there is "for a catcher". As a first-baseman, Martinez isn't all that special of a hitter. I don't see how it makes sense to want to give him $14 M a year and Dunn only $10 M a year. Sure, Martinez might get in a few games behind the plate while Dunn will spend a few more at DH. That's a difference of maybe 5 runs a season. And sure, Martinez might be the better defensive player at first; 5 more runs. Offensively though, there's a big gap going the other way. Dunn is a .384 wOBA career hitter - good for about 27 runs above average per 600 plate appearances. Martinez is a .360 wOBA career hitter - about +17 runs per 600 PA. That almost exactly balances out the defensive differences. Dunn may not age as well, but he's also starting out a year younger (and doesn't have years of wear-and-tear from catching). Offering Martinez more - $16 M more - looks pretty foolish given that they're similarly valuable at best, with Dunn coming out on top in my book (and apparently the AL Central GMs' book, since he ended up getting $56 M from Chicago while Martinez only got $50 M from Detroit).

Adam LaRoche is a perfectly serviceable player. He doesn't have the best contact skills, but they're not terrible; he'll take an occasional walk and hit some balls out of the park; his glove-work is decent. His last five fWAR figures: 2.1, 2.6, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6. He's a fine first-baseman, and a one-year $10 M seems like it would be more than fair (the Diamondbacks turned down his $7.5 M option). It's what Carlos Pena took from the Cubs, and he has out-WAR'ed LaRoche in three of the last four seasons (including Pena's 46 HR, 6.2 fWAR 2007). But three years? He's already 31 years old and so some aging is to be expected. Projecting him for 2 wins next year seems reasonable enough (assume his low walk rate and high strike-out rate from 2010 both move towards his career numbers and cancel out some regression otherwise), and the standard 0.5 wins of aging would put him at 1.5 in 2012 and 1.0 in 2013*. My hunch is that LaRoche wants to be paid as if his skill won't deteriorate at all though, and that just isn't a good bet - especially since the O's wouldn't be getting a premium in the first year(s) of the deal as is more common in long-term contracts (so that the cash-flows and yearly production don't match up, but the overall payout and production does). And it's not as if LaRoche is the kind of difference-maker that might be worth overpaying for. Even two years seems bad. Why would you want to lock yourself into that? Paraphrasing what The Oriole Way said; if the O's want LaRoche on their team in 2012 then they can just sign him next off-season.

This week's Beyond the Box Score mailbag touches on why Matt Stairs is so awesome, and if Cliff Lee or Zack Greinke is the awesomer pitcher. Check it out.

Chris recently wrote a post over at Baltimore Sports and Life about the Orioles contending in 2011, and he subsequently emailed me for my thoughts on it. You should check out the whole thing, but my response was as follows:

I'm just going to jump right in (I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not attacking you or anything but just giving a contrasting opinion).

If you think the range is 75-90 then 82-83 is the expected, more or less. I think the range is more 70-82, and so the ~76 is more expected. I don't think you're being realistic. You said: "For the O’s to contend in ’11, I picture the following:" and I can picture it, but that doesn't make it the likeliest outcome.

"1) Markakis, Wieters, Jones, Reimold, Matusz, Arrieta, and Bergesen have to improve. Looking at each player individually, that seems realistic. Looking at them collectively, that is a lot to ask."

You yourself admit that having them all to improve is a lot to ask, and it is. I'd be OK assuming these guys improve by 3 wins collectively, but much more than that and you're being too optimistic about their upsides without acknowledging the downsides.

There were rumors of a crazy reliever contract going around today, but the O's ended up signing a different former Blue Jays' arm instead as they agreed to a one year $1.1 M deal with Jeremy Accardo. The 31 year-old right-hander had a couple solid seasons back in 2006-07, but things have really gone down hill since then. Accardo's strike-out rate has fallen from the 7 K/9 neighborhood to just 5.4 K/9 over the past three years, and his walk rate has gone from ~3 BB/9 to almost 5 BB/9. He doesn't throw as hard as he used to, but he still seems to get decent movement on his fastball and he has a good change-up (or is it a splitter?). He's not missing bats though (his whiff rate is just 13% over the last three seasons - average is more like 20%), and that isn't a great recipe when combined with poor control. Overall, Accardo is pretty much a replacement level pitcher (0.0 combined WAR - both f and br - from 2008-10), but he's being paid more than double the league minimum.

I'm not really a fan of this signing - though I generally much prefer the "bring in lots of cheap arms and see who sticks" method of bullpen construction - since I don't see any real upside with Accardo. It won't take much for him to earn his money, but the guy just doesn't seem like he's worth giving innings to (and I doubt the O's offer him arbitration for 2012, though he'll still technically be under team control). And really, taking this million bucks and throwing it at an international prospect or two would probably make way more sense and pay off better in the long run. I'm not nearly as irritated as I'd be if the O's signed Kevin Gregg for $12 M though. If that goes down I might start calling for Andy MacPhail's head (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Edit: In retrospect, it's not a terrible move. If it was for $0.9 M instead of $1.1 M I would have been fine with it. There's absolutely no reason why spending this money should stop the team from investing in other areas - it's their own issues causing that, I think.