Programming note: I'm experimenting with actually posting these things as I write them rather than at 9:00 am the next day. I'm sure this matters to exactly none of you.

I don't mean to pick on Jon Heyman. I don't have anything in particular against the guy. He's pretty good at staying on top of rumors and whatnot, and there are certainly a lot of much worse baseball writers out there (like Marty Noble. Hoo boy). But it's accessible, so it's easy. Here's another Heyman gem (found thanks to Jason) in which Heyman tries to name the ten best offseasons so far. After naming the Mariners, Red Sox and Phillies (and I think the first two are right and the third is at least defensible), Heyman comes up with this for number four:

Orioles. Quietly, the Orioles have taken significant steps to improve their team, though not enough to threaten in the impossible AL East. Regardless, improvement will be seen, thanks to the importing of Kevin Millwood, Mike Gonzalez and Garrett Atkins. Millwood is just the sort of veteran presence the starting rotation needed, Gonzalez is a versatile reliever with the ability to close and corner infielder Atkins has to do better than he performed last year (as a bonus, he also comes with a second-year team option in case he returns to his old form).

Wow. The Orioles? Really?

Let's get this out of the way first: the Orioles lost 98 games last year, finishing 39 behind the Yankees and 31 behind the Red Sox. As Heyman himself acknowledges, they're not competing next year. Yes, they were already going to be better, and no, the Yankees probably weren't going to win 103 games again (not because they've gotten worse -- I think they've actually gotten better -- but just because nobody should ever be expected to win 100+). But one of the two big bullies will win 95, and it's been ten years since the Wildcard team won fewer than 94. So they'd have to win 30 more games than they won last year to really have a realistic chance. That's not happening.

I'd argue that if you've got no realistic hope of contending, you've got two options for making it a successful offseason: (a) make a lot of trades and/or the odd "young free agent" signing that gets your team younger and sets you up for two or three years down the road; or (b) do basically nothing -- drop some salary and announce that you're going to pour money into scouting, player development, and locking up your young vets (if any) to long-term deals.

Well, the O's didn't do that. I suppose they get points for letting go of Melvin Mora, but they're obviously not following the "do nothing and cut salary" plan. What they're doing is adding three players over 30, totaling $18 million in 2010, with relatively little upside for their much more promising 2011 season.

So obviously I don't think the O's have had a particularly successful offseason at all. But click "read more" below for a more thorough analysis of each of those moves.

Kevin Millwood has one year left on the five-year, $60 million contract he signed with Texas in 2005. In early December, the Orioles got him plus $3 million in return for reliever Chris Ray and a player to be named later. The cost of acquiring him was basically zero -- Ray hasn't been both healthy and effective in four years and put up a 7.27 ERA in 2009 after missing all of '08 -- but the payoff is they now have to pay $8 million (Millwood's $12m - $3m - the approximately $1m they would have paid Ray) for one year of Millwood, who recently turned 35.

If you look at innings and ERA, Millwood is coming off his first really effective year since 2005. If you look at FIP and xFIP, Millwood wasn't very good at all, and actually took a step back from 2008. The various projection systems on FanGraphs, even including the overly optimistic fans' projection, combine to give him a 2010 ERA of about 4.60. I have to say, given the division he's now pitching in, that seems low.

At this point, Millwood is a decent innings eater. He's definitely an improvement over whoever he replaces on the 2009 Orioles rotation, most of which was dreadful. But one of the last things the non-contending 2010 Orioles need is a 35 year old innings eater. And that's all they've got; that and the opportunity to pay market value for him in 2011 if he's suddenly great again or to get him on the cheap if he's terrible. Perhaps the best the O's can expect to get out of all this is that he has a great first half while the O's languish, allowing them to trade him for some decent prospects. I just don't think that (or any of the other options) is worth $8 million that could otherwise be spent on the draft or international scouting.

Oh, and of course, there's Heyman's reason: he's "just the sort of veteran presence the starting rotation needed." And maybe Millwood is a great guy and a great mentor, and they do have a number of good-looking young pitchers, most of all top prospect Brian Matusz. But is that worth $8 million? Couldn't they just hire a better pitching coach (or just one with a lot of veteran presence, like say a Tom Glavine) for 10% as much?

Mike Gonzalez was one of the three hundred forty two good closers the Braves had at one point or another this winter. They declined to offer him arbitration, and the Orioles picked him up shortly after they got Millwood at $12 million for two years, plus incentives that could push it up to $14 million. Gonzalez is clearly a fine pitcher, with a 2.57 career ERA, and proved that he was fully recovered from Tommy John surgery with a great 2009. But '09 was the first year of his entire career in which Gonzalez topped 60 innings pitched, and he'll be 32 early in the 2010 season.

On one hand, the Orioles got a very good closer for around the same amount of money as the Angels paid for a bad one, and much less than the Rockies just (incomprehensibly) paid for a pretty good one who wasn't even a free agent yet. By the current standards for closers, this isn't a bad deal at all.

But it's still up to $14 million for a guy who might not throw 140 innings over the next two years, one of which we're already conceding is a lost year. They might contend in 2011, in which case they'd be very happy to have someone like Mike Gonzalez. Or they might not, in which case they've totally wasted $12-14 million rather than just $6-7 million.

I can't help thinking that, if they do think they're going to compete in 2011, there would be plenty of options available next year. The list of 2011 free agents isn't terribly inspiring -- Matt Capps, Frank Francisco, Scott Downs, Brian Fuentes, and Chad Qualls among the reasonably foreseeable possibilities -- but, you know, a guy who puts up a 3.50 ERA in 70 innings just isn't that much less valuable than a guy who puts up a 2.50 ERA in 70 innings. And smart teams are always picking up good cheap relievers and turning them into effective closers (see, e.g., David Aardsma, Joe Nathan).

Overall, not a bad deal, but I have a hard time seeing why it was necessary to commit $6 million to a closer in a year when you really don't even need a closer.

Garrett Atkins also signed in early December, and he's one of those free agents that kind of makes sense; Atkins recently turned 30 and came cheap, signing a $4 million one-year deal with a team option at $8.5 million (or a $500K buyout) for 2011. Atkins was a solid hitter in 2006 and '07, and especially 2006. His defense at third base is a bit hard to gauge; UZR thinks that, after a very solid 2005 and a roughly average 2006, he's been pretty much terrible since. Plus-minus has him as within shooting distance of average for every year save a dreadful 2007. Total Zone has him as roughly average throughout. We'll assume that he's a slightly below average third baseman. If getting out of the weirdness of Colorado and puts up a decent offensive year, they've got a pretty decent deal for 2011 at $8.5 million.

...But not a great one. The Orioles are going to get better in 2010 and a lot better in 2011, but it's because of all their exciting young talent, not any of these three guys. These aren't the worst moves in the world -- and you could argue that Heyman's ranking the Diamondbacks #4, with their shoot-themselves-in-the-kneecaps trade for Ian Kennedy and Edwin Jackson, was an even worse pick -- but there's just no way committing a bunch of money to players who might help you win a couple extra games in 2010 when you're going to finish way, way out of the running anyway makes for a better offseason than 27 other MLB teams.