Jump to content
FanSince88

How long does your blank check for Elias last?

Recommended Posts

A complete organizational rebuild... on a timetable?

Why are we asking this question exactly?

I apologize for asking this... but who are we to expect anything by any certain period of time? 

I get it... we want a competitive organization, filled with up and coming studs that will set the mothership right for years to come.

Irony is that this vision was never important to any other GM... nor to the owner who abused his role. So now that there is a culture shift, we are expecting magic to happen as if it has always been the case? Apologies, but the concept of unrealistic expectations is stuff of Yankees/Red Sox lore. 1983 was our last championship. Lest we forget,  aside from the Rays, every other team in the division has won at least 1 world title since

We can sit back and reminisce of the past decade (how many WS appearances did we have?) and the questions still exist...

1) Where was the foundation of top minor league talent breaking down the walls to get into the ML team? 

2) Why do we expect Elias to be more than what the owners will let him be?

3) Why can't we just be pleased to have a GM that is doing what he can to rebuild an organization after years (YEARS) of neglect?

Sorry folks. We have a GM and a structure in place to do something different. I don't know squat about the nature of what he's had to do here. I'm not sure many... even the die-hards do, but to assert an idea that you need to see results in 2,3,4,5 or 10 years is your problem... not his.

I wonder if other teams have this conversation about their GMs.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 7:45 PM, SteveA said:

I think most of the restlessness is due to some of the often unprecedented signs of extreme penny pinching.  Whether that comes from ownership or Elias, it certainly begs the question if whether they will spend when it is appropriate for a contender.   (As far as I can tell the ONLY encouraging sign spending wise is that they are setting new team highs in the international market).

But rumors that uniform coach decisions are being made for cost cutting reasons, furloughs, asking arbitration players to take deferred money - all are concerning.  Obviously the pandemic is part of it but we don't hear about the other 29 teams doing some of these things other than the furloughs.

 

"Unprecedented" signs of penny pinching? Begs the question whether they will spend for a contender?  Does the 2014 offseason ring a bell, for a team coming off 3 straight years of "contending" and 96 wins yet couldn't find the pennies in the couch cushions to get deals closed? Hopefully the new owners will be in place when we are "ready to contend". And if the same ownership is still in place, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding any money laying around. They will just have another excuse after excuse after excuse. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

"Unprecedented" signs of penny pinching? Begs the question whether they will spend for a contender?  Does the 2014 offseason ring a bell, for a team coming off 3 straight years of "contending" and 96 wins yet couldn't find the pennies in the couch cushions to get deals closed? Hopefully the new owners will be in place when we are "ready to contend". And if the same ownership is still in place, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding any money laying around. They will just have another excuse after excuse after excuse. 

2014 Oriole Payroll- 108M (15th)

2015 Oriole Payroll - 119M (14th)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

2014 Oriole Payroll- 108M (15th)

2015 Oriole Payroll - 119M (14th)

To this day, I’ll never understand why they were pretty stingy in the 2014-15 offseason and yet spent so much more in the 2015-16 offseason.   That blew up in their face in both offseasons.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frobby said:

To this day, I’ll never understand why they were pretty stingy in the 2014-15 offseason and yet spent so much more in the 2015-16 offseason.   That blew up in their face in both offseasons.    

I don't either.  But it isn't fair to say they didn't spend at all in 2014-2015.  Honestly the spending in 2015-2016 was the more confusing part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

"Unprecedented" signs of penny pinching? Begs the question whether they will spend for a contender?  Does the 2014 offseason ring a bell, for a team coming off 3 straight years of "contending" and 96 wins yet couldn't find the pennies in the couch cushions to get deals closed? Hopefully the new owners will be in place when we are "ready to contend". And if the same ownership is still in place, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding any money laying around. They will just have another excuse after excuse after excuse. 

I used the word "unprecedented" to describe specific actions this off-season that they had NEVER been know to take before, such as trying to talk arb eligible players into deferrals, furloughing people, and possibly making coaching staff decisions on the basis of cost savings.

I didn't mean to imply they had never been cheap before.  Though I don't think 2014-15 are necessarily the best examples of cheapness in their history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't either.  But it isn't fair to say they didn't spend at all in 2014-2015.  Honestly the spending in 2015-2016 was the more confusing part.

Who said that? And since when is a middle of the league payroll for a team trying to win a championship anything to brag about. It went to 19th after that, when it should have been 8-10. And the results spoke for themselves. All because they were arguing over relative chump change, per usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I used the word "unprecedented" to describe specific actions this off-season that they had NEVER been know to take before, such as trying to talk arb eligible players into deferrals, furloughing people, and possibly making coaching staff decisions on the basis of cost savings.

I didn't mean to imply they had never been cheap before.  Though I don't think 2014-15 are necessarily the best examples of cheapness in their history.

Oh trust me that was just one of the 567 examples that came to me off the top of my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't either.  But it isn't fair to say they didn't spend at all in 2014-2015.  Honestly the spending in 2015-2016 was the more confusing part.

Payroll was up in 2015, but they cut bait with Cruz, Miller and Markakis and didn’t really add anyone of note.   They did extend Hardy, which didn’t work out.   But otherwise any payroll growth was just incumbent players getting more expensive.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Payroll was up in 2015, but they cut bait with Cruz, Miller and Markakis and didn’t really add anyone of note.   They did extend Hardy, which didn’t work out.   But otherwise any payroll growth was just incumbent players getting more expensive.   

All three moves are defensible. 

The big moves of the 2015-2016, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2021 Minor League Depth Chart

2021 Prospect Power Rankings

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Has anyone been to a Nats game recently? I am planning on going to the O's game Saturday and curious if they are still enforcing the masks.  Supposed to be a high of 90 on Saturday...
    • I'm just going to lock this thread as it's lowering the IQ of the whole board.
    • Ok, I thought you were just joking but at this point, I'm going to assume you don't have a firm grasp on what an actual major league prospect looks like and how organizations work. 
    • There will be rare exceptions (what they mean to the city, organization, generational type guy) but for the most part, I think getting rid of basically any player before they hit 30 is the way to go.     Sometimes, that means trading them at 27, sometimes it means 29.  Situations and who the player is dictate all of those things but my basic rule of thumb would be to get rid of them by the time they hit 30.
    • I'm under the assumption that this is just a giant joke. Ripken is not even a good AA player. He would have never had been signed if not for his name and would have been released five times already.  He's not even a priority play at Norfolk. He's just an extra guy to give a guy a day off or cover down for an injury. His slash line over his minor league career is .242/.281/.332/.613 in 1480 PAs. He's been given more than 295 PAs in a season twice. Once in Washington where he slashed .201/.241/.254/.495 in 399 PAs as a 22-year old between NYPenn and Sally League (A-) and then with Delmarva (A-) at as a 24-year old slashing .244/.281/.327/.608 in 420 PAs. Unless you just want to see a side show where a 3rd Ripken plays in the major league with the Orioles, there is not right to even be having a conversation about him being promoted to the Orioles. It would be a travesty to every hard working long time minor leaguer who actually have had a good minor league career if that were to happen.  
    • There is likely a statistical answer to this and that answer is likely to have something to do with the profile of the player (e.g., velocity, age, LD% or whatever) and the parameters of what you consider successful. Alex Wells is a great example. Very successful at AA but not the profile of ML success. Not impossible, but not the profile without velocity. It happens with hitters too. I forget his name, but we had a guy who won the triple crown (I think) in Bowie about 10 years ago. He was old, which is part of his profile, and likely had other profile things because he wasn't really a prospect even at that time.  Short answer is that success isn't a bad thing, but it's not a guarantee. Alternatively, it's probably hard to play at any level without success and then go to the majors and have success unless you're talking about very small sample sizes.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...