Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ridgway22

Of Rebuilding. Of Tanking?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

I'm not sure that i'd go as far as to say that chance is "enormously high". There have been more hits than misses with the number one pick recently and Rutschman is as close to a surefire number 1 as we've seen in some time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Why is last year the norm and not this year?

Small sample size this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, atomic said:

Small sample size this year. 

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redskins Rick said:

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with. :)

Ssssh, I know that. I want to enjoy some good cognitive dissonance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

He had a .826 OPS in 2017 and .941 this year. I don't think it is likely he is a .941 OPS for a full year.

Share this post


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

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with. :)

I think that perfectly describes you. I am just stating what is likely based on his past performance. 

Share this post


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

He had a .826 OPS in 2017 and .941 this year. I don't think it is likely he is a .941 OPS for a full year.

I agree, but what makes you so sure his "true talent" is last year's .715?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I agree, but what makes you so sure his "true talent" is last year's .715?

I didn't say .715.  Perhaps he ends up with a  .790 OPS combined with terrible fielding he won't be a very productive player.  Who knows maybe he is a late bloomer.  He did hit a lot in the minors below AAA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

We can't build a baseball team around a strategy of picking up one free possibly good player per year. We need to acquire or develop something like 6 or 7 legitimately good players per year to compete. The 2014 O's didn't win because of the #1 picks we had on our team. They won because of Delmon Young, Chris Tillman, Chris Davis, Adam Jones, and so many others we had picked up in trades or developed into good players. They won because of a critical mass of players with very timely results, many playing above expectations, doing better than their career numbers or having a career year.

Even if each year's #1 prospect turns into a Manny, and we pick each one, I don't think we would be a very good team. Let's say in the 2020 draft we pick a historically good 1B; 2021, a historically good SS; 2022, a historically good CF; 2023, a historically good SP. Let's say they all get to the majors in short order and are ready to break out immediately. OK, so what? If the rest of the team is as bad as they are right now, they have zero chance to compete. Even if they hold a lead for a couple innings, the pen will give it right back up. Our 2B, 3B, LF, RF, C, DH won't ever get on base or hit home runs. Optimistically, we might get to .500 in a season because of the extraordinary performance of four guys.

I think if -- if -- we get that lucky and have four amazing guys in the early to mid 2020s, we should trade them as soon as their high value is established. Basically it would be like trading Manny in the 2016 offseason, or even 2015. Get rid of them, and get a package deal of ML-ready or nearly ML-ready players with high upside in return. We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses. We need players who are pretty good in their prime, but not HOFers. We have neither the farm system nor the budget of teams that could hope to stack up a team of hero after hero like the Dodgers and Yankees, who simply buy their way into a World Series. Our only chance of seeing the postseason is to build a "good enough" club of scrappy, nominally effective players and hope the dice are in our favor in the postseason against the elite clubs.

Good to keepnin mind that the team with the #1 pick picks first in every round not just the first. Its a huge advantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cy Bundy said:

A system without players that could help this team win is a system built by men of tremendous haircuts.

 

 

think real madrid GIF by ACB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

We can't build a baseball team around a strategy of picking up one free possibly good player per year. We need to acquire or develop something like 6 or 7 legitimately good players per year to compete. The 2014 O's didn't win because of the #1 picks we had on our team. They won because of Delmon Young, Chris Tillman, Chris Davis, Adam Jones, and so many others we had picked up in trades or developed into good players. They won because of a critical mass of players with very timely results, many playing above expectations, doing better than their career numbers or having a career year.

Even if each year's #1 prospect turns into a Manny, and we pick each one, I don't think we would be a very good team. Let's say in the 2020 draft we pick a historically good 1B; 2021, a historically good SS; 2022, a historically good CF; 2023, a historically good SP. Let's say they all get to the majors in short order and are ready to break out immediately. OK, so what? If the rest of the team is as bad as they are right now, they have zero chance to compete. Even if they hold a lead for a couple innings, the pen will give it right back up. Our 2B, 3B, LF, RF, C, DH won't ever get on base or hit home runs. Optimistically, we might get to .500 in a season because of the extraordinary performance of four guys.

I think if -- if -- we get that lucky and have four amazing guys in the early to mid 2020s, we should trade them as soon as their high value is established. Basically it would be like trading Manny in the 2016 offseason, or even 2015. Get rid of them, and get a package deal of ML-ready or nearly ML-ready players with high upside in return. We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses. We need players who are pretty good in their prime, but not HOFers. We have neither the farm system nor the budget of teams that could hope to stack up a team of hero after hero like the Dodgers and Yankees, who simply buy their way into a World Series. Our only chance of seeing the postseason is to build a "good enough" club of scrappy, nominally effective players and hope the dice are in our favor in the postseason against the elite clubs.

I think we already have some Jones and Tillman types in the minors.  I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect a couple of our our young pitchers to turn out better than Tillman.  But we don't have anyone that looks like a sure-fire future MVP candidate offensively.

I think it's a truism that championship-caliber teams have solid players from 1-25.  Most of them have several Hall-of-Fame-level talents as well.  I think we are putting so much emphasis on the draft because it's our most likely avenue to obtain a player of that caliber anytime soon,  given the cards we'll be holding on deadline day and our current international  presence.  I don't see where it matters a whole lot if we pick #1 or #3 in 2020, but I totally understand why folks are obsessing over next year's draft pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, allquixotic said:

We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses

I don't want to seem to be picking on you because this was an interesting post, but I'm thinking 4 Babe Ruths and a replacement level team like the current O's would be better than a team of 12 Tillmans and 13 Joneses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

I wish more people would understand this.  It's not about a single game, it's not about a 2 week stretch.  It's not about winning a game, 2 week cold streaks, 2 weeks hot streaks, pitchers going 4 IP, or anything else so trivial.

It's about getting to 2022 with a product that can start to represent something competitive.  It's about draft day and the deadline.  And it's about the Tides, Baysox and Frederick.

Don’t forget the DONINATING DELMARVA SHIREBIRDS!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BarclaySouthway said:

I think we already have some Jones and Tillman types in the minors.  I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect a couple of our our young pitchers to turn out better than Tillman.  But we don't have anyone that looks like a sure-fire future MVP candidate offensively.

Heck, Bundy and Gausman was supposed to be sure pick TOR guys.

I think Sedlock will be a really good one, but who knows.

I thought Hunter was going to be one, and the jury is still out on him.

 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • If you think trading Villar for scraps is a good idea (which is the same thing as "cash dumping" Jim Johnson, btw), then non-tendering him really isn't a big leap from there and it likely has the same end result. My point in all of this has been that non-tendering Villar to save money isn't some preposterous outcome. It's very defensible, and it's possible that no other team wants to touch him at his arb-salary while giving up anything of potential future value in return.
    • I think Luke's pretty high on Cumberland.  But other than that I generally agree with your take.
    • Major leagues definitely needs the minor leagues.  Players don't go from college straight to MLB.  Scrimmages are not going to make you major league ready.  It would cost them even more money to have games without fans. Plus how much would it cost to shuttle players back  and forth from Florida to say Detroit?   I think you are truly under estimating the value minor league baseball provides to MLB. I think this is all about the lawsuit from minor league players saying they are being paid below minimum wage.  I guess a simpler solution is lower the amount of bonuses you pay drafted players and increase salaries.  That would make the pay more equitable.  And provide housing for the players.  And cater their food.     
    • I hate to ruin this guy’s narrative, but Kevin Goldstein is hardly one of the “young finance and Wall Street bros.”    I don’t know exactly how old he is, but he’s got a 21-year old son, and so far as I know, he has no background on Wall Street or finance, having previously been a long-standing scouting guru for Baseball Prospectus.   And, he didn’t “immediately” send out his email after getting hired; he’d been working for the Astros for 5 years at that point.   
    • Just based on the eye test, this is the best team in football.  They are a more complete team than anyone else.  You do worry about Jackson getting injured, but I think every player other than Brady (somehow, in spite of his middle age) is susceptible to injury at any given time.  Just looking at the schedule, I think the Ravens will get the 2 seed.  It isn't that they can't win their last 6, because they can.  I just don't think New England is losing any more games.  The Patriots are not the Patriots of old and their final 15-1 record will be more indicative of their fortunate scheduling (having Dallas and KC at home helps a lot, as does 6 games against a pathetic division).  The Chiefs are not beating the Ravens twice, especially if the game is in Baltimore.  And no other AFC team is capable of winning in New England in January.  So I think it comes down to yet another Ravens-Patriots showdown in Mass.  The good news is this may be the only franchise not scared of the Patriots "aura and mystique," but they will have to beat them twice.  Hard to do. 
    • So baseball want in increase their fanbase and tweak the game, and keep current fans, bring back old fans, and attract new fans. So you go and screw with everybody minor league system.  
    • My granddaddy shot a 72 on his 72nd birthday. I shot a 60 back on my 60th, those rotating ducks was no match for me.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...