Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Frobby

Elias: emulating the Rays?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, now said:

Pitchers' disproportionate fragility, Elias's experience getting burned drafting pitchers high, and the O's decade or more of draft busts all argue against the doomed "Grow the arms" philosophy. Why play the pitching lottery when you can wait and buy proven mound success--or trade for it with a full stable of young homegrown bats?

Well, what does it take for a pitcher to prove himself to be worthwhile? It takes six years of success, so we’re paying huge, enormous, unfathomable amount of money for six years of success that a guy had with somebody else, and hope they continue that success with us. 
paying huge amounts of money for past success is unwise.

Trading for it is also unwise because good pitching is extremely expensive. It is much better to draft it. We’ve probably got 10 pitchers In our top 20 prospects. How many of them will be successful starters? 3-4? That’s enough. How many will be successful relievers? An additional 2-3?

Finally, how many will maintain Enough “prospect appeal” To be worthwhile trade bait? 2-3?
remember we traded for two “former first round picks” in Ortiz and Tate. They are both terrible but we traded for them anyway based solely on their prospect status. Top-10 prospects have value.
so I do insist we draft pitching and avoid high-dollar FAs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

The Kansas City A's and the Wrong Half of the Yankees: How the ...

 

o

 

 

21 hours ago, Philip said:

 

I thought that was the St. Louis Browns ???

 

o

 

No, it was the Kansas City Athletics ........ it was collusion before the official collusion (which occurred in the mid-to-late 1980's.)

 

o

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

You simply can’t grade the Cashner deal or any the way it’s being done here.

Cashner’s value is based on how had performed up to the trade And the fact that Boston thought he could help.

There are other examples of players that were dealt for a playoff run and completely collapsed.

If he pitched to a 2.50 ERA the rest of the way in the playoffs would he have been worth more?

I don’t think Elias made a good deal .... some here do. We can agree to disagree 

I think it was a decent deal.    But ask me again in three years when I’ve got some handle on the young guys we acquired.    Right now it’s just guesswork.   

Share this post


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

Well, what does it take for a pitcher to prove himself to be worthwhile? It takes six years of success, so we’re paying huge, enormous, unfathomable amount of money for six years of success that a guy had with somebody else, and hope they continue that success with us. 
paying huge amounts of money for past success is unwise.

Trading for it is also unwise because good pitching is extremely expensive. It is much better to draft it. We’ve probably got 10 pitchers In our top 20 prospects. How many of them will be successful starters? 3-4? That’s enough. How many will be successful relievers? An additional 2-3?

Finally, how many will maintain Enough “prospect appeal” To be worthwhile trade bait? 2-3?
remember we traded for two “former first round picks” in Ortiz and Tate. They are both terrible but we traded for them anyway based solely on their prospect status. Top-10 prospects have value.
so I do insist we draft pitching and avoid high-dollar FAs.

 

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, now said:

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

Share this post


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

I think it was a decent deal.    But ask me again in three years when I’ve got some handle on the young guys we acquired.    Right now it’s just guesswork.   

Fair enough .... If they get moderately luck with one of the guys it’s a big win.

Honestly the same with the Bundy deal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip said:

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

I'll trust the analytics department to settle this debate, balancing relative attrition with relative value. Maybe it already works out that way in the market whichever path you choose. Whatever that right answer is, I believe we'll see it in Elias's choices in his body of work.

Of course, all the above is about efficiency. If you're the MFY, you just buy whatever you want.

 

Share this post


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

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

Not sure I follow this logic.    Why is Verlander’s contract “extreme?”     There are several batters who have bigger contacts.    It is an unusual year when the best pitcher has more value than the best hitter, measured by Wins Above Replacement, which by definition takes into account how hard it is to develop players above replacement value.

In fact, the more I think of it, the less logic there is to your argument.  

An argument that makes more sense to me is that more pitchers are lost to injury, so you have to draft more of them to account for the attrition.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Philip said:

Most prospects disappoint by definition.

The question is how much benefit will you get from those who succeed.

The benefit from a successful pitcher Is greater then that from a successful hitter Because pitching is harder to develop.

thats why Greinke Verlander etc got such extreme contracts.

the only risk to drafting pitchers is that they will fail. So you balance that by drafting/finding lots of them. If only one guy from the Bundy trade is a winner, it means 3-4 guys failed, but that’s a good trade.

Here’s the problem ....The Bundy deal was a quantity deal. Mattson is likely a bullpen piece and of marginal value unless he becomes an elite closer. His K/BB rate is more than 4 to 1 and 1.25 Ks per IP. So I guess it’s possible.

Im not really impressed with Peek or Brynovich. I think they are more long shot types and Bradish walks 5 per 9 innings which he will have to figure out to reach his potential.

I would have preferred a 3 player deal with more quality. Maybe Kochanowitz, Bradish, and a lesser 3rd.

Share this post


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

Well, if you've squandered your top draft picks on pitchers whose arms will fail, then you'll have to buy expensive FA bats! Development is a war of attrition and the simple fact is, survival favors the bats. I guess you could say the FA batters also stand to hold up better than the FA pitchers. But if more of your draftees (pitchers) fall by the wayside during development, then you're in for a net loss.

Fact remains that we need quality pitching to raise to the top.   And especially in Camden Yards quality starting pitching is hard to find.   IMO its better to acquire a quality starter whenever you can.  Hitters are much easier to find with a home park like Camden.

Share this post


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

You simply can’t grade the Cashner deal or any the way it’s being done here.

Cashner’s value is based on how had performed up to the trade And the fact that Boston thought he could help.

There are other examples of players that were dealt for a playoff run and completely collapsed.

If he pitched to a 2.50 ERA the rest of the way in the playoffs would he have been worth more?

I don’t think Elias made a good deal .... some here do. We can agree to disagree 

No, Cashner’s value is based on what the market says it is.  
 
No one was willing to give up any top prospect for him..or even organizational top 10-15 prospects.

Some of the complaint about the deal revolved around the timing of the trade.  Elias traded him early, likely because he wanted to deal him before his value plummeted.  Had he waited and Cashner had done the same thing in Baltimore that he did in Boston, Elias would not have been able to trade him for anything more than some salary dump deal where they got nothing back but salary relief and even then, he may not have been able to do it.

Share this post


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

Not sure I follow this logic.    Why is Verlander’s contract “extreme?”     There are several batters who have bigger contacts.    It is an unusual year when the best pitcher has more value than the best hitter, measured by Wins Above Replacement, which by definition takes into account how hard it is to develop players above replacement value.

In fact, the more I think of it, the less logic there is to your argument.  

An argument that makes more sense to me is that more pitchers are lost to injury, so you have to draft more of them to account for the attrition.   

 

Verlander/Greinke et al have contracts we cannot afford. We MUST draft pitchers because we can’t afford to trade for or sign guys on that tier.

its easier to afford capable bats.

 

Share this post


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

No, Cashner’s value is based on what the market says it is.  
 
No one was willing to give up any top prospect for him..or even organizational top 10-15 prospects.

Some of the complaint about the deal revolved around the timing of the trade.  Elias traded him early, likely because he wanted to deal him before his value plummeted.  Had he waited and Cashner had done the same thing in Baltimore that he did in Boston, Elias would not have been able to trade him for anything more than some salary dump deal where they got nothing back but salary relief and even then, he may not have been able to do it.

A couple of one in a million shots are about the same thing! Yeah I'm exaggerating a bit but they are certainly long shots. Also I think he waited to long on Villar.

We don't know what was offered for Cashner and never know whether he was offered older guys that were closer to the bigs due to not wanting to have a 40 man addition.

I assume he wouldve taken a top 30 guy if offered .... but there was some dialogue about wanting younger players etc

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

    • Hays should be on the IL by then.
    • Eddie Gamboa did make the majors with the Rays in 2016 and Baseball Reference has him wearing an O's hat.  Does that count?
    • My guess: If they trade Cobb at the deadline they will already have paid 2/3s of his salary.   If Elias can dump half of Cobb's salary for a Dominican player that will probably never make the majors......he is gone. I don't know Elias plans for Diaz but if he think he will be promoted by some time in May he will need to find at bats for him.   Nunez  staying on a 30 homer pace means he could make 2 or 3 million in arbitration.   I don't see Elias paying that when he can replace him with a current O's prospect make less than 600K.   Alberto will be a one and a half years from FA in July.  So if someone makes an offer that gets Elias a good return Alberto  is gone.  Valaika is almost the same player.   Hit lefties but not righties.  Plays a decent 2B with some versatility.  And Valaika will be cheaper by a million or two. Davis probably stays on the 26 man roster so they can see if there is a work stoppage in the next two years that saves the O's part of his salary.   So the bench is Davis, a catcher, an outfielder and an infielder that can play SS well enough to backup Iglesias.   With Martin at AAA to start the season Elias has to go find that player.          
    • From I recall, didn't seem like a knuckleball so much as an eephus pitch.
    • I was just perusing the old Fangraphs, looking to see if anyone had thrown a knuckleball in 2020.  Last year there were a handful of guys who threw a few flutterballs, but I knew Steven Wright was out with an injury.  According to the pitch type listings the only people who've thrown the pitch this year are position players: Erik Kratz, Todd Frazier, and Holaday.  But it's so few pitches, and players who don't normally pitch, I don't know if it wasn't just a mis-categorization of a batting practice curveball or something. Does anyone remember Holaday's stint on the mound on August 14th?  I certainly wasn't watching the end of a 15-3 blowout loss.  The only clue in the game thread was @SteveA commenting that "Holaday bringing it at 73 MPH". If we could get confirmation that he threw a knuckler, that might be the first one by an Oriole pitcher since Dan Boone in 1990, although Fangraphs says Ryan Flaherty may have also thrown a few knucklers in a pitching appearance in '16.  But again we'd need confirmation that it wasn't just a 71 mph junkball that the trackers didn't know what to do with.
    • o   (73 DAYS LATER)     o
    • I suppose 2B is arguable. Alberto hits OK, but his defense is not very good. But do you really think a 500 or better team can have a third baseman like Ruiz? His defense is really bad, and I’ve been one of his big fans., But he doesn’t hit enough to compensate for his defense, or vice versa. He needs to go and we need to replace him with somebody competent.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...