Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rudyrooster

Rebuild mode or Sell mode?

Recommended Posts

When are people going to understand that this isn’t the NFL or the NBA.  One or 2 players doesn’t turn around a franchise.  If that was the case, the Angels would be a great team but they suck.

Look at the Dodgers.  Where do they draft every year?  Yet somehow they end up with a great farm system.  Why?  Because they scout well, they draft and develop well, they invest internationally, etc...and they do  all of that while winning their division every year.

So no, you don’t need high picks to be really good.  You just need to know what the hell you are doing.  Teams have completely fooled fan bases into thinking you have to suck for 4-5 years.  Everyone falls for it hook line and sinker and why?  Because they can point to some fallacy that it worked before and people buy it.  But that’s not reality.

Tanking for a year or 2 is great.  Get those few high picks, dump as much salary as you can and rebuild your system as fast as you can.

The Rockies should be doing this right now, for example.  They aren’t going anywhere and are very far behind LA and SD.  They should get rid of the Arenado deal before his inevitable decline.  Trade Marquez for a good return, try to dump Blackmon, etc...that’s what you do if you are then.  Suck it up for a few years, rebuild and then start trying to be good again.

You don’t need some 4+ year cycle.  The Astros sucked for 3 years and then they won 70 games and then they were a playoff contender after that.  They didn’t have to have 3 straight seasons of winning 53ish games.  The Os should be fielding a team in 2021 that can win 75+ games and be ready to contend for a WC spot in 2022.  While it’s possible that is still the case, because of their young talent, they should be supplementing those guys now.  There is enough out there to be had to improve the rotation, add a back end arm of the pen and improve the left side of the IF.

No excuse not to get those things done.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I have no idea what his goal or priorities are. I’d want to be as comfortable as possible for a foreign player. I’d be asking teams what that would look like. 
 

You asked what I would offer over the contract. I said 2-3 million but might give 5 or 6 over a 4 or 5 year deal. 

I agree that if he wants more than $30 million over 5 years you walk.

For the most part players go where they can get the most money..... “that’s the reality”

 I don’t mind people saying the Dodgers or Yankees have a considerable advantage. But the Padres? Sure based on a partial season....Ok but they’ve been pretty crappy for years and years. The Orioles are rebuilding and we can agree that we have a solid up and coming farm system.

It should be obvious that management hasnt turned on the let’s win switch yet. 
 

I’m an advocate for adding young talent ....Kim accomplishes that IMO. Even if he ends up not being a star.

 

Look, I’m okay if they pass on Kim if they don’t think he’s for real.

 

But the other option was going with a rule 5 guy in an effort to ADD TALENT 

 

Iglesias added a good player that had a really good season. It netted some talent on a player that we picked up at a bargain rate. But, his achievements weren’t that big of a surprise.

IMO, you are not getting that with Galvis or any other trash heap player that is available this season 

I'm of the opinion that being on the west coast is generally seem as a plus for KBO/NPB players.

Share this post


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

Machado doesn't play short for the Padres.

And I asked how much more they would have to offer you.

On one hand you have a playoff team on the west coast who is making big moves and on the other you have an East coast team who is in year four of win s don't matter with no end in sight.  I'd have to really prefer playing short over second.

Minor nitpick, but it would be entering year three of “wins don’t matter.” The team most certainly wasn’t trying to tank in 2018, which is what made ending up with the number one pick even more frustrating. Elias’s first season of games was 2019. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The O's don't have analytics?  What is Sig doing here?  Or are we supposed to buy that it takes four years or more to ramp that up as well?

I was referring to the state of the franchise when Elias was hired.  And no, it doesn't take four years to ramp up analytics as far as purchasing equipment and hiring the team goes, but it's certainly not done overnight, and organizationally, you have to have buy-in to believe in that department and begin using the data.  I believe after 2019 ended and we saw quite a few people released or reassigned, those were the guys who weren't buying into the new vision.  

You want this thing to be turned around as quick as possible so we can start winning again.  I get it.  But that's not how the blueprint works.  You have to have an abundance of talent in the pipeline, and the franchises who have done this also didn't have to rebuild the development systems, as well as build the infrastructure for the pipeline itself.  

Share this post


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

How to put this?    Having a solid international system in Year 1 probably begins to help your major league team in Year 5 or 6.    By then the 16-year olds you invested in are 21-22 and maybe some of them reach the majors.    (Yes, I realize that every so often a 19-20 year old slips in there, but we’re not banking on that.)

The players you draft start helping the team in 3-4 years if they were high school guys, 1-2 years if they were college guys.   

In all cases above, that’s pretty aggressive.   We know the median major leaguer debuts at 24.   Most, not all, of the high impact guys debut younger than that.   

I think given this scenario it makes some sense to continue aiming for high picks for another year.    But I don’t want to overemphasize reliance on top 4-5 picks.    Good overall drafts that contribute good major league players.    

 

Juan Soto signed with the Nationals in July 2015, and made his debut in May 2018.  So less than three years for someone that was the equivalent of Adley as far as a prospect goes.  

A better example of a mid-range top 100 prospect is Keibert Ruiz.  He signed with the Dodgers in July 2014, and was called up in August 2020, so six years, and being 22 years old.  Using our own Jonathan Schoop, he signed un July 2008, and debuted in September 2013.  So 5-6 years is probably a good timeframe to work with, unless you are a top of the game talent. 

Also, this is why Angelos hardly ever dipped a toe in this water, being the labor guy that he is.  Ruiz signed at age 16, Soto at age 17, even Schoop was 17.  I can't say that I agree with his stance, but I understand it.  

Share this post


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

Juan Soto signed with the Nationals in July 2015, and made his debut in May 2018.  So less than three years for someone that was the equivalent of Adley as far as a prospect goes.  

A better example of a mid-range top 100 prospect is Keibert Ruiz.  He signed with the Dodgers in July 2014, and was called up in August 2020, so six years, and being 22 years old.  Using our own Jonathan Schoop, he signed un July 2008, and debuted in September 2013.  So 5-6 years is probably a good timeframe to work with, unless you are a top of the game talent. 

Also, this is why Angelos hardly ever dipped a toe in this water, being the labor guy that he is.  Ruiz signed at age 16, Soto at age 17, even Schoop was 17.  I can't say that I agree with his stance, but I understand it.  

How do you understand it?  It’s one of the best resources in the sport and there are a ton of Intl players in the majors and you understand him not using one of the best resources to improve his organization, especially at the minimal cost associated with it?

It ranks at or near the top of the worst things he did as an owner and that’s saying a lot, since he was probably the worst owner in the sport for a 15-20 year span.

Share this post


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

They started ramping up international spending a couple years ago.  So some players should start appearing on the lists soon right?  Are you not expecting any returns until year seven?

I think Elias did a masterful job of setting expectations low.

I’m not talking about when they appear on lists, I’m talking about when they’re in the major leagues helping the club.    

Elias has had two international classes.   In both, he was handicapped by the fact that most of the top players are committed up to two years before their official signing date, so what he got for the most part were late bloomers and leftovers.    The first class had a couple of promising guys, who haven’t yet played pro ball other than the Tricky League, which is the Dominican version of fall instructs for all practical purposes.   They didn’t get a chance to show what they could do in 2020.    The second class is not even officially signed yet, due to MLB’s decision to delay the signing date from 7/2/20 to 1/15/21.    We’ve heard about two or three unofficial signings in that class, and that there may be more high end prospects in that class, with a lower number of players signed.  They haven’t played yet either.    So hopefully, this summer the DSL will play, some players will be brought over to help stock the two GCL teams, and at the end of the summer we’ll have some basis to judge whether the two classes of signees have some good prospects despite the handicaps.   And as to the third class, my understanding is the O’s are now on an even playing field with everyone else and we won’t be hearing any reasons why we couldn’t sign a fully representative class.   

Share this post


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

How do you understand it?  It’s one of the best resources in the sport and there are a ton of Intl players in the majors and you understand him not using one of the best resources to improve his organization, especially at the minimal cost associated with it?

It ranks at or near the top of the worst things he did as an owner and that’s saying a lot, since he was probably the worst owner in the sport for a 15-20 year span.

As someone who employs minors at work, there are a lot of specific laws we have to follow, especially here in Maryland.  They are limited with what they can do, they are limited to the hours they can work, they have to have a certain length of "break" after a certain amount of hours, etc.  It's even worse with someone who is 15 years old, so as an organization, we do not hire anyone who is 15 and unless they are a family member of someone who works with us already, we tell them to reapply when they turn 16.  

Now, I am probably presuming things, but knowing what we do about Angelos, it is safe to say that he didn't believe in hiring child labor in this sport.  By setting up an academy in Latin America, that means you are training and negotiating contracts with 12-14 year olds.  We have to remember, Angelos was willing to lose his franchise sticking up for the players in 1994.  We have never seen an owner in the four major sports who is as pro-labor as Peter Angelos, and once he passes away, I don't think we will ever see it again.  

So yes, if I take my fan glasses off, and look at it from the perspective of a businessman who is seeing a labor attorney here, I completely understand why Angelos was not in that market.  As a fan, I don't agree with it, because you have to do what you have to do to keep up with everyone else and win.  By not going into the Latin American market, we essentially tied both arms behind our back trying to compete, and we are still operating with one arm tied behind our backs now.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

As someone who employs minors at work, there are a lot of specific laws we have to follow, especially here in Maryland.  They are limited with what they can do, they are limited to the hours they can work, they have to have a certain length of "break" after a certain amount of hours, etc.  It's even worse with someone who is 15 years old, so as an organization, we do not hire anyone who is 15 and unless they are a family member of someone who works with us already, we tell them to reapply when they turn 16.  

Now, I am probably presuming things, but knowing what we do about Angelos, it is safe to say that he didn't believe in hiring child labor in this sport.  By setting up an academy in Latin America, that means you are training and negotiating contracts with 12-14 year olds.  We have to remember, Angelos was willing to lose his franchise sticking up for the players in 1994.  We have never seen an owner in the four major sports who is as pro-labor as Peter Angelos, and once he passes away, I don't think we will ever see it again.  

So yes, if I take my fan glasses off, and look at it from the perspective of a businessman who is seeing a labor attorney here, I completely understand why Angelos was not in that market.  As a fan, I don't agree with it, because you have to do what you have to do to keep up with everyone else and win.  By not going into the Latin American market, we essentially tied both arms behind our back trying to compete, and we are still operating with one arm tied behind our backs now.  

Yea, I think this is a huge reach.  He just didn’t believe in spending money this way. All of this other stuff is window dressing and searching for an excuse.  If that was such an issue, they wouldn’t be doing it now and they would have never signed anyone in the past and he would have come out and made this known.

A lot of these guys were given money to sign that they could only dream of having and they were put in better environments to succeed than anything they would have faced at home.  

He was just a terrible owner and didn’t do things the right way.  It’s that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, I think this is a huge reach.  He just didn’t believe in spending money this way. All of this other stuff is window dressing and searching for an excuse.  If that was such an issue, they wouldn’t be doing it now and they would have never signed anyone in the past and he would have come out and made this known.

A lot of these guys were given money to sign that they could only dream of having and they were put in better environments to succeed than anything they would have faced at home.  

He was just a terrible owner and didn’t do things the right way.  It’s that simple.

You're going to believe what you believe, just like the folks who believe this rebuild should be taking less time.  And hey, on this you could be right.  But I remember reading these stories around the time that Duquette came in, but the chances of finding those right now is slim-to-none.  I'm sure that he didn't believe in spending money that way, but again, ask yourself why.  If Angelos was willing to lose his franchise to stick up for the players in 1994, it is not far-fetched to believe that he would not be getting into the Latin American market which is still pretty cutthroat and dealing with 14 year olds like commodities.  Honestly, we need an international draft in the worst way, and not have these guys able to go until the same age as high school seniors.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

You're going to believe what you believe, just like the folks who believe this rebuild should be taking less time.  And hey, on this you could be right.  But I remember reading these stories around the time that Duquette came in, but the chances of finding those right now is slim-to-none.  I'm sure that he didn't believe in spending money that way, but again, ask yourself why.  If Angelos was willing to lose his franchise to stick up for the players in 1994, it is not far-fetched to believe that he would not be getting into the Latin American market which is still pretty cutthroat and dealing with 14 year olds like commodities.  Honestly, we need an international draft in the worst way, and not have these guys able to go until the same age as high school seniors.  

No, it’s extremely far fetched.  It has always been reported that PA doesn’t believe that Intl FA are a good use of money.

I respect the idea of what you are trying to say but there is zero chance that is part of his mindset.  Again, if it was, why would he have EVER signed one of these kids?  

And the rebuild is over.  It did take less time.  You have already done what the rebuild is supposed to accomplish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

You're going to believe what you believe, just like the folks who believe this rebuild should be taking less time.  And hey, on this you could be right.  But I remember reading these stories around the time that Duquette came in, but the chances of finding those right now is slim-to-none.  I'm sure that he didn't believe in spending money that way, but again, ask yourself why.  If Angelos was willing to lose his franchise to stick up for the players in 1994, it is not far-fetched to believe that he would not be getting into the Latin American market which is still pretty cutthroat and dealing with 14 year olds like commodities.  Honestly, we need an international draft in the worst way, and not have these guys able to go until the same age as high school seniors.  

One important thing to remember is that the economics of the foreign market have changed drastically in the last 5-10 years, as MLB has regulated the foreign market and imposed spending caps.    It may be that Andy MacPhail and Matt Klentak could make reasonable arguments that spending in the foreign market was an inefficient use of resources, back when signing bonuses were unlimited.    It’s a very different ballgame now and the MacPhail/Klentak logic no longer applies.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.camdenchat.com/platform/amp/2011/5/11/2165462/q-a-with-matt-klentak-orioles-director-baseball-operations

Share this post


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

But now that the O's theoretically have a viable system up and running they should be fine without having to continue to aim for top picks.

 

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

...

I think given this scenario it makes some sense to continue aiming for high picks for another year.    But I don’t want to overemphasize reliance on top 4-5 picks.    Good overall drafts that contribute good major league players.    

 

Just adding my 2 cents, which is that while top picks and a bigger draft pool are nice to have, the primary reason the O's aren't spending a ton now is not to aim for top picks, it's to be frugal in advance of the competitive window. Or maybe it's both to some degree.

SG has made the case that now is a good time to ramp up spending. I agree to the extent it helps in the competitive window, but the O's simply don't seemed inclined to jump the gun on that.

It's kind of like, why spend now outside of the competitive window, when you'll be perfectly able to spend again next year in direct support of the competitive window?

Share this post


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

 

Just adding my 2 cents, which is that while top picks and a bigger draft pool are nice to have, the primary reason the O's aren't spending a ton now is not to aim for top picks, it's to be frugal in advance of the competitive window. Or maybe it's both to some degree.

SG has made the case that now is a good time to ramp up spending. I agree to the extent it helps in the competitive window, but the O's simply don't seemed inclined to jump the gun on that.

It's kind of like, why spend now outside of the competitive window, when you'll be perfectly able to spend again next year in direct support of the competitive window?

There are many people on this board who believe that if money isn’t spent in Year 1, it will not be used for the team in some future competitive year but will just line the Angelos family’s pockets.   I personally do not believe that, but arguing about it is like arguing about religion.    You’ll never convince the people who disagree with you.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

There are many people on this board who believe that if money isn’t spent in Year 1, it will not be used for the team in some future competitive year but will just line the Angelos family’s pockets.   I personally do not believe that, but arguing about it is like arguing about religion.    You’ll never convince the people who disagree with you.   

This isn’t entirely accurate.

The team will eventually spend money, assuming they become good.

What they aren’t doing is saying, well let’s save 50M this year and apply that 50M to the 2023 payroll.  Zero chance of that.  When they spend, they will do so because of revenue they are generating, not because they saved money in earlier seasons.

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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...