geschinger

Considering we are talking about the Angelos family, this also may be overly optimistic, but until proven otherwise, I'll continue to hope that Elias was hired to implement a plan similar to what he helped construct with the Astros and will be allowed to do so. Nothing the Orioles have or have not done at this point is inconsistent with that approach (Orioles are roughly at the point the Astros were in 2016), and the team did spend what would be enough in the mid-2010s, so it doesn't require anything out of line with what an Angelos family-owned team has done in the relatively recent past. Why wouldn't you want the best possible team on the field for a season, especially if you think we may be operating within a window? A productive MLB starting shortstop with 5 years of control would have immense value on the trade market if Holiday is ready on schedule. I understand where you are coming from and suspect the Orioles aren't going to give either of them sufficient ABs in the near future let alone both for the reason you mention. The downside of that approach is while you aren't weakening this year's team you are doing it at the expense of weakening next year's team if you believe like I do that the odds of Westburg and Ortiz being more productive than Mateo and Urias are high.

How many of those teams have the kind of TOR starters that they are looking to trade to trade? I think it's exceedingly rare. Do you have a couple of examples of who you think are available Elias should be offering a huge package for? This is the core of where our preferred approaches differ the most, which likely informs the other differences. I am completely against the Orioles having an approach that there is a 'window.' As I mentioned, I want the Orioles to be the Astros 2.0. The face of that franchise and fellow number-one overall pick couldn't be resigned; they plugged in a rookie and kept on being a contending team. That is what I want for the Orioles. Consistent contention. I'm not expecting either of them to have the upside of Gunnar or Adley. I am relatively confident that Westburg and Ortiz given a full season of at-bats would be more productive than Mateo and Urias. And then if all goes well and they are productive one of them would be an extremely valuable trade chip for pitching when Jackson is ready.

A proven regular with 4+ years of service time is a cheap asset without the risk of being a bust. It gives a contending team an asset to plug in w/o the likely acclimation poor performance cost discussed earlier that makes it more difficult to bring those guys up. There are certainly some players I'd be willing to offer a lot (multiple top 100s) for but they rarely if ever are actually available. Teams usually hold on to stud pitchers that have years of control left. I wouldn't give up a ton for a pitcher a year from FA and as I mentioned, the type of pitchers I think will be available (big salary, disappointing team) can be had without giving up a ton. End goal - improve the major league product even if it means taking a short term hit as they acclimate. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I think Cowser once he gets his feet wet would be one of the top three most productive OFs the Orioles organization will have at the MLB level and the same is true for Ortiz and Westburg. Then there is the bonus of more years of control over the guys they would replace.

More pitchers, yes, but with higher picks, maybe not. I haven't seen the Astros yet this year but if I recall from last year most of their pitchers are not draftees but Intl guys. Other than McCullers I wonder if they have anyone drafted in the first few rounds of any draft. The Orioles approach may just be the optimal one - acquiring a guys with a couple years of experience in other minor league systems.

Astros 2.0 - v2 of the plan forgoes Aiken and Appel-type mistakes.

I want the Orioles to be Astros 2.0 where they are in contention every year rather than going all-in to maximize chances in any one year. I don't think it's either or, in fact I think it's easier to trade for a pitcher with an MLB regular with 4+ years of service time than it is with an unproven prospect. I suspect if one of Westburg / Ortiz proves they can be a capable MLB player with upside has a lot more trade value than they do as a AAA player. I also don't think there are going to be any true TOR starters that would make sense to part with multiple top 100 prospects for. Much more likely is a veteran TOR starter with a large contract on a team that has fallen out of contention - the cost to acquire those type of guys is more reasonable - i.e. look at what Houston gave up for Verlander.

I'd be happy with that scenario. I don't think 4-5 days a week would not be detrimental to their timely development. I'd rather they stay in Norfolk than play 1-2 days a week.

While I would be aggressive and do all three I recognize that is not going to happen. But for the Orioles to maximize the potential of their talent and maximize their potential for consistent contention they have to take that likely initial poor performance acclimation period medicine at some point.

What are you doing with Ortiz in that scenario?

I agree with all of that except for maybe it being only for a couple of weeks. They need to commit to giving whomever they bring up at least 100-150 ABs of regular ABs minimum, and if they are showing signs of improvement (or if they are productive early on) keep going through the rest of the season.

I think they have to bite the bullet and do it and should do it even if it means less wins in 2023. But I'd rather him stay in AAA if the alternative is to promote him and play him sporadically. That does no one any good. I love the great start to the year but I do think it changes the approach that might have been optimal for the long term. If we weren't sitting with the 4th best record in baseball I think we'd be much more likely to promote and let guys struggle than we will legitimately contending. I'm just skeptical we'll eventually sit Santander or Hays, make moves with the middle infield to give guys like Cowser, Ortiz and Westburg the 300 ABs they should get this summer.

He also struggled with his initial ~150 ABs in AA (ending 2021 and 2022). I don't think anyone would call that dominating. The tricky part of promoting him while trying to win is that it's more likely than not he'll need a similar amount of time to adjust and become productive and when he is promoted he needs to play regularly. I think it's worth the tradeoff but not sure the team has the patience to give a guy ~125 ABs of regular playing time if he's putting up a ~.550 OPS to allow him to acclimate and get going.

Adley is interesting because of his age. If he wants to maximize his career earnings, he cannot afford to give up FA years. He needs to be an unrestricted FA at 29. He's not going to get a massive second contract as a catcher approaching his mid 30s. My perfect scenario would be a 7 year extension - lock him up through age 32. But for him - being a catcher and reaching FA as a 33 year old is not ideal and probably a bad idea of him unless the Orioles were paying a truly massive premium over what all these other pre-arb extensions are paying. If he wants a chance to be making a massive payday in his mid 30s, he needs to be offering teams at least the tail end of his prime when he's up for his second contract.

It could be cheap ownership for why the O's were not competitive in free agency - I would never discount that possibility with the Angelos family. But even more likely is Elias and Sid are smart enough to have done a deep analysis of players' performance, age, and the success (and mostly failure) of past FA signings to know when the dollars and, more importantly, years cross the line and become a risk not worth taking. I suspect they would have walked away from the players they were rumored to be interested in even if they had the budget considering the length of the contracts given out this offseason. Overpaying in FA would be out of character considering where they came from and their previous organization's success without being a big player in FA.

Winning and and getting a good ROI on the players one signs go hand in hand. Except for a couple of franchises that have unlimited budgets, teams don't win by piling up bad contracts on their roster. I want and still hope the Orioles will ramp up their payroll to what it was in the mid 2010s which is plenty to contend / win. I don't want to see them reach that with low probability of success contracts as they aren't winning if a large chunk of their payroll is tied up with underperforming or injured players.

Definitely - they might have other metrics or something that predicts this is not an aberration. I remember there was about a stretch last year where he was his offense was excellent over 80-100ABs and then he regressed to what he's always been. With the limited info I have available to me as a fan, I've not seen anything that convinces me this is not a similar stretch that just happens to be at the beginning of the year instead of later in the year.

The smarter move IMO is to trade a Mateo at the height of his value to a team in contention that is desperate for a SS and plug in one of the talented young guys. The risk is they take a while to acclimate but once they do seems likely to me they will perform as well if not better than what I expect Mateo will produce over a full season. I suspect his offensive production so far is an aberration and not his new normal and I would see if I can take advantage of that.

I think it is too early to identify potential additions at this point. The type of move (if Elias is allowed to spend) I would expect if the team is in a similar position in July that they are in now would be to target decent but expensive pitchers at the end of their contracts or with an additional year or two left max. It makes little sense to both give up a big haul and then have to sign a pitcher to what is almost certainly going to end up requiring a contract that has little chance of being anything other than a huge mistake. If the haul required to make the trade is less because it is essentially a salary dump, then having them for only a short time is a reasonable use of resources.

I think it's more likely with Adley than most and could have nothing to do with Baltimore. As a catcher he's likely got a shorter peak than those at another position. If he's not risk-averse, willing to bet on himself, and wants to maximize career earnings, the way to do that is to be a FA catcher at age 29. Not on the wrong side of 30 after signing an extension - even one that only buys out a couple of years.

Yep, plenty of time. To pick something good out of a lot of bad - it's a good sign that he's still walking a lot.

If so that number may be shrinking that would take the other side if they continue to struggle. There is obviously still time for either of them to get things turned around, but both Veen and Hassell have been struggling over their past ~160 ABs or so as they've moved up a level and changed organizations, respectively. One can expect players to need time to adjust but Veen being a ~.175 hitter over ~1/3 season of ABs at the AA level with a ton of Ks has to be concerning.

They may have. I was strictly referring to their overall payrolls being at levels equal or less to what the Orioles were spending in the mid 2010s. We don't need them to get to spending level out of character with past behavior to successfully implement a Houston/ATL approach.

It might be unpopular with his hot start but why not see if there is any potential to sell high and get value by flipping Mateo to a team like the Dodgers with a lot of arms and a desperate need at SS. When it's all said and done I don't think there would be much (if any) decline in overall productivity for the remainder of 2023 if the Orioles constructed an IF among Gunnar, Westburg, Ortiz, etc...

To sustain it, yes the Braves and Astros are now spending above what the Orioles have done. But they did so only *after* winning a WS and collecting all the extra revenue. They were spending no more than the Orioles have spent recently (mid 2010s) to get there.

The guys you mention were second-tier guys - guys that are you describe although I think some are more than supplemental to a roster - I think a couple of them could be solid MLB regulars. Although odds are still low, it is guys like Bassalo that are super young I think have the potential to make big jumps. The new regime seems to do a decent job developing hitters. The one thing that stood out to me about Gunnar's ascension was his BB rate. There are quite a few players in the system with enough talent that I think if can make similar improvements in approach could potentially take off. For example, while it's still too early to say it's anything real and not just a hot streak the fact that Willems has already walked half as many times in ~50 PA (7) as he did in ~250 PA (14) gives me optimism he'll make a big jump this year and be an Orioles top ten prospect. If he would have been amenable to signing an extension when we was with the Orioles initially and the Orioles chose not to do it that is cheap / dumb. I hope the Orioles never consider giving out huge long term contracts to players "to show good faith". I'm not a fan of GMs taking the approach Preller is taking to give the Padres a year or two window at the expense of potentially half a decade or more of misery when these guys are in their mid 30s. Give me the Astros approach instead every time.