Pickles

Again, it's not about picks for me; I'd rather talk about strategy. In that case, you have to acknowledge that it's more about pool than it is about slot- in the MLB.

For many years yes. Been better than them. For several years on end. These teams go back and forth. Look at 11-13 for example. Citing last year is laughable. You're basically cutting numbers to emphasize that Pitt was better in the 2015-2017 seasons. Pitt has been better, generally, slightly, the last twenty years. Though they both have two Super Bowls. That difference is almost solely predicated upon the fact that the Steelers had better QB play. And frankly, when the Ravens get even adequate QB- see above and the last three years (Yes, they "won" the Division and "won" both head to head meetings. The Ravens would have curbstomped them in the playoffs- much like the Browns did.)- they beat the Steelers. But this is an Orioles board. This is a bad path to go down.

Did you edit in that last line? Well, I agree with that. That's for sure. You don't trade down from Adley for example. Or when Wieters slipped to us. Every pick is different. But going underslot is probably a good decision often enough to do it often enough.

And yet they've dominated Pittsburgh for years on end, have been demonstrably better than them for the last several years, and are far better situated going forward.

If this farm system is as good as that one was, we're about to get pretty good in the next 2-3 years.

Another thing to think about: I know many of us are Ravens fans. If you're a Ravens fan you take pride in their draft record, and it has been impressive. What is a very common tactic of the Ravens? (They do a bit of everything. Again it is a much more flexible system. And I'm talking about both the totality of the draft, and not just the first round, and relative to other organizations not just in general.) They trade down. If going "underslot" is analogous to trading down, and is it not?- should it not be fairly common without a clear BPA staring you in the face?

I think you might be right. His high workloads may well have contributed to Wieters' untimely injury and fairly precipitous decline. I'm not surprised he hits better when he's not catching. I bet that would be true for virtually everyone, over a big enough sample. Catching is hard. It sucks. It's physically demanding in a way no other position is. It gets you hurt and undoubtedly saps your athleticism.

The thing about the MLB draft is you can't trade picks. So if it was the NFL, I'd have ripped them for taking Kjerstad. But in MLB, they might legitimately think he's the second best player and the only way they're getting him is by drafting him there. That would not have been a consensus opinion; however, it's completely feasible to me.

I'm not sure the reference to my feelings about farm system rankings means. Did we have a conversation about that? But yeah, I do pick and choose, and I use my judgement went citing a source. I stand by my statement regarding Crowser: There's nothing to suggest his was drafted in a slot not commensurate with his talent.

Pretty sure most guys sign for under slot. Adley did and he was certainly the top prospect. It is why I used quotes around "underslot." I can rephrase it: There's nothing to suggest that Cowser's talents are not commensurate with where he was selected.

There's also nothing to suggest that Cowser was some kind of "under-slot."

It's too early to call him failed. But this has been a lost year for him. I think you have to give him one more shot next year and hope he gets it together.

Ok, bud. You do you. They are historically bad, and they might pick 4th next year. Those statements are not in contradiction.

I agree. You just can't have it both ways.

I think he's right.

Nor do I. And we have been historically bad. Just pointing out the logical fallacy.

How historically bad are we if we're going to pick 4th next year?

Undoubtedly. Probably not all of it. And probably none of it for the ML club.

I've been on this board for years saying this was not going to be linear, and this was going to take a lot longer than the general consensus on this board seemed to be. If you had told me in April of 2019 that this team would lose 100 games for the next three years, I would have said, "Sounds about right." You're not wrong that it would be pretty easy to be a little better. But they're not trying to do that. So we should not be surprised that they aren't.

Probably could have found a better use for 20 million dollars.

We'll see where we end up. When you're losing 19 straight, it's hard to believe you'll ever win again. But if this team finishes out decently, there will be nothing "historic" about how bad they are. And, again frankly, this was all entirely predictable- from many years ago. I wish a couple of the young starters had pitched better, and we were watching the "race" to win our 63rd game instead of hoping we finish strong and can get to 56 wins. But over all, and as reflection of the "success" of the rebuild, it matters very little.

See, I just don't think it is that hard. To me this was entirely expected. Again, when you START the rebuild with a 47 win team that has been stripped bare, and a MiL system with few of note above A ball, I don't expect it to be quick. I compared this to 30-3 before. That was right as AM came in and the decision to rebuild was made. Well, we got worse. We lost more under AM than we did under his predecessors. That's generally what a rebuild looks like. And because we started in such a terrible position this time, the depth and breadth of this does not shock me.

They thought they could compete from 2016-2018 and they made a lot of moves in order to do so. Those moves almost all came with long-term opportunity costs. It's exactly why we bottomed out so badly, and why this rebuild has been so mammoth. Winning 47 games when spending 160 million dollars and legitimately thinking you had a shot at the playoffs is so on another level than winning 53 games in a year when you hoped not to lose 100 if things went right. I mean, it's not even comparable.

I can't answer that. I'm not sure it matters other than maybe assigning blame. Regardless, it still stemmed from delusion- be it ownership's or management's.

It's semantics but it really does color how people view the rebuild so that's why I even bothered to say anything. There are things Elias could have done to make this team better- some, as you point out, were simply things he didn't have to do- i.e. trade some vets for prospects. It's pretty clear that this team didn't have to be THIS bad. A couple minor upgrades and we are indeed just garden variety bad and nobody is too upset. However, the reason we're not competitive now- and I'm not talking the difference between 55 and 65 wins, but actually a real major league franchise- is because of decisions which were made in advance of Elias ever arriving.