Pickles
-
Posts
5801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
Just now, Tony-OH said:
Since I really don't follow other systems, I wonder if others have been hit as hard by injuries and if the missed year last year is contributing to a rise in injuries for minor league players.
Do you feel as if we've been hard hit by injuries in the MiLs this year?
I haven't felt that way.
You certainly have followed our MiLs closely enough for many years that you could certainly at least compare it across the years.
-
Negative developmental stories are always going to be the worst parts of a rebuild, because they're what actually matters.
There have been a lot of real positive stories this year too.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Three Run Homer said:
Actually you made my point. You can't use one draft to evaluate a front office because most draft picks don't make it, even if you are picking the right players. So you need several years of data.
Well, that's my point.
How many years?
Because my point is the sample size still remains too small to make many determining assessments.
-
16 minutes ago, Philip said:
“The blind squirrel finds a nut.”
He's not blind.
He's just fringe.
-
Oh, I totally forgot why I came here. Stewart hit a solid dong tonight. He also Kd badly.
But I was crapping on him all day, so I gotta come and give him his due.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:
I'm not sure it's important to distinguish a "terrible" pick from an "average" pick. Most draft picks don't produce positive WAR in the majors. It might be too harsh to call all of these picks "terrible" and too generous to call all of them "average", but no matter what we call them, they do not create any value for major league teams.
A valuable draft pick is one that creates positive WAR at the major league level, period. It is a low-probability outcome, but some organizations achieve this outcome more often than others, and those are the organizations that are successful. You can't evaluate a front office's ability based on one draft, but after a few drafts you have a large enough sample size that you can make statistically meaningful comparisons of draft WAR across teams.
The first paragraph I very much agree with.
The bolded I very much disagree with.
Here's something to think about. (I'm waiting to read Frobby's draft analysis so I can rip it apart with my poo-house lawyering.)
The Orioles in 1965 were basically about the best run franchise in MLB. They were historically famous for their amateur acquisition and development. The draft was initiated in that year from the old "Bonus Baby" system. They were about to go on a 20 year run as the winningest team in MLB.
And yet, look at these drafts!
1965:
Total WAR: (-) 2
Best Player: Charlie Sands (Career WAR 0.5)
1966:
Total WAR: 1.7
Best Player: Terry Crowley (Career WAR 2.4)
So yeah, two drafts! And negative WAR in total! tHe oRiOlE wAy!!! tHeSe gUyS dOnT kNoW wHaT tHeY'rE dOiNg!!!
1967:
Total WAR: 98.5
Best Player: Bobby Grich (Career WAR 71)\
Notable: Don Baylor (Career WAR 28.5)
Unsigned: Doug Rau (Career WAR 12.6)
So what happened?
Life is more random than we want to admit.
You can make all the right decisions, boys. You still won't make it out alive.
-
1
-
-
I will say, you have written before about Price. Well, we'll see what he goes for in the off-season, but I think it is more than you have suggested. But forget that.
Should the O's get Price if it cost them no talent?
Money is not infinite. Even if the O's only spend 5 mil of the 16 mil they "save" by not employing Price in the amateur draft and international free agent pool, isn't that probably worth it for a rebuilding team?
What exactly is the cutoff in that exchange?
You've said recently, "There's no reason you can do it all."
Well, yes there is. Resources are not infinite. Life is a series of choices- prioritizing one path or the other.
-
24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I don’t know what’s so hard for you to get. You asked the question going back to 2018. Why would I do that without going back to when it really matters?
I already told you I’m good with everything Elias has done in terms of trades. I’m good with a lot of what he has done in general. I have said this a bunch of times and I have also said that Elias is probably the best thing to happen to the organization in at least 25 years.
But I’m not ok with how he handled the last offseason in terms of (mainly) not addressing the pitching staff more and I want to see more this offseason. My real judgement of him won’t come until ST of next year.
Ok, so GOING FORWARD, which really doesn't require using data points from NOW, let us focus the conversation.
I personally would like us to not lose one hundred games, next year.
Davis still on the book next year. I don't expect a big increase in payroll next year.
I honestly expect a team next similar to this year's team. With the addition of 2 top 10 global prospects, injected at various points in the season.
That's pretty exciting to me.
I think despite as bad as the ML team has been- and its hard to get true straight line comps cause of the shortened seasons- getting better.
-
7 minutes ago, Nite said:
I'm using Manny as the example of just a complete lack of foresight mixed with terrible decisions is exactly why we are where we are. Keeping players like him over the last 20 years puts us where the Red Sox are in typical years. Always able to compete, and can reload quickly if needed. Instead we sign the CD of the world, get burned again, and the owner gets spending gun shy again due to being burned, AGAIN.
Oh, don't get me wrong, he's a great example of organizational dysfunction.
Just pointing out that in a haystack of crap, even one big turd doesn't explain the pile.
-
Just now, Nite said:
I believe that because logic dictates it.
What frustrates me the most about not only that point, but the whole idea that we couldn't keep Manny was because we blew our wad on CD. KNOWING Manny was going to be a FA. They chose CD over Manny and that either lack of foresight or just blatant choice still burns my crawl. That's been my massive issue with this team over the last 20 whatever years. The inability to just use any level of common sense in building and maintaining a team.
Manny should have been extended after year 3 or so, like Adam Jones, and he would have been a real nice trade chip for the rebuild.
After we didn't extend him then, it was over.
But it is important to note, even extending Manny would have done little to improve the 2021 team's fortunes. Unless, you didn't trade him, which common-sense would dictate you should.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
Obviously I don't.
But hey, maybe they could have afford to keep those coaches, or their beloved announcer.
I'd like to revisit the logic of this quote.
You think the Orioles are so incompetent that no matter how much money they spent they would fail to improve their team.
And yet at the same time you demand the Orioles spend more money to improve the team.
That isn't a very good argument.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
No, I’m critiquing Elias for not doing more and not bringing in better Ml talent and I’m saying he needs to do more this offseason than he has.
You are the one bringing up the past.
LOL.
Me: What could Elias' realistically have done since he was hired to avoid the dumpster fire that is the ML club?
You: Well, if you let me get in a time machine and go back to two years before he was hired- five years ago from now- I would have made different moves which would have avoided this dumpster fire.
Me: Why are we talking about the past?
You: Why are we talking about the past?
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
That’s tough to say. Depends on what you got back in the trades for Manny and Britton and how quickly those guys developed and played well.
They certainly could be a contending (or at least highly competitive) team by now if those trades worked out well.
Manny and Britton were both traded before Nov 2018.
We're all tired of critiquing DD and Buck.
And that's all you're doing; is relitigating the past.
The decisions made in 2016 were made. As they were. And we are living with them now one way or another.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
I have bitched about those moves although I don’t really care about the Schoop move. The KG trade was abysmal.
Well, I agree with you there.
If you want to win 64 games this year, having Schoop at 2nd instead of this flotsam is a pretty economical way to do it.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
You asked me what I would have done since 2018. You are the one trying to bring up the past. If I’m going to answer that, I’m going to answer it in a manor that actually represents where I think things should have gone. I’m not going to make up some position to satisfy you.
If you don’t want me to bring up 2016, stop asking me about what past decisions I think they should have done differently because, for me, what they should have done after 2016 and what they ended up doing totally changed this organization.
They signed Cobb when they should Not have, for example.
But do they still end up with GRod? If they are picking 6th instead of 11th, is he an Oriole?
So many things change (or potentially change) with a few decisions.
Sure.
Not enough changes to make this team good in that time frame.
-
And isn't that the thing so many of us have told you:
We stink in 2021 because of decisions made in 2016.
This isn't rocket science.
We all understand. We have to dig ourselves out of a hole.
You should have bitched more when they gave Schoop and Gausman away as salary dumps. I would have been on-board.
Instead of just bored.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I’m not going to go back and name the boatload of people we could have signed.
If it were up to me, Manny and Britton would have been dealt after 2016, so 2018 wouldn’t have happened in the manor it did.
What we got in those deals, ala Bedard, would have been what catapulted the franchise. So many things change from there.
What I will say is that I was on board with every trade Elias has done and on board for tanking in 2019 and while I would have liked to have seen a better attempt at things prior to 2020, im ok with things there as well.
I do think more of an effort should have been made prior to 2021 and I definitely feel a real attempt needs to be made this offseason
Ok, so why do we need to keep harping on BS you would have done in 2016 in 2021?
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
Yea, to the owners.
Of course. They own the money.
-
13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
No
Well, I asked you 6 pages ago what's the plan from Nov 18 to right now looking like where we pick up all of these easy ML victories just there for the picking?
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Obviously I don't.
But hey, maybe they could have afford to keep those coaches, or their beloved announcer.
Again, that should suggest the extreme importance of even relatively "small" money.
-
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Do you think the O's would have done something to improve the team with that 23M?
Yes.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
It’s a lot easier to become a contender sooner if you win 75 games as opposed to 55.
Simple question to those who think the Os are doing the right thing. Are you ok if they field a similar team next year? Yes I know we will see Adley and some others but basically this team plus those guys. Are you good with that? Are you good with another nothing offseason and another offseason of “we are still trying to build a pipeline”?
Yes.
Because isn't this team plus "those guys" basically what you're arguing for now?
-
Just now, Frobby said:
Well, decimated only requires 1 in 10 soldiers to be dead.
As to Davis’ contract, I’d say hampered, crippled. It’s not insurmountable but it obviously makes the job harder.
There was some talent in the farm system that Elias inherited, but it was mostly very young, and most of the biggest names haven't even reached the MLs. It really SHOULD lend credence to the appreciation of how long a thing like this takes.
Also, don't underestimate the morale aspect of Davis' contract for the other players on the team. That kind of thing can tear a team apart, and in- perhaps coincidentally- seemed to correspond to the collapse of that team.
-
4 minutes ago, vab said:
What we're basically arguing about here is whether the Orioles should be historically bad or just garden variety bad. Sorry but if I owned them I'm not spending 20-30 million a year to go from 55 wins to 75. Plow that money into the farm system and the international program which is being built from scratch. Now are they doing that? I don't know but that would be a better idea.
Bingo.
The worst part of this year:
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Sure, but is that unusual? There's obviously injuries every year. And frankly Hall getting hurt is about as surprising as Brandon Erbe.
The Kjerstad situation is obviously strange/unusual. But it equally is obviously not about what happened on the field.