LookinUp

Yeah. And to be fair, there's much more that I don't know than there is that I do know about how Cal would be as an owner. I could be wrong.

No Cal for me. I love the guy. Probably my #1 sports hero as a kid, but there's nothing that makes me want him as an owner. I think he's too old school.

You're arguing just to argue at this point. He's a good GM, but doesn't deserve kudos. Ok. If that's your position, go with it. To me, he's doing the most important thing a GM can do, which is build a sturdy foundation of drafting/ Intl signing/player development. If that is nurtured and sustained, we'll have a chance to compete perennially. For years people have talked about doing this and failed. Elias is actually doing it. I guess I can't give kudos until the World Series rings are put on the player's fingers, but this is just a silly conversation at this point, to me.

SG asked... I answered... SG dismisses... SG moves the ball. It might be easier to just type GET OFF MY LAWN, copy, paste, repeat.

I cannot back this up with statistics, though I'm guessing I could if I looked, but my impression is that the organization is doing far better in the minors for reasons that go way beyond top picks. 1. K rates are very high across the board. 2. Win % increased across the board. 3. Guys like Baumann, Lowther, Wells, Mountcastle, Kremer, etc. are flourishing. 4. Lower level guys like Rom seem to be flourishing, and others (e.g., Welk) show really nice signs essentially out of nowhere. 5. The two high level guys who hasn't flourished - yet - are Hall and Diaz. One is trying to harness stuff. The other has health issues. The next guy with potential who hasn't taken a step forward is Hanifee, but he was always more about potential than results. This org seems to be developing players better than at any point since the early 80's. They're also developing winning teams at all levels for the first time in my memory. It's why the top 30 is deeper than at any point I can remember, and hopefully some international guys start to fill that in too. This is all Elias and Sig. Sure, some would have done fine under a normal regime, but this is a sea change. If you can't see that, you're not looking.

I think they're in both rebuild and sell mode. It really makes the most sense based on everything I'm seeing with the rebuild/spending and what I've read re: 1) tax implications of selling before PA's death 2) potential new ownership groups preparing offers and 3) MLB wanting new ownership. So my assumption is they will sell when PA passes away. Camden Yards is one of the top ballparks in MLB. It's an absolute gem. This market would have to crash in a massive way for MLB not to want to be here, and that won't happen. Outside of the perception of the downtown area, the broader Baltimore metro area is still relatively affluent and capable of supporting a good team. So even if the O's sold and were moved (which again, won't happen), I still think MLB would want a team in this stadium and area just about right away. Add to all of this the fact that MLB has almost never forced teams to move and I think you can stop worrying.

I love the OP. The one nitpick I have, which I expected Frobby to make, was that the Eastern League was a hitter's league for a long time until 2019. In 2019, it became a pitcher's league, so you would expect H/9 to go down. So Bedard out performed everyone even when it was a hitter's league. I think Bedard was ahead of Baumann, but Baumann is still improving. I love that he's in our system. I just fear the health factor. Time will tell.

Like Santander, for example.

Yeah, I don't think it's a 1:1 relationship, but I do think there is some relationship. In general, I think most money is with the corporate entity, not the personal ownership. That corporate entity distributes earnings in some way every year, but I really doubt they just distribute every dollar and cent. I expect that they have an operating account that fluctuates in its reserves. Those reserves affect available cash flow, which effects things like bonus payments that can be offered. I obviously don't know how the organization manages those accounts, but I generally think that some proportion of savings isn't pocketed, and that those savings improve the ability to increase future operating expenses. If that's true, then there is a benefit to spending less as it relates to future years. Also, if I were the owner, I'd want there to be that benefit available to my GM so he has the flexibility to manage money over time. Doing so would also help me line my pockets, since I'm taking a % every year. I think those incentives can align, but freely admit that I don't know how this happens in real life.

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?

But the huge caveat is what the respective teams thought of those players, not necessarily the rankings. Two young international guys were part of that deal. It's quite possible that one team or both valued those guys higher than a status of 15-20 would indicate. Also, as you said, this is the Padres system. They're not exactly chopped liver to be top 20 in that system in any circumstance. You did pick a couple of interesting options though with Baumler and Mayo. Who knows how they'll be rated in a year or two. Both have upside.

Is there any reason to think he's available? This is the type of deal the O's almost certainly won't do, but that which I could agree we should consider. I don't know. Barring injury or poor performance, by 2022 we should have Means, Rodriguez, Hall, Lowther, Kremer, Akin, Baumann, Mountcastle, Rutschman, Diaz, Hays, Harvey, Scott, Mullins (as 4th OF), Mancini and Santander. That's 16 (should be) solid or better contributors and I didn't even look critically at other bullpen guys/backup catcher/UIF types that are likely in house. That's a team that could make a run with a few additions. It's why I'm not a pure "no" on spending now. I just want that spending to fit into the plan. Tell me That Justin Turner has 2-3 good years left in him and I'm ok with it (I haven't looked). The A's FA middle infielders. Taijuan Walker. There are names, but are they good enough to be real contributors on that next good team? If not, they're wasted money on a bad team, IMO.

In 2021, we're 1-2 years away from hoping to really make a run. I don't think a few more wins now will move the fans in a meaningful way unless we make a real splash, like for Trevor Bauer, which I think is out of the question. I concede they could spend more now, and always, and win somewhat more. I just don't think it's wise for a team in our market position without it fitting into a plan to be competitive. I'm not for buying a few more wins this year. Nobody is arguing we shouldn't be bringing in guys that we think/hope can out perform their price tag. We'd all be supportive of such signings, but at what price? Look at the SPs in the free agent market. Only a few under 30. I'm sure there are others who are unranked too, but they'd be dirt cheap.

No. I'm scrutinizing your philosophy, which is general. I agree that some moves might make sense. You can weigh the cost-benefit. But if the goal is to get three upgrades at P, SS and 3B who are actually good, you're spending a lot of capital to do that. It's the specifics that matter. I don't want Justin Turner and his veteranocity at $15m even though I think he'd be a good addition to this team w/r/t the intangibles you're pointing to now. Or maybe I do? I could be talked into it, but not if the goal is 5 more wins. There has to be more to the goal.

You're operating in the land of the possible. I'm thinking of the land of the reasonable. It's unreasonable for you (the GM) to ask me (the owner) to throw tens of millions of dollars into a product that will be marginally better but still essentially guaranteed to lose. And you (the GM) are likely to ask me (the owner) to do it again next year. And when we get better, you are going to ask me to just make that extra investment to put us over the top, but you'll be ignoring the $60 million extra I spend the last 2-3 years and waiving it away like it's nothing. You think it has "no impact on us." I think that's absurd.

It's someone else's money and has no effect on the future, so why care, right? I don't believe the no effect on the future part. It could effect cash flow. It could effect a sale of the team. It's reasonable for an owner/GM to be cost conscious. There is always an excuse not to. If you don't have sound operating principles, your costs won't make sense. And back to the Philly article we go again.

I mean Charlie Morton got $15m. Drew Smyly got $11m. Brett Anderson, Chase Anderson, Garrett Richards? Taijuan Walker? Spending $15 million for those guys? http://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/position/sp What are Simmons and Gregorious going to demand? Your three additions will add $20-$30 million to the payroll and the prospect cost of getting a 3B. I'm in favor of all of it, but only if we think the guys we are adding are here for the beginning of our playoff run. I'm not in favor of spending that money in hopes of trading them before a playoff run. That's throwing a ton of money into mediocrity with the hope that someone bails us out with prospects on the back end. If I'm spending, it's with the goal of winning a lot. Not for winning a little.

Supplement it with who? Specifically? Are we blocking people with the guys we're adding? Doesn't that philosophy contradict yourself? Also, we're a year or two away from where San Diego was last offseason. That is when they got Machado and started making huge trades, from a farm system that was very superior to ours. We might agree on specific players. Heck, I could be talked into spending at SS, for example, if we think the guy will be producing in 2-3 years. I kind of hate the 3B options, so if a deal could be worked out for a guy like Cronenworth who might fit there, I'm ok with it. But I'm ok trading relief pitchers or guys that maybe others value more than us (Diaz possible there, in theory). I'm not ok trading guys like Hays though. The value isn't there. I'll take the health risk.

On this point, you'll either be right or wrong. I don't know the answer. I'm not ready to draw that conclusion yet though, and I'm not trading that profile from this particular organization. If Hays works out, it's a boon for us. If we trade him for a league-average regular, I don't see the point. I think you can find them.

But who is the starter, SS or 3B and what is the cost? I agree with your points in theory, but is the cost of that in $$ or trade assets worth it? To me, if that person isn't a part of the next contending team, it's likely not worth it. In theory, Stroman would have been. So could Kim. So it's not like I'm against any acquisition. I just think they can be cheap and almost as good this year with no difference in the future rather than expensive and a little better this year with no difference in the future.

You ask about Hays' upside and then go on to mention the risk. I get the risk, but surely you see the upside in a guy who plays a plus CF and hits with plus power. His warts are OBP and health, kind of like Adam Jones when he was young. Heck, I think Hays is a better CF than Jones with a similar hit tool. Health is the big concern there. I could be wrong on Cronenworth, but I smell something very fishy when a team imports an expensive foreign player who has never played against this level of competition when they have a guy in-house who is that good. Either they think they got a great deal on a foreign stud (which is possible), or he has real warts too.

That they should be spending money now to be decent. I do agree in theory re: spending money creatively to acquire more players/trade bait, but I think that theory is easier said than done, and most of the time has a very questionable cost/benefit. Either way, we don't massively differ on that point. I don't see the value in spending $20-$30 million to make this team marginally more competitive though.

On a contending team? Seems to me that Hays has much more upside. I'm not trading that for a lower division starter.

You've made this point just about every way it can be made, but I still think you're wrong. I don't see how this team gets to 80 wins without spending pretty big, unless our young guys are really good. In that case, we're better because of the product that will be on the field for THIS team anyway. Sure, you could keep Iglesias or pay 20-30 million for a "good" starter at SS, but if I'm Elias or ownership, to what end do I do that? I go from 72 to 75 wins, at best. Is that worth it? No, well add a "good" starting pitcher too. And a "good" 3B. Before you know it we're at +$30 million in payroll all for a decently competitive team that has absolutely zero chance to defeat the monsters in our division. And in that context, I think we can get within say 5-7 games of the same mark and save a ton of money doing it. That's a similarly competitive and enjoyable team, IMO. I get from the fan perspective that we want a more competitive team, but from an ownership perspective I don't see the cost-benefit. I do believe that some savings can go to future spending in theory, but more likely that lower financial commitments means a better sale after PA passes away. In that context, this all makes perfect sense. The hardest part about smoking, going on a diet, working out, etc., is not the beginning, it's seeing it through over time. That Phillies article is really instructive in that regard. They never got their drafting/development in order and that meant they didn't have a pipeline to support the team. They assumed they had the depth they needed. I don't want the O's to be that team, and that means I still want them trading pieces and drafting high to build that depth. The real future roster is coming through Norfolk, not Cincinnati.

No way the O's make that deal. Diaz and Hays still have potential to be first division starters. Cronenworth, apparently not. Don't get me wrong, I'd try to find their roster weakness and see if he's a fit, but not in exchange for one of our penciled in 2022 and forward starters. You're talking about acquiring a stop gap starter who doesn't provide great defense at the most important defensive position. His price should only be so high.