LookinUp

I'm not saying you're wrong. But you certainly might not be right. I also think in that scenario that Machado would net us a nice trade, so we'd still be much better off.

I think the aging owner decided to give it a run and hoped that they could pull it off while Machado was still here. So money was available. I think a smarter aging owner would have used that money on Machado earlier and spent the rest somewhere else. I do think they could have resigned Machado if they approached him when they approached Davis. I'm not sure how long he would have stayed, but you start to build a love affair when you draft a guy and pay him into his prime. It's possible our whole outlook would have changed.

I thought this was easy when I saw it posted. Glenn Davis trade was worse by a mile. I'll admit that there are really good arguments on both sides. The what ifs around player development, picking up Erickson and Key, signing Machado and others...are many. I for one would have loved to have Machado here for his whole career. I think there's value beyond wins and losses in having your own HoF guy from start to finish. That said, I'm a prospect mark. I want more and have made that clear in other threads. I'd rebuild longer than most. I hate giving them up. I think the evidence is clear from a ton of examples, but the Glenn Davis trade is as good as any. You need as many good prospects as possible to maintain a great organization. That means you don't trade 3 good ones for a guy who everyone knew was toward the end of his prime.

SG will always have the Cozart comment though. It's hard to deny that the O's had options that would have included acquiring better/more prospects in return for taking on more salary. Ownership doesn't seem to support that notion. It has been an option forever and we've never done it, to my recollection. What I don't know is whether the ROI on that type of deal makes any sense at all. I tend to think it does, as ROI really varies by mode of acquisition. You get the biggest ROI from the cheapest modes (draft, International). You get least ROI, typically, from the most expensive mode, which is FA. Trades are somewhere in between. But it seems to me that the O's evaluate ROI of prospect acquisitions in trades as something closer to the draft than they do a standard trade/FA acquisition. What I'm saying is that taking on that prospect in an "expensive" trade probably has a worse ROI than the draft, but probably also has a better ROI than FA, so it should be done in the right circumstance. These are my assumptions at least.

Bottom line: we should hope the O's never trade Davis, because the only way they do so would be to save a buck, which means we give talent away to save a buck.

I'd imagine that from between day 2 to about June, MLB teams tend to lose money relative to the summer and pennant races. Parks are pretty empty during that in-school time of year. Then again in September, you're either in it or you're not. If you are, TV and ticket revenue is wonderful. Understanding this, I certainly wouldn't be shocked if they delayed the season a month or two if the vaccines don't create a "safe" environment right away.

Well, the O's would do it if they had the type of ownership group that you wish we had. In that sense, we might be able to take on $10 million in total salary and net a prospect or two. I have a very hard time imagining a scenario where that would work. If you want to get over creative, what could work in theory is us trading for a somewhat less bad contract while throwing in a potential valuable contributor for a contending team. Our position of depth appears to be CoF. Davis + Santander for some meh contract could save ownership a lot of money, in theory. That's the only way this works.

If I were another team, I'd seriously consider Pop. He's got the big arm that profiles nicely in relief, but he also has some maturity and may actually be able to contribute this year if healthy. We're more likely to be looking at guys who have never done it above A ball, and even then with poor control. I'd still identify a flyer or two on that list because why not, but Pop is really the type I'd like to target if I were the O's. Hopefully we don't lose him.

This site's lack of ability to rank teams from the 1800's notwithstanding (?), it's a really neat tool. I definitely thought of you Frobby when I read that Phillies article. I wondered if you'd do this. I know that people on this site understand this, but the O's have been epically poorly run since the early 80's. Angelos essentially bought our way out of misery in the 90's, and Buck was able to take some decent but not great talent and turn it into a good team in the 2010's. We haven't been a predominantly home grown bunch since the glory days, and that is why they are now referred to as the glory days. I get the hand-wringing from people who want to be better now, but I'd watch Elias build depth for multiple additional years if I continued to have faith in his drafting/signing and development program. I would be worth the wait.

To me, the clear lesson here isn't about how good your FAs are or necessarily how good your top prospects are. It's about the importance of deep depth. Baseball is full of failures. Expensive failures in FA. Expensive top draft picks. Rule V guys. Whatever. Obviously those decisions matter, but for a team like the O's, we're not going to be able to buy our way out of those issues. That CAN'T be the approach. The Phillies and the prognosticators over rated them based on those high profile names. They didn't appreciate the apparent lack of depth. This is why I still like the Iglesias trade. I want 40-45 FV guys sitting on the bench in the minors if necessary. I want so many capable minor leaguers that I won't really care (except on a human level) when one blows his arm or leg out in a fluke fly fishing accident. I want so many medium probability guys that we're almost guaranteed that 10 of them become valuable at some point. When you're there, you can blow your budget on a Lindor or trade a Mancini for more young talent and still handle it just fine both financially and on the field.

I think that any MiL hitter would benefit from going against our MiL pitching at this point. If it didn't benefit them, they're probably already close to Major League All Star level players. Really, any hitter that has to face 95 MPH and decent secondaries will benefit from that. That doesn't mean I'm saying our arms are all ML arms, but they're very good MiL arms, which is toward the top of what they'd be facing if they were actually playing minor league games.

I don't know, but if it's still a problem I imagine that Elias has a plan to get it fixed. Those advanced tools are central to his evaluation and player development strategies.

Context. He hit very well in spells in Bowie, but tended to get hurt and start slowly when he came back. So, his cumulative stats MAY not be an indicator of his true talent. Additionally, the coaches/management see him and have the modern equipment to better evaluate that question (e.g., his true talent, expected future performance) than "old" stats like batting average in the context of injuries might indicate. With that said, I'm not convinced that his true talent actually matches his original hype when signed by the Dodgers or traded to the O's. Tony's write-ups raise serious questions in that regard, so I don't think you're wrong to want to see some performance before promoting him. But I suspect the people you're arguing with in this thread actually agree about that point.

So, by your post above, you agree that the Iglesias trade does fit into what we'd expect Elias to be doing ("building inventory"), correct? As for free agents, I can imagine him wanting to spend BIG in a place where he might not think we have answers during a competitive period. So at SS or 2B, for example, I'd expect he might hold off on a big name guy because he might think we have our own big name guys 2-3 years away, so the paying part wouldn't make sense re: a competitive team. Same for 3B, outfield, catcher and even pitcher. I honestly think that 90% of what he's doing is consistent with what I would expect him to do given a complete rebuild. The one part I agree with is the opportunity to take on bigger contracts in exchange for more prospects. I too wish we'd go that route. I think the next level example of that is signing a guy like Cobb (e.g., more expensive than Iglesias) and hoping for performance so you can trade him. I think the cost/risk equation there gets a little out of hand though.

So Roll Tide, do you think after 1500 ABs, better than average league stats and Elias' comments that he would have been in AAA but for the injury, coupled with a Covid season that didn't happen, that Diaz should still start in AA?

I think because of the way that 2020 went, level/placement will be more of a combination of scouting and performance than just performance. For Rutschman, that means that while you can justify starting him at lower levels, you also likely have enough to go on to start him in Baltimore on opening day if you really wanted. That argues for a AA assignment, though A+ wouldn't shock me I guess. On Diaz, I personally believe that he has already shown he's ready for AAA. So, for me, that means I'd assign him to AAA. From there, he has issues that he needs to work on, most notably his availability and production over time. He has flashed nicely at times, but then he inevitably has missed time for various reasons and tends to start slow upon return. That seems to have suppressed his stats. Also, I honestly think there's a red flag in there somewhere with Diaz. I think the O's like the talent more than the make up. If he's traded, I wouldn't be shocked at all. I also acknowledge that I'm reading between the lines here and have no strong evidence, for what it's worth.

What if I told you that Elias is hamstrung, but not because of the current payroll? What if he's hamstrung by his own plan, and it's by his choice? Here's what I mean. Imagine that Davis and Cobb magically went away. Am I really supposed to believe that Elias would replace their salary and end up with ~$60 million in payroll? Am I alternatively supposed to believe that if we had yet another bad contract, and a $70 million payroll, that he would have to find $10 million to shed somewhere in his budget? I think the answer's no. I think his mission is to rebuild, which means he has no desire to spend to get from 65-68 wins. He wants a great farm system, and he will shed a decent current player to achieve his more pressing priority. I think that's true whether the payroll is $40 million, $60 million or $80 million. This isn't me defending the Angelos' by any means. I just think you're conflating their cheapness with Elias' own strategy for a rebuild.

I agree. I don't really trust Elias or MASN to give us a sober assessment of the players we acquire. However, I think we can assume that Elias does like this guy, so there's reason for hope.

It's only December, so anything's possible, but the tea leaves are not telling us the O's will bring in a significant upgrade anywhere. That said, if I were in charge, I wouldn't tip my hand either. I'd give off the same impression that Elias is, but would be willing to spend on value. I just don't think that's where Elias is.

This Roch report is much more positive than the other stuff I saw. Sits low 90's, change up went from below average in one write-up to his second best offering. Tremendous sink. They're describing an actual legit 4 pitch mix, as opposed to a guy who just throws 4 types of pitches. We'll see how it goes relatively soon, I hope.

That would be a great research topic for individual orgs or the league as a whole.

I guess it's at least good that we got to "scout" him a bit on video and through instructional camp. At least we have a sense that he likely didn't really let himself go during all of this down time. So that's good. But is this a type that Elias targeted for a reason, or is it a live arm that Elias took as a way to dump salary? His comments indicate the former, but we really won't know until they get to playing for real in 2021.

I honestly feel like even this board, which has a lot of people who know a lot more about baseball than me, falls into the sentimental trap. I think that's part of being a fan, so I kind of support it to be honest. But I think this poster is right to point out that Elias just isn't playing that game. He's not blowing smoke, except for the quality of the guys we got back. Hopefully that's all true.

I'd rather have this guy than Nevin, so by that standard, I say he'll definitely be on our top 30.

I think the "why not?" answer is because Bannon might actually be really inferior to an ML player. They protected him, so I'm guessing that's not the case, but his MiL production has been spotty at best. I know Luke was kind of a fan, so he has that going for him, but the other things I have to go on (Tony's rankings, stats, my own brief eye test, the fact he was protected) don't fully answer the question of whether he's even a good AAAA type of up and down guy. Anyway, I'm rambling. I could definitely imagine that they'd want him to display some long term upside from AAA instead of from the ML roster, even if the alternative is Valaika or the other dudes we're talking about rolling out there right now.