LookinUp

I think they have the ability, but not the logistics. I'm not sure if it's minor league rules or what, but they give guys time off and certainly don't oversee all aspects of throwing programs, etc. Even if they get data and reports, they're definitely not supervising. It could be as simple as they cannot require people to live in proximity of their facilities, or refuse to pay or whatever.

Interesting to focus on Gillaspie and Bautista so much in that article. I think we'll see success stories with velocity. Would love to see some with control.

That was actually interesting for me. We (with our kids) do some targeted workouts to improve velocity, but don't know the delivery efficiency stuff. Data has come so damn far. It's incredible.

Yeah. Sign with the intent to trade *might* also be a worthwhile reason to spend. Kind of hard to pull off though.

While not compromising on a salary cap or fully guaranteed contracts. I gotta admit, this entire period seems contrived to me from both sides. A lot of posturing. In the end I predict some tweaks on service time, maybe the DH and maybe some penalty for tanking over time, but nothing massive changes. The money's too good for all right now.

I just laid out 3 scenarios where spending money now is defensible and, while silly, I pointed out that at least what Texas is doing is not robbing them of whatever minor league assets they have. It's adding to them. But you're acknowledging reality and still being mad about it. The brothers seem to want to prepare this team for sale. I know we're all speculating, but if that's the case it's a flat out hard no on big spending. It's not about strategy. It's not about the team at all. It's about the balance sheet and totally defensible. I'd argue it's also defensible even if they're not preparing for sale. Maximizing resources means spending them when the team's ready to compete. That's exactly what Elias said last week. You disagree with that strategy, but it's a defensible strategy for sure.

I just don't think there are that many fans that they'll lose over the next couple of years that haven't already taken a hiatus. In any future baseball environment, it's best to be competitive over the long run. That's how you cultivate a fanbase. I'm sure Rangers fans are all excited right now. I think they're spending hundreds of millions and probably being silly. Still, at least that FA approach doesn't rob them of whatever prospects they have, so there's that.

Not sure I agree with this. There are all kinds of defensible free agent strategies for this team right now: 1. Go all in. Go big. Try to win this year and next. (have to squint really hard to defend this) 2. Find guys who can be around for 4-5 years. 3. Stay out of it and bank money in the future. What is less defensible would be: 1. Pay a lot for ok stop gaps that probably won't be around when it matters. 2. Stay out of it and pocket any savings.

Of course they should, but this is a professional sports team and all I'm saying is the GM should do what he thinks is best, not what Johnny Message Board comes up with. They went 14 years with losing and brought fans back in droves when they finally won. The point is we need a 10-20 year run, not a 3 year run and the fans aren't expert on what that takes.

I honestly hope this is the last consideration Elias has in this rebuild. His job is to build a sustained winner. With that will come the fans.

I think it's definitely in the O's best interest to 1) wait for a new CBA just in case the NL gets a DH and 2) see how Mancini does in the first half and then decide to trade him at the deadline. A real offseason where he can get in great shape and work on his game should be really beneficial to Trey.

And from about 3 infielders, catcher and ~10-12 pitchers. With that, we'll be good!

Not that I disagree, but that's less total WAR than we got last year from them combined.

You think Hays can be better than Mullins because we've seen his speed and power combination over short spurts. It's awesome. Then you look at Mullins and realize he has that too. Best case is they're equals at roughly 5.0 WAR. That's essentially a realistic upside for both moving forward, though Mullins already eclipsed that obviously.

So you're assuming that we need to do that now instead of doing it in a year or two? I think that's a fair thought, but not necessarily a real-world constraint. If the plan is to flip a switch and go for it, I'd imagine they'll have a plan for what they can do at that time. Otherwise they wouldn't be following their own data.

This is actually an interesting discussion that's better than the one above. Does adding talent in a losing year help prepare our young core players for winning years? If the answer is yes, go for it. If the answer is as statistically supportable as giving a hitter protection in the lineup, it would seem like a waste of resources. Elias, rightly or wrongly, seems to think the value of learning from the likes of Steven Matz to our young guys is negligible. 1. Getting the 10th pick is bad for Elias' draft strategy. We can't sit here and celebrate Henderson, Mayo and Baumler without realizing that the larger the draft pool, the more guys like that we can get. So yeah, winning more does hurt the long term rebuild. 2. Spending 10's of millions on a middling team will make it less likely for ownership to spend when it matters. That's my opinion, but it's informed by what you also seem to know...that the Angelos family is not coming to the table with deep pockets. I think Elias is putting this organization on the best financial footing possible for the next competitive window, and anything that takes away from that will hurt us during the next competitive window.

I don't trust any of them. The only way I trust that the Orioles can win with this ownership, over time, is to see through a full scale rebuild that focuses 100% on young young young and cheap talent. I think any divergence from that plan inhibits our ability, under this ownership, to compete in the future. So basically I'm saying that I think signing guys like Matz isn't just a wasteful use of resources now, but if anything hurts us in the future with this ownership group. See, I've accepted they suck and am trying to see the path through their suckiness. Seems to me that Elias is doing the same thing.

By all means, continue. I get that you know baseball. But in all honesty, I think you're being obtuse here. How is what you're advocating any different than coming on here and demanding a $220 million payroll like the Yankees? It's the same argument. We need a new owner. Just in one scenario you need someone like Jeff Bezos. Either way, it's not the plan and that's been stated numerous times. You're arguing for middling upgrades to a terrible team so fans can be excited. They're planning to spend on a playoff run. They think the two options are mutually exclusive. No matter how much you disagree, your wish will not come true.

This just in: the Orioles don't plan to spend until it aligns well with playoff odds. I'm not sure how much more complaining people can do. Either way, you have to accept it. I'd get it if people made the case that Matz (and similar changes) puts us into position to where spending for playoffs makes sense. That's an interesting discussion, but the whining about the strategy is a futile emotional reaction to the stated plan.

According to BBref, Hays had a 3.1 WAR season last year in 131 games. Mullins was 5.7 in 159 games. I didn't realize how valuable Hays was.

It's like betting a 10 win parlay, winning the first 9 and then taking the payout from the casino instead of taking the chance on that final game. Franco just guaranteed himself $185 million. In doing so, he might have cost himself $200 million more.

I just want to go on record and say that I think asking the owner to spend another ~$40-$50 million to get to an almost competitive level is a very 2004 Orioles thing to do. I think it's stupid. Elias' sole focus, IMO, should be in finding ways to get pitchers who can lead this staff for years to come. If that means trading Mullins and Means now, great. If that means extending Means, fine. This is not a team or a staff that's close to competing. Even in the rotation projections from earlier in this thread, you're not close to competing and you require maximum health because the guys behind them aren't that good. We're not close. Not at all.

Money always let's a team be competitive. Just look at the Mets or Angels.

Well, Elias didn't say that it does, but he kind of did... He said allocation of resources will be driven by playoff odds. Our odds are lower to make the playoffs in any given season because the 76 division games we play are harder than the 76 games other teams in the division play.