John Gibson

Yes, the draft. The Orioles get a draft pool ~40% higher than they would have if they were a ~75-80 win team. That makes a huge difference. The Astros used to do the same - drafting Correa as a 2+m under slot combined with the draft pool of #1 gave them the available room to draft McCullers - another key contributor. Again, everything the Orioles have been doing including the draft is consistent with the approach that worked for them previously. It's not a prerequisite to build a farm system well but it is to go from where the Orioles were to where they are now as quickly as they've done it without the benefit of a top of the draft bonus pool. The Dodgers are what the team should aspire to be in keeping the pipeline consistent - a lot of that is INTL which hopefully the Orioles start seeing some results from. I'm not sure I want the Rays approach of trading anyone who becomes anything of value as quickly as possible to keep the farm stocked.

It seems silly to call a philosophy that has been proven to work a dumb one. The Orioles went out and hired a front office that implemented that philosophy successfully to bring it to Baltimore. We shouldn't be surprised that they aren't deviating from that philosophy and getting aggressive bringing in established players. While losing on purpose is a lot less valuable under the new CBA it is indisputable that it was worthwhile. It is indisputable that the Orioles pipeline is better today than it could have otherwise been if they had tried to win and got to 75-80 wins the past few years. Same with the Astros and same with the Nats - losing 100+ in 2008/9 was crucial to the sustained success they would have a few years later. It wasn't until they got to ~70 wins and then went out and signed Werth - consistent with the timeline Tony talks about and maybe a year quicker than what Houston did. Still premature for where Baltimore is at.

Is it though? Any examples of the kind of moves you want the Orioles to make having been done by other 100+ loss teams that worked out? Where that commitment ended up being a key cog on a team that went on to win a championship or at the very least had sustained success?

I think that's a bit of mischaracterization in that doing nothing isn't the plan. Just that signing veterans and making long term commitments is premature. I recently listened to a podcast with Ben Reiter which also included Jeff Ludhow about the cheating scandal. It started talking about the approach to rebuilding the franchise. There is almost no deviation between their explanation of that approach and what the Orioles have been doing up to this point in Elias' tenure.

An argument can be made that it should start now but the history that Elias was part of shows that it doesn't have to be at the point where the Orioles are at. The (alot) of players outside of the organization that made up the Astros championship team did not come until after the talent pipeline started producing at the MLB level and they were an 80 win team. They saw what they had then and started augmenting. None of those outside the org guys were added when they where the Orioles are today. I'm with you in that I would love to see some improvements made now - it would make a more entertaining product and if they are the right moves doesn't necessarily have to lower the odds of long term success. But that would deviate from the plan I think they are following which we know with certainty has the possibility of working as it already has in the past.

My point about the owner wasn't that I think he was saving money to spend later. I agree they wouldn't have been in the red with higher payrolls. Just that when they were ready to compete he would be willing to spend. He wasn't one of those owners strictly looking to pocket every penny he could. The bare-bones payroll approach is more about not dealing with the opportunity cost of tying up roster slots with veterans when no matter how good they play when you aren't contending for a WS and finishing higher in the standings before you are ready to compete makes talent acquisition more difficult (lower picks / less money). Why take the risk of loading up a roster with veterans who might help you win an additional 10-15 games before the the young guys develop to the point where those kind of additions could lead to competing for a championship?

You are presenting an alternative approach that may or may not be better than then the approach that the Astros took and that it looks to me that the Orioles are following. I see the Orioles as being in a similar position in the timeline to where Houston was when they lost 111 games. Going into the next season they didn't get aggressive in the trade market, they didn't sign a bunch of free agents. They went into the season with a bunch of young guys with little to no track record, let them play and see what they had. Guys started to develop and they got to 70 wins. The more relevant number to what you are advocating is the number of players they added between their 111 loss and 70 win seasons that ended up contributing to their World Series win and the answer as far as I can tell is zero. We know with hindsight that the Astros lack of spending wasn't because their ownership was cheap. It was a deliberate plan. And if we assume the Orioles are following a similar plan it's premature to be adding a bunch of salary at this point. The only problem with the Orioles is that we don't know that ownership will be willing to spend like Houston ownership has been when the time is right.

Looking at WS roster looks like 6 draftees and 2 Intl signings 9 trades - 4 of which where when they were still losing 100 games a year with the lowest payroll in baseball and 3 in offseason before that 2017 season or during the season - a clear sign they flipped the switch and were going for it. 5 Free Agents - 4 of which signed in the off season before the 2017 season where again, were ready to go for it 3 Waiver pickups They still had the lowest payroll in baseball on opening day 2016. The opening day payroll in 2017 had increased by 67% and then the further increased it with trades like Verlander. Once they were ready to go for it, they spent the money to go for it.

I think it's quite simple - look at Houston to understand the plan. They didn't waste any resources trying to be competitive while they built up the organizations talent level. They had multiple 100+ loss seasons in a row until some of the young talent arrived and started producing - instead of 100+ losses they got to 70 wins and then started ramping up payroll a bit plugging holes until they were an 80+ win team. They then exploded the payroll going from 30th to 18th, won the WS and have been willing to spend (consistently in top ten of payroll) since as they've been perennially competitive. Will the plan work in the AL East and will Elias be allowed to spend when the time is right are open questions but I'm not sure how anyone can look at the Orioles today and not see a franchise trying to implement the Houston plan.

My expectations is the approach will be like Houston. They didn't spend any money at all until the young talent developed into a ~70win team and then they got somewhat aggressive with spending but never exorbitant and have been competitive since.

Correa was typically in the 4-6 range in the mocks leading up to the draft. He signed for significantly under slot. Byron Buxton was generally considered to be BPA at the time. Correa pre draft positioning vs where he was actually picked is not all that different than Cowser pre draft positioning vs where he was actually picked. If this was 2012 and the Orioles picked Correa #1 overall and paid him more than $2m under slot instead of taking Buxton we'd see the same kind of posts about how bad a decision they made by being cheap.

Daz Cameron as well. He hasn't lit the world on fire but was extremely valuable to the Astros by being one of the key pieces used to acquire Verlander. Unlikely they get him into the organization w/o having saved ~$1.5m on their #2 overall pick.

Of course you can still go underslot with others but bottom line - having an extra 1.6m by picking 2nd instead of 5th allows a lot more aggressiveness. I don't know how successful the strategy has been overall but I do think it's been successful for the places that Elias has been employed. Correa under / McCullers over, Bregman under / Cameron over. I don't think too many Astros fans are upset in retrospect with that draft approach that is very similar to what Elias is doing in Baltimore despite also having very high picks at the time.

It may not be a big chunk of money relative to MLB salaries but it's a pretty big deal if the goal is to get more of those over slot guys in the system. Not sure the Orioles approach in 2020 works if they're picking 5th instead of 2nd and therefore have $1.6m less to spread around. They most likely wouldn't have been able to afford Mayo without that extra pool money.

This is a silly comment when we have recent history to look at. When there was an obvious #1 Elias took the obvious #1.