How much "Elite" does a team need?

[bird watcher]

With the Cubs rumor of Russell, Almora, and Montgomery, I have been thinking.  Clearly that trade give the Orioles more overall WAR per season going forward than Manny alone.  Forget the years of control for a moment and just look at a one year basis.  The 3 cubs players get their total WAR taking up 3 spots in the Lineup/Rotation and field while Manny gets his taking 1 spot.  Manny is more efficient in that regard.  

There are only 9 spots in a lineup/field.  How many "Elite" players do you need to compete?  Can you get by with 9 "good" players or does having one spot with a 6+ war player make a huge difference?

Is a big package of "good" players good enough for Manny or do we need Lottery tickets (prospects) that have a chance to be Elite?

[Luke-OH]

7 minutes ago, bird watcher said:

With the Cubs rumor of Russell, Almora, and Montgomery, I have been thinking.  Clearly that trade give the Orioles more overall WAR per season going forward than Manny alone.  Forget the years of control for a moment and just look at a one year basis.  The 3 cubs players get their total WAR taking up 3 spots in the Lineup/Rotation and field while Manny gets his taking 1 spot.  Manny is more efficient in that regard.  

There are only 9 spots in a lineup/field.  How many "Elite" players do you need to compete?  Can you get by with 9 "good" players or does having one spot with a 6+ war player make a huge difference?

Is a big package of "good" players good enough for Manny or do we need Lottery tickets (prospects) that have a chance to be Elite?

I don't think a team actually "needs" any "elite" players to compete.  It sure makes it much easier though, a few elite players and you can fill out the rest of the roster with average regulars.  Without elite players, you need a lot of above average players which are fairly hard to come by.  

If the team decides it want's more upside than Russell, Almora, and Montgomery (although I'd argue Russell has star upside) they can all be traded for prospects.  

[billw76]

While that Cubs deal gives us more players, it still really doesn't fill the gaping holes we have at SP, and it also creates a hole at 3B unless the plan is to move Schoop to 3B and Beckham to 2B.

If I'm trading Manny and the main player coming back, Russell in this trade, is anything other than a SP I want an elite player, and personally Russell isn't that guy for me. I'd be happier to get a very good SP, a good SP and a lesser prospect. I still think pitching should be the main focus of any Machado trade, but the longer it takes to make a deal I'll probably be happy with just getting the best return possible.

[UpstateNYfan]

Elites are certainly exciting to watch, but in my probably flawed opinion, are an overrated necessity for success. An elite baseball player cannot carry a team like it can in other sports. Four AB's, possible few chances in the field, way too many variables in the game. This is especially true for everyday players. I think a pitching staff with a true one or two, that can stop a 3 game losing skid, go 8 solid innings more than occasionally  is imperative to a winning formula and with solid D, average to slightly above average O can put you in the hunt more than a singular Machado,Trout, Stanton, etc.

[Aglets]

WAR is probably fine no matter how you get it.

It'd be interesting to see a cost comparison though.  

Example:

Compare the payroll of a 50 WAR team with a few superstars on it to a 50 WAR team with a bunch of guys with more even talent levels.   Not sure exactly how to go about doing that.  The Yankees were a 53 WAR team or so but they got their best performances from guys who were quite cheap........that's how you want to do it!

[Luke-OH]

18 minutes ago, billw76 said:

While that Cubs deal gives us more players, it still really doesn't fill the gaping holes we have at SP, and it also creates a hole at 3B unless the plan is to move Schoop to 3B and Beckham to 2B.

If I'm trading Manny and the main player coming back, Russell in this trade, is anything other than a SP I want an elite player, and personally Russell isn't that guy for me. I'd be happier to get a very good SP, a good SP and a lesser prospect. I still think pitching should be the main focus of any Machado trade, but the longer it takes to make a deal I'll probably be happy with just getting the best return possible.

The Cubs aren't a fit then.  They don't have excess SP, their top pitching prospect is Adbert Azolay, who is a solid prospect, but is more like Keegan Akin than a centerpiece for a Machado trade.  They have an excess of young talented position players, that's where the best return would come from the Cubs.  If you don't want that, you'd have to look elsewhere.  My opinion is you take the best deal regardless of position and then swing another trade if you need to.

[Nite]

Ideally I feel like a team should be built like the late 90s Yankees or 2000s Cardinals. If you want to think about it in video game ways like MLB the Show, you basically want a team that is full of high 70s and low 80s rated players. That team had a bunch of players rated in the 80s that were trending up towards the 90s, and a few ex 90s players trending down but were still in the low 80s. Usually teams are better balanced and built to be successful for a very long time. Also the beauty with a player who is in the 80s they can have a 90s type year, but a bad year puts them in the 70s which is serviceable so long as EVERYONE isn't having a bad year. Typically these are also cost controlled teams as you have either young controllable players entering their prime or ex super stars who are hanging on for a ring and signed a team friendly deal for that reason. Whenever you do find gold and get a Manny Machado that you KNOW you can't afford, you ride him until the end and then trade him for more young talent that fit your mold. Keep the carousel going and you can have a literal never ending run of success like the Yankees (money helped them yes) or Cardinals (the better example). 

[Frobby]

There are countless combinations that will work to build a WS contender.    You can have teams whose elite players make up for some glaring holes, or you can have teams that are more balanced.   And in my observation, teams that get to the WS almost always have a couple of guys having career years that they’ll never replicate (looking at you, Marwin Gonzalez).

[atomic]

3 guys with 2 WAR do not equal one guy with 6 WAR.  Plus guys going from National League to American League could see a drop in production.  Really there is no chance I would make that trade.  

[Luke-OH]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

There are countless combinations that will work to build a WS contender.    You can have teams whose elite players make up for some glaring holes, or you can have teams that are more balanced.   And in my observation, teams that get to the WS almost always have a couple of guys having career years that they’ll never replicate (looking at you, Marwin Gonzalez).

So you are saying 2014 should have been the Orioles year?  I'm looking at you Steve Pearce.

[Luke-OH]

1 minute ago, cimota said:

3 guys with 2 WAR do not equal one guy with 6 WAR.  Plus guys going from National League to American League could see a drop in production.  Really there is no chance I would make that trade.  

Of course not, if you were trading for one season of Russell, Almora, and Montgomery then your argument makes sense. However, that isn't the trade, all of those players have additional years of control.  If you want upside, then all of those players will net the Orioles a prospect return (with Russell worth a significant return, although I'll continue to argue, he has significant upside himself).

[Frobby]

Just now, phillyOs119 said:

So you are saying 2014 should have been the Orioles year?  I'm looking at you Steve Pearce.

Steve Pearce is exactly the type of guy I was thinking of.   I also always think of Aubrey Huff on the 2010 Giants.

[Tx Oriole]

2 hours ago, bird watcher said:

With the Cubs rumor of Russell, Almora, and Montgomery, I have been thinking.  Clearly that trade give the Orioles more overall WAR per season going forward than Manny alone.  Forget the years of control for a moment and just look at a one year basis.  The 3 cubs players get their total WAR taking up 3 spots in the Lineup/Rotation and field while Manny gets his taking 1 spot.  Manny is more efficient in that regard.  

There are only 9 spots in a lineup/field.  How many "Elite" players do you need to compete?  Can you get by with 9 "good" players or does having one spot with a 6+ war player make a huge difference?

Is a big package of "good" players good enough for Manny or do we need Lottery tickets (prospects) that have a chance to be Elite?

If those 3 players are who the O's could get for Manny then they need to pull the trigger. IMO 

[tropicos]

2 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

I don't think a team actually "needs" any "elite" players to compete. 

This x 100. IMO spot on. Focusing on "elites" is misguided. Team sport w/ 9 regular position players, 5 main pitchers (SPs), and 11 role players.   Can elites win you in: Basketball? Obv the past decade has clearly shown  that to be true--blow your budget on 3 guys, fringe/old role players fill out the squad. This equates a baseball team having 8+ elite players (5+ or 6+ WAR???)---unfathomable.   Football?  IMO the only elite the coaches care about is the QB, the player with the most influence (relative to others).  NFL talk always sounds like "elite defense" or "elite offense," never a collection of elite players.

 

 

Also.....White Sox, 2005 WS winners, not one elite player IMO.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2005.shtml

[Jammer7]

Truly elite players are not guys who simply put up big numbers. They are the guys who find a way to win, a way to beat the other team in any way they can. I remember Raffy Palmeiro hit a bunch of homers for bad Oriole teams when we were down 8-1 in the 7th inning. Pitchers threw the ball over the plate with big leads, and Raffy capitalized. Those were meaningless bombs, usually solo shots. And it always seemed that when the game was on the line that he never came through. Conversely, Eddie Murray often seemed to find a way to beat you in clutch moments. I remember Lee Smith knocking him down, and Eddie taking him deep on the next pitch to go ahead late. I think of Joe Carter bunting in the playoffs for the Jays to win a game. I think of Jeter as an elite player, not for his numbers, but for his ability to beat you in so many ways.

Machado cannot get out of the way of his own ego, and it really is a shame. But what current Oriole would you rather have up to bat facing Aroldis Chapman in the 9th inning?