How long does your blank check for Elias last?

[Going Underground]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t disagree, but it’s not like anyone’s coming in here and waving a magic wand that will turn this team around instantly.   Trying to shortcut the process is how you get to 14 consecutive losing seasons.

i totally agree. i was just stating that the Orioles better get used to low fan attendance and apathy during the losing. I also  can wait if I see a plan in place. But the average fan wants a player they know to cheer for and some winning.

[drjohnnyfeva]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think he really gets a blank check at all.    I want to see signs of progress in year one, in terms of filling key positions and seeing some changes in the way things are run.    And I expect that to continue throughout.    But in terms of seeing a winning team on the field, I don’t expect it until year four at the earliest.    I do believe that improvement in the record is likely this year, even if it’s only to 55 games or so, but that’s not how I’ll judge this season.    

I’d love to see some signs that analytics are being used to help existing players and that some of them are responding.    Not necessarily all of them.   This applies in the majors and the minors.

I’d love to see us hiring aggressively in Latin America and making at least a few early signings on July 2.    

And I’d like to see signs that the organization is on the same page, that people are buying in.    And I’d like to see some regular communication to the fans of what the plan is and how it’s being achieved.

If there is positive movement on the International Market, like creating a Dept. of more than 4 people... Same for Analytics, those are both huge pluses.  On the field, it would be nice to see an improvement in IF DEF and some attack on OFF other than the HR Derby approach.   I don't really care about wins for a couple years, but I would expect to see visible signs on the field, even in losing, that it's not ugly ball like it has been for the past year and a half.  I think all of this happens when, as Frobby says, the organization is ALL on the same page.

[foxfield]

Blank check?  For me there isn't one.  But the question is really how long before you hold Elias accountable for wins and losses.  I think that's a little like only looking at W-L for pitchers.

 

There is a lot of work to do here.  Building analytics building international scouting and development, the lieutenants to work under Elias and all speak from the same page.  This will not happen quickly or cheaply.  The progress should be easy to see and the feed back on it should resound from peers that the Orioles are doing it right or they are not.  Of course , to answer the question, and judge the franchise as a whole, it's going to be a minimum of 3 years before you see a competitive team.  

I think a smarter way to look at this is to recognize that it's a 5 year process and there should be certain things we look for along the way.  International signings, scouting programs, we should see pretty quickly.  Development of prospects will take a couple years to see progress but it should be measurable.  In two to three years if our top ten includes guys like Hunter Harvey we are not making progress.  I do not mean to knock Harvey or anyone ranking him in the top ten.  My point, is that his immense potential keeps him in conversation in spite of his inability to stay healthy enough to actually play.  For one year that may be ok, for multiple years?  In the future we should be deep enough that staying in a top 10 or hopefully top 20 to 30 will require more than untapped potential and at least some actual success on the field.

And then we will also have the ability to see how Elias handles the problems he inherits.  I expect him to evaluate Chris Davis and see if he can be salvaged and if or when he thinks the answer is no, I expect him move on.  If Davis is the worst player in MLB but still playing 150 games in 2020, we have an issue.  If we do not have anyone better to play, we have a problem.

We should see progress and we should feel success building.  There will be bumps and it's gonna take 5 years or so.  But there will be plenty of evaluations filed along the way.  Elias knows that and should welcome it.  Frankly his communication along the way will go a very long way to shaping evaluations.

I'll give an awful lot of leeway and it may look like a blank check.  But I'll be looking for accountability starting Monday.

[weams]

16 hours ago, FanSince88 said:

For me, it's five years.  I'm going to refrain from wondering if he's the right man for the Orioles until the end of 2023.  If by then we still aren't over .500 AND our minor league system isn't better than mediocre AND it's clear that Elias has actually been the one calling the shots, then I will start to be worried that he might not be suited for the GM role in Baltimore.  But by 2023 if he is able to get the team winning again or we aren't winning yet but our minors are elite or the ownership is breaking their promise and keeps meddling in baseball decisions, then I will be fine with Elias continuing in his role indefinitely.  Just hope he isn't poached by another organization before the Orioles start to see success at the majors.  

Four years. 

[MemorialStadKid]

Way too early for gripes. 

Mr. Elias is metaphorically tasked with raising the rotted hulk of the pieces of the Titanic off the ocean floor, then putting it back together again and then somehow making it not only seaworthy, but a top-of-the-line vessel. 

The Orioles have been running on spit, glue and wires for over 25 years with no true organizational philosophy and no plan for sustained success. Many former coaches and players often remark that their new teams have a system in place, where the Orioles do not/did not (Leo Mazzone repeated this on multiple occasions). 

I am saddened that the Orioles will be a horrible team for a few years after tasting those morsels of success from 2012-2016. One thing I refuse to do is be unnecessarily critical of a guy who has a thankless MLB gig and will work in a situation where the ownership is in a shaky place and there's no impact player/franchise player on the horizon. 

Elias isn't responsible for creating this mess. He should only be judged on what he does. 

And as of right now, he hasn't done anything. 

MSK

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Going Underground said:

i totally agree. i was just stating that the Orioles better get used to low fan attendance and apathy during the losing. I also  can wait if I see a plan in place. But the average fan wants a player they know to cheer for and some winning.

I think a lot depends on communicating the plan well, instilling a sense of progress even if the record is poor, and selling some of the younger players.    Of course, it’s easier to sell young players if they actually perform decently.    

In any event, I’m expecting a fairly big drop in attendance this year.

[weams]

2 hours ago, Going Underground said:

i totally agree. i was just stating that the Orioles better get used to low fan attendance and apathy during the losing. I also  can wait if I see a plan in place. But the average fan wants a player they know to cheer for and some winning.

I think that the low payroll can easily absorb that. The Orioles were fine when running an 80 million dollar payroll . 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

I think that the low payroll can easily absorb that. The Orioles were fine when running an 80 million dollar payroll . 

Fine, but realize that attendance last year was about 169,000 below the previous OPACY low, which came in the 13th consecutive year of losing.    And I’d guess they’ll be 200,000+ below 2018 this year.    

[terphoopsfan]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Fine, but realize that attendance last year was about 169,000 below the previous OPACY low, which came in the 13th consecutive year of losing.    And I’d guess they’ll be 200,000+ below 2018 this year.    

Last year was around 1.6+ mill attendance. I agree that they better get out in front of this and explain the direction we're taking instead of hiding and hoping it goes away. Even though we think they hired the right guy I hope on Monday Elias and ownership gives a little direction on the plan and asks for patience.

[weams]

35 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Fine, but realize that attendance last year was about 169,000 below the previous OPACY low, which came in the 13th consecutive year of losing.    And I’d guess they’ll be 200,000+ below 2018 this year.    

Me too. And they will be fine if they lower the payroll to 60 million.

[FanSince88]

2 hours ago, weams said:

Four years. 

I would say four too if Elias was over 40 or I thought anyone in our current minor league system had the potential to be an above-league-average MLB player.  Diaz is our top rated prospect right now and everyone is pretty sure that league average is his ceiling.  It's all downhill and more speculative after him.  

Elias' 2019 draft pick probably won't see AA until 2021 at the very earliest.  Probably won't see the majors until 2022 at the very earliest.  Same for most of the international guys he picks up over the next year or two.  

And he's probably going to learn on the job to some extent and make some "rookie" mistakes.  

Put all those factors together, and it's hard for me to imagine us even having a strong minor league system before 2021 or 2022, and that could easily be set back by injuries or underperformance that is always a risk no matter who is running things.  That's to say nothing of the mothership, of course.  If we end up with some elite prospects on ML roster as September 2022 callups, that will probably be reasonably on schedule.  

TL;DR current organization is a dumpster fire and Elias is very young.  Demanding he be fired anytime before 2023 is irrational.  

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, FanSince88 said:

I would say four too if Elias was over 40 or I thought anyone in our current minor league system had the potential to be an above-league-average MLB player.  Diaz is our top rated prospect right now and everyone is pretty sure that league average is his ceiling.  It's all downhill and more speculative after him.  

This is an exaggeration, depending on who you listen to, I suppose.   First of all, OH has Diaz as our no. 5 prospect, not no. 1.    Here are the ceilings of our top guys per OH:

Hall 65

Rodriguez 65 

Mountcastle 60

Kremer 60

Diaz 60

Hays 55

Hunter 60

Lowther 55

Knight 55

Hanifee 55

That’s 10 players who have a ceiling of above average major leaguer.    Now, that may be aggressive, and certainly nobody expects all these guys to reach their ceiling.    But it’s not like there is nobody with the potential to be a good player in the organization.

Your overall point that Elias has a huge hole to dig out of is correct, of course, I just don’t want to see the situation exaggerated.

 

 

 

 

[SteveA]

4 hours ago, terphoopsfan said:

Last year was around 1.6+ mill attendance. I agree that they better get out in front of this and explain the direction we're taking instead of hiding and hoping it goes away. Even though we think they hired the right guy I hope on Monday Elias and ownership gives a little direction on the plan and asks for patience.

Getting out in front and explaining won't matter to casual fans who don't pay attention to who is in the front office anyway.

Attendance will essentially track won/loss record, more or less, a year behind.   So if we are in for 3 or 4 more years or losing we are in for 4 or more years of declining attendance.   Obvoiusly there are other factors like promotions, pricing, etc., that can affect it, but the driving factor is going to on field performance.

Enron Park opened in 2000 and the Astros were contender-ish for the first 5 years there.   Attendance was:

3.0m, 2.9m, 2.5m, 2.4m, 2.3m, 2.8m, 3.0m, 3.0m, 2.8m  

Not sure why the dropoff in 2002-3 but basically between 2.8 and 3 million for most of the first 8 years.

Then a losing season was followed by 2.7m

Then a winning season was followed by 2.5m, then a losing season by 2.3m.   Another losing season was followed by 2.0m.

Then they started REALLY losing.  3 straight 100+ loss seasons were followed by 1.6m, 1.6m, 1.7m.

They improved to 70-92 and drew 2.1m.

They made the playoffs and improved to 2.3m the next year.   They contended the next year and improved to 2.4m the next year.

They won the world series in 2017 and just missed 3 million in 2018.   

Now of course Houston is one of the 5 biggest cities in the nation so our numbers will be lower.   But the general way that attendance generally tracks last year's W/L record is pretty much how it works.   We are signing up for an Astro style rebuild so that means we are going to see several down years in OPACY attendance that will be lower than any OPACY attendance numbers ever.

 

 

 

[Satyr3206]

If they offer all you can drink beer for 10 bucks, attendance should be fine.

[Roll Tide]

On 11/17/2018 at 6:42 PM, FanSince88 said:

For me, it's five years.  I'm going to refrain from wondering if he's the right man for the Orioles until the end of 2023.  If by then we still aren't over .500 AND our minor league system isn't better than mediocre AND it's clear that Elias has actually been the one calling the shots, then I will start to be worried that he might not be suited for the GM role in Baltimore.  But by 2023 if he is able to get the team winning again or we aren't winning yet but our minors are elite or the ownership is breaking their promise and keeps meddling in baseball decisions, then I will be fine with Elias continuing in his role indefinitely.  Just hope he isn't poached by another organization before the Orioles start to see success at the majors.  

For me I'd say there is no blank check. I would not be expecting to have a winning record for a few years. However, I will be judging his performance annually based on the strength of our minor league system.

The system is at least decent now and we have top picks for the next couple of seasons.

I would hope for a top 5 farm in five years and if not I would question it