Of Rebuilding. Of Tanking?

[LTO's]

3 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

I'm not sure that i'd go as far as to say that chance is "enormously high". There have been more hits than misses with the number one pick recently and Rutschman is as close to a surefire number 1 as we've seen in some time. 

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Why is last year the norm and not this year?

Small sample size this year. 

[ChosenOne21]

9 minutes ago, atomic said:

Small sample size this year. 

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

[Redskins Rick]

4 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with.

[ChosenOne21]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with.

Ssssh, I know that. I want to enjoy some good cognitive dissonance

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

2017 plus this season is a slightly bigger sample size than last year. So again, why is last year the norm and not this year or 2017?

He had a .826 OPS in 2017 and .941 this year. I don't think it is likely he is a .941 OPS for a full year.

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

moving target to support whatever theory they can come up with.

I think that perfectly describes you. I am just stating what is likely based on his past performance. 

[ChosenOne21]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

He had a .826 OPS in 2017 and .941 this year. I don't think it is likely he is a .941 OPS for a full year.

I agree, but what makes you so sure his "true talent" is last year's .715?

[atomic]

13 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I agree, but what makes you so sure his "true talent" is last year's .715?

I didn't say .715.  Perhaps he ends up with a  .790 OPS combined with terrible fielding he won't be a very productive player.  Who knows maybe he is a late bloomer.  He did hit a lot in the minors below AAA. 

[bird watcher]

10 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

We can't build a baseball team around a strategy of picking up one free possibly good player per year. We need to acquire or develop something like 6 or 7 legitimately good players per year to compete. The 2014 O's didn't win because of the #1 picks we had on our team. They won because of Delmon Young, Chris Tillman, Chris Davis, Adam Jones, and so many others we had picked up in trades or developed into good players. They won because of a critical mass of players with very timely results, many playing above expectations, doing better than their career numbers or having a career year.

Even if each year's #1 prospect turns into a Manny, and we pick each one, I don't think we would be a very good team. Let's say in the 2020 draft we pick a historically good 1B; 2021, a historically good SS; 2022, a historically good CF; 2023, a historically good SP. Let's say they all get to the majors in short order and are ready to break out immediately. OK, so what? If the rest of the team is as bad as they are right now, they have zero chance to compete. Even if they hold a lead for a couple innings, the pen will give it right back up. Our 2B, 3B, LF, RF, C, DH won't ever get on base or hit home runs. Optimistically, we might get to .500 in a season because of the extraordinary performance of four guys.

I think if -- if -- we get that lucky and have four amazing guys in the early to mid 2020s, we should trade them as soon as their high value is established. Basically it would be like trading Manny in the 2016 offseason, or even 2015. Get rid of them, and get a package deal of ML-ready or nearly ML-ready players with high upside in return. We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses. We need players who are pretty good in their prime, but not HOFers. We have neither the farm system nor the budget of teams that could hope to stack up a team of hero after hero like the Dodgers and Yankees, who simply buy their way into a World Series. Our only chance of seeing the postseason is to build a "good enough" club of scrappy, nominally effective players and hope the dice are in our favor in the postseason against the elite clubs.

Good to keepnin mind that the team with the #1 pick picks first in every round not just the first. Its a huge advantage. 

[CheeryO]

12 hours ago, Cy Bundy said:

A system without players that could help this team win is a system built by men of tremendous haircuts.

 

 

[BarclaySouthway]

14 hours ago, allquixotic said:

The sad thing is, there's an enormously high chance that each of those #1 picks will either wash out, won't have staying power, or will get hurt before they're able to make a career out of it.

We can't build a baseball team around a strategy of picking up one free possibly good player per year. We need to acquire or develop something like 6 or 7 legitimately good players per year to compete. The 2014 O's didn't win because of the #1 picks we had on our team. They won because of Delmon Young, Chris Tillman, Chris Davis, Adam Jones, and so many others we had picked up in trades or developed into good players. They won because of a critical mass of players with very timely results, many playing above expectations, doing better than their career numbers or having a career year.

Even if each year's #1 prospect turns into a Manny, and we pick each one, I don't think we would be a very good team. Let's say in the 2020 draft we pick a historically good 1B; 2021, a historically good SS; 2022, a historically good CF; 2023, a historically good SP. Let's say they all get to the majors in short order and are ready to break out immediately. OK, so what? If the rest of the team is as bad as they are right now, they have zero chance to compete. Even if they hold a lead for a couple innings, the pen will give it right back up. Our 2B, 3B, LF, RF, C, DH won't ever get on base or hit home runs. Optimistically, we might get to .500 in a season because of the extraordinary performance of four guys.

I think if -- if -- we get that lucky and have four amazing guys in the early to mid 2020s, we should trade them as soon as their high value is established. Basically it would be like trading Manny in the 2016 offseason, or even 2015. Get rid of them, and get a package deal of ML-ready or nearly ML-ready players with high upside in return. We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses. We need players who are pretty good in their prime, but not HOFers. We have neither the farm system nor the budget of teams that could hope to stack up a team of hero after hero like the Dodgers and Yankees, who simply buy their way into a World Series. Our only chance of seeing the postseason is to build a "good enough" club of scrappy, nominally effective players and hope the dice are in our favor in the postseason against the elite clubs.

I think we already have some Jones and Tillman types in the minors.  I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect a couple of our our young pitchers to turn out better than Tillman.  But we don't have anyone that looks like a sure-fire future MVP candidate offensively.

I think it's a truism that championship-caliber teams have solid players from 1-25.  Most of them have several Hall-of-Fame-level talents as well.  I think we are putting so much emphasis on the draft because it's our most likely avenue to obtain a player of that caliber anytime soon,  given the cards we'll be holding on deadline day and our current international  presence.  I don't see where it matters a whole lot if we pick #1 or #3 in 2020, but I totally understand why folks are obsessing over next year's draft pick.

[BarclaySouthway]

14 hours ago, allquixotic said:

We don't need 4 Babe Ruths; we need 30 Chris Tillmans and Adam Joneses. 

I don't want to seem to be picking on you because this was an interesting post, but I'm thinking 4 Babe Ruths and a replacement level team like the current O's would be better than a team of 12 Tillmans and 13 Joneses.

[AceKing]

18 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

I wish more people would understand this.  It's not about a single game, it's not about a 2 week stretch.  It's not about winning a game, 2 week cold streaks, 2 weeks hot streaks, pitchers going 4 IP, or anything else so trivial.

It's about getting to 2022 with a product that can start to represent something competitive.  It's about draft day and the deadline.  And it's about the Tides, Baysox and Frederick.

Don’t forget the DONINATING DELMARVA SHIREBIRDS!!!

[Redskins Rick]

11 hours ago, BarclaySouthway said:

I think we already have some Jones and Tillman types in the minors.  I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect a couple of our our young pitchers to turn out better than Tillman.  But we don't have anyone that looks like a sure-fire future MVP candidate offensively.

Heck, Bundy and Gausman was supposed to be sure pick TOR guys.

I think Sedlock will be a really good one, but who knows.

I thought Hunter was going to be one, and the jury is still out on him.