Grade Elias’ First Deadline

[Camden_yardbird]

First deadline.  If he didnt like what he was seeing I am perfectly fine with him being risk averse.

Gives him another 5 months for his scouts to work up profiles on players (potential trade pieces) as well if he didnt trust what DD left.

[Moose Milligan]

Giving it a B.

I don't hate the return for Cashner.  As I said after that trade we got all excited for having a good J2 and then he goes out and trades for two more J2 types and people act like he called their mother a bad word.  It's weird.

I'm alright with him holding onto Givens, Villar and Mancini if he didn't like what he saw out there.

[WalkWithElias]

54 minutes ago, Lucky_13 said:

I voted C because thats what I graded the Cashner trade. Elias did better imo then the other GMs that traded back end starters (Kennedy, Vargas) but still had to give up cash. 

Still rather have the lottery tickets then non prospects though. 

 

What makes you say Prado and Romero are non-prospects? They are very young. I’d rather have them than a 26 year old catcher in A ball. 

I give Elias’ first deadline a not applicable. He has almost nothing of value to trade. There weren’t any moves to make to help the team long term.

[OFFNY]

19 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

 

It's his first deadline ........ If he didn't like what he was seeing, I am perfectly fine with him being risk-averse.

Gives him another 5 months for his scouts to work up profiles on players (potential trade pieces), as well if he didn't trust what DD left.

 

o

 

Somewhat similar to football, in which sometimes the best passes that a quarterback makes are the ones that he doesn't throw ........ when he either heaves the ball way out of bounds for an incomplete pass, or eats the ball for a sack instead of forcing a pass into double coverage and risking an interception.

 

o

[O-The-Memories]

 

I gave Elias an A and here's why. DD didn't get much when a traded Machado and company last year. I don't know if any of the guys we got will ever be an impact player. Early results don't seem promising to me. 

He was willing to make deal for Cashner that I thought was simply OK, but that proves that he will listen to reasonable offers. Nunez,Givens, Villar, and Mancini can all be pieces of a contending team if put in the right situations. Dont just get rid of them for marginal prospects, we have enough of those already.

Overall I love what Elias is doing so far. We have some decent pieces on offense, so if some of our pitching prospects pan out we should be on track to contend in 3-4 years.

[billw76]

I gave him a B

I figured at least Villar would be moved, but I didn't expect much of a return if he was. I'm ok with him not trading Mancini and Givens if he didn't feel the offers were good enough, there's still plenty of time to move them in the off season or at the deadline next year.

[thezeroes]

I gave him a B.  Did not make moves just to say he made them.  Did not give players with control away for nothing.  Allowed himself time to see what is already in the system both Minors and Forty Man that need to have upper movement or released.  He did no harm to the club and added two DSL players for a pitcher that wasn't part of the future.

[Lucky_13]

44 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

What makes you say Prado and Romero are non-prospects? They are very young. I’d rather have them than a 26 year old catcher in A ball. 

I give Elias’ first deadline a not applicable. He has almost nothing of value to trade. There weren’t any moves to make to help the team long term.

Agreed.  I meant that I would rather have Prado and Romero then the non prospects received by the Mets and Royals.  Rereading my post I worded weirdly though 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I  think restraint deserves a good grade.   The Astros in 2012 traded 7 players in July.   You know Elias wanted to make more trades this July.  He made one major league trade.   Then decided that what was being offered was not enough.    That shows restraint IMO.

To me a C means either “average” or “meets expectations.”    I expect my GM to resist making trades just to make them.   You don’t get “above average” or “exceeds expectations” for doing that.    Note, this is not a criticism of Elias at all.    

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

Nothing to grade.

Funny, I assumed you'd love it.   You complained endlessly about how the Orioles didn't make moves to improve this year's team even if it just meant we would win 60 or 70 games, because that was so much better than winning 45 or 50 or 55 or whatever we win this year.

So the fact that we didn't trade guys who will contribute to wins like Givens and Villar for minor leaguers should make you really happy.

Come to think of it, since winning mattered so much to you that even if we couldn't contend you wanted Elias to spend money to put together a better non-contending team, you must be on cloud 9 that we have had a winning record the past 27 games.   This was JUST what you wanted to see, and said the fans deserved.   I'm surprised haven't seen you post  here about how happy you are with us playing a better brand of non-contending baseball which is what you repeatedly said you wanted.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To me a C means either “average” or “meets expectations.”    I expect my GM to resist making trades just to make them.   You don’t get “above average” or “exceeds expectations” for doing that.    Note, this is not a criticism of Elias at all.    

They grade on a curve these days.  Average is a B+.

[Philip]

There should be an “I” option. I’m really surprised that our prices were too high. And that is ultimately what happened. If our prices had not been too high, we would’ve sold the guys, and the prices that were paid for a lot of the pieces were really high.

 It’s difficult to grade inactivity, but we should give Mike an incomplete.

My only real difficulty is that he didn’t find any takers for Villar.

[Philip]

“When in doubt, don’t.” Is an attitude with which I totally agree. No one met Mike’s price so he didn’t trade. His choice.

on another note, it’s significant that the FO apparently handed down no specific orders. It seems as if he was totally in charge of the process, and we can all be happy about that.

[theocean]

1 hour ago, O-The-Memories said:

 

I gave Elias an A and here's why. DD didn't get much when a traded Machado and company last year. I don't know if any of the guys we got will ever be an impact player. Early results don't seem promising to me. 

He was willing to make deal for Cashner that I thought was simply OK, but that proves that he will listen to reasonable offers. Nunez,Givens, Villar, and Mancini can all be pieces of a contending team if put in the right situations. Dont just get rid of them for marginal prospects, we have enough of those already.

Overall I love what Elias is doing so far. We have some decent pieces on offense, so if some of our pitching prospects pan out we should be on track to contend in 3-4 years.

I don't understand the logic in comparing a trade that involved a player that was going to be a free agent (Machado) versus players who are still under team control. 

With Machado, DD had to take the best deal offered - since Machado was leaving either way. That's a lot less leverage in trade negotiations. We don't know what the other offers were, but I think the return was fair. Yusniel Diaz has had a rough year - but at the time he was considered a Top 100 prospect.

[theocean]

52 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To me a C means either “average” or “meets expectations.”    I expect my GM to resist making trades just to make them.   You don’t get “above average” or “exceeds expectations” for doing that.    Note, this is not a criticism of Elias at all.    

I agree. The Indians GM deserves an A because he got a hell of a return while also keeping his team in the Wild Card Hunt (at least in my opinion). I don't think a GM deserves a good grade just because he showed restraint on some players who probably weren't in that much demand anyway.