Grade Elias’ First Deadline

[Oriole1940]

I gave it an average grade because to  be above  average he must have done something or multiple somethings that I thought were real good.  I did not see that.  Average for a first year on the job guy  is not negative at all in my opinion.  That is a somewhat expected grade.  However, I will say that he could have risen above average if he had been successful in arm twisting and netted the Orioles one or more young prospects.  You can "make things happen" sometimes, without having the deal lopsided against your team.  That would have involved some risk and he chose not to go that route, but that is okay with me.  This is going to be such a long drawn out process to  get the Orioles back, first to respectability, then to really be competitive, that  the first opportunity to hit a home run, so to speak, is probably the least important one.  The bar rises as time goes by.  

[atomic]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

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.

Yeah I just love a GM who doesn't do anything.  

[tntoriole]

Incomplete.   I hope he is in a position someday here to trade for a Verlander and a Grienke. 

[UpstateNYfan]

Rating this is like dividing by zero. Yet there are responses.

[Barnaby Graves]

Cash Considerations is a better pitcher than Straily so I'll give him an A.

[Tx Oriole]

3 hours ago, Getz said:

Not gonna lie, I was expecting a lot more moviment, there were players who probably should have traded. I guess he didn't see value on the return.

I can’t grade him now. Too soon for me.

[TheOtherRipken]

Gave him an E, obviously don’t know the offers but not adding to the farm system or cutting payroll is inexcusable.

I concede I’m being too hard on him given the Cashner trade, but I had to do something to combat the As and Bs which I think are less defendable.

[Tx Oriole]

57 minutes ago, atomic said:

Yeah I just love a GM who doesn't do anything.  

 Do you honestly think another team would want any of the O’s players? Mancini Maybe. Who’d want Davis with that horrible contract? 

[BohKnowsBmore]

58 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

Rating this is like dividing by zero. Yet there are responses.

Not exactly.  If he had dumped Mancini for a PTBNL and sent money, that would be clearly worse than holding on to him.

[Three Run Homer]

He only made one trade, but I think it was a coup for him to get Elio Prado and another prospect for Andrew Cashner, so on that basis I would give him a B.

The only other player that would have brought back real prospects in a trade is Trey Mancini.  It's hard to know whether Elias should have pulled the trigger without knowing what was offered, but consider this:  the most similar player to Trey who was actually traded at the deadline is Nick Castellanos.  Both are 27 year old corner outfielders with strong offense and limited defense.  Trey is more valuable in principle because he comes with extra years of team control, but the Cubs were probably more interested in what they could get this season out of a corner outfield bat than what they could get in future seasons--they can always go sign a corner outfield bat in the offseason. 

So the package the Cubs gave up for Castellanos is a floor for what the O's could have gotten for Mancini, but it's not clear that the Cubs would have been willing to give up that much more for Mancini.   As it is, I think the Cubs' package for Castellanos was pretty weak--two college pitchers who were drafted high, but who haven't pitched that well in pro ball.  Neither were regarded as top 10 prospects in the Cubs organization, and the Cubs don't have a great farm system at the moment.  

So I'm inclined to think that Elias made the right call not trading Trey Mancini.  

 

[sportsfan8703]

A - Just the fact that Cashner put himself in a position to be traded at all. Plus we got some salary relief and 2 DSL fliers. 

B+ - For not making trades just for the sake of making trades. He didn’t have a mandate to dump salary. He didn’t strip us down to bare bones just to try and lose to get the #1 pick. There is no AR or Witt in next year’s draft. Let’s build off this momentum and likely pick #2-5. 

This team has an exciting lineup right now. Yes, we have 2-3 weak spots. Next year we’ll be adding Mountcastle and Hays. The rotation should be Means, Bundy, Cobb, Akin, Wojo/someone else. With the Bowie rotation now in AAA next year. Hopefully, a more stable rotation means a better bullpen with guys like Givens, Armstrong, Fry, Bleier, Harvey, Tate, Scott, Castro, Hess, Yac, Ynoa. 

Heck, we could be a 65 win team. 

[now]

6 hours ago, Oriole1940 said:

I gave it an average grade because to  be above  average he must have done something or multiple somethings that I thought were real good.  I did not see that.  Average for a first year on the job guy  is not negative at all in my opinion.  That is a somewhat expected grade.  However, I will say that he could have risen above average if he had been successful in arm twisting and netted the Orioles one or more young prospects.  You can "make things happen" sometimes, without having the deal lopsided against your team.  That would have involved some risk and he chose not to go that route, but that is okay with me.  This is going to be such a long drawn out process to  get the Orioles back, first to respectability, then to really be competitive, that  the first opportunity to hit a home run, so to speak, is probably the least important one.  The bar rises as time goes by.  

Right, no dinger on his first AB, but he fouled off a bunch of pitches and took a walk. 

[Babypowder]

8 hours ago, Three Run Homer said:

He only made one trade, but I think it was a coup for him to get Elio Prado and another prospect for Andrew Cashner, so on that basis I would give him a B.

The only other player that would have brought back real prospects in a trade is Trey Mancini.  It's hard to know whether Elias should have pulled the trigger without knowing what was offered, but consider this:  the most similar player to Trey who was actually traded at the deadline is Nick Castellanos.  Both are 27 year old corner outfielders with strong offense and limited defense.  Trey is more valuable in principle because he comes with extra years of team control, but the Cubs were probably more interested in what they could get this season out of a corner outfield bat than what they could get in future seasons--they can always go sign a corner outfield bat in the offseason. 

So the package the Cubs gave up for Castellanos is a floor for what the O's could have gotten for Mancini, but it's not clear that the Cubs would have been willing to give up that much more for Mancini.   As it is, I think the Cubs' package for Castellanos was pretty weak--two college pitchers who were drafted high, but who haven't pitched that well in pro ball.  Neither were regarded as top 10 prospects in the Cubs organization, and the Cubs don't have a great farm system at the moment.  

So I'm inclined to think that Elias made the right call not trading Trey Mancini.  

 

Do you think Mancini’s value goes up or down with less years of control? I don’t think he brings a great return no matter when he is potentially moved. 

[Babypowder]

I’m having difficulty imagining there was no market for Givens, Villar, and Mancini. If they end up non-tendering Villar it looks extra strange. Without knowing what was offered it’s hard to grade anything. The Cashner deal was fine, but that being the only move for a team that should be obvious sellers is hard to swallow. 

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

I’m having difficulty imagining there was no market for Givens, Villar, and Mancini. If they end up non-tendering Villar it looks extra strange. Without knowing what was offered it’s hard to grade anything. The Cashner deal was fine, but that being the only move for a team that should be obvious sellers is hard to swallow. 

My guess is they didn’t think the return for Givens was enough to move him since he is under control and in theory could be worth more next year. 

With Villar I wonder about how much money the Orioles we’re willing to eat.